PRESIDENT OBAMA

[Banned]

You're kidding me, right?

1) Iraq had no link to 9/11
2) Bush sent us to Iraq, anyway.
3) Clinton wanted to eliminate Osama bin Laden in the late 90's but Congress shut him down (remember 'wag the dog?') he also was sort of fighting a hatchet campaign that was trying to impeach him over a blowjob (apparently that was WAY more important than national security).

Iraq is George W. Bush's legacy.---->JMS

Just what reality do you exist in? The Clinton turned down the chance to bag Bin Laden when the Sudanese government offered him to us tied up in a bow. Clinton did not want to waste his "political capital" on a mere terrorist when he was too busy lying under oath.

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/09 ... get-osama/

[songsmith]

Apparently, Joe, you've conveniently forgotten seeing a soldier's body being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu... I haven't. We should have rained the fires of hell down on those people (bin Laden was there), but PEOPLE LIKE YOU said the President cannot act unilaterally, and that he was grandstanding for political effect. "Wagging The Dog" was the exact soundbite phrase you heard over and over from the Republican establishment.
You can rewrite history all you want, that doesn't make it true.
The same Mopar-men who want to give George Bush and his minions a pass on the last 8 years are the exact ones who still blame Clinton after 2 terms of the worst president in American history. Clinton presided over perhaps the greatest peacetime economic expansion ever. Bush... not so much.--->JMS

[DirtySanchez]

Crashes in Iraq kills 4 US soldiers -> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/world ... artner=rss

Now the tide is turned. Lets see what the media says about their messiah now. I am sure they will think of some way to make it sound like his majesty should not be held accountable.

I know some one will say that it is because of Bush.... I still say it is because of Clinton ..

LOLWUT?

You just said it was clinton's fault but still tied a guy who has been in office for less than a week to it?

That is the point I was trying to make lol ... Us being attacked was not bushes fault. He just happen to be in office when it happen. A couple of months I tell you. Then you had all these people saying that he planned it and he is to blame. Now that we still have troops dieing in Iraq and Obama is President. It should, according to what it was like for Bush, be Obama's fault. I'm not saying that Bush is a saint or anything, I am simply saying that what escalated from President Clintons lap to Bush's lap is now escalating to Obama's lap. So if Clinton would have taken care of them in the beginning things would be very different than they are now.

When did IRAQ attack us exactly? I must have been on vacation that day.

[f.sciarrillo]

LOLWUT?

You just said it was clinton's fault but still tied a guy who has been in office for less than a week to it?

That is the point I was trying to make lol ... Us being attacked was not bushes fault. He just happen to be in office when it happen. A couple of months I tell you. Then you had all these people saying that he planned it and he is to blame. Now that we still have troops dieing in Iraq and Obama is President. It should, according to what it was like for Bush, be Obama's fault. I'm not saying that Bush is a saint or anything, I am simply saying that what escalated from President Clintons lap to Bush's lap is now escalating to Obama's lap. So if Clinton would have taken care of them in the beginning things would be very different than they are now.

When did IRAQ attack us exactly? I must have been on vacation that day.

Iraq was harboring, training, and supporting them. Of course there was more involved. They were also attacking other countries - If you look at how they repeatedly went into Saudi Arabia and other nations around him, defying un orders. Plus, I don't need to say how hussein was to his own people as well. That would beating a dead horse.

[bassist_25]

If you look at how they repeatedly went into Saudi Arabia and other nations around him, defying un orders.

Hold on. I'm confused here. So it's alright to go to war with Iraq because they are not listening to the UN, but we are free to defy the UN by going to war with Iraq? I'm a little befuddled here.

You can't have your ...



and



it too ...

Plus, I don't need to say how hussein was to his own people as well. That would beating a dead horse.

I definitely agree that Hussein was a bad dude to his people. You know who else are bad dudes to their people? The Chinese government. Perhaps America should go to war with China. Maybe we could get our manufacturing base back.

But that's a moot point anyways. This war was sold to the American people as a campaign to look for WMDs. When WMDs were not located, the apologists turned it into a war to free Iraq. Don't be so naive to believe that we went to war for altruistic reasons. If America's going to go to to war for human rights causes, then we better get to work because there are a lot offenders.

[f.sciarrillo]

There are a lot of variables involved in that, Paul. I never said that I agree with going into iraq, as what I meant by more being involved. If you look at china - You will see a hypocritical thing happening there; that being that we trade with china, they are communist, but, we do not trade with cuba, and they are communist. It is like we have to be on a friendly thing with china because they appears to be one of our biggest importers.

I do not agree with it, but like said - That is politics. It gets more confusing all the time. ...

[JackANSI]

I definitely agree that Hussein was a bad dude to his people.

Paving part of a monument dedicated to the Iran-Iraq war with the helmets of dead Iranian soldiers is one sign you might be a looney. On the other hand, if I was going to rule a country with many extremists in powerful places, thats one good way to get their attention and get them in line.

