In one area there is NO Difference between Trump and Obama... narcissism!

[Harpy Eagle]

I do not know, I never got the idea that Bush II was a narcissist

If you believe he got us into Iraq to get Saddam for trying to assassinate his pappy, you would be force to admit that such a move indicates narcissistic tendencies.

But, of the last 10 POTUS, I agree that he was the least narcissistic.

I think he is a rather simple minded man that was easily manipulated by those around him.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[healthmyths]

I do not know, I never got the idea that Bush II was a narcissist

If you believe he got us into Iraq to get Saddam for trying to assassinate his pappy, you would be force to admit that such a move indicates narcissistic tendencies.

But, of the last 10 POTUS, I agree that he was the least narcissistic.

I think he is a rather simple minded man that was easily manipulated by those around him.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

GWB up until recently was in my estimation going down in history as a GREAT President.
And unlike you and most people on this board that make up subjective and totally uninformed opinions, here is why!
GWB endured events that NO other president has ever faced in their terms.
Please correct these facts if I am wrong because I'm fairly confident that they are accurate.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I do not know, I never got the idea that Bush II was a narcissist

If you believe he got us into Iraq to get Saddam for trying to assassinate his pappy, you would be force to admit that such a move indicates narcissistic tendencies.

But, of the last 10 POTUS, I agree that he was the least narcissistic.

I think he is a rather simple minded man that was easily manipulated by those around him.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

GWB up until recently was in my estimation going down in history as a GREAT President.
And unlike you and most people on this board that make up subjective and totally uninformed opinions, here is why!
GWB endured events that NO other president has ever faced in their terms.
Please correct these facts if I am wrong because I'm fairly confident that they are accurate.

View attachment 216981

Iraq alone would be enough to keep him from even being an ok president, let alone great.

Iraq was such a monumental mistake it will forever be the only thing he is ever judged by...as it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[healthmyths]

I do not know, I never got the idea that Bush II was a narcissist

If you believe he got us into Iraq to get Saddam for trying to assassinate his pappy, you would be force to admit that such a move indicates narcissistic tendencies.

But, of the last 10 POTUS, I agree that he was the least narcissistic.

I think he is a rather simple minded man that was easily manipulated by those around him.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

GWB up until recently was in my estimation going down in history as a GREAT President.
And unlike you and most people on this board that make up subjective and totally uninformed opinions, here is why!
GWB endured events that NO other president has ever faced in their terms.
Please correct these facts if I am wrong because I'm fairly confident that they are accurate.

View attachment 216981

Iraq alone would be enough to keep him from even being an ok president, let alone great.

Iraq was such a monumental mistake it will forever be the only thing he is ever judged by...as it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And yet your Democrat friends INSISTED on the "Liberation of Iraq" In fact there is a bill signed by Clinton the 1998 Liberation of Iraq".
See people like you constantly misinformed and grossly ignorant of exactly what was happened because YOU believe the anti-American MSM!

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

So again I have to re-educate someone like you regarding the middle east even though you were less than 5 years old living in Iran under the Shah.

PLUS I'm sure it didn't mean anything to you but if GWB hadn't liberated Iraq, more than 4 million Iraqi children would be dead today...courtesy of Saddam's refusal to
agree he had no WMDs! Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
or
these idiots who were against the Liberation of Iraq would be happy that the Per person GDP would still be at $637 in 2003 or now after 15 years Iraq GDP is $17,000 in 2017
If you asked Iraqis today which would they prefer.. $637 versus $17,000 a 2,669% increase
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

But of course you continue to put up subjective irrelevant comments with NO substantiation. Don't you get tired of being beaten by the FACTS?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I do not know, I never got the idea that Bush II was a narcissist

If you believe he got us into Iraq to get Saddam for trying to assassinate his pappy, you would be force to admit that such a move indicates narcissistic tendencies.

But, of the last 10 POTUS, I agree that he was the least narcissistic.

I think he is a rather simple minded man that was easily manipulated by those around him.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

GWB up until recently was in my estimation going down in history as a GREAT President.
And unlike you and most people on this board that make up subjective and totally uninformed opinions, here is why!
GWB endured events that NO other president has ever faced in their terms.
Please correct these facts if I am wrong because I'm fairly confident that they are accurate.

View attachment 216981

Iraq alone would be enough to keep him from even being an ok president, let alone great.

Iraq was such a monumental mistake it will forever be the only thing he is ever judged by...as it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And yet your Democrat friends INSISTED on the "Liberation of Iraq" In fact there is a bill signed by Clinton the 1998 Liberation of Iraq".
See people like you constantly misinformed and grossly ignorant of exactly what was happened because YOU believe the anti-American MSM!

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

So again I have to re-educate someone like you regarding the middle east even though you were less than 5 years old living in Iran under the Shah.

PLUS I'm sure it didn't mean anything to you but if GWB hadn't liberated Iraq, more than 4 million Iraqi children would be dead today...courtesy of Saddam's refusal to
agree he had no WMDs! Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
or
these idiots who were against the Liberation of Iraq would be happy that the Per person GDP would still be at $637 in 2003 or now after 15 years Iraq GDP is $17,000 in 2017
If you asked Iraqis today which would they prefer.. $637 versus $17,000 a 2,669% increase
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

But of course you continue to put up subjective irrelevant comments with NO substantiation. Don't you get tired of being beaten by the FACTS?

