So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[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.

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.

If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?

 

[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.

If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?

Stop being a hack.

The next President can complete negotiations.

W tied Obumbler's hands in that department NOT AT ALL.

And, you know it.

 

[Camp]

Darkw 11595161 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.

If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?

Stop being a hack.

The next President can complete negotiations.

W tied Obumbler's hands in that department NOT AT ALL.

And, you know it.

Like always, the Obama haters end up with opinions in the end. Not facts or logic, opinions. Opinions based on faulty data. The Shiite controlled government Bush set up in Iraq were not going to give an SOFA to the USA. They wanted and were demanding the troops be vacated from security duties in their country in exactly the way Bush negotiated and agreed to. To ignore them would have meant our troops facing a resurgent of IED's and snipers.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?

Stop being a hack.

The next President can complete negotiations.

W tied Obumbler's hands in that department NOT AT ALL.

And, you know it.

Like always, the Obama haters end up with opinions in the end. Not facts or logic, opinions. Opinions based on faulty data. The Shiite controlled government Bush set up in Iraq were not going to give an SOFA to the USA. They wanted and were demanding the troops be vacated from security duties in their country in exactly the way Bush negotiated and agreed to. To ignore them would have meant our troops facing a resurgent of IED's and snipers.

As always, the simple minded goose stepping liberal unintelligencia ASSume things that never were -- as "truth" -- and then proceed to march double time in the wrong direction to the absurd "conclusions" they desired.

While it may have been difficult to obtain a status of forces agreement, the fact that it would be difficult doesn't excuse Obumbler from getting one.

In case recent history is just simply far too much for your liberal propagandized "mind" to handle, you need to see that Iraq fucking NEEDED us there. They both wanted us out but NEEDED us there. This quandary set the stage for negotiation. We did not need to fold -- especially to THEM.

But that's your peerless leader's style.

 

[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?

Link?

7 years and 6 months into Bush's 8 years in office...

But a senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what he called inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

White House projects record deficit for 2009 - CNN.com​

7 years and 11 months into Bush's 8 years in office...

You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President.

Page 2 Transcript Charlie Gibson Interviews President Bush - ABC News​

 

[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.

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.

Too funny. A finalized agreement which took almost a year to hammer out is now referred to as "beginning the process."

 

[Faun]

Darkw 11595161 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.

If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?

Stop being a hack.

The next President can complete negotiations.

W tied Obumbler's hands in that department NOT AT ALL.

And, you know it.

Too funny ... negotiations were completed before Obama set foot in the White House.

 

[Camp]

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.

If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?

Stop being a hack.

The next President can complete negotiations.

W tied Obumbler's hands in that department NOT AT ALL.

And, you know it.

Like always, the Obama haters end up with opinions in the end. Not facts or logic, opinions. Opinions based on faulty data. The Shiite controlled government Bush set up in Iraq were not going to give an SOFA to the USA. They wanted and were demanding the troops be vacated from security duties in their country in exactly the way Bush negotiated and agreed to. To ignore them would have meant our troops facing a resurgent of IED's and snipers.

As always, the simple minded goose stepping liberal unintelligencia ASSume things that never were -- as "truth" -- and then proceed to march double time in the wrong direction to the absurd "conclusions" they desired.

While it may have been difficult to obtain a status of forces agreement, the fact that it would be difficult doesn't excuse Obumbler from getting one.

In case recent history is just simply far too much for your liberal propagandized "mind" to handle, you need to see that Iraq fucking NEEDED us there. They both wanted us out but NEEDED us there. This quandary set the stage for negotiation. We did not need to fold -- especially to THEM.

But that's your peerless leader's style.

You are very arrogant for a guy who basis's his analysis on opinions and hearsay. The Iraqi's who Bush gave control to did not believe they needed the US. That is how the Bush administration continuously screwed up. They did not understand who they were dealing with. The Shiite who Bush handed the government to are happy to be allied with the Iranians. They hate the Sunni and only care about the area the Sunni live in because of the oil. Maybe you have not noticed that to this day the Iraqi's only want our aircraft to bomb their enemies, but don't want American combat troops. They are OK with advisers and trainers, to a limited degree, but they still don't want our combat troops. You might also notice that Iranian Generals are leading the Shiite militias with Iranian advisers and equipped with Iranian weapons and supplies. When the dust settles the Iraqi's will again be demanding the Americans vacate while they strengthen their alliance with Iran. The Iraqi military is currently a mostly Shiite led force supplied and equipped by American funds. Stop with the hater dupe pills and switch over to the ones labeled "reality".

 

[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.

If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?

Stop being a hack.

