I blame Bushes for destabilizing Iraq, but I blame Nouri al-Maliki for current crisis

[Peach]

This is Bush's "legacy":

As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[53] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items.

Yet, a frightened US, after 9/11/01, bought the "product" as Andrew Card called it:

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."[49]

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes I remember the boy that raced around my old office, who died there, years later.

 

[Lakhota]

This is Bush's "legacy":

As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[53] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items.

Yet, a frightened US, after 9/11/01, bought the "product" as Andrew Card called it:

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."[49]

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes I remember the boy that raced around my old office, who died there, years later.

Yes, Bush's legacy will become even worse over time.

 

[Kosh]

This is Bush's "legacy":

As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[53] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items.

Yet, a frightened US, after 9/11/01, bought the "product" as Andrew Card called it:

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."[49]

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes I remember the boy that raced around my old office, who died there, years later.

More proof that the far left would much rather see the world burn than admit they were wrong!

 

[Kosh]

This is Bush's "legacy":

As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[53] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items.

Yet, a frightened US, after 9/11/01, bought the "product" as Andrew Card called it:

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."[49]

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes I remember the boy that raced around my old office, who died there, years later.

Yes, Bush's legacy will become even worse over time.

Going to finally denounce Obama for his illegal acts in Iraq?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I suspect most of my friends on the right can only think to blame Obama - without ever giving Nouri al-Maliki a second thought.

That's not the half of it. A poster in another thread tried to tell me that al Maliki didn't have the right to tell the US to withdraw our troops.

The crackpot right is manufacturing one of its classic myths. Normal America won't believe them, so don't get overly upset over the propaganda.

Even more lies being posted by the far left!

As they can NOT denounce Obama for his illegal actions in Iraq.

The far left welcomes law breakers invading this nation's borders, why would they ostracize Obama for being a law breaker?

Proverbs 28:4

Those who forsake the Law praise the wicked, those who keep it resist them.

 

[Lakhota]

This is Bush's "legacy":

As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[53] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items.

Yet, a frightened US, after 9/11/01, bought the "product" as Andrew Card called it:

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."[49]

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes I remember the boy that raced around my old office, who died there, years later.

Yes, Bush's legacy will become even worse over time.

Going to finally denounce Obama for his illegal acts in Iraq?

First, you have to tell us exactly what "illegal acts" he committed in Iraq.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not blame Obama for the current clusterfuck in Iraq. However, I do blame him for his parting words: "We're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq". He had to know that was a crock of shit.

Yet you still support him based on your far left programming!

Who would you suggest I support? He's our president.

Did you support Bush when he was wrong because he was the president?

 

[Lakhota]

Yet you still support him based on your far left programming!

Who would you suggest I support? He's our president.

Did you support Bush when he was wrong because he was the president?

Since we only have one president at a time - who else could I have supported?

Long live the Dixie Chicks!

 

[Kosh]

Who would you suggest I support? He's our president.

Did you support Bush when he was wrong because he was the president?

Since we only have one president at a time - who else could I have supported?

Long live the Dixie Chicks!

Once again the far left will support Obama even when some claim they would not vote for him.

 

[R.C. Christian]

To be fair, Maliki is a piece of shit and a bad politician. It's too bad that his country is paying for his foolish mistakes.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So 5.5 years into the obie admin and it really hasn't started yet. When exactly does the obie admin begin?

 

[Lakhota]

To be fair, Maliki is a piece of shit and a bad politician. It's too bad that his country is paying for his foolish mistakes.

Holy shit, you said something logical. Good things happen when you lay down the crack pipe.

 

[Kosh]

Yes, Bush's legacy will become even worse over time.

Going to finally denounce Obama for his illegal acts in Iraq?

First, you have to tell us exactly what "illegal acts" he committed in Iraq.

Show all the documentation that makes it legal for Obama to bomb a sovereign nation.

The far left blogs all say the Iraqi's do not want us there, so why are we there bombing if they do not us there? Are all those far left blogs sites lying?

 

[Kosh]

To be fair, Maliki is a piece of shit and a bad politician. It's too bad that his country is paying for his foolish mistakes.

Holy shit, you said something logical. Good things happen when you lay down the crack pipe.

So when will you lay down yours?

More proof that the far left would much watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!

 

[R.C. Christian]

To be fair, Maliki is a piece of shit and a bad politician. It's too bad that his country is paying for his foolish mistakes.

Holy shit, you said something logical. Good things happen when you lay down the crack pipe.

I wouldn't know chief because I've never used a pipe for peace or for smoking.

 

[Lakhota]

Going to finally denounce Obama for his illegal acts in Iraq?

First, you have to tell us exactly what "illegal acts" he committed in Iraq.

Show all the documentation that makes it legal for Obama to bomb a sovereign nation.

The far left blogs all say the Iraqi's do not want us there, so why are we there bombing if they do not us there? Are all those far left blogs sites lying?

I'm so glad you asked, retard. Because we were asked.