I feel no safer that he is dead and Iraq is 'free', in fact I feel the exact opposite.

[songsmith]

I think it should probably be mentioned as well that there's no concrete evidence of al Qaeda in Iraq before the run-up to the War. Osama and Saddam were never friends or conspirators, in fact, Osama was very vocal about how Saddam treated the Iranians, and about Saddam's desire to invade Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holy land. That's why we went to Iraq the first time, he invaded Kuwait in about a half-hour, and we were afraid he was going on to the Saudi oilfields.
The group, "al Qaeda In Iraq," isn't really related to Osama bin Laden so much, save for using a few extremist websites to get word out. They call themselves al Qaeda the way some nutjobs here use the name "the Klan." There's no real national organization, outside the minds of a few dingleberries. Obviously, a pissed-off retard with an IED is a dangerous thing, but without organization, the threat stays local.--->JMS

[JackANSI]

Actually they weren't called Al Qaeda in Iraq until they pledged allegiance to Bin Laden's group. They were something like "jihad in the land of two rivers" or something.. can't remember exactly.

They are not funded or supplied by Al Qaeda directly. The prime sources of that coming from Iran and similar countries.

Other than Al Qaeda using them as a rallying point in faceless recordings, they are virtually on their own.

They are extremists, usually shunned by true believers of Islam, mainly because they don't discriminate in their targets. Muslims and Dhimmi that do not pledge allegiance to them are not considered believers in Islam. Those that do pledge allegiance are expected to die for the cause.

[RobTheDrummer]

You know, congress voted to go into Iraq. It's not like Bush just took over like a dictator and said we're going whether you want to or not.

[bassist_25]

There are a lot of variables involved in that, Paul. I never said that I agree with going into iraq, as what I meant by more being involved. If you look at china - You will see a hypocritical thing happening there; that being that we trade with china, they are communist, but, we do not trade with cuba, and they are communist. It is like we have to be on a friendly thing with china because they appears to be one of our biggest importers.

I do not agree with it, but like said - That is politics. It gets more confusing all the time. ...

Ahh...thank you for explaining that. Those are some good points.

I feel no safer that he is dead and Iraq is 'free', in fact I feel the exact opposite.

That's exactly how I feel. I have no sympathy for Hussien and the fact that he's dead. However, his execution feels so much like a Phyrric victory, especially considering that the American people were starting to finally wake up to the bullshit that is this war right around the time they killed him.

[songsmith]

You know, congress voted to go into Iraq. It's not like Bush just took over like a dictator and said we're going whether you want to or not.

I understand, Rob, but at the time, the Bush admin was using a peak in patriotism to influence public opinion. If you opposed the invasion, you were being un-American. Your patriotism was called into question for the slightest infraction, and you became the target of the Neocon Machine. Remember the Dixie Chicks? Never forget that Karl Rove was involved... the man who made hatchet jobs into an art form. To disagree was political suicide.
Also note that Congress was controlled by the GOP then, and in return for support on the Iraq War, Bush rubber-stamped everything that hit his desk from the Republican Congress. I'm not sure that he vetoed anything before the shift in 2006.
The whole world wondered "why Iraq?" at the time, but we believed our President, because we wanted retribution for 9/11. In hindsight, we were wrong.--->JMS

[lonewolf]

You can't have your ...



and



it too ....

Yes you can...I do it for a living.

[slackin@dabass]

You know, congress voted to go into Iraq. It's not like Bush just took over like a dictator and said we're going whether you want to or not.

what? really? no way!! bush is the evil person! not all of congress!! if all of congress is evil, that means it's not just bush's fault! oh shit... does that mean that the dems blaming bush is... is... is wrong? oh man, don't tell them that!!

[Banned]

Apparently, Joe, you've conveniently forgotten seeing a soldier's body being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu... I haven't. We should have rained the fires of hell down on those people (bin Laden was there), but PEOPLE LIKE YOU said the President cannot act unilaterally, and that he was grandstanding for political effect. "Wagging The Dog" was the exact soundbite phrase you heard over and over from the Republican establishment.
You can rewrite history all you want, that doesn't make it true.
The same Mopar-men who want to give George Bush and his minions a pass on the last 8 years are the exact ones who still blame Clinton after 2 terms of the worst president in American history. Clinton presided over perhaps the greatest peacetime economic expansion ever. Bush... not so much.--->JMS

Clinton had several chances at Bin Laden and choose not to take him. I don't care what else you might believe, Clinton turned it down. Period.

Clinton's economic growth was 100% due to the Republican Congress lowering the Capital Gains tax. That allowed big and small business to expand, and so did the market. So did the Dot-coms. Remember the Dot-com bubble and crash? It was not all rosy, no economic period is pure bulls. But any growth was due to the Republican led Capital Gains tax decrease. It is exactly what we should do now, and not these crazy bailout suicide bills.

