Why did Obama turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda?

[rightwinger]

Yet still every leading dem at the time was saying the very opposite. So where does that leave the truth?

Except that most Democrats in Congress voted against giving GWB the power to decide to use military force.

Nope not true ,many more than not voted yes,pertiqually all the Dem leadership was on board,and had been even before Bush was elected,facts don't change even for the dishonest. Dems had more than enough voting power to derail the iraq resolution,that didn't happen did it.

Both parties are just as much involved as the next trying to say otherwise is just dishonesty.

Can you post the numbers supporting your claim?

I didn't think so

 

[Bush92]

The fact is high profile Democrats voted for the war. Especially horse faced cock-sucker Kerry who voted against Gulf War, but in favor of Iraq invasion because he was going to run for president in 2004. these high profile Dem's who are still serving today can't say shit about whats happening in Iraq right now. They gave it their blessing in 2002.

 

[rightwinger]

The fact is high profile Democrats voted for the war. Especially horse faced cock-sucker Kerry who voted against Gulf War, but in favor of Iraq invasion because he was going to run for president in 2004. these high profile Dem's who are still serving today can't say shit about whats happening in Iraq right now. They gave it their blessing in 2002.

Not this high profile Dem

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.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Barack Obama Oct 2 2002
__________________

 

[chikenwing]

Except that most Democrats in Congress voted against giving GWB the power to decide to use military force.

Nope not true ,many more than not voted yes,pertiqually all the Dem leadership was on board,and had been even before Bush was elected,facts don't change even for the dishonest. Dems had more than enough voting power to derail the iraq resolution,that didn't happen did it.

Both parties are just as much involved as the next trying to say otherwise is just dishonesty.

Can you post the numbers supporting your claim?

I didn't think so

Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

 

[chikenwing]

Senate Democrats who voted for the invasion of Iraq:
YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)...Ohhhhh loookee here!
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)....Ohhhhhh lookee here!
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)...Ohhhhh lookkee here!
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)...Ohhh loookeeee here!
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV) ...Ohhhhhh lookkkee here!
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)...Ohhhhh lookkkee here!
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Why do we keep doing this?

More Democrats voted against the war than voted for it. We have been through it dozens of times

Only one man was "The Decider" on Iraq and that was Bush. The responsibility rests with the decider

No its not,the dems could have stopped it they had the vote they didn't,its that simple.

 

[Steinlight]

Saddam, miss him yet?

Honestly, what a waste of blood and treasure that war was, we got absolutely nothing out of this pointless quagmire(except a trillion in debt, thousands of americans dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis debt, and a demoralized fighting force that is spread far too thin) . We didn't even get oil out of the deal(we fought a war to give the Chinese cheap oil).

And as if the situation couldn't get any worse, President Noble Peace Prize had the bright idea to give Al Qaeda weapons in Syria(because Assad was the new Hitler), and when these guys lost in Syria they have just decided to overthrow the puppet state we spent a decade establishing.

It comes full circle, President Bush got rid of Saddam because Al Qaeda(despite the fact Saddam opposed Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with 911), now the Smartest President Ever put Al Qaeda into a position to run the country with the second largest oil supply in the middle east.

It's dark comedy is what it is.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope not true ,many more than not voted yes,pertiqually all the Dem leadership was on board,and had been even before Bush was elected,facts don't change even for the dishonest. Dems had more than enough voting power to derail the iraq resolution,that didn't happen did it.

Both parties are just as much involved as the next trying to say otherwise is just dishonesty.

Can you post the numbers supporting your claim?

I didn't think so

Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

I see 126 Democrats voting AGAINST the bill and 82 voting for

Only SIX Republicans voted against that fucking war!

 

[jillian]

Yet still every leading dem at the time was saying the very opposite. So where does that leave the truth?

Except that most Democrats in Congress voted against giving GWB the power to decide to use military force.

Nope not true ,many more than not voted yes,pertiqually all the Dem leadership was on board,and had been even before Bush was elected,facts don't change even for the dishonest. Dems had more than enough voting power to derail the iraq resolution,that didn't happen did it.

Both parties are just as much involved as the next trying to say otherwise is just dishonesty.

you're lying. it was the neocon PNAC crowd that baby bush brought in with him that wanted to invade Iraq. in fact, President Clinton, unlike baby bush, ignored the neocon PNAC types.

you'd know that if you weren't simply making things up.

 

[Steinlight]

Does this really need an answer? Obama is an idiot and a fucking incompetent. The Grand Strategist armed Al Qaeda and didn't see this coming?

 

[Jackson]

The fact is high profile Democrats voted for the war. Especially horse faced cock-sucker Kerry who voted against Gulf War, but in favor of Iraq invasion because he was going to run for president in 2004. these high profile Dem's who are still serving today can't say shit about whats happening in Iraq right now. They gave it their blessing in 2002.

Not this high profile Dem

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.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Barack Obama Oct 2 2002
__________________

No doubt he had good speech writers, but when it came for a time to lead, the man was/is clueless.

 

[KissMy]

Lets send the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz & McCain families over to Iraq so they can fix it. They will be greeted as "liberators" by the people there & be elected to fix Iraq & show Obama how to lead. - LOL (into the ground)

63% of US citizens said Iraq was a mistake when Obama was elected.

 

[rightwinger]

The fact is high profile Democrats voted for the war. Especially horse faced cock-sucker Kerry who voted against Gulf War, but in favor of Iraq invasion because he was going to run for president in 2004. these high profile Dem's who are still serving today can't say shit about whats happening in Iraq right now. They gave it their blessing in 2002.

Not this high profile Dem

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.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Barack Obama Oct 2 2002
__________________

No doubt he had good speech writers, but when it came for a time to lead, the man was/is clueless.

