Romney Predicted The Failures of Today

[NYcarbineer]

I don't see Barack Obama on that list, which is why he's now president, not any of them.

What you also don't see is that Bush's CIA was routinely sexing up the intelligence. This is a well known fact that their source was someone they never personally interviewed.



Of course political hick will deny this ever took place but what do you expect, her entire life is a lie.

This is your proof????


I provide links showing the words of every elite Democrat official.....and you provide "curveball"??????



Save the barrel…and you can go back to being a rodeo clown.

The proof is that the Bush Administration claimed with certainty that Saddam had WMDs, and he didn't.

It is a lie to claim as fact something that you do not know to be a fact.

 

[Siete]

You changed the subject.....

...so, that means I win, right?

sure, anything you say.


now go pat yourself on the back, the adults are through presenting you with facts you refuse to accept. In your world, you win.

"...presenting you with facts you refuse to accept."

Name one.


It is said that a good liar includes as much of the truth as he can; you're not even a good liar.

the terms of the agreement Bush signed.

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/


what did I WIN ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong question. ONe better question is, will South Korea be sending their massive horde of 3,600 troops back to Iraq?

Remind us when S. Korea bailed out of Iraq.

Let me help our Korean immigrant poster PoliticalChic. South Korea pulled out its sadly comical handful of troops in 2008,

and no, they won't be coming back. I suppose they figure that feeble gesture was a fair trade for the 60+ years of blood and treasure we've spent defending them.

It's time to wake up.

You changed the subject.....

...so, that means I win, right?

No, you brought up South Korea. It was your subject. Now you don't want to talk about South Korea,

because I won.

 

[bedowin62]

you have to get left-wing losers to admit they failed first; before you remind them Republicans predicted it

 

[BlindBoo]

Are there troops in Germany? South Korea?

The reason is that we were once led by leaders who understood what would happen if we left with the possibility that all the gains could be lost.


Along came a community organizer, given power by the slow-witted, like you, who didn't have the requisite ability to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq.

And Romney told all exactly would happen.

And Palin did the same vis-a-vis Putin.

Only Obama, the Oblivious, didn't.



Now, if you require a theory that endows Obama with more ability.....then the chaos in the Middle East must be his plan.
And he has misled you on his plan for the world.....


...note: neither theory endows Obama voters with insight or intelligence.

So how long did the insurgency's last in Germany after WWII? How many Americans were blown up by IED's. Where was the Soviet Unions troops at this time? You get an A+ in false comparisons.

When the occupation failed to keep order in Iraq it was predicted that a three way civil war would be the end result.

Neither Bush nor Obama could get the Iraqis to agree to give our troop immunity to Iraq laws. Neither one would have left our troops there under those terms. Nor would Romney had we been unfortunate enough to have elected him.

Palin? Hahahahaha

"So how long did the insurgency's last in Germany after WWII? How many Americans were blown up by IED's. Where was the Soviet Unions troops at this time? You get an A+ in false comparisons."

Once again....my function is to be teacher to the Leftists....




"The Werewolves were originally organised by the SS and the Hitler Youth as a diversionary operation on the fringes of the Third Reich, which were occupied by the Western Allies and the Soviets in the autumn of 1944. Some 5,000 -- 6,000 recruits were raised by the winter of 1944-45, but numbers rose considerably in the following spring when the Nazi Party and the Propaganda Ministry launched a popular call to arms, beseeching everybody in the occupied areas -- even women and children -- to launch themselves upon the enemy. In typical Nazi fashion, this expansion was not co-ordinated by the relevant bodies, which were instead involved in a bureaucratic war among themselves over control of the project. The result was that the movement functioned on two largely unrelated levels: the first as a real force of specially trained SS, Hitler Youth and Nazi Party guerrillas; the second as an outlet for casual violence by fanatics.

The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers --.... "
Minutemen of the Third Reich ("Werewolf" guerilla movement - postwar sabotage & terror not new)



Imagine....if you actually had an education, you wouldn't be a Leftist.




"You get an A+ in false comparisons."

