June 16, 2014
It's Obama's Fault This Time

George W. Bush was rightly faulted for not anticipating the chaos that followed the fall of Saddam. He invaded Iraq with enough military force to overwhelm the Iraqi army but not enough to maintain order until a new government could be established. The result was a bloody campaign to regain the upper hand. It concluded with a gutsy decision by Bush to insert more troops (the Surge) which successfully turned the tide in our favor. With the presidential election in 2008, he turned over to Obama a country that still had a chance to seed democracy in the Middle East but it needed support and yes, pressure on the Iraq government and leadership from the United States.

Obama, probably the most inexperienced presidential candidate ever elected, took office in 2009 based on public frustration with Bush, soaring rhetoric (..."this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."), and a litany of promises that mostly turned out to be empty of truth. One of the promises he did keep was ending American involvement in Iraq. The last American troops left Iraq in mid December 2011. Iraq was on its own; no US air power, no US ground forces, no residual US military period. Obama failed to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement, assuming he ever seriously wanted one, to allow some level of US military to remain in Iraq as a stabilizing force and deterrent to exactly what is happening now. He's repeating his mistake in Afghanistan by telling the Taliban when we are departing and leaving an inadequate force in country insufficient to stabilize or deter. The Taliban cannot help but notice how quickly the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria insurgents took advantage of the power vacuum resulting from the end of US involvement in Iraq. One cannot say a continued military presence in Iraq would solve all issues but it could have checked the current crisis.

Obama's leftist ideology and inexperience will snatch defeat from victory and possibly lead to a regional war. Shiite Iran is making noises about helping fellow Shiites in Iraq defeat the ISIS. Imagine, the potential nuclear armed enemy of the United States pulling our bacon so to speak out of the fire. Could anyone mishandle this crisis more than Obama? Maybe he will break out some of his famous "red lines" or have Michelle start a hashtag campaign, #Iraq for Iraqis - more "leading from behind." 

Posted by warrenpeterson at June 16, 2014 02:03 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Warren, we Seattle liberals feel your pain. You want your political commentaries to be read and to be taken seriously, but you voted twice for W. You could just admit the latter forever eliminated any possibility of the former, but instead you write drivel like this.

"George W. Bush was rightly faulted for not anticipating the chaos that followed the fall of Saddam."

By us liberals? Yes. By you and your crowd of bloodthirsty armchair warriors? Not so much.

"It concluded with a gutsy decision by Bush to insert more troops (the Surge)..."

Yes, the Splurge of our blood and treasure threw more guts around, but did it stabilize Iraq?

"The last American troops left Iraq in mid December 2011."

We'll take that as a "no," considering that a stable country, by definition, does not need continuous occupation by foreign troops.

"He's repeating his mistake in Afghanistan by telling the Taliban when we are departing and leaving an inadequate force in country insufficient to stabilize or deter."

When did we invade Afghanistan, Warren? Was it even further in the past than our invasion of Iraq, the date of which you somehow failed to give? Why couldn't we stabilize those countries in the years of W's administration, Warren?

Blame Obama all you want for not cleaning up W's mistakes, Warren; none of your risibly revisionist history will alter the reality that W made those mistakes, as we liberals begged him not to do, nor that you conservatives either supported him or were silent while he did so.

Posted by: tensor on June 16, 2014 04:15 PM
2. That's racist ;)
(but true)

Posted by: Church Mouse Republican on June 16, 2014 04:40 PM
3. .
@warrenpeterson,
Obama's leftist ideology and inexperience will snatch defeat from victory

What "victory"? What was won for the spending of American lives in Iraq?

Imagine, the potential nuclear armed enemy of the United States

Yes, and remember how you and your lot "imagined" WMD in Iraq? How did it work out the last time your fevered imagination ran wild with blood lust?

You, sir, a dumbass war pig!
And the families whose Soldiers saluted and died or were injured need you and your chickenhawk knownothings to STFU and crawl back into the hole you crawled out of.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 16, 2014 05:44 PM
4.
Even now, there are people with an emotional investment in this guy. They believed in him, and no matter how he disappoints them, no matter how many outrageous lies he tells them, they can't bring themselves to abandon him.

There's nothing the rest of us can do but laugh at them. You can point at them as you do so, but either way works. Just laugh at them. They hate it. And the more they seethe, the better it gets.

History will remember what this man did to America, and who stood by him. There's nothing we can do to change that now, but at least we can stand clear and sneer.

MikeyBoyScout @3, Exhibit 1.


Posted by: SneeringatLibs on June 16, 2014 06:20 PM
5. .
@4 Douchebag on June 16, 2014 06:20 PM,

How many tours did you do in Iraq?
How often do you visit injured Vets?

I don't give a rat's ass about Obama or any other politician on this issue.
For you, the discussion about whether we should repeat the Cheney-Bush idiocy is a political football that you play with from your computer screen, while others fight and die.

The fact of the matter is that the invasion of Iraq which cost us thousands and thousands of lives was the stupidest thing this nation has ever done.

What you see now is the reaping of the seeds sown by Republican neo-con know nothing warmongers.

Answer the question, What victory was won for the spending of American lives in Iraq?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 16, 2014 06:38 PM
6. Granted, we should not have invaded Iraq in the first place, nor do I believe we should send boots on the ground there - I am even dubious about sending special forces to protect the US Embassy in Baghdad - because of the bad timing by Obama's inner circle. I don't find this issue particularly annoying, except that now Obama is sending some boots on the ground. What I dislike more is that we are partnering with Iran - by that action, this despicable administration is clearly anti-Israel/zionist.

They continue to use Cloward-Piven tactics - despicable in itself (#1 & #3 & other self-proclaimed progressives)- if you feign not knowing this, you are only showing your ignorance if you really don't know what is being referred to. In that event, look it up and see for yourself. A good example of this is what is going on our southern border. I find it a travesty and a treasonous act with illegal immigrant children coming here in droves. It has annoyed the region and the Governors of all border states affected should sue this corrupt and willfully incompetent administration for inflicting damage on these states - (treasonous) to promote their agenda of adding future democrat voters/as they will offer them free stuff.


Posted by: KDS on June 16, 2014 06:48 PM
7. Because you need to read it

Absolutely Nothing

"Tragically, all we've fought for in Iraq, all that 4,500 American lives were shed to gain, is on the cusp, potentially, of vanishing.
- Mitt Romney, "Ideas Summit," 6/13/2014

All we fought for in Iraq.

All we fought for in Iraq is on the cusp of vanishing.

That's what Mitt Romney says.

We fought for. We fought for. We.

Oh, so it's we now, is it, Mitt?

We.

I must have missed you over there, but it was a busy place. We. The guy who helped set up "pro-draft" rallies and yet somehow managed to avoid service in Vietnam is upset about losing what "we" fought for? We.

Yeah, fuck you, Mitt.

And you're all welcome to quote me on that.

Somebody stepped into my office yesterday and asked how I felt about it. He wanted to know how I felt about "losing" Iraq.

How do I feel about losing all we fought for?

I don't know.

First, I'm going to need somebody to explain to me exactly what it was that we were fighting for.

What was it? What is it that we gained, according to Mitt Romney? And what is on the cusp of vanishing? What is that? No, really, somebody please explain it to me.

Because I'd love to know.

The Wikipedia says Operation Iraqi Freedom started on the 20th of March, 2003, which is just another reason why you shouldn't believe anything you read in the Wikipedia (don't, just don't). That's not correct, the war began a day earlier. See, I was there on the night the war really started, at precisely 2200 hours, on the 19th of March in the Northern Arabian Gulf. I was there when US Navy SEALs and Polish GROM stormed the MABOT and KAAOT oil terminals a full day before Saddam Hussein discovered that his time was finally up. In point of fact, I had arrived there four months before, a few days before Christmas in December of 2002. From the day of my arrival (and before that really) to the day the war started, and for months after, I was a Navy intelligence officer working in support of the invasion force. There's not much I don't know about the events leading up to war and the aftermath of the invasion.

