So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Faun]

As opposed to stupid people like you, who happily send poor kids off to die for rich people.

Seriously. Fuck you.

You're the "stupid people" as you've clearly demonstrated here. First of all, we don't round up poor kids and put them in the Army to go fight wars for rich people. That's apparently something that happens in the Liberal Utopian Universe and not the normal one. In the normal universe, young men and women VOLUNTEER to serve their country and they are aware that this may involve deployment where their lives may be at risk and people may shoot at them. Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution.

You are a textbook example of someone who has been brainwashed by propaganda. I honestly don't know if there is a way to deprogram you at this point, I am hoping we can avoid having to put you down like a rabid dog.

Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. You have no idea what you're talking about and are quite obviously ignorant about what powers the Constitution does grant. The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.

Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.

Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!

Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.

That is the role of the president.

Congress can only declare war and fund the military.

And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.

You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.

Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.

And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.

Now it's time to see if you're a man of character or the piece of shit I suspect you to be ....

You said: "Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."

I replied: "Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. .... The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military."

You shot back: "Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!"

I pointed out: "Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war. That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."​

You then pulled out your pocket Constitution which agreed with me, not you. The Constitution says what I claim it says ... Congress declares war and funds the military. The president sends troops to war, not the Congress.

So let's see if you're man enough to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, just as I said.......

 

[Faun]

My question is this:
Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.

Why would it ever end? Bush blaming his predecessors until the end of his presidency, why isn't Obama afforded that same opportunity? Is there a statute of limitations?

 

[Darkwind]

Darkw 11595161

The only false claims being made about Iraq come from the radicalized left. They feel compelled to lie about events and assign motives to people to justify their cowardice.

I challenged a specific claim you just made about what Bush supposedly predicted about Iraq. You have provided no specific false claim from the so called radical left. Do you have a person in mind and a false claim about Iraq that is a bit more specific than the rubbish you just tossed out.

But if you can't even attempt to defend what you claimed Bush43 predicted then we all left right and center can see that you certainly must know that what you wrote cannot be verified with an actual quote.

That means in this forum you are the one who put up a false claim, so according to your recent claim yo must be representing the radical left.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

And why did you avoid my question about Bush wanting Tony Blair to invade Iraq with him?

I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007. Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...



As I said. I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.

 

[Darkwind]

My question is this:
Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.

Why would it ever end? Bush blaming his predecessors until the end of his presidency, why isn't Obama afforded that same opportunity? Is there a statute of limitations?

Link?

 

[JoeB131]

If anyone ever wants to know what Liberal Droning looks like.....

Your pathetic and sad concession is duly noted...

Amazing you are trying to claim the Iraq War was a good idea when the Bush Crime Family isn't even making that claim anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

Hiding behind conspiracies is a lazy habit. Wish I could slack off like that and blame everything on blacks or Democrats. Soo you major dipstick,,,, Hilliary and the dictator in chief are part of the Zionist conspiracy? Or they are just powerless to resist. Last I heard it was KERRY lobbying to bomb Assad as soon as he took charge.. Lot of fucking Zionists around. Have you checked your laundry room?

That's kind of an evasion, bud. The fact is, can you name ANY other nation that retains a lobby that has a the kind of influence AIPAC has?

Can you think of another foreign leader who went to our congress and denounced the diplomacy of a sitting American president?

I can't.

and that's the shit they are pretty much in the open about.

Bibi only get 90% of what he wants out of Obama and he's still upset!

Point was, AIPAC lobbied to Bomb Assad in 2013.

AIPAC Gets Its Game On The American Conservative

Thankfully, they didn't get their way, because the American people looked at this and decided they didn't want another war in the Middle East. We have one anyway, because ISIL grew to such strength.

But if the Zionists have gotten their way, they'd be in an even stronger position right now.

Something Americans need to keep in mind, these people are NOT OUR FRIENDS.

 

[JoeB131]

This is not a rhetorical question. Would really appreciate an answer. If you had 5 next door neighbors who have threatened your family, and suddenly they all start to kill each other What would YOU do?

