Does Paris Make You Support Jeb More or Less?

[frigidweirdo]

His brother made this happen. Do you want the world to be even less secure? Vote another Bush.

Yeah, his brother made this happen. The guy hasn't been in office in over seven years. Give it up already. Was GW responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing too?

Oh come on.

What, we live in a world where there are no consequences to actions that take time to build up? Seriously?

I mean, I've not seen so much deflecting of a topic for a long time, and there's a lot of deflecting on this board.

But your post just adds to the nonsense.

If I get cancer, I don't die the day I get cancer. I die years later.

If I start smoking at the age of 18, I don't get cancer the day I start smoking.

Things sometimes happen because of events in the past. Do you understand this simple concept?

Do you understand the simple concept that it's never a Democrats fault.....ever?

So sick of hearing our economy of 2015 is the fault of Reagan. Or that what's going on in Syria today had something to do with GW. Or that the OKC bombing under Clinton's watch was done by a right-winger. So sick of this blame game.

Why doesn't the left take responsibility for a change? Maybe that should be our slogan: What's the point of electing a Democrat for President when anything that goes wrong will be the fault of previous Republican Presidents?

Folks, when you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people."
Rush Limbaugh

I understand you want to play some pathetic partisan game.

I'm not even saying the Democrats had no blame in this. They do. They voted for the war they shouldn't have. Regardless of the evidence being manipulated, they played the political game rather than the moral game. They didn't think about their constituents first, they thought about their careers first.

However this isn't the issue here. The issue is that the Iraq War destabilised a region that really didn't need destabilising. Do you understand this?

You might be sick of hearing things. I couldn't give a fuck to be honest, you sound like a whining child. Some things are true. Something may not be true. However whether Reagan caused the economy to weaker or not has nothing to do with this topic.

What DOES have to do with this topic is that Bush went to war in Iraq. It was his responsibility. While Congress signed off on the war, it's still Bush, as C-in-C, who initiated the war, pushed for the war, and ultimately fucked up the post war period so badly, that we now have ISIS.

There's no running away from this. You can put your hands over your ears and say "lalalala" all you like, it doesn't change the fact.

And it wasn't Bush who supported the overthrow of Assad even when the intelligence said that a caliphate would be the result.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-co...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

So... it wasn't Bush who supported the overthrow of Assad? So what? ISIS was strong by this point. Had Syria become unstable without the invasion and post was fuck up of Iraq, ISIS would never have taken over many parts of Syria.

Obama didn't invade Syria, he didn't bomb Syria until much later. He did support the removal of Assad, just as most Republicans supported it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

His brother made this happen. Do you want the world to be even less secure? Vote another Bush.

Yeah, his brother made this happen. The guy hasn't been in office in over seven years. Give it up already. Was GW responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing too?

Oh come on.

What, we live in a world where there are no consequences to actions that take time to build up? Seriously?

I mean, I've not seen so much deflecting of a topic for a long time, and there's a lot of deflecting on this board.

But your post just adds to the nonsense.

If I get cancer, I don't die the day I get cancer. I die years later.

If I start smoking at the age of 18, I don't get cancer the day I start smoking.

Things sometimes happen because of events in the past. Do you understand this simple concept?

Do you understand the simple concept that it's never a Democrats fault.....ever?

So sick of hearing our economy of 2015 is the fault of Reagan. Or that what's going on in Syria today had something to do with GW. Or that the OKC bombing under Clinton's watch was done by a right-winger. So sick of this blame game.

Why doesn't the left take responsibility for a change? Maybe that should be our slogan: What's the point of electing a Democrat for President when anything that goes wrong will be the fault of previous Republican Presidents?

Folks, when you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people."
Rush Limbaugh

Let them blame Bush. Clearly no one is buying that anymore. The more they blame him and ignore the last eight years under Barry, the more we win.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Yeah, you say that nonsense and then, perhaps, it'll go away, like your momma told you about ghosts under the bed last week.

 

[The Rabbi]

His brother made this happen. Do you want the world to be even less secure? Vote another Bush.

Obama is Jeb Bush's brother? Nah.

 

[bravoactual]

I was listening to the talking heads on the weekend saying that the insiders like Jeb Bush may benefit from the Paris attacks.

However, Bush's advisers are many of the same ones who got us into Iraq in the first place.

