Reply With Quote
Yeah, so what?
NO AQ in Iraq prior to our invasion of Iraq? So Whottt?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_151144.html
Yoni will be crestfallen.
Yeah, so what?
Wow, what a stretch.
Now i'm not debating the validity of the AQ in iraq ordeal, but all bush was saying that Aq was going to make iraq a priority after the invasion.
Why can't Oh gee do anything else besides cheerlead?
no wmd? so what?
no AQ in Iraq prior to our invasion? so what?
thousands dead? so what?
billions spent? so what?
new enemies being born everyday? so what?
greatest president ever!
If there were anything to what you believe, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago. Meh, You're a useful idiot for Democrats who spout rhetoric out of one side of their mouth while approving the Bush foreign policy -- including the invasion of Iraq -- from the other.
You're going to be an old bitter idiot if you keep this up. have fun with that.
I just wonder if you'll be as rabid about Obama when he's still in Iraq, still eavesdropping, still interrogating, still detaining, and still fighting these wars in his first term.
Like closing Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?
Like mandating an absolute exit day out of Iraq?
Lets not even address the interogating portion of your argument with both prisons closed.
He beefs up Afghanistan, exits Iraq and closes both prisons. Tell me, if he delivers on these campaign promises, in exactly which way is this similar to Bush?
I won't hold my breath. Dates certain have a way of coming and going with the status quo remaining.
Let's see if he closes Gitmo first. And, if he does, what he does with the occupants. My guess, those that are in custody in Cuba -- that aren't already slated to be released -- will still be in custody, somewhere in the world.
Tell me if we're not already on that path before he ever takes office. See the new boss? Same as the old...at least where foreign policy is concerned.
Not quite. Not even by a long shot. But then again, you may be right. He hasnt taken office and he isnt dictating foreign policy yet. Maybe youre right...I certainly hope not and thats certainly not what the American people voted for.
If the Democrats wanted Iraq to continue, Hillary would have won the primary. She didnt. Obama's major difference was his Iraq policy, his war policy, his persecution of the "War on Terror" (hate that phrase).
If he continues Bush's foreign policy model of preemptive war, foreign occupation and the like, he'll be a failure of epic standard in Presidential history based on what he was elected to do.
I'm just quoting the man himself. He admitted the WMD intel was bad, and now he's admitted that AQ was not in Iraq prior to our invasion of Iraq.
We have spent billions, and thousands have died. I guess you could call those beliefs, I would label them as facts.
Have fun with that.
should I throw a chankla instead?
i think yoni is right about something here...with a twist.
now that obama has seen the monumental ups of the bush admin., he'll likely be forced to alter his plans. he is facing a herculean task of cleaning up after the worst piece of on planet earth. frankly, bush has educated americans on what happens when you elect an idiot from the faux conservative party.
I see; you clean up by continuing a policy. Nice try.
If that's like throwing a clot, go ahead.
i said alter. need help with definitions too, i see.
cleaning up after this dip will be no easy business.
There aren't any significant "alterations" in what I've seen so far.
Again, where have the Congressional Democrats been all this time? Oh, yeah...voting in favor of the President's foreign policy.
gee, why is that?
i gave your guy points for educating americans about the perils of trusting a moron.Again, where have the Congressional Democrats been all this time? Oh, yeah...voting in favor of the President's foreign policy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
