ISIS conquers Ramadi, Anbar, thanks to Obama


B00Mer
#1
ISIS conquers Ramadi, Anbar, thanks to Obama

Obama boasts of "ending the Iraq War," but what's been the result? This week, ISIS took over Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province; this couldn't have happened before Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKQKT8TglEY
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
gerryh
+5
#2  Top Rated Post
You want to blame an American for the mess in Iraq and ISIS? Then blame that moron Georgie Bush. He's the one that took out Saddam.
 
pgs
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

You want to blame an American for the mess in Iraq and ISIS? Then blame that moron Georgie Bush. He's the one that took out Saddam.

Yes with the full support of the Democratic controlled house and senate .
Old Georgie boy didn't go it alone .
Funny how every one likes to forget that tidbit .
 
Ludlow
+1
#4
I looked in my rear view mirror the other day right after making a left turn at a traffic light and lo and behold two SUV's collided . The first thought that came to my mind was that they must have been listening to Rash Limbo on the radio complaining about the President like he always does. If Obama would have done the right thangs and payed attention to what the great Rash been sayin those drivers would not have been distracted and the wreck never would have happened. EVERYTHANG,,,,is Obama's fault tired of that guy.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#5
The real problem is the war started by George Bush in the first place we didn't need to
go into Iraq Afghanistan should have been the only target. Iraq was about revenge and
you know the saying. When you fight with revenge in your heart dig two graves.
Put the blame on both but Bush touched the fuse that has lit the Middle East instability
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+3
#6
If he left troops in, it would be his fault American troops were dying in Iraq.
 
tay
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Yes with the full support of the Democratic controlled house and senate .
Old Georgie boy didn't go it alone .
Funny how every one likes to forget that tidbit .





Not all members voted yay including Bernie Sanders and that muslim guy.........








The dramatic, much-debated vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133.


In the end, 156 members of Congress from 36 states had enough information and personal insight and wisdom to make the correct decision for our national and the world community.




OnPolitics (washingtonpost.com)
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

If he left troops in, it would be his fault American troops were dying in Iraq.

Because it's always Obama's fault.

I still can't figure out what the rightards' problem is. Muzzies killing Muzzies. How is this a bad thing?
 
B00Mer
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I still can't figure out what the rightards' problem is. Muzzies killing Muzzies. How is this a bad thing?

Only one problem with that... the USA isn't selling military equipment to the Arab States fast enough.. and a few on the side to the Syrian Rebels (AKA ISIS)
 
Kreskin
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Yes with the full support of the Democratic controlled house and senate .
Old Georgie boy didn't go it alone .
Funny how every one likes to forget that tidbit .

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

That isn't voting for war.

Only 39% of House Democrats supported the resolution. Not exactly full.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

That isn't voting for war.

Yeah, it pretty much is, under our Constitutional system. And if you think the Congress wasn't voting for the war, can you explain why they passed an emergency supplemental funding measure every year to continue the war?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yeah, it pretty much is, under our Constitutional system. And if you think the Congress wasn't voting for the war, can you explain why they passed an emergency supplemental funding measure every year to continue the war?

That is supplemental funding bill not war. They can claim to be against the war and support it at the same time. They will make all the voters happy.
 
gopher
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Yes with the full support of the Democratic controlled house and senate .
Old Georgie boy didn't go it alone .
Funny how every one likes to forget that tidbit .



Of course, if Bush hadn't lied he would never have gotten that support - funny how so many forget this:




The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?




-----




And now the Republicans are admitting that their war was a "mistake":



Iraq war judged a mistake by today's White House hopefuls | The Salt Lake Tribune



A dozen years later, American politics has reached a rough consensus about the Iraq War: It was a mistake.

It's a revealing moment when the major contenders for president in both parties find it best to say that 4,491 Americans and countless Iraqis lost their lives in a war that shouldn't have been waged.

Polls show most of the public have judged the war a failure by now. Over time, more and more GOP politicians have allowed that the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq undermined Republican President George W. Bush's rationale for the 2003 invasion.


It hasn't been an easy evolution for those such as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted for the war in 2002 while serving in Congress. That vote, and her refusal to fully disavow it, cost her during her 2008 primary loss to Barack Obama, who wasn't in the Senate in 2002 but had opposed the war.

In her memoir last year, Clinton wrote that she had voted based on the information available at the time, but "I got it wrong. Plain and simple."

