| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
I would feel better if they feared and respected him, but with the apology tour and the red lines, that's not going to happen. | ||
| Sifo |
Obama Cites Lack of `Day After' Plan in Libya as Biggest Mistake Wasn't this one of the biggest gripes of the Iraq invasion? Clearly this idiot learned nothing, not even from his own criticisms of others. Kind of makes one wonder if he even understood what he was criticizing? Of course in this case, he can't even point to putting this to a vote in Congress. He simply made the unilateral decision to start dropping bombs. Perhaps Fredrika can explain how great BO did on this for us? | ||
| Freakyfast |
Does anybody remember Pan Am Flight 103? Just like the World Trade Center bombings, Americans citizens were killed. Obama avenged both. Bush started something over nothing. | ||
| Sifo |
Sure, that make sense. 25 years later. Destroy a country. Create a power vacuum in an unstable region, spawning ISIS. Do it all on one man's decision. That makes perfect sense. Bush OTOH went after a current supporter of terror in the region, who was also shooting at our planes on a daily basis. Politics of the time was also going to force a change in the status-quo of our policing of Iraq at the time. It's easy to second guess the decision, but it had support from our Congress, and the UN. Also Hillary who I would have to imagine just may have asked Bill if voting in favor of the invasion was the right thing to do. Of course we already know that Bill said it was the right thing to do, having said so during his own administration, but lacking the balls to do anything about it. I'm curious... In hindsight, what do you thing would have been a wiser decision regarding Saddam? It was a decade old problem that had been ignored for the entire 8 years of Clinton, and left as rotten fruit for the next administration. Gaddafi OTOH was a current threat to no one. Are you really arguing that it was a good decision to go to war as a first option against someone who had years earlier given up his stores of WMDs, ironically as a direct result of W's invasion of Iraq? Of course, the idea that it had anything to do with Pan Am 103 is absurd. It was never pushed as such a thing before the fact. Aside from that, we know it was about a cheap source of oil for France. http://www.globalresearch.ca/operation-libya-and-t he-battle-for-oil-redrawing-the-map-of-africa/2360 5 By comparison to BO, W was an absolute genius! | ||
| Freakyfast |
"Gaddafi OTOH was a current threat to no one." Tell that to the parents of all those kids from the U. of Syracuse. | ||
| Torquehd |
Bush started something over nothing. I knew Bush started islam, set up hussein, supported genocide, set up the taliban, hijacked planes, flew them into the world trade center, and set up Obama Bin Laden. And to think, he started all of those things over nothing. And us ugly Americans just had to interfere with his (W's) ugly islamic plans to take over the world. No wonder Barrack Osama wanted to end the wars against islam in AFG and IRQ. | ||
| Sifo |
"Gaddafi OTOH was a current threat to no one." Tell that to the parents of all those kids from the U. of Syracuse. At the time, no he was not. Meanwhile we have blood being spilled as a direct result of ISIS being able to fund itself the way not terror organization has ever done in the past. With one of the worlds largest oil reserves. All because there was no plan, and no "boots on the ground" to control the situation. Freaking brilliant! The world will suffer BO's bungling of this for decades. The best you can do is claim it was a war of revenge from 25 years before? If you 1) Believe that, and 2) Think it was a good idea, then you really live in a unique world. | ||
| Freakyfast |
ISIS is a direct result of "W" handing over IRAQ to the Shiites. Obama was elected on the basis of removing our troops from the mess Bush started. That was the peoples choice. How you guys can continue to blame him for this is the eighth wonder of the world. | ||
| Sifo |
ISIS is a direct result of "W" handing over IRAQ to the Shiites. Obama was elected on the basis of removing our troops from the mess Bush started. That was the peoples choice. How you guys can continue to blame him for this is the eighth wonder of the world. This is what makes a discussion with you next to impossible. You live in your own unique world where events happen differently than the world the rest of us live in. First, ISIS didn't start during W's administration. It was years later. It did come from the decision to leave Iraq while it was not stable. That is on BO. I will grant you though, Islamic terrorist groups weren't invented under BO. They weren't invented under W either. They weren't even new at the time of Pan Am 103. What I did blame on BO, which you seem to completely ignore, is that ISIS became the best funded terrorist group in the world, directly as a result of BO destroying the ruling government in Libya, and abandoning the region, including it's oil production facilities to who ever was strong enough, and ruthless enough to take it over. That is 100% BO. It was 100% his decision to break it. He owns the results, 100%. Again, there was no pressing need to overthrow Gaddafi. He was a threat to no one at that time. BO has proven himself to be much like a child King. Thankfully we won't have to endure his lack of wisdom for an entire lifetime. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/team-obama-is-setting -us-up-for-another-housing-market-collapse/ | ||
| Ducbsa |
Might be some people in Leavenworth that would appreciate this evaluation of handling of secret info: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/not- really-presidential.php | ||
| Hootowl |
Nixon resigned for less of a cover-up than this idiot is attempting. But...the president has the authority to declassify information. Is that what he's done? If so...lets see the email. | ||
| Freakyfast |
This e-mail controversy really pales in comparison to the invasion of Iraq. If it were any other third world country, Bush, Cheney and the rest would be accused of war crimes. Have you got anything else? | ||
| Hootowl |
You really do live in another world. | ||
| Court |
>>>Have you got anything else? Yes. One question . . . What the hell does Iraq have to do with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton breaking the law? I'm missing your connection someplace unless you are inferring the law is eroded to the level of the most recent and worst offender. If you can make a case for that stupid premise . . . please do so ASAP before I send this check to the IRA for my 2015 taxes tomorrow. You sound like an idiot, I'm hoping you prove me wrong, Your task is daunting. | ||
| Freakyfast |
"You really do live in another world." Yes, the world outside of this forums thread. | ||
| Freakyfast |
