Sen. Duckworth: I won’t be lectured on military needs by a ‘five-deferment draft dodger’

[monkrules]

I don't call him "Hussein"...I have called him Barry. I believe I've also referred to him as "Choom King". Funny thing about how "smart" Barry supposedly was...all of those alleged smarts...yet he couldn't do diddly with the economy in eight long years while on the other hand...the supposedly "dumb" guy now sitting in the Oval Office has the economy booming! Must be "dumb" luck...right?

You're forever trying to rewrite history to support your glaringly incorrect arguments. GW Bush and his supporters left Obama one of the worst recessions America has ever seen. I don't know how anyone with common sense could expect such a severe financial disaster to be turned around quickly. We're lucky it didn't get even worse.

By the time this Orange Asshole took office the stock market had long been hitting new highs, the economy was stable, and hundreds of thousands of jobs were regularly being created. trump has benefitted from all of these things. But he, trump is such an insecure, egocentric piece of shit that he would never be able to give another person credit, for anything.

 

[JoeB131]

"We" didn't want to keep troops in? No...that was "Barry" that didn't want to keep troops in. His military advisors wanted to keep a force of about 24,000 combat troops in Iraq to stabilize the country.

No, America didn't want to keep troops in. We had an election in 2008. the people who thought, "Well, Bush lied to us, but let's continue the war anyway" LOST. Barry said, "Let's get out of this war of choice" and WON. Oh my God, you guys, a politician who keeps his promises!!! What an amazing thing.

Not seeing how 24K troops would have "stabilized' the country when a half million man Iraq Army dropped its weapons and tore off their uniforms when confronted by ISIL troops in pickup trucks.

Maliki "publicly" called for a total troop withdrawal? Of course he did! "Privately" he would have been happy with some US combat troops staying. From a political standpoint he would have been an idiot to take an unpopular position that he KNEW Barack Obama had zero intention of complying with!

Except that Obama did comply with it.

Barry: "Well, we have an agreement to leave in 2011, but if you want to sign a status of forces agreement, that allows our troops immunity from your laws, I'll keep a few behind.

Maliki: "Die infidel dog!!!! Death to the unbeliever!!!"

Barry: "Whatever, dude, I'm out of here."

The bottom line is this...if Barack Obama had WANTED a Status of Forces Agreement...then he would have gotten one! He never made the effort...because he had already made up his mind that he would be running for reelection as the President who "brought the troops home"! So what happened after that? That's on Barack Obama! The millions of people in the Middle East that ISIS terrorized with it's Caliphate? The mass migration out of the Middle East to escape that? Obama OWNS that!

Why would he WANT one if the American people didn't and the Iraqi people didn't. "Hey, let's fight for an agreement that no one wants to continue a war that everyone realizes was a bad idea now!!!"

Dude, that's ******* madness.

And, no, the rise of ISIS is entirely on Maliki. He's the one who drove all the Sunnis out of his government. He's the one who stopped sharing the oil wealth with them. He's the one who decided against all reason to demand the Americans leave when he hadn't gotten his shit together because he was ready to sell his country over to the Iranians.

You're right for a change, Joey! Trump had nothing to do with the economic growth that began in 2009! Then again...Barack Obama had little to do with it either! His policies actually retarded economic growth. His proposed policies would have done even more damage if the Democrats hadn't lost the House in the 2010 midterms!

Okay, funny thing is, the economy always goes into recessions when Republicans are in charge.

Always. Last five recessions, all Republicans.

And you'll come up with an excuse when the next recession happens on Trump's watch.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL...anyone that knows Teddy Kennedy's long history of alcohol abuse would be hard pressed to make the claim that at a party where everyone else was drinking...Teddy wasn't! There's a reason he didn't report that accident to the Police for ten hours, August...he needed time to sober up!

Or he was in shock because he was in an accident.

Funny how you totally ignored the millions of people who were affected by the rise of ISIS following Barack Obama's policy blunder of prematurely withdrawing US combat troops, Lies...hard to blame THAT on George W. Bush! I know you'll try...because that's what Obama apologists DO but that decision was all Barry's!

Sure it was Bush's fault. Bush destroyed the perfectly effective government that had ruled Iraq for 50 years. The people he propped up had no idea what they were doing.

The Rise of ISIS is entirely on Bush.

