How's this new turn in foriegn policy working out?

[Busybody]

Well I guess I learned two things, testimony is in fact the correct word and..

You're as boring as your other name.

Ignore time.

in other words

like all losers on LIT

you get shown up as a LOSER you run and hide

FUCK YOU, PEDANTIC SCHMUCK

 

[Busybody]

someone forgot to tell teh FUK

Unreal: Obama Again Blames Benghazi Attack On “Offensive” Mohammed Film…


I’m not sure if he’s clueless or just lying his ass off. There was no protest outside the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack.

here is more

PEDANTIC SCHMUCK


White House Begins Referring To Attack On Benghazi Embassy As A “Terrorist Attack”…




Now it’s “self-evident” or something.

Via The Hill:


The White House is now referring to an attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Egypt as a terrorist attack.

White House press secretary Jay Carney told the White House pool on Air Force One on Thursday that the attack, which occurred about a week earlier and resulted in the death of four American foreign service personnel, was a “terrorist attack.”

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” Carney said. “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self evident.”

 

[Busybody]

It's the minutia that shows I'm paying attention, instead of burping and regurgitating Uncle Rush's hate speak

oh

and Im boring

COWARD

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Well I guess I learned two things, testimony is in fact the correct word and..

You're as boring as your other name.

Ignore time.

Hey BB,

You should have not proved him a idiot. He will now ignore you... Do you have your sad face on?

 

[Busybody]

Hey BB,

You should have not proved him a idiot. He will now ignore you... Do you have your sad face on?

Isnt it amazing.....how the PEDANTIC SCHMUCK spent time on the word YOUR.....argued about another word TESTIMONY......and IM THE BORING ONE?

But the truth is, he......like all LIT LOSERS are shown up by me and run and hide...........COWARD

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4GCgBgPHC_s/Tb4KkTIU4AI/AAAAAAAAATw/JquRvJELHd4/s1600/Man+crying.jpg

 

[zipman]

"This administration's foreign policy?"

Really?

Actually it is this administration's foreign policy even if it is a continuation of the previous administration's foreign policy.

The funny thing is that all the right wing nutjobs like Ish who are complaining about it now also were completely for it when it was Bush's foreign policy.

Perhaps when they were promoting democracy in the middle east they didn't consider the fact that they might not like who was elected in those democratic elections.

 

[Peregrinator]

Actually it is this administration's foreign policy even if it is a continuation of the previous administration's foreign policy.

The funny thing is that all the right wing nutjobs like Ish who are complaining about it now also were completely for it when it was Bush's foreign policy.

Perhaps when they were promoting democracy in the middle east they didn't consider the fact that they might not like who was elected in those democratic elections.

Sure, of course it is. We're also still seeing fallout from shit we did in the 60's and 70's. There are people alive in Iran who remember the shah. They're, some of them, in positions of leadership. My point was that laying fallout from shit like that at the feet of the current admin is ludicrous at best. "Cuba is your problem now!"

 

[zipman]

Sure, of course it is. We're also still seeing fallout from shit we did in the 60's and 70's. There are people alive in Iran who remember the shah. They're, some of them, in positions of leadership. My point was that laying fallout from shit like that at the feet of the current admin is ludicrous at best. "Cuba is your problem now!"

Oh, in that case...

http://preaprez.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/6a00d8341bf80c53ef015390e305b6970b-320wi.jpg

 

[Ishmael]

Actually it is this administration's foreign policy even if it is a continuation of the previous administration's foreign policy.

The funny thing is that all the right wing nutjobs like Ish who are complaining about it now also were completely for it when it was Bush's foreign policy.

Perhaps when they were promoting democracy in the middle east they didn't consider the fact that they might not like who was elected in those democratic elections.

You're full of crap Zip.

First of all I posted against any long term commitment in Afghanistan way back in 2002/2003 time frame. I was, and still am, against any sort of 'nation building' or large troop commitment in that piece of geography.

I was also opposed to Bush's decision to allow Powell to use the State Dept. to spearhead the effort in Iraq. As history shows it caused all sorts of problems and not until Bush reversed and got the military involved, with the right general, did Iraq begin to stabilize.

Bush never embraced a mid-east policy of conciliation and apology, that policy, the current policy, is wholly the product of Obama/Clinton. Nor is it likely that Bush would have been complicit in the destabilization of those nations that at the least had a neutral policy towards the US. Of course that is mere conjecture on my part but there is no evidence of policy during the Bush years that would contradict my supposition.

The difference in the tone towards both enemies and allies between the Obama and Bush administrations are profound. And the results are most glaringly evident in the middle east. Bush pursued a policy of 'strong horse', while Obama is taking the 'weak horse' path.

In summation, I never fully supported ALL of Bush's policies and have a record, here on the board, of my disagreements with same. And Obama's policies are NOT a continuation of any Bush doctrine. He, and his Sec. State, have embarked on a journey of their own.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/327951

They trash our sovereign property, we trash free speech...


