Why no one should consider voting for Jeb Bush.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Jeb Bush: I would have authorized the war in Iraq &#8212; just like my brother

Jeb Bush says that he would have authorized the 2003 war in Iraq &#8212; just like his brother did.

&#8220;I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody,&#8221; the former Florida governor told Fox News&#8217; Megyn Kelly Saturday after delivering the commencement address at Liberty University in Virginia. &#8220;And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.&#8221;

Yep. That was when Hillary Clinton was a Senator and, like most of the rest of Congress, knew only what his brother's administratoin spoon fed them.

Is he saying that, knowing what his cohorts knew, then, he would have committed the same crimes to mislead us into war in Iraq and every crime and act of stupidity that followed? :rolleyes:

The stupid gene runs deep and dominant in this family. :hmm:
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
You have to wonder what part of the electorate he think he's appealing to with that statement. Is there a part that's still strongly pro-war?
 

mindmajick

Senior member
Apr 24, 2015
226
0
16
Not a fan of Jeb as president... But that's EXACTLY what he didn't say.

He said anyone at the time (democrat or republican) would do the same thing. Both parties decided it was a good idea at the time.

He also said our politicians were provided with false information. That we all know it was a mistake after the fact (including his brother). This is true.


--
The CIA provided false info on wmds, but the democrats think bush was at fault.

The CIA provides false info on Benghazi, but the republicans blame Hillary.
--

Americans lose again by blaming the wrong people over and over AND OVER.

We're so busy arguing republican vs democrat (and vice versa) that we cant even accept proven, basic facts.

Edit: "I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody,”*“And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.” - Jeb
 
Last edited:

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Yep. That was when Hillary Clinton was a Senator and, like most of the rest of Congress, knew only what his brother's administratoin spoon fed them.

Is he saying that, knowing what his cohorts knew, then, he would have committed the same crimes to mislead us into war in Iraq and every crime and act of stupidity that followed? :rolleyes:

The stupid gene runs deep and dominant in this family. :hmm:

It does, but it doesn't take away from Hilary either. She really isn't the candidate people think. Jeb is more like his brother than his father, making him a shit candidate as well.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
its funny as I read the leftist canned reply to this (not yours Harvey, the other one that was in an article on it) and the level of incomprehension around his remarks is, well unsurprising...re read what he said, take a minute to actually try and comprehend, and if its still challenging try an internet search for help.

Then again, I presume this seeming bit of misunderstanding by the leftists is intentional spin...heck take a heated topic, completely misreport what someone says on it, and blow it way out of proportion is a play straight out of the liberal playbook no?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,645
9,950
136
Why no one should consider voting for Jeb Bush.

I'm sorry, I stopped at Bush.
The Bush legacy is precisely the reason Republicans got their !@# handed to them in 2006-2008. It's the reason I'm not a Republican. The reason I saw through the BS of the last two GOP candidates.

The Bush legacy is a disaster America should not soon forget.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
He's the one Bush that should been elected back when.

That time has passed.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
He's the one Bush that should been elected back when.

That time has passed.

Not saying I disagree but the options for this race really seem to suck so far...whats the alternative? Hillary...please.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,184
6,408
136
Seems like an honest response to a tough question. I should also point out that I rarely take any sort of advice from extremists.
 

mindmajick

Senior member
Apr 24, 2015
226
0
16
its funny as I read the leftist canned reply to this (not yours Harvey, the other one that was in an article on it) and the level of incomprehension around his remarks is, well unsurprising...re read what he said, take a minute to actually try and comprehend, and if its still challenging try an internet search for help.

Then again, I presume this seeming bit of misunderstanding by the leftists is intentional spin...heck take a heated topic, completely misreport what someone says on it, and blow it way out of proportion is a play straight out of the liberal playbook no?
The rightists do it too. Both parties will lie as much as they have to so they win.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,890
55,160
136
Not a fan of Jeb as president... But that's EXACTLY what he didn't say.

He said anyone at the time (democrat or republican) would do the same thing. Both parties decided it was a good idea at the time.

He also said our politicians were provided with false information. That we all know it was a mistake after the fact (including his brother). This is true.


--
The CIA provided false info on wmds, but the democrats think bush was at fault.

The CIA provides false info on Benghazi, but the republicans blame Hillary.
--

Americans lose again by blaming the wrong people over and over AND OVER.

We're so busy arguing republican vs democrat (and vice versa) that we cant even accept proven, basic facts.

Edit: "I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody,”*“And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.” - Jeb

What you're saying is totally right, but for the wrong reason. What Jeb is saying is a totally dishonest crock of crap precisely because at the time people DIDN'T all think we should go to war in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution

So while Hillary did vote for the AUMF, Congressional Democrats on the whole rejected it. In the House, 96% of Republicans voted for it, and 39% of Democrats did. In the Senate 58% of Democrats voted for it and 98% of Republicans voted for it. The idea that 'anyone who saw the intelligence would have voted for it' ignores the fact that a majority of Democrats in Congress who saw the intelligence... didn't.

Over the years there's been this false narrative that has been built up that the Iraq War was some kind of bipartisan misadventure. It wasn't. It was pushed by the Bush White House and it passed due to Republican support in Congress. That's the reality, and Jeb's trying to get a pass for it.
 

mindmajick

Senior member
Apr 24, 2015
226
0
16
What you're saying is totally right, but for the wrong reason. What Jeb is saying is a totally dishonest crock of crap precisely because at the time people DIDN'T all think we should go to war in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution

So while Hillary did vote for the AUMF, Congressional Democrats on the whole rejected it. In the House, 96% of Republicans voted for it, and 39% of Democrats did. In the Senate 58% of Democrats voted for it and 98% of Republicans voted for it. The idea that 'anyone who saw the intelligence would have voted for it' ignores the fact that a majority of Democrats in Congress who saw the intelligence... didn't.

