Of course, nothing of substance from Boxer. Just more talking points - Bush is bad...blah...blah...blah. Obama great...blah...blah...blah. That stupid ole Bush hoodwinked 15 U.N Security Council members, 82 Democrat Congresspeople, and 29 Democrat Senators into authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Bush is more like a mastermind that played Jedi mind tricks on the Democrats who knew all along Iraq didn't have WMD's. BUT...When put up to vote, the leaders of 15 nations, and 111 Democrats couldn't resist and were overcome by the Jedi powers of Lord Vader, and ultimately voted YES to authorize force.
On the other hand, Obama only has the support of 10 Security Council member, 5 abstained, and he NEVER looked for authorization from Congress for his military actions in Libya.
Sh!t, if anything, even if you believe Bush pulled off the biggest international lie of all time, by convincing developed western democracies, ALL 15 U.N. Security Council members, and an overwhelming majority of Congress, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats that Iraq was an imminent threat...At least he made a case...Obama deployed U.S. military to Libya through executive power, with NO AUTHORIZATION from Congress, and with 5 U.N. Security Council Members abstaining to the military action. Two of which are permanent members(Russia, China).
Obama is a true militant tyrant, waging 3 wars, and bypassing the people(congress) to put our men and women in harms way in Libya. The anti-war liberals are such phony's, this is just more proof they are more interested in totalitarianism than their anti-war idealism.
Cicero wants to somehow vindicate Bush by implicating Obama. One has nothing to do with the other.
The Bush INVASION was just that. An INVASION of another country based on lies. It failed.
If Obama is successful in his presidency or not has nothing to do with The Bush Presidential Fail... no matter how much Cicero wants to link one to the other.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
More proof that as long as we have troops stationed in these countries they will be targets, pull them out Obama.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
More proof that as long as we have troops stationed in these countries they will be targets, pull them out Obama.
Henry, On this we agree. The driving force to keep troops in Iraq isn't from the Left... it's from the Right. If the Bushies had their way, we'd have 100,000 troops permanently stationed in Iraq...(guarding their oil).
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero wants to somehow vindicate Bush by implicating Obama. One has nothing to do with the other.
I'm not one to vindicate Bush...Just pointing out the double standard by the media and liberals in general, they blackout the stories that do not fit the narrative they want the public to regurgitate.
Obama received pretty stiff push back from 5 major countries. If this were GWB or any other Republican bombing Libya with 5 nations abstaining, the drum beat from liberals and the media would be "illegal war" or "no coalition", or "unilateral war", or "war for oil", and whatever else they could do to vilify their political opposition for political gain.
The Democrats used the Iraq war as a political wedge issue in the 2004 and 2006 elections. The media is compliant in covering up Democrat support for war, and relabeling it something else more benign like "humanitarian mission" or "Nato action". The media was compliant in providing cover for the Democrats that voted for military force in Iraq by blaming their vote in support of war in Iraq as some huge Bush lie. Obama is continuing the Bush policies and expanding our military conflicts, but to Box and the rest on the left, somehow it's different when it's done by Democrats.
The media was compliant in providing cover for the Democrats that voted for military force in Iraq by blaming their vote in support of war in Iraq as some huge Bush lie.
The Lie! The 'white paper report' given to the congress as justification for the Iraq war was a lie. All US intelligence is reported with a number assigned to it which denotes it's accuracy. Some reports are just third hand accounts of unreliable sources... they would get a low number. Other reports are first hand reports from very reliable sources... probably always true...they would deserve a high number.
GWB took those with low numbers (unreliable) and added them to the White Paper Report given to congress, as if they were reliable. (See Curveball as an example)
Both Democrats and Republicans who voted to go to war in Iraq were deceived by this report. The existence of WMD's were reported to be reliable, while they were really from one unreliable source.
Obama is continuing the Bush policies and expanding our military conflicts, but to Box and the rest on the left, somehow it's different when it's done by Democrats.
Obama has removed "Combat Troops" from Iraq as promised... hardly continuing the "Bush Policy". If Obama continues his present policy in Afghanistan, then I agree that on that front he is continuing the Bushy Disaster.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Obama has removed "Combat Troops" from Iraq as promised... hardly continuing the "Bush Policy".
Again, the word games. Relabeling troops in a war zone as something other than troops amazes me. You’re right they’re not “combat troop” they are “sitting ducks”. Why aren't the troops coming HOME? If the whole premise of the war was ILLEGAL and a LIE, why don't we just pull ALL of the troops out and bring them home? Five more died in a rocket attack, but of course they're not "combat troop", so those aren't really casualties based on the liberal word game.
Again, the word games. Relabeling troops in a war zone as something other than troops amazes me. You’re right they’re not “combat troop” they are “sitting ducks”. Why aren't the troops coming HOME? If the whole premise of the war was ILLEGAL and a LIE, why don't we just pull ALL of the troops out and bring them home? Five more died today, but of course they're not "combat troop", so those aren't really casualties based on the liberal word game.
With every post, Cicero becomes more desperate to "Blame Obama" cause they "Blamed Bush"!
