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 284
    More: Asinine, John McCain, Iraq, Morning Joe  
•       •       •

1012 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2014 at 11:08 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
2014-06-13 12:16:29 PM

Nabb1: 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?



I guess we're arguing two different things here. You're arguing whether he's responsible for continuing Bush's policies. I'm arguing whether he would have implemented Bush's policies if Bush hadn't done so already.
 
2014-06-13 12:16:50 PM

llortcM_yllort: 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.


I blame the sign that said "Beware the Leopard."
 
2014-06-13 12:18:44 PM

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: 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?


I guess we're arguing two different things here. You're arguing whether he's responsible for continuing Bush's policies. I'm arguing whether he would have implemented Bush's policies if Bush hadn't done so already.


What difference does the latter make in all of this? Isn't that pure speculation?
 
2014-06-13 12:19:19 PM

Lord_Baull: 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.


Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?
 
2014-06-13 12:20:19 PM

Noam Chimpsky: 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?


This ain't al Qaeda, and if they were and Obama wanted to drone them, I would have no problem with that.

As for ISIS, as far as I know, they have never attacked American interests and we have not declared war on them due to this fact.  If Congress wants to declare ISIS a terror organization that is a threat to America, and give Obama the authority to drone them, as Obama already has authority to drone al Qaeda, they are free to do so.  And if Obama then drones them, I would be fine with that.  As it currently stands, ISIS is merely a thorn in the side of the Iraqi government, and not us, and we owe the Iraqis nothing in trying to help them remove  this thorn.  If Obama chooses to help out of the kindness of his heart, he had better have the Republicans lined up behind him, because they will give him shiat for it.  As they always do.
 
2014-06-13 12:21:43 PM

Nabb1: What difference does the latter make in all of this? Isn't that pure speculation?


It's not "speculation" to say that a given thing wouldn't have happened if the people who did that thing had instead not done it.
 
2014-06-13 12:23:32 PM
John, seriously, it's time to check yourself in to a facility.
 
2014-06-13 12:24:36 PM

Biological Ali: Nabb1: What difference does the latter make in all of this? Isn't that pure speculation?

It's not "speculation" to say that a given thing wouldn't have happened if the people who did that thing had instead not done it.


Oh, so Bush did what he did, so it's okay Obama has continued doing it, because Bush shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Can we just admit we are in Dubya's fourth term now in many respects, or is the circle jerk going to keep going for another two and a half years?
 
2014-06-13 12:25:58 PM

RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: 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?

This ain't al Qaeda, and if they were and Obama wanted to drone them, I would have no problem with that.

As for ISIS, as far as I know, they have never attacked American interests and we have not declared war on them due to this fact.  If Congress wants to declare ISIS a terror organization that is a threat to America, and give Obama the authority to drone them, as Obama already has authority to drone al Qaeda, they are free to do so.  And if Obama then drones them, I would be fine with that.  As it currently stands, ISIS is merely a thorn in the side of the Iraqi government, and not us, and we owe the Iraqis nothing in trying to help them remove  this thorn.  If Obama chooses to help out of the kindness of his heart, he had better have the Republicans lined up behind him, because they will give him shiat for it.  As they always do.


Well, first they'll give him shiat for NOT doing anything. Then, if he DOES do something, they will give him shiat about that.
 
2014-06-13 12:26:11 PM

nekom: raerae1980:
I remember, because, I used to listen to talk radio, being told that ANYONE who did not support the war or Bush was a traitor and unamerican.

Back in the days of blinding rage in the wake of the most devastating terrorist attack in our history.  I supported the war at first based largely on that kind of sentiment.  I was dead wrong, and I'm not afraid to admit being wrong.  Not sure what the hell we should do about it now though.


You're not the only one. I was dead, dead, dead wrong as well. The more I read about it, the more I realize just how much of a PR campaign the whole thing was. Poorly planned, poorly thought out and paid for with the lives of Americans.
 
2014-06-13 12:26:54 PM
So now the deadline is Obama's idea again.


Funny it was Obama's idea, then Bush flopped to it and it was "Bush's idea" now again it's Obama's idea.
 
2014-06-13 12:29:04 PM
RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.
 
2014-06-13 12:29:06 PM
It amazes me that anyone still listens to these assholes. How many times do they have to be actually proven exactly wrong on any given subject before they are simply pointed and laughed at?

It's probably the liberal media's fault.
 
2014-06-13 12:29:36 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.


Sen. Ted Kennedy (assuming that's the right "Kennedy") voted against it.  He said it was one of his proudest votes in his career.

