• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq—Again

Hillary has done plenty of harm. Take Benghazi for instance. While the embellishment of her stop in Bosnia was not itself harmful, it did not give us confidence of her abilities as Secretary of State. Benghazi was completely mucked up and she was in charge of the state dept. The thought of someone in Hillary's mental state becoming president is even more scary.

Move the posts. We were talking Hillary's story of exploits in a war zone.
 
Move the posts. We were talking Hillary's story of exploits in a war zone.

And due to her mental exploits her position of sec of state and potential run for president are fair game.
 
Agreed. However I would add Israel to that list of staunch allies. That is if Obama does not completely poison our relations with them.

I would say that under the current circumstances with Netanyahu running on a decidedly ant-American, anti-Iran platform the response to a request from the US would be met with a great deal of laughter.
 
I would say that under the current circumstances with Netanyahu running on a decidedly ant-American, anti-Iran platform the response to a request from the US would be met with a great deal of laughter.

Anti-Iran yes...and quite understandably. Anti-American....not at all. Anti-Obama....certainly and quite understandable.
 
And due to her mental exploits her position of sec of state and potential run for president are fair game.

Never denied that. But we were talking about Hillary's lie as it compares to presidents lying. The former troubles you to rash, the latter only when its a democratic president. You haven't any objectivity and your bias has you caged.
 
If you remember Clinton got the U.N. to take care of Saddam's WMD's without invading Iraq. The U.N. inspectors did a good job at it too. There were no WMD's for Bush to find.

Irrelevant.

You people seem to exist under the delusion that Bush " lied ".

He didn't and you dont have the courage or integrity to admit that you were manipulated and led astray by manufactured false narratives.

Its no skin off my nose if you want to continue to exist in a alternate reality. Being easily influenced is a prerequisite to being a left winger
 
And I would say the next 18 months left in Obama's presidency can be devastating if he continues on the crooked path he has chosen. I am fed up to my eyeballs with his unwillingness to call these people Islamic terrorists. I am appalled at what lengths he will go to make a deal with Iran giving away the store in the process. I am fed up with our people having to flee embassies due to jihadist takeovers in certain parts of the world because of his fecklessness. And if that young female bimbo from the State Department gives one more press conference, I might kick my television.
What a moron! Her name is Jen Paski.
477654965-state-department-spokeswoman-jen-psaki-is-gettyimages.jpg


I have never in my life seen anyone dance around a direct question as she has. What a flake. Which leads me to believe that just about everyone envolved in foreign affairs within this administration are flakes and that is why we are at greater risk than ever before.

I very much agree with your statement. Obama not acting presidential in the least bit.
 
Right, because calling out religious war is very presidential.
 
The difference is that if you ask me to point out a specific lie told by Obama, I will do so and give specifics. As will everyone else you are ranting at. You are the one who after hollering "Bush lied" has failed to back it up.

935 of em. Read em and weep.
 
According to the article, the deterioration of Anbar's situation started in 2004 when the Bush administration failed to support them and kept their focus on other areas and enabled the current govt.

That's more than 10 yrs....Bush let them down back then and maybe he's trying to surface their issues with the Obama administration. Just like the overall Iraq situation, it just got worse and worse over time....seems like we should support them but it aint Obama's fault they got ****ed over in the first place (pretty much my opinion on Iraq overall....Bush is the one that ****ed them over and we really dont have a solution. So we tried to just leave...and this is part of the mess we left behind.)
 
You seem to think I'm pointing to Nixon lies and ignoring Bill Clintons. Nice distraction, but I'm pointing at the difference between presidential lies and lies by unelected citizens that embellish their own exploits for glory but harm nobody. Those struggling to comprehend the difference have troubles.
The difference appears to be that when Republican Presidents lie they are forced to resign but when Democrat Presidents lie their party and the Gruberites defend them,
 
May 06, 2008

WASHINGTON, May 6 (UPI) -- U.S. officials are being advised in internal government documents to avoid referring publicly to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as Islamic or Muslim, and not to use terms like jihad or mujahedin, which "unintentionally legitimize" terrorism.

Read more: U.S. officials urged to avoid linking Islam, jihad with terrorism - UPI.com

So it's now US policy to not state the bleeding obvious and you support that notion? The public must be aware of this BS and no amount of twisting the truth, no matter how determined their 'avoidance', can change the facts.
 
According to the article, the deterioration of Anbar's situation started in 2004 when the Bush administration failed to support them and kept their focus on other areas and enabled the current govt.

That's more than 10 yrs....Bush let them down back then and maybe he's trying to surface their issues with the Obama administration. Just like the overall Iraq situation, it just got worse and worse over time....seems like we should support them but it aint Obama's fault they got ****ed over in the first place (pretty much my opinion on Iraq overall....Bush is the one that ****ed them over and we really dont have a solution. So we tried to just leave...and this is part of the mess we left behind.)