I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

From your own link.

"Although the Werewolves managed to make themselves a nuisance to small Allied and Soviet units, they failed to stop or delay the invasion and occupation of Germany, and did not succeed in rousing the population into widespread opposition to the new order. The SS and Hitler Youth organisations at the core of the Werewolf movement were poorly led, short of supplies and weapons, and crippled by infighting. Their mandate was a conservative one of tactical harassment, at least until the final days of the war, and even when they did begin to envision the possibility of an underground resistance that could survive the Third Reich's collapse, they had to contend with widespread civilian war-weariness and fear of enemy reprisals. In Western Germany, no one wanted to do anything that would diminish the pace of Anglo-American advance and possibly thereby allow the Red Army to push further westward."

Teacher?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmsXZaFEBME]Van Halen - Hot For Teacher - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bedowin62]

What you also don't see is that Bush's CIA was routinely sexing up the intelligence. This is a well known fact that their source was someone they never personally interviewed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvKVGmAc54c

Of course political hick will deny this ever took place but what do you expect, her entire life is a lie.

no it isn't you idiot; you just lied.

because isn't a lie unless you knew it not to be true


This is your proof????


I provide links showing the words of every elite Democrat official.....and you provide "curveball"??????



Save the barrel…and you can go back to being a rodeo clown.

The proof is that the Bush Administration claimed with certainty that Saddam had WMDs, and he didn't.

It is a lie to claim as fact something that you do not know to be a fact.

no it isn't you idiot; you just lied.

because isn't a lie unless you knew it not to be true

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah. Instead, they went for the guy that promised to change the way we do things in Washington....

How did that pan out?

Given that there aren't several thousand American troops caught up in another Iraqi civil war,

I'd say it worked out really well.

Interesting, the multitude of ways you have of pretense.

Would the insurgent army have been there is an American force had remained?

You're asking a hypothetical.

 

[BlindBoo]

After we dispense with the Liberal hypotheticals, the reality remains: this President is the cause of the slaughter, and misery that he was warned about by Romney.

The worse villains in the scenario are the dopes who put this failure in office.

I'm still pretty sure it was started when the Iraqi army was disbanded in the very early stage of the occupation, and the civil war began. President Bush wasn't able to get the Iraqi Government to agree to give US troops immunity from Iraqi laws past 2011. So he signed the agreement to have all our troops out by the end of 2011. Ultimately the onus fall on the Iraqis themselves for not agreeing to the Presidents terms. They had ample opportunity to do so too.

Don't you ever get anything right???


"President Bush wasn't able to get the Iraqi Government to agree to give US troops immunity from Iraqi laws past 2011. So he signed the agreement to have all our troops out by the end of 2011."

Post #60 puts that myth to rest.....but even if you were right, 2011 gave the community organizer two years to show his ability at diplomacy....had he any.

The greatest cause of slaughter and misery in Iraq was the civil war they waged against themselves. And that started way back when we fired everyone serving in Iraqi army.

 

[NYcarbineer]

no it isn't you idiot; you just lied.

because isn't a lie unless you knew it not to be true


This is your proof????


I provide links showing the words of every elite Democrat official.....and you provide "curveball"??????



Save the barrel…and you can go back to being a rodeo clown.

The proof is that the Bush Administration claimed with certainty that Saddam had WMDs, and he didn't.

It is a lie to claim as fact something that you do not know to be a fact.

no it isn't you idiot; you just lied.

because isn't a lie unless you knew it not to be true

Bush sent Powell to the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMDs.

 

[Siete]

Would the insurgent army have been there is an American force had remained?

would the insurgent army have been there if the US had remained in Afghanistan and stayed out of Iraq ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Bush administration made friends with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq in 2006-2007.

 

[Plasmaball]

Time magazine disagrees with you.....see post #60.

You need to red the rest of time

Yet you neither denied the truth of my post, nor provided support for your insupportable statement.

Guess what that means.




BTW...not being a Liberal, I didn't leap in with "LIAR, LIAR!!!"

