Republican Team ISIS Fighters quitting their 'lost cause' fight.

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14071635

Failed to stop the endless wars. Failed to see through the Bush lies and stop the destruction of Iraq. Failed to hold Obama accountable for his extrajudicial killing. Failed to stop Hillary Clinton et al from destroying Libya..........etc etc

The question was, "how did the left fail America specifically?" Your specifics amount to saying the left failed to stop your right-wing war monger Republican Party from starting the war against in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There were only two 'endless wars' since 2001 that were started when a Republican was Commander in Chief.

So.

One; your analysis that the left had some realistic means to stop Bush from invading Iraq is not correct. Two; you should know the fact that Dems and Republicans and Independents alike, across the entire country, gave Bush 95% approval to topple the Taliban in '2001.

So your response does not answer the question. How could your misconception that the left "failed" to stop two endless wars started by a Republican President translate in your mind to your original comment that the left failed America?

Allowing the Taliban to retake Kabul and terrorists run rampant once again in all of Afghanistan and also in the lawless regions in nuclear armed Pakistan, would have been "failing America." So Obama has not failed America.

Operation Iraqi Freedom ended long ago two years into Obama's Presidency. That endless war is over, so I'm not sure what you are talking about with regard to Iraq.

The sovereign nation of Iraq invited US air support and advisers to assist them with their fight against ISIS. Failure to assist Iraq to destroy ISIS the past two years would have been "failing America."

Ending the fight against terrorists is how either Party would fail America. The majority on the left support killing terrorist specifically with the least amount of risk to our heroes serving in the military.

Perhaps you can explain how killing terrorists is failing America. Extrajudicial or not.

I'm proud of our President and the military and intelligence services that do the hard work of finding them and killing them and helping the Iraqis to defeat them.

I see no failure by anyone on the left regarding the war against terrorists.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14072512

Basically what you're saying is that a country has a valid reason for invasion if a country is harboring an enemy of your country.

I cite your exact words and deliver points as to what is wrong with them, if you had a valid argument you would be obliged to do the same.

That is not what Im saying at all.

My entire point is based entirely upon the absolutely legitimate and internationally recognized inherent right to self defense, by any nation, that suffered an 'act of war' attack such as the wanton mass murder killing of thousands of innocent civilians on US soil on 09:11/01.

The inherent right to self defense meant the U.S. had the very legitimate right to retaliate with military force against the Taliban because they harbored a known terrorist that organized and financed the ACT OF WAR against the USA.

The U.S. was not obligated in any way to "talk" to the Taliban giving the mass murderers time to escape to an ever safer haven or direct another attack.

That's what I say. Quit with that 'basically saying" stuff.

The U.S. would not harbor a Chinese dissident that planned and carried out a mass murder act of war such as 09/11/01 against China.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14072512

Basically what you're saying is that a country has a valid reason for invasion if a country is harboring an enemy of your country.

I cite your exact words and deliver points as to what is wrong with them, if you had a valid argument you would be obliged to do the same.

That is not what Im saying at all.

My entire point is based entirely upon the absolutely legitimate and internationally recognized inherent right to self defense, by any nation, that suffered an 'act of war' attack such as the wanton mass murder killing of thousands of innocent civilians on US soil on 09:11/01.

The inherent right to self defense meant the U.S. had the very legitimate right to retaliate with military force against the Taliban because they harbored a known terrorist that organized and financed the ACT OF WAR against the USA.

The U.S. was not obligated in any way to "talk" to the Taliban giving the mass murderers time to escape to an ever safer haven or direct another attack.

That's what I say. Quit with that 'basically saying" stuff.

The U.S. would not harbor a Chinese dissident that planned and carried out a mass murder act of war such as 09/11/01 against China.

Basically what we have here is a case where what is "justified" is often based upon judgement. One might think something is justified while another might not.

So you're saying that 9/11 was an act of war, and therefore the US needs to strike back. But the act of war was from who? From Afghanistan? From the Taliban? No, not either. It was from al Qaeda.