 

[JoeB131]

Are we in Iraq stealing their oil? The liberal talking point that this was all about oil is laughable! We went into Iraq because a despotic leader of that country was violating the sanctions imposed upon him by the UN after he attacked a peaceful neighbor. We went into Iraq because Saddam left us little choice. If we hadn't...he'd still be there...he'd still be selling oil on the black market...and he'd still be looking to build a nuke!

Except he wasn't violating the sanctions. He was complying with inspections and not building WMD's.

We had lots of choices. We could have let sanctions continue. We could have let inspections continue.

But Saddam maybe tried to kill Bush's Pappy, and he wasn't going to stand for that!!!

 

[August West]

The Status of Forces agreement is the excuse that Obama used to bail, Joey. Anyone with even a dollop of common sense knows that despite what he was saying publicly, the President of Iraq didn't want all of the US combat troops withdrawn. If Obama had insisted on a new Status of Forces deal...then Maliki would have given it to him. Barry never sought that out though because he'd already decided that he was going to pull all combat troops no matter what!

well, first, Maliki wasn't the president, he was the prime minister.

Second, he was saying he wanted us out publicly.

Third, we didn't want to keep troops in and they didn't want us to stay, so by your argument, Obama should have fought really hard for an agreement neither side wanted to do the opposite of what he promised the American people he would do if elected.....

This make sense to you? Well, I guess it does as long as no one you care about will be the one coming home in a body bag.

Can't bring yourself to admit that drilling and fracking works...can you? Nothing like a liberal who refuses to admit when they are wrong! The truth is...we're closer to energy independence now because of advances in fossil fuel collection than because of our "investments" in alternative energy...something that Barack Obama actively fought against...not for!

Oh, I'm sure it works "just fine" if your goal is to make the Oil Companies richer and **** up the environment. But here's the thing... eventually, that shit runs out and you are back where you started with a fucked up environment.

Oh. Damn, we were going to grow some corn to produce ethanol, but we fucked up the aquifer and we can't.

"We" didn't want to keep troops in? No...that was "Barry" that didn't want to keep troops in. His military advisors wanted to keep a force of about 24,000 combat troops in Iraq to stabilize the country.

Maliki "publicly" called for a total troop withdrawal? Of course he did! "Privately" he would have been happy with some US combat troops staying. From a political standpoint he would have been an idiot to take an unpopular position that he KNEW Barack Obama had zero intention of complying with!

The bottom line is this...if Barack Obama had WANTED a Status of Forces Agreement...then he would have gotten one! He never made the effort...because he had already made up his mind that he would be running for reelection as the President who "brought the troops home"! So what happened after that? That's on Barack Obama! The millions of people in the Middle East that ISIS terrorized with it's Caliphate? The mass migration out of the Middle East to escape that? Obama OWNS that!

You are all into the later details. Obama has no blame in this. The bottom line is this: Why the F##K did Cheney and his little sex toy Dubya invade in the first place? Cheney was/is a traitor with PNAC, along with Rumsfeld and several of the other traitors.

Several original PNAC members, including Cheney, Khalilzad and the Bush family, have ties to the oil industry. Many other members have been long-time fixtures in the U.S. military establishment or Cold War "strategic studies," including Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Vin Weber, and Paul Dundes Wolfowitz.
Project for the New American Century - SourceWatch​

Remember that Cheney and his boy toy told us that the invasion of Iraq was necessary because he had WMDs, that this had nothing to do with oil, and that the invasion would pay for itself? Remember Rummy with his bible verse bullets manufactured by some trash "Christian" company? Obama inherited the mess of what these whores and traitors did. How many deaths have Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their despicable cabal been responsible for, both American and Iraqi? Don't forget the past, and who got us into this mess. The people who would have been executed in other countries, but who are walking around free today. None have been brought to justice.

Go give Sen. Duckworth back her legs now. She needs them. She's about to have a child. And Khizr and Ghazala Khan called. They need their son back.

Funny how you totally ignored the millions of people who were affected by the rise of ISIS following Barack Obama's policy blunder of prematurely withdrawing US combat troops, Lies...hard to blame THAT on George W. Bush! I know you'll try...because that's what Obama apologists DO but that decision was all Barry's!

