Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP

[kaz]

So you've still got the bloody piles from eight years of Shrub, understandable

Say what? You're blaming Bush on libertarians? How does that make sense? The 1% of us controlled the 99% of you who do and say the same things and don't know you're twins? Obama continued W's economic and military policies, and you think you're night and day when you're barely even shades of gray

. But I voted for Ralph four times. The dems wouldn't let him debate them....I don't see Bernie falling in line.

Bernie and Hillary have the same positions. What difference does it make now!

You accuse me of being a dem when I'm an independent, and then get all butt hurt when I call you on voting for Shrub....you know you did.

If Bernie had the same positions as Shrillary, he wouldn't be running against her....that's just stupid.

Why wouldn't two people with the same views run for President? That makes no sense. And every Democrat has the same views, Hillary, Bernie, You and Nader. Tell me things you disagree with the Democrats on. I've told you lots of things I disagree with Republicans on, but you reject social and military differences because all you care about is $$$, so that's the only measure to you. Though I'm not like the Republicans there either, I'm way worse

 

[JimBowie1958]

A distinction without a difference, they knew what they were doing

I dont think that RW understands any of that.

To communicate with him, think crayons, BIG crayons in primary colors and a large white piece of paper so he can write the words you tell him as he sounds them out.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you've still got the bloody piles from eight years of Shrub, understandable

Say what? You're blaming Bush on libertarians? How does that make sense? The 1% of us controlled the 99% of you who do and say the same things and don't know you're twins? Obama continued W's economic and military policies, and you think you're night and day when you're barely even shades of gray

. But I voted for Ralph four times. The dems wouldn't let him debate them....I don't see Bernie falling in line.

Bernie and Hillary have the same positions. What difference does it make now!

You accuse me of being a dem when I'm an independent, and then get all butt hurt when I call you on voting for Shrub....you know you did.

If Bernie had the same positions as Shrillary, he wouldn't be running against her....that's just stupid.

Why wouldn't two people with the same views run for President? That makes no sense. And every Democrat has the same views, Hillary, Bernie, You and Nader. Tell me things you disagree with the Democrats on. I've told you lots of things I disagree with Republicans on, but you reject social and military differences because all you care about is $$$, so that's the only measure to you. Though I'm not like the Republicans there either, I'm way worse

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again, I agree W believed it, that was pretty obvious. But this is largely true, he saw evidence in the light that he already believed it, you can't deny that part

So your defense of W is that he engaged in self delusion?

I dont care. Either way he deceived the American people even if he did it by deceiving himself first.

 

[rightwinger]

I opposed the invasion, but because it was bad policy. The idea that W didn't believe there were WMDs and lied and the Democrats believed him is why they are just a bunch of stupid, cock sucking vermin. They supported the war, their votes made it possible. The big lie of the Iraq war was democrats saying they were lied to

Bush spun the intel reports to make Iraq look bad, he put total faith in the discredited 'Curveball' informant that the Brits had proven was a liar, and he built his whole case to the public based on doctored reports, bullshit exaggeration and things HE KNEW TO BE FALSE.

George W Bush should have been impeached for lying to us about why we had to go into Iraq, and for remaining to engage in nation building nonsense at huge costs to the Republic in lives and treasure.

total bullshit

Again, I agree W believed it, that was pretty obvious. But this is largely true, he saw evidence in the light that he already believed it, you can't deny that part

W had a hard on for Iraq from the day he took office. First thing he did after 9-11 was look for a way to pin it on Iraq

 

[rightwinger]

I did not believe him.....neither did Obama

Congress was too weak to stand up to the President in post 9-11 America. Nobody wanted to be called weak on terror

Bush knew that and exploited it

You didn't believe the Democrats, now that's funny

Bush lied

Yes he did....and Obama speaks only the truth...

Obama was right about Iraq

Bush got his ass handed to him

Obama was nobody, and what evidence do you have that Obama said Hussein didn't have WMDs actually before the invasion?

LMAO, that was funny, RW having evidence for anything he says. I crack myself up

Bush should have listened to Obama....would have saved us a lot of grief

Transcript: Obama's Speech Against The Iraq War


Sen. Barack Obama's speech against Iraq war

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

 

[Oldstyle]

I believe that those at the UN and many many country's leaders were all given compelling information about Saddam's WMDs.
Bushes most high ranking Generals and The Joint Chiefs of staff believed Saddam had WMDs. Which of course he did. You don't drop barrels of maple syrup on your own people to kill them. You drop sarin gas on them.
Yes poison gas is officially a WMD. Many ill informed still believe only nuclear bombs are WMD.The idiot Chrissy Matthews keeps repeating that lie.
Oh BTW. For all you trump haters who claim Trump would take the US to war if some dictator gave him the finger.
Hillary voted to go into two wars. Trump, while not having any say in the matter stated his public opposition to going into Iraq or into Afghanistan.
So who's the fucking war monger?

Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, told Bush that he did not think Saddam still had WMDs. He said that if he had more time to finish his inspections, he could prove it

Bush invaded before Blix could remove his reason for invading

Would that be the same United Nations who's Secretary General had a son who was brokering black market oil for arms deals for the Iraqi government?

Nice diversion, but has nothing to do with Hans Blix

Bush had every reason in the world NOT to invade Iraq when he did. Afghanistan was still unfinished business, bin Laden was still on the run....you would have thought Bush would welcome additional time to be sure of the threat posed by Saddam

Instead, he invaded immediately, before Blix could prove his accusations were wrong

"Immediately"? Seriously, Winger? Saddam Hussein "played chicken" with UN sanctions for YEARS before we ever invaded Iraq. For you to sit here now and pretend that Bush rushed into something is a complete misrepresentation of what had taken place back then.

And I wasn't speaking of Hans Blix...I was referring to Kofi Anan's son Kojo!

And right you are
Sanctions kept Saddam in check for over a decade. He was weaker economically and militarily than after the first Gulf War.
Bush had better things to do in fighting the war on terror. Iraq was an unjustified diversion
Yet, Congress gave him permission to fight the war he asked for

Dude, the "sanctions" were falling apart! When you've got the son of the Secretary General of the UN making deals for you to sell your oil for weapons...then sanctions are failing. That was the case with Iraq. Nations like France were buying Iraqi oil on the black market in exchange for things like sophisticated missiles.

 

[JimH52]

Gipper and Kaz, are you married?

 

[Oldstyle]

How about this, Bulldog...you Progressives give us conservatives "60 working days" to pass whatever legislation we'd like and then we'll see who got what DONE! Deal?

You've already been given 500 days 12 hours and 37 minutes and counting since that little midterm election you're so proud of.
2014 Mid-Term Election

Yeah, right...and in ANY of that time did we have control of the Senate, House and White House like the Democrats did? Between Harry Reid refusing to bring GOP House bills to the floor of the Senate and Barack Obama declaring that he'd veto anything he didn't like that came to his desk...how is it that the GOP was "given" anything? Like I said...anytime you liberals want to give us conservatives complete control for 60 working days...THEN...and ONLY THEN can you say that the GOP has failed legislatively!

you gave us the GREAT RECESSION the last time you had the senate, the house of representatives and the white house in republican hands,,,

so let's count our blessing you haven't been given that again! AMEN!

The only reason it's been a "GREAT RECESSION" is that Barry didn't have a clue how to fix an economy and create jobs! We're seven plus years into his administration and the Fed is still scared to raise interest rates because the economy is so weak. Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history.

I didn't see where any of Bush's timid economic actions had any effect

When Obama took office, the stock market was still in collapse, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month and GDP was negative...auto and banks were collapsing

Obama took solid action and reversed all that

Who came up with TARP? It wasn't Barry...he simply continued what Bush started. Timid? Has Barack Obama even HAD an economic plan for the last five years? If he has...I'd love to hear what it was! I don't think they've even tried to come up with one since Larry Summers left.

 

[rightwinger]

Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, told Bush that he did not think Saddam still had WMDs. He said that if he had more time to finish his inspections, he could prove it

Bush invaded before Blix could remove his reason for invading

Would that be the same United Nations who's Secretary General had a son who was brokering black market oil for arms deals for the Iraqi government?

Nice diversion, but has nothing to do with Hans Blix

Bush had every reason in the world NOT to invade Iraq when he did. Afghanistan was still unfinished business, bin Laden was still on the run....you would have thought Bush would welcome additional time to be sure of the threat posed by Saddam

Instead, he invaded immediately, before Blix could prove his accusations were wrong

"Immediately"? Seriously, Winger? Saddam Hussein "played chicken" with UN sanctions for YEARS before we ever invaded Iraq. For you to sit here now and pretend that Bush rushed into something is a complete misrepresentation of what had taken place back then.

And I wasn't speaking of Hans Blix...I was referring to Kofi Anan's son Kojo!