Notwithstanding his plummeting poll numbers, are you more or less likely to support Bush after the attacks in Paris?

I would never vote for any of current crop Republican Clowns.

Too many Jebbie's foreign policy advisers were part of the former deserter-in-chief's administration.

None of the current crop of klowns knows a damn thing other BOMB.....BOMB.....BOMB!!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

I was listening to the talking heads on the weekend saying that the insiders like Jeb Bush may benefit from the Paris attacks.

However, Bush's advisers are many of the same ones who got us into Iraq in the first place.

Notwithstanding his plummeting poll numbers, are you more or less likely to support Bush after the attacks in Paris?

I would never vote for any of current crop Republican Clowns.

Too many Jebbie's foreign policy advisers were part of the former deserter-in-chief

You would never vote for a Republican period. Face it. You're a hyper partisan shit for brains hack. Dems shit dont stink and all that.
You couldnt name 2 of Jeb's foreign policy advisors without using Google.

 

[Hancock]

His brother made this happen. Do you want the world to be even less secure? Vote another Bush.

Yeah, his brother made this happen. The guy hasn't been in office in over seven years. Give it up already. Was GW responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing too?

Oh come on.

What, we live in a world where there are no consequences to actions that take time to build up? Seriously?

I mean, I've not seen so much deflecting of a topic for a long time, and there's a lot of deflecting on this board.

But your post just adds to the nonsense.

If I get cancer, I don't die the day I get cancer. I die years later.

If I start smoking at the age of 18, I don't get cancer the day I start smoking.

Things sometimes happen because of events in the past. Do you understand this simple concept?

Do you understand the simple concept that it's never a Democrats fault.....ever?

So sick of hearing our economy of 2015 is the fault of Reagan. Or that what's going on in Syria today had something to do with GW. Or that the OKC bombing under Clinton's watch was done by a right-winger. So sick of this blame game.

Why doesn't the left take responsibility for a change? Maybe that should be our slogan: What's the point of electing a Democrat for President when anything that goes wrong will be the fault of previous Republican Presidents?

Folks, when you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people."
Rush Limbaugh

Let them blame Bush. Clearly no one is buying that anymore. The more they blame him and ignore the last eight years under Barry, the more we win.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Yeah, you say that nonsense and then, perhaps, it'll go away, like your momma told you about ghosts under the bed last week.

Haha that's weak, even for a lib.
When's the last time dems made gains after an election? It's been awhile huh? You want to blame that on Bush too?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[PredFan]

I don't think it's possible for me to support Jeb less.

 

[Tehon]

Yeah, his brother made this happen. The guy hasn't been in office in over seven years. Give it up already. Was GW responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing too?

Oh come on.

What, we live in a world where there are no consequences to actions that take time to build up? Seriously?

I mean, I've not seen so much deflecting of a topic for a long time, and there's a lot of deflecting on this board.

But your post just adds to the nonsense.

If I get cancer, I don't die the day I get cancer. I die years later.

If I start smoking at the age of 18, I don't get cancer the day I start smoking.

Things sometimes happen because of events in the past. Do you understand this simple concept?

Do you understand the simple concept that it's never a Democrats fault.....ever?

So sick of hearing our economy of 2015 is the fault of Reagan. Or that what's going on in Syria today had something to do with GW. Or that the OKC bombing under Clinton's watch was done by a right-winger. So sick of this blame game.

Why doesn't the left take responsibility for a change? Maybe that should be our slogan: What's the point of electing a Democrat for President when anything that goes wrong will be the fault of previous Republican Presidents?

Folks, when you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people."
Rush Limbaugh

I understand you want to play some pathetic partisan game.

I'm not even saying the Democrats had no blame in this. They do. They voted for the war they shouldn't have. Regardless of the evidence being manipulated, they played the political game rather than the moral game. They didn't think about their constituents first, they thought about their careers first.

However this isn't the issue here. The issue is that the Iraq War destabilised a region that really didn't need destabilising. Do you understand this?

You might be sick of hearing things. I couldn't give a fuck to be honest, you sound like a whining child. Some things are true. Something may not be true. However whether Reagan caused the economy to weaker or not has nothing to do with this topic.

