The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2014, 10:05 AM   #751
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnykbr View Post
1. Halliburton was the gold star for pretty much all government contracts.
2. Halliburton REMAINS the gold star for much all government contracts.
3. Halliburton is used just as much now under the Obama regime as it was under the Bush regime...and the Clinton regime...
None of this really changes the points Roh made. And, to the extent it even matters, I'm not aware of anyone in the Obama admin having remotely the direct ties to Halliburton that Cheney did/does. Correct me if you know otherwise.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:21 AM   #752
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,613
Default

Americans died! Let's make some money

Fundraising off Benghazi? GOP can’t agree

Do Republicans plan to use the new select committee on Benghazi to raise campaign cash? Depends who you ask.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Wednesday on msnbc’s Morning Joe that he wouldn’t use the panel, which he will chair, to raise money. “Even in a culture of hyper-partisanship, [there are] certain things that ought to be above politics, like the murder of our four fellow Americans, and whether or not you can trust what any administration—Republican or Democrat—tells you in the aftermath of a tragedy,” said Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican and former prosecutor.

But minutes earlier, the National Republican Campaign Committee had sent out a fundraising email from a website it runs called BenghaziWatchdogs.com. The email touted the establishment of the committee, then linked to a page asking for donations.

Republicans may not yet be on the same page about the fundraising issue. But they’re moving quickly to get the panel, announced last Friday, up and running.

House Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday he decided to create a select committee to probe the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attacks because a White House email released last week showed that “a line was crossed.”

“I thought, and continued to believe until last week, that our four committees that have been investigating Benghazi have done a very good job,” Boehner told reporters on Capitol Hill. “But a line was crossed last week. It was crossed in two places: One when it became clear that the White House played a more significant role in the developments of how they were going to describe this, certainly more than anything that had been disclosed thus far. And then secondly, when it became clear that documents were turned over to a private organization that frankly had been blocked in terms of giving them to us.”

In an email turned over last week to the conservative group Judicial Watch, National Security Council spokesman Ben Rhodes tweaked talking points in the aftermath of the September 2012 attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Rhodes was aiming to portray the event as a spontaneous uprising rather than a planned terrorist attack.

Republicans charge that the White House knowingly deceived the public about the cause of the attacks. The White House has said it was acting on the best information it had at the time.

No clear evidence has emerged to contradict that. But for Republicans, the creation of the select committee offers a chance to damage Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, who was secretary of state at the time of the attacks. A year ago, Clinton saw a significant drop in her overall approval rating—a decline that at least one pollster attributed in part to fallout from the attacks. The creation of the panel also could help motivate conservative voters—who have long been urging Boehner and Co.. to get more aggressive on Benghazi—for this fall’s midterms.

A resolution creating the committee, made public Tuesday night, said it will have seven Republicans and five Democrats. The panel will “conduct a full and complete investigation and study and issue a final report” on “all policies, decisions and activities that contributed to the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, as well as those that affected the ability of the United States to prepare for the attacks.” It will be voted on Thursday, and is expected to pass easily.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday called for the committee to have an equal number of members from each party. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the number three Democrat in the House, went further, saying Tuesday he wouldn’t participate unless there’s an even split, saying he wouldn’t be “bringing the noose to my own hanging.” And some Democrats have suggested that the party may boycott the panel in an effort to deprive it of legitimacy.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/boehner-b...ne-was-crossed
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:23 AM   #753
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,387

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnykbr View Post
1. Halliburton was the gold star for pretty much all government contracts.
2. Halliburton REMAINS the gold star for much all government contracts.
3. Halliburton is used just as much now under the Obama regime as it was under the Bush regime...and the Clinton regime...
Cheney cashed out $35 million from Halliburton that we know of. Where are the WMDs?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:33 AM   #754
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,688

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Cheney cashed out $35 million from Halliburton that we know of. Where are the WMDs?
SOP

http://www.foxbusiness.com/governmen...one-iraq-deal/

Quote:
Since November 2010, James Biden has been the executive vice president of Hill International’s housing subsidiary despite little if any documented work history in residential construction. And if the company’s projections are accurate, both Hill and Biden are on the verge of a huge payday, beneficiaries, some analysts believe, of James Biden’s connections to the Obama Administration through his older brother.

Indeed, the Iraq project may be the most lucrative single development in Hill’s history. Since 2011, Hill, located in Marlton, NJ., has been losing money; the shares were recently trading at $3.82, down about 28% this year on New York Stock Exchange trading.

And some analysts remain dubious about the completion of the Iraq project, including those at Sidoti & Company, which slashed earnings estimates on Friday. But if company officials are to be believed -- and there’s good reason to believe them given Hill’s connections to the Obama Administration -- Hill will be solidly profitable once the Iraq development gets underway. Company officials say the Iraq project is slated to generate $1.5 billion in revenues over the next three years, more than three times all the revenues Hill produced in 2011.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:35 AM   #755
ghwk
Ring of Famer
 
ghwk's Avatar
 
Survivor survivor!