Well, not much except for that one little detail.

Why.

All these years later, and I still don't know why.

Oh, I mean, I know what they told us, sure, Saddam Hussein attacked America on 9-11. Right? That's what they said, that's what the Commander in Chief told us. Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaida, remember? The son of a bitch and his stinking nation of terrorists attacked us. The Iraqis had it coming. And Georgie Boy was going to finish what his daddy started. Hooray! Right? That's what they said.

Except those of us in the professional intelligence community looked at each other and thought, wait, what? How the hell did we miss that? Saddam and Osama bin Laden are working together? Buwah? But Rumsfeld, he had his own little extra-constitutional intelligence outfit staffed with his simpering cronies who he paid to blow smoke up his pinched grey ass until his colon resembled beef jerky and he sure didn't have much use for us - after all, we were just the military he had.

Ours, as they say, is not to reason why, ours is to but do and die, right? At least that's what Rummy told us and you know, you go into war with the Secretary of Defense you have, not the one you'd like to have. And if Rumsfeld says he's got the real scoop, it must be true? Right? Sure, that justifies his contempt for us, sure it does.

Except, Rumsfeld's little masturbation fantasy turned out not to be the case.

But hey, never mind that, Saddam Hussein was threatening us anyway, wasn't he? Sure he was, in fact, that's the first time you heard the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" isn't it? The bastard had nukes and germs and war gas and he was just itching to use them on America, wasn't he? Heck we even had pictures of "mobile weapons labs" to prove it, isn't that what Colin Powell told the UN and the world? And by damn Saddam had been buying Yellow Cake uranium from Niger, right? Colin Powell wouldn't lie to us, would he? He was a hero, a general, he wouldn't send his comrades into war on a lie now would he?

Except all that turned out to be bullshit too, and Colin Powell was either a dupe of staggering proportions or he was the kind of Soldier who would fuck his buddy right in the ass without so much as a reach-around and I'll leave it up to you to figure which one is worse.

But by the time we figured out we'd been ass-raped by Colin Powell, we were shoulder deep in Iraq, Baghdad was burning, Iraq's army had thrown down their weapons and taken off their uniforms and had melted into the population, Saddam had vanished and his sons were dead, and the President of the United States had already declared victory from the deck of an American aircraft carrier.

And so, the objective became ... what?

Hearts and minds and freedom and democracy and nation building and magic bunnies who fart sunshine and rainbows.

Unfortunately, it turns out we're real good at the blowing shit up part, not so good at the magic bunnies part.

Which in retrospect, shouldn't be all that surprising - given that in order to build a civilization it helps if you actually have some vague familiarity with the people involved. Needless to say, we didn't. And we didn't care. To America, they were all little brown towelheads, sand niggers, raggedy-assed camel jockeys who ought to be grateful to America for burning down their shitty country. Sunni? Shia? Turkman? Baathists? What's that? What do you mean they hate each other? They're all Muslims aren't they? They're all Aayrabs, right? What do you mean they hate each other? And it all fell apart, disintegrating into insurgency and murder and bloody civil war - just exactly as anybody who actually knew something about the region and its people and its history could have told you it would. We lost less than a hundred soldiers in the actual war, the "peace" cost us nearly 5000 more. And the Iraqis? Who the hell knows? A hundred thousand? A million? It's impossible to tell.

And it turns out that freedom and democracy and magic flying bunnies were as elusive as Iraq's supposed WMDs - or Colin Powell's honor.

So, what was it again that we were fighting for?

They had no idea what we were fighting for, those saber-rattling Chicken Hawks, the cowardly connected wealthy weasels who'd managed to avoid serving in their own war, who kept their children out of uniform, but just couldn't wait to send us into one of their own making. They sent us off with parades and marching bands and cheering crowds ... and brought the bodies home in secret, hidden away from the TV cameras and the public.

They had no plan and no idea what we were dying for, but they assured us what the war wasn't about - it wasn't about religion.

Oh no, sir, we weren't fighting to eradicate Muslims, it wasn't about Islam.

The Evangelical Christian religious extremists who started this war told us it wasn't about religion.

Heh heh, riiiiiight. And Vietnam was really about containing communism. Sure.

Maybe they should have had Colin Powell tell that whopper to the UN, but he'd quit by then and was suddenly as invisible to America as those flag draped metal boxes arriving at Dover Air Force base in the middle of the night.

Americans who a few years before had been proudly waving their little flags as Johnny marched off to war were suddenly all shifty-eyed, they slapped a $5 dollar made in China magnet on the bumper of their giant gas-sucking SUVs, Support Our Troops, and with sardonically raised eyebrows complained to each other over the pumps about the immorality of a war fought for oil.

But that wasn't true either, was it?

Iraq's oil fields, the ones we fought and died to preserve on orders from the White House, the off-shore terminals the SEALs and the GROM risked their lives to save on that night back in 2003, the precious Iraqi oil that was going to pay for the war and pay to rebuild the country we'd blown up, well, that oil is nowhere to be found today, is it?

So, tell me again, what exactly is it that's on the "cusp of vanishing?"

I mean it sure isn't peace.

It's not freedom for the Iraqi people, despite the war's idiotic name.

It sure isn't regional stability.

It's not the end of terrorism or the near universal hatred of America in the Middle East.

And now that Halliburton and KBR and Blackwater and Dick Cheney have made their billions and cashed out, it isn't even about long term economic investments and American business.

Hell, it's not even about cheap gas.

So, go on, enlighten me. Because even though I was there, I've got no goddamned idea what it is that we've lost in Iraq beyond the 4,487 men and women we shipped home in metal boxes, beyond the 32,223 wounded and maimed, beyond the trillions of dollars we spent in our rage and our drive for revenge and our lust for blood.

Today, John McCain and Mitt Romney and the rest of the conservative war machine are railing against the President.

McCain stirred from the yellow fog of his bamboo cage and proclaimed in his best Old Man Yelling At Clouds voice, "We won Iraq! Obama lost it!"

Really Johnny Walnuts? Tell me, what did we win? And what have we lost? Please be specific, because I'd really like to know.

We no more "won" Iraq than McCain's own father "won" Vietnam.

McCain claims he "predicted" the sectarian violence now tearing Iraq apart. Really? Where the hell was clairvoyant John McCain back in 2003 when he voted along with the rest of them to send us into war? And later, where was his great predictive ability when Iraq began tearing itself apart? I guess he was at a Dixie Chicks concert, he must have been out in the lobby ordering a plate of Freedom Fries when his pal George W. Bush let Iraq disintegrate into civil war.

And so here we are.

The same old motley cast of characters, the warhawks and the chickenhawks and the billionaires and the simple-minded saber-rattlers and the same old hate-filled pundits, they just can't wait to jump back into Iraq.

Mitt Romney, John McCain, one who never served and one who damned well ought to know better, men who both wanted to be President of the United States and who both lost to Barack Obama, they just can't wait to send other people's kids back into the meat grinder.

Here's my question.

Why?

Why, John McCain?

Why, Mitt Romney?

Why, conservatives?

This time you fuckers goddamned well tell me why.

What's the goal? What's the objective? Is it to end terrorism? Is it to enforce peace at the muzzle of a gun? Is it it to make defense contractors rich? Is it for jobs? Or is it for magic flying bunnies who shoot rainbows and cheap gasoline out of their little assholes to the sound of Yankee Doodle Dandy?

Or, or, is it just because you hate Barack Obama?

That's it, isn't it?

It is.

