Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Obama made the decision and not Bush[/quote]

This is literally factually inaccurate, and I have proved it so.

Obama followed the timetable passed by the Iraqi parliament and signed by Bush. Obama came into office with a SOFA signed and sealed, enumerating exact dates for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

You said this whole thing was “Obama’s idea.” That is pure fantasy. You said that Bush didn’t set dates. That is pure fantasy.

I am not talking about what I think is the best interpretation, or some nuance in the case. I am talking about things that are inarguable fact.

You could say “Obama should have reneged on the SOFA”–though that would have been a disaster. But you cannot say this whole thing was “Obama’s idea” or that Bush didn’t set dates. I have proved both of those claims wrong beyond the possibility of doubt.[/quote]

Oh really?
Obama’s own words:

"THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end – for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.

As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities. Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq. And to date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops. Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security.

A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments. He spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We are in full agreement about how to move forward.
So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, Americaâ??s war in Iraq will be over."

Obama says he pulled the troops out. Nary a mention of Bush any SOFA’s. Obama says he withdrew the troops. He did it, obama. That’s what obama himself says. So who’s right, you or obama himself?

And the troop draw down was not the only massive screw up. The other massive screw up was the imaginary “red line” in Syria and doing absolutely nothing about the situation there when it was clearly drawing down the sectarian violence, the use of chemical weapons by the government.

142

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Obama is getting hammered in the polls from all this.

On Wednesday?s ?Morning Joe? on MSNBC, NBC chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd reacted to the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing President Barack Obama?s job approval rating at 41 percent, matching a previous low, and also finding 54 percent of those polled saying they no longer feel the president ?is able to lead the country and get the job done.?

According to Todd, this is a sign that the American public has determined this is the beginning of the end of Obama?s presidency and he likened it to then-President George W. Bush after Hurricane Katrina, in which his poll numbers took a hit for his administration of the disaster?s aftermath.

?This poll is a disaster for the president,? Todd said. ?You look at the presidency here: lowest job rating, tied for the lowest; lowest on foreign policy. His administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration, post-Katrina.?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/18/Todd-Polling-Disaster-for-the-President-Seen-as-Less-Competent-than-Bush-Post-Katrina[/quote]

This poll was done before this crisis came to light. So even before the Iraq crisis, he was getting hammered in the polls.

143

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If victory is indefinitely spilling blood and debt-backed dollars into the soil of Iraq, where the public’s hatred for each other is only surpassed by their hatred for our presence…

Thank God for defeatists.

The whole enterprise ruined the right.

Can’t wait to see a GoP Presidential candidate campaign on “I’ll be sending troops back to Iraq!” [/quote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/IraqPollMemo.pdf
[/quote]

‘According to a National Geographic survey, 77% of Americans believe “there are signs that aliens have visited the earth.”’

More Americans believe aliens have visited Earth than believe that Jesus is the Son of God -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net

[/quote]

Not good enough for your respect, but good enough to die for a people that hate them more than they hate each other.
[/quote]

I think America is the second greatest country on earth. And regarding Iraq, I think the job should’ve been finished - to make the West safer so shit like 911 doesn’t happen again.
[/quote]

Same could be said of Russia for pulling out of Afghanistan. Same could be said for Israel and the UN for pulling out of Lebanon.[/quote]

Do you recall why the USSR invaded Afghanistan? [/quote]

If I didn’t I wouldn’t have written the statement.

144

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The ethics of interpersonal relationships are not applicable to the international realm. However, inter group ethics are; its cardinal rule being that statesmen should not seek the greatest good for the greatest number, but the lesser evil. Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah are arguably the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

Not very convincingly no. Iran is a state actor as is Syria. Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism on earth. After FARC, Hezbollah is the largest terrorist organisation on earth. Iran is a quasi-nuclear state that poses an existential threat to an important ally, seeks regional hegemony, provokes sectarian violence and destabilises a region that contains more than 40% of the world’s oil reserves.[/quote]

Here’s why we should let Isis and Iran battle it out.

145

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Obama made the decision and not Bush[/quote]

This is literally factually inaccurate, and I have proved it so.

