Republicans Biggest Fear

[EconChick]

Synth, this is your biggest fear:

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."


--President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007

So well said. I've been using the video but thanks for the text.

 

[Sallow]

Republicans Biggest Fear is that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) is going to calmly, rationally put together a successful coalition which proceeds to degrade and destroy ISIL, and mirror the success that President Clinton had in the Bosnian War.

It would once again destroy the narrative they have been pushing since the 1980s, that Democrats are weak at protecting America.

The date 9-11 should be proof enough about who's weak at protecting America.

You mean when Clinton failed to put UBL away when he had the chance? LMAO

Well you think if you keep repeating the same myth, that it suddenly becomes true?

By the way, Clinton did try to get a special ops unit together to get Osama Bin Laden..and congress blocked it.

And? It was Reagan/Bush that gave this guy training, money and a pat on the back for killing commies.

 

[Sallow]

Synth, this is your biggest fear:

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."


--President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007

So well said. I've been using the video but thanks for the text.

This is after he made it more dangerous by invading and killing Saddam Hussein and before he put up a timetable to get American troops out of Iraq.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

This thread will be an appropriate place to watch the Obama Hating Crowd quit talking about the IS terrorist being decimated and driven back on a daily basis by the broad super coalition including Arab State like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

This will be fun to watch. Here's two who have already panicked over on the Main IS Terrorist Thread.

Its getting very clear why EconChick and 1778 are getting more foul-mouthed with every passing moment.
This has to crush every Obama Hater on this Message Board:

By Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent, and Peter Foster in Washington
9:05PM BST 11 Sep 2014
A coalition of 10 Arab states threw their support behind Barack Obama’s pledge to destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) movement in Iraq and Syria on Thursday.
In a welcome boost to US plans for defeating the militant Islamist group, regional powers including Saudi Arabia and Jordan pledged to “do their share” in the battle.
The announcement in Saudi Arabia was carefully choreographed, coming hours after the president told the American people that he would expand US air strikes against the militants, promising that Isil would ultimately be “vanquished from the Earth”.
As Mr Obama marked the anniversary of the September 11 attacks with a moment of silence at the White House, the 10 regional allies — which also included Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — issued their statement after a meeting in Jeddah with John Kerry, the US secretary of state.
They promised that they would join in “the comprehensive fight” against Isil, including choking off funds and fighters to the group.

10 Arab states join the US in battle against Isil - Telegraph

Yay..Talk is cheap. Let me know when those countries have boots on the ground fighting You Obama lovers have such high hopes for that incompetent, know nothing. Who is Lebanon gong to fight? You mean Hezbollah?..Jordon is in no position to fight anyone. If they weren't next to Israel, they'd have been over run by the islamozi's by now. Qatar funds terrorist. Saidi Arabia as well

 

[Stephanie]

ok, let us know when he has the broad SUPER duper coalition

look above your post, they are STILL attacking George Bush

but here ya go

 

[whutTHEYsay]

No just shocked if he did, If the president just happens to be successful for all American,not just some,there isn't a single Repub that would complain.

Did you praise Obama when Maliki Stepped down and there was a transition of power in Baghdad that has gone down as the Obama Administration has wanted in order to start dealing with IS terrorists without having the US military be seen as Maliki's Air Force on the side of Shiites against the Sunnis.

That accomplishment without bloodshed means a Democratic Iraq has not fallen apart as most Republicans keep saying and it means that huge Sunni-nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt have now become able to get on board with destroying a threat to them more so than us.

Have you praised Obama for driving IS terrorists out of the Mosul Dam?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ok, let us know when he has the broad SUPER duper coalition

look above your post, they are STILL attacking George Bush

but here ya go

That is not attacking Bush, That is stating an obvious historical reality. When has making one's point necessarily be forced to ignore historical reality?

Is it when discussing the conditions in the central Arab/Persian/Pashtun/Jewish and other people of World we have to pretend that the Bush Cheney disaster did not happen.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Synth, this is your biggest fear:

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."


--President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007

So well said. I've been using the video but thanks for the text.

This is after he made it more dangerous by invading and killing Saddam Hussein and before he put up a timetable to get American troops out of Iraq.

ok, let us know when he has the broad SUPER duper coalition

look above your post, they are STILL attacking George Bush

but here ya go

Response to Stphanie. Could you please tell us why on earth you would consider quoting what George Bush said as an attack? Are we to purge history of everything Republicans don't like about what George Bush did and said?

 

[MisterBeale]

Any one that is rational and intelligent has cause to fear, especially if they have studied history. Mostly because folks on the left and the right have bought this lie; hook line and sinker. This is the military-industrial complexes successful manipulation of events to favor intervention. War with Syria is in the cards now. Don't think Russia is going to just roll over though.
The Islamic State: Who Is ISIS? An Open Source Investigation
The Islamic State Who Is ISIS An Open Source Investigation Global Research

A stream of increasingly hysterical reports about the group and its supposed existential threat to the region and the world in general has included a joint press conference by US Secretary of Defense Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Dempsey in which they laid out ISIS’ “End-of-Days” vision and stressed that the group is “beyond anything that we’ve seen.” Senator James Inhofe has joined the fray, insisting that the group is working on plans to “blow up” an American city, and numerous outlets have now suggested that city may be Chicago. The hysteria increased with the release of the (now admittedly fake) beheading video of American journalist James Foley and the similarly suspicious video of American-Israeli journalist Steven Sotloff.

