The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: obumazombie on April 20, 2015, 03:37:19 PM
-
Does it make ?
I can answer that for you Hitlery.
The deaths of 4 Brave Americans you wouldn't defend, and...
On Sunday, the world watched in horror as a migrant ship from Libya carrying 950 people sank in the Mediterranean, with photographs of floating bodies making their way across the wires.
According to The New York Times:
Warmer spring weather has unleashed a torrent of smuggler boats, mostly from Libya, bearing migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa, often fleeing war and poverty for a foothold in Europe.
Reports state that the smugglers locked migrants in the hold.
Predictably, the Times offers little context for the migrant wave or even an explanation of who the migrants are, instead settling for an anti-European narrative about the shortcomings of their immigration system.
The Associated Press blamed the situation on “resurgent right-wing political parties†that “have made a rallying cry out of a rising tide of illegal migration.â€
Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy suggested that the big problem was human traffickers, “the slave drivers of the 21st century.â€
French President Francois Hollande stated that Europe needed “more boats, more aerial surveillance and a much tougher fight against traffickers.â€
Pope Francis agreed, stating that Europe should act “decisively and quickly to stop these tragedies from recurring.â€
The Prime Minister of Malta, Joseph Muscat, was more on point:
“The amount of people we’ve seen coming, and how it has been organized in the past few months, is unprecedented.
We’ve just seen 700 people die. If we don’t get our act together on Libya, we’ll see more.â€
And that is the point.
The reports of the sunken migrant ship came on the heels of a story just days before that 15 Muslims had thrown 12 Christians overboard on a migrant voyage from Libya.
The story of the doomed migrant ship hit the front pages the same day that ISIS released a video showing terrorists beheading Christians on the coast of Libya.
The problem of migration from Libya springs from the chaos that has filled that country in the wake of the US-led Western invasion of the country – a policy championed first and foremost by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Clinton pushed regime change in Libya, and pushed it hard. In February 2011, an uprising against then-dictator Muammar Qaddafi broke out;
President Obama quickly pushed for sanctions, and the United Nations voted for a no-fly zone above the country.
In March, ABC News reported that Obama had signed a presidential finding to send covert aid to the Libyan rebels.
In September 2011, Obama called for Qaddafi’s forces to surrender. In October 2011, Hillary visited Tripoli and pledged millions to the Libyan opposition, gushing, “I am proud to stand here on the soil of a free Libya.â€
Two days later, Qaddafi was sodomized with a knife and then killed;
Hillary was caught on camera crowing and laughing, “We came, we saw, he died!â€
The Libyan opposition, as it turns out, was honeycombed with terrorists, who promptly threw the country into total chaos.
In February 2011, about the time the United States began pushing for Qaddafi’s ouster, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb stated, “We declare our support for the legitimate demands of the Libyan revolution.â€
Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakin al-Hasidi told the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore that his solders were “patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,†and that “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.â€
Admiral James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, said, “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah.â€
Rebel leader Abdel Hakim Belhadj became commander of security in Tripoli; he was closely associated with al-Qaeda leader Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.
Hillary knew about the relationship between terrorist groups and the Libyan opposition and had no plan for what came next – an amazing fact given her own 2008 critique of President Bush’s Iraq invasion along the same lines.
According to The Washington Times:
full article
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/20/hillary-clintons-libya-policy-ends-with-drowned-migrants/ (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/20/hillary-clintons-libya-policy-ends-with-drowned-migrants/)
-
Great post. I find it disturbing that Hillary is even thinking of running for the President of the United States and even more disturbing that so many Democrats hold her in esteem and feel she is their "front runner". She seems to hold no guilt, shame or sense of responsibility for what has happened. She is despicable.
-
Great post. I find it disturbing that Hillary is even thinking of running for the President of the United States and even more disturbing that so many Democrats hold her in esteem and feel she is their "front runner". She seems to hold no guilt, shame or sense of responsibility for what has happened. She is despicable.
Agreed. It's mind-boggling to the average Joe, who has gone through life doing the right things, holding himself accountable, contributing to his community and those around him, enduring the inevitable setbacks, just to hear this scrunt lament how she and her cigar-wielding, blue-dress smearing, former-president-but-current-shitbag-husband were "dead broke" when they left the WH.
She also had the unmitigated gall to claim that she doesn't need her philandering husband to "defend her record" either. Good God, there isn't enough airtime on the planet to defend that scrunt from her misdeeds. She needs an entire army of spin doctors to even begin unwinding the damage she's caused.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/25/hillary-clinton-concedes-inartful-words-on-wealth/
-
Agreed. It's mind-boggling to the average Joe, who has gone through life doing the right things, holding himself accountable, contributing to his community and those around him, enduring the inevitable setbacks, just to hear this scrunt lament how she and her cigar-wielding, blue-dress smearing, former-president-but-current-shitbag-husband were "dead broke" when they left the WH.
