PDA

View Full Version : The Moron's Foreign Policy, mega-failure



llotter
10-25-2011, 06:27 AM
The Moron seems to have convinced the public that killing a few enemies via remote control, translates to a successful foreign policy but in reality, we have a totally incompetent administration creating disasters everywhere. We have lost our ability to influence important areas of the world that are likely to devolve into an Arab Winter as the Caliphate expands and Iraq and Afghanistan move rapidly back from whence they came. While these were never easy situations to deal with, a weakened America will definitely close the era of leadership and open an era of helplessness swept along by our known and unknown enemies.

eg8r
10-25-2011, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Moron seems to have convinced the public that killing a few enemies via remote control, translates to a successful foreign policy but in reality</div></div>Since you choose to dwell on the fact that American life-saving drone technology has played a part in these terrorist takedowns, I am wondering why you are so against it or knock it every time. Are you saying if he had put more troops on the ground then it would have been successful foreign policy?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have lost our ability to influence important areas of the world that are likely to devolve into an Arab Winter as the Caliphate expands and Iraq and Afghanistan move rapidly back from whence they came.</div></div>At this point in time I don't think this should matter. I believe we should be getting our own issues resolved and if that means pulling troops from overseas then I am for it.

eg8r

llotter
10-25-2011, 11:36 AM
I am not against the drones or killing the enemy. the problem I have is that the world is falling apart because of our feckless leadership and the solution is diplomacy backed by strength. The Moron has essentially withdrawn from America's responsibility and 'hoping for the best'. the evidence is making itself clear; the worst is happening sans America and an effective foreign policy would act to thwart the bad guys.

eg8r
10-25-2011, 11:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Moron has essentially withdrawn from America's responsibility and 'hoping for the best'.</div></div>What are you referring to? Did he withdraw from the pursuit of Osama? Do you have a problem with what he has done with Libya? What is he doing differently than what you saw W do?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-25-2011, 01:24 PM
I find this cranky, unfair, and untrue.

You are apparently blaming this guy for the previous president's horribly failed foreign policy, which gravely weakened our military and our fiscal situation, and our international standing, well before Obama took office.

Beyond that, I simply do not know of any disasters Obama has created around the world, nor any particular area where he could do anything differently, and is instead blowing the task.

Perhaps you could be less vague.

Lastly, there is no caliphate, let alone an expanding one. Iraq is firmly in the Iranian sphere of influence (thanks to W's work there, which empowered the Shi'i'a majority over the prior ruling Sunni minority), which pretty much BLOCKS the Sunni radicals' notion of a (Sunni) caliphate, and vice versa.

cushioncrawler
10-25-2011, 03:46 PM
Caliph From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the Muslim head of state. For other meanings of "Caliph", see Caliph (disambiguation).
Caliph of the Faithful
Term length Life tenure
Inaugural holder Abu Bakr
Formation 8 June 632
Final holder Abdülmecid II
Abolished 3 March 1924
Succession Electoral during Rashidun Caliphate, later hereditary
(Succession to Muhammad)
This article is part of the series:
Islam

The Caliph (Arabic: خليفة‎ ḫalīfah/khalīfah) is the head of state in a Caliphate, and the title for the ruler of the Islamic Ummah, an Islamic community ruled by the Shari'ah. It is a transcribed version of the Arabic word خليفة Khalīfah (help·info) which means "successor" or "representative". Following Muhammad's death in 632, the early leaders of the Muslim nation were called "Khalifat Rasul Allah", the political successors to the messenger of God (referring to Muhammad). Some academics prefer to transliterate the term as Khalīfah.

Caliphs were often also referred to as Amīr al-Mu'minīn (أمير المؤمنين) "Commander of the Faithful", Imam al-Ummah, Imam al-Mu'minīn (إمام المؤمنين), or more colloquially, leader of the Muslims. After the first four caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi Talib), the title was claimed by the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and the Ottomans, and at times, by competing dynasties in Spain, Northern Africa, and Egypt. Most historical Muslim governors were called sultans or emirs, and gave allegiance to a caliph, but this caliph at times had very little real authority. The title has been defunct since the Republic of Turkey abolished the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, although some individuals and groups have called for its restoration.[1] (Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz, claimed the title briefly in 1924, and the Imams of Yemen had been using the title for centuries and continued to use the title until 1962.)

llotter
10-25-2011, 05:39 PM
This guy says it much better than myself.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/captain_america_abandons_the_entire_middle_east.ht ml

Plus, we have Russia and China feelin' their oats.

