If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   John McCain (R-eality challenged): We won the Iraq war. Obama lost it   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 281
    More: Asinine, John McCain, Iraq, Morning Joe  
•       •       •

1023 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2014 at 11:08 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



281 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-13 11:43:13 AM  
Fark John McCain. He is a douche of mythical proportion.

He should have had a lifetime suite at the Hanoi Hilton.

He is the one person that exceeds 43 on my list of despicable, evil people.

/crappy pilot
//crappier politician
///crappiest as a human
 
2014-06-13 11:43:47 AM  

Aldon: So even John McCain admits since the start of the Iraq war are only options were to keep troops in a middle eastern country forever fighting and dying, or leave and see the country revert to its natural state.

Sorry John, if we have to keep troops in a country forever fighting, it does not mean we 'had it won'.


What it means is that Shinseki was right. Strange that nobody is mentioning that.
 
2014-06-13 11:44:33 AM  

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: FTFY.



Actuallly, I was considering bolding the entire sentence, but the "both clintons" caught my eye.
 
2014-06-13 11:44:36 AM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.


Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?
 
2014-06-13 11:45:13 AM  
McCain is one to talk. The biggest reason for the success they have had in toppling the current Iraqi government is due to the instability in Syria. McCain was all for that while Obama was supportive but not as much. Had it not been the bungling in foreign policy over the last few years things could have gone better. Just had to maintain the post Saddam status quo a bit longer.
 
2014-06-13 11:45:30 AM  

nekom: Back in the days of blinding rage in the wake of the most devastating terrorist attack in our history.



There have been no attacks on US soil during the Bush admin.
 
2014-06-13 11:45:34 AM  
It should be noted that John McCain's definition of "winning" includes an open-ended, permanent occupation against the wishes of the country in question.
 
2014-06-13 11:45:36 AM  
WAR IS PEACE!
 
2014-06-13 11:47:13 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Sirsky: The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source

What does that have to do with an al qaeda army blitzkrieging across an allied nation in 2014?


If you live in a country where your government is unable to stop an al Qaeda army blitzkrieging across your country, after America spent 10 years,  $2.5 T. and the lives of over 4000 American soldiers, then maybe you need to be demanding more from your government than trying to fark over your neighbor because he's the wrong religion.

If the Iraqis wanted us in their country to protect them from these assholes, then they should have been promising to pay us back for the support we already gave them, including the continued medical care for our vets, and not trying to place demands on us, like letting any asshole with a grudge press charges against American service men and demanding they face trial in Iraqi courts.  Screw the Iraqis, seriously.
 
2014-06-13 11:47:30 AM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.

Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?


Well, he certainly uses them, but I think it's a stretch to say he "owns them just as much" as the guy whose Administration conceived of and implemented them.
 
2014-06-13 11:47:56 AM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.

Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?



Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not. Is it funny that you think Obama would have enacted those policies if they had not existed before? Absolutely.
 
2014-06-13 11:50:05 AM  

Sirsky: that the right attacked Obama for taking credit for the withdrawal, pointing to this very pact as proof that it was all Bush's idea in the first place.


Holy shiat, I can't believe I forgot this fact! Christ, what assholes.
 
2014-06-13 11:50:49 AM  

RyogaM: Christ, what assholes.


yuuup.
 
2014-06-13 11:51:20 AM  

FormlessOne: Frankly, Obama's taken way too long to get this done - we should've been gone at least two years ago.


Uhhh...we left over 2 years ago. Heckuva job there.
 
2014-06-13 11:51:55 AM  

Alphax: raerae1980: Isn't McCain retiring soon? He's too old to be effective in government.

He's been that way at least 6 years.  Of course, there's a lot of ineffective in Congress right now.


The federal government doesn't need term limits, it needs age limits.
 
2014-06-13 11:52:23 AM  

ongbok: StopDaddy: Anyone with a lick of knowledge about that region knew as soon we left the shiat was going to get real again. Whether it happened on Obama's watch or Hillary's or Jeb's <snicker> is moot. The insurgents knew we'd get tired and leave and it'd be time to make their move.

We won battles. We didn't win the war.

Anybody with a lick of knowledge about the region should have known that a soon as Saddam was removed as dictator shiat was going to get real there.