What DOES have to do with this topic is that Bush went to war in Iraq. It was his responsibility. While Congress signed off on the war, it's still Bush, as C-in-C, who initiated the war, pushed for the war, and ultimately fucked up the post war period so badly, that we now have ISIS.

There's no running away from this. You can put your hands over your ears and say "lalalala" all you like, it doesn't change the fact.

And it wasn't Bush who supported the overthrow of Assad even when the intelligence said that a caliphate would be the result.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-co...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

So... it wasn't Bush who supported the overthrow of Assad? So what? ISIS was strong by this point. Had Syria become unstable without the invasion and post was fuck up of Iraq, ISIS would never have taken over many parts of Syria.

Obama didn't invade Syria, he didn't bomb Syria until much later. He did support the removal of Assad, just as most Republicans supported it.

That intelligence report was from Aug. 2012, 2 years before ISIS became a household name when they rolled into Iraq. ISIS did not have the capabilities to move on Iraq until after Obama's intervention in Libya in 2011. The intelligence report calls out the West as being supporters of the caliphate.

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

And then there is this
Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne
The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

 

[amrchaos]

His brother made this happen. Do you want the world to be even less secure? Vote another Bush.

Yeah, his brother made this happen. The guy hasn't been in office in over seven years. Give it up already. Was GW responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing too?

Oh come on.

What, we live in a world where there are no consequences to actions that take time to build up? Seriously?

I mean, I've not seen so much deflecting of a topic for a long time, and there's a lot of deflecting on this board.

But your post just adds to the nonsense.

If I get cancer, I don't die the day I get cancer. I die years later.

If I start smoking at the age of 18, I don't get cancer the day I start smoking.

Things sometimes happen because of events in the past. Do you understand this simple concept?

Do you understand the simple concept that it's never a Democrats fault.....ever?

So sick of hearing our economy of 2015 is the fault of Reagan. Or that what's going on in Syria today had something to do with GW. Or that the OKC bombing under Clinton's watch was done by a right-winger. So sick of this blame game.

Why doesn't the left take responsibility for a change? Maybe that should be our slogan: What's the point of electing a Democrat for President when anything that goes wrong will be the fault of previous Republican Presidents?

Folks, when you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people."
Rush Limbaugh

I understand you want to play some pathetic partisan game.

I'm not even saying the Democrats had no blame in this. They do. They voted for the war they shouldn't have. Regardless of the evidence being manipulated, they played the political game rather than the moral game. They didn't think about their constituents first, they thought about their careers first.

However this isn't the issue here. The issue is that the Iraq War destabilised a region that really didn't need destabilising. Do you understand this?

You might be sick of hearing things. I couldn't give a fuck to be honest, you sound like a whining child. Some things are true. Something may not be true. However whether Reagan caused the economy to weaker or not has nothing to do with this topic.

What DOES have to do with this topic is that Bush went to war in Iraq. It was his responsibility. While Congress signed off on the war, it's still Bush, as C-in-C, who initiated the war, pushed for the war, and ultimately fucked up the post war period so badly, that we now have ISIS.

There's no running away from this. You can put your hands over your ears and say "lalalala" all you like, it doesn't change the fact.

And it wasn't Bush who supported the overthrow of Assad even when the intelligence said that a caliphate would be the result.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-co...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

That is true. Plus, You can put Obama under that Mac Truck!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

His brother made this happen. Do you want the world to be even less secure? Vote another Bush.

Yeah, his brother made this happen. The guy hasn't been in office in over seven years. Give it up already. Was GW responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing too?

Oh come on.

What, we live in a world where there are no consequences to actions that take time to build up? Seriously?

I mean, I've not seen so much deflecting of a topic for a long time, and there's a lot of deflecting on this board.

But your post just adds to the nonsense.

If I get cancer, I don't die the day I get cancer. I die years later.

If I start smoking at the age of 18, I don't get cancer the day I start smoking.

Things sometimes happen because of events in the past. Do you understand this simple concept?

Do you understand the simple concept that it's never a Democrats fault.....ever?

So sick of hearing our economy of 2015 is the fault of Reagan. Or that what's going on in Syria today had something to do with GW. Or that the OKC bombing under Clinton's watch was done by a right-winger. So sick of this blame game.

Why doesn't the left take responsibility for a change? Maybe that should be our slogan: What's the point of electing a Democrat for President when anything that goes wrong will be the fault of previous Republican Presidents?

