Mr.Nick
VIP Member
- May 10, 2011
- 9,604
- 719
- 83
You're dividing the baby, RDean. Obama brought down a terrible dictator, but Saddam Hussein was far worse, and Bush brought Saddam down. Had you read Madeline Allbright's State Department notes on both countries, you would definitely know that. It's obvious to me you didn't bother in order to turn sensitive state matters into IEDs for political opponents.Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American. Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support. Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.
Republicans let 3,000 Americans die and tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life to bring down a hated dictator that never attacked us. The Iraqi people thanked us by nearly beaning our president with a pair of shoes. The only signs they put up said, "Death to America".
Republican see one as good and one as bad. You'll never guess which one they see as "good".
I think that's a terrible idea.
Yeah...Bush brought down Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9/11) while he let Bin Laden go; then Obama had to come in and show Bushy how it's done.

Bill Clinton let Bin Laden go...
That is common knowledge...
Clinton had his ass cornered and could have had his ass offed but chose not to...
The Marines were about to kill his ass but Clinton told them to back off....
We had choppers ready to blow his as up yet Clinton told them not to...
That was back in 1998-99...
Last edited: