back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Sept 21, 2014 9:49:32 GMT
I have a hard time believing that a President - ANY President - would trade 5 terrorists just to make himself look good. I'm sorry, but you've got to believe that Obama is a pretty terrible, despicable person who truly despises America to believe that he would endanger our national security just to make himself look good. It's an absurd belief. I have said it before and I'll say it again - the American public and the press don't know everything about the how's and why's of this case. We probably never will. Their NY Post's "indictment" and "damning proof" are laughable - they know nothing. It's all pure speculation, drummed up to sell papers. And you're falling for it. I'll wait for the investigation to conclude and then consider the evidence, if there is any. The excuse that we don't know everything and probably never will is pitiful. A favorite one used for Benghazi too. The problem is that we do know what happened and it's not speculation. People who were there have spoken out and the information they have doesn't line up with the administration version of events. But you chose to dismiss them. Again, all the soldiers who came out of the woodwork on this Bergdahl matter who served with him are not speculating they were there and they participated in the investigation which took place five years ago. The Administration did not trade five Taliban for him just to bring him home for a court martial after Susan Rice told us he served with honor and distinction. The Administration was saying we are out of Afghanistan and this war is over - then the JV team stepped up.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Sept 23, 2014 0:41:59 GMT
Although, despite the claims from the naysayers, I can't imagine the President alone makes the decision to open an inquiry. One would think that Obama was the one President in the entire history of the US who makes a zillion decisions with no input from anyone else, just he alone manages every detail of the running of this country. In this particular case, I'm sure the military has a lot of input.
they'll do what BO says or lose their jobs.
many ARE choosing to walk away from their jobs.
we've normally had a PRESIDENT. one who followed the constitution.
eta- same goes for Benghazi
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Sept 23, 2014 1:16:45 GMT
I wasn't there. You weren't there. But the soldiers who were there believe Bergdahl was a deserter. They are upset that soldiers lost their lives looking for a deserter. Where is their justice? We do not know if those soldiers are republicans or democrats if they voted for a Obama or not. They should not be dismissed but many liberals will do that because they will defend Obama to the end and forgive his every sweep of the truth under the rug. I'm about as Liberal as they come and I think there should be an investigation into this whole affair. There are just too many questions that remain unanswered, up to, and including whether or not soldiers died searching for him. The records are not clear whether those killed were on a mission to find Bergdahl, or whether they were just on regular patrols with instructions to keep their eyes open for him. Although, despite the claims from the naysayers, I can't imagine the President alone makes the decision to open an inquiry. One would think that Obama was the one President in the entire history of the US who makes a zillion decisions with no input from anyone else, just he alone manages every detail of the running of this country. In this particular case, I'm sure the military has a lot of input. And ultimately, the military answers to the Commander in Chief. That role is assigned to the Executive Branch. So if the Commander in Chief says to lay off, military leaders who answer to him would be obligated to obey.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 3:19:00 GMT
The President has been very clear he is not sending combat troops to Iraq & Syria. Regardless of what some in the military have said.
The military has their orders and it is now their job to give the President military options within the parameters he has given them.
I don't understand this rush to send US soldiers into combat. Or even to suggest sending our troops into combat. As far as I'm concerned we have lost more than enough in Iraq.
So if this an example of President Obama not listening to military advisors then I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Sept 23, 2014 18:43:18 GMT
Skypea said:
I'm sure that's true, for those who believe Obama is the spawn of Satan. Personally, I don't think he has to tell the military anything in this particular case. If you look at the provable evidence (as we know it anyway) there isn't enough to convict Bergdahl of anything. He didn't leave a note that said 'Hey guys, I'm deserting' and he was captured before the military could possibly prove he was a deserter. Nobody saw him leaving the camp, and his fellow officers can't prove anything....their word is just hearesay....not admissible in civil or military court....so why would Obama order anybody to do anything?
ETA: What the heck does anyone walking away from their jobs in the Obama administration prove? To the best of my knowledge people have quit their jobs in every administration we have ever had.
How is Obama circumventing the Constitution?