Folks, when you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people."
Rush Limbaugh

I understand you want to play some pathetic partisan game.

I'm not even saying the Democrats had no blame in this. They do. They voted for the war they shouldn't have. Regardless of the evidence being manipulated, they played the political game rather than the moral game. They didn't think about their constituents first, they thought about their careers first.

However this isn't the issue here. The issue is that the Iraq War destabilised a region that really didn't need destabilising. Do you understand this?

You might be sick of hearing things. I couldn't give a fuck to be honest, you sound like a whining child. Some things are true. Something may not be true. However whether Reagan caused the economy to weaker or not has nothing to do with this topic.

What DOES have to do with this topic is that Bush went to war in Iraq. It was his responsibility. While Congress signed off on the war, it's still Bush, as C-in-C, who initiated the war, pushed for the war, and ultimately fucked up the post war period so badly, that we now have ISIS.

There's no running away from this. You can put your hands over your ears and say "lalalala" all you like, it doesn't change the fact.

The Iraq war conflict started 12 years ago 12 YEARS AGO! And we did fine until DumBama pulled our troops out.

Sure Reagan is part of this subject because the subject here is blaming Republicans for everything no matter if they are current, retired or even dead. Blame Republicans first, and you make a comment about me whining?

It just makes me wonder if a couple of these refugees coming here are ISIS and do some damage to a town or city, will that be Bush's fault too?

 

[amrchaos]

By the way

When conservatives and Republicans started complaining about all the "blame booooosh" talk, they essentially stop defending him because they could not.

Think about it. Instead of defending Bush, like they normally do for their party members, they protest having the conversation altogether!! It is a loser for them.

Likewise, libs do not talk about Bush as much because once blame him or his policy, where do you go from there. Are you going to beat that dead horse by detailing how his ideas failed? The point is basically conceded when the other person declares he does not wish to have the conversation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

By the way

When conservatives and Republicans started complaining about all the "blame booooosh" talk, they essentially stop defending him because they could not.

Think about it. Instead of defending Bush, like they normally do for their party members, they protest having the conversation altogether!! It is a loser for them.

Likewise, libs do not talk about Bush as much because once blame him or his policy, where do you go from there. Are you going to beat that dead horse by detailing how his ideas failed? The point is basically conceded when the other person declares he does not wish to have the conversation.

I believe that no constituency has been as hard on their candidate as the Republicans have with Bush. He's been heavily criticized by the right on numerous occasions. However...... that does not mean we won't defend him when bogus or otherwise unprovable claims are made. It's a huge waste of time usually. How do I defend that Bush didn't start the Iraq war to get even for his father? How do you debate that Bush went into Iraq for his "oil buddies?" What about Bush knew about 911 before it happened?

These types of arguments are just as silly as the birther debate, or that DumBama is a Muslim, or that his goal is to destroy America. How does anybody defend those claims?

As to my point: every tiny thing that happened under GW's watch was the fault of GW, while at the same time, these same people blame Bush for nearly everything that happened under DumBama's watch.

So how could I not object to the claim that every bad thing that took place in this country the last 15 years is Bush's fault and not Obama's? Don't you see how ridiculous this is?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Iraq war conflict started 12 years ago 12 YEARS AGO! And we did fine until DumBama pulled our troops out.

Sure Reagan is part of this subject because the subject here is blaming Republicans for everything no matter if they are current, retired or even dead. Blame Republicans first, and you make a comment about me whining?

It just makes me wonder if a couple of these refugees coming here are ISIS and do some damage to a town or city, will that be Bush's fault too?

Did fine? You call that fine? That was an absolute disaster.

But your argument, again, is that things don't develop. Things happen instantly. So if Bush invades a country and makes a petri dish for Islamic Terrorism, but it didn't quite reach the level of ISIS right now, then it's not Bush's fault.

That makes no sense.

No, Reagan has nothing to do with this. You might have a bee in your bonnet, I couldn't give a shit.

It makes you wonder.... seems you should do a little more than just wonder....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Iraq war conflict started 12 years ago 12 YEARS AGO! And we did fine until DumBama pulled our troops out.

Sure Reagan is part of this subject because the subject here is blaming Republicans for everything no matter if they are current, retired or even dead. Blame Republicans first, and you make a comment about me whining?

