No. of Recommendations: 8
"Obama only cares about power and getting reelected

Lt. General Tom McInerney told Judge Jeanine tonight that the only reason the Obama administration ordered the FBI to investigate the Benghazi attack is to stall it through the election.
...
The Obama administration in this thing, just like the Clinton administration, does not care about what the American people think about this incident. They care about power and getting reelected. "
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 33
One might imagine that the attack on the USS Cole (17 dead) would have been a heads-up for President Bush who took office three months later.

Sadly, no.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"One might imagine that the attack on the USS Cole (17 dead) would have been a heads-up for President Bush who took office three months later.

Sadly, no.

Peter "


Ancient history and NOT relevant to Benghazi. But, I know, like Obama, all you can do is reference Bush, because there is nothing positive to say about Obama; the liar, the cover up artist, and overall corrupt administration!

Go ahead and bring up irrelevant Bush trivia!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Air Force generals are now commanding Arleigh Burke class destroyers?

Who knew
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
McInerney is also a birther.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Air Force generals are now commanding Arleigh Burke class destroyers?

Who knew "

Actually not. I linked the source, so you can read it. Sorry.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 56
"But, I know, like Obama, all you can do is reference Bush, because there is nothing positive to say about Obama; the liar, the cover up artist, and overall corrupt administration!"

I like just referring to him as "Mr. President." Why do you hate America?

"Go ahead and bring up irrelevant Bush trivia!"

Always, lest we forget how bad the last GOP President was. It cracks me up how you guys jump up immediately whenever Bush is mentioned and cry about how it isn't relevant.

You so badly DON'T want to talk about the last guy from your party who stumbled his way through, screwing us all for decades in the process. I surely get why. What puzzles me is that you all think we don't remember it.

Weird.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"You so badly DON'T want to talk about the last guy from your party who stumbled his way through, screwing us all for decades in the process. I surely get why. What puzzles me is that you all think we don't remember it.

Weird. "

ROTFLOL

Nice diversion from what you don't want to acknowledge i.e. Obama's cover up of Benghazi and the lies by his administration to stall what really happened till after the election.

Wake up and see that you support a president that is corrupt to the core!! What does that say about you?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"You so badly DON'T want to talk about the last guy from your party who stumbled his way through, screwing us all for decades in the process. I surely get why. What puzzles me is that you all think we don't remember it."

And Obama should harp on that (I believe that's Irish) and not pull his punches in the next debate.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
One might imagine that the attack on the USS Cole (17 dead) would have been a heads-up for President Bush who took office three months later.

Sadly, no.

Peter


What is constant use of the point that Bush was worser at one point in time? I mean really, are you that stupid or do you think the other posters here are that stupid?

With the known history of the last several decades, Benghazi itself,9/11 no less, a history of prior threats, requests regarding "security concerns", known militants in the area and a high profile US Ambassador as an easy target, don't you think that some super smart, intellectual person who is also POTUS could get a clue? Christ almighty you voted for "change" and when you obviously don't get it , you are all into Bush was worser, in order to protect your poor choice.

That is not addressed by you at all, rather you seek to, like dirty water, find a new low level to create a relative not-so-worser environment.

How much more lame are you shooting for?

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"One might imagine that the attack on the USS Cole (17 dead) would have been a heads-up for President Bush who took office three months later."

When 911 went down he was busy further his education.

http://prorev.com/bush911.jpg

Republicans 4000

Obama 4
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"lest we forget how bad the last GOP President was"

And for sure, we won't forget how bad the last DFL president was.
msullyo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
And for sure, we won't forget how bad the last DFL president was.

You a MN native? At any rate, there has never been an DFL president - the closest was Humphrey.

Now, the last Democratic president - Bill Clinton - presided over the last surplus and a booming economy.

I think we could use some more of that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The captain is ultimately responsible.

Pi$$ on him.


Jimbo


Have you held captain Obama responsible for the deaths in Benghazi?

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The president is ultimately responsible.

Pi$$ on him.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4



The president is ultimately responsible.



Really, I don’t remember Americans asking FDR to step down after the American troops suffered heavy casualties and a large scale retreat at Kasserine Pass in North Africa, instead Maj. General Lloyd Fredendall was relieved from command of II Corps by Dwight D. Eisenhower and replaced by George S. Patton.

That’s how it’s done.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Go ahead and bring up irrelevant Bush trivia!

Says the guy who references Clinton in his OP.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You so badly DON'T want to talk about the last guy from your party who stumbled his way through, screwing us all for decades in the process. I surely get why. What puzzles me is that you all think we don't remember it.

Or more importantly, why we shouldn't.

Romney's foreign policy team, for example, is full of Bush administration retreads.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"ROTFLOL ... Nice diversion from what you don't want to acknowledge..."

