Hillary Is A Warmonger

[easyt65]

I keep reading this from the left wing, how exactly did removing the Butcher of Baghdad, an invader of Kuwait, a user of WMD and instigated wars with Iran, destabilize the whole region?

I actually believe that the 1 good purpose Saddam Hussein did was to oppose Iran. His troops did kick Iran's ass several times.

I also believe that Saddam had MOSTLY complied with the U.N. regarding his WMD; however, he publicly stood up to the US and kept the appearance - a show of strength for Iran's sake - that he still had WMD, which is why he was stiff-arming the Inspectors etc because he did not want them to declare to the world - and Iran - that Iraq had no more WMD. The threat / illusion of having WMD (posturing) was important to Hussein. They just played the 'illusion' out too long and gave the US reason to invade.

 

[easyt65]

seriously? almost 8 years later and everything is still the fault of George Bush?

Obama's 'Legacy' should read that he was not a 'real' President, his own man who was able to do anything but was instead - his whole Presidency - a 'victim' of George Bush, incapable of ever stepping out of Bush's shadow / influence...thus, a 'failed' President who could not turn things around after 8 years

 

[Freewill]

I keep reading this from the left wing, how exactly did removing the Butcher of Baghdad, an invader of Kuwait, a user of WMD and instigated wars with Iran, destabilize the whole region?

I actually believe that the 1 good purpose Saddam Hussein did was to oppose Iran. His troops did kick Iran's ass several times.

I also believe that Saddam had MOSTLY complied with the U.N. regarding his WMD; however, he publicly stood up to the US and kept the appearance - a show of strength for Iran's sake - that he still had WMD, which is why he was stiff-arming the Inspectors etc because he did not want them to declare to the world - and Iran - that Iraq had no more WMD. The threat / illusion of having WMD (posturing) was important to Hussein. They just played the 'illusion' out too long and gave the US reason to invade.

Saddam's army did not "kick Iran's ass" several or anytime. If he was such a badass without WMD then why did he seem to need to lie about it? But I will admit you are right he did give the impression of having more than he actually did, much to his demise.

Admit it, if the ME countries really cared about Iraq or for that matter Afghanistan. They would have done something, anything about our military involvement. But they said almost nothing and did nothing. Because they knew that Saddam, a funder of terrorism, had to go.

Just a reminder of the Iraq-Iran war for those who may be too young to remember.

Iran-Iraq War - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

The protracted war between these neighboring Middle Eastern countries resulted in at least half a million casualties and several billion dollars’ worth of damages, but no real gains by other side. Started by Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein in September 1980, the war was marked by indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks, extensive use of chemical weapons and attacks on third-country oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Although Iraq was forced on the strategic defensive, Iran was unable to reconstitute effective armored formations for its air force and could not penetrate Iraq’s borders deeply enough to achieve decisive results. The end came in July 1988 with the acceptance UN Resolution 598.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's face it folks. A Hillary White House does not mean peace on Earth. If she maintains the policies of the current administration, you can expect not only a continued presence of American troops in the Middle-East, but an expansion into other areas.

She's responsible for the Russian reset, but the truth is, Russia doesn't respect her.

The fact is, at least half of the scandals during the Obama Administration were caused by Hillary.

Jesus, you've turned into a picture troll.

 

[Mudda]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

And there comes the 15+ year old debunked far left drone religious dogma..

Far left drones can not admit that ISIS grew by leaps and bounds after 2009 with the Obama cut and run.

See how the far left will always vote for worse than Bush every chance they get..

Obama wouldn't have had to "cut and run" if GW doesn't make the biggest military blunder since Custer and invade Iraq for no reason after 9/11.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I opposed the war in Iraq, the RWnuts called me, all of us who opposed it,

traitors, terrorist sympathizers, etc.

Now that same crowd has come around to my view, only because they have to in order to robotically oppose Hillary Clinton.

Are we going to call it Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or Hillary Derangement Syndrome?

