I'm curious: are repubs dumb enough to think Iran would roll over and do whatever the West wants?

[Dana7360]

I still can't understand why the majority of Reps like Reagan so much. He was just a living vegetable who didn't understand what was happening around him. And it's not he had done anything worthwhile during his presidency.

Republicans needed a hero. In the 90's, they started the "Ronald Reagan Legacy Project". Republicans involved simply rewrote history. They turned Reagan into something he wasn't. His has been the only right wing president not involved in some major scandal or some awful fiasco, so he was the only one they could "use".

Google

Iran/Contra was not only a scandal but it was a crime and treason.

 

[Roudy]

U.S. govt. agencies were after Bin Laden from the beginning. Neither Bush or Obama had anything to do with US intelligence being able to locate him.

You're so full of crap........Bush certainly didn't have anything to do with it......he sat on his ass while we were being attacked and then went after the wrong country. And, idiot, US intelligence wouldn't have gone after him had Obama not told them to do so. My, you're so ignorant.


Wiki:
On June 2, 2009, just over four months into his presidency, President Obama sent a memo to CIA Director Leon Panetta directing him to provide, within 30 days, a detailed operational plan for locating bin Laden and bringing him to justice.[21]
Death of Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Doofus Bush......didn't care about getting justice for 3000+ Americans who died on his watch...he didn't care about OBL....idiot.

No actually you're the full a crap dufus. Obama is an epic failure, free loading bullshitter:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

You're such an idiot. I provide you with links/articles and you claim they're fraud........one that I provided was from a conservative source, so you are really stupid to think that a conservative source would make up a fraud poll and go against its own party.....which just proves that you're an idiot and won't accept facts but will continue to parrot the crap you get from the extreme rwnj's treasure trove.

Didn't you watch the video and see Bush Doofus lips claim that he wasn't concerned with BinLaden.......I guess you're going to tell me that the video is photoshopped....what a moron you are.


For instance, as the months and years went by after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and Bush’s initial bluster about capturing the al Qaeda leader “dead or alive” became a source of embarrassment -- Bush began to insist that bin Laden himself wasn’t so very important.

"I truly am not that concerned about him," Bush said at a White House press conference on March 13, 2002. And of course the following March, he shifted America’s focus to Iraq, which proved to be a gigantic diversion.

Osama Bin Laden Rhetoric and Reality: Obama Succeeded Where Bush Failed -- Again and Again

He didn't say he "wasn't concerned" dipweed. He said he wasn't concerned with ONE PERSON. When you have thousands of Islamic nutjobs including Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc. out to do harm to Americans, your policy has to be comprehensive. Bush laid the framework for Obama's capture and it paid off during the Obama administration. Here are liberal pro Obama news agencies reporting it.

Which part of "wanted, dead or alive " did you not understand:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

 

[Roudy]

I still can't understand why the majority of Reps like Reagan so much. He was just a living vegetable who didn't understand what was happening around him. And it's not he had done anything worthwhile during his presidency.

Republicans needed a hero. In the 90's, they started the "Ronald Reagan Legacy Project". Republicans involved simply rewrote history. They turned Reagan into something he wasn't. His has been the only right wing president not involved in some major scandal or some awful fiasco, so he was the only one they could "use".

Google

Iran/Contra was not only a scandal but it was a crime and treason.

Was it not a crime or treason to let Al Queda Islamists slaughter an American ambassador and then get in front of the camera and LIE to the American people that it was because of some stupid film? Oh but that would contradict the Obama campaign bullshit that "Al Qaeda is on the run". Sure sure.

 

[rdean]

Yeah, Obama was able to go after and get Osama Bin Ladin.....after your doofus President, who went after the wrong country claimed he wasn't interested in getting him.....this after OBL was responsible for over 3000 deaths.....talk about incompetence. (Oh, and add another 4000+ that we lost due to his incompetence in going after the wrong country.)

Ha ha ha. "Obama was able to go after and get Bin Laden". When all else fails divert the subject to something Obama had absolutely nothing to do with.

You're such an idiot. Of course Obama had something to do with it....he could have done like Doofus Bush and claimed he wasn't concerned with him - but he didn't. You're just butt hurt because your Republican President has taken the "dummy" award.

U.S. govt. agencies were after Bin Laden from the beginning. Neither Bush or Obama had anything to do with US intelligence being able to locate him.

Remember, it was the interrogation techniques implemented during the Bush administration that yielded the information that led to Bin Laden.

That is something the GOP made up. It's not and has never been true. Bush closed the CIA unit charged with finding Bin Laden and stated he didn't think about Bin Laden any more. Don't believe me? Here, you can believe him.



He lived in a villa, not a cave. Worse, he was pretty much out in the open if Bush had only bothered to look.

Our so called "allies" the Pakistanis were hiding him, dipsticK. Bush certainly did set in motion the necessary requirement for Bin Laden to get captured. Obama is a free loader that took credit for it:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

You linked to an opinion piece followed by four others with different takes.

 

[rdean]

I still can't understand why the majority of Reps like Reagan so much. He was just a living vegetable who didn't understand what was happening around him. And it's not he had done anything worthwhile during his presidency.

Republicans needed a hero. In the 90's, they started the "Ronald Reagan Legacy Project". Republicans involved simply rewrote history. They turned Reagan into something he wasn't. His has been the only right wing president not involved in some major scandal or some awful fiasco, so he was the only one they could "use".

Google

Iran/Contra was not only a scandal but it was a crime and treason.

