PDA

View Full Version : TELEGRAPH: US has boots on the ground in Libya!



LWW
08-25-2011, 06:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>FYI Sherlock, President Obama, did NOT PUT ANY AMERICAN BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN LIBYA!!!!</span> </div></div>

http://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barack Obama signed a secret order authorising covert US government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, according to government officials.

Mr Obama reportedly signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorise secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

The New York Times reported that the CIA has had clandestine operatives who have been gathering intelligence for air strikes and making contact with the rebels for several weeks. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8417399/Libya-Barack-Obama-signed-order-for-CIA-to-help-rebels.html)

eg8r
08-25-2011, 07:31 AM
We already knew gayle did not know what she was talking about.

eg8r

LWW
08-25-2011, 07:53 AM
Not the first democrook boots on the ground in Libya either:
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/sp...ng1978cover.jpg (http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/specialcollections/civiletti/BillyCarterLibyaHearing1978cover.jpg)

LWW
08-25-2011, 07:58 AM
http://conservativeamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/obama_qaddafi_070909.jpg

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We already knew gayle did not know what she was talking about.

eg8r </div></div>

We already knew that you and LWW were delusional, and capable of twisting any and everything in the news, in order to claim relevance, but it won't work with thinking people.

Boots on the ground, means just that, American COMBAT TROOPS IN LIBYA. Clearly, there are none, nor have we invaded Libya.

Either neither of you is capable of reading our language, or you are both irrationally delusional. I believe that latter is true.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The President has made it clear he is willing to do everything short of a ground invasion to bring about regime change. </span> </div></div>

LWW, once again, proves he twists information to suit his wishes, hence, his threads are never connected in any way, to the fantasy titles he creates.





Two irrational righties, both intentionally dishonest, and unable to post with any dignity!

G.

eg8r
08-25-2011, 08:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Boots on the ground, means just that, American COMBAT TROOPS IN LIBYA. Clearly, there are none, nor have we invaded Libya.

</div></div>Yawn...just another example of gayle defending the fact that she was flat wrong yet again.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Boots on the ground, means just that, American COMBAT TROOPS IN LIBYA. Clearly, there are none, nor have we invaded Libya.

</div></div>Yawn...just another example of gayle defending the fact that she was flat wrong yet again.

eg8r </div></div>

Again, you prove you can't differentiate between fact and fiction.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>There are no American Combat Troops on the ground in Libya! There is nothing printed anywhere, that indicates American "Combat troops" on the ground in Libya! None of LWW's twisted versions of printed matter, can change that, just as none of you silly agreements with him can change the facts.</span>


Two twits!

eg8r
08-25-2011, 08:54 AM
LOL, again you defend the fact that you were wrong.

In another example while it was only a very short period of time you might want to look up the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit. They were a group of Marines with their boots on the ground while rescuing a downed pilot. They sure were not there on vacation. Any idiot that thinks there will be or has been "no boots on the ground" proves the very fact that they know nothing about the battlefield and are merely allowing others to talk for them.

Also, what idiot would not include the CIA as "boots on the ground" then those operatives are there strictly to support the military operations? Wake the heck up Gayle and admit you were duped and have no idea what really happens and lack the common sense to admit when you are wrong?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, again you defend the fact that you were wrong.

In another example while it was only a very short period of time you might want to look up the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit. They were a group of Marines with their boots on the ground while rescuing a downed pilot. They sure were not there on vacation. Any idiot that thinks there will be or has been "no boots on the ground" proves the very fact that they know nothing about the battlefield and are merely allowing others to talk for them.

Also, what idiot would not include the CIA as "boots on the ground" then those operatives are there strictly to support the military operations? Wake the heck up Gayle and admit you were duped and have no idea what really happens and lack the common sense to admit when you are wrong?

eg8r </div></div>


There is no point is a discussion with irrational, dishonest brainwashed jerks like the two of you.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/o...ry.html?hpid=z3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-cant-win-for-winning-in-libya/2011/08/24/gIQArKsdbJ_story.html?hpid=z3)

Obama can’t win for winning in Libya
E.J.Dione

Published: August 24
You have to ask: If unemployment were at 6 percent, would President Obama be getting pummeled for not having us back to full employment already?

The question comes to mind in the wake of the Libyan rebels’ successes against Moammar Gaddafi. It’s remarkable how reluctant Obama’s opponents are to acknowledge that despite all the predictions that his policy of limited engagement could never work, it actually did.



