Not a Republican

United States

#20720 Jul 29, 2013
The War on Terror (also known as the Global War on Terrorism) is a term commonly applied to an international military campaign which started as a result of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. This resulted in an international military campaign to eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant organizations. The United Kingdom and many other NATO and non-NATO nations participate in the conflict

"Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam's regional foes. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel. Iraq also hosted the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Saddam was a secular dictator, and his regime generally tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say. But Iraq also supported some Islamist Palestinian groups opposed to Israel, and before the 2003 war, the CIA cited Iraq's increased support for such organizations as reason to believe that Baghdad's links to terror could continue to increase."
Not a Republican

United States

#20721 Jul 29, 2013
So lets recap. Clinton not only said Saddam had WMDs, and NUKES!(He must have lied?) But he signed a bill to OUST Saddam out of power. To get rid of him. How did he think he was going to do that? So Bush did it for not only reasons Clinton gave, but security ones. But he's the war criminal.

lol

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#20722 Jul 29, 2013
Not a Republican wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =8USRg3h4AdEXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
And your post is hyperbolic. I presume you are slathering at the mouth.
Nice name, tea bagger. I'd be ambarassed to call my self a republican too. Lemme guess - you're a "Libertarian" like Bloomberg. Hilarious.

Guantanamo? Really? Blame the tea baggers.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3438347
Nice

United States

#20723 Jul 29, 2013
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice name, tea bagger. I'd be ambarassed to call my self a republican too. Lemme guess - you're a "Libertarian" like Bloomberg. Hilarious.
Guantanamo? Really? Blame the tea baggers.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3438347
So Obama was unable to close it because he was stopped?

And it's not just the tea party, who represents very few in Congress.

"President Barack Obama's hardest sell in his renewed push to close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may be members of his own party moderate Senate Democrats facing tough re-election bids next year in the strongly Republican South."

What happened when he had the majority? Why not just force it closed like he forced Obamacare through?

No one to blame then when it failed I guess. Seems to be more Democrats worried about their political career. And less about closing it.
Nice

United States

#20724 Jul 29, 2013
My only point here is to show it's just not one sided like a few partisan Obama shills claim it is. It's sad that our very own people turn a blind eye to lying and wrong doing, as long as "their team" is the one doing it. It doesn't matter what is best for the country. It's what is best for THE TEAM.(Political Party) And this will be the ruin of the nation. Partisan bullcrap.
operators s ck

Kenova, WV

#20725 Jul 29, 2013
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice name, tea bagger. I'd be ambarassed to call my self a republican too. Lemme guess - you're a "Libertarian" like Bloomberg. Hilarious.
Guantanamo? Really? Blame the tea baggers.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3438347
even the one at braskem
Well Duh

Harrisonburg, VA

#20726 Jul 29, 2013
Bacon Hater.....so when someone comes with there evidence, you go into attack mode instead of proving them wrong. So instead of proof you use name calling to mask your inability to mount a rebuttal. Both parties have proven that neither can be trusted. But you become so blind that you go to blamedisplacement and can not take responsibility for the sctions of your parties mistakes too

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#20727 Jul 29, 2013
Well Duh wrote:
Bacon Hater.....so when someone comes with there evidence, you go into attack mode instead of proving them wrong. So instead of proof you use name calling to mask your inability to mount a rebuttal. Both parties have proven that neither can be trusted. But you become so blind that you go to blamedisplacement and can not take responsibility for the sctions of your parties mistakes too
Like I've said, our mistakes surround a lack of liberalism, not an overabundance of it. He should've pushed it through. He should end the drug war. He never should've compromised a single-payer healthcare plan. He should've used executive orders to force investment in infrastructure and jobs. Our mistake was thinking that dumb tea baggers would still want the economy to be successful. We were wrong. But those days are over. Working with republicans isn't something that Obama will try again, and Hillary won't even think about it. The GOP can't win a national election - it's impossible. There is no candidate crazy enough to win the primary among tea baggers and rational enough to win with the general electorate. Obama has destroyed the party for what they did to the country, not just to him. Hillary will be the one to reap the benefits. She'll ram everything she wants through, and there won't be anymore compromising. On anything. Can't wait.

