The GOP has so many great ideas that they resort to....

Then... in the Hillary face lift thread... Post #33.. I posted this..

You are right, I did not believe your post. You have no proofs and I at least tried with a proof. Just being a conservative site does not make it a lie.

Just where are the liberal news folks and publishing the proofs that this information is just a lie?
 

You are right, I did not believe your post. You have no proofs and I at least tried with a proof. Just being a conservative site does not make it a lie.



Town Hall is "Proof" My CBS News post is Not.. ok Bob...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-investigating-security-of-hillary-clintons-emails/

Again.. BOB... the FBI is only investigating the email security and if there is a possibility that there was a breach... there is NO criminal investigation going on.. except in the minds of the always hopeful Right wing... Hillary is NOT going to jail Bob.. get over it.
 

Town Hall is "Proof" My CBS News post is Not.. ok Bob...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-investigating-security-of-hillary-clintons-emails/

Again.. BOB... the FBI is only investigating the email security and if there is a possibility that there was a breach... there is NO criminal investigation going on.. except in the minds of the always hopeful Right wing... Hillary is NOT going to jail Bob.. get over it.

Your CBS is several days older than what I posted and it does refer to the FBI investigating the Hillary situation. So what is your proof that the FBI is not looking into Hillary's actions? None at all. Hillary is under investigation by the FBI and they are now expanding it into security of the units she had used.
 
Nope Bob... NO investigation of Hillary...


http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/there-is-no-fbi-investigation-of-hillary-clinton/22894/

Now that Hillary Clinton has emerged from eleven hours of Benghazi and email testimony unscathed, and the supposed scandal appears to have been all put to bed in the minds of the American mainstream, some republican candidates and conservative voters alike are still saying “Just wait for the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton to play out.” Here’s the catch: there is no FBI investigation of Clinton. In fact there never was one. And the FBI has publicly said as much.



The FBI is running a wide reaching investigation into whether the private email servers that were installed by Hillary Clinton and her predecessors Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were more secure than the official email server at the State Department. This requires examining the servers in question, which is why all three Secretaries of State were asked to provide their servers for testing. Thus far only Clinton has obliged. If any charges were to be filed, they would be against hackers. In such case Clinton would be classified as the victim of a crime. In other words, the FBI is running an investigation on her behalf, not an investigation into her. And that’s not merely my view.


For its part, the FBI confirmed to the New York Times back in August that Hillary Clinton “is not a target of the investigation.” Republicans in congress tacitly confirmed this today by not trying to play up the angle of the FBI supposedly charging with Clinton with some kind of imagined crime, because they know that no such thing is on the table.

On the other hand, several republican candidates for President are making this false claim in the hopes that it may help them in their primary race, even while knowing that they’ll eventually look foolish once the FBI investigation concludes and the agency once again confirms that it was never an investigation of Clinton. In the mean time, any republican voters who are still clinging to their ‘FBI will put Hillary in prison” theory are relying on what can only be described as false hope based in factually-disproven fiction.
 

I rather liked the CBS article that the FBI was investigating the server that Hillary was using. Her server, her responsibility, her problem. FBI is not really concerned about Hillary? I believe that is the problem. We really do not know what the FBI will end up doing. And that is what I keep posting. Until this is closed by the FBI we will not know one way or the other. If not challenged then Hillary is home free. FBI does not move with wishful thinking. They will only say one way or the other after the case is closed. It is not over yet.
 
Until this is closed by the FBI we will not know one way or the other. If not challenged then Hillary is home free. FBI does not move with wishful thinking. They will only say one way or the other after the case is closed. It is not over yet.

If... IF the FBI investigation ends and Secretary Clinton is cleared of criminal wrongdoing, the case is NOT "closed". How many Benghazi investigations found nothing, yet another and another and another were initiated by the right wing. The GOP won't let this rest. They will continue their incessant protocol of grabbing every opportunity to bolster their own political egos while tearing down the character of one who has spent many years in service to our Country. The right wing media blood-suckers will continue to sermonize about this and their minions will believe a Hannity, Beck, or Limbaugh over any FBI investigation. I would not be surprised to see the Republican Congress form yet another committee to begin yet another Benghazi investigation to spend yet another few million tax dollars on a witch hunt. Sad, but that is how today's Republican Party conducts themselves. Heck... they even eat their own!!!!
 