Was it not a crime or treason to let Al Queda Islamists slaughter an American ambassador and then get in front of the camera and LIE to the American people that it was because of some stupid film? Oh but that would contradict the Obama campaign bullshit that "Al Qaeda is on the run". Sure sure.

I think it is a crime to trick a country into war and then ignore genocide against Christians. Even the Pope called Bush out on it.

And we won't even talk about embassy personnel that died under Bush and it was six times more than under Obama. Course Obama is black.

 

[Mertex]

U.S. govt. agencies were after Bin Laden from the beginning. Neither Bush or Obama had anything to do with US intelligence being able to locate him.

You're so full of crap........Bush certainly didn't have anything to do with it......he sat on his ass while we were being attacked and then went after the wrong country. And, idiot, US intelligence wouldn't have gone after him had Obama not told them to do so. My, you're so ignorant.


Wiki:
On June 2, 2009, just over four months into his presidency, President Obama sent a memo to CIA Director Leon Panetta directing him to provide, within 30 days, a detailed operational plan for locating bin Laden and bringing him to justice.[21]
Death of Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Doofus Bush......didn't care about getting justice for 3000+ Americans who died on his watch...he didn't care about OBL....idiot.

No actually you're the full a crap dufus. Obama is an epic failure, free loading bullshitter:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

You're such an idiot. I provide you with links/articles and you claim they're fraud........one that I provided was from a conservative source, so you are really stupid to think that a conservative source would make up a fraud poll and go against its own party.....which just proves that you're an idiot and won't accept facts but will continue to parrot the crap you get from the extreme rwnj's treasure trove.

Didn't you watch the video and see Bush Doofus lips claim that he wasn't concerned with BinLaden.......I guess you're going to tell me that the video is photoshopped....what a moron you are.


For instance, as the months and years went by after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and Bush’s initial bluster about capturing the al Qaeda leader “dead or alive” became a source of embarrassment -- Bush began to insist that bin Laden himself wasn’t so very important.

"I truly am not that concerned about him," Bush said at a White House press conference on March 13, 2002. And of course the following March, he shifted America’s focus to Iraq, which proved to be a gigantic diversion.

Osama Bin Laden Rhetoric and Reality: Obama Succeeded Where Bush Failed -- Again and Again

He didn't say he "wasn't concerned" dipweed. He said he wasn't concerned with ONE PERSON. When you have thousands of Islamic nutjobs including Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc. out to do harm to Americans, your policy has to be comprehensive. Bush laid the framework for Obama's capture and it paid off during the Obama administration. Here are liberal pro Obama news agencies reporting it.

Which part of "wanted, dead or alive " did you not understand:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

No, dumbass........the idea is to take out the leader. Doofus Bush was too stupid to even recognize that. It's not hard to mouth the words "Wanted Dear or Alive" - it is yet another thing to actually take action. Doffus Bush sat on his ass while we were being attacked, then sat on his ass in regards to Osama Bin Laden....it took Obama to get the bastard. Bush is still sitting on his ass.

 

[Mertex]

YAWN

we can make it relevant to any deal. arent you saying obama was able to convince them to the table?

so are you saying they will walk away if asked to free some hostages?
that doesnt even make sense clown.

UNLESS by "irrelevant" you mean our President just doesnt give a shit. that makes more sense

I'm saying the US' negotiating partners would have walked away in disgust and made their own deal excluding the US. Get a grip.

You're wasting your time with that one.......can't you see he didn't take his afternoon nap and is falling asleep - probably talking in his sleep, why he makes no sense.

 

[Mertex]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

How do you know that? Have you seen the deal?

I have heard what is in it. 6 other relevant countries agree that it is a good deal. Republicans in Congress were against it before it even came out......so they are the ones that haven't seen the deal but are making up crap about what is in it.

 

[Roudy]

U.S. govt. agencies were after Bin Laden from the beginning. Neither Bush or Obama had anything to do with US intelligence being able to locate him.

You're so full of crap........Bush certainly didn't have anything to do with it......he sat on his ass while we were being attacked and then went after the wrong country. And, idiot, US intelligence wouldn't have gone after him had Obama not told them to do so. My, you're so ignorant.


Wiki:
On June 2, 2009, just over four months into his presidency, President Obama sent a memo to CIA Director Leon Panetta directing him to provide, within 30 days, a detailed operational plan for locating bin Laden and bringing him to justice.[21]
Death of Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Doofus Bush......didn't care about getting justice for 3000+ Americans who died on his watch...he didn't care about OBL....idiot.

No actually you're the full a crap dufus. Obama is an epic failure, free loading bullshitter:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

You're such an idiot. I provide you with links/articles and you claim they're fraud........one that I provided was from a conservative source, so you are really stupid to think that a conservative source would make up a fraud poll and go against its own party.....which just proves that you're an idiot and won't accept facts but will continue to parrot the crap you get from the extreme rwnj's treasure trove.

Didn't you watch the video and see Bush Doofus lips claim that he wasn't concerned with BinLaden.......I guess you're going to tell me that the video is photoshopped....what a moron you are.


For instance, as the months and years went by after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and Bush’s initial bluster about capturing the al Qaeda leader “dead or alive” became a source of embarrassment -- Bush began to insist that bin Laden himself wasn’t so very important.

"I truly am not that concerned about him," Bush said at a White House press conference on March 13, 2002. And of course the following March, he shifted America’s focus to Iraq, which proved to be a gigantic diversion.

