PDA

View Full Version : Hillary's trip to Bosnia


HolmeZz
03-24-2008, 12:31 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/It6JN7ALF7Y&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/It6JN7ALF7Y&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

King_Chief_Fan
03-24-2008, 12:52 PM
The repubs are so hoping she wins the dem nomination

patteeu
03-24-2008, 01:03 PM
The repubs are so hoping she wins the dem nomination

I'm hoping she continues to shred Obama's reputation as being a post-partisan, post-racial, post-political politician as he ultimately limps his way to the nomination.

HolmeZz
03-24-2008, 04:01 PM
Her campaign is now saying she might have 'misspoke'. LMAO

jettio
03-24-2008, 04:27 PM
The thing about that is that even if it were true, would it really be that big a deal?

I remember how ghey that B*sh crowd got because of him flying into Baghdad, as if worrying is by itself some kind of accomplishment.

Duck Dog
03-24-2008, 04:28 PM
Personally, I can't wait to see both Hillary and Obama swift boated into a shameful political obscurity.

Ultra Peanut
03-24-2008, 04:31 PM
<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23781167#23781167" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Her campaign is now saying she might have 'misspoke'. LMAOKind of like how McCain either "misspoke" about Iran supporting and training members of al-Qaeda.

jettio
03-24-2008, 04:31 PM
Personally, I can't wait to see both Hillary and Obama swift boated into a shameful political obscurity.


Better than even money says that you are gonna have 8 years of one of them.

Logical
03-24-2008, 04:47 PM
Genuinely pathetic, be interesting to see if it gets equivalent press to Obama's Rev Wright issue.

Ultra Peanut
03-24-2008, 05:04 PM
Genuinely pathetic, be interesting to see if it gets equivalent press to Obama's Rev Wright issue.There's no way this issue blows up to the same degree. It doesn't allow white people to feel outraged about an ungrateful jungle bunny who believes that the actions of the US in the past might, gasp, have had an effect on the US at a later date and uses said "chickens coming home to roost" (quoting a US diplomat, mind you) as an example to his congregation of how violence begets violence.

Outright lying in order to exaggerate your supposed experience is nothing compared to that.

HolmeZz
03-24-2008, 05:10 PM
Genuinely pathetic, be interesting to see if it gets equivalent press to Obama's Rev Wright issue.

Of course not. Neither has Carville comparing Richardson to Judas.

kstater
03-24-2008, 05:56 PM
Come on now, none of you saw that sniper's bullet just barely miss the kid she was shaking hands with?

beer bacon
03-24-2008, 06:15 PM
Bosnia was too dangerous, so the President sent his wife, Sinbad, Sheryl Crow...and his 16 year old daughter.

Brock
03-24-2008, 06:19 PM
Better than even money says that you are gonna have 8 years of one of them.

If she's nominated, the democrats go down in flames yet again. It's the safest money you ever bet.

plbrdude
03-24-2008, 06:31 PM
hahahahaha can any of these guys tell the truth?

Logical
03-24-2008, 08:49 PM
I have to say they are playing up the Hillary lying angle on Hannity and Colmes, evidently Hannity feels he can win it for McCain. Maybe he can?

Pitt Gorilla
03-24-2008, 09:23 PM
I have to say they are playing up the Hillary lying angle on Hannity and Colmes, evidently Hannity feels he can win it for McCain. Maybe he can?You've got to admit, it's fun watching the conservatives carry water for McCain.

chiefforlife
03-24-2008, 09:43 PM
Wow, thats pathetic. Where is the outrage? She says it and then says again, "thats what happened".

I love the part about "Its to dangerous for the President, send the first lady".ROFL

bkkcoh
03-25-2008, 06:44 AM
If they (any of the politicians) are willing to lie about something like the Bosnia trip, when it is very easy to verify, how are we supposed to believe them when it isn't so easy to verify the facts on?

Any of them are guilty of that, but that is what is truly sad. :banghead:

patteeu
03-25-2008, 07:31 AM
This kind of blatant lying is horrible and deserves to be highlighted, but to a large extent, it's expected from the Clintons. There's a long line of people who have pointed out that they are liars from Paul Tsongas (in the 1992 campaign) to Bob Kerrey (after the '96 campaign) to Dick Morris (after he had a falling out with the Clintons) to David Geffen (at the beginning of this campaign), who have called the Clintons out for being such accomplished and audacious liars.