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Sept 23, 2014 18:49:06 GMT
KatyCupcake said:
I'm quite aware of the role of the President/Commander-in-Chief but since neither you, nor I, are privy to what the President has, or hasn't said, to the Joint Chiefs, or anyone else, your comment is irrelevant. I know y'all might desperately wish it to be true, but it is just conjecture and has no relevance in the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Sept 23, 2014 19:20:28 GMT
I have a hard time believing that a President - ANY President - would trade 5 terrorists just to make himself look good. I'm sorry, but you've got to believe that Obama is a pretty terrible, despicable person who truly despises America to believe that he would endanger our national security just to make himself look good. It's an absurd belief. I have said it before and I'll say it again - the American public and the press don't know everything about the how's and why's of this case. We probably never will. Their NY Post's "indictment" and "damning proof" are laughable - they know nothing. It's all pure speculation, drummed up to sell papers. And you're falling for it. I'll wait for the investigation to conclude and then consider the evidence, if there is any. The excuse that we don't know everything and probably never will is pitiful. A favorite one used for Benghazi too. The problem is that we do know what happened and it's not speculation. People who were there have spoken out and the information they have doesn't line up with the administration version of events. But you chose to dismiss them. Again, all the soldiers who came out of the woodwork on this Bergdahl matter who served with him are not speculating they were there and they participated in the investigation which took place five years ago. The Administration did not trade five Taliban for him just to bring him home for a court martial after Susan Rice told us he served with honor and distinction. The Administration was saying we are out of Afghanistan and this war is over - then the JV team stepped up. No, Backto*pea*ality.....we don't know what happened and it is speculation. The soldiers who have 'spoken out' have absolutely no proof of what they say. It might be the God's honest truth, or it might be a huge bunch of lies, but whatever it is, it's not evidence, it's heresay. Bergdahl did write emails and notes about being disillusioned with the military and a bunch of other stuff, but from what I've read there is nothing in his writings that could not be denied and defended by a half way decent attorney. I don't know whether he's guilty, or innocent, but I don't believe this is a hill Obama would die on. It's just not that important in his life, or legacy.
|
|
loco coco
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,662
Jun 26, 2014 16:15:45 GMT
|
Post by loco coco on Sept 23, 2014 19:36:04 GMT
seems like it, why would this be delayed?
he left on purpose in search of the Taliban and found them, his father tweeted to the Taliban supporting them and American soldiers died trying to "rescue" him. If anything those families deserve answers and the government should help get them get them
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 19:38:29 GMT
seems like it, why would this be delayed? he left on purpose in search of the Taliban and found them, his father tweeted to the Taliban supporting them and American soldiers died trying to "rescue" him. If anything those families deserve answers and the government should help get them get them And you know he left in search of the Taliban exactly how?
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Sept 23, 2014 20:41:08 GMT
The excuse that we don't know everything and probably never will is pitiful. A favorite one used for Benghazi too. The problem is that we do know what happened and it's not speculation. People who were there have spoken out and the information they have doesn't line up with the administration version of events. But you chose to dismiss them. Again, all the soldiers who came out of the woodwork on this Bergdahl matter who served with him are not speculating they were there and they participated in the investigation which took place five years ago. The Administration did not trade five Taliban for him just to bring him home for a court martial after Susan Rice told us he served with honor and distinction. The Administration was saying we are out of Afghanistan and this war is over - then the JV team stepped up. No, Backto*pea*ality.....we don't know what happened and it is speculation. The soldiers who have 'spoken out' have absolutely no proof of what they say. It might be the God's honest truth, or it might be a huge bunch of lies, but whatever it is, it's not evidence, it's heresay. Bergdahl did write emails and notes about being disillusioned with the military and a bunch of other stuff, but from what I've read there is nothing in his writings that could not be denied and defended by a half way decent attorney. I don't know whether he's guilty, or innocent, but I don't believe this is a hill Obama would die on. It's just not that important in his life, or legacy. So, we all agree that when Obama agreed to the trade he did not know if Bergdahl was a hero or a deserter. Because we all you know have to wait for a full investigation. Here is where we part company. Why would Bergdahl be truthful and all of the men/women in his unit be liars? I will say this for the third time. I don't believe this is political for those soldiers - it's personal. There are news reports that locals were interviewed after he disappeared and he was seeking out the Taliban. Are they all liars too? When you put that together with the emails it seems like the dots start to connect. Obama's legacy "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it". The lie of the year (2013) according to PolitiFact.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Sept 23, 2014 20:46:05 GMT
How many of you know there are 3 different types of a court martial? The court martial that he will most likely have will be like a general court martial which is like a major court case in the civilian world. It isn't like BAM GUILTY or INNOCENT it will take time! The Aurora Colorado Theater shooting happened in July 2012 and it still isn't over should I blame Obama for that as well? The military doesn't have to explain anything they do to you or anyone else. The president does not control the court cases. That is done by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Here is the link if you want to read it. Manual for Courts-Marshal United States 2012 EditionName me one president that has done exactly what they said on their campaign trail. Name me a president that hasn't lied or distorted the truth. You all act like Obama is the first one to never do what he said. When you point fingers at what Obama is doing I can find numerous things (almost the same) from other presidents as well. Obama wasn't the first president to trade terrorists for a POW. Obama wasn't the first to have an embassy attacked and have a cover up or whatever. Obama wasn't the first to train people that turned into terrorists and attack us. Obama wasn't the first for pretty much anything. If you think the next president will be different then you need to get mentally checked out. It is sad that people can't see both sides are jacked up and nothing will change until we can quit arguing about things and come together. But they (government officials) don't want that because that wouldn't be good for their bank account.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 21:06:24 GMT
Not ALL of the people in bergdahl's unit are claiming he abandoned his post. There are only a vocal few.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Sept 23, 2014 21:51:12 GMT
Backto*Pea*ality said
So, we all agree that when Obama agreed to the trade he did not know if Bergdahl was a hero or a deserter. Because we all you know have to wait for a full investigation.