Was Afghanistan harboring him away from the US? Not necessarily. They said they would look into extradition proceeding. Instead the US decided that Afghanistan and the Taliban were now part of al Qaeda, or in the way and decided to go for war instead of any other option which could have been applicable.

Ibn Laden wasn't the only dude involved in 9/11, others involved were in countries that are friendly-ish to the US.

Saudi Arabia agents helped 9/11 hijackers: lawyers

What about Saudi Arabia, they haven't given up those who also potentially were a part of 9/11.


Or perhaps, let's get a little more simple. The US audience wanted instant revenge and "justice" and attacking Afghanistan was dressed up to be this instant revenge, and everyone was happy they got their revenge.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14079973

Basically what we have here is a case where what is "justified" is often based upon judgement. One might think something is justified while another might not.

So you're saying that 9/11 was an act of war, and therefore the US needs to strike back. But the act of war was from who? From Afghanistan? From the Taliban? No, not either. It was from al Qaeda.

Massive numbers of thinking beings on this planet agree that my judgment is correct. The Taliban were responsible and complicit in the act of war against the USA.

The company you keep with your judgment are few and far between and made up in part of all the whackos like the World Wide Socialist Workers Party that thinks any military action by the U.S. is unjust.

You need to ask yourself why in 2001 there were only around 5% of Americans that agreed with your judgment. There are major flaws in your arguments trying to make the case for your judgment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14079973

Basically what we have here is a case where what is "justified" is often based upon judgement. One might think something is justified while another might not.

So you're saying that 9/11 was an act of war, and therefore the US needs to strike back. But the act of war was from who? From Afghanistan? From the Taliban? No, not either. It was from al Qaeda.

Massive numbers of thinking beings on this planet agree that my judgment is correct. The Taliban were responsible and complicit in the act of war against the USA.

The company you keep with your judgment are few and far between and made up in part of all the whackos like the World Wide Socialist Workers Party that thinks any military action by the U.S. is unjust.

You need to ask yourself why in 2001 there were only around 5% of Americans that agreed with your judgment. There are major flaws in your arguments trying to make the case for your judgment.

Massive numbers? 8 is a pretty big number.

But then again, people agreeing with your judgement means what? How many millions agreed with Hitler's judgement? How many people will support the next populist guy that comes along with nice words? Lots of people supporting something doesn't mean anything.

Massive numbers of people think the Iraq War was justified.

Massive numbers of people think the Afghan and Iraq wars were not justified.

Yeah, why only 5% agreed with my judgement?

How many people believed the Iraq war was the "right thing to do"? Vastly more than 50% and a lot of people still believe it was the right thing to do.

Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq

"
Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq"


Does that mean it's right because millions of people believe something? Did the Sun revolve around the Sun because people believed it to be the case?

 

[easyt65]

Just annouced Obama is sending ANOTHER 200+ military nembers back to Iraq to help re-take Mosul, a city, and much of ISIS-held Iraqi territory he basically handed over to ISIS without a fight.

Our military is being ordered to help retake part of the nation they already liberated at great cost because Obama wasn't up to the task of safeguarding America's effort, because he decided to put up no resistance when the terrorist 'JV team' invaded Iraq.

ANOTHER Obama 'foreign policy success'.

 

[Tehon]

The question was, "how did the left fail America specifically?" Your specifics amount to saying the left failed to stop your right-wing war monger Republican Party from starting the war against in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do I sound like a war monger to you dumb-ass? You are the one who is making excuses for the military interventions, not me.

There were only two 'endless wars' since 2001 that were started when a Republican was Commander in Chief.

There have been no declared wars against sovereign nations, just one poorly planned and executed psuedo war on terrorism. Supported by democrats.

One; your analysis that the left had some realistic means to stop Bush from invading Iraq is not correct.

The country had a long discussion about Iraq. There was a small minority of people who knew the lies were being told, it should have been a chorus. You even claim to have been part of that small minority, yet now you make excuses for the left at large. Democrats helped pass the Iraq AUMF, they could have voted no. It's not unrealistic.

Allowing the Taliban to retake Kabul and terrorists run rampant once again in all of Afghanistan and also in the lawless regions in nuclear armed Pakistan, would have been "failing America." So Obama has not failed America.

