Treasonous John Kerry

#176
#176
AM64 said:
Wrong question. What crime haven't the Clintons been guilty of? Including the one that makes people uneasy about looking into the Clinton Crime Syndicate.
Click to expand...

Do you think the Clinton's were running a child trafficking ring out of the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor that has no basement?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#181
#181
Vol Main said:
Say something that isn't stupid. You posted the righteous indignation schtick, hatched from the too often lying radical, Darrell Issa. The Iranian FM allegedly said something about Israel in Syria, like nobody knows about or talks about Israeli military operations in Syria. Have you been living under a rock? And you run with the story all self righteously outraged before any evidence of authenticity or confirmation of wrong doing. You make a big stink from something you know nothing about or even if it happened in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Reports of Israeli operations in Syria have been on how many news programs, in how many newspapers and magazines, for how many months and years?
Click to expand...
Sounds exactly like 2016 - 2020 to me.
 
#182
#182
If it’s true Kerry doesn’t need to be concerned about what the US will do to him.
True or not, he’s compromised
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#187
#187
Vol Main said:
Do you think the Clinton's were running a child trafficking ring out of the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor that has no basement?
Click to expand...
No, but I think she was guilty of mishandling classified information. Why delete all those emails? Why destroy devices? I also think she's a morally bankrupt person, just as Trump is. And I think not sending reinforcement to Benghazi when requested was abhorrent. A crime? No. But abhorrent nonetheless. And we won't even get into her actions as First Lady.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#188
#188
Weezer said:
No, but I think she was guilty of mishandling classified information. Why delete all those emails? Why destroy devices? I also think she's a morally bankrupt person, just as Trump is. And I think not sending reinforcement to Benghazi when requested was abhorrent. A crime? No. But abhorrent nonetheless. And we won't even get into her actions as First Lady.
Click to expand...

The U.S. diplomats and civilian contractors in Libya knew when they agreed to the Libya mission that there was never going to be U.S. military reinforcements. That is the reason mercenaries were hired and walked in as civilian employees of the embassy. Everyone in the loop, including those in Congress who were briefed, knew that the mission was high risk. How is it that you do not seem to know that? I could correct the rest of your post, but I think I won't because I already wasted too much of my time posting with guys who swallow and regurgitate garbage news like an eating disorder.
 
#189
#189
Vol Main said:
The U.S. diplomats and civilian contractors in Libya knew when they agreed to the Libya mission that there was never going to be U.S. military reinforcements. That is the reason mercenaries were hired and walked in as civilian employees of the embassy. Everyone in the loop, including those in Congress who were briefed, knew that the mission was high risk. How is it that you do not seem to know that? I could correct the rest of your post, but I think I won't because I already wasted too much of my time posting with guys who swallow and regurgitate garbage news like an eating disorder.
Click to expand...
The embassy asked for but was denied reinforcements. Saying "they knew it was high risk" is you spewing the garbage you claim others do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and VolnJC
#190
#190
Weezer said:
The embassy asked for but was denied reinforcements. Saying "they knew it was high risk" is you spewing the garbage you claim others do.
Click to expand...

Reinforcements? The embassy had added to the private mercenary force, which already exceeded the agreement with the Libyans. What did you do before the mission was sent? My public position was that any State Dept. mission to Libya should be accompanied by at least a squad of armored infantry. The situation was that the Libyans refused entry to American ground force units. The choice was to send a diplomatic mission or no mission. If you did not object to that at the time, then you have no call to complain about what happened after the fact. Let me be clear, again, everybody knew the situation. I knew about it from information in public domain, before the mission was sent. I think Hillary pushed the mission, and it was very important because unlike Iraq after years of UN enforced disarmament, there were real WMD programs in Libya, some nuke programs and chemical weapons as well as unrecorded numbers of Russian shoulder fired anti-air missiles. The country was wide open, with some tribes willing to work with us. I don't know how much if any competence in foreign policy issues you might have, but I am not trying to do an act on you by saying that you do not appear to know this subject. I'm sorry that you are not able to distinguish what I'm telling you from the real garbage. Why would you pretend to know about an issue if you don't? There is no shame in saying you don't know much about it.
 
Last edited:
#191
#191
Vol Main said:
Reinforcements? The embassy had added to the private mercenary force, which already exceeded the agreement with the Libyans. What did you do before the mission was sent? My public position was that any State Dept. mission to Libya should be accompanied by at least a squad of armored infantry. The situation was that the Libyans refused entry to American ground force units. The choice was to send a diplomatic mission or no mission. If you did not object to that at the time, then you have no call to complain about what happened after the fact. Let me be clear, again, everybody knew the situation. I knew about it from information in public domain, before the mission was sent. I think Hillary pushed the mission, and it was very important because unlike Iraq after years of UN enforced disarmament, there were real WMD programs in Libya, some nuke programs and chemical weapons as well as unrecorded numbers of Russian shoulder fired anti-air missiles. The country was wide open, with some tribes willing to work with us. I don't know how much if any competence in foreign policy issues you might have, but I am not trying to do an act on you by saying that you do not appear to know this subject. I'm sorry that you are not able to distinguish what I'm telling you from the real garbage. Why would you pretend to know about an issue if you don't? There is no shame in saying you don't know much about it.
Click to expand...