Your CBS is several days older than what I posted and it does refer to the FBI investigating the Hillary situation. So what is your proof that the FBI is not looking into Hillary's actions? None at all. Hillary is under investigation by the FBI and they are now expanding it into security of the units she had used.
Beat that dead horse some more....millions of dollars spent on 13 investigations and hearings by republicans....Nothing, nothing nothing....more hearings than Watergate....four died in Benghazi...over 5,000 died in Iraq and over 50,000 lost arms and legs...in a war started with lies about yellow cake....and claims that Iraq was involved with 9/11...it's a con job.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=yhs-mozilla-004&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004
 
Why do we always blame Bush for the Iraq war. It was an extension of the earlier UN watch over Iraq and the first efforts to contain Saddam. A British General help organize and get it going using that first UN effort to keep going after Saddam. Gen Sir Mike Jackson was his name.

Now yes, Bush was part of that effort to restart the military, as was the British leader of those days, and several other countries from around the world also joined in and it is really hard to prove that it was only Bush who caused all the problems. Those numbers killed were not all from the military action of those years of containment. There was a Shia and Sunni religious civil war going on as well. How many people was Saddam killing every year as part of his dictator fun? It alone was sizable and horrible in itself. We should never have left the area so quickly. We should have stayed on and watched their newly designed government get settled in. Much like we did in many of the areas in Europe after the big WWII ended. Maybe then we could have kept those Iranian radicals from moving around and disturbing areas in the middle east area with their killing mobs and radical terrorist ways.

That area could also have been left alone and we never entered into Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the middle east. Just not true or fair to always blame Bush and the conservatives for the Iraq war. Many of the liberal in the US also felt it was right to do.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pr...w_York/Hillary_Clinton/Views/The_War_in_Iraq/

Hillary Clinton on The War in Iraq

Last Updated : Jan 24, 2011

Summary

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's view on the war on Iraq evolved throughout her time in the US Senate. The best possible description of that view is that it has adjusted to become whatever was necessary to achieve the next political or electoral victory.

In 2002, Senator Clinton voted in favor of the authorization to use force in Iraq. In addition to this vote, Senator Clinton gave a 20 minute speech in which she stated that Saddaam Hussein was rebuilding his WMD stockpile, pursuing nuclear weapons, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists. She stated that left unchecked, he would continue to do this and would likely destabilize the middle east which would affect American security.

By June of 2003, Senator Clinton was beginning to voice concern that the information that she was presented with had been altered or cherry-picked to provide a picture that the Bush administration wanted everyone to see. However, in December of 2003, Senator Clinton spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations the day after Saddaam Hussein was captured and noted that she supported giving President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq and that she felt this was the right vote. By April of 2004, Senator Clinton was stating that while she did not regret giving the President the authority to use force, she did feel that the administration was not prepared for the aftermath and that he cut off attempts by inspectors.

(More)
 

Hillary says you are wrong.

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/10/ill...ma_“failure”_to_intervene_in_syria_civil_war/


Sunday, Aug 10, 2014 09:40 AM -0700 Hillary Clinton blames rise of ISIS on Obama “failure” to intervene in Syria civil war

The likely future presidential candidate also argues criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza stem from anti-Semitism

Elias Isquith

During a long and in-depth interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, former secretary of state and likely future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton distanced herself from President Obama’s foreign policy, implying the Islamist extremist group ISIS would not be so powerful had the president listened to her advice and thrown American power more forcefully behind “moderate” Syrian rebel forces.


“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.


Clinton was known at the time to support a larger American investment in the Syrian civil war, and reiterated her belief that not doing so was a mistake in her recently released book about her time as secretary of state, “Hard Choices.”
 
The way I read it, Clinton was only discussing differences in how to stop Isis. She didn't say that the Bush decision in Iraq didn't cause ISIS. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point Bob, of course I don't know what your strong point would be.
 
The way I read it, Clinton was only discussing differences in how to stop Isis. She didn't say that the Bush decision in Iraq didn't cause ISIS. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point Bob, of course I don't know what your strong point would be.

Some one confused, it seems to be you Jim. The article says ------ During a long and in-depth interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, former secretary of state and likely future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton distanced herself from President Obama’s foreign policy, implying the Islamist extremist group ISIS would not be so powerful had the president listened to her advice and thrown American power more forcefully behind “moderate” Syrian rebel forces.

That is what I was supporting. Obama was not doing what he could have done to help keep the Isis less dangerous.