Let it be said upfront that the rout of Gaddafi was engineered not by foreign powers but by a brave rebellion organized in Libya by its people.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>
But that is the point. The United States has no troops in Libya, which means our men and women in uniform do not find themselves at the center of — or responsible for — what will inevitably be a messy and possibly dangerous aftermath. Our forces did not suffer a single casualty. The military action by the West that was crucial to the rebels was a genuine coalition effort led by Britain and France. This was not a made-by-America revolution, and both we and the Middle East are better for that.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>What NATO and its allies did do, as Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller reported in The Post, was to help the rebels “mount an aggressive ‘pincer’ strategy in recent weeks, providing intelligence, advice and stepped-up airstrikes that helped push Moammar Gaddafi’s forces toward collapse in Tripoli.”

Sounds like a successful policy to me.</span>


Yet no good Obama deed goes unpunished. In the midst of the bracing news, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a statement saying, well, too bad that Obama got it wrong.

After heralding the rebels’ achievements, they could not resist adding this: “Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Gaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”

Less than six months and no American casualties were obviously not good enough. Should we have done this the way we did things in Iraq?

But perhaps the two Republicans were embarrassed for their party, which was split between those who thought Obama was wrong for not doing more and those who said he should not have intervened at all.

“Once again, we in the United States have not defined what we believe the outcome should be,” Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said in March. “The fact is we cannot afford more wars now.” Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman recently declared that “we have no definable interest at stake, we have no exit strategy.”

Oh, and who can forget the commentary that Obama was “henpecked” into intervening by “these Valkyries of foreign affairs”? The latter is the memorable phrase that foreign policy writer Jacob Heilbrunn used to describe three women in Obama’s administration — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and key adviser Samantha Power — who favored intervention.

Writing on National Review’s Web site, Mark Krikorian concluded that the lesson of Obama’s decision-making was that “our commander in chief is an effete vacillator who is pushed around by his female subordinates.”

In light of this, it’s worth paying tribute to one former Republican official willing to give Obama a little credit.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>“I was among those who were critical of the position of ‘leading from behind,’ ’’ L. Paul Bremer III, former President George W. Bush’s envoy to Iraq, told the Los Angeles Times. “I think as a general proposition that’s not a good position for the U.S. to be in. On the other hand, I think the outcome should give the administration some degree of satisfaction. After all, it worked.” Yes, it did.</span>


What should Obama take from this? He needs to learn the difference between middle-ground policies, which flow from his natural instincts, and soggy, incoherent compromises with opponents who will say he’s wrong no matter what happens.

Obama used the greater freedom he has in foreign policy to define the middle ground in the Libyan case on his own terms. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>“It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs,” Obama said in March. “But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.”</span>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>BRAVO!!!! </span> </span>

That made a lot of sense. Obama should remember that steady moderation is very different from continually looking around to see if he can accommodate opponents who won’t be happy until he’s back teaching law school.

ejdionne@washpost.com
</div></div>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'> CIA Operatives, are not combat troops. Working with NATO, in a joint AIR ASSAULT is not BOOTS ON THE GROUND!

I used to think you were capable of some honor and rationality, when you occasionally spoke out against LWW's outright lies, and bad behavior.

No more! You are as comical as he is.


You're both WRONG! Never thought I'd see him lying and you swearing to it.


I used to hold you above the idiot invaders from AZ, but, no more....
G. </span>

LWW
08-25-2011, 09:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Boots on the ground, means just that, American COMBAT TROOPS IN LIBYA. Clearly, there are none, nor have we invaded Libya.

</div></div>Yawn...just another example of gayle defending the fact that she was flat wrong yet again.

eg8r </div></div>

I wonder how she dug that quote from my post when she never reads anything I post?

eg8r
08-25-2011, 09:38 AM
So again, we have you regurgitating some editorialist and ignoring the actual military. Again, you want to continue your idiocy and defend it to the grave. You are wrong, have always been wrong and will continue to be wrong because you refuse to think for yourself. You refuse to look at reality and use a little common sense.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 11:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So again, we have you regurgitating some editorialist and ignoring the actual military. Again, you want to continue your idiocy and defend it to the grave. You are wrong, have always been wrong and will continue to be wrong because you refuse to think for yourself. You refuse to look at reality and use a little common sense.

eg8r </div></div>

I can prove you are wrong, but you can't prove you are right.

That's always the difference.

You can't find a single documented sentence, written by any official Government or military leader, that states that we have combat troops on the ground, in Libya.

You've been proven wrong, and as usual, you deny reality.

