Heh. Of course. I quake in fear.
Hey Zeb, the sky is blue and water is wet. Thanks for that very educational life lesson.
The scandal Panetta came out against after having worked for the Nixon administration…
And there in lies the problem as to why it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you.
SecDef Leon Panetta said there were no air assets that could have reach Benghazi in time to have saved the four American lives that were lost and/or stopped the attack.
Zeb says that’s false.
The onus of proof is on Zeb. Where is Zeb’s source?
Edit: spelling
No one else seems to have that problem.
*Edit: has something to do with this thing called mutual respect. You should read a book about it.
Let’s hear it, Zeb - you’ve got better info that trumps Panetta’s account, tell us what that is.
1 Like
Yet, gullible little you is willing to take the word of a government official who works side by side with Hillary Clinton. Your naivete is showing.
He is on record as having butted heads with HRC on a number of issues during Bill’s administration as well as Obama’s, but hey he’s a democrat so he must be a liar.
1 Like
Panetta has come out and been critical of the administration on a number of fronts. Not exactly a water carrier.
1 Like
Zeb’s partisanship is showing.
Still waiting on that source, Zeb?
Lol, gullible Zeb takes Trump’s word that he will act as a conservative or at the very least a Republican if he’s elected after having funded Hillary Clinton and other democrats…
How you square that is beyond me.
I never claimed a source. Where are you and your big brother getting this stuff?
My claim is that one agency is covering for another.
That was pretty clear go back and take another read.
One of your many problems is that you actually don’t read the thread before responding. If you had read the thread you would know that my position on Trump is not as you have stated it.
I will walk you through this just once:
I said that regardless of Trump’s core beliefs I feel he will act in his own best interests once elected to office. He will do so to avoid a primary in four years which would weaken him for his reelection bid (as Reagan made President Ford look weak in 1976. Again, history…history). Hence, he will appoint conservative judges for example, not because he necessarily wants to but because he is smart enough to know that he will be put in a place he doesn’t want to be if he doesn’t.
So, now that I think about it I don’t feel your problem is as much being young as it is being stupid.
One more thing, there are actually plenty of young posters on this site who are bright and have a working knowledge of history and a logical thought process. They may not have lived it but they have studied it and have a solid understanding of what is actually going on. Unlike you they don’t walk around with a chip on their shoulder thinking that they know everything. So, I think I will stop with the “junior” comments as that would be a denunciation of all who are young and that is wrong. From this point forward you will just be known as being stupid as that is far more accurate.
ZEB
USMC: Panetta says there weren’t air assets available.
Zeb: That’s false.
USMC: Proof it’s false?
Zeb: I don’t have any.
USMC: So what is your basis for saying it’s false?
Zeb: Only that Panetta is a Democrat, so I think it has to be false.
Hilarious. The new over/under on how many posts it takes in a given exchange for Zeb to show himself as nothing but a mindless partisan hack is now about three.
1 Like
Really? One is supposed to take everything that a career politician says as fact? One would think that you would know better.
Panetta served as White House Chief of Staff under then President Bill Clinton. So I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to think that he would back up what Bill’s wife Hillary was claiming. You are claiming that one cannot make a judgment based upon a career politicians word. There would probably be millions who disagree with your assumption.
Either air assets were available or they weren’t. Someone who has first hand knowledge said we didn’t. You don’t have any information to the contrary, but you believe the contrary.
You can challenge Panetta’s credibility all you like, but like everything you do, it’s just a partisan exercise you wouldn’t undertake if Panetta was a Republican.
You’re a hack, Zeb, and not a very impressive one. Surely you have enough self-awareness to know that your arrogant bluster (USMC now “stupid”, this after trying to lecture him on his need to get learned up on war…hilarious) is merely making you a laughingstock?
Well, maybe that is exactly the problem - in addition to your other limitations, you don’t have such self-awareness.
1 Like
Yet, I have enough self awareness to realize that when politicians talk sometimes they are lying. You on the other hand are only too willing to take the word of someone who was appointed Bill Clintons Chief of Staff in 1994 and got pretty cozy with Hillary. You assume that he is giving us the straight scoop on Hillary Clinton and her Benghazi actions.
Hillary Clinton a known liar and someone who YOU said you would never vote for because she is corrupt. So, she is corrupt but not one single person around her is corrupt. She is corrupt all by herself with no assistance from any other person.
Uh huh…But yeah that Panetta he’s a real straight shooter and would never lie about anything. Hey the man was a boy scout back in the day he doesn’t understand what lying is.
As for your partisan hack nonsense, I am the one that brought up Watergate. All of them were republicans you clueless idiot. I have voted many times for a democrat and have even given money to the local democrat party. Not because I am a partisan hack you imbecile but because I believe in good government and at a local level the democrat party is a good organization that works for the people…
But, yes let’s give equal time to the national democrat party while we are at it.
-
Abortion
-
Gay Marriage
-
Climate change (being mans fault)
-
immigration
Shall I continue?
Now you can tell me which of these things that you believe in. If none then I guess I’m right huh bub? But if I’m wrong please defend one or more of the above.
But you don’t have credible evidence or even a credible hunch he’s lying. Rather, you have a public servant who has committed to a fact publicly and would subject himself to perjury if hauled before Congress to testify on that fact.
Maybe he’s lying, but in light of everything, why leap to that unfounded conclusion? Solely because he’s a Democrat who served for Bill Clinton.
No, you believe he’s lying because you want him to be lying for purely political reasons - the facts as he cites them help HRC - not because there’s a logical reason to do so.
Partisan hacks gonna hack. And you’re a partisan hack. The worst on PWI.
1 Like