I totally agree with the folks that agree with me.
 
2014-06-13 11:52:33 AM  

FlashHarry: mccain is in-farking-sane.

here's the deal: iraq is a european construct, created out of the desert after WWI by drawing lines on a map. those lines enclosed three historically antithetical factions: sunnis, shiates and kurds. stability was maintained initially through a colonial government, a strong monarchy and then through a brutal dictatorship. when we removed that dictatorship in 2003, it was inevitable that the country would fall apart. and that is what's happening now.

iraq should never have been a country in the first place, except maybe as a smaller sunni country, with the rest going to syria and an independent kurdistan.


As much as I dislike Bush, the one thing he got right was getting involved in pressing for the creation of South Sudan. Sudan was yet another country drawn up by colonial powers that stuck together groups that had very little in common. While it's going to be a long road to being a successful state, especially since Sudan is rather upset at losing a huge amount of oil fields when South Sudan left, they now have a much better chance at long term stability and success than they did as a single jumbled up country.
 
2014-06-13 11:53:25 AM  

Rann Xerox: grumpfuff: Rann Xerox: grumpfuff: [cdn.thedailybeast.com image 800x500]


Is he using his cheeks for storage now?

He's certainly not using his brain for storage anymore.

.....when did he start doing that?

Breathing, heart rate and other autonomic functions.  Duh!  :-)


Fair enough, I suppose. But I've yet to see any evidence that he has a heart.
 
2014-06-13 11:53:41 AM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.

Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?


Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not. Is it funny that you think Obama would have enacted those policies if they had not existed before? Absolutely.


Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them? He voted to renew the Patriot Act as Senator. I see no evidence that he, as President, truly has any issue with any of his predecessor's policies of executive power. If he continues to use them, then, yes, he is responsible. He needs to own up to his actions. You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons, contrary to what is factually in front of you. Yes, the Obama in your speculative statements is a benevolent leader. The guy who is really in the White House seems to be actually taking a different course.
 
2014-06-13 11:53:42 AM  

RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: Sirsky: The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source

What does that have to do with an al qaeda army blitzkrieging across an allied nation in 2014?

If you live in a country where your government is unable to stop an al Qaeda army blitzkrieging across your country, after America spent 10 years,  $2.5 T. and the lives of over 4000 American soldiers, then maybe you need to be demanding more from your government than trying to fark over your neighbor because he's the wrong religion.

If the Iraqis wanted us in their country to protect them from these assholes, then they should have been promising to pay us back for the support we already gave them, including the continued medical care for our vets, and not trying to place demands on us, like letting any asshole with a grudge press charges against American service men and demanding they face trial in Iraqi courts.  Screw the Iraqis, seriously.


Isn't the very idea of having al qaeda out in the open and open to attack reason enough to start droning the piss out of them? Or do we have a hands-off policy towards al qaeda, now?
 
2014-06-13 11:54:10 AM  
www.infiniteunknown.net
 
2014-06-13 11:54:19 AM  
Go to constitutional peasant.  Democracy rises from a mandate from the masses.  When they want peace and stability over there badly enough, it MIGHT happen.  When you try to get in the middle of 2 sets of idiots that want to win or die, you're not helping anyone.  Let them take care of themselves.....mutually assured destruction over there really isn't our problem.  McCain does himself no favors by arguing for armed intervention in every farking fight.  He's a caricature.
 
2014-06-13 11:56:06 AM  

Totally Sharky Complete: [www.infiniteunknown.net image 600x654]


do you have the original of that?
 
2014-06-13 11:56:08 AM  

Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?


You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,


And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.
 
2014-06-13 11:57:11 AM  

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: Lord_Baull: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: FTFY.


Actuallly, I was considering bolding the entire sentence, but the "both clintons" caught my eye.

True.  Plus, the "every Democrat (and Republican) in Congress that voted for it" is based on two assumptions:

1.  The "inaccurate" intelligence given to Congress of Iraq's WMDs was presented in good faith, and not cherry-picked specifically to support an          invasion.

2.  The Authorization of Force bill was presented in good faith, which stated the Bush administration would explore every possible diplomatic resolution,         and only use force as an absolute last resort, and that the Bush administration was not secretly intending to invade no matter what..

