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.
Idiot.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.
No, things were not fine in Iraq.He destroyed the way of life of millions of people.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.
Was it 'invented' in 2000?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?
You think Syria was invented on 1/20/2009 then, do ya?
As we all know, every time the US has a Prez election, the rest of the world simply hits the "reset" button. And clears the cache.
Yes Bush destroyed the fear and oppression that Saddam had used to dominate his country for over 20 years. SHame on him.No, things were not fine in Iraq.He destroyed the way of life of millions of people.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.
Can you explain how Bush had anything to do with Syria?
Bush destabilized the region. The balance of power shifted more to Iran and our historical partners in the region viewed this as a major threat. It was Bush who shifted our policy away from Iraq and toward Syria in an effort to undo the damage he had done. Bush didn't force the hands of al-Maliki to sign a better SOFA because his policies had already shifted away from fixing Iraq and toward destabilizing Syria as a way to counter the Shia expansion.
The Redirection - The New Yorker
Bush also destroyed the stability of a central government in Iraq.Yes Bush destroyed the fear and oppression that Saddam had used to dominate his country for over 20 years. SHame on him.No, things were not fine in Iraq.He destroyed the way of life of millions of people.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.
Can you explain how Bush had anything to do with Syria?
Bush destabilized the region. The balance of power shifted more to Iran and our historical partners in the region viewed this as a major threat. It was Bush who shifted our policy away from Iraq and toward Syria in an effort to undo the damage he had done. Bush didn't force the hands of al-Maliki to sign a better SOFA because his policies had already shifted away from fixing Iraq and toward destabilizing Syria as a way to counter the Shia expansion.
The Redirection - The New Yorker
As it was, the US left Iraq as a stable Democracy, having had 2 free elections that were more transparent than a Democratic primary. Obama, against the advice of his top advisors, cut and ran at the first opportunity and left Iraq open to the rise of ISIS and Iran.
Obozo's foreign policy has been nothing less than total and complete disaster. Russia dominating eastern Europe, Iran spreadig hegemony in the middle east, worst refugee crisis in Europe since WW2. Libya in flames. Yemen, one of his "successes, in total chaos. Alienation of allies in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Britain. It is hard to pain this as anything other than catastrophe.
Bush engineered the central government in Iraq. How is that destroying it? Many people wanted to see a separate Kurdistan. Bush brokered a deal to keep the country whole.Bush also destroyed the stability of a central government in Iraq.Yes Bush destroyed the fear and oppression that Saddam had used to dominate his country for over 20 years. SHame on him.No, things were not fine in Iraq.He destroyed the way of life of millions of people.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.
Can you explain how Bush had anything to do with Syria?
Bush destabilized the region. The balance of power shifted more to Iran and our historical partners in the region viewed this as a major threat. It was Bush who shifted our policy away from Iraq and toward Syria in an effort to undo the damage he had done. Bush didn't force the hands of al-Maliki to sign a better SOFA because his policies had already shifted away from fixing Iraq and toward destabilizing Syria as a way to counter the Shia expansion.
The Redirection - The New Yorker
As it was, the US left Iraq as a stable Democracy, having had 2 free elections that were more transparent than a Democratic primary. Obama, against the advice of his top advisors, cut and ran at the first opportunity and left Iraq open to the rise of ISIS and Iran.
Obozo's foreign policy has been nothing less than total and complete disaster. Russia dominating eastern Europe, Iran spreadig hegemony in the middle east, worst refugee crisis in Europe since WW2. Libya in flames. Yemen, one of his "successes, in total chaos. Alienation of allies in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Britain. It is hard to pain this as anything other than catastrophe.
This has been instrumental in the rise of ISIL as a major player. The decisions of the Bush admin do not excuse the problems Obama has heaped on top of an already piss poor situation but it is also not entirely blameless for the disaster that is the ME today.
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?
Saddam imprisoned and tortured Islamic extremists, the same as Assad. It should be clear to you by now the reasons for doing it.Yes Bush destroyed the fear and oppression that Saddam had used to dominate his country for over 20 years. SHame on him.No, things were not fine in Iraq.He destroyed the way of life of millions of people.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.
Can you explain how Bush had anything to do with Syria?
Bush destabilized the region. The balance of power shifted more to Iran and our historical partners in the region viewed this as a major threat. It was Bush who shifted our policy away from Iraq and toward Syria in an effort to undo the damage he had done. Bush didn't force the hands of al-Maliki to sign a better SOFA because his policies had already shifted away from fixing Iraq and toward destabilizing Syria as a way to counter the Shia expansion.
The Redirection - The New Yorker
Saddam imprisoned and tortued anyone who disagreed with him.Saddam imprisoned and tortured Islamic extremists, the same as Assad. It should be clear to you by now the reasons for doing it.Yes Bush destroyed the fear and oppression that Saddam had used to dominate his country for over 20 years. SHame on him.No, things were not fine in Iraq.He destroyed the way of life of millions of people.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.
Can you explain how Bush had anything to do with Syria?
Bush destabilized the region. The balance of power shifted more to Iran and our historical partners in the region viewed this as a major threat. It was Bush who shifted our policy away from Iraq and toward Syria in an effort to undo the damage he had done. Bush didn't force the hands of al-Maliki to sign a better SOFA because his policies had already shifted away from fixing Iraq and toward destabilizing Syria as a way to counter the Shia expansion.
The Redirection - The New Yorker
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 .
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?
Personally I blame Winston Churchill.ISIL is the 5th generation of the mess started by Ronnie RayGun.