In August, President Obama ordered airstrikes over northern Iraq to combat the ISIS threat, warning Americans that the bombing would be a “long-term project.” The airstrikes have been endorsed by Pope Francis, and after Secretary of State Kerry announced that a “worldwide coalition” would be required to defeat the Islamic State, the US has since declared the formation of just such a “core coalition” which includes NATO powers such as the UK.

Alternative Accounts

The group and its leaders have been shrouded in myth and mystery since its inception, as documented above. Even the US government has declared that the Islamic State’s second leader, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, never existed. The current leader, Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, is so elusive that there are only two known photographs and one video recording of him in existence, leading security “experts” to declare: “They know physically who this guy is, but his backstory is just myth.” This has led many to speculate on the group’s possible founding and backing by Western intelligence as a front for foreign policy goals such as the sectarian division of Iraq or as an excuse to keep the west militarily involved in the region. As far back as 2006 the UK Telegraph reported that prominent Sunni insurgent leaders in Iraq were claiming that the group’s founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was “”an American, Israeli and Iranian agent who is trying to keep our country unstable so that the Sunnis will keep facing occupation.” This sentiment is echoed to the present day, with Saudi scholar Consultative Assembly member Dr. Aissa Al-Ghaith claiming that the Islamic State is backed by America, Israel and Iran. This sentiment is bolstered by the revelation earlier this year that ISIS fighters were trained by the US military at a camp in Jordan in 2012.

There are many questions surrounding the group’s online PR activities and its unlikely facility with various forms of media, a phenomenon that even the New York Times has noted. Although much has been made of the rounds of photos claiming to show the group’s brutal execution and treatment of its prisoners, at least some of these photos appear to have been recycled from other countries at other times. There is still no answer as to who staged the beheading video of James Foley or why it was faked, but many point to the fact that British authorities warned that merely looking at the video might qualify as terrorism as a sign of the video’s true nature and origins.

This continues a tradition of suspicious ISIS media releases dating back to the recordings of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi that were released during the 2009-2010 period after the US government had declared him a fictitious character and Iraqi authorities reported that he was under arrest.

An image of US Senator John McCain in Syria in April 2013 has generated controversy for claims that it pictures him with ISIS member Mohammad Nour and even ISIS leader Baghdadi himself. Some have cast doubt on whether the man in the photograph is Baghdadi, but the man does bear an uncanny resemblance to the official picture of Baghdadi on the State Department “Rewards for Justice” website.

Let's all try to remember how our involvement in Vietnam started. It started based on a lie. Likewise, we started by sending "advisers," or trainers.

Are people here really that obtuse?

Really? Don't we learn anything. The IS SOP.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Check back with us at 12:01 am on Friday.

If you can.

I can. Big news of the day on the 13th Anniversary of when Bush.Cheney allowed the terrorists to kill people at the PENTAGON of all places and the WTC and on a field in Pennsylvania was this:

An coalition of Arab states working with the USA not seen since the Coalition GHWBush put together so well to drive Saddam's army out of Kuwait.

 

[Stephanie]

Check back with us at 12:01 am on Friday.

If you can.

I can. Big news of the day on the 13th Anniversary of when Bush.Cheney allowed the terrorists to kill people at the PENTAGON of all places and the WTC and on a field in Pennsylvania was this:

An coalition of Arab states working with the USA not seen since the Coalition GHWBush put together so well to drive Saddam's army out of Kuwait.

Whoa, not fooled I guess
the post above you

This is after he made it more dangerous by invading and killing Saddam Hussein and before he put up a timetable to get American troops out of Iraq.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Synth, this is your biggest fear:

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."


--President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007

So well said. I've been using the video but thanks for the text.

That has been debunked quite well on the other threads. Try to catch up.



Purple: It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda

You will be lying right now if you tell us that the Iraqis have surrendered their future to al Qaeda or any offshoots there-of..



Red: It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

I wish Lil Dubya would have been concerned like that in March 2003.


It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.

This was 2007. Bush was lying when he said 'replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. Obama had to triple the number of troops in Afghanistan because Bush failed to finish that justified war that he started in order to mess up Iraq. IS have not established a 'safe haven' in Iraq. They are not safe. They are exposed way more than al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. Of course Bush said the Taliban was eliminated in 2002. He says he liberated the Afghan People. Those were not predictions. Those were outright lies.







.

 

[Sallow]

And I am really not sure what is meant by a "horrific" scale. Some 250K Iraqis were killed as a result of the American invasion. After the US left, the Maliki government was trying to purge the Sunnis and this included lots of killings and reprisals.

The only reason anyone here took notice is because they nabbed 2 American journalists and did to them what they've been doing to thousands of Iraqis.

