patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

Obama gave us a Depression.

Honey, that was courtesy of Bush as well. The Second Great Depression began in the summer of 2007 while Bush was still in office. More importantly, it was the direct result of the housing bubble created by Bush's and Greenspan's monetary policies. Didn't you know that this very site came into existence because of that clusterfuck?

You're still wrong.

Dan8267 says

Reagan gave us Al Queda and Bush gave us ISIS

As an independent, a supporter of both, Reagan and Clinton, only my type can be both unbiased and honest.
It's the democrats, Clinton and Obama, with their weak policies gave us Al Qaeda and ISIS. The stage was set by the worst democrat ever, Carter. The terrorists of the world fully understand the weakness of democrats when it comes to terrorism, and they take full advantage of that weakness.
Being nice to terrorists, will only get your head on a platter.

Any country that supports Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait supports ISIS. That is where ISIS got it's money from, along with AQ, the Taliban, and any other Salafyi/Wahabi terror group.

The Bushes and Bin Ladens were very close. The Bushes are close to many Saudi Royals, including Prince Bandar, and both the Bushes and Bandar himself jokingly calls the Prince "Bandar Bush"

In fact, guess who Bush the Elder, along with James Bakker III and Frank Carlucci were meeting with on 9/11?

Strategist says

As an independent, a supporter of both, Reagan and Clinton, only my type can be both unbiased honest.

It's the democrats, Clinton and Obama, with their weak policies gave us Al Qaeda and ISIS. The stage was set by the worst democrat ever, Carter. The terrorists of the world fully understand the weakness of democrats when it comes to terrorism, and they take full advantage of that weakness.

Being nice to terrorists, will only get your head on a platter.

You don't touch base with the real world very often do you?

Didn't Reagan "Cut and Run" from Beirut after a terrorist attack?

bob2356 says

Strategist says

As an independent, a supporter of both, Reagan and Clinton, only my type can be both unbiased honest.


It's the democrats, Clinton and Obama, with their weak policies gave us Al Qaeda and ISIS. The stage was set by the worst democrat ever, Carter. The terrorists of the world fully understand the weakness of democrats when it comes to terrorism, and they take full advantage of that weakness.


Being nice to terrorists, will only get your head on a platter.

You don't touch base with the real world very often do you?

Please explain. Thanks.

Isis is about half Bush and about half Obama.

ISIS got bored with slicing off heads, so now they are turning to drowning, burning alive, etc. What will be the gruesome culmination of this? I'm not creative enough to know.

Strategist says

It's the democrats, Clinton and Obama, with their weak policies gave us Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Sometime I think the US deliberately created ISIS to manipulate older American men who need a ego boost where Viagra doesn't help.
I guess that's the same reason why Republicans want no agreement with Iran: they just want their country to go around the world carrying a big stick and beating up anyone who disagree on religion or money. These guys identify with their country and that's what flatters their egos.

ISIS didn't exist before Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses, and is composed in good part of ex-Saddam officers.
I'm sure by "weak policies" you mean Obama didn't invade Syria.
I'm pretty sure some Republicans would invade Iran too. Whatever it takes to feel strong.
Have a blue pill instead.

Strategist says

You don't touch base with the real world very often do you?

Please explain. Thanks.

Let me do the math for you: 1.5 billions Mushlims. Do you want to kill them all?
If NO you are an appeaser, by definition.

vote Barry-Hillary- to protect yourself from the banks, Wall Street, NSA,TSA,HSA,FBI.CIA, and the military industrialists. Yes You Can

Strategist says

As an independent, a supporter of both, Reagan and Clinton, only my type can be both unbiased and honest.

Thanks, I haven't laughed that hard in months.

And Obama gave us Aesop's fables.

... like those who dine well off the plainest dishes, he made use of humble incidents to teach great truths, and after serving up a story he adds to it the advice to do a thing or not to do it. Then, too, he was really more attached to truth than the poets are; for the latter do violence to their own stories in order to make them probable; but he by announcing a story which everyone knows not to be true, told the truth by the very fact that he did not claim to be relating real events.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sure by "weak policies" you mean Obama didn't invade Syria.

No - I think he means foolishly pulling every last troop out of Iraq to have a talking point for the 2012 election.

Or siding with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt over the secular groups.

Or ignoring the Iranian Green Revolution to suck up to the Mullahs, so Obama can get another Nobel with his nuke deal.

socal2 says

No - I think he means foolishly pulling every last troop out of Iraq to have a talking point for the 2012 election.

Foolish maybe, but seriously is the US going to stay there for generations and force these separate people to form an "inclusive" government?
The reality is they are only together if one side totally controls and oppress the other.
This is why I suspect the US deliberately created ISIS as a Sunny country, which helps both to attack Syrian regime and to keep Iraq Shiites in check. Not to mention you get to bomb a few extremists, which makes people like Strategist happy when he comes back from taking out the trash.

socal2 says

Or siding with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt over the secular groups.

