(May 6, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Maybe you two bullshit artists will listen to your own Scumbag In Chief, Cheney...as he explains why going to Baghdad in the first war was not such a hot idea.



Somewhere along the line he seems to have changed his mind..... as Halliburton cleaned up on no-bid contracts.

The topic is Benghazi, not Baghdad, Daddyo....at your age, with your poor eyesight and with your deteriorating mental capabilities, maybe you were confused by the spelling between the two. All those drugs back in your hippie days turned your brain to Silly Putty.

(May 7, 2014 at 8:26 am)A Theist Wrote: The topic is Benghazi, not Baghdad, Daddyo....at your age, with your poor eyesight and with your deteriorating mental capabilities, maybe you were confused by the spelling between the two. All those drugs back in your hippie days turned your brain to Silly Putty.

But the part Min was addressing was in reference to Iraq.

Iraq is relevant because it underscores the glaring double standards on the GOP.

According to the Benghazi allegations, which haven't been proven but let that go, Obama told a "my dog ate my homework" lie. Nobody died. Nothing was stolen. No money changed hands. According to the allegations, it was a lie to try to make himself look good and, if that was the intent, it completely failed anyway.

Meanwhile, the GOP gave Bush a pass even as he lied us into a destructive and costly war that resulted in the deaths of hundred of thousands. And, as unbelievable as it is to me, you in the GOP STILL defend the previous administration, denying he'd lied us into a war and dismissing such talk as "conspiracy theories".

(May 7, 2014 at 11:59 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 8:26 am)A Theist Wrote: The topic is Benghazi, not Baghdad, Daddyo....at your age, with your poor eyesight and with your deteriorating mental capabilities, maybe you were confused by the spelling between the two. All those drugs back in your hippie days turned your brain to Silly Putty.

But the part Min was addressing was in reference to Iraq.

Iraq is relevant because it underscores the glaring double standards on the GOP.

According to the Benghazi allegations, which haven't been proven but let that go, Obama told a "my dog ate my homework" lie. Nobody died. Nothing was stolen. No money changed hands. According to the allegations, it was a lie to try to make himself look good and, if that was the intent, it completely failed anyway.

Meanwhile, the GOP gave Bush a pass even as he lied us into a destructive and costly war that resulted in the deaths of hundred of thousands. And, as unbelievable as it is to me, you in the GOP STILL defend the previous administration, denying he'd lied us into a war and dismissing such talk as "conspiracy theories".

The sins of the GOP do not excuse the sins of the Obama administration.......but in your mind they do.

Can't you see that your thinking here is warped?

(May 7, 2014 at 12:02 pm)Heywood Wrote: The sins of the GOP do not excuse the sins of the Obama administration.......but in your mind they do.

Can't you see that your thinking here is warped?

Stop shoving words into my mouth. When did I say Obama would be excused if it could be proven he lied? I AM saying two things:

1. Not all lies are equal. Bush's lies warranted impeachment and prosecution as a war criminal. Obama's alleged lies warrant congressional censure.

2. The GOP is hypocritical for endlessly screaming about Benghazi while defending Bush's far worse lies that got us into Iraq.

(May 7, 2014 at 12:07 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 12:02 pm)Heywood Wrote: The sins of the GOP do not excuse the sins of the Obama administration.......but in your mind they do.

Can't you see that your thinking here is warped?

Stop shoving words into my mouth. When did I say Obama would be excused if it could be proven he lied? I AM saying two things:

1. Not all lies are equal. Bush's lies warranted impeachment and prosecution as a war criminal. Obama's alleged lies warrant congressional censure.

2. The GOP is hypocritical for endlessly screaming about Benghazi while defending Bush's far worse lies that got us into Iraq.

As long as Obama.....who promised to have the most transparent administration ever.....continues to classify and redact emails on media strategy(is he protecting national security or himself?)....it won't ever be proven to your satisfaction that he did indeed lie.

Obama...has gone to war and killed people with bombs too....without congressional approval. You Lefties conviently ignore that.....OH HOW HYPOCRITICAL. He is as much a war criminal as Bush. At least Bush got the approval of congress for his war.

(May 7, 2014 at 12:18 pm)Heywood Wrote: As long as Obama.....who promised to have the most transparent administration ever.....continues to classify and redact emails on media strategy(is he protecting national security or himself?)....it won't ever be proven to your satisfaction that he did indeed lie.

Obama...has gone to war and killed people with bombs too....without congressional approval. You Lefties conviently ignore that.....OH HOW HYPOCRITICAL. He is as much a war criminal as Bush. At least Bush got the approval of congress for his war.

Oh, if you want to criticize Obama for continuing and sometimes even expanding the Bush policies of drone strikes, secrecy and illegal detention, including failing to fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo, I'm right there with you. I've posted many times on this forum that Obama is a profound disappointment and he is not my man by any means.

If you spend any time on a liberal forum, you'll find that we're bitterly divided between the "purists" who want a real liberal in office even if it means a 3rd party, the "realists" who say we need to vote the lesser evil because the GOP is worse, and the "Obamabots" who insist that Obama is a great president and any of his failures are only because we didn't support him enough.

I'm in the middle category. I pragmatically hold my nose and vote Obama even though he sucks only because the GOP has lost its mind. At the same time though, I have no patience for the self-righteous Obamabots who wag their fingers at everyone else on the left and hold Obama to be blameless and pure.

Quote:The topic is Benghazi, not Baghdad, Daddyo

Fuck you, you hypocritical nazi bastard.

