DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 03, 2015, 01:10:49 PM
-
Messers O'Mally & Sanders can try and placate the Democratic base with all forms of rhetorical Wall Street boogiemen, racist Republicans, and Class Warfare, however Hillary's going to be the Democratic Candidate for the 2016 election, because the Oligarchy owns her, and they want their investment to see some dividends
That said, Hillary's baggage is getting bigger by the day. Obama was elected because so many wanted to vote for "the 1st black guy". You also had a large contingent who were put off by the war in Iraq, and so they voted as a referendum on Bush. Still more saw Obama as this potential "new" politician, poised to transcend modern day politics, and actually work to bring us together, based on previous stump speeches and "promises". We'll simply put aside all the optmistic blank slate voters, since the one thing in Obama's favor, besides the media & skin color, was that he had very little "baggage", to judge him by. Conservatives knew about all the Rev Wright garbage, and his stellar consistent liberal voting record, but those were really the only "biggies" as it related to baggage
Hillary on the other hand, is nearly the opposite animal. An entrenched public servant, bought and payed for a dozen times over, even less transparent than our current community organizer & chief. A massive record of both incompotence & untrustworthiness. Yes, she'll have the Democrat base vote, and with the help of the MSM and uber billioniare donars, even get those to vote for her because she'd be the 1st "woman" going against those evil woman hating Republicans. But she's not going to have those seeking to "vote a referendum", since any referendum would be against Obama & his party. She's not going to have the optimistic moderate or fence sitter, looking for a transcending politician, since she personifies DC politics & sleaziness
The left may be reeling with their presumptive nominee, knowing just how screwed a candidate they've put their support behind
-
What Hillary personifies for you is not what she personifies to other people.
Rev. Wright's opinions at no point were endorsed by Obama or the Democratic Party, and were only baggage to Rev. Wright.
-
What Hillary personifies for you is not what she personifies to other people.
Like these people? (http://nypost.com/2015/06/02/tone-deaf-clinton-campaign-causes-headaches-for-roosevelt-island-residents/) The more of a candidate she becomes, the lower her trustworthiness and transparency poll numbers go. That's not me, that's country wide. Face it, xo, if Hillary had an (R) after her name, you'd be condemning her 24/7, as being a puppet of the Oligarchy, completely detached to regular middle class folk
Rev. Wright's opinions at no point were endorsed by Obama or the Democratic Party, and were only baggage to Rev. Wright.
It was intimate baggage to Obama, since he listened to that racist reverend, never once leaving that parrish, voicing any objections, even making him largely his "spiritual counselor". That was every bit Obama's baggage
-
All you know about Rev. Wright was ONE PART of ONE SERMON. That is all; that was ever made available. And the point he made was a valid one: the US should have been condemned by God for allowing lynchings and Jim Crow crap for so long. The US should not be blessed for its mistreatment of Indians and Black people.
There is no custom of telling a preacher that you think he is wrong in this country, as you seem to think.
Just as no one tells the choir that they sang a note a bit flat.
You have never been to a Black church and therefore do not understand how the ceremony functions.
You would not vote for Hillary if she was running against Lucifer, so your condemnation is meaningless.
And again, there you are, telling me what I would do if Hillary were a Republican.
As I have said many times, I totally disagree with the basic premise of the GOP, it is not just the individuals they tend to run, it is their ideology that sucks because it is undemocratic, unfair and unAmerican.
-
There were multiple sermons given, that demonstrated his racist & Anti-American rants. And Obama took them ALL in, and said nothing. Making him his chief spiritual counselor, and only throwing Wright under the bus, when the poll #'s made that decision for him. Nor did it require Obama to tell his preacher off. He could have simply just left. He chose to stay and keep listening to Wright's garbage. Wright's baggage WAS Obama's baggage
And this has nothing to do with my vote, so whether I would vote for her or not, is irrelevent. This has everything to do with the advantages Obama had when he ran, that Hillary doesn't have. And as has been plainly provided, that while you rail against this unseeing un-named oligarchy as controlling politicians (Republicans apparently only in your tweaked mind), Hillary has been bought and payed for both domestically & by foreign interests, including other governments. So much so, she had to go to great lenghts to try and hide it, and disclose as little as possible.