[Bag]

[RobTheDrummer]

You know, congress voted to go into Iraq. It's not like Bush just took over like a dictator and said we're going whether you want to or not.

I understand, Rob, but at the time, the Bush admin was using a peak in patriotism to influence public opinion. If you opposed the invasion, you were being un-American. Your patriotism was called into question for the slightest infraction, and you became the target of the Neocon Machine. Remember the Dixie Chicks? Never forget that Karl Rove was involved... the man who made hatchet jobs into an art form. To disagree was political suicide.
Also note that Congress was controlled by the GOP then, and in return for support on the Iraq War, Bush rubber-stamped everything that hit his desk from the Republican Congress. I'm not sure that he vetoed anything before the shift in 2006.
The whole world wondered "why Iraq?" at the time, but we believed our President, because we wanted retribution for 9/11. In hindsight, we were wrong.--->JMS

I understand your point, however congress still voted for it, and it still happened. Now we're doing good over there and you never hear about it.

[lonewolf]

Apparently, Joe, you've conveniently forgotten seeing a soldier's body being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu... I haven't. We should have rained the fires of hell down on those people (bin Laden was there), but PEOPLE LIKE YOU said the President cannot act unilaterally, and that he was grandstanding for political effect. "Wagging The Dog" was the exact soundbite phrase you heard over and over from the Republican establishment.
You can rewrite history all you want, that doesn't make it true.
The same Mopar-men who want to give George Bush and his minions a pass on the last 8 years are the exact ones who still blame Clinton after 2 terms of the worst president in American history. Clinton presided over perhaps the greatest peacetime economic expansion ever. Bush... not so much.--->JMS

Clinton had several chances at Bin Laden and choose not to take him. I don't care what else you might believe, Clinton turned it down. Period.

Clinton's economic growth was 100% due to the Republican Congress lowering the Capital Gains tax. That allowed big and small business to expand, and so did the market. So did the Dot-coms. Remember the Dot-com bubble and crash? It was not all rosy, no economic period is pure bulls. But any growth was due to the Republican led Capital Gains tax decrease. It is exactly what we should do now, and not these crazy bailout suicide bills.

Whoa everybody. The growth during the 2nd half of the 90s was because of the introduction of the (finally) network viable Microsoft Windows products and the proliferation of the internet. It had nothing to do with the government...well, almost nothing...

Bill Gates had more to do with prosperity in the late 90s than any other single person. If you recall, Clinton harassed him and Microsoft continuously during his term. Despite Willie's best efforts to kill the golden goose, the boom happened anyway. American industry won out over a piss poor administration.

If the Clinton administration would have spent one tenth the effort on Bin Laden that they did hounding Bill Gates, 9/11 and its legacy would never have happened.

Sorry Flavor-Aid drinkers, the late 90s were prosperous despite Bill Clinton, not because of him. In retrospect, his administration wasn't any better than the last--I guess that can happen when your only real crisis was defending a blowjob.

[RobTheDrummer]

Apparently, Joe, you've conveniently forgotten seeing a soldier's body being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu... I haven't. We should have rained the fires of hell down on those people (bin Laden was there), but PEOPLE LIKE YOU said the President cannot act unilaterally, and that he was grandstanding for political effect. "Wagging The Dog" was the exact soundbite phrase you heard over and over from the Republican establishment.
You can rewrite history all you want, that doesn't make it true.
The same Mopar-men who want to give George Bush and his minions a pass on the last 8 years are the exact ones who still blame Clinton after 2 terms of the worst president in American history. Clinton presided over perhaps the greatest peacetime economic expansion ever. Bush... not so much.--->JMS

Clinton had several chances at Bin Laden and choose not to take him. I don't care what else you might believe, Clinton turned it down. Period.

Clinton's economic growth was 100% due to the Republican Congress lowering the Capital Gains tax. That allowed big and small business to expand, and so did the market. So did the Dot-coms. Remember the Dot-com bubble and crash? It was not all rosy, no economic period is pure bulls. But any growth was due to the Republican led Capital Gains tax decrease. It is exactly what we should do now, and not these crazy bailout suicide bills.

Whoa everybody. The growth during the 2nd half of the 90s was because of the introduction of the (finally) network viable Microsoft Windows products and the proliferation of the internet. It had nothing to do with the government...well, almost nothing...

Bill Gates had more to do with prosperity in the late 90s than any other single person. If you recall, Clinton harassed him and Microsoft continuously during his term. Despite Willie's best efforts to kill the golden goose, the boom happened anyway. American industry won out over a piss poor administration.

If the Clinton administration would have spent one tenth the time on Bin Laden that they did hounding Bill Gates, 9/11 and its legacy would never have happened.

Sorry Flavor-Aid drinkers, the late 90s were prosperous despite Bill Clinton, not because of him. In retrospect, his administration wasn't any better than the last--I guess that can happen when your only real crisis was defending a blowjob.

Post of the Year.