The next President can complete negotiations.

W tied Obumbler's hands in that department NOT AT ALL.

And, you know it.

Like always, the Obama haters end up with opinions in the end. Not facts or logic, opinions. Opinions based on faulty data. The Shiite controlled government Bush set up in Iraq were not going to give an SOFA to the USA. They wanted and were demanding the troops be vacated from security duties in their country in exactly the way Bush negotiated and agreed to. To ignore them would have meant our troops facing a resurgent of IED's and snipers.

As always, the simple minded goose stepping liberal unintelligencia ASSume things that never were -- as "truth" -- and then proceed to march double time in the wrong direction to the absurd "conclusions" they desired.

While it may have been difficult to obtain a status of forces agreement, the fact that it would be difficult doesn't excuse Obumbler from getting one.

In case recent history is just simply far too much for your liberal propagandized "mind" to handle, you need to see that Iraq fucking NEEDED us there. They both wanted us out but NEEDED us there. This quandary set the stage for negotiation. We did not need to fold -- especially to THEM.

But that's your peerless leader's style.

You are very arrogant for a guy who basis's his analysis on opinions and hearsay. The Iraqi's who Bush gave control to did not believe they needed the US. That is how the Bush administration continuously screwed up. They did not understand who they were dealing with. The Shiite who Bush handed the government to are happy to be allied with the Iranians. They hate the Sunni and only care about the area the Sunni live in because of the oil. Maybe you have not noticed that to this day the Iraqi's only want our aircraft to bomb their enemies, but don't want American combat troops. They are OK with advisers and trainers, to a limited degree, but they still don't want our combat troops. You might also notice that Iranian Generals are leading the Shiite militias with Iranian advisers and equipped with Iranian weapons and supplies. When the dust settles the Iraqi's will again be demanding the Americans vacate while they strengthen their alliance with Iran. The Iraqi military is currently a mostly Shiite led force supplied and equipped by American funds. Stop with the hater dupe pills and switch over to the ones labeled "reality".

You may be opinionated and arrogant, but your piffle is nothing more than your own generally baseless and ignorant opinion.

You are dismissed, you pantload twat waffle.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well I don't know why the Bush family would be compelled to make ANY claims about Iraq to be honest. Would there be any significant reason for that? Bush didn't give a shit what YOU thought about it then and I'm sure he cares even less now. He did what he thought was best, he had full authorization from Congress to do it. The plan implemented in Iraq was a matter of US foreign policy before he took office. Why would he need to defend something the 1998 Congress came up with?

Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama and the liberal left. We pulled the troops out before the status of forces in Iraq were sufficient to defend the country and now there will be a consequence. We stopped trying to kill the terrorists and started trying to negotiate with them and now we'll pay the price. That's how things in the real universe work.

Now, if you thinking that my mocking your inability to think like a rational person and your devotion to ignorant and factually inaccurate propaganda is somehow me "conceding" to you... knock your retarded self out! Like the Bush family, I really don't give two shits what you think.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Well I don't know why the Bush family would be compelled to make ANY claims about Iraq to be honest. Would there be any significant reason for that? Bush didn't give a shit what YOU thought about it then and I'm sure he cares even less now. He did what he thought was best, he had full authorization from Congress to do it. The plan implemented in Iraq was a matter of US foreign policy before he took office. Why would he need to defend something the 1998 Congress came up with?

Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama and the liberal left. We pulled the troops out before the status of forces in Iraq were sufficient to defend the country and now there will be a consequence. We stopped trying to kill the terrorists and started trying to negotiate with them and now we'll pay the price. That's how things in the real universe work.

Now, if you thinking that my mocking your inability to think like a rational person and your devotion to ignorant and factually inaccurate propaganda is somehow me "conceding" to you... knock your retarded self out! Like the Bush family, I really don't give two shits what you think.

Well said.

 

[edthecynic]

 

[edthecynic]

Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama

Dumb ass, Obama didn't take office as president until 2009.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Funny how the Right were giving Bush all the credit for the withdrawal and denying Obama any credit at all.

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush
By Penny Starr | August 3, 2010 | 2:03 PM EDT

President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq "on schedule."

But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011.
"Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself," President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. "Two years ago this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament."

 

[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.

But let's get back to where this sidebar started... Congress (you say) was lied to by Bush to authorize his use of force... so why didn't Congress repeal what they voted for? Why did Congress continue to fund the war? That's the part that hangs you by your britches on this... IF BUSH LIED, why did Congress not repeal the authorization, halt the funding and call for articles of impeachment on Bush for lying to Congress? Not only did none of that happen, pretty much the opposite happened... they funded everything, they approved additional funding, they sent more troops when requested, and Bush won re-election.