It just makes me wonder if a couple of these refugees coming here are ISIS and do some damage to a town or city, will that be Bush's fault too?

Did fine? You call that fine? That was an absolute disaster.

But your argument, again, is that things don't develop. Things happen instantly. So if Bush invades a country and makes a petri dish for Islamic Terrorism, but it didn't quite reach the level of ISIS right now, then it's not Bush's fault.

That makes no sense.

No, Reagan has nothing to do with this. You might have a bee in your bonnet, I couldn't give a shit.

It makes you wonder.... seems you should do a little more than just wonder....

Yes, things were fine in Iraq until DumBama pulled everybody out of there. Why do you think every military leader was against it? They knew it would open up the door for groups like ISIS. I'm sure DumBama did too, but he just didn't care. It was about getting reelected.

Can you explain how Bush had anything to do with Syria? Syria wasn't even in the picture during his entire administration. In fact, it was only during DumBama's second term when Syria became an issue. How can you blame Bush for that?

Sure there were things that Bush F'd up, but we can blame him when those F-ups happened. You want to blame him for all of DumBama's F-ups too, and that's my point.

 

[OKTexas]

I was listening to the talking heads on the weekend saying that the insiders like Jeb Bush may benefit from the Paris attacks.

However, Bush's advisers are many of the same ones who got us into Iraq in the first place.

Notwithstanding his plummeting poll numbers, are you more or less likely to support Bush after the attacks in Paris?

Never supported him, don't see any reason to now.

 

[tyroneweaver]

I had no interest in Jeb before the attacks in Paris.I have less interest in him now.

Would you plz get rid of that avatar. I mean I can only take so much ugly

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't think i can support him less. But it certainly doesn't make me feel better about him.

 

[Timmy]

The Iraq war conflict started 12 years ago 12 YEARS AGO! And we did fine until DumBama pulled our troops out.

Sure Reagan is part of this subject because the subject here is blaming Republicans for everything no matter if they are current, retired or even dead. Blame Republicans first, and you make a comment about me whining?

It just makes me wonder if a couple of these refugees coming here are ISIS and do some damage to a town or city, will that be Bush's fault too?

Did fine? You call that fine? That was an absolute disaster.

But your argument, again, is that things don't develop. Things happen instantly. So if Bush invades a country and makes a petri dish for Islamic Terrorism, but it didn't quite reach the level of ISIS right now, then it's not Bush's fault.

That makes no sense.

No, Reagan has nothing to do with this. You might have a bee in your bonnet, I couldn't give a shit.

It makes you wonder.... seems you should do a little more than just wonder....

Yes, things were fine in Iraq until DumBama pulled everybody out of there. Why do you think every military leader was against it? They knew it would open up the door for groups like ISIS. I'm sure DumBama did too, but he just didn't care. It was about getting reelected.

Can you explain how Bush had anything to do with Syria? Syria wasn't even in the picture during his entire administration. In fact, it was only during DumBama's second term when Syria became an issue. How can you blame Bush for that?

Sure there were things that Bush F'd up, but we can blame him when those F-ups happened. You want to blame him for all of DumBama's F-ups too, and that's my point.

Rewriting history again?

When we ended Iraq occupation everyone was happy and the conservatives proclaimed "Obama was just following bush's plan!"

Fuck Iraq .

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Iraq war conflict started 12 years ago 12 YEARS AGO! And we did fine until DumBama pulled our troops out.

Sure Reagan is part of this subject because the subject here is blaming Republicans for everything no matter if they are current, retired or even dead. Blame Republicans first, and you make a comment about me whining?

It just makes me wonder if a couple of these refugees coming here are ISIS and do some damage to a town or city, will that be Bush's fault too?

Did fine? You call that fine? That was an absolute disaster.

But your argument, again, is that things don't develop. Things happen instantly. So if Bush invades a country and makes a petri dish for Islamic Terrorism, but it didn't quite reach the level of ISIS right now, then it's not Bush's fault.

That makes no sense.

No, Reagan has nothing to do with this. You might have a bee in your bonnet, I couldn't give a shit.

It makes you wonder.... seems you should do a little more than just wonder....