 

[Andylusion]

Republicans Biggest Fear is that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) is going to calmly, rationally put together a successful coalition which proceeds to degrade and destroy ISIL, and mirror the success that President Clinton had in the Bosnian War.

It would once again destroy the narrative they have been pushing since the 1980s, that Democrats are weak at protecting America.

Not sure if that's a fear. I'm all for it.

No, my biggest fear is that Obamacare ruins the economy more, and drives up insurance prices higher and higher.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Republicans Biggest Fear is that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) is going to calmly, rationally put together a successful coalition which proceeds to degrade and destroy ISIL, and mirror the success that President Clinton had in the Bosnian War.

It would once again destroy the narrative they have been pushing since the 1980s, that Democrats are weak at protecting America.

Anyone that believes Democrats have shied away from war need to read a history book, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Viet Nam, Bosnia....

Wait...aren't you lefties always telling us it isn't t he same Democrat party as years gone by? You know, the one that supported slavery and segregation? Which is it?

 

[jknowgood]

Republicans Biggest Fear is that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) is going to calmly, rationally put together a successful coalition which proceeds to degrade and destroy ISIL, and mirror the success that President Clinton had in the Bosnian War.

It would once again destroy the narrative they have been pushing since the 1980s, that Democrats are weak at protecting America.

Listening to many republicans today, such as Senator Graham, talking about sending American troops back to Iraq to fight and die, thankfully Obama won't make that mistake. Indeed, that's exactly what the terrorists want: American troops to return to Iraq.

only 400+ troops, but don't let facts get in the way of your thinking.

 

[Stephanie]

They told us Obama was the SUPERMAN and he would FIX all our problems.

and then when can't just steamroll over us they whine they are Obstructing him

and now here we are with Iraq and the excuse are pretty much the same

just sad

but the majority in the country has seen the light of the Obama and he ain't no superman to 70% of the people

 

[EconChick]

Republicans Biggest Fear is that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) is going to calmly, rationally put together a successful coalition which proceeds to degrade and destroy ISIL, and mirror the success that President Clinton had in the Bosnian War.

It would once again destroy the narrative they have been pushing since the 1980s, that Democrats are weak at protecting America.

Listening to many republicans today, such as Senator Graham, talking about sending American troops back to Iraq to fight and die, thankfully Obama won't make that mistake. Indeed, that's exactly what the terrorists want: American troops to return to Iraq.

You are stupid beyond belief. First of all, troops are already there. He's sent about 2000 combat boots on the ground. Try telling special operators they're not combat troops. Same for fighter pilots who can easily get shot down by all the shoulder fired shit in that place. Secondly being the stupid liberal you are, you don't understand how mission creep works. I do. It will happen. It has been happening. Just like I've being predicting with pinpoint accuracy all along.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You are stupid beyond belief. First of all, troops are already there. He's sent about 2000 combat boots on the ground. Try telling special operators they're not combat troops. Same for fighter pilots who can easily get shot down by all the shoulder fired shit in that place. Secondly being the stupid liberal you are, you don't understand how mission creep works. I do. It will happen. It has been happening. Just like I've being predicting with pinpoint accuracy all along.

You can stop your melodramatic whining now. There is a huge difference between 'combat boots on the ground, and advisers I in a back up role in well fortified areas.

Yes there may be a need for a rescue mission if a pilot goes down.

You aren't fooling anyone anymore EconChick. Your gig is up.

Bush's 2007 prediction is a farce. Some bimbo on Fox News aired it and the ditto-heads went bonkers with it.

You won't answer if you believe Iraq has surrendered its futur to al Qaeda.

That was stupid to say in 2007 because Iraq is predominately Shiite. But it was real stupid to bring it up seven years later since al Qaeads or IS terrorists will never take over Iraq. Never. Bush was a fool to say it the way he did. And look how the haters glommed onto it without thinking.

 

[EconChick]

t the

Republicans Biggest Fear is that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) is going to calmly, rationally put together a successful coalition which proceeds to degrade and destroy ISIL, and mirror the success that President Clinton had in the Bosnian War.

It would once again destroy the narrative they have been pushing since the 1980s, that Democrats are weak at protecting America.

The date 9-11 should be proof enough about who's weak at protecting America.

You mean when Clinton failed to put UBL away when he had the chance? LMAO

Well you think if you keep repeating the same myth, that it suddenly becomes true?

By the way, Clinton did try to get a special ops unit together to get Osama Bin Laden..and congress blocked it.

And? It was Reagan/Bush that gave this guy training, money and a pat on the back for killing commies.

As usual, you don't know shit about national security topics. Although it is true Reagan and Bush did train and pay him. But news alert, anyone crying about how we gave support to some rebels yesterday who are no longer our allies today has no understanding of realities on the ground. That's been the case for a long time and will continue to be the case till war no longer exists on this planet. It's just the nature of war, live with it.

As for Clinton, he was lilly-livered. Just like this POTUS. Except this president is the consummate ***** and our enemies know it. That's why nothing he does will help, even if he sent 1 million troops. They know he doesn't possess the inner core to do what it takes to beat their VERY RESOLUTE asses. All we can do is wait for the next president to do that.