We also know that John McCain is a liar. Just a couple of months ago he was telling blatant lies about Mitt Romney, for example.

But what's really important is that we recognize that Barrack Obama isn't really very different. Whether it's pandering insincerely about NAFTA or trying to slick his way out of admitting that he knew what Jeremiah Wright was preaching all along, he's as committed to saying whatever he needs to say to win an election as most politicians. I'd say he probably isn't as bad as the Clintons, but he's no better than John McCain.

bkkcoh
03-25-2008, 07:40 AM
This kind of blatant lying is horrible and deserves to be highlighted, but to a large extent, it's expected from the Clintons. There's a long line of people who have pointed out that they are liars from Paul Tsongas (in the 1992 campaign) to Bob Kerrey (after the '96 campaign) to Dick Morris (after he had a falling out with the Clintons) to David Geffen (at the beginning of this campaign), who have called the Clintons out for being such accomplished and audacious liars.

We also know that John McCain is a liar. Just a couple of months ago he was telling blatant lies about Mitt Romney, for example.

But what's really important is that we recognize that Barrack Obama isn't really very different. Whether it's pandering insincerely about NAFTA or trying to slick his way out of admitting that he knew what Jeremiah Wright was preaching all along, he's as committed to saying whatever he needs to say to win an election as most politicians. I'd say he probably isn't as bad as the Clintons, but he's no better than John McCain.


Which reminds me of the question. How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

keg in kc
03-25-2008, 11:07 AM
If she's nominated, the democrats go down in flames yet again. It's the safest money you ever bet.Yes indeed.

bkkcoh
03-25-2008, 11:29 AM
Wow, thats pathetic. Where is the outrage? She says it and then says again, "thats what happened".

I love the part about "Its to dangerous for the President, send the first lady".ROFL


I wonder if Bill was secretely hoping that something would happen to HRC while in the region... :hmmm:

BigOlChiefsfan
03-25-2008, 11:48 AM
"So there I was, surrounded by millions of screaming Serbian commandos when the last of my Marine guards was shot down. Just me, my daughter, Sindbad and Sheryl Crow were left, and Sheryl was down to her last square of toilet paper. So I cankle-dropped on the nearest Serb, which killed him instantly. I grabbed an entrenching tool off the dead man and used it to wipe out a machine gun nest. Next I was charging thru hailstorms of Serbian bullets and...."

"Pssst. Hillary, the video of your arrival in Bosnia is up on YouTube"

"Aw man! Damn, that vast right wing conspiracy is GOOD."

BigOlChiefsfan
03-27-2008, 10:39 AM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/apocalypsehillary.jpg

Everyone gets everything she wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.

Duck Dog
03-27-2008, 10:57 AM
Cankle dropped the nearest serb. That's funny as hell. ROFL

Logical
03-27-2008, 03:17 PM
"So there I was, surrounded by millions of screaming Serbian commandos when the last of my Marine guards was shot down. Just me, my daughter, Sindbad and Sheryl Crow were left, and Sheryl was down to her last square of toilet paper. So I cankle-dropped on the nearest Serb, which killed him instantly. I grabbed an entrenching tool off the dead man and used it to wipe out a machine gun nest. Next I was charging thru hailstorms of Serbian bullets and...."

"Pssst. Hillary, the video of your arrival in Bosnia is up on YouTube"

"Aw man! Damn, that vast right wing conspiracy is GOOD."Nice

go bowe
03-27-2008, 05:51 PM
I'm hoping she continues to shred Obama's reputation as being a post-partisan, post-racial, post-political politician as he ultimately limps his way to the nomination.hey, limping is not necessarily a bad thing...

if it gets him into the white house, i don't care if he is in a wheel chair...

Logical
03-27-2008, 05:57 PM
hey, limping is not necessarily a bad thing...

if it gets him into the white house, i don't care if he is in a wheel chair...
Yup, one of our most respected Presidents was in a wheel chair.