Osama Bin Laden Rhetoric and Reality: Obama Succeeded Where Bush Failed -- Again and Again

He didn't say he "wasn't concerned" dipweed. He said he wasn't concerned with ONE PERSON. When you have thousands of Islamic nutjobs including Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc. out to do harm to Americans, your policy has to be comprehensive. Bush laid the framework for Obama's capture and it paid off during the Obama administration. Here are liberal pro Obama news agencies reporting it.

Which part of "wanted, dead or alive " did you not understand:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

No, dumbass........the idea is to take out the leader. Doofus Bush was too stupid to even recognize that. It's not hard to mouth the words "Wanted Dear or Alive" - it is yet another thing to actually take action. Doffus Bush sat on his ass while we were being attacked, then sat on his ass in regards to Osama Bin Laden....it took Obama to get the bastard. Bush is still sitting on his ass.

Invading Afghanistan and destroying Al queda and the Taliban and replacing its regime hardly qualifies as sitting on one's ass. On the other hand, loosing all that has been gained in Iraq, then drawing a red line for Syria and then watching them drop chemical weapons and murder hundreds of thousands of their own people, giving rise to ISIS which created beheading and mass slaughter videos of Americans, Westerners , and Christians WHILE OBAMA SAT ON HIS ASS, definitely qualifies. So who's the dumbass now? Yes you are.

 

[Mertex]

You're so full of crap........Bush certainly didn't have anything to do with it......he sat on his ass while we were being attacked and then went after the wrong country. And, idiot, US intelligence wouldn't have gone after him had Obama not told them to do so. My, you're so ignorant.


Wiki:
On June 2, 2009, just over four months into his presidency, President Obama sent a memo to CIA Director Leon Panetta directing him to provide, within 30 days, a detailed operational plan for locating bin Laden and bringing him to justice.[21]
Death of Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Doofus Bush......didn't care about getting justice for 3000+ Americans who died on his watch...he didn't care about OBL....idiot.

No actually you're the full a crap dufus. Obama is an epic failure, free loading bullshitter:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

You're such an idiot. I provide you with links/articles and you claim they're fraud........one that I provided was from a conservative source, so you are really stupid to think that a conservative source would make up a fraud poll and go against its own party.....which just proves that you're an idiot and won't accept facts but will continue to parrot the crap you get from the extreme rwnj's treasure trove.

Didn't you watch the video and see Bush Doofus lips claim that he wasn't concerned with BinLaden.......I guess you're going to tell me that the video is photoshopped....what a moron you are.


For instance, as the months and years went by after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and Bush’s initial bluster about capturing the al Qaeda leader “dead or alive” became a source of embarrassment -- Bush began to insist that bin Laden himself wasn’t so very important.

"I truly am not that concerned about him," Bush said at a White House press conference on March 13, 2002. And of course the following March, he shifted America’s focus to Iraq, which proved to be a gigantic diversion.

Osama Bin Laden Rhetoric and Reality: Obama Succeeded Where Bush Failed -- Again and Again

He didn't say he "wasn't concerned" dipweed. He said he wasn't concerned with ONE PERSON. When you have thousands of Islamic nutjobs including Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc. out to do harm to Americans, your policy has to be comprehensive. Bush laid the framework for Obama's capture and it paid off during the Obama administration. Here are liberal pro Obama news agencies reporting it.

Which part of "wanted, dead or alive " did you not understand:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

No, dumbass........the idea is to take out the leader. Doofus Bush was too stupid to even recognize that. It's not hard to mouth the words "Wanted Dear or Alive" - it is yet another thing to actually take action. Doffus Bush sat on his ass while we were being attacked, then sat on his ass in regards to Osama Bin Laden....it took Obama to get the bastard. Bush is still sitting on his ass.

Invading Afghanistan and destroying Al queda and the Taliban and replacing its regime hardly qualifies as sitting on one's ass. On the other hand, loosing all that has been gained in Iraq, then drawing a red line for Syria and then watching them drop chemical weapons and murder hundreds of thousands of their own people, giving rise to ISIS which created beheading and mass slaughter videos of Americans, Westerners , and Christians WHILE OBAMA SAT ON HIS ASS, definitely qualifies. So who's the dumbass now? Yes you are.

Nothing was ever gained in Iraq, dumbass. They have been killing their own for centuries....Doofus was going to introduce Democracy....how's that working for ya? Doofus Bush declared a victory when there was none - all he ever accomplished was the start of ISIS and now, as usual, you conservatives can't take responsibility for any of the shit you start, you are trying to blame ISIS on Obama. Well, nice try, but it belongs to Bush, dumbass. And yes, you are still the dumbass.

Doofus.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.
Opinion: Bush's toxic legacy in Iraq - CNN.com

 

[Mertex]

So much for Mertex' bullshit polls:

Obama's Iran deal rhetoric troubles American Jews - CNNPolitics.com

Aaron Bandler - Poll: Plurality of American Jews Oppose Iran Deal

Liar.........your link is dated August 10.....this one is dated August 26....and from a Conservative source....so I dare you to say they are lying, idiot. You're drunk on the Faux News KoolAid. So much for your Faux News conservative bullshit.

