Question: why do liberals always say Bush started TWO unwarranted wars?

[ClosedCaption]

The Looney left see American citizens who disagree with them a bigger threat than Islamic murderers. Go figure.

Cool story bro

 

[GreenBean]

All this will be moot won't it, after the Tea Party gets Rand Paul elected in 2016 and he pulls all our troops out of the Middle East...

Or Obama tries a coup to stay in office - don't think it can happen here ? ...perhaps.

 

[Camp]

Yup- Like FDR started WWII - shoulda just turned the other cheek - right ? Damn that FDR for getting all those boys killed fighting Japan and Germany.

We had no business invading those countries - it was none of our business - he just did because the capitalists wanted their resources !!!!

Absolutely no comparison.

WWII was the last time we fought a "legitimate" war.

Look everyone. A liberal claim two UNWARRANTED WARS.

The liberal double talk, hypocrisy, and pure ignorance on full display.

First they claim both wars were unwarranted like they have for 10 years. They then claim that they never claimed both wars were unwarranted. It is all over this thread.

Now here you have another deranged nutjob claiming they were indeed unwarranted followed by more posts claiming they never claimed both were unwarranted.


They make sense to each other folks.

Liberals are slimebags.

You demand evidence and proof and when it is supplied you ignore it. You just move on like it never existed so you don't have to make an actual intelligent response other than name calling. When asked questions you do the same thing. You just whine like a child and hurl insults and names. Typical radio head. Your lack of knowledge (what you call knowledge) almost certainly comes from talk radio. You're a pundit punk aren't you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

This thread is a trick question for liberal idiots...

1) They can't tie the war in Afghanistan to Bin Laden because many of them believe the CIA and "Jews" attacked us on 9-11.

Yep and thats proven by this post:

1.

2) They can't think very long into the past so they have no clue the entire chain of events with Iraq started when "Saddam invaded Kuwait."

This is all too difficult for their inbred ape brains.

Is this about the two wars or Kuwait?

Answer: 2 wars....So no we arent talking about Kuwait and we also arent talking about what size shoes Saddam wore either

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Absolutely no comparison.

WWII was the last time we fought a "legitimate" war.

Look everyone. A liberal claim two UNWARRANTED WARS.

The liberal double talk, hypocrisy, and pure ignorance on full display.

First they claim both wars were unwarranted like they have for 10 years. They then claim that they never claimed both wars were unwarranted. It is all over this thread.

Now here you have another deranged nutjob claiming they were indeed unwarranted followed by more posts claiming they never claimed both were unwarranted.


They make sense to each other folks.

Liberals are slimebags.

You demand evidence and proof and when it is supplied you ignore it. You just move on like it never existed so you don't have to make an actual intelligent response other than name calling. When asked questions you do the same thing. You just whine like a child and hurl insults and names. Typical radio head. Your lack of knowledge (what you call knowledge) almost certainly comes from talk radio. You're a pundit punk aren't you?

And then they hide behind childish name calling and doggerel "poetry".

Once a thread gets to this point, there is no more to be said.

 

[Camp]

This thread is a trick question for liberal idiots...

1) They can't tie the war in Afghanistan to Bin Laden because many of them believe the CIA and "Jews" attacked us on 9-11.

2) They can't think very long into the past so they have no clue the entire chain of events with Iraq started when "Saddam invaded Kuwait."

This is all too difficult for their inbred ape brains.

You are a bull shit artist who isn't half as wise as you fantasize you are. If you were you would not have stopped at Kuwait and would know that the chain began long before Kuwait.

 

[Jarhead]

This thread is a trick question for liberal idiots...

1) They can't tie the war in Afghanistan to Bin Laden because many of them believe the CIA and "Jews" attacked us on 9-11.

2) They can't think very long into the past so they have no clue the entire chain of events with Iraq started when "Saddam invaded Kuwait."

This is all too difficult for their inbred ape brains.

You are a bull shit artist who isn't half as wise as you fantasize you are. If you were you would not have stopped at Kuwait and would know that the chain began long before Kuwait.

I guess you, too, have a reading comprehension issue.

The reason the treaty with Hussein existed was strictly because of his invasion into Kuwait.

It was his breach of the treaty that prompted the second conflict.

Most think it was strictly because Bush knew for sure there were WMD's....when, in fact, it was because Hussein did not abide by the strict terms of the treaty by allowing UN inspectors access to ALL facilities ANYTIME they wanted.

Now, sure, you and those that simply hate Bush will say "untrue. They had access all they wanted...blah blah blah...

But simply saying it doesn't make it true and it most certainly does not explain why the UN was on board for the second conflict

 

[rightwinger]

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the Bush Doctrine", as B-) u it came to describe other elements, including the policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate

Do you have a Wikipedia article on the Obama Doctrine?

Death of Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jarhead]

This thread is a trick question for liberal idiots...

1) They can't tie the war in Afghanistan to Bin Laden because many of them believe the CIA and "Jews" attacked us on 9-11.