 

[Mudda]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

We are no longer in Iraq.

The discussion is about Mrs. Tulza Clinton not Bush.

She's not responsible for what's going on in the ME, she wasn't president. You're just homophobic and hate lesbians.

And the far left drone religious narratives run without question or hesitation..

And yet they still vote for worse than Bush!

Bush put the Duh! in W. Dumbest president ever.

 

[Mudda]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

Bush sent troops to war in Iraq, affected regime change, liberated Iraq, and caused instability in the region.

Obama was entrusted with the security of Iraq to ensure it remained stable and liberated. He failed.

Obama failed in part because of his Syrian 'Red Line' disaster. After THAT 'Fail' he became obsessed with Assad and Syria, to the point where he started his own 'proxy war' using 'rebels' - ie 'terrorists' - to try to overthrow Assad. Those rebels turned out to be ISIS.

Obama supplied, armed, trained, and defended ISIS, tried to convince Americans they were nothing to worry about - a 'JV Team' - and that he had them contained. Like a redneck trying to kiss a pet rattlesnake, Obama got bit by his own pet...a 'snake' after all is still a 'snake'.
- He let his 'creation' / 'pet' invade Iraq, taking over large sections of the nation our military liberated at great cost.
- He let ISIS grow and spread - to Africa ,Belgium, France, the US...He declared to the world he had contained ISIS, only to have them embarrass him in front of the world ('Red Line Part 2'?) by executing the largest attack on France since WWII.

Helping 'rebels' - ie TERRORISTS - was one of Obama's 'things'. He decided he was going to help 'rebels' in Libya - Al Qaeida, who had for years been hiring Jihadists from around the world to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill US troops. He dragged the US into the middle of a civil war between Al Qaeida and a Libyan Dictator...on his own...without asking for the same authorization Bush received before he took the nation to war in Iraq. Qaddafi reportedly reached out to Hillary offering to leave, but Obama told her not to take his calls. Evidently Obama wanted Qaddafi dead and was willing to help Al Qaieda make that happen.

Bottom Line: Obama took the nation to war on his own, used our military to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 (and 9/11/12 - again Obama's 'pet snake' bites him) - take over their own country, giving terrorists in the world a safe haven. (Reminder - Bush vowed not to allow terrorists to have a safe haven in the world and used our military to make sure of it, whereas Obama used our military to help the perpetrators of 9/11/01 have an entire nation of their own as a safe haven. Great.)

Bush may have started to destabilize the Middle East, but Obama made it a whole lot worse. Obama just didn't arm and unleash ISIS on the Middle East. He unleashed it on the world. The genocide of Christians going on is partly his fault. He then dragged us into the middle of a civil war to aid the perpetrators of 9/11/01, who killed thousands of Americans.

Without Bush blundering into Iraq, none of what you just mentioned ever happens. But don't let fact get in your way now.

 

[Dot Com]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

^ that

W provided sexed-up *cough* "Intel" to people like Hillary so I hold W & Cheney & their kool aid- drinking sycophants like OP 1000% responsible for vietraq

 

[Mudda]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

We are no longer in Iraq.

The discussion is about Mrs. Tulza Clinton not Bush.

She's not responsible for what's going on in the ME, she wasn't president. You're just homophobic and hate lesbians.

Are you saying she wasn't SOS during the Libyan bombing? Are you saying She wasn't SOS while Obama was supplying Syrian rebels with weapons? You are saying that she wasn't the one who talked of a "reset" button with the Russians and got it shoved up her behind?

I guess the last sentence was an attempt at humor? Lesbians and I like the same things.

SOS does what the prez tells them to do. And I'm not defending Hillary, I'd never vote for her ever.

 

[easyt65]

I didn't say Saddam was a badass WITHOUT WMD...that's EXACTLY why he had to keep up the illusion that he had it and would use it. he gassed the Kurds, 'killing 2 birds with 1 stone': He dealt with an enemy and demonstrated he had them and was willing to use them.