By JON BASIL UTLEY • August 26, 2015

The Israel Lobby does not represent most Jews. Sound surprising? You’d never know it from most TV talk shows or Republicans denouncing the Iran agreement as a terminal threat to Israel, and least of all from “The Lobby” itself. Its intimidating power depends upon the myth that it represents all American Jews, when it does not even represent a majority. It should really be called the “Likud Lobby,” representing Netanyahu, neoconservatives, militant settlers on the West Bank, evangelicals (mainly old ones) impatient for Armageddon, and the military-industrial complex.
By a 20-point margin in various polls, American Jews support the Iran agreement.
American Jews Reject the Israel Lobby—and Support the Iran Deal

Bullshit. The poll you cited is the only one showing those numbers. It includes people who don't even know if they're Jewish, or "think" they're Jewish. It's a fraud. Ha ha ha.

How do you know that the people polled don't know if they are Jewish, or think they are Jewish? Did Faux News tell you that, sheeple?

Here's another article supporting the fact that American Jews are in favor of the Iran deal. It appears that the only ones against it are conservative dummies, who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. It restricts Iran's nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons.

What do Republicans offer in place of the deal? NADA, NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP, as usual.


But according to a rare national survey conducted in the wake of the agreement, a plurality of American Jews support the new Iran nuclear deal.

The LA Jewish Journal survey released Thursday found that 48 percent of Jews support the deal while 28 percent oppose it and 25 percent hadn't heard enough to form an opinion. The survey described key parts of the deal, which lifts major economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons.

Jewish Americans support the Iran nuclear deal

 

[sakinago]

I love how Irans leaders chant death to America and Israel in their own parliament, but that carries no weight with the left.

On the other hand gaddafi and Assad are straight up evil to the left? Granted they are not good guys...but never have chants and parades screaming death to america. Even though they're dictators, their countries are no where near as totalitarian as Iran. And the only friends we've made in this administration is Iran and Cuba, while we've severely pissed off Saudi Arabia and Israel.

I saw a picture that that PBS host posted that mocked Netanyahu's famous bomb picture, and said irans chances of getting the bomb: 0%...in what way? Because now we can ask their permission to inspect their facilities, and they can get back to us in a month with a yes or no? Not to mention the ICBMs they can buy from china and Russia now, and probably can get refined materials from Pakistan

 

[sakinago]

No actually you're the full a crap dufus. Obama is an epic failure, free loading bullshitter:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

You're such an idiot. I provide you with links/articles and you claim they're fraud........one that I provided was from a conservative source, so you are really stupid to think that a conservative source would make up a fraud poll and go against its own party.....which just proves that you're an idiot and won't accept facts but will continue to parrot the crap you get from the extreme rwnj's treasure trove.

Didn't you watch the video and see Bush Doofus lips claim that he wasn't concerned with BinLaden.......I guess you're going to tell me that the video is photoshopped....what a moron you are.


For instance, as the months and years went by after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and Bush’s initial bluster about capturing the al Qaeda leader “dead or alive” became a source of embarrassment -- Bush began to insist that bin Laden himself wasn’t so very important.

"I truly am not that concerned about him," Bush said at a White House press conference on March 13, 2002. And of course the following March, he shifted America’s focus to Iraq, which proved to be a gigantic diversion.

Osama Bin Laden Rhetoric and Reality: Obama Succeeded Where Bush Failed -- Again and Again

He didn't say he "wasn't concerned" dipweed. He said he wasn't concerned with ONE PERSON. When you have thousands of Islamic nutjobs including Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc. out to do harm to Americans, your policy has to be comprehensive. Bush laid the framework for Obama's capture and it paid off during the Obama administration. Here are liberal pro Obama news agencies reporting it.

Which part of "wanted, dead or alive " did you not understand:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

No, dumbass........the idea is to take out the leader. Doofus Bush was too stupid to even recognize that. It's not hard to mouth the words "Wanted Dear or Alive" - it is yet another thing to actually take action. Doffus Bush sat on his ass while we were being attacked, then sat on his ass in regards to Osama Bin Laden....it took Obama to get the bastard. Bush is still sitting on his ass.

Invading Afghanistan and destroying Al queda and the Taliban and replacing its regime hardly qualifies as sitting on one's ass. On the other hand, loosing all that has been gained in Iraq, then drawing a red line for Syria and then watching them drop chemical weapons and murder hundreds of thousands of their own people, giving rise to ISIS which created beheading and mass slaughter videos of Americans, Westerners , and Christians WHILE OBAMA SAT ON HIS ASS, definitely qualifies. So who's the dumbass now? Yes you are.

Nothing was ever gained in Iraq, dumbass. They have been killing their own for centuries....Doofus was going to introduce Democracy....how's that working for ya? Doofus Bush declared a victory when there was none - all he ever accomplished was the start of ISIS and now, as usual, you conservatives can't take responsibility for any of the shit you start, you are trying to blame ISIS on Obama. Well, nice try, but it belongs to Bush, dumbass. And yes, you are still the dumbass.

Doofus.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.
Opinion: Bush's toxic legacy in Iraq - CNN.com

The Iraq war was wrong, but Isis came across the Iraqi boarder from SYRIA. They came into SRYRIA from LIBYA. You don't remember the famous picture of the Isis columns driving into Iraq from Syria? ...so how did ISIS start in Iraq?

 

[Roudy]

You're such an idiot. I provide you with links/articles and you claim they're fraud........one that I provided was from a conservative source, so you are really stupid to think that a conservative source would make up a fraud poll and go against its own party.....which just proves that you're an idiot and won't accept facts but will continue to parrot the crap you get from the extreme rwnj's treasure trove.

Didn't you watch the video and see Bush Doofus lips claim that he wasn't concerned with BinLaden.......I guess you're going to tell me that the video is photoshopped....what a moron you are.


For instance, as the months and years went by after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and Bush’s initial bluster about capturing the al Qaeda leader “dead or alive” became a source of embarrassment -- Bush began to insist that bin Laden himself wasn’t so very important.

"I truly am not that concerned about him," Bush said at a White House press conference on March 13, 2002. And of course the following March, he shifted America’s focus to Iraq, which proved to be a gigantic diversion.

Osama Bin Laden Rhetoric and Reality: Obama Succeeded Where Bush Failed -- Again and Again

He didn't say he "wasn't concerned" dipweed. He said he wasn't concerned with ONE PERSON. When you have thousands of Islamic nutjobs including Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc. out to do harm to Americans, your policy has to be comprehensive. Bush laid the framework for Obama's capture and it paid off during the Obama administration. Here are liberal pro Obama news agencies reporting it.

Which part of "wanted, dead or alive " did you not understand:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

No, dumbass........the idea is to take out the leader. Doofus Bush was too stupid to even recognize that. It's not hard to mouth the words "Wanted Dear or Alive" - it is yet another thing to actually take action. Doffus Bush sat on his ass while we were being attacked, then sat on his ass in regards to Osama Bin Laden....it took Obama to get the bastard. Bush is still sitting on his ass.

Invading Afghanistan and destroying Al queda and the Taliban and replacing its regime hardly qualifies as sitting on one's ass. On the other hand, loosing all that has been gained in Iraq, then drawing a red line for Syria and then watching them drop chemical weapons and murder hundreds of thousands of their own people, giving rise to ISIS which created beheading and mass slaughter videos of Americans, Westerners , and Christians WHILE OBAMA SAT ON HIS ASS, definitely qualifies. So who's the dumbass now? Yes you are.

Nothing was ever gained in Iraq, dumbass. They have been killing their own for centuries....Doofus was going to introduce Democracy....how's that working for ya? Doofus Bush declared a victory when there was none - all he ever accomplished was the start of ISIS and now, as usual, you conservatives can't take responsibility for any of the shit you start, you are trying to blame ISIS on Obama. Well, nice try, but it belongs to Bush, dumbass. And yes, you are still the dumbass.

Doofus.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.
Opinion: Bush's toxic legacy in Iraq - CNN.com

The Iraq war was wrong, but Isis came across the Iraqi boarder from SYRIA. They came into SRYRIA from LIBYA. You don't remember the famous picture of the Isis columns driving into Iraq from Syria? ...so how did ISIS start in Iraq?

The collapse of the Middle East as we know it and the rise of ISIS rests squarely on the shoulders of Obama's disastrous policies and anti American ideology.

 

[Mertex]

He didn't say he "wasn't concerned" dipweed. He said he wasn't concerned with ONE PERSON. When you have thousands of Islamic nutjobs including Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc. out to do harm to Americans, your policy has to be comprehensive. Bush laid the framework for Obama's capture and it paid off during the Obama administration. Here are liberal pro Obama news agencies reporting it.

Which part of "wanted, dead or alive " did you not understand:

The path to Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama

Bin Laden's death sparks brief outburst of respect from Bush-era Republicans

Bush Says Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

No, dumbass........the idea is to take out the leader. Doofus Bush was too stupid to even recognize that. It's not hard to mouth the words "Wanted Dear or Alive" - it is yet another thing to actually take action. Doffus Bush sat on his ass while we were being attacked, then sat on his ass in regards to Osama Bin Laden....it took Obama to get the bastard. Bush is still sitting on his ass.

Invading Afghanistan and destroying Al queda and the Taliban and replacing its regime hardly qualifies as sitting on one's ass. On the other hand, loosing all that has been gained in Iraq, then drawing a red line for Syria and then watching them drop chemical weapons and murder hundreds of thousands of their own people, giving rise to ISIS which created beheading and mass slaughter videos of Americans, Westerners , and Christians WHILE OBAMA SAT ON HIS ASS, definitely qualifies. So who's the dumbass now? Yes you are.

Nothing was ever gained in Iraq, dumbass. They have been killing their own for centuries....Doofus was going to introduce Democracy....how's that working for ya? Doofus Bush declared a victory when there was none - all he ever accomplished was the start of ISIS and now, as usual, you conservatives can't take responsibility for any of the shit you start, you are trying to blame ISIS on Obama. Well, nice try, but it belongs to Bush, dumbass. And yes, you are still the dumbass.

Doofus.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.
Opinion: Bush's toxic legacy in Iraq - CNN.com

The Iraq war was wrong, but Isis came across the Iraqi boarder from SYRIA. They came into SRYRIA from LIBYA. You don't remember the famous picture of the Isis columns driving into Iraq from Syria? ...so how did ISIS start in Iraq?

The collapse of the Middle East as we know it and the rise of ISIS rests squarely on the shoulders of Obama's disastrous policies and anti American ideology.

Another deflection by the ever "can't take responsibility for their shit Republicans" ......bullshit that only Republicans believe because that is the only way they can justify their own leader's stupidity.


The origins of ISIS, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created ISIS,’’ she said.

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

This was probably the single most catastrophic decision of the American venture in Iraq. In a stroke, the Administration helped enable the creation of the Iraqi insurgency. Bush Administration officials involved in the decision—like Paul Bremer and Walter Slocombe—argued that they were effectively ratifying the reality that the Iraqi Army had already disintegrated.

This was manifestly not true. I talked to American military commanders who told me that leaders of entire Iraqi divisions (a division has roughly ten thousand troops) had come to them for instructions and expressed a willingness to coöperate. In fact, many American commanders argued vehemently at the time that the Iraqi military should be kept intact—that disbanding it would turn too many angry young men against the United States. But the Bush White House went ahead.