You sons of bitches one and all, you simpering capering madmen, this time at least have the courage to face the cameras, to look into America's eyes, and tell them that their sons and daughters will be dying because you John McCain, because you Mitt Romney, because you Dick Cheney, because you Donald Rumsfeld, because you George W. Bush you lying bastard, because you conservatives hate Barack Obama and for no other reason. Go on, tell us, go on. Wave your little flags and beat your fleshy chests, roll out the marching bands and tell us just how many more American soldiers should die. Go on, put a number on it. Ten? A hundred? Fifty four thousand? How many of us have to die? How many more bodies will it take to satiate your mindless hunger for blood and revenge? How many more American lives are worth your insane hatred of the president? How many? How much further into debt should we drive our nation, another trillion dollars? Two? Ten? A hundred? Put a price on it you insane sons of bitches, go on, give me a number, write me a check. Tell me how much you're willing to pay, show me the goddamned money. How many more years? How many? One? Five? Another decade? Fifty? What is it? Don't wave your hands and make some vague prognostication, give me a number, how many lives, how much money, how many years? You look us in the eye and you fucking tell us.

Sure, let's go back to Iraq.

Oh, yes, let us do that.

I'll dig out my uniform and strap on my pistol and gird up my sword and ride into battle yet again.

Just so long as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and every single one of those powdered, Botoxed talking heads at Fox News are in the vanguard. That's right, you cowards, you put on a uniform and you lead the charge this time around. The Koch brothers and Mitt Romney can pay for it, every goddamned penny, we'll bleed them until they're dry and then we'll pull the gold fillings from their teeth to pay for it right along with the rest of their Wall Street cronies. You fuckers got rich off the last one, you can damned well pay for this one. And when you run out of money, we'll take your blood, fair's fair.

Strap John McCain into the cockpit of an A-4 Skyhawk and let him fly air cover.

If he gets himself shot down and taken prisoner again, well, you know what? Fuck him, leave him to the enemy because frankly his hate and bile and raging insanity have done more damage to this country than Bowe Bergdahl ever did.

The terrorists can keep him.

You want to go to back to war? No problem, this time, you go first.

Back then, as an officer, mine was not to reason why.

But this time, well, this time I'm a civilian. And as a citizen of the United States, this time I demand to know why.

So, you saber-rattling sons of bitches, you look me in the eye, and you tell me."

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 16, 2014 07:21 PM
8. Joe Biden in 2010: Iraq "would be one of the great achievements of this administration". Apparently the administration considers a complete breakdown as a great achievement.

The Obama Administration claimed Iraq as its own in 2010. Now that it's falling apart, they cannot claim it's Bush's fault. They took ownership in 2010 with Biden's statement (and many more that can be shown). It's now their folly.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 16, 2014 07:31 PM
9. Let's just get out of the entire Middle East and stay out. And let's stop pretending Israel is our friend and a de facto part of the United States. It's time to worry about America and Americans rather than oil companies and whether or not we cut the foreskins off of our little boys.

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. THERE, FIXED! on June 16, 2014 07:46 PM
10. @7 - Keep being pissed at Mitt Romney - a waste of energy. He won't be running for POTUS in 2016. You are ranting about past history - Keep your eye on the ball moving forward- watch what Obama and his inner cronies will pull out of their collective asses. What foreign policy works have they created after the so-called Arab Spring ?

- A soon to be nuclear Iran (in fairness, Bush/Chency didn't stop them either)
- A Syria out of control
- Egypt and Libya in chaos
- Iraq being divided and probably a satellite to Iran
after all US troops were withdrawn in 2011
- A more powerful Al-Qaeda with more virulent ISIS
infiltrating Syria and Iraq

Yeah, he gave the go ahead to take out UBL, but ignorantly - he thought that would finish Al Qaeda, so he continued to play golf and lied incessantly about Obamacare and helping our economy.

He is to blame for instability in the mid east, the chaos at the border and our sickening economy and political polarization and increasing debt and is unapologetic about any of it - because he is an arrogant, seditious son of a bitch !

Posted by: KDS on June 16, 2014 07:49 PM
11. @ 9 - oversimplistic with the foreskin thing and wrong about Israel, but we give them and Palestine way too much foreign aid !

We best keep our powder dry in the mideast, unless they attack us again. The ISIS leader stated yesterday; "See you in New York". Will have to see how that plays out, then respond accordingly - hopefully when there is a new president, because the current one would likely call it "workplace violence" like at Ft. Hood when the Islamist who infiltrated the military gunned down 12 marines. Not only is this president (an his administration) an arrogant and seditious; he is also a islamist sympathizer, a habitual liar and a willfully incompetent son of a bitch and that's putting it mildly !

Posted by: KDS on June 16, 2014 08:23 PM
12. From 11,

We have Islamic terrorism because we, along with Britain, have been diddling in Middle Eastern countries' affairs for nearly 70 years, trying to turn their societies into Western and Christian entities.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result every time. Well, our activities in the Middle East are insane and not getting us anywhere. If you want to end Islamic terrorism, withdraw the laregely white, Christian US military from their lands. They see out military as modern crusaders, come to concert them all to Christianity. By the sword, if necessary.

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. THERE, FIXED! on June 16, 2014 08:44 PM
13. From 12 = I don't disagree - Messing in the middle east is like messing with a hornet's nest and only if they attack us should we go back there to take them out ! The blame Bush ship has sailed - it will be a stain on history and a smaller stain on our debt, due to humogenous debt piled up by the power hungry statist in chief.

The Islamists are still living in the 7th century - have not got over the Crusades and that is Islam's dilemma, but it does not need to be the rest of the world's dilemma - I do not want Crusades 21st century - the rest of the world does not either, but the Islam extremists may show to have other ideas - so we need to keep our military intact.

Any country that is attacked by Islamic terrorists should strike back, but the US should not intervene with boots on the ground.

Posted by: KDS on June 16, 2014 09:35 PM
14. Don't drown in your own hubris, Warren. The colonial era is over. We can't tell other people how to run their countries anymore. Military interventions never did work very well, and now they work even less well. Bush's mistakes went way beyond mere tactical stupidity. Obama, at least, knows a quagmire when he sees one. Give the guy credit for getting us out of Iraq. Whatever mess exists there today is on Bush's ticket. Don't try to blame Obama for opening the can of worms, because he didn't.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on June 17, 2014 01:59 AM
15. Hey Ten Years After, are you the dumbass who said I couldn't make 8% a year in the stock market? I made four times that last year! And so did everyone else who owned stocks. Those who didn't, well, too bad for them.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on June 17, 2014 02:01 AM
16. "Don't try to blame Obama for opening the can of worms, because he didn't."

You conveniently overlooked a good chunk of the middle east - RR. Yes, Iraq is on Bush. However if Obama puts boots on the ground in Iraq, part of it will then rest on him.

Face the truth, progressive leftists - enough of your half truth diatribes - The so-called Arab Spring was Obama's can of worms. Egypt, Libya and Syria is on Obama. Afghanistan is on both Bush and Obama.

Posted by: KDS on June 17, 2014 07:27 AM
17. "They continue to use Cloward-Piven tactics...."

The only group that 'Cloward-Piven tactics' have worked for is American defense contractors.

Posted by: Ralph Hurley on June 17, 2014 09:37 AM
18. Roger Rabbit wrote: Whatever mess exists there today is on Bush's ticket. Don't try to blame Obama for opening the can of worms, because he didn't.

A few things to consider:

1. What is President Obama doing in Iraq that is not on the timetable/plans established by President Bush?

2. Which President said this:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....

HINT: he's the same President who signed the Iraq Liberation Act and actually ran Operation Desert Fox, a 4 day bombing campaign of Iraq.

Does that President bear any responsibility at all?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 17, 2014 11:45 AM
19. 22 -- Dwight Eisenhower? or was that Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs?