Bad things happen but without America, those bad things will be really bad.

Soflasnapper
10-25-2011, 06:04 PM
This guy you link to doesn't seem to understand the concept of sovereignty, or that under the status of forces agreement signed by W with the Iraqi government, we were OBLIGED to leave when we did unless the Iraqis changed their minds.

I suppose they MAY have been willing to let a force contingent stay (maybe not, not sure), but only if our forces were subject to Iraqi law and prosecution, and not given immunity. (Again, that's what a sovereign government WOULD insist upon.) That appears to have quashed the idea of staying for the military themselves.

Beyond this major historical misunderstanding, I fail to see why the US should stand behind dictatorial autocratic regimes, when their own people are demanding they leave. Seems highly undemocratic. Crying over the Shah and Mubarek seems very misplaced tears to me. Had we wanted them to remain in power, we should have had pressure on them all along to stop their abuses, allow more representative government, and stop crushing dissent with secret police and torture regimes. Which we did not do.

Unfortunately, our bid to become the world hegemon, without any rivals, has caused our ruin, as it is a quixotic and impossible task, one that we can ill afford.

Qtec
10-25-2011, 06:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations </span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">subject to possible further negotiations </div></div>

ie if we are needed, we can stay if you want us to.

Q

nAz
10-25-2011, 07:05 PM
I totally understand why this is happening right now... it's been noted that the one thing no one can dispute is that Obama's foreign policies while not perfect its still really good.
Any GOP contender wont have a chance of beating him on his record so they need to start attacking him on it anyway they can to taint it in hopes that it will weaken him come 2012.

Qtec
10-25-2011, 07:25 PM
They always attack their opponents strong point. Look at what happened to Kerry!

Champagne Charlie Bush, who got grounded because he couldn't be bothered to turn up for a medical is somehow suited to be Com-in-Chief and the guy who actually went to war and put his life at risk is the scum of the earth!

Q

llotter
10-25-2011, 08:41 PM
Supporting the Arab Spring was throwing caution to the wind and they even admitted that they didn't know how it would end up. That is also admitting that they don't know what the hell they are doing and the evidence of total failure is in plain sight.

Gayle in MD
10-25-2011, 08:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Moron seems to have convinced the public that killing a few enemies via remote control, translates to a successful foreign policy but in reality, we have a totally incompetent administration creating disasters everywhere. We have lost our ability to influence important areas of the world that are likely to devolve into an Arab Winter as the Caliphate expands and Iraq and Afghanistan move rapidly back from whence they came. While these were never easy situations to deal with, a weakened America will definitely close the era of leadership and open an era of helplessness swept along by our known and unknown enemies. </div></div>

Stunning Ignorance.

As usual.

g.

eg8r
10-25-2011, 09:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any GOP contender wont have a chance of beating him on his record so they need to start attacking him on it anyway </div></div>How quickly the lefties forget all their whining about Bush and his illegal war. Obama illegally sends in a strike force to murder Osama in a country we are not at war with and all we heard was praise. Yes we are all glad Osama is dead and I personally think Obama did the right thing but that does not take away from the hypocrisy of the left. I agree, we need to let Obama's record stand on its own and see how it stands up to the fire. Just make sure you aren't pissing yourself when he is attacked for doing the same things you blamed Bush for doing.

eg8r

eg8r
10-25-2011, 09:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They always attack their opponents strong point. Look at what happened to Kerry!</div></div>His strong point was that he married into money. All the other stuff was lies and fake medals. It is a shame he got to keep his current office.

eg8r

llotter
10-26-2011, 08:58 AM
Another article making my point:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/24/who-lost-the-world/

Soflasnapper
10-26-2011, 09:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any GOP contender wont have a chance of beating him on his record so they need to start attacking him on it anyway </div></div>How quickly the lefties forget all their whining about Bush and his illegal war. Obama illegally sends in a strike force to murder Osama in a country we are not at war with and all we heard was praise. Yes we are all glad Osama is dead and I personally think Obama did the right thing but that does not take away from the hypocrisy of the left. I agree, we need to let Obama's record stand on its own and see how it stands up to the fire. Just make sure you aren't pissing yourself when he is attacked for doing the same things you blamed Bush for doing.

eg8r </div></div>

This is almost entirely wrong. First, the left has been very vocal in criticizing these actions you say they are applauding. They are not applauding them. They heavily criticized the Osama assassination, and the al-Alawki assassination as well. You ought to actually read some leftists out there instead of perhaps taking 3 or 4 voices here as representing 'the left (tm).' I suggest looking up what Glenn Greenwald says on these topics on his column at Salon, for one example.