The "Anbar Awakening" accompanied by a US military surge in 2006-2007 decisively improved the situation, and in 2009 GWB handed over to BHO a victory in Iraq. BHO then threw it away.
 
The "Anbar Awakening" accompanied by a US military surge in 2006-2007 decisively improved the situation, and in 2009 GWB handed over to BHO a victory in Iraq. BHO then threw it away.

I checked my liberal playbook. What you are going to see next is someone will state that President Obama had to remove our troops from Iraq and leave them to flounder because President Bush had signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. President Obama was powerless to do anything or say anything other than take credit for the withdrawal of troops.
 
I checked my liberal playbook. What you are going to see next is someone will state that President Obama had to remove our troops from Iraq and leave them to flounder because President Bush had signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. President Obama was powerless to do anything or say anything other than take credit for the withdrawal of troops.

Yes, I know. It becomes tiresome. They always leave out the part where GWB put the withdrawal two years into BHO's term so BHO would have ample time to negotiate his own treaty, as all DoD planners expected.
 
Yes, I know. It becomes tiresome. They always leave out the part where GWB put the withdrawal two years into BHO's term so BHO would have ample time to negotiate his own treaty, as all DoD planners expected.

As I said, he was powerless to do or say anything other than take credit. Tiresome is right.

What bothers me is that we are afraid to let the Kurds establish their own nation. I have been a fan of that since 2005. Let the Kurds be Kurds, maybe even let the Sunnis be Sunnis and the Shiites be Shiites. Radical I know. The Kurds should have been spilt off from the rest of Iraq years ago. We would be able to give them the weapons and training they need to protect themselves from ISIS. Let the follies of Baghdad play out without them.
 
Hillary has done plenty of harm. Take Benghazi for instance. While the embellishment of her stop in Bosnia was not itself harmful, it did not give us confidence of her abilities as Secretary of State. Benghazi was completely mucked up and she was in charge of the state dept. The thought of someone in Hillary's mental state becoming president is even more scary.
What about that "reset button' with Putin (which didn't even translate properly) ? Or Obama saying, when he thought the mic was off, that he could be more 'flexible' with Russia after the election? We can only hope that all of this is due to incompetence and naivety and nothing more.
 
So it's now US policy to not state the bleeding obvious and you support that notion? The public must be aware of this BS and no amount of twisting the truth, no matter how determined their 'avoidance', can change the facts.

The American public is aware of it. These were internal Bush administration documents.
 
As I said, he was powerless to do or say anything other than take credit. Tiresome is right.

What bothers me is that we are afraid to let the Kurds establish their own nation. I have been a fan of that since 2005. Let the Kurds be Kurds, maybe even let the Sunnis be Sunnis and the Shiites be Shiites. Radical I know. The Kurds should have been spilt off from the rest of Iraq years ago. We would be able to give them the weapons and training they need to protect themselves from ISIS. Let the follies of Baghdad play out without them.

I too am a large fan of the Kurds, and was fortunate enough to visit Erbil a few years back. The Kurds' curse is that they are spread among Iraq, Turkey and Iran, so all three lean very hard against the idea of Kurdistan because independence in any one of the three would be a magnet in the other two. As a result, the Kurds' history is a long story of getting screwed, including by the US.
 
The difference appears to be that when Republican Presidents lie they are forced to resign but when Democrat Presidents lie their party and the Gruberites defend them,

To the bolded, not plural, we should see more of it.
 
I checked my liberal playbook. What you are going to see next is someone will state that President Obama had to remove our troops from Iraq and leave them to flounder because President Bush had signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. President Obama was powerless to do anything or say anything other than take credit for the withdrawal of troops.
You can get of SOFA's here. Status of forces agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep in mind that negotiating a SOFA with a country like Iraq, with all the varying factions to please, is extremely complicated. What is said for public consumption may be quite different from what goes on behind the scenes. The first SOFA negotiated by the Bush Administration took a great deal of time and everyone knew that it would have to be renegotiated later. That was a given, and true of all SOFAs.

Barrack Obama as a candidate ran on pulling the troops from Iraq, period. There was no talk of extending SOFA or renegotiating the SOFA with Iraq. The military assumed this was just campaign promises, that about 40,000 troops would be remaining to protect what had been won. Only later did Obama use the SOFA as an excuse, that he was following the agreement signed by Bush, and so on. Another promise was to close Gitmo, and he is doing his best to do that, again against military advice.

If you know why Obama's withdrawing the troops from Iraq as per his promise, when it was 'stable and self reliant', was a good idea then perhaps you can explain it. But the usual excuse of blaming it on Bush just doesn't cut it.
 
Back
Top Bottom