Here is where we part company. Why would Bergdahl be truthful and all of the men/women in his unit be liars?
I will say this for the third time. I don't believe this is political for those soldiers - it's personal.
There are news reports that locals were interviewed after he disappeared and he was seeking out the Taliban. Are they all liars too? When you put that together with the emails it seems like the dots start to connect.
Obama's legacy "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it". The lie of the year (2013) according to PolitiFact.
If you truly believe that the POTUS just runs around like a chicken with it's head cut off, making random decisions, then there really is no room for discussion. BUT...because Bergdahl was captured BEFORE the legitimate AWOL time had expired to make him a deserter, then the President knew, BY LAW, he was not a deserter.
You keep going on about the men in his unit and what they had to say, but you really need to wrap your head around what is fact and what is not. What is not fact is what they say. Facts, in a legal sense, have to be provable and you keep trying to make that not true. You can stand on your head and point fingers all day long, it does not, and never will, make what they say acceptable in a court of law. Now, this makes it the 3rd or 4th time I've said that, so try and let it in, even if it's not information you want to hear...OK?
Alright...on to the liars and non-liars. I have no clue who is, or isn't lying, but we both know folks will lie if it suits them. Again, it's irrelevant as to whether the soldiers are telling the truth, they CAN'T PROVE IT! I have read that it is personal to the soldiers...that some of them disliked Bergdahl and might say anything to discredit him. I don't know whether that's true either, but it wasn't everyone in his unit who spoke up. Just because they wear a uniform doesn't make them any more credible than anyone else who has an unprovable story to tell. I honestly don't know who is telling the truth, and who isn't, nor do you, but what I do know is that a few soldiers telling a story does not make evidence and that's what's really up for discussion...not what you, nor I, nor anyone else WANTS to believe.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Sept 23, 2014 23:27:14 GMT
The excuse that we don't know everything and probably never will is pitiful. A favorite one used for Benghazi too. The problem is that we do know what happened and it's not speculation. People who were there have spoken out and the information they have doesn't line up with the administration version of events. But you chose to dismiss them. Again, all the soldiers who came out of the woodwork on this Bergdahl matter who served with him are not speculating they were there and they participated in the investigation which took place five years ago. The Administration did not trade five Taliban for him just to bring him home for a court martial after Susan Rice told us he served with honor and distinction. The Administration was saying we are out of Afghanistan and this war is over - then the JV team stepped up. No, Backto*pea*ality.....we don't know what happened and it is speculation. The soldiers who have 'spoken out' have absolutely no proof of what they say. It might be the God's honest truth, or it might be a huge bunch of lies, but whatever it is, it's not evidence, it's heresay. Bergdahl did write emails and notes about being disillusioned with the military and a bunch of other stuff, but from what I've read there is nothing in his writings that could not be denied and defended by a half way decent attorney. I don't know whether he's guilty, or innocent, but I don't believe this is a hill Obama would die on. It's just not that important in his life, or legacy. Then why delay the investigation? Why not just announce that there is no evidence that he was a deserter, end of story? I think that's what frustrates so many people. Not that they don't get an answer they want, but that they don't get an answer at all.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Sept 23, 2014 23:50:59 GMT
Then why delay the investigation? Why not just announce that there is no evidence that he was a deserter, end of story? I think that's what frustrates so many people. Not that they don't get an answer they want, but that they don't get an answer at all. Full investigations can take months or years. We've had capital murder cases take five years or longer to come to trial. I don't know why anyone who isn't personally affected by a case would be "frustrated" by delays. It's just real life.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 0:02:56 GMT
No, Backto*pea*ality.....we don't know what happened and it is speculation. The soldiers who have 'spoken out' have absolutely no proof of what they say. It might be the God's honest truth, or it might be a huge bunch of lies, but whatever it is, it's not evidence, it's heresay. Bergdahl did write emails and notes about being disillusioned with the military and a bunch of other stuff, but from what I've read there is nothing in his writings that could not be denied and defended by a half way decent attorney. I don't know whether he's guilty, or innocent, but I don't believe this is a hill Obama would die on. It's just not that important in his life, or legacy. Then why delay the investigation? Why not just announce that there is no evidence that he was a deserter, end of story? I think that's what frustrates so many people. Not that they don't get an answer they want, but that they don't get an answer at all. Because it is taking longer. Why is that so hard to understand? Wouldn't you rather they do it right???
