You dont need to quote every post in the conversation you're having over and over
Example:
THIS
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
As usual you are full of shit.
Hillary was the loudest voice in the room for removing Gaddafi and is the one who pushed the administration towards that path.
You can thank her when North Korea says they will never give up their nuclear weapons as the Kim family doesn't want to end up like Gaddafi and his family.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nation ... 33a1bb7ec6
Unlike you, I actually read my sources and post ones which back my claim, rather than contradict it.
-------
"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon and others were against military action, contending that the United States had no clear national interests at stake and that operations could last far longer and cost more lives than anyone anticipated.
But Clinton joined U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice and White House adviser Samantha Power in pressing Obama to back a U.S.- and NATO-led military campaign, arguing that the United States could not let Gaddafi butcher his citizens.
Obama sided with Clinton’s argument, and three days later, on March 17, the U.N. Security Council passed a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians. U.S. warplanes immediately destroyed Libya’s air defenses before turning the operation over to NATO, which continued strikes until Gaddafi was captured and killed in October.
Clinton has pointed to the international military operation as a signature moment in her four-year tenure as the top U.S. diplomat: “No one else could have played the role we did,” she wrote in her book “Hard Choices,” adding that acting with European and Arab allies helped “prevent what might have been the loss of tens of thousands of lives.”
Hillary was the loudest voice in the room for removing Gaddafi and is the one who pushed the administration towards that path.
You can thank her when North Korea says they will never give up their nuclear weapons as the Kim family doesn't want to end up like Gaddafi and his family.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nation ... 33a1bb7ec6
Unlike you, I actually read my sources and post ones which back my claim, rather than contradict it.
-------
"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon and others were against military action, contending that the United States had no clear national interests at stake and that operations could last far longer and cost more lives than anyone anticipated.
But Clinton joined U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice and White House adviser Samantha Power in pressing Obama to back a U.S.- and NATO-led military campaign, arguing that the United States could not let Gaddafi butcher his citizens.
Obama sided with Clinton’s argument, and three days later, on March 17, the U.N. Security Council passed a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians. U.S. warplanes immediately destroyed Libya’s air defenses before turning the operation over to NATO, which continued strikes until Gaddafi was captured and killed in October.
Clinton has pointed to the international military operation as a signature moment in her four-year tenure as the top U.S. diplomat: “No one else could have played the role we did,” she wrote in her book “Hard Choices,” adding that acting with European and Arab allies helped “prevent what might have been the loss of tens of thousands of lives.”
Equivocation to follow.
so true
I read that before and of course Gates and Obama would try and distance themselves now. Sec of States do not set policy.
It is well supported by the record of the discussions at the time that Hillary was the loudest voice for the intervention within the administration. Gates was strongly opposed and Obama was on the fence. He ended up supporting it after being swayed by Hillary.
Just about every source within the administration supports this as being the case and Hillary touted it herself when she thought she could still point to Libya as a political win for her.
Face it, you're full of shit.
More sources, this time the NYT. I'm sure they were just trying to make Hillary look bad though to help the Republicans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/p ... libya.html
She could have had a damn bullhorn on and yelled from the top of Sears Tower and the call as to intervention would still be Obama's. She got it wrong but it is still Obama's call.
NEW POST HERE THAT GOES UNREAD
Could be this and no one would miss anything
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
She could have had a damn bullhorn on and yelled from the top of Sears Tower and the call as to intervention would still be Obama's. She got it wrong but it is still Obama's call.
Nice evasion. Tell us, does Obama bomb Libya if Hillary is opposed to the intervention as Gates was? Given his decision to stay out of Syria (which BTW 2013's chem weapon attack was with Kerry as SecState,not Hillary) I'd say he does not get involved in Libya without Hillary in his ear demanding it.
Hillary nailed this one to herself when she spent years touting it as a success. You can lie and spin all you want, but she owns this one more than anyone else. Her own words on the record make sure of that.
Of course you're free to do whatever you want, but for me, the quotes like that just make me less likely to read your actual new post.
Thank you and K-dot Bless America