Hillary Clinton: we were attacked from Afghanistan. Ron Paul: that’s bull.

Published on December 3rd, 2009

Posted by Jacob Galt in Politics, Scams, Video

I love how they just make this shit up.

35 users responded in " Hillary Clinton: we were attacked from Afghanistan. Ron Paul: that’s bull. "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Alf said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 8:25 am

Excuse the rant.

The military industrial complex thrives on war. They and their lobbyists continue their sin against the United States and humanity.

The lobbyists pay (off) for war with the blood of children. We can’t win and we can’t stop playing. This is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

# 2 GigG said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 am

I never thought I’d write or say this but Hillary didn’t say a thing that wasn’t 100% true in that clip.

# 3 Jmrouse said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 am

Fact is Obama said over and over again when he was running for President that he would continue the fight in Afghanistan if elected. No one, Liberal or Conservative should be surprised about all this.

# 4 FRAGaLOT said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am

#2 Umm that didn’t make sense, since you used a double negative. Are you saying Hillary was telling the the truth, or just didn’t say anything that was an all-out lie (i.e. miss-information).

After all, that’s what politicians do; talk rhetoric all day and make it sound like they are saying something meaningful.

Only Ron Paul seems to have the balls to say anything that resembles truth about this world, but even he isn’t giving us the whole story, or he will end up getting two shots to the head.

# 5 LibertyLover said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 am

The original draft of the Constitution had Wage War in it. The founding fathers changed it to Declaration for a reason. By making the declaration, you are stating that a state of war currently exists between us and somebody else.

It’s easy to play politics and pass the blame when you aren’t on record as voting for the war.

# 6 Glass Half Full said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 am

#4 I like conspiracy theories as much as the next person, but they’re 99.9% nonsense. Conspiracy theories are precisely the mental effect as religion. They’re both tools used by our brains that seek to take chaotic events and overlay a human cause/understanding so that we have context for them and can feel somewhat safe that there is an ‘order’ to things meaning we can (potentially) control our environment. Finding a pattern in the static is what our brains do, whether we even want to do it. It allows us to function. But don’t confuse this evolutionary mental trait with the truth.

That aside, Ron Paul is like Dennis Kucinich, right 70% of the time, nutty 30% of the time, but problem is most people confuse which is the correct and which is the nutty moments.

# 7 Rabble Rouser said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 am

Please don’t mix Kucinich and Paul into the same container. They are far from the same.

Both are often correct. Paul has a lot of nutty “Libertarian” times, but I cannot see one thing that Kucinich is “nutty” about.

Kucinich also spoke out against the escalation. There are two videos on his website here: http://kucinich.us/

There are others who know that Afghanistan is another boondoggle. Rep. Hinchey spoke out this past week, after the Senate report that we could have caught bin Laden in Tora Bora, had the higher ups in the military not told troops to pull back.

So though, if he is even alive, bin Laden is probably still in Afghanistan, reports state that there are no more than 100 Taliban there. It shouldn’t take long to root them out with nearly 100,000 troops.

Oh, and for the record, most of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, and were funded by Saudis. So when are we going after them?

# 8 Nitroneo said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 am

Taliban = wiki/Taliban

Al Qaeda = wiki/Al-Qaeda

Keep reading, she is starting up support for a run into Pakistan if we are so hard set against the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda

Oh yea and she also forgot to mention the proof they requested before turning over Al Qaeda…

There is also the fact that 9/11 attackers were (15) from Saudi Arabia, (2) from the United Arab Emirates, (1) from Egypt, and (1) from Lebanon. Where are the Afghanistan citizens who attacked us on this date?

Vote this war drumming woman and her fellow bullies out of office for once and all please. And yes I do realize her CURRENT position appointed.

# 9 MikeN said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 9:31 am

So where were we a ttacked from?

# 10 Dallas said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 am

Ron is a great guy but he should be selling high quality popcorn.

He should not push on areas he evidently has lost track of – like what country gave Al Qaeda safe haven.

# 11 FRAGaLOT said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am

#6 I love the similarities you point out with conspiracies and religion. We just want to make sense of the world, weather or not there’s wickedness (conspiracies) or goodness (religion) behind it. Now I’m starting to believe there’s nothing behind any of it. It just is what it is.

There’s a word for that isn’t there? Existentialism?

# 12 FRAGaLOT said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 am

#9 we were not attacked by a diffrent country, nor particular government. If anything you could say we were attacked by a religous sect, but the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks are more political (i.e. money) than religious.