Yes, things were fine in Iraq until DumBama pulled everybody out of there. Why do you think every military leader was against it? They knew it would open up the door for groups like ISIS. I'm sure DumBama did too, but he just didn't care. It was about getting reelected.

Can you explain how Bush had anything to do with Syria? Syria wasn't even in the picture during his entire administration. In fact, it was only during DumBama's second term when Syria became an issue. How can you blame Bush for that?

Sure there were things that Bush F'd up, but we can blame him when those F-ups happened. You want to blame him for all of DumBama's F-ups too, and that's my point.

No, things weren't "fine".

Obama pulled the troops about because, oh, wait, BUSH SIGNED THE FUCKING PAPERS.

Sure, the military knew what would happen. Then again the US can't stay in Iraq for ever. The Iraqis didn't want them there. The US people didn't want to be there. So if BUSH knew what would happen, why did he sign the withdrawal?

How did Bush have anything to do with Syria?

Simple, he went into Iraq. He destabilized Iraq. He fermented ISIS and when Syrians tried to oust Assad, ISIS had been fermented enough to be able to walk in. You do know Syria's right next door to Iraq right? It also has VERY close ties to Iraq.

Okay, Bush fucked up. And we'll blame him for those fuck ups. That's EXACTLY what I'm doing.

Your point isn't that I want to blame Bush for Obama's fuck ups. Your point is that anything that happened after 2007 is clearly Obama's fault.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Iraq war conflict started 12 years ago 12 YEARS AGO! And we did fine until DumBama pulled our troops out.

Sure Reagan is part of this subject because the subject here is blaming Republicans for everything no matter if they are current, retired or even dead. Blame Republicans first, and you make a comment about me whining?

It just makes me wonder if a couple of these refugees coming here are ISIS and do some damage to a town or city, will that be Bush's fault too?

Did fine? You call that fine? That was an absolute disaster.

But your argument, again, is that things don't develop. Things happen instantly. So if Bush invades a country and makes a petri dish for Islamic Terrorism, but it didn't quite reach the level of ISIS right now, then it's not Bush's fault.

That makes no sense.

No, Reagan has nothing to do with this. You might have a bee in your bonnet, I couldn't give a shit.

It makes you wonder.... seems you should do a little more than just wonder....

Yes, things were fine in Iraq until DumBama pulled everybody out of there. Why do you think every military leader was against it? They knew it would open up the door for groups like ISIS. I'm sure DumBama did too, but he just didn't care. It was about getting reelected.

Can you explain how Bush had anything to do with Syria? Syria wasn't even in the picture during his entire administration. In fact, it was only during DumBama's second term when Syria became an issue. How can you blame Bush for that?

Sure there were things that Bush F'd up, but we can blame him when those F-ups happened. You want to blame him for all of DumBama's F-ups too, and that's my point.

Rewriting history again?

When we ended Iraq occupation everyone was happy and the conservatives proclaimed "Obama was just following bush's plan!"

Fuck Iraq .

Wrong, wrong, you're wrong.


Wait, no you're not.

Majority Of Democrats And Republicans Support Iraq Troop Withdrawal

"Seventy-seven percent of Americas approve of President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw troops by the end of the year, according to a new CBS News poll, including 63 percent of Republicans."

Even Republicans supported the decision.

This was from the end of 2011.

"Just 17 percent of Americans disapprove."

John McCain Contradicts John McCain

Even McCain liked it at one time.

"A tweet from McCain's account in 2010 stated, "Last American combat troops leave Iraq. I think President George W. Bush deserves some credit for victory.""

So, Obama pulls the troops out of Iraq, it's a victory for Bush. ISIS emerge after the pull out, it's Obama's fuck up. What a surprise.

Even worse:

McCain unveils plan for US troop withdrawal from Iraq

"
McCain unveils plan for US troop withdrawal from Iraq"

Yep, had McCain beaten Obama he's have pulled troops out.

""By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom," the Arizona senator said."

""The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering form the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension.""

"He predicted that by the end of his first term, al-Qaida in Iraq will have been defeated, civil war prevented, the Iraqi army improved and the Afghan Taliban diminished in strength."

Obama rejects Bush Iraq withdrawal plan

"The first-term Illinois senator has also campaigned on a pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president, "

Obama ran on this. And delivered. I mean, if you run on something and then get accused of being bad. Whose fault is it? The people's?