Bush, the last GOP President, left behind a government bleeding red ink and starved for revenue. THAT is what you dare not acknowledge, and what GOPers everywhere hope that voters simply forget.

I don't think that is going to work. Especially when you just make up stuff about the current President, and desperately don't want to talk about the last one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 75
I don't think that is going to work. Especially when you just make up stuff about the current President, and desperately don't want to talk about the last one.

Republicans are funny folks sometimes. They don't want to talk about anything Bush did and Romney won't say with any specificity what he will do. It's as if both must be kept secret otherwise people wouldn't vote for them.

Simply put, Romney's plan amounts to this:
- Cut taxes a lot for for rich people and maybe a little for everyone else
- But cut benefits (esp. SS and Medicare) for everyone else even more
- Increase military spending, cut education and infrastructure spending
- Return to a foreign policy of belligerent swagger, not diplomacy
- Reduce regulations on finance and the environment
- Increase government involvement in the private affairs of people, specifically with regard to abortion

We've already seen what happens when we pursue this course... which is why the Republicans don't want to talk about Bush.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Go ahead and bring up irrelevant Bush trivia!

Says the guy who references Clinton in his OP.


Bwahaha!!

O Lord, you have to have a sense of humor around this place.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"- Increase government involvement in the private affairs of people, specifically with regard to abortion OR who you can marry."

Just a slight addition to your excellent list. Amazing how that whole 'we want a smaller, less intrusive government' falls on its face in light of people actually wanting to exercise personal freedom - at least, it falls down when that freedom means that others may not live like THEY want them live. Then they want the government in everyone's personal lives.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
While what you says is true, Xlife, you're missing the main point. It doesn't matter to Romney how long his BS will work politcally. It need only work long enough for the destruction and economic enslavement of the American people to finalize. meantime the rich guys continue the rape of America moving their assets and interests offshore.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 71
With the known history of the last several decades, Benghazi itself,9/11 no less, a history of prior threats, requests regarding "security concerns", known militants in the area and a high profile US Ambassador as an easy target, don't you think that some super smart, intellectual person who is also POTUS could get a clue?

Yeah. You might think the same of a President whose CIA Director was running around "with his hair on fire" predicting an attack on domestic soil, and who took office just months after the attack on the Cole which killed 17 sailors, but that didn't happen either.

What is constant use of the point that Bush was worser at one point in time?

Then what is the point of bringing up what a clearly failed ship CO thinks about Obama? This is a guy who sat around crunching his Wheaties while terrorists floated a boat full of explosives right next to his ship while in hostile waters! And he's out giving advice?

The only thing more absurd would be if some idiot like Jack Welch, king of managing expectations, complained that somehow the unemployment numbers were being cooked because they happened to rise - or fall - at an inconvenient time for his candidate. Wouldn't that be ridiculous too?

Failed captain whose ship was destroyed by terrorists gives terrorism advice. CEO who led his company into a financial abyss from which it barely recovered gives economic advice. Jeez, next you'll have a guy who rapes and dismantles companies for a living telling us all how to create jobs.

Oh wait! That's your candidate for President!
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The fact that they would stand a vampire capitalist for election is even more outrageous than the George W. Bush Institute releasing a book about how to fix the economy. No word yet on who wrote the book or if they actually know anything about fixing the economy.

-Wes
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
With the known history of the last several decades, Benghazi itself,9/11 no less, a history of prior threats, requests regarding "security concerns", known militants in the area and a high profile US Ambassador as an easy target, don't you think that some super smart, intellectual person who is also POTUS could get a clue?

Yeah. You might think the same of a President whose CIA Director was running around "with his hair on fire" predicting an attack on domestic soil, and who took office just months after the attack on the Cole which killed 17 sailors, but that didn't happen either.
________________________

Enough of the someone else was worser game, why not just answer the question in the now with the current POTUS who IS responsible or is he? You totally dodge your guys performance by embellishing someone else's, do you think it gets anyone anywhere?

What a tool.

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Enough of the someone else was worser game, why not just answer the question in the now with the current POTUS who IS responsible or is he?

I think he is partially culpable, because he sits in the chair. Clearly a larger part of the responsibility goes to the Republicans in Congress who voted down funding for increased security several times after it had been requested by the State Department.

Who would you say is "more directly responsible", and what would you do to correct that problem?
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Clearly a larger part of the responsibility goes to the Republicans in Congress who voted down funding for increased security several times after it had been requested by the State Department.

In the Congressional hearings, the people from the State Department said it had nothing to do with funding

Someone in the administration screwed up.

To bad Obama did not have the character to accept responsibility vs throwing Hillary ... a talented woman ... under the bus

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement