US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been on television condemning the attack that killed four Americans including the US ambassador in Libya and asked the question 'How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?'
Sit down Hillary and i will tell you.
You see, what you did last year when you removed Gaddafi was replace him with murderous thugs, even your boss said: 'Among all the people who are opposed to Qaddafi, there might not be elements that are friendly to the United States' and the Canadians warned that the people you were teaming up with were the same ones you were fighting against in Iraq.
U.S. Admiral James Stavridis, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, said there were 'flickers of al-Qaeda in the Libyan opposition' and former CIA officer Bruce Riedel said: "There is no question that al Qaeda's Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition'
So the people you liberated and armed turned out to be religious fundamentalists who have very little sympathy for you, the West or Democracy. That's how that happened Hillary but you knew that anyway didn't you.
15 comments:
Lucy, talking to Shrillery would be the same as talking to a brick wall.
Her mind, in common with most American politicians and members of the Executive Government, is filled with American derangement about how exceptional they and their country are.
Will they ever escape their derangement? The world hopes they will but is not holding its breath!
Romney's again revealing himself to be as shallow as a pool of piss when it comes to international affairs. In his speech following the attack he three times referred to "our embassy at Benghazi, Libya". To state the obvious, embassies only exist in capital cities... so either Romney isn't aware of this fact, or he thinks that Benghazi is the capital of Libya. Either way... ouch... he's not looking notably more qualified for the top job than Dubya was at the same stage.
I think Republican voters must be feeling the same as Labour voters when Ed Milliband was elected leader of the Labour Party. A real 'can we choose again please' feeling.
not really lucy,
for republicans this won't be a vote for romney, it will be a vote against obama
q
Q - I think you've got a point in terms of most voters these days (in both our countries) vote against something/someone rather than for it/him.
However, when trying to convince the apolitical majority to turn a vague, barely acknowledged preference into an actual vote cast down at the ballot box, surely it's a big help to have a candidate who ticks most of the boxes?
Oops, poor phrasing there... Obviously if the candidate himself were ticking all the boxes then this would be a clear breach of electoral law :)
no doubt cheezy
lucy, in retospect you may be right. lots of republicans wanted christy (gov of new jersey) to run for instance.
many wanted rubio as well.
q
Q - I didn't see it for myself, but I read that both Christie & Rubio spent a big part of their respective speeches at the RNC talking about... not Mitt Romney... but themselves!
Can you confirm or deny? And if so, are they both eyeing up 2016?
I wonder how many who voted for Obama last time, but are disillusioned with him, will not vote Republican this time but just not vote at all. Will be interesting to see voter turn out this time compared to last time.
cheese,
can't say. didn't watch, but would not surprise me. both have eye on white house.
lucy,
napolean's thirds: 1/3 hate everything you do, 1/3 love everything you do, 1/3 are neutral.
trick to getting elected: get some of the neutrals to support you. obama did it in 2008. i think these are the people you talking about...
q
I'm shocked Q, according to Wikipedia voter turn out in 2008 was 57.37%. I expected much more and that is the highest since 1968. It seems that 43% didn't fancy either Rep or Dem.
right, i've commented on low voter turnout many times. 50% of americans vote and they are essentially split down the middle, so a winner actually only has 26% of americans supporting them.
that means when a winner says he/she has a mandate it is a farce. that means they have 26%. hence, the most sweeping welfare program in history (AKA obama care) was put in place by 26% of americans. A BIG CHANGE TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY A SMALL MINORITY.
what interests me most is another aspect of this.
originally the USA had a continental congress and the goal was 86% of americans vote. circa 1790 they dumped the CC and implemented the constitution with a completely different approach to voting. under the constitution voting was limited to property owners... why? it is well documented.
the founding fathers didn't think you should have a vote unless you have some skin in the game. they didn't want the "have nots" to use the vote to take from the "haves". But after the civil war voting rights were extended to blacks (with hopes that it would help keep the confederacy from reforming). In 1920 women were given a vote. In 1970 the voting age was lowered to 18. All fair and good, except that the property ownership aspect was lost.
Now people that don’t own anything have a vote. And what is happening? We are gradually shifting from haves to “have nots”. Some 2012 data:
- only 50% of American households pay federal income tax
- and 50% of American households receive federal benefits (rarely the ones that pay tax)
- and 50% of working americans are government employees (an overhead expense)
- MEANING 25% OF AMERICANS ARE REALLY FINANCING THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT
I'm not sure if you are saying this, and i have re-read your comments a few times, but you would remove the right to vote from certain members of your society? Namely, the poorest and least financially stable? Nah, i'm sure that isn't what you mean.
yes lucy it is what i mean.
q
lucy,
americans (including me) would not vote to take away welfare, health care, etc. from the poor.
frankly, not many poor vote (hell not many americans vote) for a variety of reasons that all sound condescending and we provide a lot of "free" food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and health care.
the biggest wealth redistributors these days are probably the elderly. it is part of their generational culture too vote, they have the time, we make it easy by providing transportation for them, and they want the social security benefits and medicare benefits.
my wife just started working again and is now a pharmacy tech. she said most of the people get their drugs for no charge. almost all the old people get thiers free.
q
Post a Comment