Charles Krauthammer: 'The Clock Has Run Out On Benghazi'

so you say.... you still cannot try to claim that Moldova was a real partner in any coalition.... 20 guys... LMAO.

 

Yes I can, and they were, as well as Micronesia and Island. Everyone contributed. Not so much in Obama's efforts

 

tokens.... embarrassingly small tokens... and you know it. IT was OUR war... Bush's "coalition" has rightfully been called the "coalition of the billing".

 

Which explains why Obama Bowed to a Saudi King for all the world to see.
Plus why Obama actively supports the Muslim Brotherhood and is running
Al Qaeda in Syria.
Saddam Hussein might well have been a Sunni but he was a Ba'ath Party member.
Syria and particularly in Damascus is Ba'ath affliliated.

 

baath party or not, shiites got the boot in Iraq.

 

Well, yes...in the late 1980s - remember that Reagan was weak because he didn't have a strong response?

Well, yes...in the early 1990s - but George definitely wasn't weak like Reagan!


So what was George W. Bush responding to, then? It had been 13 or so years since Saddam had slaughtered anyone.

 

Just watch the testimony. It's very clear what she said and what she meant.

Why do you need to twist it?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rked-by-anti-muslim-video.html?ref=middleeast

 

He was responding to known threats to America, after we were attacked on September 11th.

Saddam had violated the terms of surrender on multiple occasions, and bill clinton ignored it.

Saddam harbored and provided safe haven for known terrorists.

Saddam stole money from the UN's oil for food program.

Had you been president at the end of WWII, would you have pushed Hitler back inside Germanys borders, and then simply walked away?

 

Well, lets take a look.....

[video=youtube;CMZmoZwkgaQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMZmoZwkgaQ[/video]

She was obviously back peddling and making absolutely zero sense.

Hillary is clearly an idiot.

If youre serious about finding out what happened, so you can prevent it from happening again, the details of what happened definitely make a difference.

She shouldnt have been given the opportunity to step down gracefully, she shoulda been fired 10 seconds after that hearing.

 

False, and has been debunked numerous times. Shooting at our surveillance aircraft that fly too high to be shot down by anything that Saddam possessed is not a serious breach of terms.

Terrorists against whom? Not the U.S.

It is not a legitimate reason to go to war because someone compensated a family for the loss of their breadwinner. There was never any allegations that Saddam plotted any suicide bombings committed by the men of the families he compensated. It was just Saddam wanting to look like the big man in the ME.

Again, not a reason to risk American lives. I'm shocked you would even mention this as a reason to go to war. You must have no children, or have little regard for the lives of the American military.

So, George Bush was refuting his father? I don't remember that as a reason why we went to war with Iraq - perhaps you can pull up the youtube video?

 

Why didn't you post the conversation that led to that, and the question that led to that?

See? Conservatives cannot help but be dishonest about this.

 

Saddam surrendered and violated the terms of surrender. Bill Clinton was obligated to do his duty, but didnt.

That violation was all the justification needed. There didnt need to be any votes, in congress at all.

Bush jr gave congress a vote anyway, and then gave em another vote just to make sure.

All the democrats agreed with him, and voted to go to war.

[video=youtube;iSwSDvgw5Uc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc[/video]

Bush had a 92% approval rating, nancy pelosi even said saddam had chemical weapons.

In all there were 3 votes authorizing the use of force against saddam hussein, all with strong bipartisan support.

The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein

Mystery death of Abu Nidal, once the world's most wanted terrorist

 

Dishonest? Shes an idiot.

Your claims are whats dishonest.

 

^^^ This entire post is comically wrong, but you have a right to your ignorance.

 

Its 100% correct.

Prove me wrong, I double dog dare ya.

 

Sorry - you made the ignorant statements: it's up to you to prove them.

You can start with:

Lay out specifically the duties that Clinton was obligated to fulfill.

 

When one dead horse gets stale, move back to another older deader horse.....

 

You really need to go back into that Porn theatre with long hair { Pee Wee Herman }
and make more a spectacle of yerself.Showcasing yer real self.
Funny how sometimes Real Life imitates art in the abstract.

 

when are you talking about? Before or after we invaded?

 

Feel better?

 

I'm not intrested in your attempt at deflection.

He claimed that one of the most oft repeated excuses for starting a war in the wrong country was taht "Sadaam gassed his own people".

You say that's BS.

We know that's exactly what the Bushies said, and every right wing mouthpiece repeated it.

Syria has nothing to do with that.

You made the flat and false claim that Bush and his cronies didn't base part of their (fraudulant) "case" for war on an incident that happened 14 years earlier.

 

Since you dont know, We invaded Iraq twice.

 

my question was: when do you suggest that shi'ites "got the boot" in Iraq?

and your willingness to equate wahabbist Islamic extremists with pan-arab secular ba'athist socialists remains a source of great humor for me.

 

In this particular case, bill clinton was obligated to enforce the terms of surrender. He was derelict in his duties.

The second invasion of Iraq could have been avoided if bill clinton had removed saddam hussein from power, for violating the terms of surrender.

 

I'm supposed to believe this based on your say-so?

Please prove your BS.