She also had the unmitigated gall to claim that she doesn't need her philandering husband to "defend her record" either. Good God, there isn't enough airtime on the planet to defend that scrunt from her misdeeds. She needs an entire army of spin doctors to even begin unwinding the damage she's caused.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/25/hillary-clinton-concedes-inartful-words-on-wealth/
I'm, hoping she continues to self-destruct. But, if she should become the DEM nominee, she will be easy to beat; provided that the GOP backs a true conservative and not a RINO.
-
I'm, hoping she continues to self-destruct. But, if she should become the DEM nominee, she will be easy to beat; provided that the GOP backs a true conservative and not a RINO.
Don't hold your breath waiting on the GOP to present a conservative nominee. The GOP has a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- John Boehner being the Chief Snatcher.
-
Good comments.
But the complete miserable failure of our foreign policy in the middle east has set it on fire because of Hitlery and owebuma.
Instead of taking responsibility for her failures, Hitlery has been taking money, and enriching herself by influence peddling and...
On Monday’s The Kelly File, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano hammered Hillary Clinton over her foundation’s alleged practice of receiving foreign donations in exchange for political benefits during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Napolitano insisted that the allegations against Mrs. Clinton are "far more serious than those for which [Senator] Robert Menendez of New Jersey was indicted and they essentially form the same – the same type of allegation, a quid pro quo."
full article...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2015/04/21/fncs-napolitano-blasts-hillarys-quid-pro-quo-clinton-foundation#sthash.olt2josf.dpuf (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2015/04/21/fncs-napolitano-blasts-hillarys-quid-pro-quo-clinton-foundation#sthash.olt2josf.dpuf)
-
"...President Bush’s Iraq invasion along the same lines." Seriously? You're comparing the US involvement in Lybia where we were part of a 19 nation Nato coalition where all of the coalition lives lost totaled 1 British airman who was killed in a traffic accident in Italy while part of a logistical convoy transferring supplies from the UK to NATO bases in the south of Italy from which air strikes were being conducted against Libya to the over 4,400 US killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Never mind that 2.5 million U.S service men and women served in Iraq and Afghanistan and up to 1/4 of them suffered injuries that will plague them and their families for life and with mothers, fathers, spouses, children, siblings etc thats over 20 million US lives that have been either directly or indirectly turned upside down over "President Bush’s Iraq invasion along the same lines". Never mind the 1 million Iraqi dead - people who never did anything to us and were no threat to us whatsoever whom we invaded for no reason at all or the estimated $4 trillion the US has squandered so far or the cost of veteran's medical treatment for the rest of their lives or the $trillions we will pay in interest on money borrowed for the war over the next 40 years and for what? To satisfy Bush's/Cheney's/Rumsfeld's blood lust? So for nothing. The cost plunged the US into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and your only point is to blame the resulting wave of Libyan migration to Europe on Clinton's invasion of Libya. lol Even if your point is valid (and its not even close) you're saying that Libyan migration is worse than the effect of the US invasion of Iraq. The United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region - Isis being just the most recent spin off, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system and the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud. Lets just say that you're correct and that Clinton invaded Libya and everything that resulted is her fault. BIG EFFING DEAL!
-
...she will be easy to beat; provided that the GOP backs a true conservative and not a RINO.
:rotf:
-
"...President Bush’s Iraq invasion along the same lines." Seriously? You're comparing the US involvement in Lybia where we were part of a 19 nation Nato coalition where all of the coalition lives lost totaled 1 British airman who was killed in a traffic accident in Italy while part of a logistical convoy transferring supplies from the UK to NATO bases in the south of Italy from which air strikes were being conducted against Libya to the over 4,400 US killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Never mind that 2.5 million U.S service men and women served in Iraq and Afghanistan and up to 1/4 of them suffered injuries that will plague them and their families for life and with mothers, fathers, spouses, children, siblings etc thats over 20 million US lives that have been either directly or indirectly turned upside down over "President Bush’s Iraq invasion along the same lines". Never mind the 1 million Iraqi dead - people who never did anything to us and were no threat to us whatsoever whom we invaded for no reason at all or the estimated $4 trillion the US has squandered so far or the cost of veteran's medical treatment for the rest of their lives or the $trillions we will pay in interest on money borrowed for the war over the next 40 years and for what? To satisfy Bush's/Cheney's/Rumsfeld's blood lust? So for nothing. The cost plunged the US into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and your only point is to blame the resulting wave of Libyan migration to Europe on Clinton's invasion of Libya. lol Even if your point is valid (and its not even close) you're saying that Libyan migration is worse than the effect of the US invasion of Iraq. The United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region - Isis being just the most recent spin off, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system and the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud. Lets just say that you're correct and that Clinton invaded Libya and everything that resulted is her fault. BIG EFFING DEAL!
Paragraphs are your friend.