Remind me who was talking of spreading democracy in the middle east? You can't do that and then back out when you don't like the results.
Well I suppose you can, and did.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.bush07nov07-story.html
"President Bush laid out a broad vision Thursday of an American mission to spread democracy throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world, saying, "Freedom can be the future of every nation.""
Great job!

Heraclitusstudent says

Foolish maybe, but seriously is the US going to stay there for generations and force these separate people to form an "inclusive" government?

At least as long as we stayed in Germany, Japan and South Korea. Could you imagine what Germany would look like today if we pulled ALL TROOPS out in 1953 (8 years after the end of WWII) with the Communists at their doorstep building walls? Ditto for South Korea if we pulled all troops in 1958. My German relatives in the Western part of the country were convinced in 1950 that the Soviets were going to steamroll over the rest of the country.

Heraclitusstudent says

Remind me who was talking of spreading democracy in the middle east? You can't do that and then back out when you don't like the results.

Well I suppose you can, and did.

Democracy is more than one vote one time electing autocrats like the Muslim Brotherhood that instantly go about entrenching their power. We needed to stick around to help build up and protect the INSTITUTIONS of government.

After all the hard work and massive sacrifice our military committed to get to the point we were finally going to see some dividends with a reasonably peaceful and tolerant ally with the Iraqi government and people in 2009-2011, Obama threw it all away and let ISIS fill the void.

Worse, they toppled Ghadaffi on the way out of town and created an even bigger void for ISIS to take hold in Libya.

Literally, everything Obama (and Hillary) touched in foreign policy turned to shit. That is why Obama is SO DESPERATE to cut a deal with Iran to show something......anything to help his shattered legacy. Iran will be the next President's problem.

socal2 says

At least as long as we stayed in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

The problem is not in defending half the country against an external force in the other half. The problem is defending the unity of a country when its own people do not believe in it. That's stupid.

socal2 says

We needed to stick around to help build up and protect the INSTITUTIONS of government.

"stick around"? the US was never around in Egypt. Unless you mean supporting the previous dictator. That's hardly a process of creating institutions.

The US has a terrible record at "building countries" or institutions and it's futile to even try if people there don't believe in that goal.
If they believe that the Muslim Brotherhood with Sharia law is all they need, they will vote for that and the entire concept of other institutions is futile.

socal2 says

Worse, they toppled Ghadaffi on the way out of town and created an even bigger void for ISIS to take hold in Libya.

Right, exactly: All the US needed was to keep supporting dictators when their people rebelled against them.
Thank you so much.

socal2 says

Literally, everything Obama (and Hillary) touched in foreign policy turned to shit.

At least everything that derived from the nice idea to invade Iraq and "spread democracy".

socal2 says

We needed to stick around to help build up and protect the INSTITUTIONS of government.

https://www.GGDwvAbx_fg

https://www.Y_b2wRPgcyw

WTC first bombing happened in '93. Embassy bombings happened in 1997 timeframe.

Facts are stubborn things.

Oh boy Hydrocabron!

9/11 happened, and many people rightfully changed their previous thinking.

When facts change, do you still cling to your old beliefs?

Entitlemented says

WTC first bombing happened in '93. Embassy bombings happened in 1997 timeframe.

Facts are stubborn things.

8 years' warning.

"I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." - Condoleezza Rice

socal2 says

When facts change, do you still cling to your old beliefs?

Here's a checklist:

- Military spending
- Immigration
- Abortion
- Health care
- Gun control
- Tax cuts
- Welfare spending

Name one of these issues on which you have ever, or will ever, change your mind.

(Being told by RNC to do so, because a Bush family member broke some conservative commandment, doesn't count.)

Heraclitusstudent says

The US has a terrible record at "building countries" or institutions

West Germany, Japan, South Korea, Philippines.....?

Heraclitusstudent says

Right, exactly: All the US needed was to keep supporting dictators when their people rebelled against them.

Thank you so much.

Are you saying we should have still supported Saddam after the majority Shia and Kurds rose up several times to try and overthrow the Sunni Baathists?

socal2 says

Heraclitusstudent says

The US has a terrible record at "building countries" or institutions

West Germany, Japan, South Korea, Philippines.....?

All strong stable countries before the US got involved. There is a big difference between rebuilding and building, but you don't understand that concept at all. Egypt and Iran/persia are the only two countries in the middle east or north africa that have ever been stable self standing countries.

bob2356 says

All strong stable countries before the US got involved. There is a big difference between rebuilding and building, but you don't understand that concept at all. Egypt and Iran/persia are the only two countries in the middle east or north africa that have ever been stable self standing countries.

I acknowledge that Iraq has a much bigger ethnic division challenge, but just disputing Rew's claim that we had no history of rebuilding countries. And I don't think South Korea and the Philippines were strong and stable at the time. South Korea remained a basket-case economically and politically for decades after the war.

Also, the infrastructure and loss of life in Japan and Germany was much greater than Iraq. An entire generation of men was lost and Germany was divided for another generation.

socal2 says

West Germany, Japan, South Korea, Philippines.....?

More a function of these people than the US imposing it.

socal2 says

Are you saying we should have still supported Saddam after the majority Shia and Kurds rose up several times to try and overthrow the Sunni Baathists?

No what I'm saying is you can't at the same time push for democratic institutions AND support dictators.
This is mutually exclusive.

And if you're going to support a rebellion, it's best not to wait till after it's crushed to do it.

socal2 says

West Germany, Japan, South Korea, Philippines

All examples of situations post extremely devastating war, and absolute capitulation or cooperation, with the US in the mission.
That environment didn't exist in Iraq.

All examples with high national will to contain Communism.
National will extremely weak for mission to nation build in Iraq : we are/were there for terrorists who knocked down the towers and WMDs. As soon as Iraqis are seen not to be the "bad guys" we thought, national will evaporated. *poof*

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

If Nancy Reagan had sucked off Bin Laden instead of Frank Sinatra, could the US have avoided 9/11?

No, but if Frank did, it might have.

Democratic & Republican voters gave me a Fucked Up Govt.

Again, Wolf's Dilemma.

socal2 says

I acknowledge that Iraq has a much bigger ethnic division challenge, but just disputing Rew's claim that we had no history of rebuilding countries. And I don't think South Korea and the Philippines were strong and stable at the time. South Korea remained a basket-case economically and politically for decades after the war.

I rest my case. There was no country to rebuild in Iraq. Iraq was never a county, it was lines drawn on a map by the british in 1910 putting tribes that had been warring for 4 millennia together politically. What is now Iraq was Assyria, Babylonia, and Sealand Dynasty 4000 years ago and hasn't gotten any closer to being a country since. The brits tried to make it a country for 27 years, gave up and pulled out (a bit of history bush should have read). It says a lot the brits had to bring in a Hashemite Syrian, Faisel, to be ruler when they took over in 1910, they couldn't find a local leader strong enough. Since the Brits pulled out Iraq has only been held together by repressive strongman dictators. The idea that the "people of iraq" would gratefully rise up to greet the American liberators was either stupidity or insanity I can't tell which. Certainly plenty of people, including me, pointed out this simply would not happen, that Bush was igniting a powder keg by allowing thousands of years of animosities out of the bag. Not just in Iraq but around the region.

The phillipines was country with a long history and a good working government when the US took over adminstration from the Spanish. See the first Phillipine republic. Korea has been a strong country with several empires from the 5th century until the Japanese annexed it in 1910. The UN screwed things up in 1945 by giving half the country to the soviets to rebuild and half the country to the US to rebuild. Korea's economy was booming by 1960 over 10% growth a year. Considering that Japan had used Korea as basically a slave labor camp for 35 years and there was a major war in South Korea from 1950-1954 getting the economy going from scratch so fast was pretty damn good.

Rebuilding a war torn country with centuries of strong government and economy is a very different thing than propping up strongmen dictators (vietnam, central america, etc.) or regime change (central america, iraq, etc.). A distinction that is lost on both you, pretty much all of the neocon/conservative crowd, and far far too many policy makers in government.

Unfortunately it was the republicans that showed we were weak. When 9/11 happened, instead of going after the people who did it, Bushies and the repubs used it as an excuse to go after Iraq and finish the job daddy started. It was a disgrace and that Mission Accomplished thingie was the worst of the worst.

As long as Bush and the repubs were in power, Bin laden was alive and well making threats and releasing tapes and taunting us. McCain said he would not go into Pakistan to egt Bin laden. Either repubs wanted Bin laden alive and free or they just wanted a longer war to help the military industrial complex at the expense of the troops.You need some enemy to continue the never ending multi trillion dollar war.

I don't like Obama and think he is the biggest snake oil salesman in the world-but surprisingly he got Bin Laden. He did and restored some credibility-if you attack America, you will not be running free, living with a harem, watching porn and mouthing off and taunting America. That gave us some strength. This is a shame that repubs will have to live with for ever-that they are the weak and imbecile party that could not even get the man who attacked us and slaughtered thousands and somehow Dubya made us the villain of that attack in a few years..

Now on this ISIS crap-Muslims will be Muslims, just like the Christians of Europe fought multiple wars for centuries-until they got tired of it. Until Muslims get sick of it, they will continue to do so-Obozo is doing the wise thing by not interfering. let them slaughter each other-there will be less for us to deal with.