Ducks and covers as the Libertarians descend to chop my head off.

go bowe
03-27-2008, 06:25 PM
This kind of blatant lying is horrible and deserves to be highlighted, but to a large extent, it's expected from the Clintons. There's a long line of people who have pointed out that they are liars from Paul Tsongas (in the 1992 campaign) to Bob Kerrey (after the '96 campaign) to Dick Morris (after he had a falling out with the Clintons) to David Geffen (at the beginning of this campaign), who have called the Clintons out for being such accomplished and audacious liars.

We also know that John McCain is a liar. Just a couple of months ago he was telling blatant lies about Mitt Romney, for example.

But what's really important is that we recognize that Barack Obama isn't really very different. Whether it's pandering insincerely about NAFTA or trying to slick his way out of admitting that he knew what Jeremiah Wright was preaching all along, he's as committed to saying whatever he needs to say to win an election as most politicians. I'd say he probably isn't as bad as the Clintons, but he's no better than John McCain.barack might not be any better than mccain, but he at least knows the difference between aq (sunnis) and militias (shiites) who are being armed and trained by iran... :p :p :p

go bowe
03-27-2008, 06:37 PM
Personally, I can't wait to see both Hillary and Obama swift boated into a shameful political obscurity.obscurity?

and why swift boating?

no one will need to swift boat mrs. clinton...

she's already given the other side more than enough material to use against her...

this bosnia flap is one example of what i'm talking about...

i hope that one of our resident photoshop experts will insert a few arrows and flaming cannon balls flying past her head during the reception at the airport...

that should be interesting, to say the least...

a1na2
03-27-2008, 06:57 PM
Her campaign is now saying she might have 'misspoke'. LMAO

Is that the current pc way of saying she is a lying biatch?

a1na2
03-27-2008, 06:59 PM
Better than even money says that you are gonna have 8 years of one of them.

You've got to be kidding. IF one of them were to get elected and do what they have promised the people they will do there is a chance that they won't even be able to finish one term. The whole country may revolt.

a1na2
03-27-2008, 07:01 PM
You've got to admit, it's fun watching the conservatives carry water for McCain.

Now that's funny. The liberals can't carry water for anyone, their buckets have so many holes in them they can't hold water!

go bowe
03-27-2008, 07:03 PM
If she's nominated, the democrats go down in flames yet again. It's the safest money you ever bet.i think you may be right about that...

otoh, hillary could be going down in flames even before the convention...

if she keeps pissing off super delegates with her questionable tactics, she won't have a prayer of getting the nomination...

but if she does get the nomination somehow, i'll be giving john mccain another look...

patteeu
03-28-2008, 09:11 AM
barak might not be any better than mccain, but he at least knows the difference between aq (sunnis) and militias (shiites) who are being armed and trained by iran... :p :p :p

LOL

Hey, that reminds me. Lost in all the silliness over whether or not McCain knows the difference between Shia and Sunni, doesn't it seem like everyone is at least implicitly accepting as fact that the Iranians are training and otherwise assisting at least one of the groups that we're fighting against in Iraq? That's the kind of thing that used to earn a country "legitimate target" status (although we certainly didn't always make them an actual target, of course).

Something tells me though that if we were to launch a retaliatory strike against Iran, we'd hear plenty of people, both here and abroad, accusing the US of "preemption" or "starting another war".

patteeu
03-28-2008, 09:17 AM
i hope that one of our resident photoshop experts will insert a few arrows and flaming cannon balls flying past her head during the reception at the airport...

that should be interesting, to say the least...

Watch this video (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4650976&postcount=56) that BEP posted the other day. It's hilarious.

BigOlChiefsfan
03-31-2008, 06:33 PM
It takes a village...to take a village (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNu0XRUUoic)

Logical
03-31-2008, 06:48 PM
LOL

Hey, that reminds me. Lost in all the silliness over whether or not McCain knows the difference between Shia and Sunni, doesn't it seem like everyone is at least implicitly accepting as fact that the Iranians are training and otherwise assisting at least one of the groups that we're fighting against in Iraq? That's the kind of thing that used to earn a country "legitimate target" status (although we certainly didn't always make them an actual target, of course).