Al-Qaeda/Teliban used their religion to label Americans as evil, so that they can (try too) use their millions of Muslims followers as an army to fight a jihad (holy war).

Al-Qaeda/Teliban exists all over the world (as cells.) It’s an organization, not a government body singularity occupying a single country they call home. Afganistan maybe… but if we completely anniliated Afghanistan with nukes, Al-Qaeda/Teliban would still exist elsewhere.

I think the problem lies with the Constitution only stating we can declare war on another country, not a organized group. The Constitution was written when we got around on horses and wagons. Long before mass transportation we have now, where people can live anywhere and change location at a drop of a hat.

# 13 jescott418 said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am

I think the question is should we have invaded Afghanistan and attempt to instill a Democratic government. Or should we have simple gone after the Terrorists and left the country to decide its fate? Or is this type of military operation inpossible to win? Even now the added troops admittedly will only lesson the amount of resistance and not eliminate. Are we stupid enough to think they will not rebuild after we leave. Or is the Amercian people stupid enough to be convinced we will leave?

# 14 sargasso said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am

He was better in Bruno.

# 15 Mercerch said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 am

Exactly what was bull in that clip? Clinton was accurate and direct in her response.

# 16 LibertyLover said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am

#12, I still think Letters of Marque would solve a lot of these problems.

# 17 Mr. Fusion said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am

Clinton was quite correct in her assessment. But what the hay, another trolling headline to gain hits. In fairness to the usual adversaries, several have agreed with Clinton and I give them credit for that.

Paul’s problem is he wants to simplify something that was already simple.

Al Quaeda was an approved and protected organization in Afghanistan. The government there refused to turn over the admitted leaders of AQ. (Afghanistan is not a homogeneous, one race state; AQ is a like minded religious group which was more important than race to the Taliban.)

The nationality of the participants is irrelevant as none of their governments approved of their actions.

# 18 spsffan said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 am

The question wasn’t what country gave Al-Qaeda a safe haven. Secretary Clinton said that we were attached “from” Afghanistan.

We were attached “from” Logan Airport by people “from” Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt and UAE.

When Paul called her on it with “We were never attacked by an Afghani”, she replied “That’s not true.”

Call it nit picky if you want, but this is the Secretary of State of the United States of America, speaking to members of the Congress of the United States. It’s not a high school debating team. This is real, and it matters. Wars have been started over smaller stuff.

# 19 bill said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am

The US invades from the West, and India invades from the East..

No more Pakistan.

Then we give Pakistan/Afghanistan to India.

You heard it here first…

# 20 David said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am

The apologists tell us we invaded Afghanistan because they were giving “safe haven” to Al-Qaeda. Eight years down the road, we can’t catch the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan either, so are we giving them a “safe haven” too? The reality is the Afghans had no way of catching Bin Laden either. The Bush administration had agreed on a plan to remove the Taliban before September 11th, 2001. That is 100% fact. The September 11th attacks just gave them the justification that they needed to invade Afghanistan.

# 21 Dallas said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 am

#20 The apologists tell us we invaded Afghanistan because they were giving “safe haven” to Al-Qaeda.

That’s correct. We invaded the country responsible for sponsoring terror on the US. Do you have a problem with that? What did you expect our government to do? Sit back and tell the world we’re a pussy? I certainly expected a response from Bush and he did.

# 22 David said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm

If terrorists are hiding in your country, then you’re “sponsoring” them? I guess we’ll be invading Pakistan any time now. Would we have been a “pussy” if we came up with a more intelligent and strategically coherent plan for curbing terrorism?

# 23 Aaron_W said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm

We invaded and killed or captured the people responsible for 9/11. Why are we still there? Oh I forgot $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Hope Obama enjoys his term, when we are still there in 6 figure numbers in 2012 and after his health care sellout to the insurance industry I don’t see the left supporting him in large enough quantity.

# 24 Cursor_ said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm

The issue of Al-Qaeda operating from Afhanistan and thereby the fight had to be taken to them there is the very same issue of the Barbary Coast.

There pirates were finding safe haven from the rulers of those lands. The rulers of those lands were reaping a reward from the activities of the pirates.

The Taliban was in power at the time and reaping monetary benefits for their allowance of the training camps.