Since: Oct 09

Leiden, Netherlands

#20728 Jul 29, 2013
Well Duh wrote:
<quoted text> I know you must be kidding. Yes the war is going to be Bush's staple of his presidential term. But remember he could not go to war without approval. So the people whom voted for it, including Hilary Clinton, are also responsible. So all the people who voted to go are to stupid or no backbone. So they said yes and look into it later. Sounds like how Obama care was passed too. Another couple of reasons why both sides are no good.
A lot of intelligent people have been deceived by convincing lies exp when the lies are told by people in positions of authority and trust.

“Tears of a Clown”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#20729 Jul 29, 2013
That was why Hillary did not get the 2008 nod over Obama, the war vote was the reason and during the primary debate she defended it, Obama was not in congress at the time and the war was the big subject in 08.

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#20730 Jul 29, 2013
Weepy wrote:
That was why Hillary did not get the 2008 nod over Obama, the war vote was the reason and during the primary debate she defended it, Obama was not in congress at the time and the war was the big subject in 08.
Yep. And her defense was that the president blatantly lied. I remember all the talk surrounding whether or not Obama would seek to prosecute or investigate Bush's war crimes, and I remember how even hardcore democrats were willing to let bygones be bygones. That was a collosal mistake. I think Hillary should revisit that option for both Bush and Cheney, knowing the full cost of his lies are more apparent today than they were in '09.

“Of Course I Can”

Since: Sep 08

Corsicana, TX

#20731 Jul 29, 2013
So, Clinton did not invade Iraq. Bush did. Clinton did not spen trillions. Bush did.

Too bad there was no terror coming out of Iraq at the time.
Not a Republican wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, Clinton signed a bill into law to oust Saddam out of power. How did he think that was going to be accomplished?
<quoted text>
Good thing the war on Terror had more to do with terrorism in general, and not just the 9/11

“Tears of a Clown”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#20732 Jul 29, 2013
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. And her defense was that the president blatantly lied. I remember all the talk surrounding whether or not Obama would seek to prosecute or investigate Bush's war crimes, and I remember how even hardcore democrats were willing to let bygones be bygones. That was a collosal mistake. I think Hillary should revisit that option for both Bush and Cheney, knowing the full cost of his lies are more apparent today than they were in '09.
Actually there is no statute of limitations on prosecution for war crimes, I really believe Obama sees that as a distraction and prosecuting Bush would be a political circus even with the DOJ who Bush used as political pawns to go after people, remember Bush had an Atty General resign in disgrace and they dont want their sheep remembering this. War crimes can be sought at a later date but it my belief this country's power structure wants to protect its past presidents from prosecution, gives a bad name to the US worldwide, there are many countries out there that looks up to the USA and wants all leaders to have had integrity or such.

No GOP opinion on these subjects faze me and should never be taken serious by anyone.

These witchhunts by carjacker Issa are distractions to prevent their sheep from looking at the causes of these meeses and just focus on the current occupant.

“Of Course I Can”

Since: Sep 08

Corsicana, TX

#20733 Jul 29, 2013
So,what? He didn't close Guantanamo, big deal. Bush told us he was going to get Osama dead or alive.

How'd that work out for him?
Nice wrote:
<quoted text>
So Obama was unable to close it because he was stopped?
And it's not just the tea party, who represents very few in Congress.
"President Barack Obama's hardest sell in his renewed push to close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may be members of his own party moderate Senate Democrats facing tough re-election bids next year in the strongly Republican South."
What happened when he had the majority? Why not just force it closed like he forced Obamacare through?
No one to blame then when it failed I guess. Seems to be more Democrats worried about their political career. And less about closing it.

“Of Course I Can”

Since: Sep 08

Corsicana, TX

#20734 Jul 29, 2013
So,what? He lied. Wasn't the first time, was it?

Did Clinton get 4000 Americans kills in Iraq for nonexistent WMD or did Bush?

Did Clinton put an entire war on a credit card, or did Bush?

Did Bush fail to get OBL or did Bush?