YOU are the hypocrite sonny.



Again, grow up.

G.

LWW
08-25-2011, 11:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can't find a single documented sentence, written by any official Government or military leader, that states that we have combat troops on the grtound, in Libya.

G. </div></div>

Other than the USMC.

eg8r
08-25-2011, 11:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can prove you are wrong, but you can't prove you are right.

That's always the difference.

</div></div>LOL, and all you have done is move the line in the sand. You were proved to be a flat out liar and decided let's quit the generalities and add the words "combat troops" to your statement about "boots on the ground". You know your argument was stupid so now you are going to get specific and hope the new line pans out. The proof that there are boots on the ground has already been provided, both the CIA and the Marines have had their boots on the ground in this military mission. Again you are wrong and have always been wrong.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 12:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can prove you are wrong, but you can't prove you are right.

That's always the difference.

</div></div>LOL, and all you have done is move the line in the sand. You were proved to be a flat out liar and decided let's quit the generalities and add the words "combat troops" to your statement about "boots on the ground". You know your argument was stupid so now you are going to get specific and hope the new line pans out. The proof that there are boots on the ground has already been provided, both the CIA and the Marines have had their boots on the ground in this military mission. Again you are wrong and have always been wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

I've had enough fun for one day, so please, my sides are beginning to hurt.

"Boots on the ground" has always meant, COMBAT BOOTS! Has always meant, that we have sent in our combat troops, in an extended mission, to achieve a military combat mission campaign.

No such mission exists in Libya, nor has it, throughout this Libyan uprising.

CIA operatives, are not combat troops.

Air Power, is not boots on the ground.

In Iraq, the statements by the Military, were all about proving that the War IN Iraq, could not be won, "Militarily" meaning, we couldn't bomb or shoot them into submission.

For someone who claims to have expertise in "Combat" operations, you don't know ****!

As the President stated, from the very beginning, we will have no Boots on the ground, and most intelligent people realize that those words mean that the United States, will not have a military presence in the region, IOW, no "B oots on the ground."

Bacically, Ed, you are showing your ass...

Now, go lick your wounds, have a twinkie, and back to ignore for you. the more you protest, the more ridiculous, you look, and really, we already knew you were a sore head.

It's too easy to expose your character flaws, and prove not only that you, and the rest of your radical, brainwashed RW sheep, are totally wrong, and too immature and bull headed to own up to it.

I only like to engage in a real challenge, with some intellectual stimulation, and documented proof, not some wishful meanderings full of kindergarten bull, with a bunch of obvious nitwits.

G.

LWW
08-25-2011, 12:37 PM
TRANSLATED:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://fancyayancey.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/crybaby-12.jpg
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>IT'S NOT FAIR TO QUESTION DEAR LEADER!</span>

G.
</div></div>

eg8r
08-25-2011, 12:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Boots on the ground" has always meant, COMBAT BOOTS! Has always meant, that we have sent in our combat troops, in an extended mission, to achieve a military combat mission campaign.

</div></div>Great by that definition you prove you were flat out wrong and your incessant desire to defend your original statement shows us you were intentionally lying.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's too easy to expose your character flaws</div></div>This is classic. You make this statement after telling me to go eat a twinkie. Apparently you hypocritically are failing to work on your own character flaws. Do you know the saying about people living in glass houses? Maybe you could look it up and then heed its advice.

eg8r

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 12:53 PM
Yep, that's all you ever have, both you, and Sev, you're silly little cartoon pictures, typical of kindergarten boys like you both prove you are, continuously.

I already predicted thus would be your only recourse to being HOISTED!

What a colossal waste of time you are.

Hence, I seldom bother reading anything you write, every thread title is nothing but a colossal joke.

If I was interested in lies, I would frequent the Repiglican links to their unAmerican, irrational RW fascist sites, or tune in to listen to the absurd, lying pigs on Fux Noise.

Go somewhere and lick your wounds, Bubba. You and Ed have given me ennough of a laugh for one day.

Ba-bye...lol

eg8r
08-25-2011, 12:54 PM
LOL, she was wrong about boots on the ground, she is wrong most of the time about most of the stuff she posts. None of her friends are around here anymore because they all are reduced to nothing more than sniveling brats who cannot carry on a conversation without resorting to foul language so she has in effect turned into them. She is now sofla's lapdog. Will she follow the path of her previous lapdogs?

eg8r

eg8r
08-25-2011, 12:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I already predicted that would be your only recourse to being HOISTED!