I have no Dem friends that you speak of and the fact the Dems liked the idea does not absolve Bush II of the fact his choice led to the death of more than 4000 American service members, more than 30,000 wounded American service members and a wasted 2.4 trillion and counting dollars. The true cost will never be known as the VA medical system absorbs more and more of the wounded as they suffer from the wounds suffered.

And what did we get for it? Some 30 year old Chem weapons in rusty shells and a region that is exponentially worse than prior to the attack.

Bush was the decider and he bears the verdict of history, a verdict of one of the worst decisions ever made.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[healthmyths]

If you believe he got us into Iraq to get Saddam for trying to assassinate his pappy, you would be force to admit that such a move indicates narcissistic tendencies.

But, of the last 10 POTUS, I agree that he was the least narcissistic.

I think he is a rather simple minded man that was easily manipulated by those around him.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

GWB up until recently was in my estimation going down in history as a GREAT President.
And unlike you and most people on this board that make up subjective and totally uninformed opinions, here is why!
GWB endured events that NO other president has ever faced in their terms.
Please correct these facts if I am wrong because I'm fairly confident that they are accurate.

View attachment 216981

Iraq alone would be enough to keep him from even being an ok president, let alone great.

Iraq was such a monumental mistake it will forever be the only thing he is ever judged by...as it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And yet your Democrat friends INSISTED on the "Liberation of Iraq" In fact there is a bill signed by Clinton the 1998 Liberation of Iraq".
See people like you constantly misinformed and grossly ignorant of exactly what was happened because YOU believe the anti-American MSM!

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

So again I have to re-educate someone like you regarding the middle east even though you were less than 5 years old living in Iran under the Shah.

PLUS I'm sure it didn't mean anything to you but if GWB hadn't liberated Iraq, more than 4 million Iraqi children would be dead today...courtesy of Saddam's refusal to
agree he had no WMDs! Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
or
these idiots who were against the Liberation of Iraq would be happy that the Per person GDP would still be at $637 in 2003 or now after 15 years Iraq GDP is $17,000 in 2017
If you asked Iraqis today which would they prefer.. $637 versus $17,000 a 2,669% increase
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

But of course you continue to put up subjective irrelevant comments with NO substantiation. Don't you get tired of being beaten by the FACTS?

I have no Dem friends that you speak of and the fact the Dems liked the idea does not absolve Bush II of the fact his choice led to the death of more than 4000 American service members, more than 30,000 wounded American service members and a wasted 2.4 trillion and counting dollars. The true cost will never be known as the VA medical system absorbs more and more of the wounded as they suffer from the wounds suffered.

And what did we get for it? Some 30 year old Chem weapons in rusty shells and a region that is exponentially worse than prior to the attack.

Bush was the decider and he bears the verdict of history, a verdict of one of the worst decisions ever made.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Well evidently you don't believe saving 4 million Iraqi childrens' lives was worth it. Or that helping a country raise it's standard of living over 2,000%.
Or as Scott Pelley pointed out WMDs were found...
2) Major deaths and destruction avoided that even CBS news acknowledged was a "WMD" practice by Saddam. Scott Pelley of CBS news declared WMDs were found!
It turns out Saddam Hussein did possess a weapon of mass destruction and he used it in a slaughter that few have heard of until now after the Gulf War in 1991, the dictator spent untold millions on this weapon, designed to exterminate an ancient civilization called the "Ma'dan," also known as the "Marsh Arabs."
In a five-year project 90 percent of the marshes were drained - an area of more than 3,000 square miles.
"... the marsh dwellers were important elements in the uprising against Saddam Hussein’s regime. To end the rebellion, the regime implemented an intensive system of drainage and water diversion structures that desiccated over 90% of the marshes. The reed beds were also burned and poison introduced to the waters.
It is estimated that more than 500,000 were displaced, 95,000 of them to Iran, 300,000 internally displaced, and the remainder to other countries. By January 2003, the majority of the marshes were wastelands.
"As an engineer, I'm telling you, drying of the marshes is definitely not an easy task. It's a monumental engineering project," Alwash explained. "He put every piece of equipment available in Iraq under his control at the services of the projects needed to dry the marshes."
"Saddam was using water as a weapon?" Pelley asked.
"You know, the world was looking for weapons of mass destruction. And the evidence was right under its nose," Alwash.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658502n

So in summary... You would have been OK with 4 million kids starving. The environment being destroyed by Saddam. And of course you had NO problem with
AND you seem to ignore that efforts that Saddam encouraged for terrorism....

Plus you today poke fun of Trump's position about believability of the FBI and the CIA right???