The label of Combat Troops or Instructors had no effect on casualties in Iraq... The mission of Combat Troops as opposed to Instructors does. (and Cicero knows it, but as I posted... he IS desperate)
There currently are about 47,000 Americans in uniform in Iraq, none in a combat role. All are scheduled to leave by Dec. 31.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
With every post, Cicero becomes more desperate to "Blame Obama" cause they "Blamed Bush"!
No desperation here...I blame both...I just like helping people see through the political rhetoric and propaganda of BOTH parties. You're missing the point of my posts. THERE WAS NO CHANGE. Unfortunately, by the faults of a very poor public education system, and the obsession of pop culture and reality tv, there is a LARGE number of Americans that cannot differentiate between rhetoric and reality, and they are too lazy to take a second and find out the reality, and would rather take the word of some pundit on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX at face value to form their opinions and arguments.
I can't help it Box, that in the face of fact and reality, your adherence to party makes it impossible for you swallow Obama's continuation of many of the failed Bush policies, not only foreign wars, Gitmo, but also domestic economic policy(Bush tax rates and wallstreet bailouts). But you can continue with the George WORST Bush…blah…blah…blah, and me and the rest of the non-collectivists non group thinkers can assess our nations performance on fact and not rhetoric meant to blur reality and skew public opinion to the favor of one political party or the other.
$14 TRILLION DEBT run up by both parties, Obama doubles the debt Bush ran up in 8 years in just 2. Yet, Bush bad - Obama great. Please. lol
With every post, Cicero becomes more desperate to "Blame Obama" cause they "Blamed Bush"!
The label of Combat Troops or Instructors had no effect on casualties in Iraq... The mission of Combat Troops as opposed to Instructors does. (and Cicero knows it, but as I posted... he IS desperate)
There currently are about 47,000 Americans in uniform in Iraq, none in a combat role. All are scheduled to leave by Dec. 31.
So, just to clarify, you will admit to being wrong on January 1 (or the first time you log on after 1/1), when there is even 1 troop left in Iraq? Because if they're all home by 12/31...
I just wonder, with the troops that are still there next year, will that also be Bush's fault because he had too many troops there to get removed by 1/1 by Obama, even though he's had almost a full 3 years to get them all out? I'd say you might want to go back to blaming GHWB, since he's the one that originally sent some of the troops there.
Bush's oil war in Iraq has cost the USA it's economy and the lives of 4400+ US Patriots.
Ending the Bush fiasco was left to Obama. The schedule is to pull out all US troops by Dec 31. That date was set in 2008 by the Bush administration. The troop pull out as explained at the time was always a tentative date depending on circumstances and conditions as they occur.
The Obama withdraw of Combat troops from Iraq was completed as promised, in spite of opposition from the Right. I assume there will be a similar opposition to ending the Bush Iraqi War by the Dec 31 deadline.
There is no SUCCESS or WINNING the Bush Optional Oil War in Iraq. It was a campaign based on lies from the very start. The best that can be achieved is putting that chapter of US History to an end.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Henry, On this we agree. The driving force to keep troops in Iraq isn't from the Left... it's from the Right. If the Bushies had their way, we'd have 100,000 troops permanently stationed in Iraq...(guarding their oil).
I have a tough time not placing blame on the left, they had full control over the whitehouse and both houses for awhile now. At any time they could have eliminated funding for the wars but they didn't.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
I have a tough time not placing blame on the left, they had full control over the whitehouse and both houses for awhile now. At any time they could have eliminated funding for the wars but they didn't.
There are some things in politics that are political suicide (and the both parties know it)... Cutting off funds for US troops while they are engaged in a war is political suicide.
Once started and fully engaged, as in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, wars take on a life of their own and are almost impossible to stop even when it's the will of the American Public. Put to a vote now, a majority of Americans would vote to end both the Iraq and the Afghanistan war, and possibly involvement in Libya.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
There are some things in politics that are political suicide (and the both parties know it)... Cutting off funds for US troops while they are engaged in a war is political suicide.
WHOOOAH...Wait a minute...We were promised CHANGE and HOPE! I thought we were transcending politics in America with the election of Barack Obama. This wasn't going to be "politics as usual". We were closing Gitmo, we were bringing our troops home, ending the warrantless wiretapping. We were reshaping our image in the world, specifically the Muslim world. This was gonna be DIFFERENT. Box, are you telling us nothing changed? Are you saying politics are politics, regardless of party? I can't believe what I'm reading. You don’t think Obama could have "unengaged" the troops and then congress could have scaled down the military spending? I guess that too would have been political suicide.
There are some things in politics that are political suicide (and the both parties know it)... Cutting off funds for US troops while they are engaged in a war is political suicide.
Once started and fully engaged, as in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, wars take on a life of their own and are almost impossible to stop even when it's the will of the American Public. Put to a vote now, a majority of Americans would vote to end both the Iraq and the Afghanistan war, and possibly involvement in Libya.
I agree with that but sometimes it takes losing it all if you know the outcome is the right thing to do, kinda like what I have written below my posts.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Logged