And for the record:
"In the fall of 1988, the Iraqis displayed in Baghdad captured Iranian weapons amounting to more than three-quarters of the Iranian armor inventory and almost half of its artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers.

The Iran-Iraq war lasted nearly eight years, from September of 1980 until August of 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire."
Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)

While Iraq did have successes, and victories, in the Iraq-Iran war, invading Iran was a miscalculation that negatively impacted Iraq:
- "It strained Iraqi political and social life, and led to severe economic dislocations."

 

[Mudda]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

Bush sent troops to war in Iraq, affected regime change, liberated Iraq, and caused instability in the region.

Obama was entrusted with the security of Iraq to ensure it remained stable and liberated. He failed.

Obama failed in part because of his Syrian 'Red Line' disaster. After THAT 'Fail' he became obsessed with Assad and Syria, to the point where he started his own 'proxy war' using 'rebels' - ie 'terrorists' - to try to overthrow Assad. Those rebels turned out to be ISIS.

Obama supplied, armed, trained, and defended ISIS, tried to convince Americans they were nothing to worry about - a 'JV Team' - and that he had them contained. Like a redneck trying to kiss a pet rattlesnake, Obama got bit by his own pet...a 'snake' after all is still a 'snake'.
- He let his 'creation' / 'pet' invade Iraq, taking over large sections of the nation our military liberated at great cost.
- He let ISIS grow and spread - to Africa ,Belgium, France, the US...He declared to the world he had contained ISIS, only to have them embarrass him in front of the world ('Red Line Part 2'?) by executing the largest attack on France since WWII.

Helping 'rebels' - ie TERRORISTS - was one of Obama's 'things'. He decided he was going to help 'rebels' in Libya - Al Qaeida, who had for years been hiring Jihadists from around the world to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill US troops. He dragged the US into the middle of a civil war between Al Qaeida and a Libyan Dictator...on his own...without asking for the same authorization Bush received before he took the nation to war in Iraq. Qaddafi reportedly reached out to Hillary offering to leave, but Obama told her not to take his calls. Evidently Obama wanted Qaddafi dead and was willing to help Al Qaieda make that happen.

Bottom Line: Obama took the nation to war on his own, used our military to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 (and 9/11/12 - again Obama's 'pet snake' bites him) - take over their own country, giving terrorists in the world a safe haven. (Reminder - Bush vowed not to allow terrorists to have a safe haven in the world and used our military to make sure of it, whereas Obama used our military to help the perpetrators of 9/11/01 have an entire nation of their own as a safe haven. Great.)

Bush may have started to destabilize the Middle East, but Obama made it a whole lot worse. Obama just didn't arm and unleash ISIS on the Middle East. He unleashed it on the world. The genocide of Christians going on is partly his fault. He then dragged us into the middle of a civil war to aid the perpetrators of 9/11/01, who killed thousands of Americans.

I keep reading this from the left wing, how exactly did removing the Butcher of Baghdad, an invader of Kuwait, a user of WMD and instigated wars with Iran, destabilize the whole region?

WoW! Are you really that clueless? Amazing! Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and attacking him has destroyed Iraq completely and destabilized the area because Saddam at least could control his own territory, something the US invasion hasn't capable of doing, making the US army lamer than Saddam's army.

 

[easyt65]

Obama wouldn't have had to "cut and run" if GW doesn't make the biggest military blunder since Custer and invade Iraq for no reason after 9/11.

Custer was wiped out....we liberated Iraq.

Now if Custer had declared he had personally 'confined the Indians' only to have them massacre a settlement the next day - that would be Obama, in regards to ISIS and their attack on France.

 

[Freewill]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

Bush sent troops to war in Iraq, affected regime change, liberated Iraq, and caused instability in the region.

Obama was entrusted with the security of Iraq to ensure it remained stable and liberated. He failed.

