He kept us safe

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:45 am

Rack Trump for airing all the GOP's dirty foreign policy and terror related dirty laundry tonight

We suffered 9/11 on W's watch and yet all the rest of the these cock suckers deify him. Rack Trump for having the stones to say it.

Fuck Rudy for good measure, as well.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:49 am

Watching the crowd of GOP insiders utterly melt was awesome. It was like a Black Lives Matter protester showed up.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:11 am

Sorry, but there won't be any "balls"--or courage--displayed, by either Trump or Bernie, or anyone claiming to be a serious alternative to business as usual, until one of them says flat out, "Of course 9/11 was obviously an inside job, what, are you all blind?"

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:15 am

Rubio saying Cruz couldn't speak Spanish and Cruz rebutting Rubio en Español was priceless.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:39 am

"Cut and run..."

Jesus Christ.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:07 pm

BSmack wrote:Rubio saying Cruz couldn't speak Spanish and Cruz rebutting Rubio en Español was priceless.

Did you see the fukking grin on Ralphie boy's face when Marco called him out? You just know he has been waiting the entire campaign for him to go there. Kinda surprised that Marco was dumb enough to take the bait.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:19 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:Rack Trump for airing all the GOP's dirty foreign policy and terror related dirty laundry tonight

We suffered 9/11 on W's watch and yet all the rest of the these cock suckers deify him. Rack Trump for having the stones to say it.

Fuck Rudy for good measure, as well.

Just to remind you, it was a largely bi-partisan policy. The dems only jumped ship at the first sign of any turbulence.

Unfortunately, no one there has the ability to explain with any intelligence where we went wrong.

1. Fukk up-debathification, was, by far, the number one fukk up. It put the entire former military on the other side and meant we were stuck backing the Shia, who, of course, were homies with the Iranians.

2. We could have made it extremely clear to the Iranians that any evidence of them tampering would result in our dropping the hammer on them. And, if we had an intact Sunni led army to help with the dirty work, it would have been feasible.

3. Hanging the Kurds out to dry. They seem to be the one group here that would like to be our allies. Yeah, it would piss off the Turks, but fukk them. They didn't help us a bit over there. Those cock suckers lost their empire when they got on the wrong side of WWI. We could have backed them strongly and had a nice operating base in the area among folks that actually wanted us there. The turks would have eventually got over being but hurt about losing the eastern tip of their country.

Of course, all of this would have required political backing at home. And I believe that that would have come eventually if things went decently.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:31 pm

If Trump did hurt himself badly, then Ted Cruz will likely be the beneficiary. If not, then nothing much will change in the poll numbers.

But one thing is for certain: the Republican Party embarrassed itself badly tonight. There is no clear center of gravity within the party, its frontrunner is openly contemptuous of essential parts of its orthodoxy, and its brand is marked by open extremism, cruelty and ugly bickering. No major political organization can long survive like this.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politi ... 059611.php

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:26 pm

smackaholic wrote:
BSmack wrote:Rubio saying Cruz couldn't speak Spanish and Cruz rebutting Rubio en Español was priceless.
Did you see the fukking grin on Ralphie boy's face when Marco called him out? You just know he has been waiting the entire campaign for him to go there. Kinda surprised that Marco was dumb enough to take the bait.

That was my favorite part of the entire debate! The look on Cruz's face was priceless.

Was it when Ted Cruz accused Marco Rubio of being too compassionate on immigration, pushing Rubio to tell Cruz that he couldn’t understand what he said on Univision because he didn’t speak Spanish, only to have Cruz challenge him (in Spanish!) to a debate in Spanish?

BWAHAH!

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:51 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:We suffered 9/11 on W's watch and yet all the rest of the these cock suckers deify him. Rack Trump for having the stones to say it.

Right, just like he called John McCain a loser because he was a POW. Trump also likes to play Monday morning QB, blaming Bush for the Iraq war, when there's no public record of Trump ever opposing it prior. Yeah, it's easy for Trump to criticize W since he has no record of his own to defend other than evicting little old ladies from their homes for a casino that he would later declare bankruptcy on.