Something tells me though that if we were to launch a retaliatory strike against Iran, we'd hear plenty of people, both here and abroad, accusing the US of "preemption" or "starting another war".

Problem is if we were to launch retaliatory strike against every country trraining terrorists, we would probably be fighting a WW and probably on the order of 30 countries.

go bowe
03-31-2008, 07:21 PM
...doesn't it seem like everyone is at least implicitly accepting as fact that the Iranians are training and otherwise assisting at least one of the groups that we're fighting against in Iraq?
***
yes it does seem that way...

Something tells me though that if we were to launch a retaliatory strike against Iran, we'd hear plenty of people, both here and abroad, accusing the US of "preemption" or "starting another war".starting another war right now might not be such a good idea...

imo any military strike inside iran would be almost certain to start a war that don't have the resources to fight...

worse yet, war wth iran would close the straits of hormuz, cutting off oil shipments...

can we really risk a major disruption of those oil shipments?

we need to find a better way to stop iran from supplying munitions to the shiite militias...

a1na2
03-31-2008, 07:24 PM
yes it does seem that way...

starting another war right now might not be such a good idea...

imo any military strike inside iran would be almost certain to start a war that don't have the resources to fight...

worse yet, war wth iran would close the straits of hormuz, cutting off oil shipments...

can we really risk a major disruption of those oil shipments?

we need to find a better way to stop iran from supplying munitions to the shiite militias...

Nuke 'em.

Logical
03-31-2008, 08:48 PM
Watch this video (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4650976&postcount=56) that BEP posted the other day. It's hilarious.I especially love the shot with the guys head exploding right behind her.ROFL

patteeu
03-31-2008, 09:38 PM
Problem is if we were to launch retaliatory strike against every country trraining terrorists, we would probably be fighting a WW and probably on the order of 30 countries.

Yes, but that's not at all what we're talking about here. Iran isn't just a country training terrorists. Iran isn't even just the number one country in the world in terms of training terrorists. Iran is one of the only countries in the world actively supporting terrorists/guerrilla fighters who are attacking/killing US soldiers and working against us in a warzone. That narrows the target list down considerably.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 09:44 PM
yes it does seem that way...

starting another war right now might not be such a good idea...

imo any military strike inside iran would be almost certain to start a war that don't have the resources to fight...

worse yet, war wth iran would close the straits of hormuz, cutting off oil shipments...

can we really risk a major disruption of those oil shipments?

we need to find a better way to stop iran from supplying munitions to the shiite militias...

I'm not so sure that we don't have the capacity to fight Iran, but it would put our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq in jeopardy and we would probably find it just as hard if not harder to successfully transition to a new government in Iran as it's been in those other two countries.

We do have an entire airforce and navy mostly twiddling it's thumbs and leaving the heavy lifting to the army and marines in Iraq and Afghanistan so we have a lot of reserve firepower available if push comes to shove. But that said, I'm not disagreeing with your ultimate conclusion that it could be unwise to get ourselves involved in another major war at the moment.

Logical
03-31-2008, 09:59 PM
Yes, but that's not at all what we're talking about here. Iran isn't just a country training terrorists. Iran isn't even just the number one country in the world in terms of training terrorists. Iran is one of the only countries in the world actively supporting terrorists/guerrilla fighters who are attacking/killing US soldiers and working against us in a warzone. That narrows the target list down considerably.I take it you have never heard of Syria

a1na2
03-31-2008, 09:59 PM
imo any military strike inside iran would be almost certain to start a war that don't have the resources to fight...


If we were to fight a war in Iran I'd guess that we would use the stand off approach kind of like we did starting Desert Storm. Send in no ground troops for at least 6 months and just bomb the shit out of them every day and night. High altitude precision bombing. Cruise missiles on targets that we identify could take out most infrastructure on the first wave. If they have the reinforced bunkers like Saddam has we can use the bunker busters to some degree of effectiveness.

I know that we will probably never go to Iran, but if we did I wouldn't send in any troops for an extended period as I described. I don't know that we could win a war in Iran unless the people revolted against the current set of rulers and the Ayatollah.