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 1:11:04 GMT
The Pentagon conducted an investigation in 2010 and came to the conclusion that he walked away and after an initial flurry of activity to find him, made the decision to not go to any great lengths to find him.
So it's interesting to me that all the sudden, he's "worth" 5 Taliban criminals.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 1:20:21 GMT
BTW...I'd love to see that 2010 Pentagon report. Chances are, it's right next to all of those deleted emails from Lois Lerner's computer.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Sept 24, 2014 2:00:29 GMT
The Pentagon conducted an investigation in 2010 and came to the conclusion that he walked away and after an initial flurry of activity to find him, made the decision to not go to any great lengths to find him. So it's interesting to me that all the sudden, he's "worth" 5 Taliban criminals. Ummm, how do you know that's what the conclusion of that report was? It's never been released. I did read a report that said some unnamed 'former official' said there was 'incontrovertible' evidence that he had walked away from his unit....well duh! Yes, he did walk away, but did he desert? If there was incontrovertible evidence that he deserted, then that's what he would have been charged with. Actually when a 'report' doesn't quote any reliable, or named sources, then it's not a report, it's a story. But maybe we should also discuss the treatment and legality of the detainees at Gitmo? 14 years without trails, without charges, we should be ashamed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 2:23:17 GMT
But questions about his disappearance were already swirling. That summer, U.S. officials confirmed that Bergdahl had “just walked off” the base in a remote region near the border with Pakistan. By 2010, a Pentagon investigation, concluding that Bergdahl had left his unit voluntarily without his weapon or body armor, pulled back the most aggressive efforts to retrieve him, the Associated Press reported.
An internal military investigation concluded in 2010 that there was little doubt Bergdahl walked away from his unit before he was captured. That investigation, known as an AR-15-6, remains classified and has not been released publicly, but several officials familiar with it have disclosed its results under condition of anonymity.
Why is it taking so long to conclude this investigation, if they've already concluded the investigation?