President Obama had the authorities lash out at America for al Qaeda.

Weak horse, strong horse...

“It’s time,” declared Obama to wild applause at his convention, “to do some nation-building right here at home.” He’d already announced a strategic pivot from the Middle East to the Pacific. Made possible because “the tide of war is receding.”

Nonsense. From the massacres in Nigeria to the charnel house that is Syria, violence has, if anything, increased. What is receding is Obama’s America.

It’s as axiomatic in statecraft as in physics: Nature abhors a vacuum. Islamists rush in to fill the space and declare their ascendancy. America’s friends are bereft, confused, paralyzed.

Islamists rise across North Africa from Mali to Egypt. Iran repeatedly defies U.S. demands on nuclear enrichment, then, as a measure of its contempt for what America thinks, openly admits that its Revolutionary Guards are deployed in Syria. Russia, after arming Assad, warns America to stay out, while the secretary of state delivers vapid lectures about Assad “meeting” his international “obligations.” The Gulf States beg America to act on Iran; Obama strains mightily to restrain . . . Israel.

Charles Krauthammer

 

[mercury14]

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/327951

They trash our sovereign property, we trash free speech...


President Obama had the authorities lash out at America for al Qaeda.

Weak horse, strong horse...


Charles Krauthammer

Obama lashed out at America? Link or it didn't happen.

Krauthammer has no credit on this issue after praising Romney's reaction to Obama's comments on the embassy... Even though Obama hadn't made any comments.

Until Kraut posts a retraction he's a piece of shit.

 

[Busybody]

Obama lashed out at America? Link or it didn't happen.

Krauthammer has no credit on this issue after praising Romney's reaction to Obama's comments on the embassy... Even though Obama hadn't made any comments.

Until Kraut posts a retraction he's a piece of shit.

Yes the FUK did lash out

WATCH THE TV ADS PLAYING RIGHT NIW IN PAKISTAN WITH HIS NAME AND FACE ON IT



But we all KNOW the truth of what he is, YOU ARE A GROTESQUE PIECE OF SHIT

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah merc forgets how quickly the Democrats pronounced the surge a failure and declared that Bush had lost the war in Iraq...

 

[Busybody]

State Department Official: Our Plan For Security In Benghazi “Worked”…


Wait, what?



Via WSJ:


State Department officials said security for the consulate was frequently reviewed and was deemed sufficient to counter what U.S. officials considered to be the most likely threat at the time: a limited hit-and-run attack with rocket-propelled grenades or improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

There was a string of attacks in Benghazi in the months before Sept. 11, including a June 6 IED explosion outside the consulate compound. “These types of incidents were the ones that were our principal concerns,” a senior State Department official said. Based on the outcome of the June 6 attack, in which a perimeter wall was damaged but no Americans hurt, a second State Department official added: “Our security plan worked.”

 

[mercury14]

The Libyan people have been attacking the Islamic militia responsible for the ambassador killing for 24 hours no. Not a single word from conservatives here about it because it doesn't fit their narrative that "they hate us".

Libyans storm militia in backlash of attack on US

BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Hundreds of protesters angry over last week's killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya stormed the compound of the Islamic extremist militia suspected in the attack, evicting militiamen and setting fire to their building Friday.

In an unprecedented show of public anger at Libya's rampant militias, the crowd overwhelmed the compound of the Ansar al-Shariah Brigade in the center of the eastern city of Benghazi.

Ansar al-Shariah fighters initially fired in the air to disperse the crowd, but eventually abandoned the site with their weapons and vehicles after it was overrun by waves of protesters shouting "No to militias."

"I don't want to see armed men wearing Afghani-style clothes stopping me in the street to give me orders, I only want to see people in uniform," said Omar Mohammed, a university student who took part in the takeover of the site, which protesters said was done in support of the army and police.

No deaths were reported in the incident, which came after tens of thousands marched in Benghazi against armed militias...

Other signs mourned the killing of Stevens, reading, "The ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya lost a friend." Military helicopters and fighter jets flew overhead, and police mingled in the crowd, buoyed by the support of the protesters.

 

[mercury14]

foxnews.com doesn't see fit to write a story on it, just bump the AP story in a small-font line on their page. "White House Linked to Prostitution Scandal?" gets a far larger slot.

 

[RobDownSouth]

President Obama had the authorities lash out at America for al Qaeda.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22619383.jpg

 

[Beco]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22619383.jpg

OIC....

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

There's no end to the inanity of the Obama administration in it's efforts to avoid impeachment and prison.

And Hillary Clinton ought to shut up and resign. This regime projects weakness and has no credibility.

Because holding the position that we have free speech but don't necessarily approve of that video makes us look weak!