Jeb Bush, a likely candidate for the Republican nomination in 2016, was pressured last week into rejecting, in hindsight, his brother's war.

Or as Rick Santorum, another potential Republican candidate, put it: "Everybody accepts that now."

Santorum didn't always see the war that way. He voted for the invasion as a senator and continued to support if for years. Last week, he mocked Jeb Bush's reluctance to give what now seems the obvious answer when he was initially asked to reconsider the war in light of what's known today. "I don't know how that was a hard question," Santorum said.

It's an easier question for presidential hopefuls who aren't bound by family ties or their own congressional vote for the war, who have the luxury of judging it in hindsight, knowing full well the terrible price Americans paid and the continuing bloodshed in Iraq.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz weren't in Congress in 2002 and so didn't have to make a real-time decision with imperfect knowledge. Neither was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who served an earlier stint in Congress.

All these Republicans said last week that, in hindsight, they would not have invaded Iraq with what's now known about the faulty intelligence that wrongly indicated Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, in an interview Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," summed up that sentiment: "Knowing what we know now, I think it's safe for many of us, myself included, to say, we probably wouldn't have taken" that approach.






-----------




And, of course, Obama had nothing to do with ISIS's success since he is president of the USA, not of Iraq whose president is Fuad Musam. Blaming Obama for Musam's failure is like blaming Musam for what went on in Ferguson.
 
Ludlow
+3
#14
it's Gopher's fault.
 
gopher
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Ludlow View Post

it's Gopher's fault.




Agree One Million Percent!
 
MHz
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

You want to blame an American for the mess in Iraq and ISIS? Then blame that moron Georgie Bush. He's the one that took out Saddam.

I'm pretty sure history will show he lost control in Gulf I, his execution took place as part of Gulf II
 
B00Mer
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Of course, if Bush hadn't lied he would never have gotten that support - funny how so many forget this:

Funny how many people forget this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZvuxaV-Sw

Saddam boasted about having WMD's, mostly to scare Iran into not attacking Iraq.. so the Intel was accurate as far as they new.

You're stupid conspericy theories don't fly here.
 
gopher
+1
#18
9/11 had nothing to do with al-Qaeda who were Saddam's biggest enemies. Takes one with his brains stuck up his butt to confuse the two. And Saddam denied having WMD before Bush's invasion as did Hans Blix. Now look up the Downing Street Memo and tell me who the real conspiracy theorist is.
 
Mahan
#19
Yesterday they killed 503 residents of Ramadi ...
 
Tecumsehsbones
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

9/11 had nothing to do with al-Qaeda who were Saddam's biggest enemies. Takes one with his brains stuck up his butt to confuse the two. And Saddam denied having WMD before Bush's invasion as did Hans Blix. Now look up the Downing Street Memo and tell me who the real conspiracy theorist is.

It's an American tradition. Somebody attacks our homeland, we attack somebody completely different. Look at 1941.
 
tay
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Funny how many people forget this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZvuxaV-Sw

Saddam boasted about having WMD's, mostly to scare Iran into not attacking Iraq.. so the Intel was accurate as far as they new.

You're stupid conspericy theories don't fly here.







Try to focus.


The subject of the thread is Iraq, not Saudi Arabia.....












 
Curious Cdn
+1
#22
There wouldn't be an ISIS in Iraq if it hadn't been for Obama's predecessor, Rummie, Wolfie, Cheney, Crystal and the other Hitler Youth gathered around that particular incompetent.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#23
Or a Saddam Hussein.
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Or a Saddam Hussein.

The House of Saud, that the United States has actively supported since the 1930s is a far bigger threat to the United States than Saddam ever was.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

And some people still say he wasn't qualified to be President!
 
EagleSmack
+1
#26
racists
 
gopher
#27
Republican fans boys love to defend their party members even though they are clearly at fault for creating this mess.
 
pgs
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

The real problem is the war started by George Bush in the first place we didn't need to
go into Iraq Afghanistan should have been the only target. Iraq was about revenge and
you know the saying. When you fight with revenge in your heart dig two graves.
Put the blame on both but Bush touched the fuse that has lit the Middle East instability

Don't forget the democratic senators and congresspeople .
 

Similar Threads

16
33
Canada conquers the USA
by razorgrade | Nov 24th, 2008