Here's a hint.  They weren't.


I remember the Authorization of Force bill.  'This is just something to show Saddam that we're serious.  We won't actually use it unless we really, really have to.'  As soon as it passed, 'Unleash the Ultimatums!'
 
2014-06-13 11:57:34 AM  

FlashHarry: spawn73: In case you didn't notice. The Kurds just snatcged Kirkuk. So they're good. ;)

[img.fark.net image 312x213]


Point being that there's a shiatload of oil in and around Kirkuk.

/dunno what the point of your GIF was, perhaps you weren't aware of the importance of Kirkuk, when the context is distributing oil amongst various people in Iraq.
 
2014-06-13 11:57:53 AM  
In the past ten years I've been spit on, called an unamerican traitor, and openly mocked and threatened because I fought the Iraq war.

I have to laugh because now the same idiots are trying to claim that the mess they started is someone else's fault.
 
2014-06-13 11:57:59 AM  

qorkfiend: Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?

You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,

And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.


The Democrats and Republicans jointly gave us the Patriot Act. There was little to no opposition from either party on the initial passing or the renewal. And yes, I hold the President accountable for his actions. That's perfectly reasonable to do so. Obama's vote in favor of renewal speaks to his support of the Patriot Act.
 
2014-06-13 11:59:15 AM  

spawn73: Point being that there's a shiatload of oil in and around Kirkuk.

/dunno what the point of your GIF was, perhaps you weren't aware of the importance of Kirkuk, when the context is distributing oil amongst various people in Iraq.


i'm very aware of the importance of kirkuk. my point was, "it's happening," meaning the inevitable breakup of iraq.
 
2014-06-13 11:59:47 AM  
Shut up, McCain, you cock.
 
2014-06-13 12:00:06 PM  

Bill the unknowing: Go to constitutional peasant.  Democracy rises from a mandate from the masses.  When they want peace and stability over there badly enough, it MIGHT happen.  When you try to get in the middle of 2 sets of idiots that want to win or die, you're not helping anyone.  Let them take care of themselves.....mutually assured destruction over there really isn't our problem.  McCain does himself no favors by arguing for armed intervention in every farking fight.  He's a caricature.


Worse. He's my Senator. :(
 
2014-06-13 12:00:21 PM  

Lord_Baull: MBrady: raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

Can't believe I actually supported going to war. At least I never voted for him.

also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.  Not to mention Germany, France, the UK, and just about every nation in the UN.

/at least Bush asked congress first, eh?


Is this satire?


There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.
 
2014-06-13 12:00:33 PM  

FlashHarry: Totally Sharky Complete: [www.infiniteunknown.net image 600x654]

do you have the original of that?


media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-13 12:01:23 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: MBrady: raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

Can't believe I actually supported going to war. At least I never voted for him.

also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.  Not to mention Germany, France, the UK, and just about every nation in the UN.

/at least Bush asked congress first, eh?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.


He forgot Poland.
 
2014-06-13 12:04:40 PM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.

Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?


Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not. Is it funny that you think Obama would have enacted those policies if they had not existed before? Absolutely.

Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them? He voted to renew the Patriot Act as Senator. I see no evidence that he, as President, truly has any issue with any of his predecessor's policies of executive power. If he continues to use them, then, yes, he is responsible. He needs to own up to his actions. You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons, contrary to what is factually in front of you. Yes, the Obama in your speculative statements is a benevolent leader. The guy who is really in the White House seems to be actually taking a different course.


qorkfiend: Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?

You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,

And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.



Forget it. If he wants to argue over what might have happened, whatever.
 
2014-06-13 12:07:02 PM  

STFU JMcC YOU COCK



This growing chorus of "things were great in Iraq before 0bongo" is hilarious...and sad
 
2014-06-13 12:07:12 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: MBrady: raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

Can't believe I actually supported going to war. At least I never voted for him.

also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.  Not to mention Germany, France, the UK, and just about every nation in the UN.

/at least Bush asked congress first, eh?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.



See bolded area.
 
2014-06-13 12:07:49 PM  

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: Lord_Baull: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: FTFY.


Actuallly, I was considering bolding the entire sentence, but the "both clintons" caught my eye.

