Russia invaded Ukraine because of Benghazi

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Senator Lindsey Graham says that Russia invaded Ukraine because of Benghazi...

1. Seriously, this man has really lost it or just hates Secretary Clinton so bad, no matter what happens over the next two (or 6 if she is elected) will automatically be because of her actions in Benghazi, is that really all the Republicans have against Sec. Clinton? Does anyone really think Putin was sitting in his office and thought, hum... well The Americans got attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, I better invade Crimea?

2. Is it smart to make that type of statement in the middle of this crisis?

3. What do you Republicans think the President should do at this point, or are you going to wait and see what he does then just attack that.

I heard a great joke the other day about this issue... I cant retell it word for word or as good as it was told to me, but here goes:

The Republicans are holding back on comment about the Russian situation for the most part but they all agreed his actions are going to be either overly aggressive and risk entangling the United States in a protracted, costly war... OR (depending on what he does) his actions are weak and show he is unwilling to stand up for American interests abroad.
 
Jarod said:
Senator Lindsey Graham says that Russia invaded Ukraine because of Benghazi...

1. Seriously, this man has really lost it or just hates Secretary Clinton so bad, no matter what happens over the next two (or 6 if she is elected) will automatically be because of her actions in Benghazi, is that really all the Republicans have against Sec. Clinton? Does anyone really think Putin was sitting in his office and thought, hum... well The Americans got attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, I better invade Crimea?

2. Is it smart to make that type of statement in the middle of this crisis?

3. What do you Republicans think the President should do at this point, or are you going to wait and see what he does then just attack that.

I heard a great joke the other day about this issue... I cant retell it word for word or as good as it was told to me, but here goes:

The Republicans are holding back on comment about the Russian situation for the most part but they all agreed his actions are going to be either overly aggressive and risk entangling the United States in a protracted, costly war... OR (depending on what he does) his actions are weak and show he is unwilling to stand up for American interests abroad.
Click to expand...


You have a quote from ol' Huckleberry Closetcase?
 
Do you think it was smart of Democrats to denigrate our troops and claim they had failed during the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict?

What should Obama do in this case? I think handing out a billion dollars in aid is pretty stupid for a start. But by ignoring what is happening outside of our borders did cause the disaster in Benghazi. Boldly declaring a "red" line in Syria then doing nothing didn't make him look smart or bold. Abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much ignoring them indicates to potential allies that we cannot be relied on when he going gets tough.

So basically, this script was written by dimwitted Democrat dunces when they voted for the war before they were against it and saw the difficulties as political opportunism.

I have to laugh when Democrat dunces decry the very tactics they used on Bush. Got hypocrite?
 
Truth Detector said:
Do you think it was smart of Democrats to denigrate our troops and claim they had failed during the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict?

What should Obama do in this case? I think handing out a billion dollars in aid is pretty stupid for a start. But by ignoring what is happening outside of our borders did cause the disaster in Benghazi. Boldly declaring a "red" line in Syria then doing nothing didn't make him look smart or bold. Abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much ignoring them indicates to potential allies that we cannot be relied on when he going gets tough.

So basically, this script was written by dimwitted Democrat dunces when they voted for the war before they were against it and saw the difficulties as political opportunism.

I have to laugh when Democrat dunces decry the very tactics they used on Bush. Got hypocrite?
Click to expand...

1. I don't know anyone who blamed our troops for what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. Our troops did an exemplary job under very difficult circumstances after having been given blurry objectives and unclear civilian orders. You just make that shit up about anyone denigrating our troops. Ill address the remainder of your bullshit post in a separate reply, but this one merited its stand alone reply so you will have a harder time pretending to ignore it now that you have been called out.
 
Truth Detector said:
Do you think it was smart of Democrats to denigrate our troops and claim they had failed during the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict?

What should Obama do in this case? I think handing out a billion dollars in aid is pretty stupid for a start. But by ignoring what is happening outside of our borders did cause the disaster in Benghazi. Boldly declaring a "red" line in Syria then doing nothing didn't make him look smart or bold. Abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much ignoring them indicates to potential allies that we cannot be relied on when he going gets tough.

So basically, this script was written by dimwitted Democrat dunces when they voted for the war before they were against it and saw the difficulties as political opportunism.

I have to laugh when Democrat dunces decry the very tactics they used on Bush. Got hypocrite?
Click to expand...

2. Fucking idiot... Something was done in Syria, even after the Republicans screamed about the red line and tied the commander in chief's hands for political reasons. More would have been done had the Republicans supported the CIC. So, ok, maybe at some small level, Putin thought.. .the political infighting in the United States is so bad the Republicans wont let Obama do anything about it if I invade Crimea.. you might have a small point about how this is the Republicans fault.
 
Jarod said:
Senator Lindsey Graham says that Russia invaded Ukraine because of Benghazi...