Obama failed in part because of his Syrian 'Red Line' disaster. After THAT 'Fail' he became obsessed with Assad and Syria, to the point where he started his own 'proxy war' using 'rebels' - ie 'terrorists' - to try to overthrow Assad. Those rebels turned out to be ISIS.

Obama supplied, armed, trained, and defended ISIS, tried to convince Americans they were nothing to worry about - a 'JV Team' - and that he had them contained. Like a redneck trying to kiss a pet rattlesnake, Obama got bit by his own pet...a 'snake' after all is still a 'snake'.
- He let his 'creation' / 'pet' invade Iraq, taking over large sections of the nation our military liberated at great cost.
- He let ISIS grow and spread - to Africa ,Belgium, France, the US...He declared to the world he had contained ISIS, only to have them embarrass him in front of the world ('Red Line Part 2'?) by executing the largest attack on France since WWII.

Helping 'rebels' - ie TERRORISTS - was one of Obama's 'things'. He decided he was going to help 'rebels' in Libya - Al Qaeida, who had for years been hiring Jihadists from around the world to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill US troops. He dragged the US into the middle of a civil war between Al Qaeida and a Libyan Dictator...on his own...without asking for the same authorization Bush received before he took the nation to war in Iraq. Qaddafi reportedly reached out to Hillary offering to leave, but Obama told her not to take his calls. Evidently Obama wanted Qaddafi dead and was willing to help Al Qaieda make that happen.

Bottom Line: Obama took the nation to war on his own, used our military to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 (and 9/11/12 - again Obama's 'pet snake' bites him) - take over their own country, giving terrorists in the world a safe haven. (Reminder - Bush vowed not to allow terrorists to have a safe haven in the world and used our military to make sure of it, whereas Obama used our military to help the perpetrators of 9/11/01 have an entire nation of their own as a safe haven. Great.)

Bush may have started to destabilize the Middle East, but Obama made it a whole lot worse. Obama just didn't arm and unleash ISIS on the Middle East. He unleashed it on the world. The genocide of Christians going on is partly his fault. He then dragged us into the middle of a civil war to aid the perpetrators of 9/11/01, who killed thousands of Americans.

I keep reading this from the left wing, how exactly did removing the Butcher of Baghdad, an invader of Kuwait, a user of WMD and instigated wars with Iran, destabilize the whole region?

WoW! Are you really that clueless? Amazing! Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and attacking him has destroyed Iraq completely and destabilized the area because Saddam at least could control his own territory, something the US invasion hasn't capable of doing, making the US army lamer than Saddam's army.

Who said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? I certainly didn't. But the FACT that he did fund terrorism is well known. Unless you don't think suicide bombers are terrorists.

You still have not explained how removing the Butcher of Baghdad destabilized the entire region. Pleas elaborate.

If you really believe that can you tell me how that destabilized the region more so than Obama and Mrs. Tulza Clinton bombing the crap out of Libya and supplying the Syrian rebels with weapons has not?

 

[Mudda]

Obama wouldn't have had to "cut and run" if GW doesn't make the biggest military blunder since Custer and invade Iraq for no reason after 9/11.

Custer was wiped out....we liberated Iraq.

Now if Custer had declared he had personally 'confined the Indians' only to have them massacre a settlement the next day - that would be Obama, in regards to ISIS and their attack on France.

Iraq is completely destroyed and fractured into sectarian regions with radical muslims holding a chunk of it. Now you know.

 

[Mudda]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

Bush sent troops to war in Iraq, affected regime change, liberated Iraq, and caused instability in the region.

Obama was entrusted with the security of Iraq to ensure it remained stable and liberated. He failed.

Obama failed in part because of his Syrian 'Red Line' disaster. After THAT 'Fail' he became obsessed with Assad and Syria, to the point where he started his own 'proxy war' using 'rebels' - ie 'terrorists' - to try to overthrow Assad. Those rebels turned out to be ISIS.