Yep and thats proven by this post:

1.

2) They can't think very long into the past so they have no clue the entire chain of events with Iraq started when "Saddam invaded Kuwait."

This is all too difficult for their inbred ape brains.

Is this about the two wars or Kuwait?

Answer: 2 wars....So no we arent talking about Kuwait and we also arent talking about what size shoes Saddam wore either

If you can not see how a treaty with Iraq signed after the first conflict is pertinent when discussing the second Iraqi conflict..

Then you are too much of a dolt to debate with.

 

[Theowl32]

Absolutely no comparison.

WWII was the last time we fought a "legitimate" war.

Look everyone. A liberal claim two UNWARRANTED WARS.

The liberal double talk, hypocrisy, and pure ignorance on full display.

First they claim both wars were unwarranted like they have for 10 years. They then claim that they never claimed both wars were unwarranted. It is all over this thread.

Now here you have another deranged nutjob claiming they were indeed unwarranted followed by more posts claiming they never claimed both were unwarranted.


They make sense to each other folks.

Liberals are slimebags.

You demand evidence and proof and when it is supplied you ignore it. You just move on like it never existed so you don't have to make an actual intelligent response other than name calling. When asked questions you do the same thing. You just whine like a child and hurl insults and names. Typical radio head. Your lack of knowledge (what you call knowledge) almost certainly comes from talk radio. You're a pundit punk aren't you?

Fuck you, you ignorant ass. You have no fucking clue about logistics. You blame everything on Bush which is ignorant as fuck.

You have liberals claiming two unwarranted wars. You have liberals denying they said two unwarranted wars. This very fucking post has a liberal claiming it.

You have right winger pulling his double talk by saying he was on the side of the first war but not "nation building." Proving to everyone his utter lack of understanding of what logistics even is. He sits there in his comfortable ignorance passing on bullshit.

It sure would be nice to see one liberal who spouts off as though they have even the slightest fucking clue about what they are talking about.

Meanwhile Gitmo is still open, Obama killed countless "mythical terrorists" with drones, expanded the war in Afghanistan and liberals still cry about booooooosh.

You stupid ignorant annoying fucks. This entire thread proves I am right about everything we all claim about you dirty dickbags.

 

[Ibentoken]

The Iraq war began in 1991. It never ended.

 

[1776]

Shit-eater kook....tell us all your conspiracy theories.

Was Bush Jr and Cheney behind all of this back in the 90s too????

This thread is a trick question for liberal idiots...

1) They can't tie the war in Afghanistan to Bin Laden because many of them believe the CIA and "Jews" attacked us on 9-11.

2) They can't think very long into the past so they have no clue the entire chain of events with Iraq started when "Saddam invaded Kuwait."

This is all too difficult for their inbred ape brains.

You are a bull shit artist who isn't half as wise as you fantasize you are. If you were you would not have stopped at Kuwait and would know that the chain began long before Kuwait.

 

[GreenBean]

Absolutely no comparison.

WWII was the last time we fought a "legitimate" war.

Look everyone. A liberal claim two UNWARRANTED WARS.

The liberal double talk, hypocrisy, and pure ignorance on full display.

First they claim both wars were unwarranted like they have for 10 years. They then claim that they never claimed both wars were unwarranted. It is all over this thread.

Now here you have another deranged nutjob claiming they were indeed unwarranted followed by more posts claiming they never claimed both were unwarranted.


They make sense to each other folks.

Liberals are slimebags.

You demand evidence and proof and when it is supplied you ignore it. You just move on like it never existed so you don't have to make an actual intelligent response other than name calling. When asked questions you do the same thing. You just whine like a child and hurl insults and names. Typical radio head. Your lack of knowledge (what you call knowledge) almost certainly comes from talk radio. You're a pundit punk aren't you?

I've scrolled through thos thread and the only evidence I see presented from your camp is opinionated fuzzy logic.

 

[Camp]

Look everyone. A liberal claim two UNWARRANTED WARS.

The liberal double talk, hypocrisy, and pure ignorance on full display.

First they claim both wars were unwarranted like they have for 10 years. They then claim that they never claimed both wars were unwarranted. It is all over this thread.

Now here you have another deranged nutjob claiming they were indeed unwarranted followed by more posts claiming they never claimed both were unwarranted.


They make sense to each other folks.

Liberals are slimebags.

You demand evidence and proof and when it is supplied you ignore it. You just move on like it never existed so you don't have to make an actual intelligent response other than name calling. When asked questions you do the same thing. You just whine like a child and hurl insults and names. Typical radio head. Your lack of knowledge (what you call knowledge) almost certainly comes from talk radio. You're a pundit punk aren't you?

I've scrolled through thos thread and the only evidence I see presented from your camp is opinionated fuzzy logic.