Your frequent venting aimed at Republicans is based on they're having been bought up by the famous Oligarchy. So yea, if Hillary were a Republican, she'd be one of those uber-rich politicans like Romney, and receiving the same irrational condemnations, based on his wealth, that you've rained all over every other rich republicans, whove supposedly been bought off. But because she has a (D), she gets the hypocritical pass. Now, if you were to condemn Hilary for such non-disclosure of all these millions in foreign donations, and were supportive of either O'Mally or Sanders, THEN, you might have a credible leg to stand on.
-
SIRS you are right.....Hillary has a Wall Street Problem!
Top Contributors
Hillary Clinton
1 Citigroup Inc
2 Goldman Sachs
3 MetLife Inc
4 Time Warner
5 JPMorgan Chase
6. Morgan Stanley
-
Stop telling me what the imaginary me in your warped and deranged brain would do if blah blah or diddle diddle.
You have never heard more than a one minute clip of Rev Wright. It is stupid to assume that anyone believes people they hear speak, anyway.
-
While I appreciate the continued effort to try and sway the coversation away from the core of the thread, and onto some tangent regarding Rev Wright, the fact still remains that your hypocrisy in supporting Hillary's intimate financial connections with mega donors both domestic and foreign, is as transparent as Hillary's is nontransparent
-
I did not bring up Rev Wright. That was YOU. I do not think Rev Wright mattered or ever will matter even one whit. You have no idea how many gasbag preachers I have been forced to listen to in college functions over the years. I was especially fond of the guy who punctuated every sentence by stomping on the stage and saying that he knew that every member of the faculty of my fine institution was a Born Again Christian. I winked at my collague Dr Ross, who was Jewish, and an atheist, and she winked back.
For what it is worth, I prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary. I am pretty sure he would not get paid any large sums by Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan, but I do not think he will be in the race by the time of the FL primary. Bernie is honest and tells it like it is.
I prefer Hillary to any of the toads the Republican'ts are likely to run. This conversation is about your Hillary Hatred, which is of no real importance to me or anyone but you.
-
This conversation is nothing about Hillary hatred. That's merely your attempt at avoiding the topic at hand. It's about the dichotomy between Obama's presidential campaign, vs Hillary's. Wright was a footnote, nothing more. You're the one trying to drag him in as the crux of some tangent you're trying to make
Now, its a breath of fresh air to see you'd prefer the uber socialist Sanders to the more status quo liberal Hillary, but the point still remains how you continue to giver her a pass.....not a whiff of criticism....that would have you going apesnot, if she had an (R) after her name
-
I like the title of this thread.
Who are they ? What indeed is the common element of the people who really like Hillary?
What about Hillary pleases them?
-
Exactly. The arguement the professor is trying to make is one of a liberal base Democrat who has no inention of voting for anyone that doesn't have a (D) after their name. They can take whatever millions from whatever donars, be beholden to any and every lobbying group. Hell, they can even have a criminal record or in the process of being indicted. Just as long as they have a (D), that's all that matters
(and no xo, that's not implying that Hillary has a criminal record or is about to be indicted. It was merely a general reference voting by the base of the Democrat party)
Plane gets the point I was making. It has nothing to do with Hillary hatred or who Plane or I intend to vote for. Its about who would vote for Hillary. And you can't claim that they'd vote for her because the alternative is a Republican, since that's not the folks I'm referring to. That's a Democrat base voter, who would be making that as their primary decision maker. Hillary has a major baggage problem which includes tanking poll #'s in both trust & credibilty. She's an entrenched Public Politician, drowning in massive amounts of campaign donations, both foreign & domestic, laudered thru her Foundation, that conveniently any and all evidence not-so-surprisingly deleted from her private computer & private server
So, outside the Democrat base, who would vote for her, even if she were in jail pinstripes, what other constituencies would find her appealing enough to vote her in as the President of the U.S.?
-
It is not about voting foe Democrats. It is about preventing Republican'ts from winning. I would vote for Vegetarians, Sagittariuns or anyone that was less beholden to the Oligarchy. As I said, I prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary.
It is the Kochs who publicly declared that they intended to spend 900 million on this election.
Hillary is not wearing jailbird clothes except in your warped and twisted tiny mind.
-
In what sense is Hillary Clinton less beholden to oligarchy than other candidates?
What she gets for giving a speech at a college would pay a couple of Doctors full ride.
How good can a speech be , that it is worthy of this rate of pay?