How do you reconcile that statement with what transpired in Iraq regarding the withdrawal? You must be a contortionist in your day job.

Operation Iraqi Freedom ended long ago two years into Obama's Presidency. That endless war is over, so I'm not sure what you are talking about with regard to Iraq.

The sovereign nation of Iraq invited US air support and advisers to assist them with their fight against ISIS. Failure to assist Iraq to destroy ISIS the past two years would have been "failing America."

Ending the fight against terrorists is how either Party would fail America. The majority on the left support killing terrorist specifically with the least amount of risk to our heroes serving in the military.

Perhaps you can explain how killing terrorists is failing America. Extrajudicial or not.

I'm proud of our President and the military and intelligence services that do the hard work of finding them and killing them and helping the Iraqis to defeat them.

I see no failure by anyone on the left regarding the war against terrorists.

Yes the left has failed America. The anti-war movement died the moment Barrack Obama became the president, now all you pinheads do is make excuses for him and the only thing that will change it is a republican president. In the meantime we are stuck in an Orwellian world of the neocon's creation.


The Mega-Lie Called the "War on Terror": A Masterpiece of Propaganda

The fraudulence of the "War on Terror," however, is clearly revealed in the pattern of subsequent facts:

• In Afghanistan the state was overthrown instead of apprehending the terrorist. Offers by the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden were ignored, and he remains at large to this day.
  
  
• In Iraq, when the United States invaded, there were no al Qaeda terrorists at all.
  
  
• Both states have been supplied with puppet governments, and both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases in strategic proximity to their hydrocarbon assets.
  
  
• The U.S. embassy nearing completion in Baghdad is comprised of 21 multistory buildings on 104 acres of land. It will house 5,500 diplomats, staff and families. It is ten times larger than any other U.S. embassy in the world, but we have yet to be told why.
  
  
• A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate shows the war in Iraq has exacerbated, not diminished, the threat of terrorism since 9/11. If the "War on Terror" is not a deception, it is a disastrously counterproductive failure.
  
  
• Today two American and two British oil companies are poised to claim immense profits from 81 percent of Iraq's undeveloped crude oil reserves. They cannot proceed, however, until the Iraqi Parliament enacts a statute known as the "hydrocarbon framework law."
  
  
• The features of postwar oil policy so heavily favoring the oil companies were crafted by the Bush administration State Department in 2002, a year before the invasion.
  
  
• Drafting of the law itself was begun during Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority, with the invited participation of a number of major oil companies. The law was written in English and translated into Arabic only when it was due for Iraqi approval.
  
  
• President Bush made passage of the hydrocarbon law a mandatory "benchmark" when he announced the troop surge in January of 2007.

When it took office, the Bush administration brushed aside warnings about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Their anxiety to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq was based on other factors.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The question was, "how did the left fail America specifically?" Your specifics amount to saying the left failed to stop your right-wing war monger Republican Party from starting the war against in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do I sound like a war monger to you dumb-ass? You are the one who is making excuses for the military interventions, not me.

There were only two 'endless wars' since 2001 that were started when a Republican was Commander in Chief.

There have been no declared wars against sovereign nations, just one poorly planned and executed psuedo war on terrorism. Supported by democrats.

One; your analysis that the left had some realistic means to stop Bush from invading Iraq is not correct.

The country had a long discussion about Iraq. There was a small minority of people who knew the lies were being told, it should have been a chorus. You even claim to have been part of that small minority, yet now you make excuses for the left at large. Democrats helped pass the Iraq AUMF, they could have voted no. It's not unrealistic.

Allowing the Taliban to retake Kabul and terrorists run rampant once again in all of Afghanistan and also in the lawless regions in nuclear armed Pakistan, would have been "failing America." So Obama has not failed America.

How do you reconcile that statement with what transpired in Iraq regarding the withdrawal? You must be a contortionist in your day job.

Operation Iraqi Freedom ended long ago two years into Obama's Presidency. That endless war is over, so I'm not sure what you are talking about with regard to Iraq.