Anybody who would vote for that pompous blowhard also wonders how Obama got elected twice.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:30 am

Trump accused W Bush of intentionally lying about WMD, thus killing thousands of American soldiers. He took that right out of the Left's playbook last night. It's not likely to endear him to Southerners, but we'll see. I will say Trump looked like he was about to suffer a coronary out on the debate stage. His blood pressure must have been skyrocketing with a face that red and bloated. If he is this stressed by mere debates, he'll keel over the first week in office if he wins the presidency.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:50 am

Maybe he was doing the Richard Nixon makeup thing :?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:34 pm

Rooster wrote:Trump accused W Bush of intentionally lying about WMD, thus killing thousands of American soldiers.

Which is exactly what happened. Chimpy and his minions presented guesswork and supposition as if it were established fact. How is that not a lie?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:52 pm

mvscal wrote:
Rooster wrote:Trump accused W Bush of intentionally lying about WMD, thus killing thousands of American soldiers.
Which is exactly what happened. Chimpy and his minions presented guesswork and supposition as if it were established fact. How is that not a lie?

What side of this were you on in 2002/3?

We knew this POS had them, and yes, I do believe he did. And he was playing hide the WMD weenie with inspectors. Going in was a good idea. How we went in and the rolling cluster fukk that ensued until the surge finally got things rolling in the right direction, is where the criticism belongs. If he had not gone in, he would have been crucifies as the biggest pussy since Chamberlain.

I know you are a full on Trump Swab, but that is no reason to join the democrat chorus of how Bush lied our way into this mess. Trump really needs to stay on the message that got him where he is and that is trade and illegal immigration.

The more he works this Bush lied meme, the more I wonder if he is just part of the dem plan to follow the Ross Perot blueprint to a democrat victory. JEB is done. There is no reason to attack him through his brother. All this bullshit could possibly do is garner sympathy for him and the Bush brand.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:19 pm

smackaholic wrote:We knew this POS had them,

We knew nothing. We had no idea what he might or might not have had. Yet his hacks went before the UN and every news show saying that we knew for a fact that he had active programs.

That was a bald face lie. Deal with it.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:24 pm

He clearly did not and beside, Saddam was the right guy to keep Iraq under control. What don't you get about lopping domes off Middle Eastern despots can really fuck us in the ass for years to come don't you understand? We lopped off Saddam's dome, and Iraq turned into a breeding ground for terrorists. We want to lop off al-Asad's dome, Syria will become another terrorist breeding cesspool.

Stop knocking off middle eastern despots.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:46 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:He clearly did not and beside, Saddam was the right guy to keep Iraq under control. What don't you get about lopping domes off Middle Eastern despots can really fuck us in the ass for years to come don't you understand? We lopped off Saddam's dome, and Iraq turned into a breeding ground for terrorists. We want to lop off al-Asad's dome, Syria will become another terrorist breeding cesspool.

Stop knocking off middle eastern despots.

Saddam was a POS that kept poking us with a sharp stick. After 9/11 we had the political will to finally bitch slap him down. Bitch slapping him down was potentially a good thing IF you do it right and have the ability/will to hang around long enough to oversee the unfukking. We got off to a really bad start by firing everybody above the junior officer rank. Then we started turning it around with the surge. Then, we handed the keys over to an incompetent neighborhood rable rouser and the rest of history.

Looking back now, sure you can say that leaving that festering shithole alone would have been better than throwing a can of gas on it and walking away, but it is disingenuous to say that the resulting dumpster fire was inevitable. It wasn't.

I still believe that Iraq, could have and should have been the stepping off point for eventually unfukking the middle-east. It wouldn't have been easy, nor cheap, but neither was knocking off Hitler or Tojo.

Leaving the middle east to fester forever might be a good idea if they weren't floating on a sizeable chunk of the world's earl reserves, but, unfortunately, that is not the case.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:18 pm

Even if one ignores the argument that Bush put forth there's still justification outside of his administration. UNSCOM inspected Iraq in '98 & found WMD's. Saddam never allowed another inspection to prove that he had destroyed those weapons.

So whether or not Bush lied, we were still justified in invading Iraq. Why wait until the mess is bigger to clean up the situation?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:09 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:Even if one ignores the argument that Bush put forth there's still justification outside of his administration. UNSCOM inspected Iraq in '98 & found WMD's. Saddam never allowed another inspection to prove that he had destroyed those weapons.