That "classified" AR-15-6 will never see the light of day...at least until Obama leaves office. That classified report is right next to Lois Lerner's emails. Never to see the light of day.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 7:48:04 GMT
It probably comes from every high ranking military advisor and war expert telling us that it can't be won with air strikes alone and that ISIS and now Khorasanis an imminent threat to the homeland right now. Then knowing they won't get troops on the ground for possibly a year and those troops are the very ones that Obama told us, not that long ago, was a fantasy to think they are going to do any good. People take all that into account and and think in a year, it may be too late to do anything.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Sept 24, 2014 11:44:08 GMT
It probably comes from every high ranking military advisor and war expert telling us that it can't be won with air strikes alone and that ISIS and now Khorasanis an imminent threat to the homeland right now. Then knowing they won't get troops on the ground for possibly a year and those troops are the very ones that Obama told us, not that long ago, was a fantasy to think they are going to do any good. People take all that into account and and think in a year, it may be too late to do anything. I have a question...and I mean this sincerely because I really am trying to understand. We are a nation that is war weary. We have been shouting about bringing our troops home, end the conflict, etc. Now we have this threat of ISIS and are being told that are a potential threat to our life and liberty. We (as a country) want something done to stop them. A strategy has been proposed, with the US's role being primarily air strikes with a host of other partners. We are also told by some in the media that air strikes are not enough, there has to be ground forces to supplement. Part of the proposed strategy is that the ground forces are not US, but of the countries involved. We (as a country) are now questioning why there aren't ground forces being deployed as part of the plan, and criticizing the administration for the very same thing that we wanted them to do...not use US military on the ground in force outside of training and consultation roles. It just seems that we got what we wanted, the end of the war...but now we want to take care of ISIS. How is it that we can criticize someone for giving us what we wanted?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 18:11:37 GMT
It probably comes from every high ranking military advisor and war expert telling us that it can't be won with air strikes alone and that ISIS and now Khorasanis an imminent threat to the homeland right now. Then knowing they won't get troops on the ground for possibly a year and those troops are the very ones that Obama told us, not that long ago, was a fantasy to think they are going to do any good. People take all that into account and and think in a year, it may be too late to do anything. I have a question...and I mean this sincerely because I really am trying to understand. We are a nation that is war weary. We have been shouting about bringing our troops home, end the conflict, etc. Now we have this threat of ISIS and are being told that are a potential threat to our life and liberty. We (as a country) want something done to stop them. A strategy has been proposed, with the US's role being primarily air strikes with a host of other partners. We are also told by some in the media that air strikes are not enough, there has to be ground forces to supplement. Part of the proposed strategy is that the ground forces are not US, but of the countries involved. We (as a country) are now questioning why there aren't ground forces being deployed as part of the plan, and criticizing the administration for the very same thing that we wanted them to do...not use US military on the ground in force outside of training and consultation roles. It just seems that we got what we wanted, the end of the war...but now we want to take care of ISIS. How is it that we can criticize someone for giving us what we wanted? Maybe because we were warned by the experts, very specifically that if we end the war without leaving troops we would end up with a situation like ISIS. They ended the war without leaving troops and here we are in the very situation we were told would happen. Now we are being told by some of the very same experts that it can't be done by air strikes alone. They don't have much faith in the only troops they are being allowed to use and won't even be ready until a year from now. The very same lack of faith that Obama agreed with not long ago. Many of us trust what the people with the knowledge and experience of war tactics, are telling us is the way to win this and demolish the threat to the US. We trust them because they've been right before. Obama has given us reason not to trust him before. The answer to your question is that we are not really getting what we wanted.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 18:28:39 GMT
It probably comes from every high ranking military advisor and war expert telling us that it can't be won with air strikes alone and that ISIS and now Khorasanis an imminent threat to the homeland right now. Then knowing they won't get troops on the ground for possibly a year and those troops are the very ones that Obama told us, not that long ago, was a fantasy to think they are going to do any good. People take all that into account and and think in a year, it may be too late to do anything. I have a question...and I mean this sincerely because I really am trying to understand. We are a nation that is war weary. We have been shouting about bringing our troops home, end the conflict, etc. Now we have this threat of ISIS and are being told that are a potential threat to our life and liberty. We (as a country) want something done to stop them. A strategy has been proposed, with the US's role being primarily air strikes with a host of other partners. We are also told by some in the media that air strikes are not enough, there has to be ground forces to supplement. Part of the proposed strategy is that the ground forces are not US, but of the countries involved. We (as a country) are now questioning why there aren't ground forces being deployed as part of the plan, and criticizing the administration for the very same thing that we wanted them to do...not use US military on the ground in force outside of training and consultation roles. It just seems that we got what we wanted, the end of the war...but now we want to take care of ISIS. How is it that we can criticize someone for giving us what we wanted? First, I will freely admit that I'm not sure what needs to be done...ground troops vs. no ground troops. I'm not beating the proverbial drum to send our brave men and women back over into this mess.
The US "wanting" the end of the war, and actions taken by this Administration may make the voting public feel better...may bump the President's poll numbers...but what we want and what's right and necessary aren't always able to co-exist. We wanted our troops out of Iraq. Perhaps we didn't fight hard enough for a new SOF agreement to keep a limited number of troops over there. We know that ISIS is not new and now have a giant head start and we're busy playing "catch up" from the air. The American people were happy to bring our troops home...but like GWB said in 2007, leaving Iraq too early would simply cause us to have to go back in...exactly what we're faced with today.
It's not up to the President to "give us what we wanted". It's up to the President to make difficult decisions because he/she thinks it's right for the nation. If there is political backlash, or causes their popularity to drop in the polls, or causes them to not get re-elected, then so be it. Are they President to do what's right or are they President to be elected and re-elected?