-
Paragraphs are your friend.
Obviously, they aren't his friend or he'd use them. :rant:
-
"...President Bush’s Iraq invasion along the same lines." Seriously? You're comparing the US involvement in Lybia where we were part of a 19 nation Nato coalition where all of the coalition lives lost totaled 1 British airman who was killed in a traffic accident in Italy while part of a logistical convoy transferring supplies from the UK to NATO bases in the south of Italy from which air strikes were being conducted against Libya to the over 4,400 US killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Never mind that 2.5 million U.S service men and women served in Iraq and Afghanistan and up to 1/4 of them suffered injuries that will plague them and their families for life and with mothers, fathers, spouses, children, siblings etc thats over 20 million US lives that have been either directly or indirectly turned upside down over "President Bush’s Iraq invasion along the same lines". Never mind the 1 million Iraqi dead - people who never did anything to us and were no threat to us whatsoever whom we invaded for no reason at all or the estimated $4 trillion the US has squandered so far or the cost of veteran's medical treatment for the rest of their lives or the $trillions we will pay in interest on money borrowed for the war over the next 40 years and for what? To satisfy Bush's/Cheney's/Rumsfeld's blood lust? So for nothing. The cost plunged the US into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and your only point is to blame the resulting wave of Libyan migration to Europe on Clinton's invasion of Libya. lol Even if your point is valid (and its not even close) you're saying that Libyan migration is worse than the effect of the US invasion of Iraq. The United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region - Isis being just the most recent spin off, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system and the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud. Lets just say that you're correct and that Clinton invaded Libya and everything that resulted is her fault. BIG EFFING DEAL!
Oh you're gonna be a fun one.
Tell me n00b do you even have the faintest idea why we were in Iraq?
What's your DU name?
-
"... BIG EFFING DEAL!
I know. What difference, at this point...does it make ?
You have every DNC talking point down to a science.
How much do you watch Al Jazeera ?
edit-b
-
"...President Bush’s Iraq invasion along the same lines." Seriously? You're comparing the US involvement in Lybia where we were part of a 19 nation Nato coalition where all of the coalition lives lost totaled 1 British airman who was killed in a traffic accident in Italy while part of a logistical convoy transferring supplies from the UK to NATO bases in the south of Italy from which air strikes were being conducted against Libya to the over 4,400 US killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Never mind that 2.5 million U.S service men and women served in Iraq and Afghanistan and up to 1/4 of them suffered injuries that will plague them and their families for life and with mothers, fathers, spouses, children, siblings etc thats over 20 million US lives that have been either directly or indirectly turned upside down over "President Bush’s Iraq invasion along the same lines". Never mind the 1 million Iraqi dead - people who never did anything to us and were no threat to us whatsoever whom we invaded for no reason at all or the estimated $4 trillion the US has squandered so far or the cost of veteran's medical treatment for the rest of their lives or the $trillions we will pay in interest on money borrowed for the war over the next 40 years and for what? To satisfy Bush's/Cheney's/Rumsfeld's blood lust? So for nothing. The cost plunged the US into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and your only point is to blame the resulting wave of Libyan migration to Europe on Clinton's invasion of Libya. lol Even if your point is valid (and its not even close) you're saying that Libyan migration is worse than the effect of the US invasion of Iraq. The United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region - Isis being just the most recent spin off, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system and the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud. Lets just say that you're correct and that Clinton invaded Libya and everything that resulted is her fault. BIG EFFING DEAL!
This screed stinks like shit. Almost like he wipes his ass like a muzzie.
There's so much wrong with it I'm just not going to bother.
-
I'm all for feeding trolls but they have to put some effort and imagination into entertaining me. Otherwise it will only be a handout.
-
Obviously, they aren't his friend or he'd use them. :rant:
The DUmbass doesn't know who his friends are.
:rotf:
-
Oh look...a DUmmy.
-
Blah blah blah
Great avatar. You should follow its lead.
-
Don't hold your breath waiting on the GOP to present a conservative nominee. The GOP has a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- John Boehner being the Chief Snatcher.
There's a joke in there somewhere.
Getting back to Hillary and so called conservatives;
"[Hillary Clinton would] make a great presidential candidate.â€
- Newsmax founder Chistopher Ruddy
Chistopher Ruddy also donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation. :thatsright:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/19/strange-philanthropy-chris-ruddy-righty-newsman-pledges-1m-to-clintons/
.
-
There's a joke in there somewhere.
It's stuffed in the bottom of the box.
Getting back to Hillary and so called conservatives;
Chistopher Ruddy also donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation. :thatsright:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/19/strange-philanthropy-chris-ruddy-righty-newsman-pledges-1m-to-clintons/
Only a liberal could say in one breath that a donation made to the Clinton Foundation is not an endorsement for HRC as a presidential candydate.
:bsmeter:
-
This is a record for replies to a thread started by yours truly.