-
The Republican donors are the coal, oil and gas bazillionaires, along with cattle and timber barons and others who oppose tighter clean air and water standards and who want to use public lands for their own gain.
-
The Republican donors are the coal, oil and gas bazillionaires, along with cattle and timber barons and others who oppose tighter clean air and water standards and who want to use public lands for their own gain.
What are the billionaires like who prefer Democrats?
-
It is not about voting foe Democrats. It is about preventing Republican'ts from winning.
And as you just reinforced, that your argument is that of the base democrat. That's NOT the constituency I'm referring to. That line of campaigning isn't going to win over the moderate looking for a transcending form of politician, or a fence sitter looking for some injection of honesty and credibility in a candidate. That's only going to work for the cool-aide drinking liberal democrat voter
It is the Kochs who publicly declared that they intended to spend 900 million on this election.
And in what way does that refute the millions upon millions that Hillary has been getting, from uber rich donors to foreign governments?? Hmmmmmm?
Hillary is not wearing jailbird clothes except in your warped and twisted tiny mind.
And pray tell, where did I ever claim she was?? I think I went above and beyond to make it painfully clear that my pinstripe reference wasn't any form of specific claim to be applied to Hillary, merely a hypothetical, that could be applied to any candidate with a (D) after their name
-
That line of campaigning isn't going to win over the moderate looking for a transcending form of politician, or a fence sitter looking for some injection of honesty and credibility in a candidate. That's only going to work for the cool-aide drinking liberal democrat voter
============================================
Now I am campaigning? No, you silly goose, I am not campaigning.
You should be investigating the Core Constituency of the Republican Party as well, in keeping with your desire for symmetry.
I am not even sure what is meany by "Core Constituency". Do you mean the typical members of the campaign staff? The "average" Clinton voter, whom you seek to ridicule for being ignorant and misguided?
With only two parties in a nation of 330 million and the ability of any candidate to receive virtually unlimited sums of money from corporations and individuals, what we have in the country is hardly a democracy at all.
The ultra right likes to say that what we have is a "republic" and that is certainly true, as the basic definition of a republic is a government led by someone other than a hereditary monarch. By that definition, Russia, Moldova, Myanmar, Nepal, Iceland, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Paraguay and the US are all Republics, while Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Tonga, and perhaps Canada and Australia are not.
I am in favor of more democracy and a greater ability of the people to select their leaders than they currently have. The stupid Electoral College should be abolished, because it is anti-democratic. This is a nation of human beings, not acreage. DC and the territories, including Puerto Rico should be allowed representation in Congress. Corporations should not be allowed to contribute diddly. The election campaign period should be limited in the amount spent as well as the duration of the campaign.
I do not give a damn if I am part of Hillary's Core Constituency or not. It would make no difference to me either way.
-
I do not give a damn if I am part of Hillary's Core Constituency or not. It would make no difference to me either way.
This probably means that you are not .
You can imagine a better ,or perhaps you know, a better Democrat , someone that would represent you better and perhaps be a more effective president.
She might still get your vote , but not because you idealize her, you just like the alternatives you are being offered somewhat less.
There must be some people who really think that the country can't do better than Hillary, but I am not seeing such people.
Could be the circles I travel in.
-
I prefer Bernie Sanders. He did not vote to invade Iraq and Hillary did.
-
I prefer Bernie Sanders. He did not vote to invade Iraq and Hillary did.
That is interesting.
So what is it that makes Hillary get the status of front runner?
I need to learn more about Bernie Sanders so we can discuss him for his own merit.
-
That line of campaigning isn't going to win over the moderate looking for a transcending form of politician, or a fence sitter looking for some injection of honesty and credibility in a candidate. That's only going to work for the cool-aide drinking liberal democrat voter
============================================
Now I am campaigning? No, you silly goose, I am not campaigning.
The never ending efforts to argue points never made never ceases to amaze, and the professor now pulls out his literal card tactic. News flash, linguistics professor.....if you were to actually read what's been said, in context, you'd note I never claimed you, specifically, were campaigning, oh deflection master. I merely point our your lind of who you'd support is consistent with the hard core liberal base, who support anyone with a (D) after their name
You should be investigating the Core Constituency of the Republican Party as well, in keeping with your desire for symmetry.
And here's effort #2 at deflection.....this bizarre use of symmetry. I have no "desire" for symmetry. I merely point how bias and hypocrisy, especially when its so transparent. That doesn't equate to me advocating an equal level of hypocrisy or MSM bias for conservative issues. That'd be strike 2. Could there be a strike 3?
I am not even sure what is meany by "Core Constituency".
Now, that's a legitimate question. So, removing the knee jerk snark associated with it, the Core Constituency is the Democrat base......the cool-aide drinkers, who would support her, even if she were being indicted on Federal charges. Outside of that, she has no serious voting block, that Obama had the luxury of having
I am in favor of more democracy and a greater ability of the people to select their leaders than they currently have. The stupid Electoral College should be abolished, because it is anti-democratic. This is a nation of human beings, not acreage. DC and the territories, including Puerto Rico should be allowed representation in Congress. Corporations should not be allowed to contribute diddly. The election campaign period should be limited in the amount spent as well as the duration of the campaign.
Ummm....ok....feel better now? None of that has anything to do with the point of the thread, but nice to know you got all that off your chest. One think I don't favor, and would never support, is mob rule. Thank God the founders of this country had that in mind as well, and formed a representative Republic, that answers to everyone....not just the heavy urbanized regions....or leftist elitists who think they know better
I do not give a damn if I am part of Hillary's Core Constituency or not. It would make no difference to me either way.
Oh, rest assured, you most certainly are. But that's kind of a given, given your hard core left track record
-
Let's examine the past three Republican Presidential Nominees:
Mitt Romney: son of millionaire: born rich, got richer.
John McCain: married into a huge fortune.
Juniorbush: Born rich, failed to make self much richer, but still rich.
Why should the average middle class American vote for these people? What could he possibly have in common with any of them?
-
Getting back to the crux of the thread, let's examine the current Presumptive Democrat Presidential nominee
- Despite initial claims of "being broke", receives millions for merely speaking
- Has a personal foundation that can launder millions more money from any source, in any amount, and has demonstrated, will break whatever campaign finance laws are on the books or agreements she signed to try & hide any such mandated disclosures
- An entrenched Politician, completely disconnected from modern everyday functions, they rest of us perform on a daily basis
- Expects us to believe that she didn't delete any e-mail, not to mention taking the extra step to wipe her sever, that didn't point to any quid-pro-quo arrangement
We won't even bring up her stellar incompetence as our SoS
So....why should the average middle class American vote for her? What could she possibly have in common with any of them?
-
Hillary did quite well as Secretary of State. She resurrected the status of this country among the Europeans and Japan, which was at its worst under Juniorbush, and she did not get us into any wars. Her critics wanted more wars, more invasions and more useless flexing of military might when everyone knew that it would just be posturing (as in Ukraine). This country was at its all time low point because of the stupid and useless Iraq invasion. Note that Afghanistan could have had a civil war over the last elections, but now the problematical Karzai is gone and the two contenders seem to be cooperating quite well. And, before you blather on about it, no one gives a shit about Benghazi except you and other Friends of Fox.
Hillary knows infinitely more about foreign policy than you do. Most of what you know is simply untrue. There is nothing but warped information emanating from the Planet sirs.
-
Hillary did quite well as Secretary of State.
In a land of alternate reality, perhaps....where up is down, left is right, and good is evil. Flying from country to country on the tax payer's dime, without crashing isn't doing "quite well", as a parameter for functioning as our SoS ::)
She resurrected the status of this country among the Europeans and Japan, which was at its worst under Juniorbush
While that's debatable, she has completely alieanted the status of this country, with nearly every one of our middle east allies, not to mention no one will forget the proverbial & massive "reset" failure with Russia :o
....and she did not get us into any wars
NO Secretary of State gets us into any wars. That's the President's call, not hers ::)
And, before you blather on about it, no one gives a shit about Benghazi except you and other Friends of Fox.
LOL...priceless. So, before we can discuss her pinnacle of incompotence, we're not to talk about it.
Hillary knows infinitely more about foreign policy than you do.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with her gross incompotence as our head of Foreign Policy & acute lack of actual "accomplishments" as SoS
Most of what you know is simply untrue.
Like what, specfically? Examples would be nice. Not your opinion, but actual facts that refute what I supposedly know to be true
-
I find your statements that Hillary has been a poor Secretary of State to be inaccurate and wrong.