You need to get up to date clueless one. Tony Blair has already taken the blame for creating ISIS when he followed Gomer into Iraq to get those massive stockpiles of biological weapons.
Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State
Tony Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused ISIS | Daily Mail Online

 

[Oldstyle]

"We" didn't want to keep troops in? No...that was "Barry" that didn't want to keep troops in. His military advisors wanted to keep a force of about 24,000 combat troops in Iraq to stabilize the country.

Maliki "publicly" called for a total troop withdrawal? Of course he did! "Privately" he would have been happy with some US combat troops staying. From a political standpoint he would have been an idiot to take an unpopular position that he KNEW Barack Obama had zero intention of complying with!

The bottom line is this...if Barack Obama had WANTED a Status of Forces Agreement...then he would have gotten one! He never made the effort...because he had already made up his mind that he would be running for reelection as the President who "brought the troops home"! So what happened after that? That's on Barack Obama! The millions of people in the Middle East that ISIS terrorized with it's Caliphate? The mass migration out of the Middle East to escape that? Obama OWNS that!

There was already an agreement in place saying the U.S. would remove its troops, if I remember correctly. GW Bush had agreed to that. The Iraqis didn't want us there, either.

It kind of makes you look silly to desperately try to rewrite history just so you can blame Democrats, Obama in this case, in order to try an win your unwinnable argument. You cannot argue an imaginary history — shoulda, woulda, coulda. You have to (try) to deal with reality. You can't remake the past just to win partisan political arguments. To do so is disingenuous, at best.

My point...which you studiously ignore...is that Barack Obama was advised by his generals to keep a force of combat troops in Iraq but didn't want to because he planned to run for reelection as the President who ended combat operations in Iraq. That was a POLITICAL decision by Obama based not on what was needed in Iraq...but what he thought he needed to remain in office in the US!

That is reality! Claiming that Obama couldn't have gotten another Status of Forces agreement from Maliki if he'd really wanted one is the "rewrite" of history! You're doing so for one reason and one reason alone! You know that Obama's decision was a bad one. It allowed ISIS to seize power and become a terrorist Caliphate that raped and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people and caused a mass migration out of the Middle East that has destabilized many parts of Europe. That's something Barack Obama owns, Monk! You may not like it...but THAT is reality!

 

[tyroneweaver]

More and more Americans are getting sick of the incompetence and lack of leadership shown by trump. Thankfully more of them are beginning to speak out about it. Even cowardly GOP congressmen are beginning to grow a spine, starting to take a stance in favor of America, and pointing out some of trump’s massive deficiencies.

Senator Duckworth is a veteran who obviously has no fear of the boy in the Oval Office, and in this article she tells it like it is.

------
“I spent my entire adult life looking out for the well-being, the training, the equipping of the troops for whom I was responsible,” she continued. “Sadly, this is something that the current occupant of the Oval Office does not seem to care to do — and I will not be lectured about what our military needs by a five-deferment draft dodger.”

“And I have a message for cadet bone spurs: If you cared about our military, you’d stop baiting Kim Jong Un into a war that could put 85,000 American troops, and millions of innocent civilians, in danger.”
Duckworth, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, lost both of her legs when a rocket-propelled grenade shot down the helicopter she was piloting over Iraq in 2004.

thehill.com/homenews/senate/369960-dem-slams-trump-i-wont-be-lectured-on-military-needs-by-a-five-deferment

For trump supporters who don’t want to remember who Senator Tammy DUckworth is, here’s a short reminder:

Duckworth, is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, who lost both of her legs when a rocket-propelled grenade shot down the helicopter she was piloting over Iraq in 2004.

And exactly what party started ww2 Korea Vietnam?

 

[Oldstyle]

Are we in Iraq stealing their oil? The liberal talking point that this was all about oil is laughable! We went into Iraq because a despotic leader of that country was violating the sanctions imposed upon him by the UN after he attacked a peaceful neighbor. We went into Iraq because Saddam left us little choice. If we hadn't...he'd still be there...he'd still be selling oil on the black market...and he'd still be looking to build a nuke!

Except he wasn't violating the sanctions. He was complying with inspections and not building WMD's.

We had lots of choices. We could have let sanctions continue. We could have let inspections continue.

But Saddam maybe tried to kill Bush's Pappy, and he wasn't going to stand for that!!!

That's a crock and you know it! Saddam violated sanctions daily! He was brokering black market oil for arms deals through the son of the UN Secretary General! You name a sanction, Saddam Hussein ignored it!

