If you're an American, this should make you angry

He is the biggest moron on this forum. He talks about unconstitutional, but he'll never admit to unconstitutional acts committed by a republican president. Is he any different than the left and their blinders on with regards to Clinton.
His hero Reagan violated the constitution in the Iran Contra affair.

Shrubbie invaded a country on a false pretense. Which can be said about every war we have every been in. But I find it very amusing that this war was supported by both sides of the Isle. Before you start with the Dems were fooled, the senate leaders as well as individual senators from both houses were privy to the same intell reports as Bush and they supported his position. Of course when the time to assess blame comes around memories go blank. For the record, I was against Iraq, I was convinced by to many military friends that it would turn into the exact mess it did.

Shrubbie is the one who originally authorized NSA surveillance, directly violating the 4th amendment. Which Obama had the chance to correct and failed to do so, so now he owns it.

As usual, he'll make up bullshit that is absolutely false (Obama providing comfort to the enemy...WTF???), but he won't look in the mirror and realize the huge bag of shit he's dragging along. Originally Posted by shanm

I am just saying

I am just saying Originally Posted by dirty dog

The problem is that I don't care which aisle supported the war in Iraq, it was wrong. You and other conservatives act like we can't be against it since Democrats overwhelmingly supported it. They were wrong.

The problem is that I don't care which aisle supported the war in Iraq, it was wrong. You and other conservatives act like we can't be against it since Democrats overwhelmingly supported it. They were wrong. Originally Posted by WombRaider

First I am a moderate, there is a choice in between the two fanatical positions most on this board take. Second, I have no problem with anyone stating that this war was wrong. What I do have a problem with is when one side blames the other side as if they were not complicate in the decision making, which is exactly what is happening with all the "Bush lied" crap thrown about. If Bush lied so did the congress on both sides of the aisle. Democrats are not blameless. Like I said, I did not support going into Iraq, I thought it was a mistake, but I distinctly remember both sides making it. So you can absolutely say its wrong, and I will support that, but this whole "Bush lied" crap is just political game playing.

Yeah, but Hillary has been wrong on the war TWICE !!

She voted to go to war based on WMDs (wrong). And she supported pulling out all our troops too early, which gave rise to ISIS (wrong again).

A blunder on top of a blunder.

The problem is that I don't care which aisle supported the war in Iraq, it was wrong. You and other conservatives act like we can't be against it since Democrats overwhelmingly supported it. They were wrong. Originally Posted by WombRaider

What if I just don't give a shit.

He has not provided aid and comfort for the enemy. That's disingenuous. Thousands of islamic fighters have died due to actions taken by Obama.

You're not a constitutional scholar, so I won't debate constitutionality with you. That would be like debating football offensive schemes with a cat.

His lawyers obviously felt he had executive power to carry out such actions or they wouldn't have done them. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I already know you don't care if your politicians are criminals. You've made that plenty clear.

Thousands? Really? I think you're exaggerating a little bit. Like those air strikes which turns out that 75% don't even drop their weapons. I'll give you hundreds, collateral damage and all, but even the UK Guardian only claims about a thousand innocent civilians killed by us (by us I mean Obama).

Fact is, you don't know anything about me or what I know unless I tell you. You don't believe me anyway. The Constitution is not hard to understand and neither is the law on most cases. If that doesn't work I can always pick up a book by Dershowitz or Guilfoyle who are both scholars on the Constitution. You're actually arguing with one of the most impressive intellects from Harvard. We know how much you value that Harvard education. So bite me.

Presidents do thing all the time that they know are illegal but they buy time to make things happen. Lincoln did that, Wilson did that, FDR did that, and Obama is doing that. Obama just backed down yesterday from a courtroom confrontation. He was wrong and acted against the Constitution, he knew it and decided to not take his chances.

You're not very good at this. Of course I appreciate you catching all of my spelling errors (or spell check). It is a bitch when your eye sight starts to go.

First I am a moderate, there is a choice in between the two fanatical positions most on this board take. Second, I have no problem with anyone stating that this war was wrong. What I do have a problem with is when one side blames the other side as if they were not complicate in the decision making, which is exactly what is happening with all the "Bush lied" crap thrown about. If Bush lied so did the congress on both sides of the aisle. Democrats are not blameless. Like I said, I did not support going into Iraq, I thought it was a mistake, but I distinctly remember both sides making it. So you can absolutely say its wrong, and I will support that, but this whole "Bush lied" crap is just political game playing. Originally Posted by dirty dog

You're right. They all lied. Back then it was a good political move to look tough on terrorism. So we invented terrorist threats just so we could tough by going after them. As it turns out, we have a mission without a target. And as we bomb and invade, looking for a target, we are creating the enemy we ostensibly wanted to destroy. And now, because we have been searching for bogeymen overseas, we've neglected our homeland, and the people we're chasing are coming in over our border, practically unchecked. This has been a clusterfuck since September 12, 2001.

