Because if we just make the whole area a nuclear wasteland, except Israel, all the terrorists will be gone and everyone will rejoice at the great cleansing of the false religion.Why does Lindsey Graham want to go to war in the Middle East so bad? We already have a war there isn't that enough?
EXXON gets its oil fields back alsoBecause if we just make the whole area a nuclear wasteland, except Israel, all the terrorists will be gone and everyone will rejoice at the great cleansing of the false religion.
Romney actually acted on warnings for something? Is that anything like how someone was protecting Alaska from the communists?
Even a paranoiac has enemies.
Where did that knuckledragger go who alleged a coverup over Benghazi and used the Susan Rice testimony as "proof":
From politicalwire:
CIA Documents Support Obama on Libya Attack
Washington Post: "The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren't supported by intelligence... 'Talking points' prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States."
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports the assault "appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda."
I think the poster's name was Old Peed or something?
Why does Lindsey Graham want to go to war in the Middle East so bad? We already have a war there isn't that enough?
Where did that knuckledragger go who alleged a coverup over Benghazi and used the Susan Rice testimony as "proof":
From politicalwire:
CIA Documents Support Obama on Libya Attack
Washington Post: "The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren't supported by intelligence... 'Talking points' prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States."
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports the assault "appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda."
I think the poster's name was Old Peed or something?
Two absolutely unimpeachable sources. Neither with a dog in this hunt. And no administration has ever leaned on the CIA to "massage" its conclusions.
Didn't know a David Petraeus run outfit was totally corrupt. Any proof of this Opie? Funny once again how you have no problem slandering military men when its suits your purposes.
Getting a little shrill (even by your standards) aren't you? You and that POS "community organizer" got nothin'.
Nice to hear about your 180 on "General Betray Us" though.
Getting a little shrill (even by your standards) aren't you? You and that POS "community organizer" got nothin'.
Nice to hear about your 180 on "General Betray Us" though.
Old PO'd, I'd again ask the orderly to check your meds. Petraeus has done a fine job in my book both as a general and as head of the CIA. In fact, one can only shudder at a national defense team of Clinton-Panetta-Petraeus being replaced by a Bolton-Bachmann-McCain one. Start buying stocks in defense companies because we'll be having a war somewhere soon whether we need to or not.
I remember that ad in the New York Slimes. I actually watched the testimony, and the camera did focus on a few people being escorted out.
"Bolton-Bachmann-McCain?" Cloud cuckoo land, even for you. As to the job Petaeus has done at CIA, you haven't any earthly idea (and neither do I), only that His Islamistness has appointed him and that's all you require to start swilling the Kool-aid.
CIA should be apolitical. SecDef has been carried over before, and while I like Panetta, if someone similar is appointed and confirmed (force is the last resort, but when it is used, let the troops fight the battles without DC (Foggy Bottom) interference). SecState - why not Condi or Colin?Old PO'd, I'd again ask the orderly to check your meds. Petraeus has done a fine job in my book both as a general and as head of the CIA. In fact, one can only shudder at a national defense team of Clinton-Panetta-Petraeus being replaced by a Bolton-Bachmann-McCain one. Start buying stocks in defense companies because we'll be having a war somewhere soon whether we need to or not.
Ummm....somebody is hunting down these terrorists and killing them. That takes quite a bit of good intelligence I would think.