I spent a couple of years in Iraq.  I worked with the Iraqi National Police.  The NPs were more interested in looting houses than searching them,  more interested in making arrests to settle personal scores than pacifying the insurgency, and more interested in sneaking off to steal shiat out of our trucks than learning COIN tactics during our joint training sessions.

Throwing American troops back in there will just keep delaying the inevitable.
 
2014-06-13 12:31:07 PM

llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?



BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.
 
2014-06-13 12:32:27 PM

MBrady: also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.


Check your history. Barack Obama wasn't a Senator until 2005.

And as for the rest, when President Bush stood on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln, with a "mission accomplished" banner waving in the breeze, did you say "hey wait a second, some of this glory belongs to the Democrats, too"? I'll bet you didn't. I'll bet what you said was more like "I'm glad the Republicans are taking it to the terrorists unlike those wimpy Democrats."
 
2014-06-13 12:32:34 PM
John McCain should be forced to go to every high school graduation and give a speech that uses the phrase:

I believe that a percentage of you should give your lives in our efforts to provide the Iraq we want. Never you mind that their own citizens are dropping their weapons and refusing to defend themselves. We need a larger proportion of US solider deaths as we move into the future and you are perfect candidates. Your parents will grieve, but we must, at all cost, do what we can to salvage former President Bush's legacy, destroy President Obama's, pacify oil companies and defense contractors.
 
2014-06-13 12:32:51 PM

Nabb1: 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?


Counting days. How the fark does it work?
 
2014-06-13 12:32:52 PM

dinch: RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: 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?

This ain't al Qaeda, and if they were and Obama wanted to drone them, I would have no problem with that.

As for ISIS, as far as I know, they have never attacked American interests and we have not declared war on them due to this fact.  If Congress wants to declare ISIS a terror organization that is a threat to America, and give Obama the authority to drone them, as Obama already has authority to drone al Qaeda, they are free to do so.  And if Obama then drones them, I would be fine with that.  As it currently stands, ISIS is merely a thorn in the side of the Iraqi government, and not us, and we owe the Iraqis nothing in trying to help them remove  this thorn.  If Obama chooses to help out of the kindness of his heart, he had better have the Republicans lined up behind him, because they will give him shiat for it.  As they always do.

Well, first they'll give him shiat for NOT doing anything. Then, if he DOES do something, they will give him shiat about that.


I won't do that. Pinky swear.
 
2014-06-13 12:33:16 PM

lilbjorn: John, seriously, it's time to check yourself in to a facility.


Or one of his houses.  He will have to ask his staff how many there are.
 
2014-06-13 12:34:03 PM

Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?


BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.


When did Bill Clinton vote in Congress? Or are you referring to George Clinton? And did all of P-Funk get a vote?
 
2014-06-13 12:35:34 PM
Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

 So i assume that you and your family have already volunteered for the armed services to go fight in Iraq?
 
2014-06-13 12:36:26 PM

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

We lost it the day we went in

Well yeah, but what date does McCain look at as when the mission was accomplished?


When the Iraqi people met us in the streets throwing flowers and Iraqi oil paid all of our war expenses,silly.
 
2014-06-13 12:36:45 PM

Noam Chimpsky: dinch: RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: 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?

This ain't al Qaeda, and if they were and Obama wanted to drone them, I would have no problem with that.

As for ISIS, as far as I know, they have never attacked American interests and we have not declared war on them due to this fact.  If Congress wants to declare ISIS a terror organization that is a threat to America, and give Obama the authority to drone them, as Obama already has authority to drone al Qaeda, they are free to do so.  And if Obama then drones them, I would be fine with that.  As it currently stands, ISIS is merely a thorn in the side of the Iraqi government, and not us, and we owe the Iraqis nothing in trying to help them remove  this thorn.  If Obama chooses to help out of the kindness of his heart, he had better have the Republicans lined up behind him, because they will give him shiat for it.  As they always do.

Well, first they'll give him shiat for NOT doing anything. Then, if he DOES do something, they will give him shiat about that.

I won't do that. Pinky swear.


But you'll keep calling ISIS an al Qaeda operation. I'm finding that very annoying.
 
2014-06-13 12:37:33 PM

Farkin_Crazy: Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?


BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.

When did Bill Clinton vote in Congress? Or are you referring to George Clinton? And did all of P-Funk get a vote?



Please read upthread. Thanks.
 
2014-06-13 12:38:17 PM

RyogaM: after America spent 10 years, $2.5 T. and the lives of over 4000 American soldiers


That, more than anything, defines that we 'lost' the Iraq 'war'.  $2.5 trillion in original dollars, and hundreds of billions every year since - just like Reagan got away with ballooning the national debt, W made it far worse.

Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute
has become
Trillions for offense but not one cent for making healthcare available to poor people
 
2014-06-13 12:40:02 PM

syrynxx: RyogaM: after America spent 10 years, $2.5 T. and the lives of over 4000 American soldiers

That, more than anything, defines that we 'lost' the Iraq 'war'.  $2.5 trillion in original dollars, and hundreds of billions every year since - just like Reagan got away with ballooning the national debt, W made it far worse.

Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute
has become
Trillions for offense but not one cent for making healthcare available to poor people


Or veterans.
 
2014-06-13 12:41:18 PM

nekom: raerae1980:
I remember, because, I used to listen to talk radio, being told that ANYONE who did not support the war or Bush was a traitor and unamerican.

Back in the days of blinding rage in the wake of the most devastating terrorist attack in our history.  I supported the war at first based largely on that kind of sentiment.  I was dead wrong, and I'm not afraid to admit being wrong.  Not sure what the hell we should do about it now though.


I was worse. I looked at all the evidence, and decided there was no reason to go to war. But then when Bush said we have to go in, I believed him. Even after everything I knew about politics and human nature, I had to believe the President wouldn't lie about something so important. I never even liked him, but I believed him.

I was wrong and stupid. I only hope I don't make the same mistake again.
 
2014-06-13 12:41:34 PM

wheatpennyandaglock: Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

 So i assume that you and your family have already volunteered for the armed services to go fight in Iraq?


Only if there are any available spots left in the elite 101st Keyboardist REMF Batallion.
 
2014-06-13 12:42:58 PM

Noam Chimpsky: parasol: Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

okay - this made me laugh

Wow. You have a very dark sense of humor if you thought that was funny. I suppose it's funny until it's your family and friends that gets beheaded in a blitzkrieging al qaeda army's wake.


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-13 12:44:58 PM

Noam Chimpsky: RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.


Well, no matter what you say, the fact remains that group currently invading Iraq is not Al Queda.

Of course, Al Queda kicked them out because they were too extreme, but...
 
2014-06-13 12:47:16 PM

Geotpf: Noam Chimpsky: RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.

Well, no matter what you say, the fact remains that group currently invading Iraq is not Al Queda.

Of course, Al Queda kicked them out because they were too extreme, but...


That's what cracks me up. If you have Al Freaking Qaeda telling you to calm it down a bit, you've got to be a real asshole.
 
2014-06-13 12:48:17 PM
Lord_Baull:BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.

Bill Clinton voted for the war in Iraq?  You know, the vote that happened three years after the last time he was in any elected office?  I...um...what?  That doesn't even work as humor or snark.
 
2014-06-13 12:48:24 PM

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?


This discussion is about Iraq, not Afghanistan. You didn't have UN support for Iraq.
 
2014-06-13 12:50:08 PM

dinch: Geotpf: Noam Chimpsky: RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.

Well, no matter what you say, the fact remains that group currently invading Iraq is not Al Queda.

Of course, Al Queda kicked them out because they were too extreme, but...

That's what cracks me up. If you have Al Freaking Qaeda telling you to calm it down a bit, you've got to be a real asshole.


Absolutely true, but the Sunnis who live in the areas they've taken over so far actually prefer them to Maliki, so that makes Maliki Grand Asshole Supreme, IMHO.
 
2014-06-13 12:52:29 PM

Geotpf: Noam Chimpsky: RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.

Well, no matter what you say, the fact remains that group currently invading Iraq is not Al Queda.

Of course, Al Queda kicked them out because they were too extreme, but...


Lol, okay. They just think the flag looks cool, is all.
 
2014-06-13 12:52:46 PM

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

We lost it the day we went in

Well yeah, but what date does McCain look at as when the mission was accomplished?

When the Iraqi people met us in the streets throwing flowers and Iraqi oil paid all of our war expenses,silly.


Oh silly me!
 
2014-06-13 12:53:13 PM

Farkin_Crazy: Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?


BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.

When did Bill Clinton vote in Congress? Or are you referring to George Clinton? And did all of P-Funk get a vote?


This.  I do believe he was out doing speaking engagements in 2002.  I don't ever recall him showing up for a vote on the floor.
 
2014-06-13 12:53:56 PM

PanicMan: I was wrong and stupid. I only hope I don't make the same mistake again.


Thank you for saying that. You are one of exactly four people I have ever seen, in person or online, say this without then trying to pin the blame on someone else.
 
2014-06-13 12:56:21 PM
*Sigh* No one reads upthread for context anymore.
 
2014-06-13 01:00:38 PM

The Why Not Guy: MBrady: also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.

Check your history. Barack Obama wasn't a Senator until 2005.

