Is The 1/6 Commission Coming?

#29
#29
evillawyer said:
Click to expand...

Anyone for this is a moron. This will be used as support for taking more of our freedoms away and diverting more taxpayer money to prevent the common folk from interacting with our exalted Congress. The people calling Trump a wannabe dictator want your guns taken away, the Capitol fortified, and a system that will make it all but impossible to interact with them in person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood, Carl Pickens, AM64 and 1 other person
#38
#38
utvolpj said:
Theater of the absurd

Is there really anyone in the us willing to pay for this mess?
Click to expand...

We see this argument from the same crowd who caterwauled support for years of investigations into emails and Benghazi, all of which produced close to nothing. What a stinking out loud tribe of criminal hypocrites.
 
#40
#40
Vol Main said:
We see this argument from the same crowd who caterwauled support for years of investigations into emails and Benghazi, all of which produced close to nothing. What a stinking out loud tribe of criminal hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Also I'm pretty sure I acknowledged what benghazi was early on - a cia gun running op
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Orangeslice13, McDad and 1 other person
#42
#42
utvolpj said:
Also I'm pretty sure I acknowledged what benghazi was early on - a cia gun running op
Click to expand...
Mick was the first poster I saw who made that connection to me. Looks like that assertion has merit.

Btw, what happened to Mick?
 
#43
#43
McDad said:
Mick was the first poster I saw who made that connection to me. Looks like that assertion has merit.

Btw, what happened to Mick?
Click to expand...
We destroyed Libya to make it happen (those damn dove Dems right). The "ambassador" was cia and chosen by Hillary. There was no suppprt coming for Benghazi because that would have exposed the operation.

Based on posting history it appears he snapped one day. His choice to leave though
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Carl Pickens, ajvol01 and 1 other person
#45
#45
utvolpj said:
We destroyed Libya to make it happen (those damn dove Dems right). The "ambassador" was cia and chosen by Hillary. There was no suppprt coming for Benghazi because that would have exposed the operation.

Based on posting history it appears he snapped one day. His choice to leave though
Click to expand...

I looked into his claim. The details I remember support your claims. I did not know (or remember) the cia operative/ambassador was appointed by Hillary.
 
#46
#46
Vol Main said:
Not that it is important, but you appear to be confirming and denying.
Click to expand...
Confirming that our govt does dumb stuff and lies about it? Sure, I'll go with that

There should have been investigations into the complete destabilization of a sovereign nation. There should have been investigations into supplying arms to "moderate" Syrian rebel groups who surprisingly became isis. The investigation that was done was useless political theater
 
#48
#48
utvolpj said:
Confirming that our govt does dumb stuff and lies about it? Sure, I'll go with that

There should have been investigations into the complete destabilization of a sovereign nation. There should have been investigations into supplying arms to "moderate" Syrian rebel groups who surprisingly became isis. The investigation that was done was useless political theater
Click to expand...

Not that I entertain conviction that there were no transfers of arms from Libya to Syria, but my take on the intervention in Libya seems to differ from yours. Our primary mission there was to locate and eliminate nuclear and chemical weapon programs, as well as certain conventional weapons e.g. shoulder fired anti-air missiles. The Libyans absolutely refused consent for outside ground troops. So, the decision was made to limit our presence there to a high risk diplomatic mission. At the time, I voiced the opinion that a diplomatic mission in Libya without a small force of armored infantry would become a suicide mission, which it did. None of the Republicans in Congress objected to sending that mission.
 
#49
#49
Vol Main said:
Not that I entertain conviction that there were no transfers of arms from Libya to Syria, but my take on the intervention in Libya seems to differ from yours. Our primary mission there was to locate and eliminate nuclear and chemical weapon programs, as well as certain conventional weapons e.g. shoulder fired anti-air missiles. The Libyans absolutely refused consent for outside ground troops. So, the decision was made to limit our presence there to a high risk diplomatic mission. At the time, I voiced the opinion that a diplomatic mission in Libya without a small force of armored infantry would become a suicide mission, which it did. None of the Republicans in Congress objected to sending that mission.
Click to expand...
Sorry but our primary mission was to find and secure those terrible arms in a destabilized country. (Interesting that the US has used the same items to kill more people than Libya ever did)They also had the goal to supply them to Syrian groups we thought would serve us. An "ambassador" hand picked by Hillary would run it from benghazi. He just happened to be cia which I'm sure was merely a coincidence.

Vol Main said:
None of the Republicans in Congress objected to sending that mission.
Click to expand...
you post that like it would mean anything to me.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top