So whether or not Bush lied, we were still justified in invading Iraq. Why wait until the mess is bigger to clean up the situation?

Yup.

Between Saddam's prior activities and the post 9/11 atmosphere of "we're tired of this bullshit and somebody's getting an ass-whuppin", Bush did what he had to do. If he did not, he would have been crucified as a pussy unwilling to do what needed doing.

And yesterday I heard someone bring up an interesting point.

He said that there was no video or written evidence of Trump being against the invasion at the time.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I don't recall seeing any myself. And Trump is a life-long blowhard, not shy about puutting his opinion out there. Seems to me that if he had a take at the time, there would be plenty of evidence of it.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:03 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:Even if one ignores the argument that Bush put forth there's still justification outside of his administration. UNSCOM inspected Iraq in '98 & found WMD's. Saddam never allowed another inspection to prove that he had destroyed those weapons.

So whether or not Bush lied, we were still justified in invading Iraq. Why wait until the mess is bigger to clean up the situation?

Woah... this coming from Diego has me

So, as a certain poster here has insisted that 9/11 was an inside job, doesn't it seem even more possible that those who made that happen could have much more easily planted WMD in Iraq?

It's like saying they could build a space shuttle but not a paper airplane,

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:11 am

Diego in Seattle wrote: So whether or not Bush lied, we were still justified in invading Iraq. Why wait until the mess is bigger to clean up the situation?

The letter of the law rings a bit hollow, invading on a non-existant technicality - rather than sober observation or realistic expectations seems naive. As justification for a larger foriegn policy, it was laughable. Small wonder the 'coalition of the willing' was made up of Pitcairn and Sable Island.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:55 pm

It's indisputable that WMDs were found in Iraq-- it's just a question of what defines a weapon of mass destruction. The ones that were found were old, but still had limited potency. However, even if these were not the ones that were thought to be the weapons that convinced Bill Clinton and then George W that Saddam had these items, no one can argue that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons inside their own borders.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:53 pm

Rooster wrote:It's indisputable that WMDs were found in Iraq-- it's just a question of what defines a weapon of mass destruction. The ones that were found were old, but still had limited potency. However, even if these were not the ones that were thought to be the weapons that convinced Bill Clinton and then George W that Saddam had these items, no one can argue that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons inside their own borders.

Nice backpedal. That isn't what Chimpy and his other circus monkeys said. They said he had active programs and that they knew all about them when, in fact, they didn't know jack shit.

That's a lie. The weapons we did find were pre-Desert Storm and more dangerous to the handlers than anyone else.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:02 am

No backpedaling here. I've never advocated that those chemical munitions were what were being spoken of by Bush, Powell, etc. I'm only pointing out the fact that there were, indeed, unaccounted for chemical munitions in Iraq. If you say those don't count as WMDs, that's fine. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, I'd still argue that by definition of what they physically are, those are weapons of mass destruction-- just not very effective ones. Just like the underwear bomber who couldn't blow himself up, doesn't mean he's not a terrorist, it simply means he's not a very effective one.

What I have always advocated is that Bush didn't need to use WMDs to invade Iraq. By breaking the unconditional surrender terms of the ceasefire in 1991, Saddam Hussein opened the door to the resumption of armed conflict. International law and all that. As a vet I'm surprised you don't understand that, mvscal.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:10 am

That wasn't the argument he made. Had he come out and said, "Look, this guy has been jerking our chain for 12 years and we have no idea what he's up to. In light of recent events (9/11), that uncertainty represents an unacceptable risk to national security", it would have been a legitimate and honest argument to make.

He didn't do that, though.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:10 am

If nothing else (and I don't think there is anything else), at least Trump and Sanders have both brought an iota of honesty to the process... which is something the American Public doesn't know how to react to.

I still want a Trump/Sanders ticket -- lets go over-the-top and burn this mother down. Can't think of a better way to push the reset button on the R vs D thing.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:21 pm

If Sanders Claus is honest, he has to be one of the all time dumbest fucks to ever walk the earth. Maybe even dumber than Screwy.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:07 pm

mvscal wrote:If Sanders Claus is honest, he has to be one of the all time dumbest fucks to ever walk the earth. Maybe even dumber than Screwy.