 

[JoeB131]

My point...which you studiously ignore...is that Barack Obama was advised by his generals to keep a force of combat troops in Iraq but didn't want to because he planned to run for reelection as the President who ended combat operations in Iraq. That was a POLITICAL decision by Obama based not on what was needed in Iraq...but what he thought he needed to remain in office in the US!

Again, how do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?

That is reality! Claiming that Obama couldn't have gotten another Status of Forces agreement from Maliki if he'd really wanted one is the "rewrite" of history!

Again, Maliki couldn't have gotten one because after 8 years, most Iraqis hated the Americans and wanted us gone. You seem to neglect this fact. Maliki was playing to public sentiment as much as Obama was.

You're doing so for one reason and one reason alone! You know that Obama's decision was a bad one. It allowed ISIS to seize power and become a terrorist Caliphate that raped and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people and caused a mass migration out of the Middle East that has destabilized many parts of Europe.

And why is any of that our problem? I't might be out fault for deposing Saddam to start with, but you don't fix a mistake by making more mistakes.

I'm sure you are all upset about the Devil-worshiping Yazidis, although ten years ago, you probably didn't even know what a Yazidi was.

You have yet to tell me why Obama should have gone back to American parents and say, "We are going to have more of your sons and daughters come back in body bags or without limbs or with PTSD because, gosh darn it, George W. Bush made a mistake and the Generals say we should continue on with his mistake."

That's something Barack Obama owns, Monk! You may not like it...but THAT is reality!

No, the person who owns that is George W. Bush for deposing Saddam to start with. To a lesser degree Maliki for making the decisions that turned Sunnis against him.

ISIS exists because they are Sunnis living under leaders who are Shi'ites (Assad and Maliki) and wanted their own form of government. Since the Sunnis and Shi'ites have been arguing for 1400 years about how many Imams can dance on the head of a pin, I'm not really convinced that leaving 24,000 Americans to be nice juicy targets was really going to change that.

That's a crock and you know it! Saddam violated sanctions daily! He was brokering black market oil for arms deals through the son of the UN Secretary General! You name a sanction, Saddam Hussein ignored it!

Okay, if you say so (not really) but where were the WMD's? We didn't go to war over black market oil. We went to war because Saddam had nukes and he was going to get us!!!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

My point...which you studiously ignore...is that Barack Obama was advised by his generals to keep a force of combat troops in Iraq but didn't want to because he planned to run for reelection as the President who ended combat operations in Iraq. That was a POLITICAL decision by Obama based not on what was needed in Iraq...but what he thought he needed to remain in office in the US!

Again, how do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?

That is reality! Claiming that Obama couldn't have gotten another Status of Forces agreement from Maliki if he'd really wanted one is the "rewrite" of history!

Again, Maliki couldn't have gotten one because after 8 years, most Iraqis hated the Americans and wanted us gone. You seem to neglect this fact. Maliki was playing to public sentiment as much as Obama was.

You're doing so for one reason and one reason alone! You know that Obama's decision was a bad one. It allowed ISIS to seize power and become a terrorist Caliphate that raped and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people and caused a mass migration out of the Middle East that has destabilized many parts of Europe.

And why is any of that our problem? I't might be out fault for deposing Saddam to start with, but you don't fix a mistake by making more mistakes.

I'm sure you are all upset about the Devil-worshiping Yazidis, although ten years ago, you probably didn't even know what a Yazidi was.

You have yet to tell me why Obama should have gone back to American parents and say, "We are going to have more of your sons and daughters come back in body bags or without limbs or with PTSD because, gosh darn it, George W. Bush made a mistake and the Generals say we should continue on with his mistake."

That's something Barack Obama owns, Monk! You may not like it...but THAT is reality!

No, the person who owns that is George W. Bush for deposing Saddam to start with. To a lesser degree Maliki for making the decisions that turned Sunnis against him.

ISIS exists because they are Sunnis living under leaders who are Shi'ites (Assad and Maliki) and wanted their own form of government. Since the Sunnis and Shi'ites have been arguing for 1400 years about how many Imams can dance on the head of a pin, I'm not really convinced that leaving 24,000 Americans to be nice juicy targets was really going to change that.