Then was Bush wrong to believe the FBI/CIA regarding Saddam/Terrorists?
Powell presented several credible intelligence reports vetted by the Intelligence Community showing contacts between Iraq's Intelligence Service and al-Qaeda. Powell pointed out that Saddam had already supported Islamic Jihad, a radical Islamist group, and that there was no reason for him not to support al-Qaeda. Powell discussed concerns that Saddam may provide al-Qaeda with chemical or biological weapons. The Bush Administration view may have been influenced in part by Laurie Mylroie, whose presentation argued not only that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda have a cooperative relationship, but also that the Iraqi regime supported the 9/11 attacks as well. Mylroie maintains that the existence of a Saddam-9/11 link has been confirmed by evidence uncovered since Saddam's overthrow.[7][8] Dr. Robert S. Leiken of the Nixon Center disagreed, arguing that "the joint FBI-INS-police PENTTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising probably the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history—chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people—has turned up no evidence of Iraq's involvement; nor has the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and US troops combing through Saddam's computers."[9] Mylroie's theories continued to influence the administration long after they were discredited; reporters have revealed that she was working for the Pentagon as late as 2007, authoring at least two studies on Saddam for the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment.[10]

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia

Again facts seem to be a weakness you have TraitorGator!

 

[healthmyths]

I do not know, I never got the idea that Bush II was a narcissist

If you believe he got us into Iraq to get Saddam for trying to assassinate his pappy, you would be force to admit that such a move indicates narcissistic tendencies.

But, of the last 10 POTUS, I agree that he was the least narcissistic.

I think he is a rather simple minded man that was easily manipulated by those around him.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

GWB up until recently was in my estimation going down in history as a GREAT President.
And unlike you and most people on this board that make up subjective and totally uninformed opinions, here is why!
GWB endured events that NO other president has ever faced in their terms.
Please correct these facts if I am wrong because I'm fairly confident that they are accurate.

View attachment 216981

Iraq alone would be enough to keep him from even being an ok president, let alone great.

Iraq was such a monumental mistake it will forever be the only thing he is ever judged by...as it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The problem with you traitorgator is your very very short attention span.
I know that the following is rather long and complex to follow but I've tried to make the REALITIES as clear as possible.
4 Major events the likes NOT one predecessor ever had to face in their presidential terms.
Many had one or two events,
FDR depression/Pearl Harbor/WWII...
Reagan after Carter (I voted for Carter!!!) the misery index at the highest.. prime interest rate 21% unemployment 10%, Inflation 12.4%
but none had these four major events in their terms.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well evidently you don't believe saving 4 million Iraqi childrens' lives was worth it.

It is not the job of the US military to save children, if it were then we would have invaded Africa long ago and saved all those children. Why are you not calling for us to go in an save those children. Oh yeah, they are not living on top of an massive oil field.

Or that helping a country raise it's standard of living over 2,000%.

What a total bullshit number, you just pulled that out of your ass. And once again it is not the job of the US military to worry about people's standards of living.

Or as Scott Pelley pointed out WMDs were found...
2) Major deaths and destruction avoided that even CBS news acknowledged was a "WMD" practice by Saddam. Scott Pelley of CBS news declared WMDs were found!
It turns out Saddam Hussein did possess a weapon of mass destruction and he used it in a slaughter that few have heard of until now after the Gulf War in 1991, the dictator spent untold millions on this weapon, designed to exterminate an ancient civilization called the "Ma'dan," also known as the "Marsh Arabs."

Yes, they found WMDs. They found 30 year old chem weapon arty shells that were rusting away. This is not what we were told when we were tricked into supporting the invasion of a sovereign nation.

So in summary... You would have been OK with 4 million kids starving. The environment being destroyed by Saddam. And of course you had NO problem

One more time, none of those things are the job of the US military to worry about.

with AND you seem to ignore that efforts that Saddam encouraged for terrorism....

Less so than Iran and Saudis Arabia...where is your plea for us to invade them?

Plus you today poke fun of Trump's position about believability of the FBI and the CIA right???

I do? That is news to me.

Again facts seem to be a weakness you have TraitorGator!

The fact is that we invaded a sovereign nation that was no threat to the US and cost the lives of more than 4000 US service members (something you do not seem to give a shit about), more than 30,000 wounded (something else you do not care about) and more than 2.4 trillion dollars and counting.

What did we get for our lives and money...ISIS. Pretty shitty trade if you ask me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The problem with you traitorgator is your very very short attention span.

Life is short and there is a lot going on. I give each issue the time and attention it deserves.

Since we are letting each other know what our problems are, you have two main problems.

The first is that you are a dishonest coward. You post some shit about have interacted with more people than me, and when I show that to be bullshit you act like you never said it and you move on. Then you come up with some bullshit about me never having to make decision that affected the lives of people, to which I shove back up your ass, so you move on and pretend you never brought it up. This is your MO.

Second, you have this high and mighty view of yourself and then you use 2nd grade nicknames, which just shows you have the intellect of a 2nd grader.

I know that the following is rather long and complex to follow but I've tried to make the REALITIES as clear as possible.
4 Major events the likes NOT one predecessor ever had to face in their presidential terms.
Many had one or two events,
FDR depression/Pearl Harbor/WWII...
Reagan after Carter (I voted for Carter!!!) the misery index at the highest.. prime interest rate 21% unemployment 10%, Inflation 12.4%
but none had these four major events in their terms.

Yes, Bush II had some terrible things to face, but the reality is that he fucked most of them up, so that is not really working in his favor.