Obama supplied, armed, trained, and defended ISIS, tried to convince Americans they were nothing to worry about - a 'JV Team' - and that he had them contained. Like a redneck trying to kiss a pet rattlesnake, Obama got bit by his own pet...a 'snake' after all is still a 'snake'.
- He let his 'creation' / 'pet' invade Iraq, taking over large sections of the nation our military liberated at great cost.
- He let ISIS grow and spread - to Africa ,Belgium, France, the US...He declared to the world he had contained ISIS, only to have them embarrass him in front of the world ('Red Line Part 2'?) by executing the largest attack on France since WWII.

Helping 'rebels' - ie TERRORISTS - was one of Obama's 'things'. He decided he was going to help 'rebels' in Libya - Al Qaeida, who had for years been hiring Jihadists from around the world to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill US troops. He dragged the US into the middle of a civil war between Al Qaeida and a Libyan Dictator...on his own...without asking for the same authorization Bush received before he took the nation to war in Iraq. Qaddafi reportedly reached out to Hillary offering to leave, but Obama told her not to take his calls. Evidently Obama wanted Qaddafi dead and was willing to help Al Qaieda make that happen.

Bottom Line: Obama took the nation to war on his own, used our military to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 (and 9/11/12 - again Obama's 'pet snake' bites him) - take over their own country, giving terrorists in the world a safe haven. (Reminder - Bush vowed not to allow terrorists to have a safe haven in the world and used our military to make sure of it, whereas Obama used our military to help the perpetrators of 9/11/01 have an entire nation of their own as a safe haven. Great.)

Bush may have started to destabilize the Middle East, but Obama made it a whole lot worse. Obama just didn't arm and unleash ISIS on the Middle East. He unleashed it on the world. The genocide of Christians going on is partly his fault. He then dragged us into the middle of a civil war to aid the perpetrators of 9/11/01, who killed thousands of Americans.

I keep reading this from the left wing, how exactly did removing the Butcher of Baghdad, an invader of Kuwait, a user of WMD and instigated wars with Iran, destabilize the whole region?

WoW! Are you really that clueless? Amazing! Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and attacking him has destroyed Iraq completely and destabilized the area because Saddam at least could control his own territory, something the US invasion hasn't capable of doing, making the US army lamer than Saddam's army.

Who said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? I certainly didn't. But the FACT that he did fund terrorism is well known. Unless you don't think suicide bombers are terrorists.

You still have not explained how removing the Butcher of Baghdad destabilized the entire region. Pleas elaborate.

If you really believe that can you tell me how that destabilized the region more so than Obama and Mrs. Tulza Clinton bombing the crap out of Libya and supplying the Syrian rebels with weapons has not?

Destroying Iraq fractured the country into sectarian regions of which muslim terrorists now hold a good chunk. Their central government is powerless to rebuilt or to fight off the terrorists. So you're saying that you didn't know this?

 

[Freewill]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

And there comes the 15+ year old debunked far left drone religious dogma..

Far left drones can not admit that ISIS grew by leaps and bounds after 2009 with the Obama cut and run.

See how the far left will always vote for worse than Bush every chance they get..

Obama wouldn't have had to "cut and run" if GW doesn't make the biggest military blunder since Custer and invade Iraq for no reason after 9/11.

Your memory of history seems to be a bit flawed. Obama didn't cut and run in Afghanistan and I never said he did. What he did do is increase the number of troops in Afghanistan and thus increase the casualty rate. Then when that does not work he admits defeat and has slowly withdrawn troops. I would have respected him more if he had completely withdrawn our troops and just keep a force to help secure the country. Which eventually, he did do. But to admit defeat and keep on fighting with no outcome expected is just wasting troops.

 

[Freewill]

It was a republican president GW Bush who launched us into the quagmire that is Iraq, and is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the region.
As for Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam is a terrorist group.
Now go back to your trekkie dolls.