1. The Iraqis invited us.

The biggest reason why the United States is more comfortable in launching this humanitarian intervention than normal is the fact that the Iraqi government has invited the U.S. in. Under international law, this is huge, as states have the inherent right to ask for help from other states in providing for their own defense. Within the United Nations Charter, this can be seen in Article 51 — which lays out the right to self-defense — as well as the fact that the U.S.’ actions don’t go against the article that forbids the use of force. Iraq’s invitation also means that the U.S. can argue that it is acting under the second pillar of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P). Though the doctrine is more known for promising to intervene in the case a leader ignores or outright infringes on the security of his people, the second pillar calls for the international community to respond swiftly to cries for help.

More: Why The U.S. Is Acting To Prevent Atrocities In Iraq, Ignoring Others

 

[Kosh]

First, you have to tell us exactly what "illegal acts" he committed in Iraq.

Show all the documentation that makes it legal for Obama to bomb a sovereign nation.

The far left blogs all say the Iraqi's do not want us there, so why are we there bombing if they do not us there? Are all those far left blogs sites lying?

I'm so glad you asked, retard. Because we were asked.

1. The Iraqis invited us.

The biggest reason why the United States is more comfortable in launching this humanitarian intervention than normal is the fact that the Iraqi government has invited the U.S. in. Under international law, this is huge, as states have the inherent right to ask for help from other states in providing for their own defense. Within the United Nations Charter, this can be seen in Article 51 — which lays out the right to self-defense — as well as the fact that the U.S.’ actions don’t go against the article that forbids the use of force. Iraq’s invitation also means that the U.S. can argue that it is acting under the second pillar of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P). Though the doctrine is more known for promising to intervene in the case a leader ignores or outright infringes on the security of his people, the second pillar calls for the international community to respond swiftly to cries for help.

More: Why The U.S. Is Acting To Prevent Atrocities In Iraq, Ignoring Others

The debunked claim made by the far left blog site think progress comes up once again.

Oh my the far left is on fire with their lies to defend Obama's illegal operations in Iraq.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was abandoned by Obama to appease the far left base, like you.

Obama has zero legal authority to use military force in Iraq. NONE!

So why do continue to back Obama in illegal operations in Iraq?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who would you suggest I support? He's our president.

Did you support Bush when he was wrong because he was the president?

Since we only have one president at a time - who else could I have supported?

Long live the Dixie Chicks!

So, you never criticized him or called him a liar while he was in office?

 

[Lakhota]

Show all the documentation that makes it legal for Obama to bomb a sovereign nation.

The far left blogs all say the Iraqi's do not want us there, so why are we there bombing if they do not us there? Are all those far left blogs sites lying?

I'm so glad you asked, retard. Because we were asked.

1. The Iraqis invited us.

The biggest reason why the United States is more comfortable in launching this humanitarian intervention than normal is the fact that the Iraqi government has invited the U.S. in. Under international law, this is huge, as states have the inherent right to ask for help from other states in providing for their own defense. Within the United Nations Charter, this can be seen in Article 51 — which lays out the right to self-defense — as well as the fact that the U.S.’ actions don’t go against the article that forbids the use of force. Iraq’s invitation also means that the U.S. can argue that it is acting under the second pillar of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P). Though the doctrine is more known for promising to intervene in the case a leader ignores or outright infringes on the security of his people, the second pillar calls for the international community to respond swiftly to cries for help.

More: Why The U.S. Is Acting To Prevent Atrocities In Iraq, Ignoring Others

The debunked claim made by the far left blog site think progress comes up once again.

Oh my the far left is on fire with their lies to defend Obama's illegal operations in Iraq.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was abandoned by Obama to appease the far left base, like you.

Obama has zero legal authority to use military force in Iraq. NONE!

So why do continue to back Obama in illegal operations in Iraq?

I'm against Obama being there - but it seems to be legal.

 

[Kosh]

I'm so glad you asked, retard. Because we were asked.

1. The Iraqis invited us.

The biggest reason why the United States is more comfortable in launching this humanitarian intervention than normal is the fact that the Iraqi government has invited the U.S. in. Under international law, this is huge, as states have the inherent right to ask for help from other states in providing for their own defense. Within the United Nations Charter, this can be seen in Article 51 — which lays out the right to self-defense — as well as the fact that the U.S.’ actions don’t go against the article that forbids the use of force. Iraq’s invitation also means that the U.S. can argue that it is acting under the second pillar of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P). Though the doctrine is more known for promising to intervene in the case a leader ignores or outright infringes on the security of his people, the second pillar calls for the international community to respond swiftly to cries for help.

More: Why The U.S. Is Acting To Prevent Atrocities In Iraq, Ignoring Others

The debunked claim made by the far left blog site think progress comes up once again.

Oh my the far left is on fire with their lies to defend Obama's illegal operations in Iraq.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was abandoned by Obama to appease the far left base, like you.

Obama has zero legal authority to use military force in Iraq. NONE!

So why do continue to back Obama in illegal operations in Iraq?

I'm against Obama being there - but it seems to be legal.

No you support Obama being there and it is NOT legal.