Posted by: Ralph Hurley on June 17, 2014 12:15 PM
20. How many tours did you do in Iraq?
How often do you visit injured Vets?

Complete non-sequitor appropriate of ... absolutely nothing except to change the subject and get you off the hook this in conversation.

BUT since you asked:
Yes.
A son.
Captain.
THREE tours.
Iraq.
Broken neck.

You can thank him for his service...

I don't give a rat's ass about Obama or any other politician on this issue.

Of course you do; it's why you turn yourself inside out and prostitute yourself to defend him, because if you don't what do his failures, his current lack of interest, his ineptness say about YOU.

Answer the question, What victory was won for the spending of American lives in Iraq?

FREEDOM

And so, the objective became ... what?
Hearts and minds and freedom and democracy and nation building and magic bunnies who fart sunshine and rainbows.

Stability in a region that desperately needs it. Yes, FREEDOM must be modeled, taught and encouraged to those who have never experienced it. Victims ... of anything ... but especially totalitarianism and dictatorships must LEARN not to be victims.

It's amazing that you don't understand that but given that feminists freaked out over Miss Nevada's suggestion women learn self defense to avoid rape, going so far as to DEMAND that men "learn" not to rape. How's that going? Are criminals learning not to commit crimes so that people have to defend themselves? Are TERRORISTS? You should be ashamed at the ridiculousness of that position.

Magic bunnies, indeed.


@#7 - Wow - is there anything else you can throw at the wall to deflect from the conversation? Really, you're blaming Christians? The Koch brothers? Fox News? You really are desperate.


I don't know how you true believers can keep up with all that you are forced to defend, a new crisis every day. The cognitive dissonance must be painful.

Was it only 10 months ago that President Obama capitulated on Syria? And eight months ago that we learned he had no idea the U.S. eavesdropped on Angela Merkel ? And seven months ago that his administration struck its disastrous interim nuclear deal with Tehran? And four months ago that Chuck Hagel announced that the United States Army would be cut to numbers not seen since the 1930s? And three months ago that Russia seized Crimea? And two months ago that John Kerry's Israeli-Palestinian peace effort sputtered into the void? And last month that Mr. Obama announced a timetable for total withdrawal from Afghanistan--a strategy whose predictable effects can now be seen in Iraq?

Even the Bergdahl deal of yesterweek is starting to feel like ancient history. Like geese, Americans are being forced to swallow foreign-policy fiascoes at a rate faster than we can possibly chew, much less digest.


And another:


The "heckuva job," meme stuck to Bush's presidency and dragged it down. So did his premature victory lap on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner. Those were simple, powerful moments that encapsulated larger problems. There's a lesson here, and it's one that should worry President Barack Obama.

The Obama administration, which had few serious setbacks during its first term, is now engulfed by them: the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act, the unraveling story about Benghazi, Libya, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the casual (and ignored) red line in Syria, Iraq's disintegration after America left abruptly, al-Qaida's resurgence, the secret waiting list and falsified data at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Taliban prisoners swap. The president's defenders have explanations for each of them, but the problems are cumulating.
Several themes are emerging. The question is whether they will congeal into a clear, negative image of Obama and his presidency.

One obvious theme is that Obama, is a poor manager. He doesn't pay attention to crucial details, surrounds himself with sycophants and doesn't hold anyone accountable.

That brings us to the second theme: the White House maintains an arms-length relationship with the truth. The press, so docile during Obama's first term, now smells deceit and has begun doing its job: questioning the administration. The president is being drawn in and tarnished. That was clearest when the IRS scandal broke.

What might turn this parade of problems into an indelible image are the most recent scandals: the systemic corruption at the Veterans Affairs, quickly followed by the controversial swap of five Taliban prisoners for a captured U.S. soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. At the VA, the president clung to his appointed leader, Shinseki, until the public was marching with pitchforks. In the Taliban case, the president did not consult senior military and intelligence officials and refused to inform Congress in advance. As with Benghazi, the White House held its information tight and kept changing its story.

The low point came when the president embraced Sgt. Bergdahl's parents in the Rose Garden. Thinking the public would cheer Bergdahl's release, Obama took a victory lap. Bad call. The administration has been showered with tough questions instead of confetti. Why did Obama release a murderers' row of Taliban generals? Why did he refuse to tell anyone in Congress beforehand, as he was legally required to do? Is the president floating a trial balloon to empty Guantanamo? Could the newly released Taliban plan deadly attacks? Will the swap encourage Islamic terrorists to kidnap other Americans? The White House is still fumbling for answers.

Meanwhile, doubts are growing about the president's competence and honesty. When a meme like that takes hold, it is marked with indelible ink.

Oh yeah, the second quote? CHICAGO TRIBUNE.

Bang the drum slowly.

Especially after he claimed he won't put boots on the ground he commits to 275 troops. Google how many a "troop" is.

Posted by: SneeringatLibs on June 17, 2014 02:21 PM
21. Um, the "tell" in your meaningless opinion quote is "Benghazi." Only wingnuts think it's a scandal involving Obama; everyone else knows it was an attack upon us.

Oh, and your sacrificial offering of your son is very ... Biblical. MikeBoyScout didn't ask about your family.

And the FREEDOM you cite, as justification for all of our blood and treasure W. squandered is the cause of all the other problems you righties are whining about, and an entirely predicted outcome of overthrowing a dictator with no follow-up plan.

Posted by: tensor on June 17, 2014 02:43 PM
22. Another day, another Obama fuck-up. It is not news anymore.

Posted by: Mike on June 17, 2014 03:23 PM
23. "It is not news anymore."

Of course not. It's FOX news.

Posted by: r on June 17, 2014 03:37 PM
24. Dan -- the long quote you attribute to Mr. Obama predates his presidency by many years. Yes, the W. administration's cynical campaign of fear-mongering, half-truths, and outright lies, coupled with creduluous right-wing supporters loudly regurgitating all of the scary parts, caused persons who err on the side of caution to over-state the risk Saddam posed. All your quote demonstrates was how well the scare propaganda had warped our civic discourse -- another negative outcome of W's policy.

Posted by: tensor on June 17, 2014 03:51 PM
25. hey - tensor, wake up and read. the long quotes are from
another hero of yours, bill clinton. i guess he was bush's fault too.

don't let that deter you from your blind allegiance though.

Posted by: dan on June 17, 2014 05:40 PM
26. MBS, "What victory was won for the spending of American lives in Iraq?"

These people haven't even tried to give you an answer.

KDS, "Egypt, Libya and Syria" "The so-called Arab Spring"

Says the twit who supported Operation American Spring, a pathetic wingnut wetdream to overthrow our nation's government. Which leads to,

KDS, "seditious"

You project too much, KDS, a common wingnut affliction and a Psych 101 thing, in case you didn't know.

Actually, Iraq is looking like another right-wing paradise - limited government, little regulation, crazy religious fundamentalists, and, hell, open-carry is all the rage there these days. What's not for you to like?

Benghazi! What's the problem, guys, didn't get your talking points on the video tape yet? LMFAO!