And as for the rest, when President Bush stood on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln, with a "mission accomplished" banner waving in the breeze, did you say "hey wait a second, some of this glory belongs to the Democrats, too"? I'll bet you didn't. I'll bet what you said was more like "I'm glad the Republicans are taking it to the terrorists unlike those wimpy Democrats."


They did not vote to "go to war", rather President Bush asked congress for the authorization to go to war because he said he needed it as a bargaining chip in forcing Saddam Husein and Iraq into giving up the WMDs we now know never existed. Bush said war would be a last resort and he would not abuse it. of course as soon as he got it he declared the UN reports stating that Iraq was in compliance as lies and invaded anyway.

So to say the Democrats voted "for the Iraq war" is intellectually dishonest. It's kind of like posting the picture of Reagan with the Mujahedin and claiming it was the Taliban and/or Al Queda without acknowledging all the nuance behind the actual reality.

The irony is President Obama asked for the same courtesy regarding Syria and the Republicans blocked it in order to make President Obama look bad, and undermine him on the international stage. Of course now the same Republicans are criticizing him for not using force. Of course if he did without congressional authorization (which he is constitutionally allowed to do) he would have been called a war mongering dictator by the same Republicans. It's just like they were criticizing President Obama for leaving Berghdal in Afghanistan before they crityicized President Obama for freeing Berghdal.

This is just another example of the political equivalent of "haters gonna hate".
 
2014-06-13 01:00:45 PM

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?


And thank Colin Powell and the other liars that fed the bullshiat to the people you mentioned, conning them into voting for taking action.
 
2014-06-13 01:01:06 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-13 01:01:07 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Geotpf: Noam Chimpsky: RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.

Well, no matter what you say, the fact remains that group currently invading Iraq is not Al Queda.

Of course, Al Queda kicked them out because they were too extreme, but...

Lol, okay. They just think the flag looks cool, is all.


Sigh, ok, one more time. This group is called ISIS. It stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria . They are NOT Al Qaeda.
 
2014-06-13 01:01:17 PM

Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?


BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.


Today we will discuss the English language.  The word and is used as a way to connect words together.  This does not mean that those two words are the same thing.  For example, fish and chips refers to a dish that includes both fish as well as chips.  It does not mean that fish and chips are the same thing.  So when someone says "0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war" they do not necessarily mean that everyone in that list voted for it.  It just means that everyone in that list contributed.  For example, if I said "the Iraq War happened in part because of the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and everyone at Fox News," I would not be implying that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield worked for Fox News.  All MBrady's original comment said was that those people listed all contributed towards helping start the Iraq War.  His statement was not accurate, but bot Bill and Hillary Clinton supported and help cause the Iraq War.

Do you deny that Bill and Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War?
 
2014-06-13 01:04:01 PM

Lord_Baull: *Sigh* No one reads upthread for context anymore.


No one particularly cares what you have to say. Express yourself clearly or work harder in the future. Fark doesn't have an edit button.
 
2014-06-13 01:04:12 PM

heavymetal: The Why Not Guy: MBrady: also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.

Check your history. Barack Obama wasn't a Senator until 2005.

And as for the rest, when President Bush stood on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln, with a "mission accomplished" banner waving in the breeze, did you say "hey wait a second, some of this glory belongs to the Democrats, too"? I'll bet you didn't. I'll bet what you said was more like "I'm glad the Republicans are taking it to the terrorists unlike those wimpy Democrats."

They did not vote to "go to war", rather President Bush asked congress for the authorization to go to war because he said he needed it as a bargaining chip in forcing Saddam Husein and Iraq into giving up the WMDs we now know never existed. Bush said war would be a last resort and he would not abuse it. of course as soon as he got it he declared the UN reports stating that Iraq was in compliance as lies and invaded anyway.

So to say the Democrats voted "for the Iraq war" is intellectually dishonest. It's kind of like posting the picture of Reagan with the Mujahedin and claiming it was the Taliban and/or Al Queda without acknowledging all the nuance behind the actual reality.

The irony is President Obama asked for the same courtesy regarding Syria and the Republicans blocked it in order to make President Obama look bad, and undermine him on the international stage. Of course now the same Republicans are criticizing him for not using force. Of course if he did without congressional authorization (which he is constitutionally allowed to do) he would have been called a war mongering dictator by the same Republicans. It's just like they were criticizing President Obama for leaving Berghdal in Afghanistan before they crityicized President Obama for freeing Berghdal.

This is just another example of the political equivalent of "haters gonna hate".


So what did they think he was going to do with the authority to go to war?
 
Displayed 50 of 284 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 »






Report