But comparing Obama's perhaps illegal actions with W's is way off base. W caused two 10-year actual WARS to take place, involving 100s of thousands of troops, costing well over $1 trillion dollars in expenses (estimates run into the $3 trillion dollar range), while committing what the Nuremburg Trials set forth as the primary war crime-- aggressive (preventative) war, without us either being attacked, or imminently about to be attacked. Contrasted with Osama, and al-Alawki, who were actively involved in fostering and inspiring acts of terror and war against us (or so they say, at least).

Soflasnapper
10-26-2011, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Supporting the Arab Spring was throwing caution to the wind and they even admitted that they didn't know how it would end up. That is also admitting that they don't know what the hell they are doing and the evidence of total failure is in plain sight.

</div></div>

This is a reasonable criticism, but it's still probably wrong.

Tell me if you think we should be backing Assad in Syria, instead of pushing for his leaving.

It was the British who promised the Arab tribes and proto-nations back in WW I that if they helped with the fight against the Turkish Ottoman Empire that they would be rewarded with self-determination (see Lawrence of Arabia for this back story.) As is well known, they double-crossed the Arab people, and instead imposed autocratic dictatorships who would be supported by the West against their people, so long as they honored their Western puppet status and did the bidding of Britain, and after their withdrawal from the region after WW II, OUR bidding.

But at a certain point, there becomes an idea whose time has come, and opposing it creates a fearful cost that still won't work. This was the argument to support the French in Vietnam, perhaps even using a nuclear weapon, to keep a colonial regime in place rather than allow the national self-determination promised in the Geneva accord division of the country.

eg8r
10-26-2011, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First, the left has been very vocal in criticizing these actions you say they are applauding. They are not applauding them. They heavily criticized the Osama assassination, and the al-Alawki assassination as well.</div></div>What??? Why didn't gayle post a few examples? I don't personally peruse those partisan websites so if you have some articles I would not mind seeing some sensibility with the nutty 25% in this country.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But comparing Obama's perhaps illegal actions with W's is way off base. W caused two 10-year actual WARS to take place,</div></div>Which two wars were these?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-26-2011, 01:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First, the left has been very vocal in criticizing these actions you say they are applauding. They are not applauding them. They heavily criticized the Osama assassination, and the al-Alawki assassination as well.</div></div>What??? Why didn't gayle post a few examples? I don't personally peruse those partisan websites so if you have some articles I would not mind seeing some sensibility with the nutty 25% in this country.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But comparing Obama's perhaps illegal actions with W's is way off base. W caused two 10-year actual WARS to take place,</div></div>Which two wars were these?

eg8r </div></div>

??? Those would be the two large scale wars of recent memory, the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war.

While people have rightly focused on the fact that W was trying to get a war in Iraq from day one in office (SecTreasury O'Neill said that was the topic in the first meeting of the National Security Council-- Bush said he wanted to go to war, and said it was their job to figure out how), most have ignored the evidence that the Afghanistan war was equally early in planning.

1) A fully briefed war plan including US forces invading the country was on Bush's desk awaiting his approval on 9/10/01.

2) Newspapers in regional powers India and Japan reported US briefings in about June of those country's leaders that this was our plan, that we would engage in military action to depose the Taliban, with hostilities to commence by October of that year.

3) Basing agreements and runway construction to support the AF heavy transport planes had already been begun months in advance of this war in Afghanistan's neighboring countries.

Here's a link (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/) to Glenn Greenwald's entire body of columns for Salon, with 'older articles' linked at the bottom.

No, Gayle didn't mention these critiques, as she instead applauded the actions as good things Obama had accomplished. 'The Left (tm)' did NOT agree with that position, and as probably more left than most on the board, even among 'the cabal,' I didn't, either.

llotter
10-26-2011, 02:56 PM
And to add to the fire is the following:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/24/who-lost-the-world/

Soflasnapper
10-26-2011, 04:03 PM
Gaffney is a charter member of the Neo-Connus Americanus sub-species of mankind. That means, by definition, he has put forward some of the stupidest foreign policy ideas of all time, as I can confirm by my awareness of his manifold published idiocy.

He probably criticizes Obama in his sleep, and is not more coherent when awake.

In the whole screed you link to, what does he say could have been done differently? If you noticed, he does not say.

This 'who lost the world?' question is a reprise of the old 'who lost China?' smear against Truman, I guess it was.

But you know what? We cannot lose what we never had, and what was never ours, so in whistling his dog whistle to the old China Lobby types (conservatives of the day who presaged the current crop), he reveals how barren is his analysis.

What EXACTLY were we supposed to do to prop up the Tunisian dictator, or Mubarek, or I guess he'd also include Khaddafi?

Nothing short of extreme intervention comes to mind, and just for those who haven't noticed this fact, we are extremely thinly spread out, and really are in no position to intervene anywhere with any sizable forces.

What Gaffney is complaining about is the problem his real country of loyalty will have from these changes, and that country happens to be Israel. As an American, I would insist rather that US foreign policy ought to be on behalf of our own national interests, not those of Israel, except in as much as they may sometimes coincide.

Gayle in MD
10-27-2011, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any GOP contender wont have a chance of beating him on his record so they need to start attacking him on it anyway </div></div>How quickly the lefties forget all their whining about Bush and his illegal war. Obama illegally sends in a strike force to murder Osama in a country we are not at war with and all we heard was praise. Yes we are all glad Osama is dead and I personally think Obama did the right thing but that does not take away from the hypocrisy of the left. I agree, we need to let Obama's record stand on its own and see how it stands up to the fire. Just make sure you aren't pissing yourself when he is attacked for doing the same things you blamed Bush for doing.

eg8r </div></div>

This is almost entirely wrong. First, the left has been very vocal in criticizing these actions you say they are applauding. They are not applauding them. They heavily criticized the Osama assassination, and the al-Alawki assassination as well. You ought to actually read some leftists out there instead of perhaps taking 3 or 4 voices here as representing 'the left (tm).' I suggest looking up what Glenn Greenwald says on these topics on his column at Salon, for one example.

But comparing Obama's perhaps illegal actions with W's is way off base. W caused two 10-year actual WARS to take place, involving 100s of thousands of troops, costing well over $1 trillion dollars in expenses (estimates run into the $3 trillion dollar range), while committing what the Nuremburg Trials set forth as the primary war crime-- aggressive (preventative) war, without us either being attacked, or imminently about to be attacked. Contrasted with Osama, and al-Alawki, who were actively involved in fostering and inspiring acts of terror and war against us (or so they say, at least).

</div></div>

Yes, the president proved the futality and gross ignorance and corruption of the Bush Administration.

The Bush/Cheney foreign policy, was all about OIL, and making their family business cronies, wealthier.

The worst foreign policy decision in history, Bush'e invasion and occupation of IRaq.

Eg can't think straight, because his only mission is to skew the information from the get-go.

IOW, no conscience, and no appreciation for facts.

The Drones killed people who were our stated enemies. The men were killed.

Bush invaded a country which never threatened to invade our country, not attack our country, and sold us a war on lies. Treason.

Eg is too partisan and too brain washed by Fux Noise, and the radical RW fascists, to understand the difference.

G.

G.

llotter
10-27-2011, 09:18 AM
Gaffney and many other have been critical of The Moron since he sent back the bust of Churchill about his first day in office and rightfully so. They have been warning of the adverse consequences of his anti-American policies and sure enough they are coming to pass. Therefore, it is a bit unfair to ask for solutions now that the bombs have already been dropped. Any solution must necessarily start with replacing weak, feckless, moronic leadership with strong leadership and it will probably require years of rebuilding America into a world power to be once again respected rather than mocked.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/281414

eg8r
10-27-2011, 10:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While people have rightly focused on the fact that W was trying to get a war in Iraq from day one in office (SecTreasury O'Neill said that was the topic in the first meeting of the National Security Council-- Bush said he wanted to go to war, and said it was their job to figure out how), most have ignored the evidence that the Afghanistan war was equally early in planning.</div></div>OK, well I guess you are into conspiracy theories. They bore me so I will let the discussion die. Here we have qtip telling us Bush is deep in bed with the Saudis and sofla telling us he could not wait to drop the a-bomb on their head. You guys are too much.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, Gayle didn't mention these critiques, as she instead applauded the actions as good things Obama had accomplished. </div></div>In the interest of honesty, why don't you truly explain gayle's actions. Not only did she applaud Obama (which even the righties on the board did) she went out of her way to chastise those who mentioned the legalities of Obama going into another country to murder Osama.