This is long before he could afford speech writers

Obama was spot on about our involvement in Iraq

 

[Steinlight]

Not this high profile Dem

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.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Barack Obama Oct 2 2002
__________________

No doubt he had good speech writers, but when it came for a time to lead, the man was/is clueless.

This is long before he could afford speech writers

Obama was spot on about our involvement in Iraq

He was also spot on about arming Al Qaeda in Syria right? Is the instability in Iraq(a result of the radicals we backed in Syria moving into Iraq to overthrow the puppet state we still give military aid) part of the smartest president ever's master strategy?

Is his IQ just too high for human tests to measure or something?

 

[KissMy]

JUNE 22, 2001: Bush Administration - The C.I.A. had been fooled; Bin Laden is merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract us from Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

JUNE 29, 2001: Bush receives Presidential Daiy Brief entitled “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden”



LOL - There is a brilliant leader in action.
.

 

[kiwiman127]

Far from leaving a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq, Obama has succeeded in giving AQ what it had prior to the GWOT: State sponsorship.

What was the plan? Did Obama intend to leave Iraq for the Jihadists?

Did Obama intend to throw away and waste the sacrifices of our troops?

Obama's not stupid, so we know this wasn't a blunder. We have to ask, what was his intent?

Now a word from Red State a conservative website:
==========================================
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
President Obama and the biased media wing of the Democrat Party are heralding the “official” end of the Iraq War.
They are neglecting to note that in order to get the Democrats’ nomination, presidential candidate Obama promised to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months:
<snip>
As we reported in July 2008, Obama’s 16 month withdrawal plan was not realistic. To save face, President Obama redesignated the 7 remaining combat brigades still in Iraq after his artificial 16 month deadline as “Advise and Assist Brigades,” and declared his scheduled end to the war in Iraq on August 31, 2011
All U.S. troops, except for 159 uniformed troops and officers as well as a marine guard in the US embassy in Baghdad, will be out of Iraq before December 31, 2011, as required by the Status of Forces Agreement President Bush made with Iraq.
The Democrats can trumpet the Obama Iraq withdrawal all they want, but it was accomplished right on schedule — a schedule established by President Bush, not Obama.
Iraq War ends on Bush's schedule, not Obama's | RedState
============================================
OK?
But:
"In a move sure to raise even more questions about the decision to go to war with Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will on Friday release selected portions of pre-war intelligence in which the CIA warned the administration of the risk and consequences of a conflict in the Middle East.
Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.
In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.”
NBC: CIA warned of risks of war in the Mideast - NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams - NBC News Investigates | NBC News
==============================================
So, our intelligence knew the odds of what is happening now, could very well happen prior to the US invasion and they were right.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Surrender was always the objective...

Thats the liberal way. Lol

 

[KissMy]

Who is going to fight in Iraq?

Survey: Veterans say Afghanistan, Iraq wars not worth it.

 

[tinydancer]

Far from leaving a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq, Obama has succeeded in giving AQ what it had prior to the GWOT: State sponsorship.

What was the plan? Did Obama intend to leave Iraq for the Jihadists?

Did Obama intend to throw away and waste the sacrifices of our troops?

Obama's not stupid, so we know this wasn't a blunder. We have to ask, what was his intent?

They bought it for a reasonable price..they(Sunnis) seem to have the balls the Shiites do not..

Show me a time in the history of the area known as Iraq, that has ever had a long stable history....

What on earth are you talking about? This invasion of Iraq is by an offshoot of AQ led by a man that the US let go in 2009.

Worse yet, ISIS/Levant have been allowed to recruit and mobilize an army of 12,000 terrorists who are beheading their way to Baghdad.

 

[tinydancer]

This is not about Bush. This is not about the Iraq war. This is about Obama turning a blind eye to Baghdadi's offensive in Syria because Obama was drooling over the thought of Assad being toppled.

There was never a "Syrian Spring" revolution. Just paid mercenaries and terrorists who by beating the shit out of a few so called moderate rebels got all the weaponry they needed that the US and Britain gave them.

But ooooooooohhhhh ooooooooooooooooohhh oooohhhhhhhhhhh..Al Qaeda is on the run don't you know?

Al Qaeda is decimated don't you know?

Obama told us so. And stupid assholes bought into his bullshit and voted for him again!

One day after the Benghazi attack that occurred on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, Obama spoke at a campaign event in Las Vegas on Sept. 12.

&#8220;A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead,&#8221; Obama said in Las Vegas.

On Sept. 13 in Golden, Colo., Obama said, &#8220;Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq -- and we did. I said we&#8217;d wind down the war in Afghanistan -- and we are. And while a new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.&#8221; He repeated that line again on Sept. 17 in Cincinnati and again that day in Columbus, Ohio.

The next day at a fundraising event at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York, Obama brought up the first 9/11 and used &#8220;decimated,&#8221; indicating past tense.

&#8220;We&#8217;ve got choices about war and peace,&#8221; Obama said. &#8220;I ended the war in Iraq, as I promised. We are transitioning out of Afghanistan. We have gone after the terrorists who actually attacked us 9/11 and decimated al Qaeda.&#8221;

On Sept. 20, speaking at the University of Miami, Obama said, &#8220;We&#8217;ve decimated al Qaeda&#8217;s top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya, in other of these places &#8211; increasingly in places like Syria &#8211; what you see is these elements that don&#8217;t have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we&#8217;ve got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from doing us any harm.&#8221;

Obama Has Touted Al Qaeda?s Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack | CNS News

 

[Siete]

Al Qaeda is decimated don't you know?

Obama told us so. And stupid assholes bought into his bullshit and voted for him again!


nah, Obama thanked the troops for putting AQ "on its heels"


the word decimated was never used ... you make things up.

now cuss like a sailor for us.