I know that I would feed them, patch up their wounds, and send them back next door to finish the job. Zionists are not as stupid as the leaders we elect in this country...,,,

What I would do is move the fuck out of that neighborhood. Today. I would have done that the first time those five neighbors threatened to kill my family. In fact, I never would have moved into that neighborhood to start with.

What I wouldn't do is patch up the neighbor who is clearly mentally disturbed (ISIL) in order to get the neighbor who just talks smack.

The Zionists are far stupider than our leaders. The Zionists choose to live amongst people who want to kill them because a magic fairy in the sky promised them that land.

 

[JoeB131]

Sarin Gas which Hussein used to kill over one million Kurds is now NOT on Joe's list of WMD's?....
Newsflash.....ALL chemical and biological weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction. ALL of them....Oh..WMD's with Iraqi markings are being uncovered in Syria..
So now you're a Saddam Hussein sympathizer?

Guy, a couple of things.

First, the number of Kurds wped out in Operation Anfal was closer to 50- 100 thousand.

And when this was done, the United States government actually SUPPORTED Saddam's actions. The Kurds in that region had allied to the Iranians when it was our policy to support Saddam's war with Iran.

More to the point, of those maybe 50K Kurds killed in a legitimate military action, the vast majority were in fact killed by conventional weapons - bombing and bullets. There was only one major attack with Chemical weapons on the city of Halajba.

The thing was, the Chemical attacks weren't very effective. While Chemical Weapons scare the shit out of people, they really don't do that much damage. Halajba inflicted maybe 5000 fatalities, but there were conventional bombings as well as the chemical ones in that total.

Final point- Most of Saddams chemical stockpiles were destroyed after 1991. Most of the ones that weren't were buried and chemical weapons lose their potency with time.

So, no, your statement that somehow, his chemical weapons were on par with the nukes and anthrax that Bush and Rummy and Condi were babbling about is laughable on its face. We did not go to war over the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914.

 

[JoeB131]

HUH.....Who specifically are "the Zionists"? And what is the pending interest in a partitioned Syria?
From where do you get this shit? Box of Cracker Jack?

Spoon, check out the link in post #226.

Of course the Zionists have an interest in keeping the Arabs fighting among themselves. If the Arabs united in a single front like they did in 1948 or 1967, they'd wipe the Zionist Entity off the map. (Or more than likely, the selfish bastards would just use their nukes.)

 

[JoeB131]

The Arabs have a stranglehold on the oil market?.....Ahh boy...
The uninformed sound off again....Jeez.
Which awful environmental consequences?
Accidents happen....Do you drive a car? Ever been in a swimming pool? Use a toaster? been caught in a thunderstorm?
If risk averse people like you ran the country we'd be living in hovels......eating stone soup

As opposed to stupid people like you, who happily send poor kids off to die for rich people.

Seriously. Fuck you.

HA!!!
I win!.....
Seriously.....
I asked you questions.....You FAILED.

Oh, were those questions? Because I thought you were just displaying your ignorance again.

 

[JoeB131]

Darkw 11595161

The only false claims being made about Iraq come from the radicalized left. They feel compelled to lie about events and assign motives to people to justify their cowardice.

I challenged a specific claim you just made about what Bush supposedly predicted about Iraq. You have provided no specific false claim from the so called radical left. Do you have a person in mind and a false claim about Iraq that is a bit more specific than the rubbish you just tossed out.

But if you can't even attempt to defend what you claimed Bush43 predicted then we all left right and center can see that you certainly must know that what you wrote cannot be verified with an actual quote.

That means in this forum you are the one who put up a false claim, so according to your recent claim yo must be representing the radical left.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

And why did you avoid my question about Bush wanting Tony Blair to invade Iraq with him?

I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007. Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...



As I said. I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.

George W. Stupid didn't say anything about ISIL there.

 

[Camp]

Darkw 11595161

The only false claims being made about Iraq come from the radicalized left. They feel compelled to lie about events and assign motives to people to justify their cowardice.

I challenged a specific claim you just made about what Bush supposedly predicted about Iraq. You have provided no specific false claim from the so called radical left. Do you have a person in mind and a false claim about Iraq that is a bit more specific than the rubbish you just tossed out.