qtip joined gayle in her strange lies about the situation also. I guess we should have just waited months before you jumped in to try and right the ship and push partisanship to the side for a short time.

eg8r

LWW
10-27-2011, 12:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Moron seems to have convinced the public that killing a few enemies via remote control, translates to a successful foreign policy but in reality, we have a totally incompetent administration creating disasters everywhere. We have lost our ability to influence important areas of the world that are likely to devolve into an Arab Winter as the Caliphate expands and Iraq and Afghanistan move rapidly back from whence they came. While these were never easy situations to deal with, a weakened America will definitely close the era of leadership and open an era of helplessness swept along by our known and unknown enemies. </div></div>

If the result was the intent, then it wasn't a failure.

Jimmy Carter gave us the Islamic Republic of Iran ... Barack Hussein Obama II has given us dual demons to contend with, while allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.

cushioncrawler
10-27-2011, 03:46 PM
Cults are a worry. Especially when they run countrys.
I wonder if there are any good cults out there.
mac.

Soflasnapper
10-27-2011, 04:05 PM
OK, well I guess you are into conspiracy theories. They bore me so I will let the discussion die. Here we have qtip telling us Bush is deep in bed with the Saudis and sofla telling us he could not wait to drop the a-bomb on their head. You guys are too much.

Yes, of course I am. However this is not one of them.

O'Neill was Bush the Lesser's first Secretary of the Treasury. As such, he was a statutory member of the National Security Counsel. After leaving office, he published a memoir of his service in office. Where he himself wrote exactly what I said (which was about getting into a war in IRAQ, neither a nuclear war, nor a war with or dropping a-bombs on the Saudis, which you've made up or misunderstood.

Now O'Neill is a substantial and serious person. He came to the Bush the lesser administration as the just-retired CEO of a Fortune 500, maybe Dow DJIA industrial company. He's worth about $300 million dollars. Moreover, in reporting what he wrote, he was taking on the Bush machine.

So the only 'conspiracy theory' I can see available here is that he LIED about this for reasons remaining unclear? Even though others who attended that first NSC meeting confirmed his account?

As the Bush family friend who was brought in to write Bush the lesser's campaign book said, based upon weeks of staying at the Kennebunkport Maine family compound interviewing Bush the lesser, even then a year or more from the election, Bush the lesser explained to him, the erstwhile biographer/ghost writer, that his goal as president would be to get the country into wars, so that he could use the natural boost of popularity to push through his agenda through Congress, and become a great president. His quote was something like Bush the lesser saying, 'If I ever have a chance to get the country into war, I'm going to take it.'

Oddly, in another one of those weird coincidences, various Bush opponents warned that if Bush the lesser were to be elected, we'd soon be in war. Silly leftists, right? Except they WERE RIGHT.

Obvious to many, but many simply close their eyes and refuse to see.

eg8r
10-27-2011, 09:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">which was about getting into a war in IRAQ, neither a nuclear war, nor a war with or dropping a-bombs on the Saudis, which you've made up or misunderstood.
</div></div>It was a joke about your conspiracy theory. They usually end up so exaggerated that the first person to tell the story barely recognizes it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His quote was something like Bush the lesser saying, 'If I ever have a chance to get the country into war, I'm going to take it.'
</div></div>You and I have differing views of the war in Ashcanistan. I don't think Bush "got" us into that war, or it was a knee-jerk reaction to jump in guns ablazing on a whim. 9/11 got us into that war.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oddly, in another one of those weird coincidences, various Bush opponents warned that if Bush the lesser were to be elected, we'd soon be in war. Silly leftists, right? Except they WERE RIGHT.
</div></div>You could probably drum up one of your conspiracy theories that those silly lefties were helping fund Al Qaeda and helping them fly airplanes into buildings to prove their warnings correct.

eg8r

Qtec
10-28-2011, 03:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here we have<span style='font-size: 14pt'> qtip telling us Bush is deep in bed with the Saudis </span>and sofla telling us he could not wait to drop the a-bomb on their head. You guys are too much. </div></div>

No joke there.

Do you remember the report into the 9/11 attack?