The Tech Dirt analysis of the Senate investigation was not my logic. Nor was a video of President Bush proclaiming his lack of interest or concern for Bin Laden in March of 2002, a year before he ordered troops to invade Iraq. And I am not the only person posting links. The point of my post is that some people actually read and study and research from multiple and varied sources and some just listen to the fucking radio pundits. It is easy to see which does which. Did you read the Dirt Tech review? To many words at one time or what?

 

[ClosedCaption]

This thread is a trick question for liberal idiots...

1) They can't tie the war in Afghanistan to Bin Laden because many of them believe the CIA and "Jews" attacked us on 9-11.

Yep and thats proven by this post:

1.

2) They can't think very long into the past so they have no clue the entire chain of events with Iraq started when "Saddam invaded Kuwait."

This is all too difficult for their inbred ape brains.

Is this about the two wars or Kuwait?

Answer: 2 wars....So no we arent talking about Kuwait and we also arent talking about what size shoes Saddam wore either

If you can not see how a treaty with Iraq signed after the first conflict is pertinent when discussing the second Iraqi conflict..

Then you are too much of a dolt to debate with.

We're not talking about how its pertinent. We arent talking about Kuwait, We were talking about the Iraq invasion

I'm sure that Saddams upbringing and lack of fathers attention made him who he was too BUT we arent talking about that either. *pats on the head* good job trying to deflect tho

 

[Jarhead]

You demand evidence and proof and when it is supplied you ignore it. You just move on like it never existed so you don't have to make an actual intelligent response other than name calling. When asked questions you do the same thing. You just whine like a child and hurl insults and names. Typical radio head. Your lack of knowledge (what you call knowledge) almost certainly comes from talk radio. You're a pundit punk aren't you?

I've scrolled through thos thread and the only evidence I see presented from your camp is opinionated fuzzy logic.

The Tech Dirt analysis of the Senate investigation was not my logic. Nor was a video of President Bush proclaiming his lack of interest or concern for Bin Laden in March of 2002, a year before he ordered troops to invade Iraq. And I am not the only person posting links. The point of my post is that some people actually read and study and research from multiple and varied sources and some just listen to the fucking radio pundits. It is easy to see which does which. Did you read the Dirt Tech review? To many words at one time or what?

well, then based on what you are saying is FACT....some people should have been brought to justice....Bush who lied and got people killed; Cheney who pushed it for personal financial gain; Powell for doctoring photos....

But to date, no one piece of evidence proves any of it.

Get off your high chair little boy....

Your studying and research you claim to do is quite obviously reading blogs and tweets.

 

[kaz]

Really? You never heard anyone say Bush freed Iraq?

Either you're lying or you live in a cave with wifi....which means you're the first option

Bush fucking took a trophy from Hussien.

He got his pistol.

Amazing..how much they forget.

Additionally, they were showing degrading photos of Saddam in his underwear all over the news.

The Bush administration also had a habit of releasing gruesome pictures of dead terrorists as well as Saddam's sons after they were killed.

buh buh but...Kaz never heard any of that. Reagan ended the Cold war - Kaz never heard that either.

Seems like Obama is the only POTUS who doesnt get the credit for being the CiC. The only one....weird huh?

We started an "unwarranted" war against Afghanistan, we attacked them first. There is seriously no depths of depravity you people won't sink to or hold a circle jerk over.

 

[Lovebears65]

So I guess we should of just did nothing for 9.11.. Let them think it is ok to attack us

 

[Camp]

This thread is a trick question for liberal idiots...

1) They can't tie the war in Afghanistan to Bin Laden because many of them believe the CIA and "Jews" attacked us on 9-11.

2) They can't think very long into the past so they have no clue the entire chain of events with Iraq started when "Saddam invaded Kuwait."

This is all too difficult for their inbred ape brains.

You are a bull shit artist who isn't half as wise as you fantasize you are. If you were you would not have stopped at Kuwait and would know that the chain began long before Kuwait.

I guess you, too, have a reading comprehension issue.

The reason the treaty with Hussein existed was strictly because of his invasion into Kuwait.

It was his breach of the treaty that prompted the second conflict.

Most think it was strictly because Bush knew for sure there were WMD's....when, in fact, it was because Hussein did not abide by the strict terms of the treaty by allowing UN inspectors access to ALL facilities ANYTIME they wanted.

Now, sure, you and those that simply hate Bush will say "untrue. They had access all they wanted...blah blah blah...

But simply saying it doesn't make it true and it most certainly does not explain why the UN was on board for the second conflict

The war in Kuwait was a response by Iraq to other issues. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a symptom generated by other policies. Those who insist otherwise are lacking in background knowledge regarding the history of Iran, Iraq and the Sunni vs Shiite issue.

 

[sealybobo]

Then deny they are truthers? Real simple questions really. I mean how many times do we see them blame Bush for starting TWO wars?

Ok he started 1 war. The other war started because he got hit on 9-11. How could he possibly know they would fly planes into buildings? An FBI agent flew down to Crawford to tell him when Bush was on another one of his vacations.

P.S. You guys love to talk about all the vacations Obama takes when the fact is Bush took more, so fuck off.