And right you are
Sanctions kept Saddam in check for over a decade. He was weaker economically and militarily than after the first Gulf War.
Bush had better things to do in fighting the war on terror. Iraq was an unjustified diversion
Yet, Congress gave him permission to fight the war he asked for

Dude, the "sanctions" were falling apart! When you've got the son of the Secretary General of the UN making deals for you to sell your oil for weapons...then sanctions are failing. That was the case with Iraq. Nations like France were buying Iraqi oil on the black market in exchange for things like sophisticated missiles.

Iraq was falling apart

It's economy was in shambles, his military was weaker than it was in Desert Storm, allied air controlled his air space

Bush had better things to do than invade Iraq.....like actually hunt down terrorists

 

[Oldstyle]

You didn't believe the Democrats, now that's funny

Bush lied

Yes he did....and Obama speaks only the truth...

Obama was right about Iraq

Bush got his ass handed to him

Obama was nobody, and what evidence do you have that Obama said Hussein didn't have WMDs actually before the invasion?

LMAO, that was funny, RW having evidence for anything he says. I crack myself up

Bush should have listened to Obama....would have saved us a lot of grief

Transcript: Obama's Speech Against The Iraq War


Sen. Barack Obama's speech against Iraq war

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Ah yes...Barry Obama outlines his "containment" strategy! Remind me how "containing" a petty dictator named Adolf Hitler worked out back in the 30's? Remind how appealing to the "best impulses" of the Arab world has worked out for Obama now?

 

[rightwinger]

You've already been given 500 days 12 hours and 37 minutes and counting since that little midterm election you're so proud of.
2014 Mid-Term Election

Yeah, right...and in ANY of that time did we have control of the Senate, House and White House like the Democrats did? Between Harry Reid refusing to bring GOP House bills to the floor of the Senate and Barack Obama declaring that he'd veto anything he didn't like that came to his desk...how is it that the GOP was "given" anything? Like I said...anytime you liberals want to give us conservatives complete control for 60 working days...THEN...and ONLY THEN can you say that the GOP has failed legislatively!

you gave us the GREAT RECESSION the last time you had the senate, the house of representatives and the white house in republican hands,,,

so let's count our blessing you haven't been given that again! AMEN!

The only reason it's been a "GREAT RECESSION" is that Barry didn't have a clue how to fix an economy and create jobs! We're seven plus years into his administration and the Fed is still scared to raise interest rates because the economy is so weak. Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history.

I didn't see where any of Bush's timid economic actions had any effect

When Obama took office, the stock market was still in collapse, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month and GDP was negative...auto and banks were collapsing

Obama took solid action and reversed all that

Who came up with TARP? It wasn't Barry...he simply continued what Bush started. Timid? Has Barack Obama even HAD an economic plan for the last five years? If he has...I'd love to hear what it was! I don't think they've even tried to come up with one since Larry Summers left.

Interesting point there

Notice how Republucans had no problem with supporting TARP funds for Bush yet voted against them for Obama?

Difference in TARP is Obama insisted the auto companies restructure, workers accept pay cuts, banks be subjected to new financial reform conditions

Under Bush, TARP was a cash gift with no strings attached

 

[rightwinger]

Bush lied

Yes he did....and Obama speaks only the truth...

Obama was right about Iraq

Bush got his ass handed to him

Obama was nobody, and what evidence do you have that Obama said Hussein didn't have WMDs actually before the invasion?

LMAO, that was funny, RW having evidence for anything he says. I crack myself up

Bush should have listened to Obama....would have saved us a lot of grief

Transcript: Obama's Speech Against The Iraq War


Sen. Barack Obama's speech against Iraq war

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Ah yes...Barry Obama outlines his "containment" strategy! Remind me how "containing" a petty dictator named Adolf Hitler worked out back in the 30's? Remind how appealing to the "best impulses" of the Arab world has worked out for Obama now?

Interesting how history showed Obama's assessment of Iraq to be spot on. That is why he is president today

 

[Oldstyle]

Would that be the same United Nations who's Secretary General had a son who was brokering black market oil for arms deals for the Iraqi government?

Nice diversion, but has nothing to do with Hans Blix

Bush had every reason in the world NOT to invade Iraq when he did. Afghanistan was still unfinished business, bin Laden was still on the run....you would have thought Bush would welcome additional time to be sure of the threat posed by Saddam

Instead, he invaded immediately, before Blix could prove his accusations were wrong

"Immediately"? Seriously, Winger? Saddam Hussein "played chicken" with UN sanctions for YEARS before we ever invaded Iraq. For you to sit here now and pretend that Bush rushed into something is a complete misrepresentation of what had taken place back then.

