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.
LOL. I just KNEW you "peace-luvin'" Libs would come out of the woodwork and defend Obama for doing EXACTLY what Bush did. Bomb Iraq!!! How do YOU spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?
How do you spell I-D-I-O-T.
I have never been 'peace-luv in' when it comes to bombing/killing terrorists whonkill and plunder in the name of Islam. I celebrate the dozen blown to hell yesterday in Iraq. The 200+ blown to hell yesterday in Afghanistan and every terrorist Clinton, Bush and Obama has killed since the first WTC bombing by those bastards. That includes OBL of course.
I wish Reagan would not have cut n run from the terrorists leadership that killed 230 US Marines in Lebanon. Now there was a wimp move to beat all.
But anyway, when you can show me any evidence that Obama is bombing Iraqi government targets in Iraq the past two days then you can start claiming he is doing EXACTLY what Bush did in 2003.
Until you can do that you are wrong about your 'exactly' crap.
Can you explain the difference between Obama authorizing the sale of 4000 Hellfire missiles to the government of Iraq while at the same time dropping bombs on terrorists in Iraq.
Can you imagine any scenario where Bush was supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein while at the same time bomb the government forces for using them.
You are one confused and disoriented Obama basher.
I support it now and I supported Bush too.
Both the liberals who are now all for the attacks as well as the neo-conservatives who are now against it are both hypocrite
I support it now and I supported Bush too.
Both the liberals who are now all for the attacks as well as the neo-conservatives who are now against it are both hypocrite
Who are you addressing? You cited my comments but you ramble on against some phantom liberals. If you supported the invasion of Iraq when the better option was to let the inspectors finish the job peacefully, it means nothing now that you support bombings to kill terrorists to stop genicide and the advance of a terrorist army.
The liberals and anti-war left and 54% of Americans were correct to insist that Bush let inspections continue instead of invading Iraq. We were right and you were tragically wrong to support Bush's idiotic decision to attack Iraq.
LOL. I just KNEW you "peace-luvin'" Libs would come out of the woodwork and defend Obama for doing EXACTLY what Bush did. Bomb Iraq!!! How do YOU spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?
How do you spell I-D-I-O-T.
I have never been 'peace-luv in' when it comes to bombing/killing terrorists whonkill and plunder in the name of Islam. I celebrate the dozen blown to hell yesterday in Iraq. The 200+ blown to hell yesterday in Afghanistan and every terrorist Clinton, Bush and Obama has killed since the first WTC bombing by those bastards. That includes OBL of course.
I wish Reagan would not have cut n run from the terrorists leadership that killed 230 US Marines in Lebanon. Now there was a wimp move to beat all.
But anyway, when you can show me any evidence that Obama is bombing Iraqi government targets in Iraq the past two days then you can start claiming he is doing EXACTLY what Bush did in 2003.
Until you can do that you are wrong about your 'exactly' crap.
Can you explain the difference between Obama authorizing the sale of 4000 Hellfire missiles to the government of Iraq while at the same time dropping bombs on terrorists in Iraq.
Can you imagine any scenario where Bush was supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein while at the same time bomb the government forces for using them.
You are one confused and disoriented Obama basher.
Yes, Reagan also allowed the mujahideen to take Afghanistan, and morph into the Taliban, but he was not of sound mind most of his napping in office, Bush II created the horror we see today, and it must be ended.
I support it now and I supported Bush too.
Both the liberals who are now all for the attacks as well as the neo-conservatives who are now against it are both hypocrite
Who are you addressing? You cited my comments but you ramble on against some phantom liberals. If you supported the invasion of Iraq when the better option was to let the inspectors finish the job peacefully, it means nothing now that you support bombings to kill terrorists to stop genicide and the advance of a terrorist army.
The liberals and anti-war left and 54% of Americans were correct to insist that Bush let inspections continue instead of invading Iraq. We were right and you were tragically wrong to support Bush's idiotic decision to attack Iraq.
Bush wanted to invade Iraq befoore al Qaeda attacked, 9/11/01 gave him what he wanted:
or example, the administration prepared Operation Desert Badger to respond aggressively if any Air Force pilot was shot down while flying over Iraq, but this did not happen. Rumsfeld dismissed National Security Agency (NSA) intercept data available by midday of the 11th that pointed to al-Qaeda's culpability, and by mid-afternoon ordered the Pentagon to prepare plans for attacking Iraq.[44] According to aides who were with him in the National Military Command Center on that day, Rumsfeld asked for: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at same time. Not only Osama bin Laden."[45] A memo written by Rumsfeld in November 2001 considers an Iraq war.[46] The rationale for invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 has been widely questioned, as there was no cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[47]
Shortly after 11 September 2001 (on 20 September), Bush addressed a joint session of Congress (simulcast live to the world), and announced his new "War on Terror". This announcement was accompanied by the doctrine of "pre-emptive" military action, later termed the Bush Doctrine. Allegations of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were made by some U.S. Government officials who asserted that a highly secretive relationship existed between Saddam and the radical Islamist militant organization al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). Some Bush advisers favored an immediate invasion of Iraq, while others advocated building an international coalition and obtaining United Nations authorization. Bush eventually decided to seek UN authorization, while still reserving the option of invading without it.[48]
Obama is often blamed by rightwingers for not intervening enough.