The sovereign nation of Iraq invited US air support and advisers to assist them with their fight against ISIS. Failure to assist Iraq to destroy ISIS the past two years would have been "failing America."

Ending the fight against terrorists is how either Party would fail America. The majority on the left support killing terrorist specifically with the least amount of risk to our heroes serving in the military.

Perhaps you can explain how killing terrorists is failing America. Extrajudicial or not.

I'm proud of our President and the military and intelligence services that do the hard work of finding them and killing them and helping the Iraqis to defeat them.

I see no failure by anyone on the left regarding the war against terrorists.

Yes the left has failed America. The anti-war movement died the moment Barrack Obama became the president, now all you pinheads do is make excuses for him and the only thing that will change it is a republican president. In the meantime we are stuck in an Orwellian world of the neocon's creation.


The Mega-Lie Called the "War on Terror": A Masterpiece of Propaganda

The fraudulence of the "War on Terror," however, is clearly revealed in the pattern of subsequent facts:

• In Afghanistan the state was overthrown instead of apprehending the terrorist. Offers by the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden were ignored, and he remains at large to this day.
  
  
• In Iraq, when the United States invaded, there were no al Qaeda terrorists at all.
  
  
• Both states have been supplied with puppet governments, and both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases in strategic proximity to their hydrocarbon assets.
  
  
• The U.S. embassy nearing completion in Baghdad is comprised of 21 multistory buildings on 104 acres of land. It will house 5,500 diplomats, staff and families. It is ten times larger than any other U.S. embassy in the world, but we have yet to be told why.
  
  
• A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate shows the war in Iraq has exacerbated, not diminished, the threat of terrorism since 9/11. If the "War on Terror" is not a deception, it is a disastrously counterproductive failure.
  
  
• Today two American and two British oil companies are poised to claim immense profits from 81 percent of Iraq's undeveloped crude oil reserves. They cannot proceed, however, until the Iraqi Parliament enacts a statute known as the "hydrocarbon framework law."
  
  
• The features of postwar oil policy so heavily favoring the oil companies were crafted by the Bush administration State Department in 2002, a year before the invasion.
  
  
• Drafting of the law itself was begun during Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority, with the invited participation of a number of major oil companies. The law was written in English and translated into Arabic only when it was due for Iraqi approval.
  
  
• President Bush made passage of the hydrocarbon law a mandatory "benchmark" when he announced the troop surge in January of 2007.

When it took office, the Bush administration brushed aside warnings about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Their anxiety to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq was based on other factors.

Why are you a Republican? Did you vote for Bush or Kerry in 2004 when it was guaranteed kniwn there were no WMD.

Bush or Kerry? If it was Bush in 2004 you have no right to bitch about Dems anti war record.

 

[Tehon]

Why are you a Republican?

I'm not a republican.

Did you vote for Bush or Kerry in 2004 when it was guaranteed kniwn there were no WMD.

Bush or Kerry? If it was Bush in 2004 you have no right to bitch about Dems anti war record.

I never voted for Bush........ any Bush........... ever. I voted for Kerry in '04.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon, 14087953

Democrats helped pass the Iraq AUMF, they could have voted no. It's not unrealistic.

Since you vote Democrat why don't you know that voting against the AUMF (Oct 2002) would have meant Bush skipped UN inspections and was eager and ready to invade Iraq anyway. He could have acted under the War on Terror AUMF that was passed right after the 9/11/01 attacks. Bush linked alleged WMD to the possibility that Saddam could pass them off to terrorists.

What the October 2002 AUMF actually did was to take a big step back from Bush engaging in automatic war in order to use the threat of military force to get inspectors back into Iraq and to resolve the WMD matter peacefully.

UN resolution 1441 was achieved in November 2002. And by December 2002 the threat of force worked. Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors. Bush said he would let the UN handle it. That became a lie on March 17 2003.

If you believe you knew prior to his starting the war that he was lying when he months earlier said the AUMF passed by Congress was the way to keep the peace, you have supernatural powers the rest of us don't have.

And how would you know with certainty and without a doubt that Iraq did not have Chem/Bio WMD before the UN inspectors went back in. You could not know that unless you knew more than the UN inspectors did themselves? How on earth could you know that?

