Do You Miss Him Yet?

[The Rabbi]

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

I don't miss this:

I'm not at all surprised you do.

Are those coffins from Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan that totally failed and killed American soldiers needlessly?

 

[kaz]

So your plan was to wait for them to sneak into the US and attack us a second time? That's brilliant lib.

Since I didn't say any such thing it must mean you are making stuff up in your little mind. There were no terrorists in Iraq.

Saddam wasn't a terrorist? LOL, see that's what's wrong with liberals. You are so black and white about everything. You say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but then you go loony tunes and nominate Hussein for the Mother Teresa award.

The guy was a bad guy and supported terrorism all over the middle east. He invaded his neighbors and murdered his own people. We just don't need to take every problem in the world on as our own

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the war. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan where W removed 90% of our forces to run off to Iraq.

You don't know that. I agree Rabbi needs help, but seriously, why are you helping him since you're not supposed to be on his side?

I do know that and I can't believe you want to stubbornly hold on to flawed arguments. I repeat, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the war, the war caused Al Qaeda membership to grow.

OK, how do you know Al Qaeda was not in Iraq? There is no possible way you would know that other than you're arrogant as shit. Or you're a sycophant to someone who is arrogant as shit. Only options

 

[nuhuh]

You want to talk about pointless deaths, you merely need to look at a war started where all the terrorists were 1200 miles away from the fighting.

I'm not sure how you contradicted me, maybe you could be a little more specific

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You're not into that whole space time continuum and chronological time thing, are you? How do you invade the wrong country when you already invaded the right country? We just shouldn't have invaded, stop saying stupid things. Seriously, can you go over to Rabbi's side? That would make this debate a lot more winnable

Obama knew the timeline and be honest, he made zero serious effort to extend the agreement. He should have brought the troops home when he took office. Leaving them there 18 months to fight while he had already decided they would lose was murder, they were dying for nothing

Bush's management of the war was incompetent and that is a fact and Obama's management of the withdrawal was weak but had more to do with internal Iraq squabbling than anything else. The fact remains we should have never gone to Iraq and if we had not the Middle East would not be what it is today.

 

[kaz]

You want to talk about pointless deaths, you merely need to look at a war started where all the terrorists were 1200 miles away from the fighting.

I'm not sure how you contradicted me, maybe you could be a little more specific

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Um, you understand we invaded Afghanistan FIRST and THEN invaded Iraq, right?

He doesn't understand how to boil water. Can you take him on your side?

Not a chance. Totally clueless? Opposed to sending troops anywhere? Sounds like he's ripe for conversion to your side.

Actually, I supported attacking Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban. They actually attacked us. I don't differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they were in it together. It was nation building there I opposed.

Also, he's clearly not against sending troops anywhere. He's signing off on Obama's murdering troops for 18 months by letting them continue to fight a war he'd already decided to lose

 

[nuhuh]

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

I don't miss this:

I'm not at all surprised you do.

Are those coffins from Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan that totally failed and killed American soldiers needlessly?

Probably are Obama's. If you remember photography was outlawed by Bush and he hated coffins so badly he refused to go to a single soldier's funeral.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure how you contradicted me, maybe you could be a little more specific

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You're not into that whole space time continuum and chronological time thing, are you? How do you invade the wrong country when you already invaded the right country? We just shouldn't have invaded, stop saying stupid things. Seriously, can you go over to Rabbi's side? That would make this debate a lot more winnable

Obama knew the timeline and be honest, he made zero serious effort to extend the agreement. He should have brought the troops home when he took office. Leaving them there 18 months to fight while he had already decided they would lose was murder, they were dying for nothing

Bush's management of the war was incompetent and that is a fact and Obama's management of the withdrawal was weak but had more to do with internal Iraq squabbling than anything else. The fact remains we should have never gone to Iraq and if we had not the Middle East would not be what it is today.

You really don't read the arguments of the people you're debating, do you? Be honest

 

[nuhuh]

I'm not sure how you contradicted me, maybe you could be a little more specific

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Um, you understand we invaded Afghanistan FIRST and THEN invaded Iraq, right?

He doesn't understand how to boil water. Can you take him on your side?

Not a chance. Totally clueless? Opposed to sending troops anywhere? Sounds like he's ripe for conversion to your side.

Actually, I supported attacking Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban. They actually attacked us. I don't differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they were in it together. It was nation building there I opposed.

Also, he's clearly not against sending troops anywhere. He's signing off on Obama's murdering troops for 18 months by letting them continue to fight a war he'd already decided to lose

Speculation.

 

[kaz]

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Um, you understand we invaded Afghanistan FIRST and THEN invaded Iraq, right?

He doesn't understand how to boil water. Can you take him on your side?