But if you can't even attempt to defend what you claimed Bush43 predicted then we all left right and center can see that you certainly must know that what you wrote cannot be verified with an actual quote.

That means in this forum you are the one who put up a false claim, so according to your recent claim yo must be representing the radical left.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

And why did you avoid my question about Bush wanting Tony Blair to invade Iraq with him?

I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007. Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...



As I said. I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.

George W. Stupid didn't say anything about ISIL there.

As Bush was in the ending period of controlling the war he started in Iraq without a conclusive result, he made speeches about what a mess he was leaving behind for a future administration. He warned of all the difficulties that were predictable. The question to ask is why did he make that obligatory agreement with Iraq that tied the future administrations hands. Why did Bush, knowing or at least believing that the US needed to retain a strong force in Iraq sign an agreement that would force the US to leave at a set pace and time? Why didn't Bush tell the Iraqi's that the US would leave on the US timetable and stay as long as the US deemed necessary? Why didn't he just refuse to make an agreement when a new administration was about to come into control and responsibility? He waited until a month and a week, 14 Dec. 2008, before leaving office to literally dump the problems created by his administration on the next administration. There was no reason for doing that other than he wanted to symbolically end his involvement with the war and be able to leave office with a so called security agreement. A documented "Mission Accomplished" banner, but just as fraudulent as the original one.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

My question is this:
Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.

Obama could blame bush on that asteroid that wiped the dinasours off the earth, and they would believe him.

 

[Camp]

My question is this:
Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.

Presidents have legacies. They make decisions that last for generations. You can blame Eisenhower for the Interstate Highway System and Kennedy for the the space program. Blame or credit, negative or positive, Presidents leave lasting impacts. Incoming Presidents always have to deal with decisions made by their predecessors.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Darkw 11596732

I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

You have not provided the information I asked for. In 2007 Bush43 was confident he could get the Iraqis to allow the U.S. To keep permanent bases in Iraq and there was no question of legal immunity for our troops because the UN at the time is what authorized our troops to be there and not subject to Iraqi laws. Maliki dumped a big turd on Bush Toward the end of 2007 when he requested the UNSC to end US legal authority in Iraq by the end of 2008. Apparently you are not aware of this Bush-Dissing move made by Maliki after Bush spoke in the link you provided.

Some historical perspective for you Darkwind:

NF 11073366

ISIS was formerly AQI which formed in Iraq about four years before Senator Obama ran for president. Then they were not destroyed by the Bush Administration. They simply moved into Syria and watched Bush get suckered into first the 2007 trap by Maliki when he sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008.

The second trap was the 2008 trap that was set up by the first trap. Bush was forced to negotiate in one year a SOFA or else all troops had to leave by January 1, 2009. That was full advantage for Iraqis. They had Bush under their thumb and pressed hard to get all troops out of US cities by June 2009 and all combat operations by US forces had to be approved in advance by Maliki.

Darkw 11596732

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007. Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...

.

You have modified your original claim quite a bit. I am sure that you have recognized your error. Here is your first highly embellished false claim about what Bysh43 actually said in 2007 and without the context of what took place after he said it. You are ignoring 15 months of significant Iraq news and history from 2007 through 2008 and digging yourself in deeper at misrepresenting the facts.

Darkw 11517218

. Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement. When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.

So we all can see that you do not take into consideration this fact that I pointed out earlier. Maliki "sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008.

So the claim made in your post 11517218 is false. Your claim made about the 2007 link you provided in post 11596732 is absolutely false because Bush43 does not come close to stating what you based your argument upon.


Darkw 11596732

. As I said. I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.

You need to look at your very own arguments. When you post verifiably false claims and cannot admit that your facts are wrong, there cannot be any argument or discussion with you even for argument's sake. You do not base your arguments on facts and obviously do not believe you need to.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HRpuf 11596444

My question is this: Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.