That's a crock and you know it! Saddam violated sanctions daily! He was brokering black market oil for arms deals through the son of the UN Secretary General! You name a sanction, Saddam Hussein ignored it!

Okay, if you say so (not really) but where were the WMD's? We didn't go to war over black market oil. We went to war because Saddam had nukes and he was going to get us!!!!!

You're not convinced that leaving 24,000 combat troops in Iraq wouldn't have prevented ISIS from taking over huge swaths of that country? Gee, Joey...Barack Obama's military advisors WERE convinced that was a prudent strategy! You and Barry didn't think so. Guess who was dead right and who was dead wrong!

The black market oil was paying for Saddam to reconstitute his military! What part of that concept can't you grasp? The sanctions obviously aren't working if the son of the Secretary General of the UN is helping to broker arms for oil deals with Iraq and other nations!

 

[JoeB131]

You're not convinced that leaving 24,000 combat troops in Iraq wouldn't have prevented ISIS from taking over huge swaths of that country? Gee, Joey...Barack Obama's military advisors WERE convinced that was a prudent strategy!

They were the same guys who told Bush that we could secure Iraq with 136,000 men when other people were saying we needed 500,000.

Obviously, you've never served in the military, or you'd realize that most officers are a lot of talk.

You and Barry didn't think so. Guess who was dead right and who was dead wrong!

Again, how do you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake.

We don't know what would have happened if 24K troops stayed, but it probably would have been the EXACT SAME THING, because people had been predicting a Sunni-Shi'ite civil war since before the invasion. It's why the Elder Bush didn't go to Baghdad in 1991. Because exactly this sort of thing would be the end result. The Sunnis and Shi'ites would fight for supremacy, and the Shi'ites would turn to Iran for help. All these things were ALREADY HAPPENING before Obama wisely declared, "Not my circus, not my monkeys".

The black market oil was paying for Saddam to reconstitute his military! What part of that concept can't you grasp? The sanctions obviously aren't working if the son of the Secretary General of the UN is helping to broker arms for oil deals with Iraq and other nations!

Again, we didn't go to war over oil (supposedly); we went to war because Saddam had Nukes and Anthrax and he was going to get us!!!!

Except he didn't.

Bush lied. People died.

Obama just refused to pledge more American lives to Bush's mistake.

 

[protectionist]

"We" didn't want to keep troops in? No...that was "Barry" that didn't want to keep troops in. His military advisors wanted to keep a force of about 24,000 combat troops in Iraq to stabilize the country.

Maliki "publicly" called for a total troop withdrawal? Of course he did! "Privately" he would have been happy with some US combat troops staying. From a political standpoint he would have been an idiot to take an unpopular position that he KNEW Barack Obama had zero intention of complying with!

The bottom line is this...if Barack Obama had WANTED a Status of Forces Agreement...then he would have gotten one! He never made the effort...because he had already made up his mind that he would be running for reelection as the President who "brought the troops home"! So what happened after that? That's on Barack Obama! The millions of people in the Middle East that ISIS terrorized with it's Caliphate? The mass migration out of the Middle East to escape that? Obama OWNS that!

And he owns it for a reason. Just like he owns the Fort Hood massacre (which he alone could have prevented, but he allowed it) >>

Because he is a JIHADIST

 

[protectionist]

.We don't know what would have happened if 24K troops stayed, but it probably would have been the EXACT SAME THING, because people had been predicting a Sunni-Shi'ite civil war since before the invasion.

Oh but we DO know what would NOT have happened. ISIS would not have happened (in Iraq). The troops presence would have kept them out, instead of the vacuum of power that their removal created.

Followed up by Obama's collusion with al Baghdadi to allow his convoys to travel into Iraq, minus the airstrikes that without Obama's collusion, they would have been sitting ducks for.

 

[protectionist]

Trump has nothing to do with the economic growth that began in 2009.

But he has plenty to do with the economic growth that began in January 2017 - Considering full 2017, the economy expanded 2.3 percent, higher than 1.5 percent in 2016.

United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar

And GDP growth jumped from the dismal 1.2% when Obama left. up to 3.2% (Oct 2017)

 

[Roudy]

More and more Americans are getting sick of the incompetence and lack of leadership shown by trump. Thankfully more of them are beginning to speak out about it. Even cowardly GOP congressmen are beginning to grow a spine, starting to take a stance in favor of America, and pointing out some of trump’s massive deficiencies.