Not a chance. Totally clueless? Opposed to sending troops anywhere? Sounds like he's ripe for conversion to your side.

Actually, I supported attacking Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban. They actually attacked us. I don't differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they were in it together. It was nation building there I opposed.

Also, he's clearly not against sending troops anywhere. He's signing off on Obama's murdering troops for 18 months by letting them continue to fight a war he'd already decided to lose

Speculation.

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

 

[nuhuh]

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You're not into that whole space time continuum and chronological time thing, are you? How do you invade the wrong country when you already invaded the right country? We just shouldn't have invaded, stop saying stupid things. Seriously, can you go over to Rabbi's side? That would make this debate a lot more winnable

Obama knew the timeline and be honest, he made zero serious effort to extend the agreement. He should have brought the troops home when he took office. Leaving them there 18 months to fight while he had already decided they would lose was murder, they were dying for nothing

Bush's management of the war was incompetent and that is a fact and Obama's management of the withdrawal was weak but had more to do with internal Iraq squabbling than anything else. The fact remains we should have never gone to Iraq and if we had not the Middle East would not be what it is today.

You really don't read the arguments of the people you're debating, do you? Be honest

Yes I do, but usually there is so much historical rubbish I sometimes separate too much.

 

[nuhuh]

Um, you understand we invaded Afghanistan FIRST and THEN invaded Iraq, right?

He doesn't understand how to boil water. Can you take him on your side?

Not a chance. Totally clueless? Opposed to sending troops anywhere? Sounds like he's ripe for conversion to your side.

Actually, I supported attacking Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban. They actually attacked us. I don't differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they were in it together. It was nation building there I opposed.

Also, he's clearly not against sending troops anywhere. He's signing off on Obama's murdering troops for 18 months by letting them continue to fight a war he'd already decided to lose

Speculation.

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

Wrong again, how about a National Intelligence Estimate? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

 

[kaz]

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You're not into that whole space time continuum and chronological time thing, are you? How do you invade the wrong country when you already invaded the right country? We just shouldn't have invaded, stop saying stupid things. Seriously, can you go over to Rabbi's side? That would make this debate a lot more winnable

Obama knew the timeline and be honest, he made zero serious effort to extend the agreement. He should have brought the troops home when he took office. Leaving them there 18 months to fight while he had already decided they would lose was murder, they were dying for nothing

Bush's management of the war was incompetent and that is a fact and Obama's management of the withdrawal was weak but had more to do with internal Iraq squabbling than anything else. The fact remains we should have never gone to Iraq and if we had not the Middle East would not be what it is today.

You really don't read the arguments of the people you're debating, do you? Be honest

Yes I do, but usually there is so much historical rubbish I sometimes separate too much.

Separate from reality? If you can't respond to what people say, you aren't actually reading their arguments

 

[nuhuh]

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You're not into that whole space time continuum and chronological time thing, are you? How do you invade the wrong country when you already invaded the right country? We just shouldn't have invaded, stop saying stupid things. Seriously, can you go over to Rabbi's side? That would make this debate a lot more winnable

Obama knew the timeline and be honest, he made zero serious effort to extend the agreement. He should have brought the troops home when he took office. Leaving them there 18 months to fight while he had already decided they would lose was murder, they were dying for nothing

Bush's management of the war was incompetent and that is a fact and Obama's management of the withdrawal was weak but had more to do with internal Iraq squabbling than anything else. The fact remains we should have never gone to Iraq and if we had not the Middle East would not be what it is today.

You really don't read the arguments of the people you're debating, do you? Be honest

Yes I do, but usually there is so much historical rubbish I sometimes separate too much.

Separate from reality? If you can't respond to what people say, you aren't actually reading their arguments

When the writer is quoting fiction what other options become available? I spend too much time already debunking facts that have a life of their own and seem indestructible.

 

[kaz]

He doesn't understand how to boil water. Can you take him on your side?

Not a chance. Totally clueless? Opposed to sending troops anywhere? Sounds like he's ripe for conversion to your side.

Actually, I supported attacking Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban. They actually attacked us. I don't differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they were in it together. It was nation building there I opposed.

Also, he's clearly not against sending troops anywhere. He's signing off on Obama's murdering troops for 18 months by letting them continue to fight a war he'd already decided to lose

Speculation.

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

Wrong again, how about a National Intelligence Estimate? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

First of all, if you post an article to make a point, you need to provide the quote you are referring to, not just say here, read this.