9/11...his response was to invade Afghanistan, which made sense except his plan was not to just go in and kill the bad guys and leave, he was going to transform Afghanistan into a western style democracy. Well, here we are 17 years later and we are still losing troops there and not a ******* thing has changed. The day one of our presidents finally gets the balls to pull us out it will go back to what it when before we got there. Then his other response to 9/11 was to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and kill off 4000 plus of our own men and women. And he signed the PATRIOT Act which is still being used to screw us out of our rights and freedoms. So yeah, Bush had to deal with 9/11 and he fucked it up.

Katrina...fucked that up as well...he put one of his "good old boys" in charge of FEMA, a guy with zero experience in such things, and thought "what could go wrong"...well Katrina went wrong. So, strike 2 for you boy.

The anthrax attack, the White House fucked it up, they were slow to respond and lied to the America people about what was going on, and the icing on the cake is they were used as part of the bullshit reasons to invade Iraq. Strike 3 for your boy.

 

[healthmyths]

The problem with you traitorgator is your very very short attention span.

Life is short and there is a lot going on. I give each issue the time and attention it deserves.

Since we are letting each other know what our problems are, you have two main problems.

The first is that you are a dishonest coward. You post some shit about have interacted with more people than me, and when I show that to be bullshit you act like you never said it and you move on. Then you come up with some bullshit about me never having to make decision that affected the lives of people, to which I shove back up your ass, so you move on and pretend you never brought it up. This is your MO.

Second, you have this high and mighty view of yourself and then you use 2nd grade nicknames, which just shows you have the intellect of a 2nd grader.

I know that the following is rather long and complex to follow but I've tried to make the REALITIES as clear as possible.
4 Major events the likes NOT one predecessor ever had to face in their presidential terms.
Many had one or two events,
FDR depression/Pearl Harbor/WWII...
Reagan after Carter (I voted for Carter!!!) the misery index at the highest.. prime interest rate 21% unemployment 10%, Inflation 12.4%
but none had these four major events in their terms.

Yes, Bush II had some terrible things to face, but the reality is that he fucked most of them up, so that is not really working in his favor.

9/11...his response was to invade Afghanistan, which made sense except his plan was not to just go in and kill the bad guys and leave, he was going to transform Afghanistan into a western style democracy. Well, here we are 17 years later and we are still losing troops there and not a ******* thing has changed. The day one of our presidents finally gets the balls to pull us out it will go back to what it when before we got there. Then his other response to 9/11 was to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and kill off 4000 plus of our own men and women. And he signed the PATRIOT Act which is still being used to screw us out of our rights and freedoms. So yeah, Bush had to deal with 9/11 and he fucked it up.

Katrina...fucked that up as well...he put one of his "good old boys" in charge of FEMA, a guy with zero experience in such things, and thought "what could go wrong"...well Katrina went wrong. So, strike 2 for you boy.

The anthrax attack, the White House fucked it up, they were slow to respond and lied to the America people about what was going on, and the icing on the cake is they were used as part of the bullshit reasons to invade Iraq. Strike 3 for your boy.

WHERE ARE YOUR LINKS?
NO proof of your wild accusations! NONE.
What's even worse is YOU have made this wild unsubstantiated claims BASED on the extremely BIASED MSM's reporting!
Seriously you and idiots like you that believe the MSM's reporting (which by the way less than 6% of Americans are like you believe every word the MSM puts out)
With 2,014 adults surveyed, only 6% expressed “a lot of confidence” in the press.
Only 6% Trust Media, But It Should Be Less | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

So here again are the FACTS with LINKs!

In October 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush famously derided the concept of nation building and the suggestion that the U.S. military should take the lead in building up failed states. “Maybe I’m missing something here,” Mr. Bush said in a debate with Democratic rival Al Gore. “I mean, are we going to have some kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”
Bush a convert to nation building

So what changed? 9/11 DUMMY!!
Where did the 9/11 attackers come from? Afghanistan.
So the first effort by Bush et.al. was to clear Afghanistan of Al-queda etc.
Were they successful? NOPE.
Why well that's for more knowledgable expertise than me and DEFINITELY you... but you were 100% wrong about Bush... initially!

NOW Katrina... Dummies like you again believe the biased MSM... way to go

In New Orleans, those in peril and those in power have pointed the finger squarely at the federal government for the delayed relief effort.
But experts say when natural disasters strike, it is the primary responsibility of state and local governments -- not the federal government -- to respond.
Instead of sending city buses to evacuate those who could not make it out on their own, people in New Orleans were told to go to the Superdome and the Convention Center, where no one provided sufficient sustenance or security.
'Lives Would Have Been Saved'
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said "80 percent" of the city was evacuated before the storm hit, but Bob Williams says that's not good enough.
NOW DUMMIES LIKE you without ANY research make your dumb ass comment... READ!!!

There's no question the federal government plays a major role in disaster relief.
But federal officials say in order to get involved, they must first be asked to do so by state officials.
As one FEMA official told ABC News, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco failed to submit a request for help in a timely manner.
Katrina Response: Who's to Blame?

Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred within the United States over the course of several weeks beginning on September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two Democratic U.S. Senators (Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy), killing 5 people and infecting 17 others. According to the FBI, the ensuing investigation became "one of the largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement".[3]

A major focus in the early years of the investigation was a bio-weapons expert named Steven Hatfill, who was eventually exonerated. Another suspect, Bruce Edwards Ivins, became a focus of investigation around April 4, 2005. Ivins was a scientist who worked at the government's biodefense labs at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. On April 11, 2007, Ivins was put under periodic surveillance and an FBI document stated that "Bruce Edwards Ivins is an extremely sensitive suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks."[4] On July 29, 2008, Ivins committed suicide with an overdose of acetaminophen.[5]

On August 6, 2008, based on DNA evidence leading to an anthrax vial in Ivins's lab, federal prosecutors declared Ivins to be the sole culprit of the crime.[6] Two days later, Senator Chuck Grassley and Rep. Rush Holt called for hearings into the DOJ and FBI's handling of the investigation.[7][8] On February 19, 2010, the FBI formally closed its investigation.[9]
2001 anthrax attacks - Wikipedia

So where in the ABOVE facts was there any issue about GWB screwing up the investigations?
WHERE are YOUR links TRAITOR GATOR?

Once again no scholarship. NO effort to prove. NOTHING but your subjective, personal vindictive and most importantly dependency on the MSM for your information!
No wonder as I pointed out above your crowd i.e. believe everything the MSM puts out is getting smaller and smaller!

 

[miketx]

Barack Obama was, as president, eloquent.
His language was sophisticated. He spoke in measured tones and advanced informed, reasoned dialogue.

Donald Trump is inarticulate and brusque.
His language is simplistic. He dishes out invective.
He shows so little regard for the facts that some say he’s the exemplar of a “bullshit artist.”
And he promotes a dialogue of the deaf.
Trump and Obama have one surprising thing in common – the words they use

BUT.... based on the above research the below chart shows:
Trump employs almost 50 percent more first-person pronouns than the second most heavily self-referential president after Obama, Gerald Ford.

So what is the difference in the country under Trump versus Obama?
Well we all know the economy is booming so much so this morning in a well known popular national chain restaurant even one of the help asked a patron..."if you know someone that needs a job WE ARE hiring"!!!
And the economic statistics bear out the energy in our economy.
So if Obama and Trump are so self-centered what happened between the two's efforts?
Well maybe these actual STATEMENTS and ACTIONS by Obama which Trump would NEVER say or do but Trump is doing the exact opposite best illustrate why even though under Obama the economy didn't really tank... it didn't explode like it is now.

Now if you truly honest people look at the below statements and actions by Obama explain how any business would want to improve with these statements and actions. And these are just a few of Obama's efforts to tear down America, our economy and basically American way of life because fundamentally Obama considers himself a world citizen first ... THEN American. An attitude that most Americans don't abide simply because the world needs more countries LIKE America and fewer countries like Venezuela or socialists that Obama would prefer!
View attachment 216803

View attachment 216802

The economy is not "exploding". It is continuing the trajectory set by the previous administration.

Oh really? The Obama care mandate is gone, Obama's job killing EPA regulations are gone .....their is no fear of the National minimum wage will be raised ..


.

Epa regs weren't "job killing" they were environment protecting. The Obamacare mandate had little to nothing to do with the economy. There is still talk if raising the minimum wage.

 

[deanrd]

Well for the first thing I unlike you have never watched "Jersey Shores" so I have no idea what it is other than some TV series that people like you waste time watching.

One does not need to watch something to know what it contains. I have never seen Debbie Does Dallas, but I know it is a porn flick.

I guess you by dint of your "Jersey Shores" passion has a poor reading comprehension as the FACTS I've met probably 1,000s more people than you with your simply programming job working for someone else limits your exposure to all sorts of successful people. As a result you didn't comprehend the "major" lesson I've learned i.e. don't make assumptions based on subjective, and especially uninformed sources as it appears you have.

It is a ridiculous claim to make and one that has no basis in fact and is just your own subjective view of the situation. In order for you to have met 1,000s more people than I you would have to have met more than 100,000,000 people. I do not believe that you have met 100,000,000 people.

I worship no one. So when you make the statement "I understand fully what Trump is doing" I have to laugh at how you jumped to that conclusion because you are so wrong when you say I worship him! Once again you have proven the point about how people like you make poor assumptions based on poor information.

your words suggest otherwise.

As I've said Trump's prime motivation is to make America Great again... because people like Cuomo who says America 'was never that great' and evidently you don't seem to comprehend that America was Great but moving in a negative direction under people evidently like you, Cuomo,

.

I understand this is your opinion of Trump, I disagree with it. I also disagree with both Cuomo and Trump, not only was America great, it is great and was great when Trump was running for office, it never quit being great.

This is where you go the most wrong, the assumption that the country was not great on Nov 6 2016.

The fact is the country has been great no question.
Trump like any GOOD salesperson to get their point across exaggerated when the statement "Make America Great...again"... was made and I agree.
The problem was with statements and actions like the below Obama was tearing our country apart.
One simple illustration of Obama's inability to trust the people that worked for him (AS TRUMP does and sometimes is penalized for that...no question..) Obama pushed through a lot of "politically correct" policies one of which was part of the military's "Rules of Engagement" ROE.