Many of those suddenly unemployed Iraqi soldiers took up arms against the United States. We’ll never know for sure how many Iraqis would have stayed in the Iraqi Army—and stayed peaceful—had it remained intact. But the evidence is overwhelming that former Iraqi soldiers formed the foundation of the insurgency.
Did George W. Bush Create ISIS? - The New Yorker

 

[sakinago]

No, dumbass........the idea is to take out the leader. Doofus Bush was too stupid to even recognize that. It's not hard to mouth the words "Wanted Dear or Alive" - it is yet another thing to actually take action. Doffus Bush sat on his ass while we were being attacked, then sat on his ass in regards to Osama Bin Laden....it took Obama to get the bastard. Bush is still sitting on his ass.

Invading Afghanistan and destroying Al queda and the Taliban and replacing its regime hardly qualifies as sitting on one's ass. On the other hand, loosing all that has been gained in Iraq, then drawing a red line for Syria and then watching them drop chemical weapons and murder hundreds of thousands of their own people, giving rise to ISIS which created beheading and mass slaughter videos of Americans, Westerners , and Christians WHILE OBAMA SAT ON HIS ASS, definitely qualifies. So who's the dumbass now? Yes you are.

Nothing was ever gained in Iraq, dumbass. They have been killing their own for centuries....Doofus was going to introduce Democracy....how's that working for ya? Doofus Bush declared a victory when there was none - all he ever accomplished was the start of ISIS and now, as usual, you conservatives can't take responsibility for any of the shit you start, you are trying to blame ISIS on Obama. Well, nice try, but it belongs to Bush, dumbass. And yes, you are still the dumbass.

Doofus.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.
Opinion: Bush's toxic legacy in Iraq - CNN.com

The Iraq war was wrong, but Isis came across the Iraqi boarder from SYRIA. They came into SRYRIA from LIBYA. You don't remember the famous picture of the Isis columns driving into Iraq from Syria? ...so how did ISIS start in Iraq?

The collapse of the Middle East as we know it and the rise of ISIS rests squarely on the shoulders of Obama's disastrous policies and anti American ideology.

Another deflection by the ever "can't take responsibility for their shit Republicans" ......bullshit that only Republicans believe because that is the only way they can justify their own leader's stupidity.


The origins of ISIS, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created ISIS,’’ she said.

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

This was probably the single most catastrophic decision of the American venture in Iraq. In a stroke, the Administration helped enable the creation of the Iraqi insurgency. Bush Administration officials involved in the decision—like Paul Bremer and Walter Slocombe—argued that they were effectively ratifying the reality that the Iraqi Army had already disintegrated.

This was manifestly not true. I talked to American military commanders who told me that leaders of entire Iraqi divisions (a division has roughly ten thousand troops) had come to them for instructions and expressed a willingness to coöperate. In fact, many American commanders argued vehemently at the time that the Iraqi military should be kept intact—that disbanding it would turn too many angry young men against the United States. But the Bush White House went ahead.

Many of those suddenly unemployed Iraqi soldiers took up arms against the United States. We’ll never know for sure how many Iraqis would have stayed in the Iraqi Army—and stayed peaceful—had it remained intact. But the evidence is overwhelming that former Iraqi soldiers formed the foundation of the insurgency.
Did George W. Bush Create ISIS? - The New Yorker

So they waited for ten years and went to Libya, then fought in Syria, and then went back to fight in Iraq? Another ten percent went to Europe, to later come back to the Leviant to fight?

Leave it to the New Yorker to listen to what one guy says with no evidence as long as they can pin it on bush (who I think was a terrible president). But it doesn't explain why they waited for ten years and went to other countries to fight...and why many are not from Iraq. What about gaddafis army that we deposed, what happened to them? But I guess since it was done by a guy with a D in front of his name, that's ok?

 

[CowboyTed]

You think sanctions are leverage? The US started sanctioning Iran in '79. To what advantage? To listen to the hawks prior to this agreement, Iran was any day from having a bomb.

There were no real sanctions on Iran until 2011 / 2012, when the U.S., Europeans, and the major imposed an unprecedented bank / wire / trade / oil embargo. You should know that.

Why the hell do you think the Iranians came to the table? Their economy was in free fall, the currency had devalued by 50%, inflation and unemployment were out of control, and public dissatisfaction was very high. The sanctions needed to be lifted soon otherwise Iran would turn into a failed state. The sanctions were driving the mullahs out of power and Obama lifted it. Good job.

So your reasoning is that despite sanctions dating back to '79 it wasn't until 2011/12 that sanctions were ratcheted up enough to persuade Iran to the negotiating table? You have to understand that your reasoning falls flat when one takes into consideration the actual timeline of events. Iran started making proposals in 2003 and started negotiations with the EU3 in 04/05. The US entered the negotiations in 06. I fail to see the relevance of 2011/12. I understand that sanctions were having an effect on Iran's economy but....failed state?

You don't know what you're talking about. The 79 sanctions had nothing to with Iran's nuclear program. It wasn't until 2011 when, because of the nuclear situation, they froze all financial bank wire / swift transactions and trade whatsoever, which caused the Iranian economy to go Into into a downward spiral. The Iranian Rial fell from 1000 Tomans per dollar to 2000 Tomans per dollar (in 1979 the Dollar was 7 Tomans, one Toman = one hundred Rials). That meant that nobody could get any money in or out of Iran, period. Nor could any business import or export anything. It is because of the harsh sanctions that the Mullahs allowed a moderate (puppet) to run and loosened up on the Islamic decency laws in order for the frustrated youth to let off some frustration and steam.