Now I am NOT at all excusing the government for what it has done. As it SHOULD have come back into Afghanistan after the Soviets exited. We should have re-built the infrastructure, helped in rebuilding their republic as payment for the covert war they waged against the Soviets on our behalf.

We trained and supplied them for war, we should have finished the job in peace.

IF we have enacted a Marshall Plan style rebuilding there, we would have had a stable ally in the region. And would have limited, if not totally, prevented Al-Qaeda as a threat to the US.

The cost then would have been much less than the current cost of allowing it to fester into an open wound.

The US has made this mistake over and over. Will we ever learn?

Cursor_

# 25 Dallas said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm

#23. They weren’t just hiding, they were in collusion with the government. Seems like a justifiable action to invade.

I’m not sure your suggested “I’m a pussy” response would have been the right action. The issue is that Bush totally went on a different tangent.

# 26 tbarrey said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 pm

#17. I agree with Mr. Fusion…we should kill all of those fucking Afgahnis, I dont give a shit how many youg people get their arms and legs blown off. Fuck them too. A long as we get every last towelhead, then we can move on to Iran, and Pakistan, and I can enjoy my Christmas turkey in my Snuggy.

# 27 Mr. Fusion said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm

#26, tbarry said,

I’m a fucking troll.

No argument. Anyone wanting to see our military injured or killed is just a little tilted.

# 28 tbarrey said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm

That’s right Mr. Fusion. You da man. Hey, lets say you and me join the Marine Corpse…c’mon, you and me man, we can kill us some Muslim Mothufuckers.

# 29 Greg Allen said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm

NEVER EVER let conservatives fight your wars — they always fight past wars, not the current one.

There is no “front” in the war on terror — the conservatives could never get their mind around and it’s no surprise they bungled so horribly.

Although I want us out of Afghanistan, I am comforted by the fact that Obama is smart and pays attention. This is in such stark contrast to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

# 30 brm said, on December 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 pm

#29:

“There is no “front” in the war on terror”

Seems like the front is Afghanistan. What exactly do you mean?

# 31 Paper Boats said, on December 4th, 2009 at 5:37 am

Did I hear that right, Hillary said we were attacked then explained it by saying Al Kida didn’t hand over Bin Lad N.

That seems to be two different things. Being attacked is not the same as not handing over.

Thus, if I heard that right, Clinton is wrong, Paul is right, we were never attacked by Afghanistan. She also didn’t answer the question that Paul put forth brilliantly, that we are now following the Bush doctrine of preventive war “attack first” which is like absurd when these people were against torture, now they say go kill people, what, Hillary, you think that’s better than waterboarding? Paul got them right in a pickle, how can they admit to Bush policy being exactly what they are doing, yet that is exactly what they are doing.

# 32 Nitroneo said, on December 4th, 2009 at 5:40 am

wrong… we were not attacked from Afghanistan.

Hillary using this “quote” is a direct plagiarism from the Presidents speech. And the President was wrong when he made that claim in front of West Point.

If we were to attack all the nations harboring Al Qaeda it would be the start of another world war. We would also have to attack within our own country.

War drumming fear mongering… what change.

# 33 Mr. Fusion said, on December 4th, 2009 at 7:46 am

The wing nuts are back

# 34 GetSmart said, on December 4th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

We’ve still got a lot of conventional ordnance that’s near or past it’s expiration date. Let’s just blow every piece of infrastructure more complicated than a mud hut or goat path all to hell, declare victory and get the fuck out. Screw this “nation building” claptrap, it’s too damn far from the 3rd Century BCE until the 21st Century to attempt anyways. This way, we won’t look weak and indecisive to any other group of would be terrorists. We’ll look violently psychotic and vindictive. They’ll certainly understand THAT. Might make them think twice before they blow up any more of our shit. And it’ll give them something else to worry about, rebuilding and all.

# 35 Lee E. Stevens said, on December 4th, 2009 at 7:19 pm

While Obama said he would press on with the War in Afghanastan he promised fundamental change across the board.
Yet we see none in the DOD ,he kept on Bushs’ man, and praised all concerned for an absolutely terrible job of command and control. Nine years later we are no closer to getting Osama then when we went their at first. We refuse to send troops into Pakistan. So all Osama has to do is wait us out. While we spend billions we don’t have to run up even more debt that will either ruin the dollar or cause major stagflation.
Obama just doesn’t get it. he is BLOWING IT! He will be the next 1 term Jimmy Carter and God only knows who we will get next probably some luke warm Calvin Colledge wanna be.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!