Your question is based on at least two false premises:

(A) "Bush has been gone for seven years now". That statement is correct but is drastically incomplete. The results and effects of Bush's decision to kick peaceful UN inspectors out of Iraq as they were resolving the WMD issue with Iraq - led to much death destruction and turmoil in the ME. The aftershocks of Bush's dumb invasion of Iraq are not gone and won't be gone for a century at least. Also Bush negotiated and approved the withdrawal plan just before leaving . That withdrawal plan did not become null and void when Bush left. It carried over for three years into his successor's presidency. Obama did not modify the gradual withdrawal of troops - he stuck with the Bush and Iraqi intent for withdrawal pace and complete withdrawal.

(B) "When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions?" There is no indication from me or many Obama supporters that we believe Obama does not have to take responsibility for his own actions or inactions. Look to my recent conversations here with Boss and Darkwind. They are both attributing Obama inaction (not keeping troops in Iraq after 2011 without legal immunity) as the cause of the rise of ISIS. We all know ISIS was formed in 2006 as an offshoot of AQI which only entered Iraq as a result of Bush's dumb invasion of Iraq in 2003. That is not simple knee jerk "blaming Bush" it is pointing out the absurdities and deficiencies in right wings knee jerk attempts to blame everything bad that happens in Iraq on Obama and paint Bush as the decider and presider over a great idea to commit the U.S. to war that was not necessary.

 

[Faun]

Darkw 11595161

The only false claims being made about Iraq come from the radicalized left. They feel compelled to lie about events and assign motives to people to justify their cowardice.

I challenged a specific claim you just made about what Bush supposedly predicted about Iraq. You have provided no specific false claim from the so called radical left. Do you have a person in mind and a false claim about Iraq that is a bit more specific than the rubbish you just tossed out.

But if you can't even attempt to defend what you claimed Bush43 predicted then we all left right and center can see that you certainly must know that what you wrote cannot be verified with an actual quote.

That means in this forum you are the one who put up a false claim, so according to your recent claim yo must be representing the radical left.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

And why did you avoid my question about Bush wanting Tony Blair to invade Iraq with him?

I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007. Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...



As I said. I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.

Too funny ... in 2007, Bush warns of the consequences of withdrawing our troops but then in 2008, agrees pull them all out.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Darkw 11595161

The only false claims being made about Iraq come from the radicalized left. They feel compelled to lie about events and assign motives to people to justify their cowardice.

I challenged a specific claim you just made about what Bush supposedly predicted about Iraq. You have provided no specific false claim from the so called radical left. Do you have a person in mind and a false claim about Iraq that is a bit more specific than the rubbish you just tossed out.

But if you can't even attempt to defend what you claimed Bush43 predicted then we all left right and center can see that you certainly must know that what you wrote cannot be verified with an actual quote.

That means in this forum you are the one who put up a false claim, so according to your recent claim yo must be representing the radical left.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

And why did you avoid my question about Bush wanting Tony Blair to invade Iraq with him?

I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007. Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...



As I said. I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.

Too funny ... in 2007, Bush warns of the consequences of withdrawing our troops but then in 2008, agrees pull them all out.

No. He began the process. He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out. Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.

Do you ever post honestly?

No. Clearly, you don't.

 

[JoeB131]

No. He began the process. He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out. Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.

Do you ever post honestly?

No. Clearly, you don't.

The agreement Bush made was to pull all troops out by 2011.

Obama tried to renegotiate it to leave some troops, but the Iraqis didn't want us to stay unless our soldiers were subject to their laws.

Do you really want an American Soldier tried in an Iraqi court?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No. He began the process. He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out. Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.

Do you ever post honestly?

No. Clearly, you don't.

The agreement Bush made was to pull all troops out by 2011.

Obama tried to renegotiate it to leave some troops, but the Iraqis didn't want us to stay unless our soldiers were subject to their laws.

Do you really want an American Soldier tried in an Iraqi court?

You lads love your false choices and cherry picked history.

A status of forces agreement together with other properly negotiated agreements could have served the purpose far better than Obumbler's simple minded "get up and just leave" solution.

And try to face reality. There is not a chance in God's universe that we would permit the Iraq "government" to put any of our servicemen or service women on any trial (other than for possibly the alleged commission of some actual crime).