The Iranians wanted a deal more than the West, but Obama gave all that pressure and leverage up for what? Absolutely nothing. We don't have a deal, what we have is capitulation and appeasement.

I don't know what I'm talking about? You are the one who is shape shifting your argument, I'm staying on point. Sanctions don't work as leverage. The reason to take it back to '79 is to show that sanctions, despite there varied stated purposes, have not altered Iran's actions. However you seem intent on proving that sanctions applied in 2011/12 had an impact on Iran's decisions. As it relates to Rouhani's election, that was not related to economic sanctions either. Ahmadinejad's reelection in '09 led to large uprisings based on fears of election fraud. Uprisings took shape again in 2011 coinciding with the "arab spring". The unilateral blocking of the Iranian central bank didn't go into effect until 2012, again your timeline is all off.

Your point seems to be that Obama implemented crippling sanctions on Iran that brought them to the table only so that he could capitulate to Iran's demands and allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon which hawk's claim was only days away from happening anyway. And Obama did this with the consent of 5 other nations. Wow, that doesn't seem very rational.

Actually Obama was against increasing the sanctions, the republicans were the ones pushing for it. The 79 sanctions were the standard bullshit and ineffective sanctions which the U.S. imposed mainly by the U.S. that had to do with arms, trade and goods. And almost everything was making its way into Iran, anyway.

After the UN nuclear violations, the new series of sanctions were the crippling ones that had the Europeans and major world powers on board. These sanctions locked Iran down financially, and sent Iranian economy into a downward spiral. But now, thanks to the "deal" all the terrorist and proxy groups who's funding from Iran had started drying up, can look forward to resuming the death and mayhem they were causing in the region.

Bizzare version of events....

Iran were getting nuke bomb unless the deal was done... Nuclear non poliferation experst say the deal makes it harder Iran to get the bomb (they actually said it close to 100% that IRan won't get the bomb)

The GOP option, they impose sanctions, no one else in the world will, Iran can trade with everyone else...
MUPPETS...

 

[Mertex]

Invading Afghanistan and destroying Al queda and the Taliban and replacing its regime hardly qualifies as sitting on one's ass. On the other hand, loosing all that has been gained in Iraq, then drawing a red line for Syria and then watching them drop chemical weapons and murder hundreds of thousands of their own people, giving rise to ISIS which created beheading and mass slaughter videos of Americans, Westerners , and Christians WHILE OBAMA SAT ON HIS ASS, definitely qualifies. So who's the dumbass now? Yes you are.

Nothing was ever gained in Iraq, dumbass. They have been killing their own for centuries....Doofus was going to introduce Democracy....how's that working for ya? Doofus Bush declared a victory when there was none - all he ever accomplished was the start of ISIS and now, as usual, you conservatives can't take responsibility for any of the shit you start, you are trying to blame ISIS on Obama. Well, nice try, but it belongs to Bush, dumbass. And yes, you are still the dumbass.

Doofus.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.
Opinion: Bush's toxic legacy in Iraq - CNN.com

The Iraq war was wrong, but Isis came across the Iraqi boarder from SYRIA. They came into SRYRIA from LIBYA. You don't remember the famous picture of the Isis columns driving into Iraq from Syria? ...so how did ISIS start in Iraq?

The collapse of the Middle East as we know it and the rise of ISIS rests squarely on the shoulders of Obama's disastrous policies and anti American ideology.

Another deflection by the ever "can't take responsibility for their shit Republicans" ......bullshit that only Republicans believe because that is the only way they can justify their own leader's stupidity.


The origins of ISIS, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created ISIS,’’ she said.

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

This was probably the single most catastrophic decision of the American venture in Iraq. In a stroke, the Administration helped enable the creation of the Iraqi insurgency. Bush Administration officials involved in the decision—like Paul Bremer and Walter Slocombe—argued that they were effectively ratifying the reality that the Iraqi Army had already disintegrated.

This was manifestly not true. I talked to American military commanders who told me that leaders of entire Iraqi divisions (a division has roughly ten thousand troops) had come to them for instructions and expressed a willingness to coöperate. In fact, many American commanders argued vehemently at the time that the Iraqi military should be kept intact—that disbanding it would turn too many angry young men against the United States. But the Bush White House went ahead.

Many of those suddenly unemployed Iraqi soldiers took up arms against the United States. We’ll never know for sure how many Iraqis would have stayed in the Iraqi Army—and stayed peaceful—had it remained intact. But the evidence is overwhelming that former Iraqi soldiers formed the foundation of the insurgency.
Did George W. Bush Create ISIS? - The New Yorker

So they waited for ten years and went to Libya, then fought in Syria, and then went back to fight in Iraq? Another ten percent went to Europe, to later come back to the Leviant to fight?

Waited 10 years? Not that I know of....they used to be Al Qaida....then rebranded as ISIS.
US troops and allied Sunni militias defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq during the 2007 "surge" — but didn't destroy it. The US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, described the group in 2010 as down but "fundamentally the same." In 2011, the group began rebuilding, and in 2012 and 2013 it freed a number of prisoners held by the Iraqi government, who then joined its ranks.