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 17, 2014 05:42 PM
27. Iraq is not, and never was, a nation. It is a plot of dirt that British colonial administrators lined off on a map, drawing the line for their own convenience. This map line fenced in three tribal groups who don't like each other -- Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Saddam's repression, for all its faults, did have one thing going for it: It kept the lid on. Once he was overthrown and the lid came off, the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds reverted to what they love most -- fighting each other. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East could and should have foreseen this, and also should have understood the difficulties of attempting nation-building in the midst of a three-way civil war. Do we really want to take over Saddam's role of maintaining civil peace through repression? Could we do it even if we wanted to and tried? Folks, the people you refer to as "Iraqis" (it's much more useful to differentiate and call them what they see themselves, i.e. Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds) are going to do their thing, no matter what Obama does now, unless you want to sign our country up for a permanent and bloody occupation. These people are what they are. Sunnis do not want to be ruled by Shiites, etc. This is a domestic dispute, and sometimes the best thing to do with a domestic situation is let them have at it, and stay out of the crossfire. Otherwise, they will turn on you.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on June 17, 2014 06:07 PM
28. "unless you want to sign our country up for a permanent and bloody occupation"

That seems to be exactly what they want, provided that it's somebody else's blood.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 17, 2014 06:52 PM
29. From 15,

No, Roger, I said nobody makes 30% average PER YEAR, year after year. Yes, I made around 32% or so last year, but my average over the past 30 or so years is around 8 or 9 %. Even those hedge fund guys and venture capitalists you and yours hate so much don't average 30% over a 30 or 40 year period. It's like realizing Babe Ruth didn't bat 1,000 for his entire career. He had some awful times at bat, too.

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. THERE, FIXED! on June 17, 2014 07:17 PM
30. "unless you want to sign our country up for a permanent and bloody occupation"

I suggest you LOOK at what's there now - heads removed from their bodies lining the streets. Heads offered up on Twitter to celebrate and mock the World Cup, "Iraqi soldiers being taunted and executed by exuberant militants", "ISIS previously released photos of mass executions of Iraqi soldiers and security troops. There are also reports of hundreds of civilians being rounded up and executed by the militants.", "blood-thirsty jihadists are carrying out summary executions on civilians, Iraqi soldiers and police officers - including 17 in one street alone - on their warpath, the UN said today."

Via The Daily Mail, In one, which is too graphic to publish, fighters are seen knocking on the door of a Sunni police major in the dead of night.

When he answers, they blindfold and cuff him. Then they carve off his head with a knife in his own bedroom as sweetly lilting religious hymns are played over the top.

Shock and awe: An ISIS propaganda video shows militants blindfolding a Sunni police major in his home before cutting off his head

Joe Biden: Iraq is one of Obama's 'Great Achievements'

Dig that hole a bit deeper Joe, the Democrats haven't found themselves deep enough in it.

"The leader of the insurgent group swallowing city after city there has vowed to bring his war to New York City, CBS 2's Marcia Kramer reported Tuesday.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has his eye on New York and his intentions are evil. "I'll see you guys in New York," he said."

Iraq is one of Obama's 'Great Achievements'

Posted by: SneeringatLibs on June 17, 2014 07:19 PM
31. @ #15 the same Roger Rabbit who loves to brag how much HE makes in the market? THAT Roger Rabbit?

Posted by: SneeringatLibs on June 17, 2014 07:20 PM
32.
The tragedy unfolding in Iraq today is only part of the story. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent across the globe. According to a recent Rand study, between 2010 and 2013, there was a 58% increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist terror groups around the world. During that same period, the number of terrorists doubled.

In the face of this threat, Mr. Obama is busy ushering America's adversaries into positions of power in the Middle East. First it was the Russians in Syria. Now, in a move that defies credulity, he toys with the idea of ushering Iran into Iraq. Only a fool would believe American policy in Iraq should be ceded to Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror.

This president is willfully blind to the impact of his policies. Despite the threat to America unfolding across the Middle East, aided by his abandonment of Iraq, he has announced he intends to follow the same policy in Afghanistan.

Despite clear evidence of the dire need for American leadership around the world, the desperation of our allies and the glee of our enemies, President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch. Indeed, the speed of the terrorists' takeover of territory in Iraq has been matched only by the speed of American decline on his watch.

Iraq is one of Obama's 'Great Achievements'

Posted by: SneeringatLibs on June 17, 2014 07:25 PM
33. @29 I never said you said 30%. You challenged me when I posted that anyone can make 8%, which is about what most folks are making this year -- the market looks set to produce 8% to 10% total returns for 2014, although we still have 6 months to go. What I said is 8% is doable. I never represented that 30% is doable.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on June 17, 2014 08:10 PM
34. Tensor @ 24:

The quote was from Bill Clinton. He who signed the Iraq regime change policy, and who bombed Iraq over the WMDs.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 17, 2014 08:22 PM
35. From 33

We clearly had a miscommunication then. Back in the mid-Nineties, an investment manager I know had a return for one year of 91%. But that was for a single year, and certainly he hasn't managed to do anything like even 15 or 20% every year, on average.

Over the long tem, nobody does 30% over a 30 or 40 year period. I'll gladly take my 32% years when I can get them and be grateful for them, but I don't expect to make 30% year after year.

Posted by: Ten Years After. - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. THERE, FIXED! on June 17, 2014 08:39 PM
36. From 33

We clearly had a miscommunication then. Back in the mid-Nineties, an investment manager I know had a return for one year of 91%. But that was for a single year, and certainly he hasn't managed to do anything like even 15 or 20% every year, on average.

Over the long tem, nobody does 30% over a 30 or 40 year period. I'll gladly take my 32% years when I can get them and be grateful for them, but I don't expect to make 30% year after year.

Posted by: Ten Years After. - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. THERE, FIXED! on June 17, 2014 08:39 PM
37. From 33

We clearly had a miscommunication then. Back in the mid-Nineties, an investment manager I know had a return for one year of 91%. But that was for a single year, and certainly he hasn't managed to do anything like even 15 or 20% every year, on average.

Over the long tem, nobody does 30% over a 30 or 40 year period. I'll gladly take my 32% years when I can get them and be grateful for them, but I don't expect to make 30% year after year.

Posted by: Ten Years After. - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. THERE, FIXED! on June 17, 2014 08:39 PM
38. @26 - you are psychotic, silly infidel. You do not have a coherent argument, just your typical verbal vomiting.

"who supported Operation American Spring, a pathetic wingnut wetdream to overthrow our nation's government."

only in your drug-addled imagination did this exist. You long for a wet dream.

"Actually, Iraq is looking like another right-wing paradise - limited government, little regulation, crazy religious fundamentalists, and, hell, open-carry is all the rage there these days"

Provide documented evidence to back up your assertion - prove that Iraq has limited government at this time.

ISIS is a crazy religious fundamentalist group that can't get over the Crusades in the 7th century. However, Dr. Weirdo - You are a crazy religious fundamentalist also, following the religion of radical leftism - who emulate radical muslims by their proclivity to lie and disregard the constitution and the rule of law and differ in that you and your ilk don't kill the infidel - otherwise you would kill yourselves :) Glad I don't live in your bubble boy world.

Posted by: KDS on June 17, 2014 08:53 PM
39. The only group that 'Cloward-Piven tactics' have worked for is American defense contractors.

Posted by Ralph Hurley at June 17, 2014 09:37 AM

Please explain how American defense contractors did this. So you are saying this does not apply to the current administration.

Why do you believe it does not ?

Posted by: KDS on June 17, 2014 09:00 PM
40. @27

Agreed. Except this is not the domestic dispute between the wife beater and his wife that live next door to you in the trailer park. There are people in this world who go out of their way to take their disputes and turn them in to crusades, bringing their warped fundamentalism to innocents in our country. We should tread lightly on the Middle East but destroy every terrorist they harbor in the most agressive and brutal fashion.

But in the upside down fucked up world of Obamabots, we read captured terrorists Miranda rights, treat them well in white collar prison settings for years and then trade them for traitors.

Posted by: Mike on June 17, 2014 11:18 PM
41. If I were to choose a species from the animal kingdom to represent Barack Obama and his true believers, I would not choose their donkey, despite his stubborness and refusal to admit he's wrong. I would not choose the lemming that blindly follows even to its own destruction. I would not choose the sheep with its pea brain and herd "mentality". I would not choose the monkey, despite his cunning antics and I would not choose the lily-livered cowardly lion even though he dithers and refuses to make hard choices.