Sometimes, the President has to make unpopular decisions, based on the information he gets from his trusted advisors and men and women that have spent their lifetime working in their field.
|
|
|
Post by mellyw on Sept 24, 2014 18:47:54 GMT
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't have ever gone into Iraq in the first place. Especially on trumped up bullsh*t allegations. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the Middle East could see what was coming, & us going into Iraq was the trigger to begin with. But hey, let's just castigate the current Administration who had no part of negotiating our SOFA agreement with Iraq.
Mistakes were made everywhere. And unless we could support a very large troop presence in Iraq, let alone get a sovereign Government to do what we want (because wasn't that supposedly the point, make Iraq free?), we were sh*t out of luck.
Decisions have consequences, & this whole boondoggle can be traced back to really stupid decisions made by a former Administration.
ETA- I don't quite get the rush to judgement here. Investigations can & should take time if it's needed. His fellow Soldiers saying he deserted is simply hearsay right now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 18:54:18 GMT
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't have ever gone into Iraq in the first place. Especially on trumped up bullsh*t allegations. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the Middle East could see what was coming, & us going into Iraq was the trigger to begin with. But hey, let's just castigate the current Administration who had no part of negotiating our SOFA agreement with Iraq. Mistakes were made everywhere. And unless we could support a very large troop presence in Iraq, let alone get a sovereign Government to do what we want (because wasn't that supposedly the point, make Iraq free?), we were sh*t out of luck. Decisions have consequences, & this whole boondoggle can be traced back to really stupid decisions made by a former Administration. I hope you're not stopping at only the former Administration. Because if you were honest, you could go back at least one more Administration and if Clinton had taken Bin Laden out, 9-11 never would've happened and we never would've gone into Iraq.
You could probably even go back further...stuff GHWB had done...Reagan supporting fighters, including OBL in the early 80's.
No sense to stop at GWB.
|
|
|
Post by mellyw on Sept 24, 2014 19:02:32 GMT
I have no problem going back to other Administrations & placing blame.Plenty of that to go around.
It was the GWB Administration that invaded Iraq & set up this current situation. That action is soley on them.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Sept 24, 2014 19:13:06 GMT
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't have ever gone into Iraq in the first place. Especially on trumped up bullsh*t allegations. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the Middle East could see what was coming, & us going into Iraq was the trigger to begin with. But hey, let's just castigate the current Administration who had no part of negotiating our SOFA agreement with Iraq. Mistakes were made everywhere. And unless we could support a very large troop presence in Iraq, let alone get a sovereign Government to do what we want (because wasn't that supposedly the point, make Iraq free?), we were sh*t out of luck. Decisions have consequences, & this whole boondoggle can be traced back to really stupid decisions made by a former Administration. I hope you're not stopping at only the former Administration. Because if you were honest, you could go back at least one more Administration and if Clinton had taken Bin Laden out, 9-11 never would've happened and we never would've gone into Iraq.
You could probably even go back further...stuff GHWB had done...Reagan supporting fighters, including OBL in the early 80's.
No sense to stop at GWB.
I read an article recently (and I wish I could remember where) that discussed where a lot of this originated. Part of the discussion involved that a good portion of the drastic rise in radical Islamic view was a result of the first Gulf War and Saudi Arabia's allowing the US to using their country as a forward staging area -and how the more fundamentally religious felt that they were allowing the "infidels" into their sacred spaces (Mecca/Medina is in Saudi Arabia.) It was an interest theory.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 5:50:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 19:14:33 GMT
You claim to be willing to place blame on other administrations.
But your words seem clear to me that you only blame GWB for Iraq.
GWB invaded Iraq.
WJC failed to take care of Bin Laden.
RR helped build OBL in the 80's into the monster we dealt with in the late 90's and into the new century.
Many factors go into Iraq being what it is today.
It's not just GWB that "set up this current situation". The situation was "set up" long before he was even the Governor of Texas.
|
|
MerryMom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,534
Jul 24, 2014 19:51:57 GMT
|
Post by MerryMom on Sept 24, 2014 19:27:05 GMT
This and being "Anti Common Core" are the latest of the Tea Party, AFP, 9/12'ers (or whatever the Koch Brothers funded groups call themselves these days) rants.
All are a diversion whilst we have record high prices for gasoline. And the Koch Brothers are in the oil refinery business.
Follow the money.... "Sheep, mere sheep."
|
|