Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, he just bombed Libya from the air until the government fell. He also expanded Afghanistan and followed W's timeline in Iraq. He meddled in Egypt until he pissed off the government who told him to go to hell and he tried to take out the Syrian government until Putin made Obama his bitch.Liberals should also cut the hypocritical crap of condemning W when Obama has done the very same thing SEVERAL times:
Completely false. Not once did he invade and occupy any country.
Sorry, what was your point again???
Let see there were about 8600 US personnel involved in the Joint NATO operation in carrying out a UN mission in Libya, it pales in compared to 2.5 million US soldiers who served in Iraq over the US Led invasion and occupation. But I suppose we could have let Qaddafi attack Benghazi, no skin off our backs. No comparison no invasion and no US death tolls either. You think Obama made the Egyptian people rise up? The agreement with the Egyptian Military still holds and that's our main concern there. No US troops involved either. In Syria, if you recall there were war ships headed to the area for a limited strike (because Congress wouldn't give Obama any type of a mandate) when Kerry offered them a way to avoid it. No massive invasion there either. Fighting ISIS, 1 special ops causality during a rescue mission and still no authorization from the worthless Congress to fight ISIS.
Like I said the comparison is completely and utterly false.
So your standard was "not once," then it just became well it was smaller. LOL. He didn't reduce the size of Iraq, he continued W's plan and he expended Afghanistan. Now you can come back with your next bububububbut.... I actually oppose those militaristic policies. Unlike you, I don't just oppose them based on the party in power. If anywhere in the fog of a brain you have you actually care about reducing our military footprint rather than partisan bickering, those of us who actually care could use the help. Democrats sure aren't giving it
You don't know how to post without spewing opinion....In reality I just posted the facts to dispute the obvious partisan hack easy65. In no way did I inject my personal opinion (except....
^ that GWV5903 Spazz out much?It passed only because so many Republicans supported it. As you were shown, 96% of Republicans in the House voted for it; whereas 61% of Democrats voted against it.In the House....Bwahahaha, says a supporter of a party who blames everything they screw up on someone else....like the Iraq invasion....it's Clinton's fault.....
I understand Bwahahaha is your excuse for not having anything relevant to respond with, you would be better off saying nothing...
When Clinton VOTED to APPROVE THE INVASION OF IRAQ IT BECAME HER FAULT, DECISION, EXCUSE, ETC...
And she wasn't in the minority, she was in the MAJORITY LED DEMOCRAT SENATE (77% YEA to 23% NAY) shit that has to burn, LOL...
I know it's hard for you to understand how the system works, but Bush had the support of both Houses...
Republicans ... 96%
Democrats ..... 39%
And the vote was to allow Bush to use military force only if it was needed to prevent a threat by Iraq.
Iraq was not a threat.
As Commander-in-Chief, Bush is responsible for deploying troops into war over a non-existent threat against a country which had not attacked us and was not in possession of the weapons for which Bush invaded.
The resolution had unanimous support in both the House and the Senate...
House voted 296 YEA to 133 NAY and the DEMOCRAT LED Senate 77 YEA to 23 NAY...
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
It's Black and White, simple to understand that enough DEMOCRATS voted to support the Iraq War Resolution...
If I was as wrong as many times as you weak ass liberal hacks, I would leave the board...
And again, the vote was to give Bush the authority to use force if Iraq was a threat.
Iraq was not a threat.
House, Republicans: 96%^ that GWV5903 Spazz out much?It passed only because so many Republicans supported it. As you were shown, 96% of Republicans in the House voted for it; whereas 61% of Democrats voted against it.In the House....Bwahahaha, says a supporter of a party who blames everything they screw up on someone else....like the Iraq invasion....it's Clinton's fault.....
I understand Bwahahaha is your excuse for not having anything relevant to respond with, you would be better off saying nothing...