No, none of those.

I would choose the capon. The one who thinks he's cock of the walk, strutting around the hen house squawking loudly and often, twitching his tail and fluffing his feathers in a dance of seduction and yet ignored by all.

The capon: a castrated rooster.

Posted by: SneeringatLibs on June 18, 2014 12:17 AM
42. @41

You are being too kind. Animals are higher level life forms. Too good for Obama and crew. They are more like a parasitic life form. Or really more like a cancer. Capable of taking good, productive cells and mutating them in to blobs sucking the life out of the host. You know the blobs expecting free health care, free cell phones, free food stamps, guaranteed minimum wages for little or no value, and so on.

An Obamabot is just a blight on humanity.

Posted by: Mike on June 18, 2014 08:55 AM
43. And let us just dispense with the horseshit "Fox News" red herring. I do not have cable, do not watch TV. I get my news from a wide selection of Internet sites, including Huff Post, Google News and other affregators.

For example here is a poll from NBC/WSJ showing that 54% have no confidence in Obama's leadership.

If you want to see deluded, look in the mirror. After 6 years or poor leadership, it is no surprise that we have so little to show for Hope and Change.

Posted by: Mike on June 18, 2014 09:01 AM
44. Newsflash for you true believing Obamabot sycophants who lap up his grand oration no matter the result.

The rest of the country has declared the Obama presidency pretty much over. Abandoned by even Latinos, and viewed as even less competent than Bush. Wow, now that is a truly epic fail.

Nice going Bots.

Posted by: Mike on June 18, 2014 09:07 AM
45. Just ignore my sneer ....

According to the poll, just 37% of respondents said they approved of Obama's handling of foreign-policy issues, an all-time low. Meanwhile, 57% said they disapproved, an all-time high.

And the foreign-policy approval rating for Obama might be artificially high. The poll was conducted before the crisis in Iraq -- a situation for which Obama has been roundly criticized -- bubbled up and grabbed international attention.

Some other highlights from the poll:

Obama's overall approval rating sits at just 41%, tying an all-time low.

His approval rating on handling the economy also sits at 41%, down 1 percentage point from last month. It's the same number from March.

Obama's favorability rating is underwater -- 41% said they view him positively, while 45% see him in a negative light.

When asked their predictions on the rest of Obama's term in office, 54% said they thought he "cannot lead and get the job done," compared with only 42% who said the opposite.

Over the last 12 months, 41% of respondents said their views of the Obama administration have "gotten worse." Only 15% said they have "gotten better."

Obama's declining popularity threatens to drag down Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections. By a 10-point margin, more people said their vote this November will be to "send a signal of opposition to Obama."

Uh-oh. Chuck Todd sneers too...

The survey would appear to be so bad, in fact, that NBC News' Chuck Todd said Tuesday that the poll basically means the public has declared the Obama presidency to be over.

"This poll is a disaster for the president," Todd said. "You look at the presidency here: Lowest job rating, tied for the lowest; lowest on foreign policy. His administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration, post-Katrina."

"On the issue of do you believe he can still lead? A majority believe no. Essentially the public is saying your presidency is over," Todd added.

Everything this man told you, everything he promised you with his "soaring rhetoric" was the con of a could be, might be, an I'll pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today, and you fell for it!

And you dragged this country down with it.

Ignore the rest of the my sneer too!

Clinton's favorable ratings have steadily dropped since she left the State Department, from 67% in March 2013 to 59% last fall to 57% in March and now 55%.

Her book is on the mark-down table @ 40% off.

According to this source, a Simon & Schuster insider, "They sold 60,000 hard covers first week and 24,000 ebooks." The publishing house was "hoping and praying for 150,000 print first week."

"The 60k represents a less than 10% sell thru based on what they shipped," says the source.

It's been reported that one million copies of Clinton's book were shipped weeks before the June 10 publication date. "They will be lucky to sell 150,000 total lifetime," the source writes in the email.

The "dead broke" broad, Hillary reportedly received a near-$14 million advance, a sum the publishing house will unlikely make back.

SNEER and do it for the children!

Posted by: SneeringatLibs on June 18, 2014 09:46 AM
46. cheap Broncos jerseys china for mens kids and womens sale

Posted by: wholesale Sabres jerseys on June 18, 2014 10:45 AM
47. Where To Get cheap Chiefs jerseys

Posted by: china cheap Suns jerseys on June 18, 2014 10:46 AM
48. "SNEER and do it for the children!"

Endless rants. Endless cut & paste. It seems so familiar, like Rags is taking the wrong hormones or something.

"Just ignore my sneer ...."

No problem. Easier here than when you're doing this on street corners, that's for damned sure. Sneer away, wingnut.

"Animals are higher level life forms. Too good for Obama and crew. They are more like a parasitic life form. Or really more like a cancer. Capable of taking good, productive cells and mutating them in to blobs sucking the life out of the host."

Geez, Mike, you almost come off as someone open to finding, eh, let's call it a "final solution" to eliminate these lower life forms which plague your existence. Got a plan?

Speaking of bullshit, smooth move, Jim Miller, posting an enemies list following the shootings in Las Vegas. What's up with that? Are you hoping Mike or Sneer are going to completely lose it and go after them? And what a hypocrite you are, not allowing any comments in response to your whines about freedom of speech. Cognitive dissonance much?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 12:09 PM
49. Speaking of bullshit

Yours won't change the subject or the facts.

Here's an interesting tidbit I heard this morning (in reference to the decimating poll outlining Obama's failure on every level):

'It's the NINTH survey in a row where less than 30% of Americans believe America is headed in the right direction.'

It, he and you deserve so much more than sneering.

Posted by: SneeringatLibs on June 18, 2014 12:37 PM
50. Warren sez, "George W. Bush was rightly faulted for not anticipating the chaos that followed the fall of Saddam."

Actually, he could be faulted for a hell of a lot more than that. After all, the Bush administration lied our nation into war. That's worthy of a post in itself, don't you think, Warren? But you'll never go there, will you?

Sneezing at Liberals sez, "It, he and you deserve so much more than sneering"

Oh, really? Just what do the president and I deserve?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 12:54 PM
51. "decimating poll"

Indeed, compared to Democrats, the Republicans and the TeaBirchers are in freefall. Funny, I noticed that you're not doing too well with our nation's "broads", as you called them.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 01:03 PM
52. Warren sez, "Could anyone mishandle this crisis more than Obama?"

Um, Bush/Cheney. McCain/Palin. Romney/Ryan. Cruz/Brat. Heh. That last one is just too funny. Where do you get these people??

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 01:10 PM
53. Steve, unlike you, myself and the rest of the sane are for both social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, but we also understand socialism does not work.

That said, you Bots seem to doing a fine job of aborting your future out of the gene pool. And an equally fine job of showing so much incompetence in leadership as to most likely swing the political pendulum even to a bunch of idiots like the Repubs.

So thanks!

Posted by: Mike on June 18, 2014 03:09 PM
54. "unlike you, myself and the rest of the sane are for both social issues such as gay marriage and abortion"

So you're sane and everybody else is either an Republican idiot or a socialist Obamabot. LMFAO! My, but aren't you fucking special - the one sane person around, and yet you modestly come off as just another mindless, hate-filled right-wing dickhead afflicted with arrested development prone to acting out the anger from an inability to get laid by hinting of visiting violence upon those who you perceive as Obamabots and, of course, our nation's president.

I suggest that you grow a damned spine for once in your frightened, pathetic life, Sane-Boy, quit dumping wimp shit in these comments and let's hear your manly thoughts about what should be done about cancerous, parasitic life forms sucking the life out of you. You know, like me and the president.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 05:18 PM
55. "The quote was from Bill Clinton. He who signed the Iraq regime change policy, and who bombed Iraq over the WMDs."