You're rambling. Additional security was requested. More than once. And it was denied. The people in the embassy knew they were in danger and asked for help. The State Department refused. They wanted to keep a low profile. It was a choice. The State Department went against their own Overseas Security Policy Board standards to keep a low profile. It cost the ambassador and other Americans their lives.

Flashing Red-HSGAC Special Report final.pdf (gpo.gov)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Wireless1
#192
#192
Weezer said:
You're rambling. Additional security was requested. More than once. And it was denied. The people in the embassy knew they were in danger and asked for help. The State Department refused. They wanted to keep a low profile. It was a choice. The State Department went against their own Overseas Security Policy Board standards to keep a low profile. It cost the ambassador and other Americans their lives.

Flashing Red-HSGAC Special Report final.pdf (gpo.gov)
Click to expand...

how anyone can defend that steaming hot pile of garbage is beyond me. They left Americans to die for political reasons. I wish their security details would do the same and see how people react.

The security details allowed a mob to kill (fill in the blank with **** political figure name) and the national guard was requested but denied. It’s ok because they knew the risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, AM64, StarRaider and 1 other person
#195
#195
Vol Main said:
Reinforcements? The embassy had added to the private mercenary force, which already exceeded the agreement with the Libyans. What did you do before the mission was sent? My public position was that any State Dept. mission to Libya should be accompanied by at least a squad of armored infantry. The situation was that the Libyans refused entry to American ground force units. The choice was to send a diplomatic mission or no mission. If you did not object to that at the time, then you have no call to complain about what happened after the fact. Let me be clear, again, everybody knew the situation. I knew about it from information in public domain, before the mission was sent. I think Hillary pushed the mission, and it was very important because unlike Iraq after years of UN enforced disarmament, there were real WMD programs in Libya, some nuke programs and chemical weapons as well as unrecorded numbers of Russian shoulder fired anti-air missiles. The country was wide open, with some tribes willing to work with us. I don't know how much if any competence in foreign policy issues you might have, but I am not trying to do an act on you by saying that you do not appear to know this subject. I'm sorry that you are not able to distinguish what I'm telling you from the real garbage. Why would you pretend to know about an issue if you don't? There is no shame in saying you don't know much about it.
Click to expand...

Vol Main said:
The U.S. diplomats and civilian contractors in Libya knew when they agreed to the Libya mission that there was never going to be U.S. military reinforcements. That is the reason mercenaries were hired and walked in as civilian employees of the embassy. Everyone in the loop, including those in Congress who were briefed, knew that the mission was high risk. How is it that you do not seem to know that? I could correct the rest of your post, but I think I won't because I already wasted too much of my time posting with guys who swallow and regurgitate garbage news like an eating disorder.
Click to expand...

Bull-****ing-****.

You post up proof of that statement. Don't give me this "look it up it's in the public domain" crap. You give proof of that ****.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and StarRaider
#196
#196
Vol Main said:
The U.S. diplomats and civilian contractors in Libya knew when they agreed to the Libya mission that there was never going to be U.S. military reinforcements. That is the reason mercenaries were hired and walked in as civilian employees of the embassy. Everyone in the loop, including those in Congress who were briefed, knew that the mission was high risk. How is it that you do not seem to know that? I could correct the rest of your post, but I think I won't because I already wasted too much of my time posting with guys who swallow and regurgitate garbage news like an eating disorder.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe what you write? If you weren't defending Hillary and the Left's politics would you have the same opinion? Stevens was a US AMBASSADOR. We should have at a minimum evacuated him and his family, I get it that the "security detail" knew the risks but this thing spun up over several days so they had time to build a story and get him out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, W.TN.Orange Blood and StarRaider
#197
#197
Wireless1 said:
Do you really believe what you write? If you weren't defending Hillary and the Left's politics would you have the same opinion? Stevens was a US AMBASSADOR. We should have at a minimum evacuated him and his family, I get it that the "security detail" knew the risks but this thing spun up over several days so they had time to build a story and get him out.
Click to expand...
Stevens was a Hillary planted cia asset running guns out of a destabilized Libya into the hands of "moderate" rebels in Syria. To send in support would have exposed more which was never going to happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC and hog88
#198
#198
Wireless1 said:
Do you really believe what you write? If you weren't defending Hillary and the Left's politics would you have the same opinion? Stevens was a US AMBASSADOR. We should have at a minimum evacuated him and his family, I get it that the "security detail" knew the risks but this thing spun up over several days so they had time to build a story and get him out.
Click to expand...

The one question I haven't seen asked and have never heard explained is "why was the ambassador there to begin with".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Wireless1
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top