War Mongering President, War Criminal, Blood On His Hands!

[teapartysamurai]

OH! Never mind!

What am I talking about? A Democrat is president! It's OKAY when HE talks about war, right????

Obama lays out plan to 'eradicate cancer' of Islamic State fighters

President Obama vowed to “destroy” Islamic State in Iraq and Syria terrorists in a prime-time address Wednesday that sought to restore eroding public confidence in his leadership and ability to safeguard national security.

The president announced a “systematic campaign of airstrikes” against fighters with the ISIS “wherever they exist,” signaling U.S. targets will expand from Iraq to Syria.

I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are,” Obama said during the 15-minute address from the White House. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against [ISIS] in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

Obama lays out plan to eradicate cancer of Islamic State fighters TheHill

Remember the good old days liberals? When a Republican was president and your messiah could shoot his mouth off about Iraq anytime he wanted?



Yeah, those were the "good old days."

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. NOW, a Democrat is president and what do you know? Terrorists DON'T love us more because a black man/muslim/Kenyan/whatever is president.

Now, Obama finally has the problem in HIS lap.

So, he TALKS tough. He draws red lines like he already did in Syria and then did . . . . NOTHING.

So, he's talking tough again. Does he still think that all he need do?

Wait and see.

Just count on HYPOCRITE LIBERALS not to call Obama a war criminal, claim he's violating the Geneva Convention (that was always a funny one) or he violating the Constitution (and when has Obama cared about the Constitution???)

Wow, expect crickets from liberals on this.

But cheer up libs. You can always rant, rave and keep on blaming Bush!

 

[JoeB131]

Well, you know, the minute that Obama came out against ISIL, you guys would come out for them.

 

[BillyP]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Well, you know, the minute that Obama came out against ISIL, you guys would come out for them.

Bwahahaaa!

Nice attempt at spin, but that won't work.

Does that means when Obama criticized Bush for Iraq HE WAS FOR THE TERRORISTS?????????????

Only way that spin works, pal!

You liberals never did have the brains to see your spin through to it's illogical conclusions.

 

[Mac1958]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.

This was all predictable. This was all predicted.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ISIL never even attacked us!!!

You can't fight an ideology with bullets and bombs!

Obama is only making more terrorists!!

 

[teapartysamurai]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yeah, because terrorism didn't exist before Bush invaded Iraq.

Yeah, I guess 9/11 happened because Bush invaded Iraq, too!

oh, wait a minute! Oops!



Keep trying that spin, liberals!

 

[teapartysamurai]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.

This was all predictable. This was all predicted.

.

Yeah, Iran isn't "emboldened" because Obama does NOTHING about them building a bomb!

Nooooooooooooooo, it's all Bush's fault.

Keep trying libs!

 

[candycorn]

Well, you know, the minute that Obama came out against ISIL, you guys would come out for them.

Quite predictable.

 

[teapartysamurai]

ISIL never even attacked us!!!

You can't fight an ideology with bullets and bombs!

Obama is only making more terrorists!!

Hey, that only works when a Republican is president!

A Democrat is president, so it's different!

Right liberals????

That doesn't mean you are all proven, laughable, self-righteous, hypocrites again?????

 

[teapartysamurai]

Well, you know, the minute that Obama came out against ISIL, you guys would come out for them.

Quite predictable.

Wow, another, "genious" who doesn't consider that, if that's true, all Obama criticism of Bush in Iraq means he sided with the terrorists, too!

You libs never were too bright!

 

[Mac1958]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.

This was all predictable. This was all predicted.

.

Yeah, Iran isn't "emboldened" because Obama does NOTHING about them building a bomb!

Nooooooooooooooo, it's all Bush's fault.

Keep trying libs!

The Middle East was in bad enough shape before Bush's war in Iraq. He made that situation even worse, as many of us predicted. At a cost of thousands of young American lives, limbs and minds. At a cost of a trillion dollars that we didn't have.

You can pretend that isn't true, and that's fine. You have an ideology to defend, no matter what.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, you know, the minute that Obama came out against ISIL, you guys would come out for them.

Bwahahaaa!

Nice attempt at spin, but that won't work.

Does that means when Obama criticized Bush for Iraq HE WAS FOR THE TERRORISTS?????????????

Only way that spin works, pal!

You liberals never did have the brains to see your spin through to it's illogical conclusions.

Um, no, When Obama criticized Bush for invading Iraq, it was because Saddam wasn't our enemy, wasn't colluding with Al Qaeda, and the reason we went in was a lie.

I don't think we should be going in after ISIL. This isn't our problem. Of course, it wouldn't be ANYONE'S problem if Bush hadn't toppled Saddam in the first place.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama's Cowboy Diplomacy

 

[CitizenSeven]

What amazes me is here is a guy who ran against the war in Iraq, and here he is repeating the same mistakes. Bush was an idiot, no doubt, but what do you call someone who sees that, and then willfully does the same damn thing?

Isis, or Isil, is not a real threat to the US. The US has no legitimate interest in getting sucked into another sand war.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you like Baghdad you can keep it. Period

 

[teapartysamurai]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.

This was all predictable. This was all predicted.

.

Yeah, Iran isn't "emboldened" because Obama does NOTHING about them building a bomb!

Nooooooooooooooo, it's all Bush's fault.

Keep trying libs!

The Middle East was in bad enough shape before Bush's war in Iraq. He made that situation even worse, as many of us predicted. At a cost of thousands of young American lives, limbs and minds. At a cost of a trillion dollars that we didn't have.

You can pretend that isn't true, and that's fine. You have an ideology to defend, no matter what.

.

And Bush warned what would happen if Obama pulled out too soon.

Like the Democrats did when they shamefully pulled out of Vietnam and allowed the "Killing Fields" to happen.

The press gave the Democrats cover, just as the press is now trying to give Obama cover.

But some of us, actually pay attention to history and not liberal spin.

 

[Mac1958]

"Mr. President, you break it, you own it."

Colin Powell, before our invasion

.

 

[Stephanie]

Well, you know, the minute that Obama came out against ISIL, you guys would come out for them.

What an awful person you can be. Pointing out what Obama has said before does not make anyone on the side of a frikken terrorist

 

[candycorn]

What amazes me is here is a guy who ran against the war in Iraq, and here he is repeating the same mistakes. Bush was an idiot, no doubt, but what do you call someone who sees that, and then willfully does the same damn thing?

Isis, or Isil, is not a real threat to the US. The US has no legitimate interest in getting sucked into another sand war.

Well, we are not sending 500,000 troops into Afghanistan and Arabia under Obama so it's not the same thing.

That being said, I think that you're 100% correct that the US has no legitimate interest in another war over there; only to install yet another American hating theocrat as a figurehead that will thankus for the gallons of American blood spilled and then kindly tell us to leave...only to start the whole process of dictatorship over again.