And I wasn't speaking of Hans Blix...I was referring to Kofi Anan's son Kojo!

And right you are
Sanctions kept Saddam in check for over a decade. He was weaker economically and militarily than after the first Gulf War.
Bush had better things to do in fighting the war on terror. Iraq was an unjustified diversion
Yet, Congress gave him permission to fight the war he asked for

Dude, the "sanctions" were falling apart! When you've got the son of the Secretary General of the UN making deals for you to sell your oil for weapons...then sanctions are failing. That was the case with Iraq. Nations like France were buying Iraqi oil on the black market in exchange for things like sophisticated missiles.

Iraq was falling apart

It's economy was in shambles, his military was weaker than it was in Desert Storm, allied air controlled his air space

Bush had better things to do than invade Iraq.....like actually hunt down terrorists

When Bush was in office we WERE fighting terrorists in Iraq...now that Barry is in office we're fighting terrorists in the US, in France, in Great Britain, in Syria, in Libya, in Africa and in Iraq...how's that "hunt" for terrorists going? Any word on when we'll see the apprehension of the terrorists who murdered four Americans in Benghazi?

 

[rightwinger]

Nice diversion, but has nothing to do with Hans Blix

Bush had every reason in the world NOT to invade Iraq when he did. Afghanistan was still unfinished business, bin Laden was still on the run....you would have thought Bush would welcome additional time to be sure of the threat posed by Saddam

Instead, he invaded immediately, before Blix could prove his accusations were wrong

"Immediately"? Seriously, Winger? Saddam Hussein "played chicken" with UN sanctions for YEARS before we ever invaded Iraq. For you to sit here now and pretend that Bush rushed into something is a complete misrepresentation of what had taken place back then.

And I wasn't speaking of Hans Blix...I was referring to Kofi Anan's son Kojo!

And right you are
Sanctions kept Saddam in check for over a decade. He was weaker economically and militarily than after the first Gulf War.
Bush had better things to do in fighting the war on terror. Iraq was an unjustified diversion
Yet, Congress gave him permission to fight the war he asked for

Dude, the "sanctions" were falling apart! When you've got the son of the Secretary General of the UN making deals for you to sell your oil for weapons...then sanctions are failing. That was the case with Iraq. Nations like France were buying Iraqi oil on the black market in exchange for things like sophisticated missiles.

Iraq was falling apart

It's economy was in shambles, his military was weaker than it was in Desert Storm, allied air controlled his air space

Bush had better things to do than invade Iraq.....like actually hunt down terrorists

When Bush was in office we WERE fighting terrorists in Iraq...now that Barry is in office we're fighting terrorists in the US, in France, in Great Britain, in Syria, in Libya, in Africa and in Iraq...how's that "hunt" for terrorists going? Any word on when we'll see the apprehension of the terrorists who murdered four Americans in Benghazi?

Bush created the terrorists in Iraq. Saddam would not tolerate them, they were a threat to his authority
Once Bush removed Saddam, AlQaeda moved in

Note: We did get the guy responsible for the Benghazi attacks

Sources: Benghazi 'mastermind' was captured with no shots fired - CNN.com

 

[kaz]

Again, I agree W believed it, that was pretty obvious. But this is largely true, he saw evidence in the light that he already believed it, you can't deny that part

So your defense of W is that he engaged in self delusion?

I dont care. Either way he deceived the American people even if he did it by deceiving himself first.

That's a spin of what I said. When people believe something and they are presented with contradictory information, they tend to let the part of the contradictory information that supports their view dominate their interpretation of the information.

I already said I didn't support the invasion and why, I don't see how you added value to that

 

[Oldstyle]

Yeah, right...and in ANY of that time did we have control of the Senate, House and White House like the Democrats did? Between Harry Reid refusing to bring GOP House bills to the floor of the Senate and Barack Obama declaring that he'd veto anything he didn't like that came to his desk...how is it that the GOP was "given" anything? Like I said...anytime you liberals want to give us conservatives complete control for 60 working days...THEN...and ONLY THEN can you say that the GOP has failed legislatively!

you gave us the GREAT RECESSION the last time you had the senate, the house of representatives and the white house in republican hands,,,

so let's count our blessing you haven't been given that again! AMEN!

The only reason it's been a "GREAT RECESSION" is that Barry didn't have a clue how to fix an economy and create jobs! We're seven plus years into his administration and the Fed is still scared to raise interest rates because the economy is so weak. Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history.