Yeah, but Hillary has been wrong on the war TWICE !!

She voted to go to war based on WMDs (wrong). And she supported pulling out all our troops too early, which gave rise to ISIS (wrong again).

A blunder on top of a blunder. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

According to Rand Paul, the hawks in the republican party created ISIS.

Yeah, but Hillary has been wrong on the war TWICE !!

She voted to go to war based on WMDs (wrong). And she supported pulling out all our troops too early, which gave rise to ISIS (wrong again).

A blunder on top of a blunder. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It's even worse if you look at the Democrats in general... they have flip-flopped on Iraq and gotten it wrong at least 4 times, as I pointed out in another thread:

First, Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the 1990/91 Persian Gulf War. Ooops! That one turned out well, making them look stupid and unpatriotic. To compensate for this mistake, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for Saddam's ouster and was signed into law by your pal Bubba. When Bush Jr. decided to follow through and actually make it happen, many Dems (including a majority of Senators) voted in favor of the 2003 invasion. Ooops! Then when that started to go sour, they wanted to cut and run so they came out against the 2007 surge – just in time to see it succeed in pacifying Iraq. Ooops! Then soon after Odumbo got elected, they tried to take credit for ushering in a “stable” and “representative” Iraq - with Biden calling it “one of the great accomplishments of this administration” - while stupidly failing to leave any troops behind to keep it that way. Ooops!

So the Dems have consistently gotten it wrong on Iraq. And they have been wrong in a flip-flopping way that makes it obvious they view our military servicemen and women as cynical pawns whose sacrifices in lives and limbs are secondary to their political ambitions. Democrats have amply demonstrated they cannot be trusted with the nation's foreign policy or security. They have no guiding principles beyond political expediency and doing what the polls say will help them get elected.


“....Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.... The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

- Bob Gates in “Duty”


. Originally Posted by lustylad

First I am a moderate, there is a choice in between the two fanatical positions most on this board take. Second, I have no problem with anyone stating that this war was wrong. What I do have a problem with is when one side blames the other side as if they were not complicate in the decision making, which is exactly what is happening with all the "Bush lied" crap thrown about. If Bush lied so did the congress on both sides of the aisle. Democrats are not blameless. Like I said, I did not support going into Iraq, I thought it was a mistake, but I distinctly remember both sides making it. So you can absolutely say its wrong, and I will support that, but this whole "Bush lied" crap is just political game playing. Originally Posted by dirty dog

No, Bush was the POTUS. If the buck stops with Obama on everything, then the buck stops at Bush for the war in Iraq. I agree that it is partly political, but you can't blame Obama for something and not hold Bush any less responsible for something as blatantly wrong as Iraq.

I already know you don't care if your politicians are criminals. You've made that plenty clear.

Thousands? Really? I think you're exaggerating a little bit. Like those air strikes which turns out that 75% don't even drop their weapons. I'll give you hundreds, collateral damage and all, but even the UK Guardian only claims about a thousand innocent civilians killed by us (by us I mean Obama).

Fact is, you don't know anything about me or what I know unless I tell you. You don't believe me anyway. The Constitution is not hard to understand and neither is the law on most cases. If that doesn't work I can always pick up a book by Dershowitz or Guilfoyle who are both scholars on the Constitution. You're actually arguing with one of the most impressive intellects from Harvard. We know how much you value that Harvard education. So bite me.

Presidents do thing all the time that they know are illegal but they buy time to make things happen. Lincoln did that, Wilson did that, FDR did that, and Obama is doing that. Obama just backed down yesterday from a courtroom confrontation. He was wrong and acted against the Constitution, he knew it and decided to not take his chances.

You're not very good at this. Of course I appreciate you catching all of my spelling errors (or spell check). It is a bitch when your eye sight starts to go. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Eyesight. It's all one word. And here's an article where a military commander says it's 8500. That would be thousands. You have your experts, I have mine.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-fighters.html

And you've added the 75 percent number because you think it looks bad for Obama, which is the only reason you do anything on this board. But what you fail to mention or notice is that number is not unusual.

"As of May 27, 2015, the United States had flown approximately 15,600 strike-sorties resulting in approximately 4,198 strikes, said Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a spokeswoman with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That works out to 27 percent -- slightly higher than the data McCain had, but close enough for our purposes."

Pentagon officials told PolitiFact that there was nothing unusual or surprising about that ratio.

