First call obama should be impeached.

[rightwinger]

Afghanistan made sense.....its execution did not

One of the largest tactical military blunders in US History......Iraq was another

Amazining how Bush managed to botch both

thats not what you said.....you mentioned Afghanistan like its a war the Republicans started.....when you and 90% of the Democrats were for it......what happened after it began is another story.....but going in was a joint venture.....

We are talking about the reasons the Republicans lost (remember that "because Obama is black" thing?)

In 2006, the Republicans were trounced in the elections because of their shameful execution of both wars.

In 2008, the Republicans were trounced because of their shameful handling of the economy

No wait....It was because Obama is Black

 

[daveman]

Nice attempt at diversion via the dumb act, but the fact remains that CON$ are whining that Obama is governing "against the will of the people" because right wing polls show a majority of Americans do not support Obama's policies, but have no problem with the fact that Bush LOST the popular vote and therefore was selected president "against the will of the people."

But in accordance with the Constitution and the electoral college vote.

Just as Obama is governing in accordance with the Constitution and Congressional voting, but that hasn't stopped CON$ from saying Obama is governing "against the will of the people" so therefore Bush was still selected president "against the will of the people."

I only use established CON$ervative rationalizations to expose the complete hypocrisy of the hate religion of CON$ervatism.

No, you use your skewed and distorted views of conservatism to reinforce your skewed and distorted views.

And do you have any idea how utterly childish the continued use of "CON$ervative" makes you look?

 

[skookerasbil]

I dont want him impeached!!!!

I want him to serve out his whole term so that this generation of independents makes sure they dont make the same mistake twice in their lifetime!!! They'll be much more skeptical of some future slick talking politician and focus in more on the substance. Obviously, this guy had radical written all over him and he got elected because independents ignored............totally..........his voting record and his associations.

Two more years and it will be cast in stone for them that you NEVER let a far lefty run the country!@!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

We are talking about the reasons the Republicans lost (remember that "because Obama is black" thing?)

In 2006, the Republicans were trounced in the elections because of their shameful execution of both wars.

In 2008, the Republicans were trounced because of their shameful handling of the economy

No wait....It was because Obama is Black

Rw quit dancing....you said the REPUBLICANS started 2 wars when in fact they only started 1......i agree with you on what happened after it began.....but they are only responsible for STARTING one not two.....

 

[rightwinger]

We are talking about the reasons the Republicans lost (remember that "because Obama is black" thing?)

In 2006, the Republicans were trounced in the elections because of their shameful execution of both wars.

In 2008, the Republicans were trounced because of their shameful handling of the economy

No wait....It was because Obama is Black

Rw quit dancing....you said the REPUBLICANS started 2 wars when in fact they only started 1......i agree with you on what happened after it began.....but they are only responsible for STARTING one not two.....

Wrong

History will show they started two. One was justified, one was not

Bush was Commander-in-Chief and he pulled the trigger on both conflicts. He will be condemned by History for his decisions on both

 

[DiveCon]

We are talking about the reasons the Republicans lost (remember that "because Obama is black" thing?)

In 2006, the Republicans were trounced in the elections because of their shameful execution of both wars.

In 2008, the Republicans were trounced because of their shameful handling of the economy

No wait....It was because Obama is Black

Rw quit dancing....you said the REPUBLICANS started 2 wars when in fact they only started 1......i agree with you on what happened after it began.....but they are only responsible for STARTING one not two.....

Wrong

History will show they started two. One was justified, one was not

Bush was Commander-in-Chief and he pulled the trigger on both conflicts. He will be condemned by History for his decisions on both

WRONG

history will show they started NEITHER
you are pathetic if you think either war was STARTED by the USA


hint for you leftwinger, 9/11 started the war in Afghanistan, and Saddam started the Iraq war by invading Kuwait
that is the FACTS JACK

 

[rightwinger]

Rw quit dancing....you said the REPUBLICANS started 2 wars when in fact they only started 1......i agree with you on what happened after it began.....but they are only responsible for STARTING one not two.....