I didn't see where any of Bush's timid economic actions had any effect

When Obama took office, the stock market was still in collapse, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month and GDP was negative...auto and banks were collapsing

Obama took solid action and reversed all that

Who came up with TARP? It wasn't Barry...he simply continued what Bush started. Timid? Has Barack Obama even HAD an economic plan for the last five years? If he has...I'd love to hear what it was! I don't think they've even tried to come up with one since Larry Summers left.

Interesting point there

Notice how Republucans had no problem with supporting TARP funds for Bush yet voted against them for Obama?

Difference in TARP is Obama insisted the auto companies restructure, workers accept pay cuts, banks be subjected to new financial reform conditions

Under Bush, TARP was a cash gift with no strings attached

Cash gift? The money that Bush put out with his TARP was all paid back with interest...how much of the money that Barry lent out never got repaid? Obama gave out millions to people that supported him as a candidate and then many of those companies went belly up. We lost money each time that happened! What Barry did with the auto companies is screw over legitimate creditors to favor the UAW. You want to know why companies are going elsewhere to do business? It starts with having confidence in the rule of law being followed.

 

[kaz]

"Immediately"? Seriously, Winger? Saddam Hussein "played chicken" with UN sanctions for YEARS before we ever invaded Iraq. For you to sit here now and pretend that Bush rushed into something is a complete misrepresentation of what had taken place back then.

And I wasn't speaking of Hans Blix...I was referring to Kofi Anan's son Kojo!

And right you are
Sanctions kept Saddam in check for over a decade. He was weaker economically and militarily than after the first Gulf War.
Bush had better things to do in fighting the war on terror. Iraq was an unjustified diversion
Yet, Congress gave him permission to fight the war he asked for

Dude, the "sanctions" were falling apart! When you've got the son of the Secretary General of the UN making deals for you to sell your oil for weapons...then sanctions are failing. That was the case with Iraq. Nations like France were buying Iraqi oil on the black market in exchange for things like sophisticated missiles.

Iraq was falling apart

It's economy was in shambles, his military was weaker than it was in Desert Storm, allied air controlled his air space

Bush had better things to do than invade Iraq.....like actually hunt down terrorists

When Bush was in office we WERE fighting terrorists in Iraq...now that Barry is in office we're fighting terrorists in the US, in France, in Great Britain, in Syria, in Libya, in Africa and in Iraq...how's that "hunt" for terrorists going? Any word on when we'll see the apprehension of the terrorists who murdered four Americans in Benghazi?

Bush created the terrorists in Iraq. Saddam would not tolerate them, they were a threat to his authority
Once Bush removed Saddam, AlQaeda moved in

Note: We did get the guy responsible for the Benghazi attacks

RRRRrrrrrriiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhttttttt. W created terrorism in the middle east. Before that, they just had garden parties. Here's a cookie, run along and play now.

One thing I'll give you credit for, big guy. You do show so clearly why Democrats are able to manipulate their servants, I mean voters, so easily. I mean wow, bright, not

 

[kaz]

You didn't believe the Democrats, now that's funny

Bush lied

Yes he did....and Obama speaks only the truth...

Obama was right about Iraq

Bush got his ass handed to him

Obama was nobody, and what evidence do you have that Obama said Hussein didn't have WMDs actually before the invasion?

LMAO, that was funny, RW having evidence for anything he says. I crack myself up

Bush should have listened to Obama....would have saved us a lot of grief

Transcript: Obama's Speech Against The Iraq War


Sen. Barack Obama's speech against Iraq war

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

And yet, Obama finished W's strategy and timeline in Iraq. What a dumb ass

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes he did....and Obama speaks only the truth...

Obama was right about Iraq

Bush got his ass handed to him

Obama was nobody, and what evidence do you have that Obama said Hussein didn't have WMDs actually before the invasion?

LMAO, that was funny, RW having evidence for anything he says. I crack myself up

Bush should have listened to Obama....would have saved us a lot of grief

Transcript: Obama's Speech Against The Iraq War


Sen. Barack Obama's speech against Iraq war

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Ah yes...Barry Obama outlines his "containment" strategy! Remind me how "containing" a petty dictator named Adolf Hitler worked out back in the 30's? Remind how appealing to the "best impulses" of the Arab world has worked out for Obama now?

Interesting how history showed Obama's assessment of Iraq to be spot on. That is why he is president today

His "containment" of Saddam Hussein would have worked about as well as his "containment" of Putin and his "containment" of ISIS. He's an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. The only one in Washington that might be more idiotic is our Secretary of State, John Kerry!