Now you're just openly lying. "Regime change" was W's rhetoric, not Clinton's. Clinton was long gone from office, already the respected elder statesman W will never be, by the time W and his gang were talking "regime change."

Also, you might want to distinguish between limited military action against a limited threat, and a full-out invasion over threats which did not exist. Since lying about threats to justify invasion is the root cause of all the problems listed in this thread, it would be nice to see one of you Bush-defending Obama-bashers recognize this.

Posted by: tensor on June 18, 2014 06:06 PM
56. My, but aren't you fucking special - the one sane person around, and yet you modestly come off as just another mindless, hate-filled right-wing dickhead afflicted with arrested development prone to acting out the anger from an inability to get laid by hinting of visiting violence upon those who you perceive as Obamabots and, of course, our nation's president.

Squawking capon, ruffled feathers! The louder the squawk, the more impotent the castrated rooster.

Barack Obama had it all with his historical election, the good will of the country and the world, both houses of Congress, Now the majority of those asked believe he's a liar, believe they are worse off than they were before he came into office and moreso each year since, believe he's responsible for the ugly inflation that has begun, most noticeably in food, energy and gas, believe he's completely inept in foreign policy. Even in attempting to do the one thing he loves, GOLF, he just isn't very good. He ranked 107 of 150 in the Golf Digest's 'Washington's Top 150 Golfers' in 2011 with a handicap of 17! SEVENTEEN! For a guy who spends as much time at something he loves as he does, you'd think he'd get better than Biden who's at #29! He's a self-proclaimed (on Leno, no less) "retard" at bowling, reminds folks of Almira Gulch from the Wizard of Oz when he rides a bike and even has trouble navigating under a garden arch with an umbrella.

The country says you, and they, elected a failure.

Posted by: SneeringatLibs on June 18, 2014 06:38 PM
57. "The quote was from Bill Clinton. He who signed the Iraq regime change policy, and who bombed Iraq over the WMDs."

@55 - You are part wrong and maybe entirely wrong- instead of calling Warren a LIAR, check it out and provide contrary evidence first, lest you be the fool. Clinton did in fact bomb Iraq but did not send boots on the ground there and to his credit. However, he did it to distract from his own peckadillos - LOL in 1998. If you read my previous posts, you will see that I am against boots on the ground in Iraq - respond with air power and a bombing campaign (a la Clinton) over Syria until there are open targets in Iraq to be found.

Leftists on SP once again demonstrate that they are like Radical Muslims; they believe that they have the right to lie to those with different religions/viewpoints in order to promote or protect their religion - Islam or in this case Progressive Leftism. Leftists are amoral and ruthless when it comes to politics. Their politicians are their gods as they do not believe in God.

Posted by: KDS on June 18, 2014 07:16 PM
58. Tensor @ 55:

Please check the links. They go straight to Clinton's very words. Here is the act that President Clinton signed in 1998 calling for regime change in Iraq.

Those are the facts. I'm not lying. Sorry it bothers you so much that the official US policy of regime change in Iraq came from President Clinton.

Try reading and learning - it might do you a little good.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 18, 2014 07:24 PM
59. "The louder the squawk, the more impotent the castrated rooster."

What's with you people and projection? You might try squawking less and instead try showing the world that you can achieve at least some recognizable level of cognition.

"The country says you, and they, elected a failure."

It seems to have escaped your attention that your precious poll reveals the country says Republicans, and especially TeaBirchers, suck one hell of a lot more than President Obama and the Democrats ever will. Think of it as the country telling Republicans that they'll never occupy the White House until they jettison the likes of you 'tards and return you to the backwaters of society from whence you came.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 07:48 PM
60. "Here is the act that President Clinton signed in 1998 calling for regime change in Iraq."

So what? If you want equivalency, Buddy, you're going need to find a link to President Clinton lying his ass off to lead this nation into war with Iraq. Good luck with that.

No, it was Republicans who did that. All of your whines about Clinton will never change what happened when we last allowed a Republican to occupy the White House. They lied us into a fucking senseless war that cost our nation more than 4,500 lives, more than 30,000 other casualties, and trillions of dollars.

Hell, you stupid bastards whining today about spending a few bucks on developing solar power managed to lose $8,000,000,000 sitting on a goddamned pallet.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 08:05 PM
61. "It seems to have escaped your attention that your precious poll reveals the country says Republicans, and especially TeaBirchers, suck one hell of a lot more than President Obama and the Democrats ever will."

A blatant LIE. It is dead even between the two and the pendulum could well swing to the right as you and rest of the leftists progressives are exposed for who they really are. Your ilk has network TV, college faculty, a plurality of the courts and media and two low rated cable networks (MSNBC and CNN) on your side. Obama is in the process of imploding not only the country but the despicable Democrat party, who have become a den of snakes.

The truth is: You and your ilk believe that they have the right to lie to those with different religions/viewpoints in order to promote or protect their religion - Islam or in this case Progressive Leftism. Leftists are amoral and ruthless when it comes to politics. Your religion is progressivism - the American phrase for Commie-pinko as you-Steve like to be called

Posted by: KDS on June 18, 2014 08:10 PM
62. "They lied us into a ..."

Not to mention ignoring a Presidential Daily Briefing memo warning of an impending terrorist attack.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 08:16 PM
63. Evidence that this country is imploding economically with increasing toxicity;

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380670/increasingly-expensive-chicken-every-pot-kevin-d-williamson

Posted by: KDS on June 18, 2014 08:19 PM
64. "the American phrase for Commie-pinko as you-Steve like to be called"

Commie-pinko? That's so 1950s. These days aren't you Bircher tea-bagging freaks calling anyone who disagrees with the lame horseshit you spew a commie-fascist-statist-Jihad lover, or some such bullshit like that?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 08:24 PM
65. "this country is imploding economically with increasing toxicity"

Please try not to act as though some wingnut forecasting America's doom gets you all orgasmic or something. It leaves the impression that you hate our country. Oh, wait, you Birchers do hate our country. My bad.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 08:39 PM
66. "A blatant LIE. It is dead even between the two"

Dead heat? Only for those who have to make up shit to believe to keep their heads from exploding.

I have sad news for you, KDS. You came in last. President Obama has nearly twice the favorable rating as you Birchers. Democrats are way more popular than Republicans. If Obama is "imploding", where does that leave you?

President Obama's favorable/unfavorable 41-45

Democratic Party favorable/unfavorable 38-40

Republican Party favorable/unfavorable 29-45

Tea Party favorable/unfavorable 22-40

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsjnbc06182014.pdf

Sucks to be a TeaBircher. It looks like there's just no future in it. Of course, delusions and the deluded never did have much of a future, did they?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 09:06 PM
67. .
Good news! Vice President DICK Cheney has something to say about the situation in Iraq vis-a-vis 'It's Obama's Fault'.

Take it away DICK

The vice president said he expected the war would end during President Bush's second term, which ends in 2009.
"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

- DICK Cheney, Vice President Monday, June 20, 2005

Clearly, it's Obama's fault.
The insurgency, 'if you will', instigated by the Cheney-Bush administration's invasion and illegal occupation because of Iraqi WMD they new existed without a doubt, but which did not actually exist ended years ago and is without question the fault of Obama.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 18, 2014 09:12 PM
68. " Democrats are way more popular than Republicans."

@66 - That is only one poll and meaningless at that and you do a piss poor job at interpreting them. Provide some other polls to give a true picture and it is basically even between the two parties, NOTE: neither of which represent the common people.

I am not a Tea Bircher, but you are leftist progressive.

"President Obama has nearly twice the favorable rating as you Birchers."

