What sets Jeb apart?

[sirs]

AS bad as slavery? Really? 

Yea, really.  Worst piece of crap legislation ever imposed, whereby in 1 stroke, the Federal Government destroys a system that was working and supported by a vast majority of its citizenry, replaced by a centralized effort, that was never supported by any majority, pushed by lies, and now gives the Federal Government access to pretty much everyone's health records

They way you take over your citizenry starts with taking over their healthcare, and ends with taking away their guns

[hnumpah]

I see in the news (unfortunately I am not on my PC and am unable to copy the article or url) that Jeb is blaming Obama for the rise of ISIS. This seems a bit ridiculous to me. Wasn't it Jeb's own brother, Dubya, that invaded Iraq under false pretenses, then proceeded to dismantle their military, including especially the top leadership? This left no military in Iraq to take over the task of defending their country, and additionally left several disaffected (and fired by the US) former military officers, out of work and thoroughly pissed off at their treatment by the US, to actually become some of the leaders of ISIS. So why blame Oblather?

[Xavier_Onassis]

They way you take over your citizenry starts with taking over their healthcare, and ends with taking away their guns

==================================
Both of which would make us all safer. But this is another slippery slope argument and therefore illogical. Healthcare and guns are unrelated in US law.

[sirs]

ummm, the short answers are:
No (based on the parameters being applied)
&
Not leaving a residual force, which we've done following nearly every other major combat operation

[Xavier_Onassis]

So why blame Oblather?


=================================
Why not? He is Black and he is a Democrat. How could he NOT be to blame?

What sets Jeb apart is the huge amount of money he has raised for his campaign and his PAC, and of course, his name, which is probably as much an asset as a liability.
The uninformed voter likes continuity, like Nixon's slogan "Re elect the President"  which did not mention the word "Nixon".

The Iraq War would not have been fought by President Gore.

[hnumpah]

ummm, the short answers are:
No (based on the parameters being applied)
&
Not leaving a residual force, which we've done following nearly every other major combat operation

Except the first Iraq war - so you are saying blame OleBush then? After all, if he had let Stormin' Norman go on to Baghdad and finish Saddam then, there might not have been a second Iraq war.

[hnumpah]

Just think - if OleBush had wrapped up the first Iraq war properly:

1. Dubya could have stayed focused on the real problems, the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and we might have wrapped that up years ago, instead of still being mired there now, almost 14 years later.

2. There would have been no need to manufacture a WMD scare to bullshit the American people into supporting another invasion of Iraq.

3. Thousands of American, coalition and Iraqi lives might have been saved, American wounded spared having to live with permanent injuries and PTSD, and the American people would be spared seeing ad after ad for "just (x) dollars a month, you can help a wounded veteran".

I have no confidence in any member of the Bush family when it comes to national office, especially the presidency.

[sirs]

Just think - if OleBush had wrapped up the first Iraq war properly:

1. Dubya could have stayed focused on the real problems, the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and we might have wrapped that up years ago, instead of still being mired there now, almost 14 years later.

2. There would have been no need to manufacture a WMD scare to bullshit the American people into supporting another invasion of Iraq.

I have no confidence in any member of the Bush family when it comes to national office, especially the presidency.

Well #1 is definately credible, while #2 again is largely a difference of opinion, at this point, and not going to be re-re-re-re-re-rehashed here again, with the same walls being run into.  I have no problem with Jeb, if he were to become the nominee, outside of his wayward positions on immigration.  But the Bush name has been soiled as bad as the Clintons.  And although the Bush's were never directly the source of their soiling, unlike the Clintons, the Bush name has been irreversibly stained, in the post Iraq aftermath

[hnumpah]

I have several, but the two biggest are:

1. Olebush.
2. Dubya.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The First Iraq War was most likely caused deliberately by Olebush.  The Kuwaiti contractors were using horizontal drilling to drill under the border with Iraq  and sucking oil put of Iraqi fields. The Iraqis did not have this technology, which was American and proprietary. Saddam protested this theft of oil and Olebush had his ambassador April Glespie to tell him that "The US does not have a position on the borders between Middle Eastern nations". Saddam took this to mean that he could attack Kuwait and what the Hell, take it over, since it was historically part of Iraq anyway, which is what he did. 

The world economy was in a slump at the time, and nothing pumps up an economy like a good war, so Olebush rounded up  a whole bunch of allies and got them to pay the total cost of that war. It cost teh US nothing: the Kuwaitis paid an enormous amount to get their country back. Previously the King of Kuwait was jabbering about how he wanted to sell his oil in appreciating Euros rather than declining dollars, so this was payback time for his greedy Highness. The Japanese, the Saudis, and many others also ponied up funds to pay for this.

So why didn't Olebush go on and finish up Saddam? First, he counted on the Kurds to do it for him, but they failed. Getting rid of Saddam, who was holding a potentially explosive Iraq together was not part of the deal, and Olebush knew that if he did get rid of Saddam, the US would not get paid by the Saudis and Kuwaitis and others and would get stuck with the bill.

We have to remember that OleBush was Director of the CIA, and the CIA is expert at dirty tricks precisely of this nature.

[sirs]

Nice fantasy

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am sure that all the tracks have been covered up.

Saddam was a known fool, and Olebush played him like Jerry Murad and the Harmonicats played their harmonicas.

Note that another secret agent, Vladimir Putin, was also in the KGB. Manipulation behind the scenes is what guys like Olebush and Vlad Putin do for a living.

Skullduggery from a Skull and Bonesman. 

Elect another Bush and see some more of the same.

Enlisting in the military not recommended when a Bush is in power.

[sirs]

How convenient the fantasy then becomes

[Xavier_Onassis]

If it is true, would they have not covered all the tracks?  The CIA has pulled off shit like this before, in Brazil, when they conspired to oust Janio Quadros and his successor, Juscelino Kubitschek, in Chile when they conspired to kill Allende, in Indonesia, when they conspired to oust Sukarno.

[sirs]

LOL....how's this.....The Clintons have been directly funding ISIS & was financially supporting the attack on Benghazi, as Clinton really hated Ambassador Stevens.  Of course this has been all covered up now, but that just validates the accusation, right?  I mean, if it is true, would they have not covered all the tracks??   Lack of any actual facts or proof, is obviously proof positive

See how bassackwards that is?  That's the same thing you're trying to peddle in claiming Bush 1 was behind Saddam attacking Kuwait, then turning around and declaring how its all been covered up.  How convenient the fantasy then becomes