Says the idiot trusting unemployment figures.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:08 pm

88 wrote:Trump wrote an unreadable book during an election year. In my humble opinion, the guy appears to exhibit all the warning signs of being a megalomaniac. And I'm on record here as deeming him unfit for the Office of President unless he happens to win the Republican nomination and is the only viable alternative to Clinton (demonstrably corrupt) or Sanders (demonstrably moronic). Then, one must swallow hard (revisit McCain/Romney) and vote for the lesser of two evils.

The key to this election might be who he tags to be his running mate. I'd vote for him if he had a good VPOTUS nominee, since there's no way that Trump will survive a term w/o being impeached.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:14 pm

Yes, I'm sure a strong Republican House will impeach a Republican president...

Wanna back up and take another run at it?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:12 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Yes, I'm sure a strong Republican House will impeach a Republican president...

Wanna back up and take another run at it?

Assumptions, much?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:29 pm

And which assumptions are those?

You're not making sense.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:19 pm

Dinsdale wrote:And which assumptions are those?

You're not making sense.

That the republicans will maintain control of Congress next year.

That will especially be in doubt if they delay or refuse to vote on an Obama SCOTUS nominee (double so if the nominee is one that this same Senate already voted unanimously to approve for a previous judicial appointment).

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:31 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:And which assumptions are those?

You're not making sense.
That the republicans will maintain control of Congress next year.

That will especially be in doubt if they delay or refuse to vote on an Obama SCOTUS nominee (double so if the nominee is one that this same Senate already voted unanimously to approve for a previous judicial appointment).

Due to the seats that are coming up this year in the Senate, the Dems have an outside chance of taking the majority away from the Knuckledraggers. In the Senate.

No way in Hell will they take over the HoR, which would be the body to impeach Trump should he get elected. They're too entrenched in their gerrymandered districts. The only way I could see that happening (1,000,000 to 1 shot) is if Trump became very unpopular with the party and they voted to impeach him to allow the VP to take over. Again, not likely, as a good % of the HoR Republicans are as anti-party establishment as Trump is.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Before my browser spontaneously restarted, I was typing something quite similar to what Mikey just did.

The D's aren't taking back the House... pretty much zero chance of that, and the Senate has fuck-all to do with bringing impeachment.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:53 pm

If appointment is delayed until next year & Trump appoints his sister (who has already rendered a pro-Roe v. Wade decision) to SCOTUS, you can bet the republicans would be willing to impeach him.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:21 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:If appointment is delayed until next year & Trump appoints his sister (who has already rendered a pro-Roe v. Wade decision) to SCOTUS, you can bet the republicans would be willing to impeach him.

You sir, are no Smackaholic when it comes to civics.

The President doesn't appoint anyone to the SCOTUS.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:24 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:If appointment is delayed until next year & Trump appoints his sister (who has already rendered a pro-Roe v. Wade decision) to SCOTUS, you can bet the republicans would be willing to impeach him.
You sir, are no Smackaholic when it comes to civics.

The President doesn't appoint anyone to the SCOTUS.

Appoint...nominate....Is that really all you got?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:30 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:Is that really all you got?

You've now had multiple instances of not knowing what the fuck you're talking about. You might wanna back off the derogatory posts.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:46 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:If appointment is delayed until next year & Trump appoints his sister (who has already rendered a pro-Roe v. Wade decision) to SCOTUS, you can bet the republicans would be willing to impeach him.
You sir, are no Smackaholic when it comes to civics.

The President doesn't appoint anyone to the SCOTUS.
Appoint...nominate....Is that really all you got?

Evidently all you've got is a small boy's dick in your mouth.

A. “Well, look, just so you understand, I said it jokingly,” Mr. Trump said of an interview with Bloomberg Politics last year in which he praised his sister after being prompted by the interviewer. Mr. Trump’s sister sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. “My sister’s a brilliant person, known as a brilliant person, but it’s obviously a conflict. And I said, ‘Oh, how about my sister?’ Kiddingly. My sister, also she — she also happens to have a little bit different views than me, but I said in that in a very joking matter, and it was all lots of fun and everything else. I would say total conflict of interest as far as my sister.”

B. And, even if he did, how would nominating a qualified candidate be an impeachable offense?