Stupid, blind,,,,same thing but it's okay. To one degree or another we all possess those fine qualities..
thats right.
Jeb Bush
- Thread starter weaselwords
- Start date
thats right.
No I think he was born in Africa.
Perhaps both!
I guess there's a 50% chance someone named Smith or Jones could be better than Jeb Bush, but the down side to it is there's also a 50% chance he could be worse!
Perhaps both!
I guess there's a 50% chance someone named Smith or Jones could be better than Jeb Bush, but the down side to it is there's also a 50% chance he could be worse!
the only reason the same name is being thrown around is because it sucks manyvoters in, and that is
all they care about, it is a sales pitch, much better, more knowledeable, younger, people more
tuned into a newer approach are out there, but for the reason i mention above, it is hard for
them to become known becAuse the pArties have their strategies to 'get' people aboard to vote
for them.
the same applies for both families, bushes and clintons for the same reasons, And that is
unproductive to the health and development of the country moving forward.
the thought that one would vote for jeb bush because someone they Aren't as familiar with could
be worse is very scary, that is being very stuck, and not taking the time to find out who others
are, and learning about people running for office, just grasping at the familiar.
the american people must take a good look in the mirror and see what they are doing, with both
parties, a husband, then the wife, the father, a son, then another son, come on, that is not
good for the country moving forward, seems more like monArchies, but in real
life these days the monArchies don't really run the country, these ones do.
best comments.......
Any person today who says he would have still invaded Iraq based on what we now know or that he doesn't know the answer to said "hypothetical" is not fit to be president. To not understand that the Iraq war was an unmitigated disaster portrays a gross lack of intelligence, critical analysis skills or someone who is influenced by a separate agenda that has nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the people of the United States - or quite frankly planet Earth.
Daddy Bush got this right. EVERYBODY knew in 1991 that to invade Iraq would be to unleash forces that no one knew how to control. That Saddam was able to keep Sunnis and ****es from killing each other was close to a miracle, so the entire world agreed to just leave him in control. They did a brilliant job of leaving him with too little power to screw with anyone but his own people. Bush Jrs neo-cons knew it would take a heap of lies to convince anyone to poke that hornet's nest with a stick, so they lied and we poked. It was destined to come apart the minute the US left, and it did, just like Daddy Bush's team said it would.
For those that understand what Cause and Effect is, can understand that the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq directly led to the growth of ISIS. For over 1000 years there has been a Shiite vs Sunni power struggle in the middle east. The leading Shiite country is Iran and the leading Sunni country is Saudi Arabia. With Saddam Iraq was a Sunni controlled country that stabilized the balance of power between the two.
When the US invaded Iraq and kicked the Sadaam Sunnis out of the military we turned 30,000 former soldiers into angry, unemployed rebels that aligned with Al Qaida and later ISIS to attack the US installed Shiite Iraqi government.
ISIS was funded by Saudi Arabia to attack Syria and ISIS took advantage of the Iraq situation to recruit the Sunni rebels to attack the Iraqi government.
And remember it was not the surge that stabilized Iraq it was the US bribing the Sunni rebels to stop fighting. Now for those that say we left too soon, how much and how long do you want to bribe the Sunni rebels to stop fighting? 5 years, 10 years? Because as soon as the US stops paying them they will fight the Iraqi government.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/george-w-bushs-iraq-war-hawks-dismayed-by-jebs-dithering
Any person today who says he would have still invaded Iraq based on what we now know or that he doesn't know the answer to said "hypothetical" is not fit to be president. To not understand that the Iraq war was an unmitigated disaster portrays a gross lack of intelligence, critical analysis skills or someone who is influenced by a separate agenda that has nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the people of the United States - or quite frankly planet Earth.
Daddy Bush got this right. EVERYBODY knew in 1991 that to invade Iraq would be to unleash forces that no one knew how to control. That Saddam was able to keep Sunnis and ****es from killing each other was close to a miracle, so the entire world agreed to just leave him in control. They did a brilliant job of leaving him with too little power to screw with anyone but his own people. Bush Jrs neo-cons knew it would take a heap of lies to convince anyone to poke that hornet's nest with a stick, so they lied and we poked. It was destined to come apart the minute the US left, and it did, just like Daddy Bush's team said it would.