Totally irrelevant, numbnuts - his current rating is 41/55 (positive/negative), no better than Bush at the same time in his 2nd term.

"Oh, wait, you Birchers do hate our country. My bad."

Yes, You are a bad LIAR. Revise that to say - They hate what the leftist progressives are trying to do to this country; change the rule of law to the rule of man, the Democrat party trying to repeal the first amendment to demonstrate that you are fascist(s). You leftist progressives hate this country as it was back in 2000 and before because you have ZERO common sense and are essentially retarded to continue to think that way. Go find a new country to f**k up like Somalia - then you will see what hell is really like.

Posted by: KDS on June 18, 2014 09:53 PM
69. Sweet Steve. That is the same angry rant I got from BS. Are you and BS just the same Obamabot weirdo. Probably. Glad I could raise your blood pressure.

Posted by: Mike on June 18, 2014 09:57 PM
70. "Glad I could raise your blood pressure."

Another sad and pathetic fail on your part, dude. Why on earth would making fun of a wingnut stupe like you raise anybody's blood pressure?

Speaking of laughable wingnut stupes, "That is only one poll and meaningless at that and you do a piss poor job at interpreting them."

Says the stupe who just claimed the WSJ poll was "dead even". You were caught making shit up. Again. Sucks for you, I'm sure.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 18, 2014 10:54 PM
71. "Please check the links. They go straight to Clinton's very words. Here is the act that President Clinton signed in 1998 calling for regime change in Iraq."

Yes, clicking further gets one the actual text of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. Once you've read all the way through it, you'll notice W's catchphrase, "regime change," does not appear within it. At the end, though, you will find this very strict limitation on the use of American military resources to effect replacement of Saddam's regime:

"Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of the United States Armed Forces..." except for limited training and assistance to Iraqi groups opposed to Saddam's regime.

W's failed intervention in Iraq was not a continuation of Clinton's careful policy, as you have so dishonestly pretended, but a recklssly forceful repudiation of Clinton's careful policy. And even after all these years, you still can't recognize this. Pathetic.

Posted by: tensor on June 19, 2014 07:57 AM
72. Warren, "Obama's leftist ideology and inexperience will snatch defeat from victory"

Speaking of snatching defeat from victory, today's headlines seem to spell doom for a couple of Republicans with presidential aspirations and, by the way, no foreign policy experience.

"Sources: Prosecutor Closing In On Chris Christie"

"Prosecutors Allege Gov. Scott Walker At Heart Of 'Criminal Scheme'"

Looks like the Draft Mitt campaign might gain more momentum. By the way, other than insulting our best ally by his being truly dorkified, Mitt has zero foreign policy experience. As does Cruz. And Paul. And Huckabee. And Jeb. And Brat. In fact, unlike Hillary, your entire prospective presidential field for 2016 hasn't a single drop of foreign policy experience. None whatsoever. I'm sure this will be an issue for you and we'll be seeing some "Draft McCain" posts out of you as the 2016 campaign heats up.

"leftist ideology"

Obama? Leftist? Heh. What an odd thing to say about the best Republican president this nation has seen since the days of Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 19, 2014 04:29 PM
73. Walker will fight it and ultimately defeat the leftist progressive slander against him.

Obama? Leftist? Heh. What an odd thing to say about the best Republican president this nation has seen since the days of Bill Clinton."

Stop smoking that potent weed - your brain has atrophied. Clinton was a good GOP policy president, but Obama is a very good statist president which makes him a poor GOP president. Conservatives/Libertarians are for smaller government, balancing budgets and maintaining freedom - all of which Obama's policies counter in a big way. This is all documented in the "Little Red Book of Obamunism" by David Boze;

Prediction: Steve, tensor, MBS or Demokid or other trolls will denounce it without seeing it and not knowing what is written in it, and attack the author - it is written in Alinsky's rules for radicals. However, radicals - like the TeaBirchers can also play that game just like the leftist progressives do - not advocating this stuff but unfortunately it seems to work.

Posted by: KDS on June 20, 2014 03:48 PM
74. Tensor,

The act called to support a change in leadership in Iraq - that is: regime change. Dance all you like - President Clinton signed a bill - and supported - a call to change the leadership in Iraq.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 20, 2014 07:44 PM
75. Dan -- the bill President Clinton signed forbade active US military involvement in changing Iraq's government. Lie all you want; Clinton's approach was the opposite of W's, and it's the complete and utter failure of W's policy which is the basis of this thread.

P.S. Read the bill again, and show us where W's incessantly-repeated catch-phrase, "regime change," appears.

Posted by: tensor on June 21, 2014 04:22 PM
76. Tensor,

Did President Clinton bomb Iraq for 4 days? Is that military involvement? And you can quibble over words, but you ask pretty much anyone other than a hard-up liberal intent on trying to CYA whether the phrase "regime change in Iraq" is 100% synonymous with "leadership change in Iraq" and you'll find you're sorely mistaken...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 21, 2014 08:24 PM
77. Yes, Bush said regime change a number of times during his tenure. Pres. Clinton also said it when he was in office, as @76 indicated. So it is time to move along - there is nothing more to see here !

Posted by: KDS on June 22, 2014 08:54 AM
78. "Did President Clinton bomb Iraq for 4 days?"

Yes, but not under the authority of the law you keep citing -- wrongly -- as proof that Clinton's careful policy was in any way a justification for W's reckless and violent failure.

"Is that military involvement?"

A surgical laser and Big Bertha both remove unwanted materials, so in your engineering work, you consider them to be equivalent tools, correct?

"And you can quibble over words,"

I stand by what I wrote, and you have yet to prove otherwise.

" Yes, Bush said regime change a number of times during his tenure. Pres. Clinton also said it when he was in office, as @76 indicated. So it is time to move along - there is nothing more to see here !"

KDS -- perhaps you can provide a quote of Pres. Clinton referring to his policy of "regime change" in Iraq? Because, contrary to your assertion, Dan has yet to do so.

Posted by: tensor on June 22, 2014 05:11 PM
79. tensor - You specialize in minutia and you are incapable of letting it go,

In the words of Hillary C. "What difference does it make", whether he said regime change or change in leadership in Iraq. Frankly, I don't give a s**t !

Posted by: KDS on June 22, 2014 10:25 PM
80. So, you can't provide so much as a single citation for something you'd just described as a simple and obvious fact.

That describes pretty much every comment you've ever posted here. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: tensor on June 23, 2014 06:59 AM
81. Tensor,

Bill "Regime Change" Clinton bombed Iraq. Is a precision "strike" the same as a big bomb? No - but both ARE military actions.

More importantly, the military action taken by Bill "Regime Change" Clinton occurred after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act AND curiously just as he was getting in hot water AGAIN for his improper behavior.

I'd say that using a military action to deflect media attention from personal failings is a LOT worse of an act than stating "regime change". Don't you?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2014 09:04 AM
82. Dan -- W's dad did far more bombing of Itaq than Bill Clinton ever did, but neither of them were foolish enough to launch a full-scale invasion and occupation of the whole country -- although both dad and Clinton had more justification for so doing than did W.

Is a precision "strike" the same as a big bomb? No - but both ARE military actions.

Please pay more attention. W didn't drop a "big bomb," he launched a needless and disastrous invasion and occupation of the entire country. Are both military actions? Sure. If you can't understand the differences, there's no point in continuing to pretend you're qualified to converse on this topic.

Bill "Regime Change" Clinton...

If stating what you can't show magically makes it real, why stop at such a modest objective? Go bigger: tell us about how Iraq is all sparkle ponies and fairy gold since W's invasion. (Don't worry; you can always explain you don't live there because Iraq is not a state which has fully bought into Obamacare.)

Posted by: tensor on June 23, 2014 06:26 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?