Read what one of our soldier's had to say about this "policy" that really hamstrung the military ...UNTIL Trump came in to let them do what they do best.

A laminated card ROE with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight;
one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy

Now really be honest. With Obama's INTEREST being Global and being politically correct and being an Angry black man (which I'll show you where he admits that).
Dreams from My Father

Read pages 94 and 95... and you will see what I mean.

What kind of "greatness" was our country GOING to be with mentalities exhibited by Obama's statements and actions like below?
All of which Trump would NEVER say or do!

View attachment 216862

One thing that you fail to seem to grasp, no matter what a piece of shit Obama was, that has no bearing on what Trump is. It truly seems your only defense of Trump now is "well, he is better than Obama".

That is akin to someone saying "well, lung cancer is better than pancreatic cancer".

Obama was a great president.

It's Republicans that are pieces of sh!t. For one, they are as racist as fuk. Two, they lie all the time. Three, did I say these are racist? Good, cuz they are.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well for the first thing I unlike you have never watched "Jersey Shores" so I have no idea what it is other than some TV series that people like you waste time watching.

One does not need to watch something to know what it contains. I have never seen Debbie Does Dallas, but I know it is a porn flick.

I guess you by dint of your "Jersey Shores" passion has a poor reading comprehension as the FACTS I've met probably 1,000s more people than you with your simply programming job working for someone else limits your exposure to all sorts of successful people. As a result you didn't comprehend the "major" lesson I've learned i.e. don't make assumptions based on subjective, and especially uninformed sources as it appears you have.

It is a ridiculous claim to make and one that has no basis in fact and is just your own subjective view of the situation. In order for you to have met 1,000s more people than I you would have to have met more than 100,000,000 people. I do not believe that you have met 100,000,000 people.

I worship no one. So when you make the statement "I understand fully what Trump is doing" I have to laugh at how you jumped to that conclusion because you are so wrong when you say I worship him! Once again you have proven the point about how people like you make poor assumptions based on poor information.

your words suggest otherwise.

As I've said Trump's prime motivation is to make America Great again... because people like Cuomo who says America 'was never that great' and evidently you don't seem to comprehend that America was Great but moving in a negative direction under people evidently like you, Cuomo,

.

I understand this is your opinion of Trump, I disagree with it. I also disagree with both Cuomo and Trump, not only was America great, it is great and was great when Trump was running for office, it never quit being great.

This is where you go the most wrong, the assumption that the country was not great on Nov 6 2016.

The fact is the country has been great no question.
Trump like any GOOD salesperson to get their point across exaggerated when the statement "Make America Great...again"... was made and I agree.
The problem was with statements and actions like the below Obama was tearing our country apart.
One simple illustration of Obama's inability to trust the people that worked for him (AS TRUMP does and sometimes is penalized for that...no question..) Obama pushed through a lot of "politically correct" policies one of which was part of the military's "Rules of Engagement" ROE.

Read what one of our soldier's had to say about this "policy" that really hamstrung the military ...UNTIL Trump came in to let them do what they do best.

A laminated card ROE with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight;
one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy

Now really be honest. With Obama's INTEREST being Global and being politically correct and being an Angry black man (which I'll show you where he admits that).
Dreams from My Father

Read pages 94 and 95... and you will see what I mean.

What kind of "greatness" was our country GOING to be with mentalities exhibited by Obama's statements and actions like below?
All of which Trump would NEVER say or do!

View attachment 216862

One thing that you fail to seem to grasp, no matter what a piece of shit Obama was, that has no bearing on what Trump is. It truly seems your only defense of Trump now is "well, he is better than Obama".

That is akin to someone saying "well, lung cancer is better than pancreatic cancer".

Obama was a great president.

It's Republicans that are pieces of sh!t. For one, they are as racist as fuk. Two, they lie all the time. Three, did I say these are racist? Good, cuz they are.

Obama was a weak leader and in way over his head. He did not know when to cut and run and we ended up with the ACA as a result. He did not have the votes to get the bill he wanted but he was too stubborn to wait so he wasted all of his political capital on a shitty bill that has been driving hospitals out of business since the day it was signed.

Other than that he was just a figure head that did not do much at all, he was just there enjoying the lifestyle of a rock star.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Barack Obama was, as president, eloquent.
His language was sophisticated. He spoke in measured tones and advanced informed, reasoned dialogue.

Donald Trump is inarticulate and brusque.
His language is simplistic. He dishes out invective.
He shows so little regard for the facts that some say he’s the exemplar of a “bullshit artist.”
And he promotes a dialogue of the deaf.
Trump and Obama have one surprising thing in common – the words they use

BUT.... based on the above research the below chart shows:
Trump employs almost 50 percent more first-person pronouns than the second most heavily self-referential president after Obama, Gerald Ford.

So what is the difference in the country under Trump versus Obama?
Well we all know the economy is booming so much so this morning in a well known popular national chain restaurant even one of the help asked a patron..."if you know someone that needs a job WE ARE hiring"!!!
And the economic statistics bear out the energy in our economy.
So if Obama and Trump are so self-centered what happened between the two's efforts?
Well maybe these actual STATEMENTS and ACTIONS by Obama which Trump would NEVER say or do but Trump is doing the exact opposite best illustrate why even though under Obama the economy didn't really tank... it didn't explode like it is now.