For those that understand what Cause and Effect is, can understand that the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq directly led to the growth of ISIS. For over 1000 years there has been a Shiite vs Sunni power struggle in the middle east. The leading Shiite country is Iran and the leading Sunni country is Saudi Arabia. With Saddam Iraq was a Sunni controlled country that stabilized the balance of power between the two.
When the US invaded Iraq and kicked the Sadaam Sunnis out of the military we turned 30,000 former soldiers into angry, unemployed rebels that aligned with Al Qaida and later ISIS to attack the US installed Shiite Iraqi government.
ISIS was funded by Saudi Arabia to attack Syria and ISIS took advantage of the Iraq situation to recruit the Sunni rebels to attack the Iraqi government.
And remember it was not the surge that stabilized Iraq it was the US bribing the Sunni rebels to stop fighting. Now for those that say we left too soon, how much and how long do you want to bribe the Sunni rebels to stop fighting? 5 years, 10 years? Because as soon as the US stops paying them they will fight the Iraqi government.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/george-w-bushs-iraq-war-hawks-dismayed-by-jebs-dithering
Politifact: Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Jeb Bush says:
We rate the statement Mostly False.
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq.
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
We rate the statement Mostly False.
Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...refused-sign-plan-place-leave-10000-troops-i/
We rate the statement Mostly False.
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq.
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
We rate the statement Mostly False.
Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...refused-sign-plan-place-leave-10000-troops-i/
Jeb Bush says he wants Stephen Harper re-elected
Likely U.S. presidential candidate Jeb Bush says he wants Canadians to re-elect Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The former Republican governor of Florida meandered into the unusual foreign endorsement after pledging that he would visit Canada in the first 100 days of his presidency in order to repair a bilateral relationship he said President Barack Obama has “ruptured.”
“I don’t know if it’s Prime Minister Harper or whoever the next — he may be re-elected,” Bush said Wednesday at an event in New Hampshire. “I, for one, would think that would be great. But that’s just me.”
Bush has repeatedly used Canada as an example of Obama’s supposed bungling of international affairs. He said Wednesday that the tension between the U.S. and its “strongest ally” now extends “across the board,” well beyond the matter of the Keystone XL pipeline.
“It’s hard to imagine how we could have a bad relationship with Canada, but under this administration we’ve managed to do it,” Bush said.
Jeb Bush says he wants Stephen Harper re-elected | Toronto Star
Tired of the status quo in politics. We need a change in our perspective, our sense of priorities . A fresh outlook for the hard working common people of this fair land. A candidate that can relate to everyone and who embraces the diversity that make this nation great.A man who has worked amongst the mainstream shoulder to shoulder. Maybe a plumber, a brick layer, a landscaper or maybe,,,a "carpenter", yes yes, a carpenter who spent his life building things up,,,,and not tearing things down. . To quote the great George Clooney in that classic movie "Oh Brother Where Art Thou",,,, How much it pay? .
. To quote the great George Clooney in that classic movie "Oh Brother Where Art Thou",,,, How much it pay? .
They had one in Sarah Palin and nobody wanted her , right left or center .Tired of the status quo in politics. We need a change in our perspective, our sense of priorities . A fresh outlook for the hard working common people of this fair land. A candidate that can relate to everyone and who embraces the diversity that make this nation great.A man who has worked amongst the mainstream shoulder to shoulder. Maybe a plumber, a brick layer, a landscaper or maybe,,,a "carpenter", yes yes, a carpenter who spent his life building things up,,,,and not tearing things down.
Hell they coulda layed ol' Raygun in state when he was alive...........no difference.
anne coulter is definitely a republican, fits the mold, a very dangerous mind indeed, these types of
people can lie, lie, lie, and I think they do believe themselves eventually, and they wander into a
place that has nothing at all to do with caring for the American people, but doing dirty deeds to
the opposition and others who don't think like her, I will never figure out why these people don't
care a dam for their own country, but care deeply about harming others, guess it takes all kinds.
people can lie, lie, lie, and I think they do believe themselves eventually, and they wander into a
place that has nothing at all to do with caring for the American people, but doing dirty deeds to
the opposition and others who don't think like her, I will never figure out why these people don't
care a dam for their own country, but care deeply about harming others, guess it takes all kinds.