"The fact that aircraft go on missions and don't strike anything is not out of the norm," said Air Force Capt. Andrew "Ender" Caulk of Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs. Despite U.S. strikes being "the most precise in the history of warfare," Caulk said, "conducting strike operations in the heavily populated areas where DAESH hides presents challenges. We are fighting an enemy who goes out of their way to put civilians at risk. However, the vast majority of pilots understand the need for the tactical patience in this environment. This fight against DAESH is not the kind of fight from previous decades."

Of course, why would I listen to someone from Air Force Central Command, when I can listen to JD the Idiot Bitch Boy?

I'm not good at this? You don't even know what 'this' is, you fucking moron.

It's even worse if you look at the Democrats in general... they have flip-flopped on Iraq and gotten it wrong at least 4 times, as I pointed out in another thread: Originally Posted by lustylad

Nothing is worse than Bush leading us into that war. Period. He got that so monumentally wrong that whatever else you offer is irrelevant.

No, Bush was the POTUS. If the buck stops with Obama on everything, then the buck stops at Bush for the war in Iraq. I agree that it is partly political, but you can't blame Obama for something and not hold Bush any less responsible for something as blatantly wrong as Iraq. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Well first your going to be hard pressed to find where I blame or have blamed Obama for much. Second, yes Bush was the POTUS so he is responsible I have not ever stated otherwise. But to say that he lied and mislead everyone is bullshit. But if you insist on calling Bush a liar then you must acknowledge the democrats complicity in the lie. If you refuse to acknowledge the facts then your simply playing the role of political hack which in my opinion renders you mute. Do the facts matter to you? The difference between me and many of you zealots is I don't really have a side to take, I am therefore bound only by the facts and the truth. I can point out faults, fuckups and lies on both sides of the aisle because I don't have the us against them win at all cost attitude.

Well first your going to be hard pressed to find where I blame or have blamed Obama for much. Second, yes Bush was the POTUS so he is responsible I have not ever stated otherwise. But to say that he lied and mislead everyone is bullshit. But if you insist on calling Bush a liar then you must acknowledge the democrats complicity in the lie. If you refuse to acknowledge the facts then your simply playing the role of political hack which in my opinion renders you mute. Do the facts matter to you? The difference between me and many of you zealots is I don't really have a side to take, I am therefore bound only by the facts and the truth. I can point out faults, fuckups and lies on both sides of the aisle because I don't have the us against them win at all cost attitude. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I wasn't addressing you specifically. More this forum in general, especially the Obama haters. Disagreeing with Obama on policy and leadership issues is fair game. Most of what goes on here though is just bullshit.

They were all complicit. Anyone who agreed with it. And I do think Bush lied. If not him, his team. They knew the intelligence was shaky, but they had already made up their minds.

This should make any American angry.

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2014/0...ruin-your-day/

And then Bush has the audacity to joke about there being no weapons of mass destruction. While men died for that dumbasses mistakes. Calling people out on this bullshit is true patriotism. Not trying to sweep it under the rug. That's not patriotism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdDp_jlgC9M Originally Posted by WombRaider

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr7OKqqTb_o

Was it Bush's lie? no, intelligence was wrong and not just our either. Who authorized action? Congress, Bush was not alone. Was intelligence wrong? don't know, all we can say for sure is we never found WMD's. Was it capabilities he was hiding, stock piles as claimed, were they moved or did Bush make up the whole thing ... who knows ... but he was not allowing the inspections. In the end we were all looking for a 911 scapegoat and Saddam served himself up handily by not complying with the legal UN inspections. Saddam was a mean ass, murdering, tyrannical, chemical weapon using, country invading dictator that got what he deserved. I am guessing you are fucking livid about Benghazi?

Should Bush have gone on denial tour? NO, they should have laid out their case. But let's be honest here the media is not centered in this country, it is liberal. And, all we do is sound bite politics, so you play the game and don't give them sound bites they can use against you. Should Bush have gone to the Correspondents Dinner an annual comedy event and made jokes about WMD's ... I think not ... but as you hear the liberal press laughing ... it's what they do ... they laugh about all the bullshit! Had Bill Maher done the exact same shtick would you be as out raged? ... I think not.

But seriously? tell me how you really feel about the bullshit in Benghazi and we can have real discussion about how fucked up American Politics is! We have proof about Clinton lying and Obama indirectly lying about the event details and they falsely accused and jailed a guy, and yet, we have no proof that Bush knew the intelligence was wrong. Hmmmmm? sound about right?

They knew the intelligence was shaky, but they had already made up their minds. Originally Posted by WombRaider

This is my whole point, the dems in congress saw this same intelligence and agreed with Bush as did many other country's and their leadership. This is why I don't buy the "lie" argument. Poor intelligence gathering and maybe to much reliance on Israel intelligence information. In a nut shell, I think he and congress got played.