Now if you truly honest people look at the below statements and actions by Obama explain how any business would want to improve with these statements and actions. And these are just a few of Obama's efforts to tear down America, our economy and basically American way of life because fundamentally Obama considers himself a world citizen first ... THEN American. An attitude that most Americans don't abide simply because the world needs more countries LIKE America and fewer countries like Venezuela or socialists that Obama would prefer!
View attachment 216803

View attachment 216802

The economy is not "exploding". It is continuing the trajectory set by the previous administration.

Oh really? The Obama care mandate is gone, Obama's job killing EPA regulations are gone .....their is no fear of the National minimum wage will be raised ..


.

Epa regs weren't "job killing" they were environment protecting. The Obamacare mandate had little to nothing to do with the economy. There is still talk if raising the minimum wage.

I would be embarrassed if I were you for that post .Obama care kept the economy in limbo as it made it's way up the courts bussiness didn't invest because they didn't know the out come, not to mention the 30 hour work week.

Of course Obama's EPA rules and regulations were job killers do you know how many new ones he stuck on bussiness ???


You are being redirected...



Nearly 4,000 EPA Regulations Issued Under President Obama

Submitted by Jsykes@atr.org on Wednesday, July 6th, 2016, 2,25 PM


The House Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing this week to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory activity under the Obama Administration, which highlighted the President and EPA’s blatant disregard for the Constitution and State authority. The hearing also addressed the drastic impact increased regulations have on U.S. energy and the economy as a whole.

Since President Obama assumed office in 2009, the EPA has published over 3,900rules, averaging almost 500 annually, and amounting to over 33,000 new pages in the Federal Register. The hearing highlighted growing concerns from states and affected entities about the mounting complexity, costs, and legality of EPA rules.

The compliance costs associated with EPA regulations under Obama number in the hundreds of billions and have grown by more than $50 billion in annual costs since Obama took office. Such high costs, especially those related to the energy sector, ripple throughout the economy, impacting GDP, killing thousands of jobs, and increasing the cost of consumer goods

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In October 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush famously derided the concept of nation building and the suggestion that the U.S. military should take the lead in building up failed states. “Maybe I’m missing something here,” Mr. Bush said in a debate with Democratic rival Al Gore. “I mean, are we going to have some kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”
Bush a convert to nation building

So what changed? 9/11 DUMMY!!
Where did the 9/11 attackers come from? Afghanistan.
So the first effort by Bush et.al. was to clear Afghanistan of Al-queda etc.
Were they successful? NOPE.
Why well that's for more knowledgable expertise than me and DEFINITELY you... but you were 100% wrong about Bush... initially!

Once again you put way more emphasis on what people say instead of what they do. I care about actions, not words. You seem to not care what someone does as long as they say the right things.

I do not care that Bush derided the concept of nation building, because when the rubber met the road he tried it twice...and failed twice.

The answer to 9/11 was never nation building, that is where Bush fucked up, well that and attacking a nation that had ZERO to do with 9/11.

Why did they fail to clear Afghanistan of Al-queda? Because they choose to divert resource and invade a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation.

All his pretty words do not mean dick, because his actions were that of a complete and total fool and the end result is one of the worst presidents in the history of this country.

 

[healthmyths]

In October 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush famously derided the concept of nation building and the suggestion that the U.S. military should take the lead in building up failed states. “Maybe I’m missing something here,” Mr. Bush said in a debate with Democratic rival Al Gore. “I mean, are we going to have some kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”
Bush a convert to nation building

So what changed? 9/11 DUMMY!!
Where did the 9/11 attackers come from? Afghanistan.
So the first effort by Bush et.al. was to clear Afghanistan of Al-queda etc.
Were they successful? NOPE.
Why well that's for more knowledgable expertise than me and DEFINITELY you... but you were 100% wrong about Bush... initially!

Once again you put way more emphasis on what people say instead of what they do. I care about actions, not words. You seem to not care what someone does as long as they say the right things.

I do not care that Bush derided the concept of nation building, because when the rubber met the road he tried it twice...and failed twice.

The answer to 9/11 was never nation building, that is where Bush fucked up, well that and attacking a nation that had ZERO to do with 9/11.

Why did they fail to clear Afghanistan of Al-queda? Because they choose to divert resource and invade a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation.

All his pretty words do not mean dick, because his actions were that of a complete and total fool and the end result is one of the worst presidents in the history of this country.

NO Proof! No links. All you do is write YOUR opinion! Are you an expert? A military expert? A foreign policy expert? Where do you come up with these totally subjective and
definitely MSM produced BIASED opinions? Not one lick of proof or links.
See that's where you lose many people like those of us that doubt the MSM. You state an opinion with nothing to back it up!

Also where did Bush fail "twice"?
Are you saying that when an Iraqi living under Saddam with a GDP per capita of in 2003 was $637 they were better off then they are in 2017 with a GDP per person $17,000?
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

Tell you what... if that is a "failure" you may want to talk to the Iraqis today!
Fifteen years after the US entered Iraq, Baghdad breathes new life
In most cities, startups and new businesses signify stability, and Hadad says he's hopeful the country will continue to improve economically.