"What the hell does Iraq have to do with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton breaking the law? " Absolutely nothing, except to understand the degrees of criminality. If Bush, Cheney and the others can not be indicted for war crimes because of the invasion of Iraq, how can anybody seriously consider some e-mails found on a private server. Ridiculous. By the way, I'm pretty sure that check does not take into account what you really owe. | ||
| Reepicheep |
All some people can do is disagree with the people they disagree with, and agree with the people they agree with. Objective and critical thought seems beyond them. Some people never move beyond the angry high school sophomore level of discourse. | ||
| Court |
>>>By the way, I'm pretty sure that check does not take into account what you really owe. I strive to be as honest in my dealings with the federal government as Hillary and Barack are. I am confident I've met the high standards our LEADERS have set for us. | ||
| Aesquire |
Emails found on a private server? Beyond top secret documents sent through an unsecured private server. SAP documents sent illegally to unauthorized minions. Thousands of govt. Documents destroyed, a felony, and publicly admitted to. That's Hillary. Multiple private wars without congressional approval, oddly, always to overthrow a secular government and supporting jihadi takeover. That's Obama. Got an authorization of force from congress, including Hillary, U.N. support, multinational alliance, deposed, captured, & turned over a real war criminal to his people's freely elected govt. That's George W. Lots to complain about George. Your statements are outright lies. | ||
| Hootowl |
"If Bush, Cheney and the others can not be indicted for war crimes because of the invasion of Iraq, how can anybody seriously consider some e-mails found on a private server. Ridiculous." Your assertion that Hillary should not be indicted proceeds from the false assumption that Bush et al were guilty of war crimes. The only people on the planet who believe this are the folks with BDS, a malady with which you are apparently afflicted. Also, what one has to do with the other is apparent only to you. Bush broke no laws of the US, nor did he break any "laws" handed down by the UN pertaining to the acceptable behavior of nations. On the contrary, it was Iraq that was in violation of the UN resolutions, and it was that same body that gave the OK, via a separate resolution, for the invasion. This is true universally, regardless of where the words are spoken, heard, read, or written (with the exception of the alternative universe that you live in). But, believe what you want to believe. I don't believe Hillary will be prosecuted. She has too many people protecting her. And if she is, Obama will simply pardon her. | ||
| Sifo |
BO just stepped into the Hillary investigation saying that she did nothing wrong. That's interesting considering that he would not have seen the evidence compiled against her, unless of course he is personally actively involved. That of course would be a huge conflict of interest, and highly irregular. He is sending the message to back off though. It will be interesting to see where it goes with the FBI. It would be fun to see Fredrika try to explain the details of the Iraq "war crimes". | ||
| Reepicheep |
The only thing that ties the two topics together is Hillary Clinton. She voted to invade (so you are saying she is a war criminal) and she directed staff to run the server (the mistake) and lied about deleting evidence she was legally obligated to turn over (the crime). In true Clinton form, they manipulated the media into repeatedly moving the goal posts and making the argument first that it wasn't classified, and now that "well, it wasn't *that* classified". Next is, well, it was classified but everyone does it. Then, "we are outraged that this happens and you must give me power because I am the only one that can stop it". The left is getting really tedious here. They take what should be a good moment of national introspection (was the post 9/11 response wise and proportional and how can we respond better in the future) and turned it into this worthless caricature of an issue with the ridiculous conspiracy theories about Bush and Rove. Bush took it to a vote, and it passed with overwhelming Democrat support. Ignore that and you will NEVER find and solve the real problems of whatever might have been done wrong. (Message edited by reepicheep on April 11, 2016) | ||
| Sifo |
  | ||
| Aesquire |
I may have been hasty. I should ask what Bush's war crimes were. Rude of me. Was it supporting the Egyptian ruler who used gang rape and genocide? Perhaps bombing bridges on the Danube? ( seemed legit to me ) Proclaiming that he's "good at killing people" and claiming sole responsibility for drone strikes? Enlighten me. Please. | ||
| Freakyfast |
The justification for the Iraq War was based on the Bush assertion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie and therein lies the crime. The fact that others believed him was a mistake - not a crime. If you want to investigate something, investigate the intelligence that provided his justification to go to war. | ||
| Sifo |
The justification for the Iraq War was based on the Bush assertion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie and therein lies the crime. The fact that others believed him was a mistake - not a crime. That was one of many reasons that were detailed as justification for the war. It's important to be accurate about the accusations against Saddam though. The accusation wasn't simply that he had WMDs, which he did BTW. The accusation was that he was not following the requirements set forth by the UN to dispose of his weapons and allow for weapons inspectors to do their jobs. Those accusations were dead on target. OTOH, you support a President who goes to war as revenge for an incident that happened over 25 years prior? Let's just say that your reasoning is incredibly flawed. | ||
| Aesquire |
You mean the thousands of poison gas shells found & in the process of being destroyed by allied troops? The reason the British built an incinerator to burn poison gas? & have a pile of gas shells waiting to be destroyed? The poison gas shells that have poisoned U.S. troops blowing up Saddam's stockpiles of conventional shells which Saddam used to hide his poison gas weapons while lying to the world about destroying them? You really should consider rejecting further lies from the people who so ill informed you. You parrot the lies of very evil people. I see I wasn't hasty at all. | ||
| Aesquire |
The poison gas Bill Clinton warned about? The poison gas Hillary warned about? The thousands of tons of poison gas Hans Blix warned about? The tons of yellow cake Uranium shipped from Iraq to Canada to be processed by the alliance? The poison gas shipped to Syria before the liberation? Ignorant of all the above? | ||
| Reindog |
Y'all realize that you are "reasoning" with a troll and a liar? Right?? |