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, 14087953

Democrats helped pass the Iraq AUMF, they could have voted no. It's not unrealistic.

Since you vote Democrat why don't you know that voting against the AUMF (Oct 2002) would have meant Bush skipped UN inspections and was eager and ready to invade Iraq anyway. He could have acted under the War on Terror AUMF that was passed right after the 9/11/01 attacks. Bush linked alleged WMD to the possibility that Saddam could pass them off to terrorists.

What the October 2002 AUMF actually did was to take a big step back from Bush engaging in automatic war in order to use the threat of military force to get inspectors back into Iraq and to resolve the WMD matter peacefully.

UN resolution 1441 was achieved in November 2002. And by December 2002 the threat of force worked. Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors. Bush said he would let the UN handle it. That became a lie on March 17 2003.

If you believe you knew prior to his starting the war that he was lying when he months earlier said the AUMF passed by Congress was the way to keep the peace, you have supernatural powers the rest of us don't have.

And how would you know with certainty and without a doubt that Iraq did not have Chem/Bio WMD before the UN inspectors went back in. You could not know that unless you knew more than the UN inspectors did themselves? How on earth could you know that?

What the October 2002 AUMF actually did was to take a big step back from Bush engaging in automatic war in order to use the threat of military force to get inspectors back into Iraq and to resolve the WMD matter peacefully.

Saddam agreed to the return of inspectors in Sept. 2002, a full month before the AUMF was passed.

If you believe you knew prior to his starting the war that he was lying when he months earlier said the AUMF passed by Congress was the way to keep the peace, you have supernatural powers the rest of us don't have.

I would change my screen name to notfooledbyw if it wasn't already being used by an impostor.

 

[kaz]

Are Republicans getting worried that ISIS terrorists are in retreat in Iraq and Syria?

Republicans politicized prayers that ISIS fighters conquer all of Iraq are going unanswered.

At the rate that Islamic State defenses are crumbling and fighters are running from fights in Iraq and Syria, by the time November gets here Trump and Cruz dare not bring up Obama's successful US led coalition against the very same bunch of killers that were the best thing to happen to Republicans since Benghazi.

.
Front-line commanders no longer speak of a scarily formidable foe but of Islamic State defenses that crumble within days and fighters who flee at the first sign they are under attack.

“They don’t fight. They just send car bombs and then run away. And when we surround them they either surrender or infiltrate themselves among the civilians,” said Lt. Gen. Abdul-Ghani al-Assadi, commander of Iraq’s counterterrorism forces, who is overseeing the latest Iraqi offensive to capture the town of Hit in Anbar province.

“Their morale is shaken. We listen to them on their communications devices. Their leaders are begging them to fight, but they answer that it is a lost cause. They refuse to obey orders and run away.”

In Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State is in retreat on multiple fronts

Are you on drugs?

 

[kaz]

The whining about Obama is crazy.

Here a republican (Bush) invades a country and completely fucks up the entire region.


But it's the black guys fault for not "fixing" the republican fuck up.

Don't republicans EVER take responsibility for their actions? Ever?

What does Obama being black have to do with it? You don't think blacks can make decisions like white's can? Is that what they tell you at your KKK meetings?

 

[kaz]

The notion that Obama is given credit for the decline of ISIS is ridiculous. Putin is the world leader that is responsible for the decline of ISIS's ability to wreck havoc, not Obama. NotfooledbyW=FooledbyO

He's fooled by everyone. He still falls for the I've got your nose game

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 14094491

He's fooled by everyone. He still falls for the I've got your nose game

I am certainly not fooled by an idiot who cannot explain how Putin is responsible for the decline of ISIS when Putin joined the battle only after the previous fifteen months when Obama led the coalition that forced ISIS to begin to retreat.

And now we have two fools that cannot explain why or how Putin led the decline of ISIS in Iraq since Putin has done nothing in Iraq. Iraq is where most of ISIS's retreat has taken place. They have lost close to half the territory they held about 21 months ago in Iraq.

Let's have an answer instead of mumbling stupid insults that mean nothing in the world of facts.