I will also look for more as I am not sure what you are implying has any merit either.
 
For the one that fails to see any truth.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/origin-isis_804002.html?page=1
On the Origin of ISIS

Why has a terrorist state blossomed in Syria and Iraq?

Sep 8, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 48 • By HUSSAIN ABDUL-HUSSAIN and LEE SMITH

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the terrorist army many thousand strong now rampaging through the Levant, embraces such an extreme, violent ideology that it makes even al Qaeda squeamish, argue many Western experts. On this reading, al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri was forced to distance himself from ISIS’s bloody practices. In reality, the notion that ISIS’s gory campaign turns the stomach even of an arch-terrorist, America’s public enemy number one, is colorful but inaccurate.

Now on page 3

What’s most extraordinary about the Middle East at present isn’t ISIS and the rest of the Sunni rebellion. Rather, it’s the Obama administration’s inability to formulate a policy that would protect American interests by pushing back against Iran’s project for the region. Instead, the White House is squared off against traditional American allies in a way we’ve never seen before—with the Sunnis now galvanized by a 4,000-year-old tribal code and led by a caliph.
.............................

Most of this article is about how Isis became and how it has been allowed to grow into what it is today. Bush was attempting to find al Queda and stop their leader. Not completed prior to Obama and Obama got credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden. It appears that Isis was mostly a result of some of Iran's wild ways, some happening while Bush still had troops in Iraq. Not much at that time, but now a different story completely. We do have some real worries now for sure.
 
Here we go again, this time it's the weekly standard, home to the far right writers (like William Kristol etal). Don't you ever read anything that is mainstream Bob?
 
Here is another version of how Isis was born. CBS is not a far right news source. Nothing in here about Bush started Isis at all. Just as in the previous artical, it is a circumstance of the Iraq war times, not a creation at all. Get a life Jim. Get off you far left only ideas. They are not all facts or desired by the people of the US either. All we have any more is Party Politics and not true democracy as we should have.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-origins-of-isis-finding-the-birthplace-of-jihad/

By Clarissa Ward CBS News November 4, 2014, 7:52 PM
[h=1]The origins of ISIS: Finding the birthplace of jihad[/h]
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seemed to come from nowhere as it grabbed territory in Iraq and Syria.
But where did it start?


CBS News traced ISIS back to a U.S. military prison.
Play Video
[h=3]Campaigning for ISIS in the West[/h]

Camp Bucca was known as the largest, and one of the toughest, American prisons in Iraq.
As a vicious insurgency raged across the country, Bucca's numbers swelled.


But there is growing evidence that the sprawling prison was also the birthplace of ISIS.


According to a CBS News investigation, at least 12 of the top leaders of ISIS served time at Camp Bucca, including the man who would become the group's leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. CBS News obtained photos of 10 of them in Bucca's yellow prison jumpsuits.
Play Video
[h=3]Execution shows ISIS's harsh treatment of women[/h]

At the time, few predicted that Baghdadi would become one of the world's most wanted men. He spent 10 months at Camp Bucca for an unknown crime. But during his time there, he would have rubbed shoulders with some of the most dangerous Islamic extremists.


"I think it's undeniable that one of the main causes of ISIS's explosive growth after 2010 was Bucca. It's where they met, it's where they planned," said Patrick Skinner.


Skinner is with the Soufan Group and was a former CIA case officer who spent time in Iraq.
"Everybody could see what was happening but nobody could do anything about it," Skinner said.
10 Photos
[h=3]Ex-U.S. detainees now ISIS leaders[/h]

U.S. officials who worked at Bucca told us they were concerned that prisoners were becoming radicalized. The prison has been described as "a pressure cooker for extremism."


And that wasn't the only problem. It was at Bucca that an unexpected and powerful alliance was formed between the Islamic extremists and the Ba'athists loyal to Saddam Hussein, who were angry at losing power.


"You put them together and you get a mixing of organized military discipline with highly motivated, highly active ideological fervor, and the result is what we see have today," Skinner said. "I mean, there were other circumstances, but the toxic brew of Bucca started this recipe."


The U.S. set up a rehabilitation program at Bucca to try to combat extremism, but some who worked there have said that it wasn't implemented effectively.


At the time, Iraq was in a state of complete chaos. There were 100,000 prisoners in the country, and the U.S. was completely focused on the insurgency -- they weren't necessarily thinking of the future.

© 2014 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 

Back
Top