Obama followed the timetable passed by the Iraqi parliament and signed by Bush. Obama came into office with a SOFA signed and sealed, enumerating exact dates for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

You said this whole thing was “Obama’s idea.” That is pure fantasy. You said that Bush didn’t set dates. That is pure fantasy.

I am not talking about what I think is the best interpretation, or some nuance in the case. I am talking about things that are inarguable fact.

You could say “Obama should have reneged on the SOFA”–though that would have been a disaster. But you cannot say this whole thing was “Obama’s idea” or that Bush didn’t set dates. I have proved both of those claims wrong beyond the possibility of doubt.[/quote]

Oh really?
Obama’s own words:

"THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end – for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.

As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities. Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq. And to date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops. Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security.

A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments. He spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We are in full agreement about how to move forward.
So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America�¢??s war in Iraq will be over."

Obama says he pulled the troops out. Nary a mention of Bush any SOFA’s. Obama says he withdrew the troops. He did it, obama. That’s what obama himself says. So who’s right, you or obama himself?

[/quote]

Whether Obama mentioned the SOFA in his politicking is immaterial. You are posting the rhetoric of a politician who is talking up his non-contribution to an agreement that was signed before he ever stepped foot in the Oval Office.

I, on the other hand, am posting simple hard evidence. I posted the SOFA. I am assuming that you looked at it. You can see the date and the signature for yourself. That is literally all that there is to this disagreement between us. You said that the draw-down and pullout were Obama’s idea–this is incorrect; the pullout and draw-dawn, complete with dates, were established per an agreement between the Bush administration and the Iraqi leadership. You said that Bush didn’t set dates–this is incorrect; as you can see by referring back to the copies of the SOFA I posted, that U.S. forces were going to be leaving Iraq in 2011 was publicly-available knowledge–i.e., simple fact–during the Bush administration, per a document, signed and sealed, that represented the culmination of negotiations which began in 2007, when Barack Obama had yet to become the Democratic nominee, much less the president.

[quote]
So who’s right, you or Obama himself?[/quote]

I am.

146

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Obama made the decision and not Bush[/quote]

This is literally factually inaccurate, and I have proved it so.

Obama followed the timetable passed by the Iraqi parliament and signed by Bush. Obama came into office with a SOFA signed and sealed, enumerating exact dates for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

You said this whole thing was “Obama’s idea.” That is pure fantasy. You said that Bush didn’t set dates. That is pure fantasy.

I am not talking about what I think is the best interpretation, or some nuance in the case. I am talking about things that are inarguable fact.

You could say “Obama should have reneged on the SOFA”–though that would have been a disaster. But you cannot say this whole thing was “Obama’s idea” or that Bush didn’t set dates. I have proved both of those claims wrong beyond the possibility of doubt.[/quote]

Indeed. If anyone wants to continue to point fingers, they should direct them toward Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Perhaps it would also be more constructive to discuss possible solutions to the grave security threat that ISIS poses to Iraq rather than play partisan politics.[/quote]

He’s a paper tiger. He’s awfully easy to hang our issues on, but the Iraqi government was weakly established at best. We put him in power and we can take him out. His words and wishes mean nothing. Leaving him responsible for our national security interests in the region is irresponsible at best. WE knew they were not ready to take care of themselves. If they cannot even protect themselves from being occupied by a terrorist group, how the hell would they protect themselves from a hostile nation? We already knew they were not ready to be on their own. It’s blatantly obvious now.
Whether you like Iraq or not, you cannot ignore it you cannot wish it away. You cannot just wish any of it away.

I think we all know what the inevitable result will be. Posturing and appearance measures cannot spare us now. It’s too late for that. The longer we allow ISIS to grow roots in their occupied territories the harder it will be to extract them. Half-assed measures will only serve to embolden the enemy.

147

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Obama made the decision and not Bush[/quote]

This is literally factually inaccurate, and I have proved it so.

Obama followed the timetable passed by the Iraqi parliament and signed by Bush. Obama came into office with a SOFA signed and sealed, enumerating exact dates for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

You said this whole thing was “Obama’s idea.” That is pure fantasy. You said that Bush didn’t set dates. That is pure fantasy.

I am not talking about what I think is the best interpretation, or some nuance in the case. I am talking about things that are inarguable fact.

You could say “Obama should have reneged on the SOFA”–though that would have been a disaster. But you cannot say this whole thing was “Obama’s idea” or that Bush didn’t set dates. I have proved both of those claims wrong beyond the possibility of doubt.[/quote]

Oh really?
Obama’s own words:

"THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end – for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.

As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities. Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq. And to date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops. Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security.

A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments. He spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We are in full agreement about how to move forward.
So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America�??�?�¢??s war in Iraq will be over."

Obama says he pulled the troops out. Nary a mention of Bush any SOFA’s. Obama says he withdrew the troops. He did it, obama. That’s what obama himself says. So who’s right, you or obama himself?

[/quote]

Whether Obama mentioned the SOFA in his politicking is immaterial. You are posting the rhetoric of a politician who is talking up his non-contribution to an agreement that was signed before he ever stepped foot in the Oval Office.

I, on the other hand, am posting simple hard evidence. I posted the SOFA. I am assuming that you looked at it. You can see the date and the signature for yourself. That is literally all that there is to this disagreement between us. You said that the draw-down and pullout were Obama’s idea–this is incorrect; the pullout and draw-dawn, complete with dates, were established per an agreement between the Bush administration and the Iraqi leadership. You said that Bush didn’t set dates–this is incorrect; as you can see by referring back to the copies of the SOFA I posted, that U.S. forces were going to be leaving Iraq in 2011 was publicly-available knowledge–i.e., simple fact–during the Bush administration, per a document, signed and sealed, that represented the culmination of negotiations which began in 2007, when Barack Obama had yet to become the Democratic nominee, much less the president.
[/quote]
It’s irrelevant because sitting presidents, not former ones make decisions on troop deployment.

[quote]

[quote]
So who’s right, you or Obama himself?[/quote]

I am.[/quote]

I posted hard evidence too. Obama’s own words. No third party, no interpretation, his first hand declaration. Exact quotes.

148

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If victory is indefinitely spilling blood and debt-backed dollars into the soil of Iraq, where the public’s hatred for each other is only surpassed by their hatred for our presence…

Thank God for defeatists.

The whole enterprise ruined the right.

Can’t wait to see a GoP Presidential candidate campaign on “I’ll be sending troops back to Iraq!” [/quote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/IraqPollMemo.pdf
[/quote]

‘According to a National Geographic survey, 77% of Americans believe “there are signs that aliens have visited the earth.”’

More Americans believe aliens have visited Earth than believe that Jesus is the Son of God -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net

[/quote]

Not good enough for your respect, but good enough to die for a people that hate them more than they hate each other.

[/quote]

I think America is the second greatest country on earth. And regarding Iraq, I think the job should’ve been finished - to make the West safer so shit like 911 doesn’t happen again.
[/quote]

Same could be said of Russia for pulling out of Afghanistan. Same could be said for Israel and the UN for pulling out of Lebanon.[/quote]

Do you recall why the USSR invaded Afghanistan? [/quote]

If I didn’t I wouldn’t have written the statement.
[/quote]

Let’s hear it.

149

[quote]pat wrote:

It’s irrelevant because sitting presidents, not former ones make decisions on troop deployment. [/quote]

Sitting presidents inherit the signed and sealed international commitments that their predecessors make. In November 2008, the government of the United States, under George W. Bush, signed a Status of Forces Agreement prescribing in simple language the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraqi territory by December 2011. This is not a point about which controversy is possible.

[quote]

I posted hard evidence too. Obama’s own words. No third party, no interpretation, his first hand declaration. Exact quotes.[/quote]

No, you didn’t post hard evidence. If I post a transcript of an Obama speech wherein he describes himself as a foreign policy success, have I posted hard evidence? Will you yield the point? I thought not.

Again, Obama was spouting rhetoric in your quote, and, as with just about all political rhetoric, it was nonsense. My evidence (videlicet, the SOFA) is fact, yours is a self-serving politician’s interpretation. There isn’t anything more to this discussion. Unless you can prove that the SOFA I linked is a forgery, your argument is finished. Like everything else about Iraq, the withdrawal is Bush’s baby. Literally. He signed the agreement that prescribed its manner and exact date. That’s all the ink that this disagreement deserves–unless, again, you can prove that the SOFA is somehow a counterfeit.

150

Whether the exit was Obama’s idea the whole way through, as if he came up with this defeatist plan and pushed it through the Iraqi government himself, is a non-issue. I have proved it wrong. It was negotiated, designed (including dates–exact ones), and signed under Bush.

Do you want to say, instead, that Obama should have violated the SOFA? Because that is equally fantastical.

151

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If victory is indefinitely spilling blood and debt-backed dollars into the soil of Iraq, where the public’s hatred for each other is only surpassed by their hatred for our presence…

Thank God for defeatists.

The whole enterprise ruined the right.

Can’t wait to see a GoP Presidential candidate campaign on “I’ll be sending troops back to Iraq!” [/quote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/IraqPollMemo.pdf
[/quote]

‘According to a National Geographic survey, 77% of Americans believe “there are signs that aliens have visited the earth.”’

More Americans believe aliens have visited Earth than believe that Jesus is the Son of God -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net

[/quote]

Not good enough for your respect, but good enough to die for a people that hate them more than they hate each other.

[/quote]

I think America is the second greatest country on earth. And regarding Iraq, I think the job should’ve been finished - to make the West safer so shit like 911 doesn’t happen again.
[/quote]

Same could be said of Russia for pulling out of Afghanistan. Same could be said for Israel and the UN for pulling out of Lebanon.[/quote]

Do you recall why the USSR invaded Afghanistan? [/quote]

If I didn’t I wouldn’t have written the statement.
[/quote]

Let’s hear it.[/quote]

They went in to stop an Islamic uprising against the Communist Government there. Them pulling out brought the Taliban invasion into Afghanistan from Pakistan, which mirrors our leaving Iraq, then Isis invading Iraq from Syria. It’s almost an exact parallel.

152

And…any peace we make with them, any concessions, makes us (or anyone fighting against the rise of Islamism) look weak, & makes them strong. Same could be said for Lebanon. Israel pulled out and Hezbollah said they would stop attacking them. Once Israel was out, Hezbollah stepped up rocket attacks and armed to the teeth. The only thing they haven’t done yet, which would fit the pattern, is invade Israel.

The Islamists are in a war of extermination with the West and other nations. They hit soft targets. They do not care who they kill. They do not care if they die in attacks. Sex Machine may be right saying the West doesn’t have the stomach or the will to stop this. That was the basis for my original post.

153

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The ethics of interpersonal relationships are not applicable to the international realm. However, inter group ethics are; its cardinal rule being that statesmen should not seek the greatest good for the greatest number, but the lesser evil. Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah are arguably the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

If it was up to me, I’d have backed both Saddam and Qaddafi against the Islamists instead of having anarchy in those countries. Possibly we could have come to terms with those 2.

154

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(And I’ll take a “strawman hit” or whatever on this one… because I can’t get past Cheney’s arrogance…)

Let’s also try 40 BILLION plus for IRAQ ALONE for Halliburton (…and counting…and not counting Afghanistan…)

Millions of dollars for him in the War “effort”…

And most importantly, the death and sacrifice of thousands of Americans.

Cheney just needs to retire on his millions and shoot some more of his friends…

Mufasa[/quote]

This is a great example of the hypocrisy of the left. They try to act like Cheney and Halliburton is some awful boogeyman while completely ignoring the fact that it was President Clinton who got Halliburton started in the military support business. Then he attacked Serbia, a country that really wasn’t a threat to us and we still have troops in Bosnia today because of that war.

155

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(And I’ll take a “strawman hit” or whatever on this one… because I can’t get past Cheney’s arrogance…)

Let’s also try 40 BILLION plus for IRAQ ALONE for Halliburton (…and counting…and not counting Afghanistan…)

Millions of dollars for him in the War “effort”…

And most importantly, the death and sacrifice of thousands of Americans.

Cheney just needs to retire on his millions and shoot some more of his friends…

Mufasa[/quote]

This is a great example of the hypocrisy of the left. They try to act like Cheney and Halliburton is some awful boogeyman while completely ignoring the fact that it was President Clinton who got Halliburton started in the military support business. Then he attacked Serbia, a country that really wasn’t a threat to us and we still have troops in Bosnia today because of that war.

[/quote]

By using the term “hypocrisy,” you are suggesting an equivalence. Mufasa explicitly invoked two points: The amount of money that Halliburton made in Iraq, and the number of Americans who died in Iraq.

How much money did Halliburton make in Serbia? And, much more importantly, how many Americans died in Serbia?

156

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(And I’ll take a “strawman hit” or whatever on this one… because I can’t get past Cheney’s arrogance…)

Let’s also try 40 BILLION plus for IRAQ ALONE for Halliburton (…and counting…and not counting Afghanistan…)

Millions of dollars for him in the War “effort”…

And most importantly, the death and sacrifice of thousands of Americans.

Cheney just needs to retire on his millions and shoot some more of his friends…

Mufasa[/quote]

This is a great example of the hypocrisy of the left. They try to act like Cheney and Halliburton is some awful boogeyman while completely ignoring the fact that it was President Clinton who got Halliburton started in the military support business. Then he attacked Serbia, a country that really wasn’t a threat to us and we still have troops in Bosnia today because of that war.

[/quote]

By using the term “hypocrisy,” you are suggesting an equivalence. Mufasa explicitly invoked two points: The amount of money that Halliburton made in Iraq, and the number of Americans who died in Iraq.

How much money did Halliburton make in Serbia? And, much more importantly, how many Americans died in Serbia?[/quote]

Total nonsense… and I’ve never pulled anything but a red lever in my life.

157

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(And I’ll take a “strawman hit” or whatever on this one… because I can’t get past Cheney’s arrogance…)

Let’s also try 40 BILLION plus for IRAQ ALONE for Halliburton (…and counting…and not counting Afghanistan…)

Millions of dollars for him in the War “effort”…

And most importantly, the death and sacrifice of thousands of Americans.

Cheney just needs to retire on his millions and shoot some more of his friends…

Mufasa[/quote]

This is a great example of the hypocrisy of the left. They try to act like Cheney and Halliburton is some awful boogeyman while completely ignoring the fact that it was President Clinton who got Halliburton started in the military support business. Then he attacked Serbia, a country that really wasn’t a threat to us and we still have troops in Bosnia today because of that war.

[/quote]

By using the term “hypocrisy,” you are suggesting an equivalence. Mufasa explicitly invoked two points: The amount of money that Halliburton made in Iraq, and the number of Americans who died in Iraq.

How much money did Halliburton make in Serbia? And, much more importantly, how many Americans died in Serbia?[/quote]

Total nonsense… and I’ve never pulled anything but a red lever in my life. [/quote]

I am assuming, from your second clause, that this is directed at the poster I quoted, rather than me?

158

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(And I’ll take a “strawman hit” or whatever on this one… because I can’t get past Cheney’s arrogance…)

Let’s also try 40 BILLION plus for IRAQ ALONE for Halliburton (…and counting…and not counting Afghanistan…)

Millions of dollars for him in the War “effort”…

And most importantly, the death and sacrifice of thousands of Americans.

Cheney just needs to retire on his millions and shoot some more of his friends…

Mufasa[/quote]

This is a great example of the hypocrisy of the left. They try to act like Cheney and Halliburton is some awful boogeyman while completely ignoring the fact that it was President Clinton who got Halliburton started in the military support business. Then he attacked Serbia, a country that really wasn’t a threat to us and we still have troops in Bosnia today because of that war.

[/quote]

By using the term “hypocrisy,” you are suggesting an equivalence. Mufasa explicitly invoked two points: The amount of money that Halliburton made in Iraq, and the number of Americans who died in Iraq.

How much money did Halliburton make in Serbia? And, much more importantly, how many Americans died in Serbia?[/quote]

No. Mufasa first invoked a strawman of the left that the Iraq war was started so Cheney could set up his cronies at Halliburton with a lucrative contract.

The hypocrisy is ignoring the fact that it was during the Clinton presidency that Halliburton was given their contract to provide support services to the military. It was also during the Clinton presidency that Halliburton was first used when Clinton took us to war against Serbia.

The amounts of money involved are irrelevant. Also we lost an F117 over Serbia that allowed the Chinese to gain access to stealth technology. So there is no telling how many Americans might eventually die because of Clinton’s war.

When Clinton hired and then used Halliburton he was a good guy. When Bush merely used what Clinton had started, Halliburton suddenly became the boogeyman. That’s the hypocrisy.

159

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(And I’ll take a “strawman hit” or whatever on this one… because I can’t get past Cheney’s arrogance…)

Let’s also try 40 BILLION plus for IRAQ ALONE for Halliburton (…and counting…and not counting Afghanistan…)

Millions of dollars for him in the War “effort”…

And most importantly, the death and sacrifice of thousands of Americans.

Cheney just needs to retire on his millions and shoot some more of his friends…

Mufasa[/quote]

This is a great example of the hypocrisy of the left. They try to act like Cheney and Halliburton is some awful boogeyman while completely ignoring the fact that it was President Clinton who got Halliburton started in the military support business. Then he attacked Serbia, a country that really wasn’t a threat to us and we still have troops in Bosnia today because of that war.

[/quote]

By using the term “hypocrisy,” you are suggesting an equivalence. Mufasa explicitly invoked two points: The amount of money that Halliburton made in Iraq, and the number of Americans who died in Iraq.

How much money did Halliburton make in Serbia? And, much more importantly, how many Americans died in Serbia?[/quote]

No. Mufasa first invoked a strawman of the left that the Iraq war was started so Cheney could set up his cronies at Halliburton with a lucrative contract.

The hypocrisy is ignoring the fact that it was during the Clinton presidency that Halliburton was given their contract to provide support services to the military. It was also during the Clinton presidency that Halliburton was first used when Clinton took us to war against Serbia.

The amounts of money involved are irrelevant. Also we lost an F117 over Serbia that allowed the Chinese to gain access to stealth technology. So there is no telling how many Americans might eventually die because of Clinton’s war.

When Clinton hired and then used Halliburton he was a good guy. When Bush merely used what Clinton had started, Halliburton suddenly became the boogeyman. That’s the hypocrisy. [/quote]

  1. I never wrote, nor implied, that the War was started to "set up his (Cheney’s) cronies. (The amount of money is irrelevant??? If you say so…)

I will concede that I had no idea about Halliburton’s history…I didn’t check on “Wiki”.

  1. I pointed out how many HAVE died…not “might” die.

  2. You, not me, placed “good” or “bad” on Halliburton based on who was President. I merely pointed out how this “champion” of “American Strength and prestige” not only was enriched by War…but also, at the very least, was part of making us neither.

THERE is the hypocrisy.

Mufasa

160

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Good article by Dick Cheney:

http://m.asia.wsj.com/articles/dick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-collapsing-obama-doctrine-1403046522?mobile=y[/quote]

This would get a “lolz” if it didn’t have so many layers of hypocrisy, lies, and pain and suffering attached to it.

Mufasa[/quote]

Hypocrisy? Maybe. Lies? No. I don’t like Cheney and the neocons but he’s spot on in that article.[/quote]

Cheney is a joke. He has lost any cedibility he may have had. This is a desperate attempt to avoid responsibility for the worst US decision made during my lifetime. The man that applied for and received 5 deferments when it was his time to serve has been to willing to send others to fight and die.

…when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, “I had other priorities in the '60s than military service”.

In addition; he is the ‘mastermind’ behind the expansion of executive branch power. No friend of liberty and freedom here.
[/quote]

None of that is relevant to his valid criticism of the Obama regime’s foreign policy disasters.