True.  Plus, the "every Democrat (and Republican) in Congress that voted for it" is based on two assumptions:

1.  The "inaccurate" intelligence given to Congress of Iraq's WMDs was presented in good faith, and not cherry-picked specifically to support an          invasion.

2.  The Authorization of Force bill was presented in good faith, which stated the Bush administration would explore every possible diplomatic resolution,         and only use force as an absolute last resort, and that the Bush administration was not secretly intending to invade no matter what..

Here's a hint.  They weren't.


But if Clinton's claim that "I had acted in good faith" passes muster, her assertion that she "made the best decision I could with the information I had" does not. Prior to Clinton's October 10, 2002 speech from the Senate floor explaining her Iraq vote, the Bush administration sent over two documents to the Senate for review. The first was a 92-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The second was a  five-page, unclassified version.

Despite a partial dissent from the State Department's intelligence arm, the unclassified NIE declared that the intelligence community possessed "high confidence" that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs." It's hard to know exactly what was in the longer, classified version, since even when the Bush administration released it in 2004, it whited out 78 of its 92 pages. But it went into more detail about the objections raised by the State Department, and especially the Department of Energy, to claims that Hussein had a nuclear-weapons program. According to Senator Jay Rockefeller, "the NIE changed so dramatically from its classified to its unclassified form and broke all in one direction, toward a more dangerous scenario."

Senators Bob Graham and Patrick Leahy would later say that reading the classified version helped convince them to vote 'no.' And during a lunch two days before Clinton's speech, according to Gerth and Van Natta Jr., Graham "forcefully" urged his Democratic Senate colleagues to read it.
Few did. Using logs of who entered the secure room where the classified NIE was kept, The Washington Post reported that only six senators read it. When The Hill newspaper later polled senators, 22 said they had.

Clinton has never claimed to be among them. When asked directly on Meet the Press in 2008, she sidestepped the question, declaring, "I was fully briefed by the people who wrote that."
 
2014-06-13 12:08:02 PM  

Nabb1: qorkfiend: Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?

You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,

And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.

The Democrats and Republicans jointly gave us the Patriot Act. There was little to no opposition from either party on the initial passing or the renewal. And yes, I hold the President accountable for his actions. That's perfectly reasonable to do so. Obama's vote in favor of renewal speaks to his support of the Patriot Act.


I didn't say no Democrats voted for it; I said it was originally conceived of and implemented by the Republicans. Nothing you've said suggests the Democrats would have actively sought to put it in place if it wasn't already.
 
2014-06-13 12:08:28 PM  
i512.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-13 12:08:49 PM  

Lord_Baull: Forget it. If he wants to argue over what might have happened, whatever.


Nonsense. I have said numerous times that I hold him responsible for his own actions as President and as Senator before that. The facts are that he did vote for renewal of the Patriot Act as Senator. He has embraced and used all the authority granted the Executive. He has continued and in some cases expanded domestic surveillance. These are facts. You say it's okay because they were powers granted to him (in part by himself in the case of the renewed Patriot Act). If he were truly opposed to them, he would not employ them. He has no problems standing up the the Republican noisemakers in Congress when it matters to him. Do you suggest he is cowering to their will on those issues? Or perhaps the reality is he believes in what he is doing.
 
2014-06-13 12:09:48 PM  
The great political lesson from the War on Drugs : Success wins you nothing. Failure is the only way to stay in business.

If we are successful in the War on Terror, then the bureaucracy that conducts that war becomes unnecessary. In order to ensure that Homeland Security and the TSA last well into the next century, we need a steady supply of dangerous-looking foreigners we can point at in order to whip up a froth of mindless political sloganeering. Fortunately there is the Middle East, the dangerest. We have planted the seeds - shiat, we have an entire orchard - of virulent anti-Americanism that will probably outlive America itself. In order to protect us from this self-made menace, Our Glorious Leaders need to restore a medieval level of social stratification, wherein the lords will provide minimal subsistence only to those peasants who demonstrate their fealty and obsequiousness to their proven masters in ways that you can be certain will be made known to you when the time comes. Until then, keep working, drink as much as possible, and pretend you are the captain of your fate. You can even call yourself a Sovereign Citizen, that's good for a laugh.
 