Wrong

History will show they started two. One was justified, one was not

Bush was Commander-in-Chief and he pulled the trigger on both conflicts. He will be condemned by History for his decisions on both

WRONG

history will show they started NEITHER
you are pathetic if you think either war was STARTED by the USA


hint for you leftwinger, 9/11 started the war in Afghanistan, and Saddam started the Iraq war by invading Kuwait
that is the FACTS JACK

Both were discretionary attacks by the President. Neither the Governments or the people of Afghanistan or Iraq were involved in the 9-11 attacks. Terrorists who were resident in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia were involved. Bush chose to attack Afghanistan while he kissed up the Saudi Prince

 

[shintao]

Rw quit dancing....you said the REPUBLICANS started 2 wars when in fact they only started 1......i agree with you on what happened after it began.....but they are only responsible for STARTING one not two.....

Wrong

History will show they started two. One was justified, one was not

Bush was Commander-in-Chief and he pulled the trigger on both conflicts. He will be condemned by History for his decisions on both

WRONG

history will show they started NEITHER
you are pathetic if you think either war was STARTED by the USA


hint for you leftwinger, 9/11 started the war in Afghanistan, and Saddam started the Iraq war by invading Kuwait
that is the FACTS JACK

Interesting how you hold a war for the actions of 1 bin Laden who wasn't even an Afghanistan citizen, but has his roots in Sauda Arabia like most the other highjackers did.

Does this mean Bush had someone get his Geography degree at Yale for him? You really have to be insane to invade a nation, call it a war, all for one person you never captured. And you think Bush will be vindicated for that?

 

[DiveCon]

Wrong

History will show they started two. One was justified, one was not

Bush was Commander-in-Chief and he pulled the trigger on both conflicts. He will be condemned by History for his decisions on both

WRONG

history will show they started NEITHER
you are pathetic if you think either war was STARTED by the USA


hint for you leftwinger, 9/11 started the war in Afghanistan, and Saddam started the Iraq war by invading Kuwait
that is the FACTS JACK

Both were discretionary attacks by the President. Neither the Governments or the people of Afghanistan or Iraq were involved in the 9-11 attacks. Terrorists who were resident in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia were involved. Bush chose to attack Afghanistan while he kissed up the Saudi Prince

when the taliban wouldn't give up bin ladin, they became accessories

 

[ConHog]

Perhaps you left wing dummies were not aware that Saudi Arabia in fact was actively looking to kidnap and or kill Bin Laden themselves as early as 1990? Why would we invade a country which was looking to kill the mastermind behind 9/11 and not attack one which at minimum sympathized with him?

Osama bin Laden

Educate yourselves before you mouth off.

 

[rightwinger]

Perhaps you left wing dummies were not aware that Saudi Arabia in fact was actively looking to kidnap and or kill Bin Laden themselves as early as 1990? Why would we invade a country which was looking to kill the mastermind behind 9/11 and not attack one which at minimum sympathized with him?

Osama bin Laden

Educate yourselves before you mouth off.

Meanwhile, 16 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, they were funded by Saudis, the dogma and rhetoric of jihad came from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile Bush was holding hands and kissing the Saudi Prince because he was doing a "heckuva job" in fighting terrorism

 

[ConHog]

Perhaps you left wing dummies were not aware that Saudi Arabia in fact was actively looking to kidnap and or kill Bin Laden themselves as early as 1990? Why would we invade a country which was looking to kill the mastermind behind 9/11 and not attack one which at minimum sympathized with him?

Osama bin Laden

Educate yourselves before you mouth off.

Meanwhile, 16 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, they were funded by Saudis, the dogma and rhetoric of jihad came from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile Bush was holding hands and kissing the Saudi Prince because he was doing a "heckuva job" in fighting terrorism

16 of 19 were Saudis that hadn't stepped foot in Saudi Arabia for over a decade b/c if they had they would have gotten their damned heads chopped off.