When Clinton VOTED to APPROVE THE INVASION OF IRAQ IT BECAME HER FAULT, DECISION, EXCUSE, ETC...
And she wasn't in the minority, she was in the MAJORITY LED DEMOCRAT SENATE (77% YEA to 23% NAY) shit that has to burn, LOL...
I know it's hard for you to understand how the system works, but Bush had the support of both Houses...
Republicans ... 96%
Democrats ..... 39%
And the vote was to allow Bush to use military force only if it was needed to prevent a threat by Iraq.
Iraq was not a threat.
As Commander-in-Chief, Bush is responsible for deploying troops into war over a non-existent threat against a country which had not attacked us and was not in possession of the weapons for which Bush invaded.
The resolution had unanimous support in both the House and the Senate...
House voted 296 YEA to 133 NAY and the DEMOCRAT LED Senate 77 YEA to 23 NAY...
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
It's Black and White, simple to understand that enough DEMOCRATS voted to support the Iraq War Resolution...
If I was as wrong as many times as you weak ass liberal hacks, I would leave the board...
And again, the vote was to give Bush the authority to use force if Iraq was a threat.
Iraq was not a threat.
The Dem House overwhelmingly voted against BushCo's Trumped- up war for profit
rw pretzel-logicHouse, Republicans: 96%^ that GWV5903 Spazz out much?It passed only because so many Republicans supported it. As you were shown, 96% of Republicans in the House voted for it; whereas 61% of Democrats voted against it.In the House....I understand Bwahahaha is your excuse for not having anything relevant to respond with, you would be better off saying nothing...
When Clinton VOTED to APPROVE THE INVASION OF IRAQ IT BECAME HER FAULT, DECISION, EXCUSE, ETC...
And she wasn't in the minority, she was in the MAJORITY LED DEMOCRAT SENATE (77% YEA to 23% NAY) shit that has to burn, LOL...
I know it's hard for you to understand how the system works, but Bush had the support of both Houses...
Republicans ... 96%
Democrats ..... 39%
And the vote was to allow Bush to use military force only if it was needed to prevent a threat by Iraq.
Iraq was not a threat.
As Commander-in-Chief, Bush is responsible for deploying troops into war over a non-existent threat against a country which had not attacked us and was not in possession of the weapons for which Bush invaded.
The resolution had unanimous support in both the House and the Senate...
House voted 296 YEA to 133 NAY and the DEMOCRAT LED Senate 77 YEA to 23 NAY...
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
It's Black and White, simple to understand that enough DEMOCRATS voted to support the Iraq War Resolution...
If I was as wrong as many times as you weak ass liberal hacks, I would leave the board...
And again, the vote was to give Bush the authority to use force if Iraq was a threat.
Iraq was not a threat.
The Dem House overwhelmingly voted against BushCo's Trumped- up war for profit
Senate, Republicans: 98%
Executive, Republicans: 100%
Conservatives blame Hillary.
It passed only because so many Republicans supported it. As you were shown, 96% of Republicans in the House voted for it; whereas 61% of Democrats voted against it.
And again, the vote was to give Bush the authority to use force if Iraq was a threat.
Iraq was not a threat.
Again, for the hard of learning... it would have died in the House if left up to Democrats where only 39% voted in favor. It only passed because 96% of Republicans voted for it.It passed only because so many Republicans supported it. As you were shown, 96% of Republicans in the House voted for it; whereas 61% of Democrats voted against it.
And again, the vote was to give Bush the authority to use force if Iraq was a threat.
Iraq was not a threat.
And 58% of Democrat US Senators voted for it, better yet both Clinton's agreed and Hillary voted for it...
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:
Overall 58% of the Senators and Representatives voted to give Bush authority, whine all you want but a majority of the Senate and the House approved it...
- Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
- Baucus, Max (D-MT)
- Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
- Breaux, John (D-LA)
- Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
- Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
- Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
- Cleland, Max (D-GA)
- Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
- Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
- Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
- Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
- Edwards, John (D-NC)
- Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
- Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
- Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
- Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
- Kerry, John (D-MA)
- Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
- Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
- Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
- Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
- Miller, Zell (D-GA)
- Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
- Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
- Reid, Harry (D-NV)
- Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)
- Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)
- Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Broken down by party, we find...^ that GWV5903 Spazz out much?
The Dem House overwhelmingly voted against BushCo's Trumped- up war for profit
And your unable to do simple math (big surprise), 374 US Senators & Representatives voted for it, 156 voted against it...
Again, for the hard of learning... it would have died in the House if left up to Democrats where only 39% voted in favor. It only passed because 96% of Republicans voted for it.
Whine to Trump. He resurrected this.More BOOOOOSH? Seriously? I thought the nutters were cured of their BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Thought they moved onto PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome), TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), or something. Pretty sad & pathetic stuff.
And most Democrats in the House still tried to defeat it. That IS the real world. House Republicans, 96% voting for it, got it passed in the House.Again, for the hard of learning... it would have died in the House if left up to Democrats where only 39% voted in favor. It only passed because 96% of Republicans voted for it.
It probably would have if we all lived in the fantasy world between your ears, but fortunately we don't. The Senate and House both have a say, and BTW they still do...
I know it's hard for you to accept, obviously you have lived in denial for most of your life, must suck to be you...
LOLOh just in case your trying to go 2 for 2 tonight, you might want to try saying President Trump!
ROFLMAOADL!!!
Fear mongering was much more effective
George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.
What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.
In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.
Yeah, I damn sure remember all those terror alerts, often right before important votes in Congress not to mention before elections etc. While claiming they were trying to protect American and Americans, they essentially went out of their way to create a climate of fear. Nice.
.
Maybe you should. They were not in compliance, nor had regime change occurred, which Clinton wanted, after operation desert fox. 1999 resolution after desert fox-
United Nations Security Council resolution 1284, adopted on 17 December 1999, after recalling previous relevant resolutions onIraq, including resolutions 661(1990), 687 (1991), 699 (1991),707 (1991), 715 (1991), 986(1995), 1051 (1996), 1153 (1998),1175 (1998), 1242 (1999) and1266 (1999), the Council established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission(UNMOVIC) to replace the United Nations Special Commission(UNSCOM).[1] It was the final resolution adopted in 1999.
Resolution 1284 was adopted by 11 votes to none against and fourabstentions from China and Russia.[1] Iraq rejected the resolution, particularly as it did not meet its requirement for the lifting of sanctions imposed in 1990.[2] Despite the adoption of the resolution, it did not lead to the return of United Nations weapons inspectors or changes in the humanitarian programme.[3]
Nov 8, 2000
PRESIDENT CLINTON: And, you know, remember, this is the only guy, the only world leader today who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. And the American people in my judgement should give him all the money he needs to take care of his kids. But should do everything we can, and even if we are alone, to try to stop him from being in a position of murdering his kids again, and murdering other children in the Middle East. That's what I believe.
http://www.saveageneration.org/thecrisis/analysis_clinton_nov00.html
audio radio interview with Amy Goodwin,
Broken down by party, we find...^ that GWV5903 Spazz out much?
The Dem House overwhelmingly voted against BushCo's Trumped- up war for profit
And your unable to do simple math (big surprise), 374 US Senators & Representatives voted for it, 156 voted against it...
Republicans .... 263 for .... 7 against.
Democrats ...... 110 for ..... 149 against.
U.S. House: Roll Call Vote
U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote
When Clinton VOTED to APPROVE THE INVASION OF IRAQ IT BECAME HER FAULT, DECISION, EXCUSE, ETC...
And she wasn't in the minority, she was in the MAJORITY LED DEMOCRAT SENATE (77% YEA to 23% NAY) shit that has to burn, LOL...
I know it's hard for you to understand how the system works, but Bush had the support of both Houses...