Bush sent troops to war in Iraq, affected regime change, liberated Iraq, and caused instability in the region.

Obama was entrusted with the security of Iraq to ensure it remained stable and liberated. He failed.

Obama failed in part because of his Syrian 'Red Line' disaster. After THAT 'Fail' he became obsessed with Assad and Syria, to the point where he started his own 'proxy war' using 'rebels' - ie 'terrorists' - to try to overthrow Assad. Those rebels turned out to be ISIS.

Obama supplied, armed, trained, and defended ISIS, tried to convince Americans they were nothing to worry about - a 'JV Team' - and that he had them contained. Like a redneck trying to kiss a pet rattlesnake, Obama got bit by his own pet...a 'snake' after all is still a 'snake'.
- He let his 'creation' / 'pet' invade Iraq, taking over large sections of the nation our military liberated at great cost.
- He let ISIS grow and spread - to Africa ,Belgium, France, the US...He declared to the world he had contained ISIS, only to have them embarrass him in front of the world ('Red Line Part 2'?) by executing the largest attack on France since WWII.

Helping 'rebels' - ie TERRORISTS - was one of Obama's 'things'. He decided he was going to help 'rebels' in Libya - Al Qaeida, who had for years been hiring Jihadists from around the world to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill US troops. He dragged the US into the middle of a civil war between Al Qaeida and a Libyan Dictator...on his own...without asking for the same authorization Bush received before he took the nation to war in Iraq. Qaddafi reportedly reached out to Hillary offering to leave, but Obama told her not to take his calls. Evidently Obama wanted Qaddafi dead and was willing to help Al Qaieda make that happen.

Bottom Line: Obama took the nation to war on his own, used our military to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 (and 9/11/12 - again Obama's 'pet snake' bites him) - take over their own country, giving terrorists in the world a safe haven. (Reminder - Bush vowed not to allow terrorists to have a safe haven in the world and used our military to make sure of it, whereas Obama used our military to help the perpetrators of 9/11/01 have an entire nation of their own as a safe haven. Great.)

Bush may have started to destabilize the Middle East, but Obama made it a whole lot worse. Obama just didn't arm and unleash ISIS on the Middle East. He unleashed it on the world. The genocide of Christians going on is partly his fault. He then dragged us into the middle of a civil war to aid the perpetrators of 9/11/01, who killed thousands of Americans.

I keep reading this from the left wing, how exactly did removing the Butcher of Baghdad, an invader of Kuwait, a user of WMD and instigated wars with Iran, destabilize the whole region?

WoW! Are you really that clueless? Amazing! Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and attacking him has destroyed Iraq completely and destabilized the area because Saddam at least could control his own territory, something the US invasion hasn't capable of doing, making the US army lamer than Saddam's army.

Who said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? I certainly didn't. But the FACT that he did fund terrorism is well known. Unless you don't think suicide bombers are terrorists.

You still have not explained how removing the Butcher of Baghdad destabilized the entire region. Pleas elaborate.

If you really believe that can you tell me how that destabilized the region more so than Obama and Mrs. Tulza Clinton bombing the crap out of Libya and supplying the Syrian rebels with weapons has not?

Destroying Iraq fractured the country into sectarian regions of which muslim terrorists now hold a good chunk. Their central government is powerless to rebuilt or to fight off the terrorists. So you're saying that you didn't know this?

And yet we read of ISIS being pushed back in Iraq:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html?_r=0

 

[Freewill]

When I opposed the war in Iraq, the RWnuts called me, all of us who opposed it,

traitors, terrorist sympathizers, etc.

Now that same crowd has come around to my view, only because they have to in order to robotically oppose Hillary Clinton.

Are we going to call it Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or Hillary Derangement Syndrome?

No, we have not, you are still a traitor and terrorist sympathizer.

 

[easyt65]

And yet we read of ISIS being pushed back in Iraq:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html?_r=0

ISIS should NEVER have been in Iraq...thanks, Obama!