You of course have no proof that anyone in Saudi Arabia financed 9/11, but I assure you that if you had the CIA also would have it and those individuals would have been brought to justice.

Saudi Arabia is a shitty ally, no doubt, but they had no interest in seeing us **** them up the way we were ******* up Afghanistan and Iraq and they certainly would have turned those folks over if there was proof.

 

[DiveCon]

Perhaps you left wing dummies were not aware that Saudi Arabia in fact was actively looking to kidnap and or kill Bin Laden themselves as early as 1990? Why would we invade a country which was looking to kill the mastermind behind 9/11 and not attack one which at minimum sympathized with him?

Osama bin Laden

Educate yourselves before you mouth off.

Meanwhile, 16 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, they were funded by Saudis, the dogma and rhetoric of jihad came from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile Bush was holding hands and kissing the Saudi Prince because he was doing a "heckuva job" in fighting terrorism

correction, 15 were Saudi nationals
but were not acting on behalf of the Saudi government

 

[daveman]

Perhaps you left wing dummies were not aware that Saudi Arabia in fact was actively looking to kidnap and or kill Bin Laden themselves as early as 1990? Why would we invade a country which was looking to kill the mastermind behind 9/11 and not attack one which at minimum sympathized with him?

Osama bin Laden

Educate yourselves before you mouth off.

Meanwhile, 16 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, they were funded by Saudis, the dogma and rhetoric of jihad came from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile Bush was holding hands and kissing the Saudi Prince because he was doing a "heckuva job" in fighting terrorism

It's funny how you lefties pretend you'd have supported Bush attacking Saudi. The simple truth is you opposed every single thing he did, simply because it was Bush. If he found a cure for cancer, you'd complain that he didn't do anything about gum disease.

 

[rightwinger]

Perhaps you left wing dummies were not aware that Saudi Arabia in fact was actively looking to kidnap and or kill Bin Laden themselves as early as 1990? Why would we invade a country which was looking to kill the mastermind behind 9/11 and not attack one which at minimum sympathized with him?

Osama bin Laden

Educate yourselves before you mouth off.

Meanwhile, 16 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, they were funded by Saudis, the dogma and rhetoric of jihad came from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile Bush was holding hands and kissing the Saudi Prince because he was doing a "heckuva job" in fighting terrorism

correction, 15 were Saudi nationals
but were not acting on behalf of the Saudi government

Were they acting on behalf of the Iraqi or Afghanistan Government?

 

[rightwinger]

Perhaps you left wing dummies were not aware that Saudi Arabia in fact was actively looking to kidnap and or kill Bin Laden themselves as early as 1990? Why would we invade a country which was looking to kill the mastermind behind 9/11 and not attack one which at minimum sympathized with him?

Osama bin Laden

Educate yourselves before you mouth off.

Meanwhile, 16 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, they were funded by Saudis, the dogma and rhetoric of jihad came from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile Bush was holding hands and kissing the Saudi Prince because he was doing a "heckuva job" in fighting terrorism

It's funny how you lefties pretend you'd have supported Bush attacking Saudi. The simple truth is you opposed every single thing he did, simply because it was Bush. If he found a cure for cancer, you'd complain that he didn't do anything about gum disease.

I'm afraid history shows you are incorrect. Bush had unparalleled popularity after 9-11. Over 80% supported him in his war on terrorism. He had bilateral support in Congress to do what needed to be done.
He also had worldwide support like I have never seen in my lifetime. Country after country offered their support after 9-11.

