It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary's sinking ship

page: 7
47
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by milominderbinder
 





What a brilliant, educated, and erudite analysis of Hillary Clinton's performance as Secretary of State. I can tell that you are extremely well read and thoroughly educated on the subject. #sarcasm.


Who needs to analyze liars? Government doesn't care about people, they care about control of land and resources. #notsarcasm

Anyone who takes politics at face value is a moron.


Wow...the irony is incredible.

Whose "taking politics at face value"?

Oh wait...the guy whose "big zinger" is slamming a 64 year old woman for quite literally the appearance of her face.




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 





Whose "taking politics at face value"? Oh wait...the guy whose "big zinger" is slamming a 64 year old woman for quite literally the appearance of her face.


That was a small zinger, covered with chocolate and a nice cream filling... and it's WHO'S, not WHOSE in this case.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
'Mishandled' the Libyan embassy affair? How so?

1. Libya is only slowly getting stability. There are still battles to be won, and gadaffi's bootlickers brought to justice. In that difficult flux, intelligence operators on the ground are not having a holiday there to verify information. No State can operate upon speculation. Perhaps only Bush does.


2. When the attack on the embassy occurred, what credible and investigated information could be relayed by the Head of State to the People at that moment? NOTHING but the truth - and that a stupid video caused a massive uprising at both embassies in Egypt and Libya.

Anything else would be speculation, but responsible govts DO NOT SPECULATE when murders had taken place. There must be evidences, or else, things might spin out of control and next thing you know, troops and war planes sent off to a foreign land where american soil had been trampled upon and sons slaughtered.

Fortunately Romney or the GOP was not the President or in charge, otherwise we will be watching the conquest of Libya by american troops, another vietnam styled tragedy.


3. Some and the GOP blamed SOS Hillary for not heeding the warnings by the brave ambassador Chris Stevens for more security.

Do remember that the nations involved were determined not to put boots on ground, but to support the courageous libyan rebels seeking freedom to fight on their own with arms and air cover by UN. Freedom cannot be bestowed upon by others, but won by one's own blood for it to be cherish and protected for eternity.

Thus, the State Dept was wise not to increase the security staff levels there, but adviced caution during the interim period.

How many security staff would be needed? This the GOP and the blood screamers failed to mentioned. They know they will fail on this point.

Look at the amount of militants that overpowered the libyan guard detail and spec ops officers in the embassy. Estimated 100 of them. Under standared military ratio norm, it must always have a 3 to 1 plan, meaning 3 americans to 1 enemy, inorder to be effective and CREDIBLE.

That would effectively put a staggering THREE HUNDRED - 300 marines there to guard one embassy alone. A battalion plus size unit.

Is America to send always a BATTALION size marine unit to every embassy, etc 200 of them, in our world? Afterall, no one knows when and how the militants will next strike.

So now, who's being ridiculous?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
So no one has anything for the Bush argument eh? Thousands of American's dead because of him, countless numbers of civilians dead because of his 'war on terror'. Nah why talk about that, that would require common sense something many conservatives don't have. Nothing to see here people, just read my post and be an idiot along with me, it works! I promise.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
A Paul Ryan led committee slashed funding for US Embassy Security by $330 million, and now Paul Ryan blames failures in embassy security on the Obama administration?

This is the sort of thing that happens when you massively slash funding across the board.

Paul Ryan isn't man enough to step up to the plate and admit that possibly, just possibly, he made a mistake.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
So no one has anything for the Bush argument eh? Thousands of American's dead because of him, countless numbers of civilians dead because of his 'war on terror'. Nah why talk about that, that would require common sense something many conservatives don't have. Nothing to see here people, just read my post and be an idiot along with me, it works! I promise.


Well if Obama wasn't such a communister, they wouldn't have attacked us
On 9/11. Bush kept America safe and Obama made all them people to die
On that day.

(Does it sound dumb enough?)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by newcovenant

What are you even complaining about?
If we could second guess these events we would not have such problems.


So let's say you are in charge... You have a Consulate in probably one of the most dangerous spots on the planet. You keep security at a minimum, the Ambassador asks for more, pleads for more security, you keep it still at the minimum it can be.

911 is coming and you do not see any warnings that just maybe that date is kind of special, you still keep security at a minimum. After everyone is dead the Administration goes on a world tour denouncing the video and doesn't go in to secure the site for 10 days.

The question is if this was you did you fail?



Yes and he said he was responsible. Do you want a public flogging?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


The Democrats were pushing for war with Iraq long before Bush took office. Where is the indignation toward them? Where is the blame for their actions/statements?



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
Yes and he said he was responsible. Do you want a public flogging?


Pictures or it didn't happen.....How many times in how many areas can Obama fail and get a pat on the back with a "better luck next time".

So he was seriously inept in this or he lied..which one was it?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Once Hillary became Sec. of State she made a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations.

She got in trouble because she spilled the beans. She said she was going to copy her husbands "Quadrennial Defense Review" tactic of firing employees in DOD and using the freed up money abroad to buy people/countries off....she said she was copying that and doing a "Quadrennial Review" in the State Department and firing employees/services so the freed up money could be used abroad.

Hillary killed that Ambassador with her actions. The Clintons have been the destroyers of the American middle class.

Why she isn't on trial yet puzzles me. Her first speech to the Council on Foreign Relations would be "Exhibit A" for the trial.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Never said I was protecting you. I said I was doing a job that was created to do that. Doesn't mean that is what it is still for. And sitting their doing nothing about the situation is worse than being a so called goon/tool doing those things you said I was doing.

reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Actually, I did quite well. What I did pretty much was boost the moral of people who didn't want to be there in the first place. I'm sorry that my helping my fellow troops have lengthy conversations with their families or browse sites like social networking and personal email (which were all blocked) destroyed a country.

reply to post by NoJoker13
 


Bush was damn near crucified by those who called him out. But he is no longer in office and no longer relevant save for being an example.
edit on 10/25/12 by Echo3Foxtrot because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
47
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join