Second, it says we were not "fighting" Al Qaeda in Iraq. You said Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, those are not the same thing, so you still didn't support your claim of great knowledge

 

[kaz]

You're not into that whole space time continuum and chronological time thing, are you? How do you invade the wrong country when you already invaded the right country? We just shouldn't have invaded, stop saying stupid things. Seriously, can you go over to Rabbi's side? That would make this debate a lot more winnable

Obama knew the timeline and be honest, he made zero serious effort to extend the agreement. He should have brought the troops home when he took office. Leaving them there 18 months to fight while he had already decided they would lose was murder, they were dying for nothing

Bush's management of the war was incompetent and that is a fact and Obama's management of the withdrawal was weak but had more to do with internal Iraq squabbling than anything else. The fact remains we should have never gone to Iraq and if we had not the Middle East would not be what it is today.

You really don't read the arguments of the people you're debating, do you? Be honest

Yes I do, but usually there is so much historical rubbish I sometimes separate too much.

Separate from reality? If you can't respond to what people say, you aren't actually reading their arguments

When the writer is quoting fiction what other options become available? I spend too much time already debunking facts that have a life of their own and seem indestructible.

How do you debunk a point by not addressing what was actually said? That doesn't even make sense. You're debunking points in your head

 

[NYcarbineer]

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

I don't miss this:

I'm not at all surprised you do.

Are those coffins from Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan that totally failed and killed American soldiers needlessly?

Your glee over seeing 4000+ Americans needlessly killed in Iraq disqualifies you from any judgment on that issue.

 

[nuhuh]

Bush's management of the war was incompetent and that is a fact and Obama's management of the withdrawal was weak but had more to do with internal Iraq squabbling than anything else. The fact remains we should have never gone to Iraq and if we had not the Middle East would not be what it is today.

You really don't read the arguments of the people you're debating, do you? Be honest

Yes I do, but usually there is so much historical rubbish I sometimes separate too much.

Separate from reality? If you can't respond to what people say, you aren't actually reading their arguments

When the writer is quoting fiction what other options become available? I spend too much time already debunking facts that have a life of their own and seem indestructible.

How do you debunk a point by not addressing what was actually said? That doesn't even make sense. You're debunking points in your head

Well let's recap. WMD was not in Iraq yet we had to discuss an already debunked and dis-proven point. We also discussed Al Qaeda, which was not in Iraq previous to the war and we had to rehash this debunked and dis-proven point.It helps if you come to the table with actual facts and not decades old disproven allegations don't you think?

 

[nuhuh]

Not a chance. Totally clueless? Opposed to sending troops anywhere? Sounds like he's ripe for conversion to your side.

Actually, I supported attacking Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban. They actually attacked us. I don't differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they were in it together. It was nation building there I opposed.

Also, he's clearly not against sending troops anywhere. He's signing off on Obama's murdering troops for 18 months by letting them continue to fight a war he'd already decided to lose

Speculation.

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

Wrong again, how about a National Intelligence Estimate? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

First of all, if you post an article to make a point, you need to provide the quote you are referring to, not just say here, read this.

Second, it says we were not "fighting" Al Qaeda in Iraq. You said Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, those are not the same thing, so you still didn't support your claim of great knowledge

But you should have already known all of this if you are actually trying to be in the middle of a debate about it. The bigger question is why don't you instead of quibbling about small points?

You can ask W why we went to fight Al Qaeda when they weren't there. He went to Iraq with the intention of fighting them, it isn't my fantasy we are discussing.

 

[TooTall]

He wasn't full of much of anything.

Bush was missing arrogance and blaming everything on Clinton.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

**** dubya may he rot in the 9th circle of hell with the rest of the traitors

 

[bornright]

Do you have one shred of evidence to back up your crazy claims? So the Iraq war was "illegal" and "unnecessary" lets hear you back up those claims. Any actual examples of Bush shredding the constitution or are you just blowing smoke? What specifically did Bush do to bring about the economic disaster?

I have found most of the dimwit libs out there foaming at the mouth with hatred of Bush but can't provide a substantiated example of what they accuse him of doing. They were told to hate Bush and complied like a mindless drone.

I never hated Bush. I hated his policies but, unlike the morons who hate the current, good man serving in the Whitehouse, I can disagree vehemently with a person and not hate them. And, the Iraq war was not necessary. Wars are necessary when a nation is attacked or threatened with attack. Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a threat. And the result is a hugely destabilized region. As for the legality, the claim was that the attack on Iraq was to enforce UN sanctions but the UN never authorized the use of force. The Patriot Act shredded the constitution. GITMO violates the constitution. And Bush was not alone in getting the blame for the recession. That blame goes all around and across party lines. But, he was at the helm when the ship crashed so he is responsible.

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

You forgot to mention that quite a number of Democrats who originally voted no demanded a 2nd vote so they could change their vote to yes after voters yelled at them. Then after Democrats took control of congress in 2007 they had two years to defund the Iraq war and didn't.

Typical with libs you get half the story spun into a false narrative.

Be serious

You can't defund a war once boots are on the ground

Actually the Vietnam war was defunded. Truth is we for the most part had already pulled out.