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,804

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton's C3-C5
Default

The fact that the repubs won't balance the committee automatically makes this a poilitical action rather than an investigative one. I mean why the fear on a balanced committee if the goal here is to get to the truth.

Oh wait, what? It isn't about getting to the truth?? Big surprise....
ghwk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:38 AM   #756
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,688

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghwk View Post
The fact that the repubs won't balance the committee automatically makes this a poilitical action rather than an investigative one. I mean why the fear on a balanced committee if the goal here is to get to the truth.

Oh wait, what? It isn't about getting to the truth?? Big surprise....
Yes, because if recent history has proven anything, it's that if you want The Truth™ you first need to give disproportionate representation to Democrats.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:06 AM   #757
ghwk
Ring of Famer
 
ghwk's Avatar
 
Survivor survivor!

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,804

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton's C3-C5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yes, because if recent history has proven anything, it's that if you want The Truth™ you first need to give disproportionate representation to Democrats.
Who said anything about disproportionate dumba**?

See you are the reason there should be a test before you are allowed to vote.
ghwk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:23 AM   #758
Johnykbr
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Johnykbr's Avatar
 
2.0: Now with three speeds!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 785

Adopt-a-Bronco:
BVP
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
None of this really changes the points Roh made. And, to the extent it even matters, I'm not aware of anyone in the Obama admin having remotely the direct ties to Halliburton that Cheney did/does. Correct me if you know otherwise.
I fail to see how that matters? Cheney cashed out his stock options when he got named to the ticket which happened to coincide with the stock peak of that year so he made bank. He even donated his after tax proceeds to charity to remove that conflict as well (documented). He wasn't on Halliburton's dime when Afghanistan began let alone Iraq.

Like I said, Halliburton is the best at what they do and that is why they've received large no bid contracts from the last three administrations. Trust me, I praise all three for recognizing the best and going for it. If Obama had decided not to use them because of their name, I would give him grief for it. Until they no longer prove to be the best for the best price, I would expect every administration to use them.
Johnykbr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:28 AM   #759
Johnykbr
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Johnykbr's Avatar
 
2.0: Now with three speeds!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 785

Adopt-a-Bronco:
BVP
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Cheney cashed out $35 million from Halliburton that we know of. Where are the WMDs?
Yes. Before he became VP. There is no conflict. Halliburton was the best and is still and that is why the past three administrations have used them.

And stop saying WMDs. There has been plenty of evidence of bio and chem weapons in Iraq. Those are still considered WMDs. There has been no evidence of nuclear weapons. I myself subscribe to the theory that they did not have Nukes but were well along in the making of them which was smuggled out to Syria (there is proof of smuggling, the contents of what is the debate) which was what realized their jump in production which in turn lead to Israel's Operation Orchard.
Johnykbr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:30 AM   #760
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,387

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnykbr View Post
Yes. Before he became VP. There is no conflict. Halliburton was the best and is still and that is why the past three administrations have used them.

And stop saying WMDs. There has been plenty of evidence of bio and chem weapons in Iraq. Those are still considered WMDs. There has been no evidence of nuclear weapons. I myself subscribe to the theory that they did not have Nukes but were well along in the making of them which was smuggled out to Syria (there is proof of smuggling, the contents of what is the debate) which was what realized their jump in production which in turn lead to Israel's Operation Orchard.
Then perhaps you can also answer what was the imminent threat to the U.S.?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:58 AM   #761
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,806

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghwk View Post
The fact that the repubs won't balance the committee automatically makes this a poilitical action rather than an investigative one. I mean why the fear on a balanced committee if the goal here is to get to the truth.

Oh wait, what? It isn't about getting to the truth?? Big surprise....
Democrats don't bust their own! How could you blame the Republicans for that?
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 12:01 PM   #762
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,806

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappys View Post
For the same reason he refused to answer the Birthers. Let the conspiracy nuts get louder and louder and more and more unglued. Darrel Issa looks like a blabbering buffoon to most Americans at this point who could care less about Benghazi and aren't going to care no matter how hard Republicans hammer this issue. It makes the Republicans look further out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.
But there was something that seemed to be hiding. Big difference.
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 12:12 PM   #763
ghwk
Ring of Famer
 
ghwk's Avatar
 
Survivor survivor!

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,804

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton's C3-C5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncocalijohn View Post
Democrats don't bust their own! How could you blame the Republicans for that?
That made no sense. How would a balanced committee prevent that? Or flip that statement and ask why would republicans conduct a fair investigation?
ghwk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 12:15 PM   #764
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,688

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghwk View Post
Who said anything about disproportionate dumba**?

See you are the reason there should be a test before you are allowed to vote.
Democrats are a minority party in the House. Why would they be given equal representation to the majority?