Why would I deny something I've posted as well. If you read the time piece you see bush had no choice in signing sofa. Obama went along with it, just like anyone else who would of won the white house.

There is no argument to get around the fact Bushes hands where tied so to speak. That Iraq wanted us out and Obama just finished off the job.

I know what Romney would have done because I've watched him flip flop enough times. Or like in the third debate, just agree with everything Obama stated.....

I don't get the liar liar part nor do I care.

 

[Iceweasel]

And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay.

he also stood between us and iran.

but why would neocon idiots understand that?

"And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay."

Who is "we"?

You have a tapeworm?



I sure hope you don't mean the Democrats as "we"....




"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




Sure looks like you put your foot in your mouth, huh?

I don't see Barack Obama on that list, which is why he's now president, not any of them.

You're talking about a guy that avoided controversy and voted "present". And does so to this day.

 

[kaz]

By the way......nice clean OP there, queen dummy. No outline. Just a few words and a video. Well done.

You can still have this genius as POTUS. Just get enough people to urge him to run again. He's a lock.

...overlooking the fact that some other idiot did the exact same thread with the exact same video earlier today.

lol, if Obama had left troops in Iraq the GOP and the RWnuts would be crowing about how he failed to keep his promise to end the war in Iraq and how he was now putting more US soldiers needlessly in harm's way.

Are there troops in Germany? South Korea?

The reason is that we were once led by leaders who understood what would happen if we left with the possibility that all the gains could be lost.


Along came a community organizer, given power by the slow-witted, like you, who didn't have the requisite ability to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq.

And Romney told all exactly would happen.

And Palin did the same vis-a-vis Putin.

Only Obama, the Oblivious, didn't.



Now, if you require a theory that endows Obama with more ability.....then the chaos in the Middle East must be his plan.
And he has misled you on his plan for the world.....


...note: neither theory endows Obama voters with insight or intelligence.

Obama is such an intellectual mediocrity, it's funny how the left think just repeating every liberal position with no value added is "intelligent." LOL. That, they are not.

 

[BlindBoo]

Jeez. Gimme a break.

If Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops ion there to keep it stable, as he should have, all he had to do was say....'sign this now giving our troops immunity or we will take everyone home today along with all of our arms and equipment.'

Dam...pathetic how you guys simply take liars for their word.

does the fact that they wouldn't enter into an agreement with us to keep troops there get into your thick skull at all?

Time magazine disagrees with you.....see post #60.

Once again from your link.

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington.

 

[Rambunctious]

It's really too bad that 47% of our citizens are so uninformed that they somehow found their way to the polls and pulled the trigger for Obama. If Romney had won we would be well on our way out of this horrible economy. I also believe Romney would have been better for the war effort. Lets face it Obama is completely lost when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[Plasmaball]

does the fact that they wouldn't enter into an agreement with us to keep troops there get into your thick skull at all?

Time magazine disagrees with you.....see post #60.

Once again from your link.

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington.

Yup...it is what it is.....Romney wouldn't have been able to change a thing either..

 

[Siete]

Obama honored a Bush agreement with Iraq.

that sorry no good sob. How dare he uphold the integrity, and the word of a Republican President of the United States.


lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2008 the American people had the chance to elect a president who was ready to keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years.

They declined.

In a discussion of what the correct course of action should have been, your post, like you, is meaningless.


Things have played out to reveal the errors of the past, both the election, and Obama's constant stumbles have proven what we on the Right predicted: the presidency is no place for on-the-job training.


Especially when the trainee is incapable of learning.

Very much like you.

It's meaningless who the American people elect? You obviously aren't from this country.

 

[Siete]

It's really too bad that 47% of our citizens are so uninformed that they somehow found their way to the polls and pulled the trigger for Obama. If Romney had won we would be well on our way out of this horrible economy. I also believe Romney would have been better for the war effort. Lets face it Obama is completely lost when it comes to foreign policy.

and this country would be on a collision course with gun rights ... Romeny placed a total ban on automatic weapons in his state when he was GOV.


piss on Romney.