Do you remember the 28 pages that were blacked out?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON President George W. Bush has refused to declassify a 28-page chapter of a congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks. He said that disclosure of the deleted section, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>which centers on allegations of<u> Saudi Arabia's role in financing the hijackings,</u></span> "would help the enemy" and compromise the administration's global war against terror </div></div>

Well?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was a joke about your conspiracy theory. </div></div>

...or just a total lie you got called up on. Didn't see any smiley there. How are we to know?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You could probably drum up one of your conspiracy theories that those silly lefties were helping fund Al Qaeda and helping them fly airplanes into buildings to prove their warnings correct.

eg8r </div></div>

Now you are being silly, nowhere near funny.






Q

eg8r
10-28-2011, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now you are being silly, nowhere near funny.
</div></div>Conspiracy theories are never funny when you are the one being conspired against. Maybe you will think twice next time.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-30-2011, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">which was about getting into a war in IRAQ, neither a nuclear war, nor a war with or dropping a-bombs on the Saudis, which you've made up or misunderstood.
</div></div>It was a joke about your conspiracy theory. They usually end up so exaggerated that the first person to tell the story barely recognizes it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His quote was something like Bush the lesser saying, 'If I ever have a chance to get the country into war, I'm going to take it.'
</div></div>You and I have differing views of the war in Ashcanistan. I don't think Bush "got" us into that war, or it was a knee-jerk reaction to jump in guns ablazing on a whim. 9/11 got us into that war.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oddly, in another one of those weird coincidences, various Bush opponents warned that if Bush the lesser were to be elected, we'd soon be in war. Silly leftists, right? Except they WERE RIGHT.
</div></div>You could probably drum up one of your conspiracy theories that those silly lefties were helping fund Al Qaeda and helping them fly airplanes into buildings to prove their warnings correct.

eg8r </div></div>




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You and I have differing views of the war in Ashcanistan. I don't think Bush "got" us into that war, or it was a knee-jerk reaction to jump in guns ablazing on a whim. 9/11 got us into that war.

</div></div>



<span style="color: #990000">BWA HA HA HA HA !

That's got to be one of your most hilarious denials and most ignorant statements, yet!

I don't suppose you could possibly understand that Bush's stated mission, was to smash the Taliban, and al Qaeda, and get bin Laden, none of which was accomplished.

Instead, his policies franchised al Qaeda, and emobldened our enemies. Not just my opinion, but the findings of our entire National Intelligence Estimate, of 16 NI Agencies, combined.

Of course, a blind partisan like yourself, can easily deny that there was any other way to go about addressing the problem in Afghanistan, like, for example, using drones, as our far more intelligent, current president has opted for in more recent decisions, or for example, keeping our resources available to smash the Taliban and al Qaeda, and get bin Laden, instead of doing what Bush did, diverting all of our resources over to a war for oil contracts, in Iraq, and totally destroying that country, killing hundreds of thousand of innocent people, creating millions of refugees, destroying America's honor by using torture, and lying to the American Public, for eight dammned years about his resultsby , up bull**** about the threat posed to us by Saddam, a dictator who was propped up by earilier Repiglican misguided policies? Bush aided Iran, by removing Iran's biggest blockade, Iraq, and Saddam, AND we were actually fighting agsint Iran, in Iraq, for eight years.

"Wanted! Dead Or Alive"

BWA HA HA HA HA HA....

The Bush Family has been in bed with the Saudi's for decades. Bush protected the Saudi's and ignored the FACT, that most of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Bush redacted information from the 9/11 report, to protect the Saudi's.

I said at the time that Bush started the run up to the illegal Iraq invasion, Bush would never kill bin Laden, the son of one of Bush's favorite Saudi families, the bin Ladens, same family that his Da Da was WITH on 9/11, in a business meeting, and with whom the Bush Family Dynasty, has been in business for decades! Bush was sipping tea with the Saudi King, within 7w2 hours of the attack, on the TRUMAN BALCONY!


I can just hear what the racist, ignorant STATE OF DENIAL, righties on this forum would be writing, if the Obama Family, had been in business with the bin Laden Family, all of these last decades.

BUSH IS A TRAITOR! ALL OF THE BUSH FAMILY, ARE TRAITERS TO AMERICA! CHENEY IS A TRAITOR! THEY SHOULD BOTH BE HUNG!

The invasion of Iraq was a Neocon policy, they tried to get Bill Clinton to do it, but Clinton was too smart for them.

Now, we're seeing total idiot Wolfowitz back out there, yapping about what he thinks we should do, after every single thing he ever said, was either a lie, or totally wrong.

He should be hiding in a hole somewhere.

G.

</span>