She's right.

/shiver

She's a complete fool.

Iraq has been given a real chance at meaningfully representative government. I'd bet every dime I have that they will f*ck it up, but they have been given a chance they would not have otherwise had. You can't put a price on that.

GAT_00: gave a collective meh when we toppled Saddam.

I disagree, but not enough to get involved in a discussion about it.

GAT_00: It's kind of a simple fact. How exactly can you disagree with facts? Are facts not conservative enough?

How do you sleep at night?

Occam's Chainsaw: Are we right to impose tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands of wounded, and millions displaced upon a people because we choose we don't like who's running them?

Brother, I don't know where you were when this started, but you hang on to whatever version of events serves your purposes. I swear to God, I don't give a shiat about what you think happened.

we certainly do have something to show. a huge freaking debt.

I thought we got the worlds biggest embassy on prime real estate location?

Hobodeluxe: we certainly do have something to show. a huge freaking debt.

This.

We have nothing to show? That's how it was meant to be. We don't get squat... certain people get several lifetimes worth of wealth, and the Iraqis lost nearly everything. Just as PNAC planned it.

Wasn't this graphic routinely followed by phrases like "Suck it, Libs! Look at the great thing that Bush accomplished!"?

She's right. If that dick 0bama hadn't gotten us into that quagmire, we'd be much better off. What the hell is that guy's problem?

fta Bachmann argued that, "Any time we've ejected a dictator anywhere in the world, we've left troops behind. After Iraq, we'll have more troops left in Honduras that we'll have left in Iraq."

So vote Republican and send troops back to Iraq!

Official Republican policy position: Disagree with the Democrats in power

So she thinks the problem isn't that we went in in the first place, but leaving before... what? We take all their oil? They give us a pony? What, according to Bachmann, is the end goal of this extended occupation?

Bachmann, while saying she didn't support Gadhafi, said with him in power, "We knew who the devil was who was running (Libya). We don't know now."

Somehow I doubt she was saying the same thing about GWB's decision to invade Iraq. What a hypocritical coont.

No shiat you stupid biatch, that's what we've been saying since the day Bush proposed to invade in the first place.

Wyalt Derp: So she thinks the problem isn't that we went in in the first place, but leaving before... what? We take all their oil? They give us a pony? What, according to Bachmann, is the end goal of this extended occupation?

1) turn over the oil wells to the oil companies, which it rightfully belongs to
2) establish a christian country in the image if the original intent of our founding fathers (national church)
3) sending american undesirables over to work off their sins of homosexuality and liberalness

Wyalt Derp: So she thinks the problem isn't that we went in in the first place, but leaving before... what? We take all their oil? They give us a pony? What, according to Bachmann, is the end goal of this extended occupation?

We before they paid their bill. Bachmann's upset Iraq hasn't reimbursed us for the war.

Out of context, I agree that we definitely have had diminishing returns in Iraq... but in context, Bachmann seems to be saying we need to stay there longer and potentially waste more money and lives?

FTFA: "Here, we have expended over $800 billion, worse, we've expended over 4,400 American lives. We have nothing to show for it. We've essentially been kicked out of Iraq by the people that we expended our blood and our treasure and our toil to liberate."

Bachmann argued that, "Any time we've ejected a dictator anywhere in the world, we've left troops behind. After Iraq, we'll have more troops left in Honduras that we'll have left in Iraq."

Also... this wonderful nugget:

Bachmann, while saying she didn't support Gadhafi, said with him in power, "We knew who the devil was who was running (Libya). We don't know now."


Seems to follow her line of conservative thought. Fight like hell to keep things exactly the same - even if they suck.

tobcc: Humm, lets checking the voting record and see how many times she voted to support and or spend money on the useless waste of lives, shall we?


...In February of 2007, Congresswoman Bachmann spoke against a resolution condemning the surge in Iraq by stating that Iraq was then the central front in the war on terror. She stated that victory in the war on terror should transcend politics. In May of that year, Congresswoman Bachmann called for a vote on funding for the war without attachments to deadlines by stating that the US must not, as a nation, be invested in defeat.

While in office, Congresswoman Bachmann has voted against resolutions attempting to establish time tables for withdrawal and against resolutions to withdraw the troops.

Link (new window)

WHAT DID OBAMA GET US INTO THIS WAR WITH IRAQ??

WHAI?!?!?!??!!1111

Spaztictacular: Seems to follow her line of conservative thought. Fight like hell to keep things exactly the same - even if they suck.

Isn't that the basis of "conservatism"?

nopokerface: Occam's Chainsaw: Are we right to impose tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands of wounded, and millions displaced upon a people because we choose we don't like who's running them?

Brother, I don't know where you were when this started, but you hang on to whatever version of events serves your purposes. I swear to God, I don't give a shiat about what you think happened.

I'm sorry, I can't listen to a man who would be responsible for this.

She's right. Why wasn't she asking this in 2003?

Occam's Chainsaw: nopokerface: what you think

So what you're saying is that The Lancet, one of the single most respected scientific publications on the planet, is lying their asses off?


To be fair, the Lancet has been known to be wrong in the past....
Link (new window)

kpaxoid: She's right. Why wasn't she asking this in 2003?

Because a Republican was in office.

nopokerface: She's a complete fool.

Iraq has been given a real chance at meaningfully representative government. I'd bet every dime I have that they will f*ck it up, but they have been given a chance they would not have otherwise had. You can't put a price on that.

Sure you can, about 800 billion or so and 4400 American lives, plus or minus the hundred or two hundred thousand civilians and the hundred or so military contractors. Over 1 million US soldiers rotating through Iraq in 9 years, a military stretched to the breaking point, and countless military families absolutely exhausted.

Keep flapping your gums Micheal, because the more you try and pin this on Obama the more people remember that it was your team that got us into that farking mess. If we have nothing to show in Iraq for all the money, blood, and time spent it is on the Republicans heads. They lied to get us into that war and pursued in a retard way. It took a Democrat to finally salvage something out of that farking hell hole, just like it took a Democrat to Kill Osama Bin Laden and destroy Al Queda.

"Any time we've ejected a dictator anywhere in the world, we've left troops behind.

If Obama did agree to allow US troops to be held to Iraqi law, allowing them to stay, every conservative would be biatching about that instead.

Wyalt Derp: So she thinks the problem isn't that we went in in the first place, but leaving before... what? We take all their oil? They give us a pony? What, according to Bachmann, is the end goal of this extended occupation?


The point is to try and make Iraq a failure and pin it on Obama. It will be interesting to see if anybody but the hard core 30% Republicans, who were not going to vote for a Democrat ever, will swallow that fallacy.

well you do have a republican ex-pres guilty of war crimes.

that's something to show, isn't it?