Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to Sully's blog Subscribe


Special Features


disputing the record of what happened in Libya that I posted

#528 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-20 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

You mean this blatant lie?

"The facts are that Pres Obama decided to accept an offer from France, the main proponent of stopping the genocide of a surrounded city, and Britain, with limited air cover. After the fact, those two allies reneged on their promise to follow-up to help the newly, twice democratically elected moderate government to get on their feet."

Let's spot the things that aren't true:

Genocide: You are using this word incorrectly for dramatic effect. Blowing up one city would not be "genocide". A massacre? Yes. Genocide? No. The bombings of Hiroshima and Dresdin were not "genocide" either. We've allowed much worse things to happen especially than allowing the destruction of a jihadi hotspot. We usually blow those up ourselves.

Limited air cover: This was a lie at the time and you are a liar for repeating it now. We were told that we would be involved in stopping the attack on Benghazi only. That isn't what happened. The US proceeded to arm jiahdis in Libya and to help them conquer territorty. That is more than just air cover. And we proceeded to bomb Libyan cities including Tripoli, again more than just air cover.

The result of this campaign based on untrue claims of genocide and lies about limited involvement has been an unmitigated disaster.

You can finger point at the Euros all you want but only an idiot would have thought they were going to send ground forces into Libya considering they couldn't even bomb Libya without our being involved and supplying the bombs.

This is the kind of violent, misleading, beneficial to our worst enemies leadership we can expect from Clinton. Not looking forward to it.

"Sully, why are you are stuck on insults rather than discussion. Have you no longer the capacity to deign to speak without calling names?""

Don't be such a hypocrite. You referred to voices in my head. I called you an idiot for thinking that mentioning McVeigh somehow supports your civil war hysteria. Why blubber about it to me? Do you think I'm actually going to side with your asinine belief that it is OK for you to insult me but there is something wrong with my responding in kind?

"There are lots of folks who are seeing a potential for Trump's minions acting out on their 2nd amendment fantasies. Terrorism is what Mr. McVeigh was about. Terrorism is what Trump's Kentucky fried friends are coyly threatening. Ignore it as you wish, but bleating insults rather than sharing the reasons you choose to ignore the threats is not elevating your position."

Now you are conflating two different things. One is terror attack of some kind. Sure that can happen. They happen all too frequently as it is. On any given day there could be one and psycho involved can any excuse.

The other is a civil war. Given the magnitude of what an American Civil War would be, I would think it is up to you to substantiate your fears in some way other than pointing to a few people saying dumb things on Twitter.

I don't know how literal you need me to be on this. Do you have no understanding at all of the logistics involved in building an army capable of challenging the US military on any level? If you're screeching about a Civil War without understanding the magnitude of what you're saying, that is your problem. Hint: Its big enough that if there was going to be one in a few weeks, there would be more evidnece than Twitter comments.


Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable