Yes, I keep repeating this stuff. Because it bears repeating. In Iraq, Obama took a war that we had won at a considerable expense in lives and treasure, and threw it away for the callowest of political reasons. In Syria and Libya, he involved us in wars of choice without Congressional authorization, and proceeded to hand victories to the Islamists. Obama’s policy here has been a debacle of the first order, and the press wants to talk about Bush as a way of protecting him. Whenever you see anyone in the media bringing up 2003, you will know that they are serving as palace guard, not as press.
Give the Nobel Peace Prize Commity all kicks in the backsides for giving this war crinimal the Peace Prize
Give the Murrcans all kicks in the backside for electing this war criminal. TWICE!!!
“…they are serving as palace guard, not as press.”
I like that. Her Majesty’s LCBCR (Loyal Commie Butt Crack Rangers)and the PJRCTV (Princess Justin’s Royal Canadian Tip-toeing Voltigeurs).
“In Iraq, Obama took a war that we had won and threw it away for the callowest of political reasons”
God. What bullshit. Retarded neocons keep repeating this litany as some sort of mantra in the hope that people will buy it by force of repetition.
When you need to spend 300 billion US $ a year and 500 american soldier lives a year for the rest of time in order to maintain your “victory” you haven’t won jack squat.
Neocons are a very funny bunch. They are the only people who can “win” by actually losing.
The British installed a puppet government in Iraq, supported by an RAF base at Habbanniya, which worked from 1918 to 1958.
Saddam Hussein was doing a fantastic job controlling all the crazies and it didn’t cost the American taxpayer one dime. No American could ever control the crazies as good as Saddam Hussein even with troops on the ground for the rest of time because the Americans would never go as far as Hussein would go in order to keep the order.
The taking over of Iraq by an Islamic fanatic group like ISIS would be unthinkable were Saddam Hussein still in power.
So we just have to thank the neocons for their brilliant idea to take out Saddam.
Bull.
Saddam controlled by murdering.
After the serge. Iran became safer than Detroit. The troops complained they had nothing to do.
O-dumber threw Iraq away and was warned it would happed.
Daniel hates Red Tories >
I take it you opposed the UN & Obamba’s support for the Arab Spring?
Holy crap. Get a load of this guy.
Saddam controlled by murdering
Are you serious? Are you a f**king bleeding heart?
Anybody, ANYBODY that kills Muslims and controls the crazies has top marks in my book, particularly when it doesn’t cost the American taxpayer one cent. Whatever method he uses I don’t care. You know why? Because it is not my problem. I want someone there killing Muslims and controlling the crazies that doesn’ t cost the American taxpayer money. We had that and the neocons blew it.
Go tell your sob story about the poor Iraqis being murdered to some liberal who actually cares. Maybe you can get together with Shiny Pony and send them blankets.
So let me get this straight. You come to a conservative site to advocate for war and to send troops to Iraq but you don’t want any murdering? Are you for real? What do you want to send the US Army with? Flowers?
Another bleeding heart buffoon who thinks of the army as peacekeepers and wants to put US troops in harms way without giving them a clear mandate to go and murder which is what they need to accomplish anything.
@ Knight 99
I take it you opposed the UN & Obamba’s support for the Arab Spring?
Ya think?
Daniel hates Red Tories >
“Ya think?”
Don’t know, “ya think” is no answer.
There’s been plenty of “Bush” haters that screamed about Iraq, then fully supported the overthrow of Gadhafi.
@Knight 99
Support for the so-called Arab Spring would imply that I subscribe to the neocon belief that you can bring democracy to the camel jockeys. Anybody who knows anything about Islam knows that trying to bring democracy to Islam is akin to trying to bring democracy to the chimp enclosure at the Toronto Zoo.
If you actually look at the editorials from the neocons during the overthrow of Ghadaffi you will see that all the neocons were cheerleading for Obama.
Here is Republican neocon Bill Kristol congratulating Obama on the Libya war. Go and check and do your research. Neocon = Socialist
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5xDCbM8Jcy0
“Neocons are a very funny bunch. They are the only people who can “win” by actually losing.”
It depends on who you think the neocons are working for. If their client/patron is Israel, the entire debacle of Af’stan, Iraq, Libya, Syria is a stunning success and fulfills long standing Greater Israel regional and geo-political doctrine.
When Daniel speaks of “neocons” is he just avoiding saying Jews? When I was young(er) I was somewhat anti-Semitic, as I found that many Jews (most) were socialist in their thinking, and that they distrusted Christians (especially, Catholics) and hadn’t much use for (distrusted) most real conservative minded people. I still received the National Review, but it is not the same since Bill Buckley passed on; it seems to have lost that humour that we needed so badly! That said, I think it was in financial trouble towards the end and many Jews seemed to be taking control of things, there.
Though it is still an excellent mag,I am somewhat confused about the whole thing about “neocons”. Personally, I am interested in preserving Israel at (almost) any cost, but this infighting has to stop, because what I am realluy interested in is killing and ending ISIS/ISIL.