Can you point to an example anywhere were this has ever been done in the past? Pelosi's House had numerous investigations of Bush cooking most of the time. Point out for me where she allowed an equal representation of Republicans on any of those Committees.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 12:44 PM   #765
Johnykbr
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Johnykbr's Avatar
 
2.0: Now with three speeds!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 785

Adopt-a-Bronco:
BVP
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Then perhaps you can also answer what was the imminent threat to the U.S.?
I'm not saying there was. Was he an imminent threat to our interests? Yes, absolutely. Was he an imminent threat to the continental US? I highly doubt it. Iraq broke the law established by the international community, there is no question of that. I'm not upset he and his sons are dead but, strategically speaking, it was foolish to go in there because Iraq and Iran counterbalanced each other.

I only griped because everyone always says WMDs which refers to more than nukes but two of the three were found.
Johnykbr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 03:25 PM   #766
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,140

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnykbr View Post
I'm not saying there was. Was he an imminent threat to our interests? Yes, absolutely. Was he an imminent threat to the continental US? I highly doubt it. Iraq broke the law established by the international community, there is no question of that. I'm not upset he and his sons are dead but, strategically speaking, it was foolish to go in there because Iraq and Iran counterbalanced each other.

I only griped because everyone always says WMDs which refers to more than nukes but two of the three were found.


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/


As
Quote:
for how you dispel your friends’ notions that Iraq really did have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons when President Bush no longer makes such claims himself, we suggest ridicule. If that doesn’t work, you may be out of luck.
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG’s focus.
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq’s WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.
During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:
"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005.
If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason.
No. No WMD
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 06:21 AM   #767
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,057
Default

How come there were no calls from Democrats for Reagan's impeachment after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983?

Talk about security failures...
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 07:16 AM   #768
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,688

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
How come there were no calls from Democrats for Reagan's impeachment after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983?

Talk about security failures...
No, talk about deliberately obtuse. Par for the course.

Nobody's talking impeachment (realistically at all)

But even if they are, it's because of the abuse of power wielded in the subsequent cover up, the only ends being protecting votes in the coming election. Blatant manipulation of the Democratic process with immoral (and now illegal) layers of lies and coverups.

But you'll keep cheering regardless.

Lebanon was a policy failure, as was Mogadishu. But people can understand policy failures. Even expensive ones. They're inevitable as long as you're out there doing things. What can't be tolerated is the coercive state propaganda campaign that followed. Once that becomes acceptable, we're little better than Gaff's favorite tourist locales.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 07:18 AM   #769
jhat01
Ring of Famer
 
jhat01's Avatar
 
Knuckle Dragging Homer

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West River
Posts: 1,860

Adopt-a-Bronco:
ManRam
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
How come there were no calls from Democrats for Reagan's impeachment after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983?

Talk about security failures...
I was only a young child, but was there a calculated and concerted effort to mislead and downplay the situation for political gain? If so, then he should have been beat up too.
jhat01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 07:35 AM   #770
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,140

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhat01 View Post
I was only a young child, but was there a calculated and concerted effort to mislead and downplay the situation for political gain? If so, then he should have been beat up too.
Yes.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 07:41 AM   #771
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,140

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Reagan should've had his ass handed to him on that. He puts our soldiers in harms way then gives the idiotic order to not load their weapons.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 08:08 AM   #772
kappys
Ring of Famer
 
kappys's Avatar
 
“It will be of little avail to the

Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncocalijohn View Post
But there was something that seemed to be hiding. Big difference.
In no particular order most Americans want

1) Jobs/economic improvement
2) No more foreign wars(death of a few diplomats does not count)
3) Stability in health care system
kappys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 08:10 AM   #773
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,549

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

May 6, 2014
Ronald Reagan’s Benghazi
Posted by Jane Mayer

Quote:
There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.

If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.

The story in Beirut wasn’t over. In September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-benghazi.html
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 08:25 AM   #774
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,688

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Reagan should've had his ass handed to him on that. He puts our soldiers in harms way then gives the idiotic order to not load their weapons.
Lolz, as if a couple guns were going to stop a freight truck barreling into a barracks while loaded with TNT.

Reagan put those Marines in a terrible situation, no doubt. But everyone knew why they were there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 08:27 AM   #775
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,688

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
[B] May 6, 2014
Ronald Reagan’s Benghazi
Posted by Jane Mayer
Dude.

Your President made up a fake reason for the attack out of whole cloth and lied about it for weeks. Just so his Libya intervention didn't suddenly appear to be the utter failure it actually was. They even had the Youtube video producer arrested for effect.

They single-handedly arranged the story so things like this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...muhammad-movie

would get printed instead of the truth.

BRAVO! WELL PLAYED! you say.

You're hopelessly slobknobbing the actual point on this one. And welcoming your new future at the same time.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 05-08-2014 at 08:30 AM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Denver Broncos