And The Benghazi Cover Up Continues !

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

A Point to ponder:

If we had a foreign policy of non intervention would we even know of a city named Benghazi?
If we had a foreign policy of non intervention would we know who Ambassador Stevens was?
If we had a foreign policy of non intervention would we have a total of 4 dead in Benghazi?
If we had a foreign policy of non intervention would we be investigating possible wrong doing in the Obama Administration?
If we had a foreign policy of non intervention would we be inquiring into whether a cover-up occurred?

As a nation we have in 60 years FAILED to learn just how bad the effects of what the CIA calls blowback can really be. All of this started in 1953 with the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranand the installation of the Shah and his brutal regime. Ever since we have had turmoil in the middle east. Couple this with the fact that Iran, Iraq & Libya would not value their oil in US Dollars and it should come as no surprise that two of the three countries had their leaders killed and the third has 43 military bases around it and is threatening to use nuclear weapons just as soon as they create one.

JFK stood up to the USSR in 1962, achieved his objective and no one died. There is a lesson in there someplace

Sparrow,
I know there is no such thing as 200%, but if there were, I'd be AGREEING with you on you post.........................." 200 % " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ps,
'southwing-BAG,
How do you like "THOSE APPLES" ????

 

[SparrowHawk]

Sparrow,
I know there is no such thing as 200%, but if there were, I'd be AGREEING with you on you post.........................." 200 % " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ps,
'southwing-BAG,
How do you like "THOSE APPLES" ????

Given your support of the above Point of View have you joined the Free State Project?

http://freestateproject.org/

 

[Ms Tree]

You mean, kinda like when we gave Bin Laden and the Afghans weapons ?

That was Reagan and everyone knows he had a hard on for the Russians. It does not seem like he was looking at the folks he was giving weapons too. Secondly, it was not giving the weapons to OBL that caused the problem. If you crack open a history book you will find that what pissed OBL off is when we left him high and dry after we were done with him.


Aside from that. Are we not permitted to be more discriminating with whom we give weapons to or do we just have to give them to anyone who asks?

 

[southwind]

You tell me ? BaRack just gave these guys 20 F-16's and 200 M1A1 Abram tanks !

Muslim Brotherhood: Its credo is, "God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

You tell me ? BaRack just gave these guys 20 F-16's and 200 M1A1 Abram tanks !

What guys? And who allocated the funds for this?

Low info voter is a compliment in your case.

 

[Ms Tree]

You tell me ? BaRack just gave these guys 20 F-16's and 200 M1A1 Abram tanks !

Muslim Brotherhood: Its credo is, "God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."

http://en.wikipedia....erhood_in_Egypt

Glenn touched on it but I'm not sure you will understand his some what vague comment.When you say "BaRrack(sp) just gave these guys 20 F-16's and 200 M1A1 Abram tanks" are you implying that the POTUS can just send weapons to whim ever he wants with out any over sight what so ever from say .... Congress?Putting that silliness aside. Egypt obviously wants weapons. If the US does not sell them the weapons, do you think they will just kick the sand and go home empty handed or do you think they might ask someone else for some planes and tanks. Hmmmm. Wonder what other countries might be willing to sell them weapons for influence? Can you think of any? Any at all? I can think of two countries.

 

[southwind]

Your the one b!tchin' about giving others weapons ! See post #93 !
Now, in one breath, you and your cronies are saying BaRack is "NOT" responsible and the next, Reagan "IS" ! Make up your minds and stick to it !

 

[Ms Tree]

I just reread my post to make sure what it said. What did you read?

 

[delldude]

What guys? And who allocated the funds for this?

Low info voter is a compliment in your case.

Funded by Barack for Hosni before Barack stuck a knife in his back. in 2010 foreign aid deal......Pal

 

[Dog Wonder]

Read? Right.

 

[delldude]

Well look at this:



http://www.washingto...ignettes/v4.htm

http://articles.lati..._1_peter-arnett

You make this way too easy

Clinton ordered the military to pump as many as 20 Tomahawk missiles into what he said was a chemical-weapons plant in Sudan financed by bin Laden. It turned out to be a pill plant owned by a Saudi businessman to whom the administration later had to pay $1 million in interest for seizing his plant.

Intelligence officials at the time expressed reservations about including the plant on the target list. Clinton picked the target himself.​

​

 

[Ms Tree]

I realized I need to clarify my earlier statement. It was not Reagan who supplied weapons to OBL but rather Congress authorized it and Reagan went along with it just as with the arms to Egypt that Congress authorized and Obama went along with. Thoe presidents do not have the authority to supply weapons on their own.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Given your support of the above Point of View have you joined the Free State Project?

http://freestateproject.org/

Sparrow,
I PROMISE to give your link...a thorough, fair evaluation !

OK, I'm back.....having just 'checked it'.
About the only thing in recent memory that I can recall that irked me, was the UNSUCCESSFUL Attempt..of the REPUGS to ram through...'Southern-Style" Right-to-Work Bull Sh!t.
ALL the NE states have a loooong history of support for Organized Labor, given the long history of industrial production usually along the banks of the many rivers up here.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Right to work and organized labor do NOT have to be competing concepts.

Organized Labor had gained in popularity in the '20's and '30's that they threatened the power structure so laws were enacted to curtail their power. Laws like the RLA and NLRA. These laws take a lot of the bite out of the unions bark and tips the playing field in the favor of the employer

Right to work currently is nothing more then an attempt to further skew the playing field. I could support Right to work if RLA, NRLA and all the other rules were eliminated allowing a free market to determine wages

 

[Ms Tree]

I think free market wages sounds good on paper but I can see corporations abusing that. Given our current employment market where there are lots of people willing to work for very little that could prove detrimental to labor.