</div></div>It is funny to see lately you mimicking lww and using the word "hoisted" so often. There is a very easy explanation for this though, you either took him off ignore and saw him using the word and decided you would look up the definition and try to add it to your own vocabulary OR, you read it in one of your partisan hack websites and added it to your vocab. Either way, you using that word is very recent and as normal you will latch on to a new word for a while and then forget it in short time.

eg8r

LWW
08-25-2011, 01:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I already predicted that would be your only recourse to being HOISTED!

</div></div>It is funny to see lately you mimicking lww and using the word "hoisted" so often.

eg8r </div></div>

You noticed that as well?

It appears she has been hoist by her own petard ... again.

Qtec
08-25-2011, 07:27 PM
So, spies not troops.

Q

ugotda7
08-25-2011, 07:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We already knew gayle did not know what she was talking about.

eg8r </div></div>

We already knew that you and LWW were delusional, and capable of twisting any and everything in the news, in order to claim relevance, but it won't work with thinking people.

Boots on the ground, means just that, American COMBAT TROOPS IN LIBYA. Clearly, there are none, nor have we invaded Libya.

Either neither of you is capable of reading our language, or you are both irrationally delusional. I believe that latter is true.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The President has made it clear he is willing to do everything short of a ground invasion to bring about regime change. </span> </div></div>

LWW, once again, proves he twists information to suit his wishes, hence, his threads are never connected in any way, to the fantasy titles he creates.





Two irrational righties, both intentionally dishonest, and unable to post with any dignity!

G. </div></div>

Still stupid and failing to recognize when you should keep your ignorant trap shut......so what exactly are "combat troops?"

ugotda7
08-25-2011, 07:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, again you defend the fact that you were wrong.

In another example while it was only a very short period of time you might want to look up the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit. They were a group of Marines with their boots on the ground while rescuing a downed pilot. They sure were not there on vacation. Any idiot that thinks there will be or has been "no boots on the ground" proves the very fact that they know nothing about the battlefield and are merely allowing others to talk for them.

Also, what idiot would not include the CIA as "boots on the ground" then those operatives are there strictly to support the military operations? Wake the heck up Gayle and admit you were duped and have no idea what really happens and lack the common sense to admit when you are wrong?

eg8r </div></div>


There is no point is a discussion with irrational, dishonest brainwashed jerks like the two of you.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/o...ry.html?hpid=z3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-cant-win-for-winning-in-libya/2011/08/24/gIQArKsdbJ_story.html?hpid=z3)

Obama can’t win for winning in Libya
E.J.Dione

Published: August 24
You have to ask: If unemployment were at 6 percent, would President Obama be getting pummeled for not having us back to full employment already?

The question comes to mind in the wake of the Libyan rebels’ successes against Moammar Gaddafi. It’s remarkable how reluctant Obama’s opponents are to acknowledge that despite all the predictions that his policy of limited engagement could never work, it actually did.



Let it be said upfront that the rout of Gaddafi was engineered not by foreign powers but by a brave rebellion organized in Libya by its people.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>
But that is the point. The United States has no troops in Libya, which means our men and women in uniform do not find themselves at the center of — or responsible for — what will inevitably be a messy and possibly dangerous aftermath. Our forces did not suffer a single casualty. The military action by the West that was crucial to the rebels was a genuine coalition effort led by Britain and France. This was not a made-by-America revolution, and both we and the Middle East are better for that.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>What NATO and its allies did do, as Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller reported in The Post, was to help the rebels “mount an aggressive ‘pincer’ strategy in recent weeks, providing intelligence, advice and stepped-up airstrikes that helped push Moammar Gaddafi’s forces toward collapse in Tripoli.”

Sounds like a successful policy to me.</span>


Yet no good Obama deed goes unpunished. In the midst of the bracing news, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a statement saying, well, too bad that Obama got it wrong.

After heralding the rebels’ achievements, they could not resist adding this: “Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Gaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”

Less than six months and no American casualties were obviously not good enough. Should we have done this the way we did things in Iraq?

But perhaps the two Republicans were embarrassed for their party, which was split between those who thought Obama was wrong for not doing more and those who said he should not have intervened at all.

“Once again, we in the United States have not defined what we believe the outcome should be,” Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said in March. “The fact is we cannot afford more wars now.” Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman recently declared that “we have no definable interest at stake, we have no exit strategy.”

Oh, and who can forget the commentary that Obama was “henpecked” into intervening by “these Valkyries of foreign affairs”? The latter is the memorable phrase that foreign policy writer Jacob Heilbrunn used to describe three women in Obama’s administration — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and key adviser Samantha Power — who favored intervention.