 

[zipman]

You're full of crap Zip.

First of all I posted against any long term commitment in Afghanistan way back in 2002/2003 time frame. I was, and still am, against any sort of 'nation building' or large troop commitment in that piece of geography.

I was also opposed to Bush's decision to allow Powell to use the State Dept. to spearhead the effort in Iraq. As history shows it caused all sorts of problems and not until Bush reversed and got the military involved, with the right general, did Iraq begin to stabilize.

Bush never embraced a mid-east policy of conciliation and apology, that policy, the current policy, is wholly the product of Obama/Clinton. Nor is it likely that Bush would have been complicit in the destabilization of those nations that at the least had a neutral policy towards the US. Of course that is mere conjecture on my part but there is no evidence of policy during the Bush years that would contradict my supposition.

The difference in the tone towards both enemies and allies between the Obama and Bush administrations are profound. And the results are most glaringly evident in the middle east. Bush pursued a policy of 'strong horse', while Obama is taking the 'weak horse' path.

In summation, I never fully supported ALL of Bush's policies and have a record, here on the board, of my disagreements with same. And Obama's policies are NOT a continuation of any Bush doctrine. He, and his Sec. State, have embarked on a journey of their own.

Ishmael

Actually you're the one who is full of crap. From 2002 onwards you completely supported the war in Iraq and bashed anyone who disagreed. I remember you and A_J chortling about how now we had Iran surrounded.

And Obama's strategy is clearly a continutation of Bush's bring freedom and democracy to the middle east and Iraq and other countries will follow. Well, they did follow. You just don't like the results. And I also remember you defending this strategy quite clearly as well.

So save your ridiculous revisionist bullshit for someone who wasn't posting here at the time.

 

[RjThoughts]

There's no end to the inanity of the Obama administration in it's efforts to avoid impeachment and prison.

And Hillary Clinton ought to shut up and resign. This regime projects weakness and has no credibility.

So as a nation, we're SUPPOSE to support EVERYTHING made? Oh oka, ythanks for letting me know that we live in your universe, where Americans can NEVER agree that shit like that, editted to incite violence, is NOT what America stands for.

 

[Ishmael]

Actually you're the one who is full of crap. From 2002 onwards you completely supported the war in Iraq and bashed anyone who disagreed. I remember you and A_J chortling about how now we had Iran surrounded.

And Obama's strategy is clearly a continutation of Bush's bring freedom and democracy to the middle east and Iraq and other countries will follow. Well, they did follow. You just don't like the results. And I also remember you defending this strategy quite clearly as well.

So save your ridiculous revisionist bullshit for someone who wasn't posting here at the time.

Jesus, you can be quite the moron when you choose to be.

First of all you started with this;

Actually it is this administration's foreign policy even if it is a continuation of the previous administration's foreign policy.

The funny thing is that all the right wing nutjobs like Ish who are complaining about it now also were completely for it when it was Bush's foreign policy.

Perhaps when they were promoting democracy in the middle east they didn't consider the fact that they might not like who was elected in those democratic elections.

So the conversation goes;

Zip. Ish supported all of Bush's policies.

Ish. No I didn't and here are some of those I didn't.

Zip. You supported the war in Iraq therefore I win. (shades of LT here.)

Apparently you are incapable separating the fact that I didn't support ALL of Bush's policies from the fact that I did support some of his policies and then put forth the proposition that because I DID support SOME, I then must have supported ALL. That is 4th grade logic Zip.

Further more I have argued consistently that there will be no such thing as "Freedom and Democracy" in the middle east. And in some of those threads you actually took the opposite side, that side being that "Freedom and Democracy" can be brought to the mid-east. That being the case would it be fair of me to assume that you agreed with Bush's policies? At least not within our life time or even our children's, children's, children's.

Anything that might be called "Freedom and Democracy" in the middle east will be unrecognizable to any western nation and will be inherently unstable necessarily ending in some sort of totalitarian regime. The nature of their religion makes that eventuality a certainty. That is because under the strict tenets of Islam there can be NO separation of church and state. And intolerant religions give birth to intolerant regimes, it really is that simple. And I hope that you aren't foolish enough to argue that what we are witnessing in the mid-east and elsewhere is a demonstration of 'religious tolerance.'

If, one the other had you happen to agree with me that "Freedom and Democracy" cannot be brought to the mid-east, well then, you make an argument invalidating your original assertion, don't you?

Ishmael

 

[mercury14]

What if Libya goes the route of Turkey?

 

[Busybody]

Because holding the position that we have free speech but don't necessarily approve of that video makes us look weak!

yes it does, SCHMUCK

teh US government, the Pres, JCS, Sec of State should NOT BE COMMENTING ON YOU TUBE VIDEOS


SCHMUCK

BTW, When Bush went groveling on Al JIZZ TV about Abu Gharib he was a FAG as well