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

By Thursday December 3, 2009

I love how they just make this shit up.



35 Comments
  1. Alf says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  2. GigG says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  3. Jmrouse says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  4. FRAGaLOT says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  5. LibertyLover says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  6. Glass Half Full says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  7. Rabble Rouser says:
    12/3/2009 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?

    Reply
  8. Nitroneo says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  9. MikeN says:
    12/3/2009 at 9:31 am

    So where were we a ttacked from?

    Reply
  10. Dallas says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  11. FRAGaLOT says:
    12/3/2009 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?

    Reply
  12. FRAGaLOT says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  13. jescott418 says:
    12/3/2009 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?

    Reply
  14. sargasso says:
    12/3/2009 at 10:14 am

    He was better in Bruno.

    Reply
  15. Mercerch says:
    12/3/2009 at 10:22 am

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

    Reply
  16. LibertyLover says:
    12/3/2009 at 10:55 am

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

    Reply
  17. Mr. Fusion says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  18. spsffan says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply
  19. bill says:
    12/3/2009 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…

    Reply
  20. David says:
    12/3/2009 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.

    Reply

Newer Comments »

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 26537 access attempts in the last 7 days.