Writing on National Review’s Web site, Mark Krikorian concluded that the lesson of Obama’s decision-making was that “our commander in chief is an effete vacillator who is pushed around by his female subordinates.”

In light of this, it’s worth paying tribute to one former Republican official willing to give Obama a little credit.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>“I was among those who were critical of the position of ‘leading from behind,’ ’’ L. Paul Bremer III, former President George W. Bush’s envoy to Iraq, told the Los Angeles Times. “I think as a general proposition that’s not a good position for the U.S. to be in. On the other hand, I think the outcome should give the administration some degree of satisfaction. After all, it worked.” Yes, it did.</span>


What should Obama take from this? He needs to learn the difference between middle-ground policies, which flow from his natural instincts, and soggy, incoherent compromises with opponents who will say he’s wrong no matter what happens.

Obama used the greater freedom he has in foreign policy to define the middle ground in the Libyan case on his own terms. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>“It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs,” Obama said in March. “But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.”</span>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>BRAVO!!!! </span> </span>

That made a lot of sense. Obama should remember that steady moderation is very different from continually looking around to see if he can accommodate opponents who won’t be happy until he’s back teaching law school.

ejdionne@washpost.com
</div></div>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'> CIA Operatives, are not combat troops. Working with NATO, in a joint AIR ASSAULT is not BOOTS ON THE GROUND!

I used to think you were capable of some honor and rationality, when you occasionally spoke out against LWW's outright lies, and bad behavior.

No more! You are as comical as he is.


You're both WRONG! Never thought I'd see him lying and you swearing to it.


I used to hold you above the idiot invaders from AZ, but, no more....
G. </span> </div></div>

Still stupid....so what exactly is an "air assault?"

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 07:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I already predicted that would be your only recourse to being HOISTED!

</div></div>It is funny to see lately you mimicking lww and using the word "hoisted" so often. There is a very easy explanation for this though, you either took him off ignore and saw him using the word and decided you would look up the definition and try to add it to your own vocabulary OR, you read it in one of your partisan hack websites and added it to your vocab. Either way, you using that word is very recent and as normal you will latch on to a new word for a while and then forget it in short time.

eg8r </div></div>

Still desperate to make a point, I see, and still failing.

There are numerous people here, friends of mine, whose every post I read, regardless of where I first notice it, and many of them throw that word right back in his should be red face... and quote his BS when they do so.

Your laughable fantasies about me, are about as accurate as your laughable fantasies about Valarie Plame...

Not even a nice try, Ed, just more of your immaturity, on display.

G.

ugotda7
08-25-2011, 07:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can prove you are wrong, but you can't prove you are right.

That's always the difference.

</div></div>LOL, and all you have done is move the line in the sand. You were proved to be a flat out liar and decided let's quit the generalities and add the words "combat troops" to your statement about "boots on the ground". You know your argument was stupid so now you are going to get specific and hope the new line pans out. The proof that there are boots on the ground has already been provided, both the CIA and the Marines have had their boots on the ground in this military mission. Again you are wrong and have always been wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

I've had enough fun for one day, so please, my sides are beginning to hurt.

"Boots on the ground" has always meant, COMBAT BOOTS! Has always meant, that we have sent in our combat troops, in an extended mission, to achieve a military combat mission campaign.

No such mission exists in Libya, nor has it, throughout this Libyan uprising.

CIA operatives, are not combat troops.

Air Power, is not boots on the ground.

In Iraq, the statements by the Military, were all about proving that the War IN Iraq, could not be won, "Militarily" meaning, we couldn't bomb or shoot them into submission.

For someone who claims to have expertise in "Combat" operations, you don't know ****!

As the President stated, from the very beginning, we will have no Boots on the ground, and most intelligent people realize that those words mean that the United States, will not have a military presence in the region, IOW, no "B oots on the ground."

Bacically, Ed, you are showing your ass...

Now, go lick your wounds, have a twinkie, and back to ignore for you. the more you protest, the more ridiculous, you look, and really, we already knew you were a sore head.

It's too easy to expose your character flaws, and prove not only that you, and the rest of your radical, brainwashed RW sheep, are totally wrong, and too immature and bull headed to own up to it.

I only like to engage in a real challenge, with some intellectual stimulation, and documented proof, not some wishful meanderings full of kindergarten bull, with a bunch of obvious nitwits.