Now that he does attack ISIS, all Obama bashers stand for non-intervention.
Pathetic.
Actually, I was totally opposed to the Iraqi invasion when Obama's double, Bush, did it. The only difference I see today is that the same Libs that opposed it then are all for it now.
Obama is often blamed by rightwingers for not intervening enough.
Now that he does attack ISIS, all Obama bashers stand for non-intervention.
Pathetic.
Actually, I was totally opposed to the Iraqi invasion when Obama's double, Bush, did it. The only difference I see today is that the same Libs that opposed it then are all for it now.
Seriously? You can't see the difference between bombing terrorists to stop genocide and a terrorist army advance toward US diplomatic and military personnel and our friends in the region the Kurds?
That is astonishing if you can't?
Your hatred for Bush has blinded you to the truth. The Democrats in congress voted to invade and take Saddam out. Wise up.
Your hatred for Bush has blinded you to the truth. The Democrats in congress voted to invade and take Saddam out. Wise up.
No. You are wrong. I supported Bush all the way in Afghanistan until he pulled most of our military assets out to invade Iraq.
On Iraq I fully supported Bush's requests in September 2002 for authoruzation to use military force if Iraq did not let inspectors in. The trouble I have with Bush is that Iraq let the inspectors in and even offered Bush to let the CIA in.
Bush lost me when he lied about the insiections and attacked Iraq instead. That was a fool's move.
Sheep and client states enjoying the largesse of the US taxpayer.
At least Bush asked Congress for a vote on war. Obama just jumped right in without bring proof to Congress at all. Not even an attempt.
At least Bush asked Congress for a vote on war. Obama just jumped right in without bring proof to Congress at all. Not even an attempt.
Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to decide iF war would be necessary if diplomatic efforts (inspections) failed. The truth is the inspections did not fail. Bush failed to let the inspectors finish.
Obama is hitting terrorists. He has authorization to do that anywhere the slime exists. You have no point.
Yet you support Obama and his illegal actions in Iraq.
Bush is evil. Bush bombed the government of Iraq when it was in full cooperation with UN inspectors. And then evil Bush sent in the infantry to overthrow and occupy Iraq without the slightest preparation for what to do after regime change. Tens of thousands died, were wounded and lost their property.
There was no genocide going on in Iraq at the time of the US invasion. Saddam Hussein kept the Christians and Yazidis safe. There was no al Qaeda or terrorist activity going on.
That is evil Bush's legacy.
Obama is targeting some very evil militants that are terrorizing innocent Iraqis on a fairly large swath of Iraq.
If you think hitting those terrorist with air strikes is evil you are sick.
If you think hitting those terrorists is identical to what Bush started in Iraq you are stupid. There can be no doubt about that.
LOL. I just KNEW you "peace-luvin'" Libs would come out of the woodwork and defend Obama for doing EXACTLY what Bush did. Bomb Iraq!!! How do YOU spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?
I support it now and I supported Bush too.
Both the liberals who are now all for the attacks as well as the neo-conservatives who are now against it are both hypocrite
At least Bush asked Congress for a vote on war. Obama just jumped right in without bring proof to Congress at all. Not even an attempt.
Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to decide iF war would be necessary if diplomatic efforts (inspections) failed. The truth is the inspections did not fail. Bush failed to let the inspectors finish.
Obama is hitting terrorists. He has authorization to do that anywhere the slime exists. You have no point.
More far left propaganda not based on reality..
Yet you support Obama and his illegal actions in Iraq.
What case can you that bombiing terrorists at the request of the sovereign government is illegal.
Bush bombed a soveriegn government in defiance of the UNSC that was disarming Iraq peacefully at the time.
Obama is not bombing a soveriegn government to change the regime by military force.
Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to decide iF war would be necessary if diplomatic efforts (inspections) failed. The truth is the inspections did not fail. Bush failed to let the inspectors finish.
Obama is hitting terrorists. He has authorization to do that anywhere the slime exists. You have no point.
More far left propaganda not based on reality..
What is not true. Its not anyone's propaganda if it is true. And what I wrote is true and you cannot even try to refute it because it is so undeniably true.