At least Hillary has admitted that allowing Juniorbush to invade Iraq was a mistake. You, being less mentally acute, maintain the contrary.
-
I find your statements that Hillary has been a poor Secretary of State to be inaccurate and wrong.
That's an opinion, that unfortunately isn't backed up by any facts. Quite the opposite in fact
At least Hillary has admitted that allowing Juniorbush to invade Iraq was a mistake. You, being less mentally acute, maintain the contrary.
She's welcome to her opinion.....as wrong as it is, just as you are. Still doesn't refute the track record of facts that demonstrate how utterly incompotent she was in acting as our SoS
-
If her staff can't list her achievements and skills why should we expect anyone to know them.
Is marrying well a skill?
If it is ,...
Bill must have been elected on that skill.
-
Who said her staff was asked to list her accomplishments? That LinkedIn nonsense was not required.
-
LOL...we again enter that arena where when asked to list her supposed "accomplishments", we get crickets chirping
-
Here’s A List Of Hillary Clinton’s Accomplishments, So Quit Saying She Doesn’t Have Any
Author: Ryan Denson April 13, 2015 1:52 am
There are many, many people who seem to think Hillary Clinton hasn’t accomplished anything. Apparently, being a First Lady, a Senator, as well as Secretary of State doesn’t count as accomplishments to her critics. But here is a very simple summary that encompasses Hillary Clinton and what she has accomplished throughout her life — Courtesy of a friend:
“First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College. Distinguished graduate of Yale Law School. Former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic. Former civil litigation attorney. Former Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Former First Lady of Arkansas. Former First Lady of the United States, and the first FLOTUS in US History to hold a postgraduate degree. First ex-FLOTUS in US History to be elected to the United States Senate. Elected by the… State of New York to serve two terms in the United States Senate. Former US Secretary of State. GRAMMY Award Winner. Author. Self proclaimed Pantsuit Aficionado. Married to a man named Bill, who plays the saxophone.”
You don’t have to like Hillary Clinton or her ideas. I get it. She’s a Democrat, a progressive (in most eyes), and conservatives don’t like that. However, you cannot say she does not have any accomplishments. Here are just a few:
Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.
She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.
She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.
At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).
Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.
Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.
Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.
Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.
The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.
These are not all of her accomplishments. Her activism on behalf of women a children across the world is renowned. Her activism for raising the minimum wage and combating climate change is stellar. You do not have to support what she does or stands for. But do not say she doesn’t have any accomplishments. The conservatives who say this are the ones who are pushing for Ted Cruz – who brought on a $24 billion shut down. That, to them, is an accomplishment?
-
LOL....Priceless. Topped with "First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College" Throw in a few "titles" which is not an accomplishment at all, merely someone in the right place, who's only real accomplishment is she picked the right person to marry. And let's not forget she traveled the most, on tax payer's dime. You're helping to make the point all the more xo. Thanks
-
It is a waste of time to debate anything with you. It is like doiscussing Plato with a plate of creamed spinach.
-
Perfect rhetort.....debate per the supposed intellectual left. Demean, degrade, insult, and call that debate.
Seriously....you actually believe that traveling the most than any other SoS is "an accomplisment"?? Being elected Senator is a somewhat of an accomplisment, but that can be said of any elected DC official. The fact she happed to be a former Presiden't wife is what makes that some supposed "accomplishment"?? That's merely a coincidence. If anything that just reinforces that her biggest "accomplishment" was picking the right political guy to marry
To be honest, I truly hope she tries to run on "her record as our SoS". Anything and everything to highlight just how incompoment she has been, is a good thing
-
Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.
Oh , this is a useful one, we could have had Obamacare a decade earlier .
I mean of course that this horrifying idea is useful to her opponents.
-
So True
-
You wer3 blathering about "crickets chirping", so I gave you something to read so your imaginary crickets would stop haunting you.
Talk about Pearls before swine...
-
LOL...you didn't give "accomplishments" that warrant a Presidential run. You gave, as desperate as it was transparent, the best of the best of Hillary.....like she traveled the most on the tax payers' dime as some major "accomplishment". Good gravy
-
You wer3 blathering about "crickets chirping", so I gave you something to read so your imaginary crickets would stop haunting you.
Talk about Pearls before swine...
You did well, that is the best looking resume for her I have ever seen.
I am not persuaded to like her better by this , but it is better than not knowing.