Within 18 months, Bush had pissed away all his goodwill and all his support by acting unilaterally, trumping up charges against Iraq, engaging in torture, denying human rights. It is amazing that a president can go from 80% popularity down to 26%. But Bush deserved it

 

[DiveCon]

Meanwhile, 16 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, they were funded by Saudis, the dogma and rhetoric of jihad came from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile Bush was holding hands and kissing the Saudi Prince because he was doing a "heckuva job" in fighting terrorism

correction, 15 were Saudi nationals
but were not acting on behalf of the Saudi government

Were they acting on behalf of the Iraqi or Afghanistan Government?

first off Iraq wasnt attacked as retaliation for 9/11

Afghanistan was because they gave safe harbor to Bin Laden


and here i though you lib morons supported the war in Afghanistan

 

[daveman]

Meanwhile, 16 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, they were funded by Saudis, the dogma and rhetoric of jihad came from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile Bush was holding hands and kissing the Saudi Prince because he was doing a "heckuva job" in fighting terrorism

It's funny how you lefties pretend you'd have supported Bush attacking Saudi. The simple truth is you opposed every single thing he did, simply because it was Bush. If he found a cure for cancer, you'd complain that he didn't do anything about gum disease.

I'm afraid history shows you are incorrect. Bush had unparalleled popularity after 9-11. Over 80% supported him in his war on terrorism. He had bilateral support in Congress to do what needed to be done.
He also had worldwide support like I have never seen in my lifetime. Country after country offered their support after 9-11.

Within 18 months, Bush had pissed away all his goodwill and all his support by acting unilaterally, trumping up charges against Iraq, engaging in torture, denying human rights. It is amazing that a president can go from 80% popularity down to 26%. But Bush deserved it

But the far left, where you are, never supported him at all in anything. You were all still butthurt about "stolen elections" and "selected not elected" -- and some of you still are! )

You would not have supported an invasion of SA.

 

[DiveCon]

It's funny how you lefties pretend you'd have supported Bush attacking Saudi. The simple truth is you opposed every single thing he did, simply because it was Bush. If he found a cure for cancer, you'd complain that he didn't do anything about gum disease.

I'm afraid history shows you are incorrect. Bush had unparalleled popularity after 9-11. Over 80% supported him in his war on terrorism. He had bilateral support in Congress to do what needed to be done.
He also had worldwide support like I have never seen in my lifetime. Country after country offered their support after 9-11.

Within 18 months, Bush had pissed away all his goodwill and all his support by acting unilaterally, trumping up charges against Iraq, engaging in torture, denying human rights. It is amazing that a president can go from 80% popularity down to 26%. But Bush deserved it

But the far left, where you are, never supported him at all in anything. You were all still butthurt about "stolen elections" and "selected not elected" -- and some of you still are! )

You would not have supported an invasion of SA.

hell, i remember them bitchin and fussin when the Afghanistan war wasnt over in the first week

 

[rightwinger]

It's funny how you lefties pretend you'd have supported Bush attacking Saudi. The simple truth is you opposed every single thing he did, simply because it was Bush. If he found a cure for cancer, you'd complain that he didn't do anything about gum disease.

I'm afraid history shows you are incorrect. Bush had unparalleled popularity after 9-11. Over 80% supported him in his war on terrorism. He had bilateral support in Congress to do what needed to be done.
He also had worldwide support like I have never seen in my lifetime. Country after country offered their support after 9-11.

Within 18 months, Bush had pissed away all his goodwill and all his support by acting unilaterally, trumping up charges against Iraq, engaging in torture, denying human rights. It is amazing that a president can go from 80% popularity down to 26%. But Bush deserved it

But the far left, where you are, never supported him at all in anything. You were all still butthurt about "stolen elections" and "selected not elected" -- and some of you still are! )

You would not have supported an invasion of SA.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am a registered Republican and voted for Reagan and Daddy Bush four times. I ,like most Americans supported Bush after the 9-11 attacks. I was willing to give him whatever he needed to get the sons of bitches.

However, once he started talking up invading Iraq, I realized he had a different agenda not related to fighting terrorism. I was also disgusted by his abandoning human rights and engaging in torture.