Now we can watch kaz run.

 

[kaz]

kaz 14094491

He's fooled by everyone. He still falls for the I've got your nose game

I am certainly not fooled by an idiot who cannot explain how Putin is responsible for the decline of ISIS when Putin joined the battle only after the previous fifteen months when Obama led the coalition that forced ISIS to begin to retreat.

And now we have two fools that cannot explain why or how Putin led the decline of ISIS in Iraq since Putin has done nothing in Iraq. Iraq is where most of ISIS's retreat has taken place. They have lost close to half the territory they held about 21 months ago in Iraq.

Let's have an answer instead of mumbling stupid insults that mean nothing in the world of facts.

Now we can watch kaz run.

Then when Obama comes in and repeats every W policy, you suck his dick. Yep, you're fooled by EVERYONE ...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 14094487

Are you on drugs?

Why did you agree with Tehon that Putin had ISIS in retreat in Iraq and Syria?

Do you know that ISIS had been in retreat for 25 months in Iraq and Syria?

I know it. So why would I be on drugs?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 14099915

Then when Obama comes in and repeats every W policy,.... .

You ran from the questions. So I'm not fooled by you for sure.

Now answer this; what GWB policy did Obama repeat?

Surely getting all US troops out of Iraq on Bush's timetable was a good thing. Not letting the Taliban retake control of Afghanistan is another good thing. Other than those two what policies are you talking about?

The Iran Deal is not Bush's. The ACA is not Bush's. And a big one was allowing diplomacy and inspection lead to the removal and destruction of Assad's WMD arsenal. Bush did quite the opposite in Iraq.

Bush refused to allow diplomacy to verify that Iraq was WMD free. Obama called Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq dumb.

And Obama HRC and Kerry were right. The UN inspectors should have been left in Iraq.

Obama unlike Bush put diplomacy first. I applaud him for that.

About OPCW-UN Joint Mission
About OPCW-UN Joint Mission
The OPCW-UN Joint Mission on the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons has completed its mandate and its ...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14094477

Saddam agreed to the return of inspectors in Sept. 2002, a full month before the AUMF was passed.

That was exactly why the AUMF was passed. The AUMF was a way to force Bush to accept diplomacy and inspections not to force Saddam Hussein just to talk about resumption of inspections, but to have him to know that a more invasive inspection regime was coming and both sides would be required to abide by it.

Saddam did abide by UN Res 1441. Bush did not.

No one could know in October 2002 that Bush would see Saddam's cooperation as a reason to end diplomacy and launch a full scale invasion instead. That made no speculative sence.

The AUMF made sense to pass because both Bush and Hussein were talking inspections not war from September until Bush chose war in March 2003. No Dem agreed with Bush's decision in Narch 2003.

Without the October AUMF earlier AUMF could be used by Bush to avoid the trouble with inspections and start a war giving peace no chance.

 

[kaz]

kaz 14099915

Then when Obama comes in and repeats every W policy,.... .

You ran from the questions. So I'm not fooled by you for sure.

Now answer this; what GWB policy did Obama repeat?

Surely getting all US troops out of Iraq on Bush's timetable was a good thing. Not letting the Taliban retake control of Afghanistan is another good thing. Other than those two what policies are you talking about?

The Iran Deal is not Bush's. The ACA is not Bush's. And a big one was allowing diplomacy and inspection lead to the removal and destruction of Assad's WMD arsenal. Bush did quite the opposite in Iraq.

Bush refused to allow diplomacy to verify that Iraq was WMD free. Obama called Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq dumb.

And Obama HRC and Kerry were right. The UN inspectors should have been left in Iraq.

Obama unlike Bush put diplomacy first. I applaud him for that.

About OPCW-UN Joint Mission
About OPCW-UN Joint Mission
The OPCW-UN Joint Mission on the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons has completed its mandate and its ...

They followed the same militaristic policies and the same tax and spend policies. I like how you started with O wasn't W, O followed W's Iraq timeline! Completely different.

Then there's the revisionist history that Hillary who voted to approve an invasion opposed invading ...



The rest is the same shit, different name.