Clinton got the same faulty info Bush did. Difference was, he didn't act on it making whatever point you're failing to make, moot.
Not a Republican wrote:
So lets recap. Clinton not only said Saddam had WMDs, and NUKES!(He must have lied?) But he signed a bill to OUST Saddam out of power. To get rid of him. How did he think he was going to do that? So Bush did it for not only reasons Clinton gave, but security ones. But he's the war criminal.
lol
Well Duh

Harrisonburg, VA

#20735 Jul 29, 2013
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. And her defense was that the president blatantly lied. I remember all the talk surrounding whether or not Obama would seek to prosecute or investigate Bush's war crimes, and I remember how even hardcore democrats were willing to let bygones be bygones. That was a collosal mistake. I think Hillary should revisit that option for both Bush and Cheney, knowing the full cost of his lies are more apparent today than they were in '09.
Of couse she is going to say he lied to cover herself. It is called politics. Hilary is a follower and not a leader either. So instead of saying no and looking into it to show backbone and leadership, she went along. Just like staying with Bill during his mulitple affairs he has had. A real person with backbone would have kicked his backside to the curb. But this was about her own political power and ambitions. She would have more if she had backbone and leadership. I know from experience that her carpet bagger ways are only liked in New York City, because Bill built his liabrary there. Do not forget her land scandal before becomming first lady.
2 posts removed

“Of Course I Can”

Since: Sep 08

Corsicana, TX

#20738 Jul 29, 2013
It's not just a matter of "Hillary" saying Bush lied.

He did lie. He lied to her, to me, and to every American killed in Iraq.
Well Duh wrote:
<quoted text> Of couse she is going to say he lied to cover herself. It is called politics. Hilary is a follower and not a leader either. So instead of saying no and looking into it to show backbone and leadership, she went along. Just like staying with Bill during his mulitple affairs he has had. A real person with backbone would have kicked his backside to the curb. But this was about her own political power and ambitions. She would have more if she had backbone and leadership. I know from experience that her carpet bagger ways are only liked in New York City, because Bill built his liabrary there. Do not forget her land scandal before becomming first lady.

“Of Course I Can”

Since: Sep 08

Corsicana, TX

#20739 Jul 29, 2013

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#20740 Jul 29, 2013
Well Duh wrote:
<quoted text> Of couse she is going to say he lied to cover herself. It is called politics. Hilary is a follower and not a leader either. So instead of saying no and looking into it to show backbone and leadership, she went along. Just like staying with Bill during his mulitple affairs he has had. A real person with backbone would have kicked his backside to the curb. But this was about her own political power and ambitions. She would have more if she had backbone and leadership. I know from experience that her carpet bagger ways are only liked in New York City, because Bill built his liabrary there. Do not forget her land scandal before becomming first lady.
Land scandal? Haha. That turned out just like every other dumb tea bagger desperation move - failure. You guys are hilarious. Hillary has no backbone? Wow. She took the tea baggers that questioned her in the failed Benghazi hearing, placed them over her knee and whipped them. She makes dumb tea baggers look like fools because she's smarter than them. Technically she's smarter than Bill and Obama. Hell, she's pretty much the most intelligent figure in US politics. She's a bitch too. I just can't wait for the debates. The foreign policy debate will be hilarious. And it doesn't matter what sacrificial lamb the dumb tea baggers trot out there to face her. It'll be embarassing. But funny. I hope it's Rubio or Cruz. That'll be a ctastrophe.

“Tears of a Clown”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#20741 Jul 29, 2013
Sundog512 wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/0 6/bush_wmd/
Even the CIA knew it.
George Tenet declared a "slam dunk" later got his medel of freedom and got the hell out of there as soon as he could.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charleston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jenifer McAndrews on WCHS 14 min Sounds right 23
people who snitch on snitches 50 min Josh is a narc 31
Kanawha County School Bus 52 min Mom 5
Snitches of kanawha valley 1 hr dcon 51
An apology to TPB 1 hr SexyinPink 4
Josh Holbert narc 1 hr Josh is a narc 32
best man in charleston 2 hr A First Timer 6
Ladies . . . does size really matter? 3 hr A First Timer 42
Charleston Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Charleston People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:59 pm PST

ESPN 5:59PM
Source: Steelers won't use tag on Worilds
NBC Sports 7:42 PM
Report: Steelers to let Jason Worilds test market
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Re-Visiting the Steelers' 2014 Draft
NFL 6:29 AM
Steelers reportedly to allow Worilds to hit market
Bleacher Report 8:08 AM
How Bengals Can Create Ultimate Defense in 2015