2014-06-13 12:10:35 PM  

Primum non nocere: Done in one.


It should be noted the British left them with a functioning parliamentary republic, and they went to shiat then as well. Just like I told my friend: The moment we leave thugs are going to turn that country to shiat.
 
2014-06-13 12:10:40 PM  

Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: MBrady: raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

Can't believe I actually supported going to war. At least I never voted for him.

also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.  Not to mention Germany, France, the UK, and just about every nation in the UN.

/at least Bush asked congress first, eh?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.


See bolded area.


One voted for it while the other merely supported the war.  That clearly undercuts what  MBradywas saying.  Besides, I took that to mean that every Democrat who voted for the war was partially to blame in addition to the people in that list not that everyone in that list voted for the war.
 
2014-06-13 12:10:41 PM  

ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.


Answer for the first part: see the aircraft carrier image above*

Answer for the second part: January 20th, 2009*

*not valid in this realm of reality
 
2014-06-13 12:11:32 PM  

qorkfiend: Nabb1: qorkfiend: Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?

You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,

And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.

The Democrats and Republicans jointly gave us the Patriot Act. There was little to no opposition from either party on the initial passing or the renewal. And yes, I hold the President accountable for his actions. That's perfectly reasonable to do so. Obama's vote in favor of renewal speaks to his support of the Patriot Act.

I didn't say no Democrats voted for it; I said it was originally conceived of and implemented by the Republicans. Nothing you've said suggests the Democrats would have actively sought to put it in place if it wasn't already.


So, the Democrats should not be held responsible for that which they have actively supported and voted for on two occasions? Where was the move to repeal or scale back the Patriot Act when they briefly held the House, Senate and White House for two years? Yes, it was conceived, drafted, passed and implemented under the Republicans, but I see no reason why the Democrats were not fully willing accomplices.
 
2014-06-13 12:11:57 PM  

Nabb1: You say it's okay because they were powers granted to him


Really?

Lord_Baull: Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not.

 
2014-06-13 12:12:38 PM  

but whole: FormlessOne: We "won"?
We attacked a country that had been under embargo for a decade, based solely on manufactured motive - lies, as normal people call them - and rabidly defended our "right" to basically raze the Iraqi infrastructure so that corporations could move in for the oil. We then installed a puppet government that would ensure that the oil would remain in the hands of those corporations, even as we committed atrocities that guaranteed the enmity of the population. We didn't "win" anything.

Bush put us in an untenable position. Leaving Iraq means that this outcome was inevitable, but staying in Iraq only postponed that inevitability, at high cost and with dwindling support. Frankly, Obama's taken way too long to get this done - we should've been gone at least two years ago. Of course, we should also have closed Gitmo, apologized to the EU, stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama, it's going to be hard to make all that happen.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, controls the money, and it's money that runs the world now. Money's upset that their enforcers - our military - are leaving Iraq, and so money's paid lapdogs are coming out to bark about it.

McCain is a lapdog. Nothing more. He's in deep for screwing up and giving Obama the Presidency, because he couldn't make Sarah Palin happen, and so he's repaying the campaign debts by barking for the folks that continue to hold his friggin' leash.

[www.offshootinc.com image 560x284]


Why is his nickname 'Hacksaw', anways.  I guess '2x4' Jim Duggan doesn't quite have the same ring to it....but still.  Why doesn't he wield a hacksaw instead?

I suppose I will never truly understand Professional Wrestling

/Whoooooooooo!
 
2014-06-13 12:13:48 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: MBrady: raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

Can't believe I actually supported going to war. At least I never voted for him.

also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.  Not to mention Germany, France, the UK, and just about every nation in the UN.

/at least Bush asked congress first, eh?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.


See bolded area.

One voted for it while the other merely supported the war.  That clearly undercuts what  MBradywas saying.  Besides, I took that to mean that every Democrat who voted for the war was partially to blame in addition to the people in that list not that everyone in that list voted for the war.



Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.
 
2014-06-13 12:14:14 PM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: You say it's okay because they were powers granted to him

Really?

Lord_Baull: Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not.


Fair enough. You don't like what he's doing, but yet you don't believe he is responsible for the way he has done so?
 
Displayed 50 of 281 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report