"The fact of the matter is, it's first time in 7,000 years of history Iraq has a democracy. We either take it and run with it, or we waste the opportunity," he says.
"ISIS has been defeated militarily. The economy is rebounding. There's people who are going into the private sector and doing great things. There is hope. And it is tangible."
Fifteen years after the US entered Iraq, Baghdad breathes new life

NOW you were making some really really dumb comment about Iraq!

TraitorGator... stop guessing! Start doing some honest investigation and quit depending on the biased MSM!

You look so foolish when you try to make personal, unsubstantiated, no links provided comments that are just personal, subjective and really uninformed!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In October 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush famously derided the concept of nation building and the suggestion that the U.S. military should take the lead in building up failed states. “Maybe I’m missing something here,” Mr. Bush said in a debate with Democratic rival Al Gore. “I mean, are we going to have some kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”
Bush a convert to nation building

So what changed? 9/11 DUMMY!!
Where did the 9/11 attackers come from? Afghanistan.
So the first effort by Bush et.al. was to clear Afghanistan of Al-queda etc.
Were they successful? NOPE.
Why well that's for more knowledgable expertise than me and DEFINITELY you... but you were 100% wrong about Bush... initially!

Once again you put way more emphasis on what people say instead of what they do. I care about actions, not words. You seem to not care what someone does as long as they say the right things.

I do not care that Bush derided the concept of nation building, because when the rubber met the road he tried it twice...and failed twice.

The answer to 9/11 was never nation building, that is where Bush fucked up, well that and attacking a nation that had ZERO to do with 9/11.

Why did they fail to clear Afghanistan of Al-queda? Because they choose to divert resource and invade a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation.

All his pretty words do not mean dick, because his actions were that of a complete and total fool and the end result is one of the worst presidents in the history of this country.

NO Proof! No links. All you do is write YOUR opinion! Are you an expert? A military expert? A foreign policy expert? Where do you come up with these totally subjective and
definitely MSM produced BIASED opinions? Not one lick of proof or links.
See that's where you lose many people like those of us that doubt the MSM. You state an opinion with nothing to back it up!

Also where did Bush fail "twice"?
Are you saying that when an Iraqi living under Saddam with a GDP per capita of in 2003 was $637 they were better off then they are in 2017 with a GDP per person $17,000?
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

Tell you what... if that is a "failure" you may want to talk to the Iraqis today!
Fifteen years after the US entered Iraq, Baghdad breathes new life
In most cities, startups and new businesses signify stability, and Hadad says he's hopeful the country will continue to improve economically.

"The fact of the matter is, it's first time in 7,000 years of history Iraq has a democracy. We either take it and run with it, or we waste the opportunity," he says.
"ISIS has been defeated militarily. The economy is rebounding. There's people who are going into the private sector and doing great things. There is hope. And it is tangible."
Fifteen years after the US entered Iraq, Baghdad breathes new life

NOW you were making some really really dumb comment about Iraq!

TraitorGator... stop guessing! Start doing some honest investigation and quit depending on the biased MSM!

You look so foolish when you try to make personal, unsubstantiated, no links provided comments that are just personal, subjective and really uninformed!

Nothing you have said nor any of the links you have provided has come close to justifying the invasion of Iraq. None of what you have said or posted justifies the loss of more than 4000 US service members, more than 30,000 wounded and more than 2.4 trillion dollars and counting being spent. You cheer for a rise in the Iraqi GDP but do not give a flying **** about the 4000 dead US service members, you cheer for their "rebounding economy" but do not give a shit about the 2.4 trillion spent.


Since your proof is now nothing more than opinion pieces, here is one for you, from an Iraqi...

Opinion | Fifteen Years Ago, America Destroyed My Country

The next time I returned to Baghdad was in 2013. The American tanks were gone, but the effects of the occupation were everywhere. I had low expectations, but I was still disheartened by the ugliness of the city where I had grown up and horrified by how dysfunctional, difficult and dangerous daily life had become for the great majority of Iraqis.

No one knows for certain how many Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion 15 years ago. Some credible estimates put the number at more than one million. You can read that sentence again. The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a “blunder,” or even a “colossal mistake.” It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Exhibit #4 on the failure that is the Iraq war...

ISIS is the direct result of the invasion of Iraq. No invasion, no ISIS. And while it is true Obama fucked it up and ignored the fire, it was Bush that started the fire.

Islamic State Terrorism Has Cost Iraq Billions In Damages As ISIS Has Taken More Control

Here Are the Ancient Sites ISIS Has Damaged and Destroyed

ISIS Death Toll: 18,800 Civilians Killed in Iraq in 2 Years: U.N.

How Many People Has ISIS Killed? Terrorist Attacks Linked To Islamic State Have Caused 33,000 Deaths: Report

Oh, the cost of ISIS nobody talks about is the focus on them has allowed AQ, you know the people that have actually attacked us” to regroup and are now a threat again.

16 years after 9/11, al-Qaeda is back

Al-Qaeda is back and spreading further than ever with SE Asia strongholds

Al-Qaeda is back and it has a new 9/11 message: “How do we face America?”



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com