Perusing the list I see that she has held a lot of posts and positions.
Next thing , what did she do with these posts and positions?
And has she ever had an idea?
-
I think that Hillarycare was definitely several ideas.
The fact is the country was better off under Bill Clinton than it was under either of the Bushes.
Florida was far better off under Lawton Chiles than under Jeffie or the hateful Rick Scott.
-
I think that Hillarycare was definitely several ideas.
What was the original part? Just ripping off Richard Nixon's plan doesn't count .
The fact is the country was better off under Bill Clinton than it was under either of the Bushes.
Piffle, why would you prefer a president who starts wars for no particular reason to one who starts war after the US or a allies are directly attacked? Bill Clinton benefited greatly from the peaking of the Reagan economy, and the Republican takeover of the House, if President Obama would learn to cooperate with the Republican plan like Clinton did he would be in better favor.
Florida was far better off under Lawton Chiles than under Jeffie or the hateful Rick Scott.
Has Lawton Chiles decided what he wants to be when he grows up?
-
Nixon did not manage to get his healthcare off the ground. I doubt that Hillary's plan was a duplicate, but even if it was getting it enacted would have been a major accomplishment. So it counts so far as I am concerned.
Again Iraq did not attack the US, and the Iraq War was a major event that started 12 years ago and is still not over.
Lawton Chiles died several years ago, lamentably.
-
Nixon did not manage to get his healthcare off the ground. I doubt that Hillary's plan was a duplicate, but even if it was getting it enacted would have been a major accomplishment. So it counts so far as I am concerned.
This gives Hillary an equivalency to Richard Nixon which seems like a lot better than she deserves.
Again Iraq did not attack the US, and the Iraq War was a major event that started 12 years ago and is still not over.
Miscount, 1990 was 25 years ago but you are right , the war was constant once it started.Lawton Chiles died several years ago, lamentably.
Oops sorry, I didn't know this.
-
I was referring to the Juniorbush Iraq war. the Olebush Iraq War ended with the liberation of Kuwait and the withdrawal of the allied troops.
The Second Iraq War was the entirely optional one that still has not ended.
-
I was referring to the Juniorbush Iraq war. the Olebush Iraq War ended with the liberation of Kuwait and the withdrawal of the allied troops.
The Second Iraq War was the entirely optional one that still has not ended.
No.
No one ever declared or accepted that as an end.
Saddam never quit shooting at us , and we never stopped shooting at him.
Would you say that the wrestling match was over when one of the guys was in a headlock?
Should Bill Clinton apologize for the hundreds of Iraqis he killed in a peacetime?
-
It was not the same war. Juniorbush clearly had the option of not invading Iraq, and the results of his invasion made Iraq a more difficult place for Iraqis to live.
-
And yet it was Obama proclaiming that Iraq had returned to a peaceful state of affairs, completely ready to take things over for themselves, supposedly justifying our pull out. Was he lying?......again? How could Bush's actions make it worse, if Obama claimed it was better, but now its worse?? :o
-
It was better and then it got worse, because of the sectarian nature of Iraq. The Iraqi Army turned out to be largely good at retreat. The traditional Iraqi Army was Sunni for generations, and the Shiites would prefer to fight for Shiite domination than for a unified Iraq. They cannot start a campaign to retake Mosul, because most of the people in Mosul are Sunni, and they fear the Shiite militias. There are not enough Kurds to retake Mosul.
It was clear before the stupid invasion that Iraq was apt to develop into a three way split, which is why it should never have happened.
Iraq cannot be unified without force, and it cannot be American force, because the Sunnis and the Shiites oppose American intervention, the American taxpayers do not want to pay for another useless invasion, and there is no group that can has the force to unify Iraq.
The solution is like untossing a salad or unmaking a stew.
-
It wasn't just better, Obama proclaimed it was pretty much fixed, per Obama. Sorry, you can't have it both ways, where Iraq was a complete disaster at the hands of Bush, that Obama could never fix, but also support that Obama fixed it, but now that its gotten worse,....because it's Bush's fault again?? Nope, reality doesn't work that way
So...Obama was lying again, when he said things were all better. Glad we got that cleared up
-
In your warped and twisted mind, everything Obama says is a lie, and your opinion is worthless as ever.
-
Only his lies are lies. Not to mention your opinion of my opinion is, I suppose, worth less than worthless