Your asshole buddy Bush got 5,000 Americans killed for fucking nothing - forgetting about the wounded which you assholes seem only too willing to do - and you expect OUTRAGE over 4?

Your neo-con scumbags set the bar for OUTRAGE. You can't now lower it.

Blow Benghazi out your ass.

(May 6, 2014 at 6:44 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Tsk tsk. This is dishonest. You removed the context (why the UN might have an anti-American bias) to change the topic to why terrorists attacked us. This is called quote mining. Additionally, you glossed over the "like" part of the sentence, which indicates this invasion was an example.

Backpedal all you like, your assertion was absurd and you know it.

Quote:First of all, the entire Iraq War was a war crime.

Because?

Quote: You can't just invade a country because you want to. That's called a crime of aggression.

According to whom? Which international law are you referring to?

Quote: Second, the incidents of torture at Abu Garab are examples of crimes against humanity.

According to whom? Which international law are you referring to? Please back this up with at least something!

Quote: We have also illegally detained suspects without trial, some of whom might be terrorists and some of who might have been turned in by bounty hunters but are in reality just people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We have no idea because we won't bring them to trial.

Again, which law are you referring to? Back it up with something. Your assertions are meaningless.

Quote: Conspiracy theory? These are documented facts.

This ought to be good.

Quote: We DID invade Iraq.

Yup, but you have yet to demonstrate which international law that violates.

Quote:We DO have documented lies that were told prior to the invasion.

Such as? Remember for something to be a lie the person must know it is a falsehood at the time. Good luck.

Quote: There is no conspiracy theory. There is history.

Another meaningless assertion.

Quote:The allegations against Obama over Benghazi haven't even been articulated clearly (the reason for the OP) never mind proven.

Where did the narrative that that attack in Benghazi was a response to a YouTube video come from?

(May 6, 2014 at 6:49 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Perfect. So now is the outrage because we haven't found those responsible?

Well that is ridiculous yes, but that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the tactics of this administration regarding investigations.

Quote: Do you see how the allegations move around based on the moment? Why don't you and the rest of the GOP make up your minds what the accusation is exactly and then we can respond?

Is there some rule against multiple accusations?

“Wait, now you are saying that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson? I thought you just said that he murdered Ron Goldman? Get your story straight sheesh!”

Quote: Was it because of the supposed lie about the nature of the attack?

Yes.

Quote: Or was it because we haven't found those responsible?

And, not or.

Quote: Or was it because we didn't see it coming or provide enough security?

And, not or.

Quote: Or is it because nothing was done in time to save the ambassador?

And, not or. All of the above.

(May 7, 2014 at 8:26 am)A Theist Wrote: The topic is Benghazi, not Baghdad, Daddyo....at your age, with your poor eyesight and with your deteriorating mental capabilities, maybe you were confused by the spelling between the two. All those drugs back in your hippie days turned your brain to Silly Putty.

This is awesome. He loves it when you poke fun at the fact that he’s 91. Nice job keeping them on point though, whenever their guy is in trouble they’ll always divert back to attacking Bush; it’s some kind of subconscious fascination with him.

(May 7, 2014 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Backpedal all you like, your assertion was absurd and you know it.

It's not backpeddling. It's calling you out on quote mining.

Quote:According to whom? Which international law are you referring to?

According to the crimes we prosecuted Nazis for at Nuremburg. They were:
1. Conspiracy to commit aggression
2. Crimes of aggression
3. Crimes of war
4. Crimes against humanity

You can call it meaningless if you like. I won't.

Quote:Such as? Remember for something to be a lie the person must know it is a falsehood at the time. Good luck.

Downing Street Memo.
Yellow Cake from Niger.
Testimony from Gen Clark that the W administration wanted to attack Iraq even before 9/11 and, when 9/11 happened, wanted to find a way to pin it on Saddam.
The continued lies after the links to Al Qaeda were debunked. By the RNC in 2004 and a White House press conference, it was already established that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush continued to push the narrative that we had to attack Iraq in response to how we'd been attacked on 9/11. At the very least, that's a lie by implication.

That's quite enough to at least make the allegation. Actually, I'm confident it would be enough to convict at a war crimes trial.

Quote:Where did the narrative that that attack in Benghazi was a response to a YouTube video come from?

The fact that there were many such embassy attacks that night, leading some in the intelligence community to think this was another one of them.

Quote:they’ll always divert back to attacking Bush; it’s some kind of subconscious fascination with him.

An unconvicted war criminal is fascinating.

(May 7, 2014 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 8:26 am)A Theist Wrote: The topic is Benghazi, not Baghdad, Daddyo....at your age, with your poor eyesight and with your deteriorating mental capabilities, maybe you were confused by the spelling between the two. All those drugs back in your hippie days turned your brain to Silly Putty.

This is awesome. He loves it when you poke fun at the fact that he’s 91. Nice job keeping them on point though, whenever their guy is in trouble they’ll always divert back to attacking Bush; it’s some kind of subconscious fascination with him.

(May 7, 2014 at 7:56 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is awesome. He loves it when you poke fun at the fact that he’s 91. Nice job keeping them on point though, whenever their guy is in trouble they’ll always divert back to attacking Bush; it’s some kind of subconscious fascination with him.

Yup. The ol' Tu quoque diversion, (DP loves throwing that one around everytime someone calls out the hypocrisy of the left...but he sure doesn't hesitate to use the "you too" tactic himself). Min either calls you a nazi or a racist, then doesn't hesitate to use the "N" word himself when he tries to make a political point. Poor ol' Min. What a leftist hypocrite he is.