G.
</div></div>

Still stupid....so what exactly is an extended mission and what exactly is a military combat mission campaign?

ugotda7
08-25-2011, 07:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, spies not troops.

Q </div></div>

I see you're still stupid also - so you think that's all the CIA does......look up Johnny Spann for a quick and easy lesson.

ugotda7
08-25-2011, 07:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I already predicted that would be your only recourse to being HOISTED!

</div></div>It is funny to see lately you mimicking lww and using the word "hoisted" so often. There is a very easy explanation for this though, you either took him off ignore and saw him using the word and decided you would look up the definition and try to add it to your own vocabulary OR, you read it in one of your partisan hack websites and added it to your vocab. Either way, you using that word is very recent and as normal you will latch on to a new word for a while and then forget it in short time.

eg8r </div></div>

Still desperate to make a point, I see, and still failing.

There are numerous people here, friends of mine, whose every post I read, regardless of where I first notice it, and many of them throw that word right back in his should be red face... and quote his BS when they do so.

Your laughable fantasies about me, are about as accurate as your laughable fantasies about Valarie Plame...

Not even a nice try, Ed, just more of your immaturity, on display.

G.

</div></div>

So says the stupid lady.....and I use the word lady quite loosely.

LWW
08-26-2011, 03:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still stupid and failing to recognize when you should keep your ignorant trap shut......so what exactly are "combat troops?"

</div></div>

Her definition of "COMBAT TROOPS" is whatever dear leader tells her it is.

If the USMC landed today and marched again across the shores of Tripoli en mass, charlotte would redefine "BOOTS ON THE GROUND" to mean Santa Claus.

LWW
08-26-2011, 03:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, spies not troops.

Q </div></div>

I see you're still stupid also - so you think that's all the CIA does......look up Johnny Spann for a quick and easy lesson. </div></div>

You do know that independent thought and research beyond that which the party places on the spoon for them is setting the bar far too high.

But, I couldn't remember Mr Spann's name ... so, to further intellectually beat down the incredibly lame arguments posited by our leftist nits:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>Johnny Micheal "Mike" Spann (March 1, 1969 – November 25, 2001) was a paramilitary operations officer in the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division. Spann was the first American killed in combat during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. ...

Spann is memorialized with a star on the CIA Memorial Wall at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia that commemorates individuals who died in the line of duty. Spann was posthumously awarded the Intelligence Star and the Exceptional Service Medallion.[6]

Because the Intelligence Star is considered the equivalent of the U.S. military's Silver Star, Spann was approved for burial in Arlington National Cemetery.[7] Spann is buried in section 34 at Arlington National Cemetery.</span> </div></div>

TRUTH TRUMPS IGNORANCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Spann)

eg8r
08-26-2011, 08:32 AM
Actually gayle you impersonating him is quite easy to prove. Do a quick search of your user name and the word "hoist" and you will see the examples are clumped neatly in this current time frame. Do the same for lww and you will see he has been using that word for a long time.

eg8r

LWW
08-26-2011, 08:34 AM
She hath been hoist by her own petard ... again.

Soflasnapper
08-26-2011, 05:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can't find a single documented sentence, written by any official Government or military leader, that states that we have combat troops on the grtound, in Libya.

G. </div></div>

Other than the USMC. </div></div>

If Marines set foot on Libyan soil during search and rescue missions, they completed those missions and then LEFT Libyan soil.

Where they remain today, OUT OF COUNTRY. If this is your example, you have nothing.

This is a very lame conversation on your part. Both you and Ed are worrying this like a dog on a bone.

LWW
08-26-2011, 06:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can't find a single documented sentence, written by any official Government or military leader, that states that we have combat troops on the grtound, in Libya.

G. </div></div>

Other than the USMC. </div></div>

If Marines set foot on Libyan soil during search and rescue missions, they completed those missions and then LEFT Libyan soil.

Where they remain today, OUT OF COUNTRY. If this is your example, you have nothing.

This is a very lame conversation on your part. Both you and Ed are worrying this like a dog on a bone. </div></div>

So your argument that "there were never any US boots on the ground ordered by Obama" has devolved to "there were US boots on the ground ordered by Obama, but they left" ... have you no intellectual integrity left at all?

LWW
08-26-2011, 06:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">like a dog on a bone. </div></div>

charlotte mimes my lines ... sofanapper mimes my lines ... charlotte answers for sofanapper ... sofanapper answers for charlotte ... sofanapper and charlotte both get pizzy when this is pointed out ... hmmmm?