Senator Duckworth is a veteran who obviously has no fear of the boy in the Oval Office, and in this article she tells it like it is.

------
“I spent my entire adult life looking out for the well-being, the training, the equipping of the troops for whom I was responsible,” she continued. “Sadly, this is something that the current occupant of the Oval Office does not seem to care to do — and I will not be lectured about what our military needs by a five-deferment draft dodger.”

“And I have a message for cadet bone spurs: If you cared about our military, you’d stop baiting Kim Jong Un into a war that could put 85,000 American troops, and millions of innocent civilians, in danger.”
Duckworth, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, lost both of her legs when a rocket-propelled grenade shot down the helicopter she was piloting over Iraq in 2004.

thehill.com/homenews/senate/369960-dem-slams-trump-i-wont-be-lectured-on-military-needs-by-a-five-deferment

For trump supporters who don’t want to remember who Senator Tammy DUckworth is, here’s a short reminder:

Duckworth, is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, who lost both of her legs when a rocket-propelled grenade shot down the helicopter she was piloting over Iraq in 2004.

'Cause Hussein Obama and Bill Clinton not only served but were special forces. And we know how much veterans and the military just loved that anti American piece shit Obama.

Has ANY president in recent history enjoyed the overwhelming support of the military, veterans, and law enforcement like Trump has?

 

[boedicca]

President Trump is the Commander-in-Chief of US Armed Forces by the will of the American people.

The will of the Electoral College. Otherwise the will of the American people would have had Hillary there.

Clearly, you skipped Civics and smoked doobies with your loser friends instead.

 

[monkrules]

"We" didn't want to keep troops in? No...that was "Barry" that didn't want to keep troops in. His military advisors wanted to keep a force of about 24,000 combat troops in Iraq to stabilize the country.

Maliki "publicly" called for a total troop withdrawal? Of course he did! "Privately" he would have been happy with some US combat troops staying. From a political standpoint he would have been an idiot to take an unpopular position that he KNEW Barack Obama had zero intention of complying with!

The bottom line is this...if Barack Obama had WANTED a Status of Forces Agreement...then he would have gotten one! He never made the effort...because he had already made up his mind that he would be running for reelection as the President who "brought the troops home"! So what happened after that? That's on Barack Obama! The millions of people in the Middle East that ISIS terrorized with it's Caliphate? The mass migration out of the Middle East to escape that? Obama OWNS that!

There was already an agreement in place saying the U.S. would remove its troops, if I remember correctly. GW Bush had agreed to that. The Iraqis didn't want us there, either.

It kind of makes you look silly to desperately try to rewrite history just so you can blame Democrats, Obama in this case, in order to try an win your unwinnable argument. You cannot argue an imaginary history — shoulda, woulda, coulda. You have to (try) to deal with reality. You can't remake the past just to win partisan political arguments. To do so is disingenuous, at best.

My point...which you studiously ignore...is that Barack Obama was advised by his generals to keep a force of combat troops in Iraq but didn't want to because he planned to run for reelection as the President who ended combat operations in Iraq. That was a POLITICAL decision by Obama based not on what was needed in Iraq...but what he thought he needed to remain in office in the US!

That is reality! Claiming that Obama couldn't have gotten another Status of Forces agreement from Maliki if he'd really wanted one is the "rewrite" of history! You're doing so for one reason and one reason alone! You know that Obama's decision was a bad one. It allowed ISIS to seize power and become a terrorist Caliphate that raped and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people and caused a mass migration out of the Middle East that has destabilized many parts of Europe. That's something Barack Obama owns, Monk! You may not like it...but THAT is reality!

See post #209 -- already answered (probably many times).

 

[monkrules]

And exactly what party started ww2 Korea Vietnam?

Do you really have to ask how and why America entered WWII...?

If so, you're not ready to converse here.

Bye.

 

[monkrules]

Has ANY president in recent history enjoyed the overwhelming support of the military, veterans, and law enforcement like Trump has?

trump's support is not high at all among Americans capable of thinking for themselves.

 

[Roudy]

Has ANY president in recent history enjoyed the overwhelming support of the military, veterans, and law enforcement like Trump has?

trump's support is not high at all among Americans capable of thinking for themselves.

Really?! But then again, we were talking about Trump's support among veterans and the military.