1. Seriously, this man has really lost it or just hates Secretary Clinton so bad, no matter what happens over the next two (or 6 if she is elected) will automatically be because of her actions in Benghazi, is that really all the Republicans have against Sec. Clinton? Does anyone really think Putin was sitting in his office and thought, hum... well The Americans got attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, I better invade Crimea?

2. Is it smart to make that type of statement in the middle of this crisis?

3. What do you Republicans think the President should do at this point, or are you going to wait and see what he does then just attack that.

I heard a great joke the other day about this issue... I cant retell it word for word or as good as it was told to me, but here goes:

The Republicans are holding back on comment about the Russian situation for the most part but they all agreed his actions are going to be either overly aggressive and risk entangling the United States in a protracted, costly war... OR (depending on what he does) his actions are weak and show he is unwilling to stand up for American interests abroad.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty weird paraphrase of what Graham said. He was commenting on the actions of the US after Benghazi, saying that if you don't show a committment to finding those responsible and holding them accountable, then the likelihood of doing so in the future is not great. Thus, if the US is thought of as having weak resolve, then a move that might 'anger' the US is not as 'risky'.

Personally I don't think we should do anything in Ukraine and I don't think we would have regardless of Benghazi. But his point still has merit in terms of perceived strength.
 
Superfreak said:
That is a pretty weird paraphrase of what Graham said. He was commenting on the actions of the US after Benghazi, saying that if you don't show a committment to finding those responsible and holding them accountable, then the likelihood of doing so in the future is not great. Thus, if the US is thought of as having weak resolve, then a move that might 'anger' the US is not as 'risky'.

Personally I don't think we should do anything in Ukraine and I don't think we would have regardless of Benghazi. But his point still has merit in terms of perceived strength.
Click to expand...


LOL.
 
Jarod said:
1. I don't know anyone who blamed our troops for what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. Our troops did an exemplary job under very difficult circumstances after having been given blurry objectives and unclear civilian orders. You just make that shit up about anyone denigrating our troops. Ill address the remainder of your bullshit post in a separate reply, but this one merited its stand alone reply so you will have a harder time pretending to ignore it now that you have been called out.
Click to expand...

Apparently you think that one can impugn the mission and not the troops carrying out that mission. How stupid are you?
 
Jarod said:
2. Fucking idiot... Something was done in Syria, even after the Republicans screamed about the red line and tied the commander in chief's hands for political reasons. More would have been done had the Republicans supported the CIC. So, ok, maybe at some small level, Putin thought.. .the political infighting in the United States is so bad the Republicans wont let Obama do anything about it if I invade Crimea.. you might have a small point about how this is the Republicans fault.
Click to expand...

Fucking dunce; NOTHING has been done in Syria other than Obummer handing over responsibility to Putin. How stupid are you?

LMAO @ the bolded part. You're such a moron.
 
Truth Detector said:
Apparently you think that one can impugn the mission and not the troops carrying out that mission. How stupid are you?
Click to expand...

Sure you can, two different things. Troops can do a great job but if the leaders suck the mission will fail.
 
I'm so old I remember when WMD disarmament was grounds for invasion, deaths of thousands of US troops, scores more wounded, many catastrphicaly, deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, displacement of millions more and the expenditure of trillions of dollars. Now, it's "NOTHING."
 
Jarod said:
Sure you can, two different things. Troops can do a great job but if the leaders suck the mission will fail.
Click to expand...

No you cannot separate the two. There was no "fuzzy" objectives in the Iraq conflict. The only thing "fuzzy" were the buffoon like attempts by Democrats to see the struggle as political opportunity. But then, why would I expect a dishonest dunce like you to comprehend mundane things like facts and reality?

It's the same leftist stupidity that argues that wars can be fought with flawless execution without mistake, without tragic losses and within a specified budget.
 
aeprga said:
I'm so old I remember when WMD disarmament was grounds for invasion, deaths of thousands of US troops, scores more wounded, many catastrphicaly, deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, displacement of millions more and the expenditure of trillions of dollars. Now, it's "NOTHING."
Click to expand...

You're apparently suffering from dementia. When was the Iraq War only about WMD disarmament? Did you bother reading the Joint Resolution?

Im always amused when brain dead leftist discuss the tragic losses of our troops, but then think nothing of throwing away the sacrifice they made by running away from our commitment. It is equally amusing that these same dunces think that wars can be fought without sacrifice and tragic loss, error free and within budget.

But then, Liberals are not very smart, very naive and wallow in denial.
 
aeprga said:
I'm so old I remember when WMD disarmament was grounds for invasion, deaths of thousands of US troops, scores more wounded, many catastrphicaly, deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, displacement of millions more and the expenditure of trillions of dollars. Now, it's "NOTHING."
Click to expand...

According to TD you cant say that without impugning the troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top