Leave it to the New Yorker to listen to what one guy says with no evidence as long as they can pin it on bush (who I think was a terrible president). But it doesn't explain why they waited for ten years and went to other countries to fight...and why many are not from Iraq. What about gaddafis army that we deposed, what happened to them? But I guess since it was done by a guy with a D in front of his name, that's ok?

Facts are facts......nasty little things that some don't want to admit when it suits them not to.


Meanwhile, the group saw an opportunity in Syria, where peaceful protests descended into violence in mid-2011 and 2012. It began establishing a presence in Syria around August 2011 in order to participate in the fight against Bashar al-Assad's regime, a move that helped it gain fighters and valuable battlefield experience.

In 2013, the group once known as al-Qaeda in Iraq — now based in both Syria and Iraq — rebranded as ISIS.

ISIS used to be al-Qaeda in Iraq

 

[sakinago]

Nothing was ever gained in Iraq, dumbass. They have been killing their own for centuries....Doofus was going to introduce Democracy....how's that working for ya? Doofus Bush declared a victory when there was none - all he ever accomplished was the start of ISIS and now, as usual, you conservatives can't take responsibility for any of the shit you start, you are trying to blame ISIS on Obama. Well, nice try, but it belongs to Bush, dumbass. And yes, you are still the dumbass.

Doofus.

From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.
Opinion: Bush's toxic legacy in Iraq - CNN.com

The Iraq war was wrong, but Isis came across the Iraqi boarder from SYRIA. They came into SRYRIA from LIBYA. You don't remember the famous picture of the Isis columns driving into Iraq from Syria? ...so how did ISIS start in Iraq?

The collapse of the Middle East as we know it and the rise of ISIS rests squarely on the shoulders of Obama's disastrous policies and anti American ideology.

Another deflection by the ever "can't take responsibility for their shit Republicans" ......bullshit that only Republicans believe because that is the only way they can justify their own leader's stupidity.


The origins of ISIS, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created ISIS,’’ she said.

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

This was probably the single most catastrophic decision of the American venture in Iraq. In a stroke, the Administration helped enable the creation of the Iraqi insurgency. Bush Administration officials involved in the decision—like Paul Bremer and Walter Slocombe—argued that they were effectively ratifying the reality that the Iraqi Army had already disintegrated.

This was manifestly not true. I talked to American military commanders who told me that leaders of entire Iraqi divisions (a division has roughly ten thousand troops) had come to them for instructions and expressed a willingness to coöperate. In fact, many American commanders argued vehemently at the time that the Iraqi military should be kept intact—that disbanding it would turn too many angry young men against the United States. But the Bush White House went ahead.

Many of those suddenly unemployed Iraqi soldiers took up arms against the United States. We’ll never know for sure how many Iraqis would have stayed in the Iraqi Army—and stayed peaceful—had it remained intact. But the evidence is overwhelming that former Iraqi soldiers formed the foundation of the insurgency.
Did George W. Bush Create ISIS? - The New Yorker

So they waited for ten years and went to Libya, then fought in Syria, and then went back to fight in Iraq? Another ten percent went to Europe, to later come back to the Leviant to fight?

Waited 10 years? Not that I know of....they used to be Al Qaida....then rebranded as ISIS.
US troops and allied Sunni militias defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq during the 2007 "surge" — but didn't destroy it. The US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, described the group in 2010 as down but "fundamentally the same." In 2011, the group began rebuilding, and in 2012 and 2013 it freed a number of prisoners held by the Iraqi government, who then joined its ranks.

Leave it to the New Yorker to listen to what one guy says with no evidence as long as they can pin it on bush (who I think was a terrible president). But it doesn't explain why they waited for ten years and went to other countries to fight...and why many are not from Iraq. What about gaddafis army that we deposed, what happened to them? But I guess since it was done by a guy with a D in front of his name, that's ok?

Facts are facts......nasty little things that some don't want to admit when it suits them not to.


Meanwhile, the group saw an opportunity in Syria, where peaceful protests descended into violence in mid-2011 and 2012. It began establishing a presence in Syria around August 2011 in order to participate in the fight against Bashar al-Assad's regime, a move that helped it gain fighters and valuable battlefield experience.

In 2013, the group once known as al-Qaeda in Iraq — now based in both Syria and Iraq — rebranded as ISIS.

ISIS used to be al-Qaeda in Iraq

So in 2011 when they were rebuilding who was president? And yes ISIS is al Qaeda just rebranded...and who supported those "peaceful" protests, and the "freedom fighters" in Syria, and Libya? And who continues to support the "freedom fighters" in Syria currently and will bomb assads troops when they fight with these "freedom fighters." (Assad who currently and undeniably is fighting ISIS the most). And freedom fighters who currently have a non aggression treaty with ISIS. We should not have been in Iraq...so where is the justification for outing gaddafi and Assad? How is that going to re-stabilize the region?

 

[Londoner]

1. National security is the Republican's most prized political weapon. Being tough on terrorism is literally what they sell to voters. (Remember when Reagan declared war on terrorism? Then he was revealed to be negotiating with Iran the whole time, even before he assumed office.)

2. It was predicted by Bush 41 during the Gulf War that removing Hussein would create a terminal power vacuum, followed by a costly/ineffective U.S. occupation . This is why Reagan supported/enabled Hussein in the first place, because the region needed a brutal strongman to crush the never ending tribal warfare.

3. Republicans are at war with Obama not ISIS. This is why they've been critical of his limited bombing but still won't authorize his authority for going to war. Their job is to destroy Obama politically - not matter what he does on ISIS OR Iran.