You see, the dirty little secret here is, only a very small minority of radical liberals were anit-Iraq/anti-war. They were very loud and proud but simply didn't have the numbers to prevent us going to war. Once at war, we encountered high casualties in Fallujah, and the public began to turn on the war. Eventually the radicals gained enough support to become politically effective but the damage was already done. So you trotted out Obama with his promises to end the wars and close Gitmo... completely abandon everything we've done the past decade and embark on a liberal "apology tour" around the world. We've now done that for 8 years, with the exception of closing Gitmo which you discovered wasn't as easy as you thought, and the result is ISIS and a stronger presence of radical Islam than ever before.

No answer ...??

You copied & pasted the parts from the Constitution which prove I was right and you were wrong. Were you hoping no one would notice?

I said the Constitution grants the president to send troops into war and the Congress the power to declare war and fund the military.

You said that was the dumbest thing you read that day from a Liberal, but then you proved me right when you posted the relevant portions from the Constitution. Furthermore, your initial claim was that Congress can send troops into war -- which is not supported by the Constitution. You seem to recognize that since you changed your original claim to one that requires both the Congress and the president.

Yet no apology from you for being so friggin' ignorant about the Constitution you suggested I needed to read?

Are you not a man of character who admits when he's so blatantly wrong?

 

[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.

Funny how the Right were giving Bush all the credit for the withdrawal and denying Obama any credit at all.

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush
By Penny Starr | August 3, 2010 | 2:03 PM EDT

President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq "on schedule."

But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011.
"Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself," President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. "Two years ago this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament."

Righties did the same thing over the economy. They took full credit for it and the housing boom in the mid-2000's when times were good, but the moment that house of cards collapsed, they immediately began blaming Barney Frank, one member of the minority party in the House who they claim had super human powers to single handedly bring the majority party Republicans to their knees, like kryptonite to Superman, and pre entry them from passing GSE reform like Bush had been asking for since 2002.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

I am just waiting for the day central california get that long awaited 9.5. and then Nancy Pelosi will go on live TV, 200 Million viewers, and explain why Bush caused the once in a life time earthquake.

 

[JoeB131]

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).

The Iraqis made it pretty clear they didn't want us staying unless we did.

The reality is, the Iraqis really, really didn't want us to stay under any circumstances. Probably had to do with the fact we screwed up their lives pretty thoroughly.

When the last American pulled out, Nouri al-Maliki didn't say, "We'll miss you." He announced proudly on Iraqi TV that "We have repelled the invaders!" And this was the guy we supported!!!

 

[JoeB131]

In case recent history is just simply far too much for your liberal propagandized "mind" to handle, you need to see that Iraq fucking NEEDED us there. They both wanted us out but NEEDED us there. This quandary set the stage for negotiation. We did not need to fold -- especially to THEM.

Except the Iraqis didn't feel they "Needed" us. And they certainly didn't WANT us. That's the point.

 

[JoeB131]

Well I don't know why the Bush family would be compelled to make ANY claims about Iraq to be honest. Would there be any significant reason for that? Bush didn't give a shit what YOU thought about it then and I'm sure he cares even less now. He did what he thought was best, he had full authorization from Congress to do it. The plan implemented in Iraq was a matter of US foreign policy before he took office. Why would he need to defend something the 1998 Congress came up with?

The 1998 law didn't authorize him to go to war. The 2002 resolution did that, but only if there was proof that there were weapons and all other diplomatic attempts to resolve had failed.

I'm sure that he did do what he thought was best. Unfortunately, he ignored the TRAINED MILITARY MEN who told him it was a bad idea.

Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama and the liberal left. We pulled the troops out before the status of forces in Iraq were sufficient to defend the country and now there will be a consequence. We stopped trying to kill the terrorists and started trying to negotiate with them and now we'll pay the price. That's how things in the real universe work.

Guy, the problem was not that we didn't leave 11,000 troops in Iraq, they wouldn't have made a difference.

The reason why Iraq collapsed is because Maliki stole the money meant to go to his troops and sent it to his cronies, and alienated the Sunnis to the point they no longer wanted to play

In the real universe, you don't win by "killing the terrorists". You win by making things tolerable enough to where they put their gun in the garage and go back to a normal life.

Now, if you thinking that my mocking your inability to think like a rational person and your devotion to ignorant and factually inaccurate propaganda is somehow me "conceding" to you... knock your retarded self out! Like the Bush family, I really don't give two shits what you think.

Well, the Bush Crime Family is chocking on Iraq now. It's hilarious to watch Jeb try to talk his way out of it.