Over the years there's been this false narrative that has been built up that the Iraq War was some kind of bipartisan misadventure. It wasn't. It was pushed by the Bush White House and it passed due to Republican support in Congress. That's the reality, and Jeb's trying to get a pass for it.

You're right. I guess I've been blinded by the fact that we've been at constant war my entire life. But, i can't help but think the only reason they voted against war was because it came from a republican. That's just my personal spin and not based on any facts other than anecdotal evidence.

I'm tired of living in 1984. I blame both parties.

Constant war. No reason. No one will ever win. Yay.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,890
55,160
136
You're right. I guess I've been blinded by the fact that we've been at constant war my entire life. But, i can't help but think the only reason they voted against war was because it came from a republican. That's just my personal spin and not based on any facts other than anecdotal evidence.

I'm tired of living in 1984. I blame both parties.

Constant war. No reason. No one will ever win. Yay.

I have no doubt if a Democratic president had been pushing it that more would have voted for it. That being said, do you really think President Al Gore would have pushed to invade Iraq? I sincerely doubt it.

You should blame both parties when both parties are equally responsible for something. In the case of the Iraq War, they aren't. It was planned by Republicans, it was advocated for primarily by Republicans, and it was passed into government policy primarily by Republicans.

Jeb is trying to hope that people forget that. It's important that we don't forget about how that war happened as it's the single biggest preventable foreign policy catastrophe of the last 40 years.
 

mindmajick

Senior member
Apr 24, 2015
226
0
16
I have no doubt if a Democratic president had been pushing it that more would have voted for it. That being said, do you really think President Al Gore would have pushed to invade Iraq? I sincerely doubt it.

You should blame both parties when both parties are equally responsible for something. In the case of the Iraq War, they aren't. It was planned by Republicans, it was advocated for primarily by Republicans, and it was passed into government policy primarily by Republicans.

Jeb is trying to hope that people forget that. It's important that we don't forget about how that war happened as it's the single biggest preventable foreign policy catastrophe of the last 40 years.
It's all one big run on war over there. Obama promised to end the war over there and just starts more wars.

I blame both parties. There's always some "good reason" to blow people up.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Not a fan of Jeb as president... But that's EXACTLY what he didn't say.

He said anyone at the time (democrat or republican) would do the same thing. Both parties decided it was a good idea at the time.

Yes.

He also said our politicians were provided with false information.

Yes.

That we all know it was a mistake after the fact (including his brother). This is true..

NO! That is false. He and his administration were the liars. It took me only a few minutes to find several of my posts with the following list of Bush administration's lies and incompetence from one of my earlier posts. I apologize in advance for reposting it because it's very long, but it makes the point about how wrong you are...
  • The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.

  • Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.

  • There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.

  • There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.

  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.

  • There were no long range rockets.

  • There were no WMD's.

  • There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
  • They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

    The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.

  • They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

    The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.

  • Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed them that the reports were false.

    The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Need more lies? Try these:
  • Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
    Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

  • Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
    George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

  • No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
    Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

  • If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
    Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

  • We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
    Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

  • Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
    George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

  • We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
    George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

  • Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
    George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

  • The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
    George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

  • Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly?..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
    Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

  • We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
    Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

    But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
    Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

  • We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
    George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

  • There are people who in large measure have information that we need?.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
    Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

  • We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
    George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

  • I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
    Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

  • I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein because he had a weapons program.
    George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

  • We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
    Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

  • You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
    George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

  • U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
    Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

  • We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
    Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

  • I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
    Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

  • We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
    Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

  • They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
    Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

  • "I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
    Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

  • This is about an imminent threat.
    Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

  • After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
    Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

  • After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
    Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003
Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed them that the reports were false, and that several European intelligence agencies had thoroughly discredited the source for the reports.

The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002

A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.

The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.

The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.

"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."

The controversy stems from shipments to Iraq of specialized aluminum metal that were seized en route by governments allied with the United States. A U.S. intelligence official confirmed that at least two such shipments were seized within the past 14 months, although he declined to give details. The Associated Press, citing sources familiar with the shipments, reported that one originated in China and was intercepted in Jordan.

The shipments sparked concern among U.S. intelligence analysts because of the potential use of such tubes in centrifuges, fast-spinning machines used in making enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. High-strength, heat-resistant metals are needed for centrifuge casings as well as for the rotors, which turn at up to 1,000 rotations per minute.

There is no evidence that any of the tubes reached Iraq. But in its white paper on Iraq released to the United Nations last week, the Bush administration cited the seized shipments as evidence that Iraq is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said in a televised interview that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes -- with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq's artillery rockets.

"But the majority view, held by senior officials here, is that they were most likely intended for gas centrifuges," one U.S. intelligence official said in an interview.

The new report questions that conclusion on several grounds, most of them technical. It says the seized tubes were made of a kind of aluminum that is ill-suited for welding. Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges. In fact, the report said, Iraq had largely abandoned aluminum for other materials, such as specialized steel and carbon fiber, in its centrifuges at the time its nuclear program was destroyed by allied bombers in the Gulf War.

According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.

Note the date -- September 19, 2002, BEFORE they launched their war of LIES.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons

  • There were no long range rockets.

  • There were no WMD's.

  • There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Even Colin Powell has since said he strongly questioned the "evidence" the Bushwhackos were pimping to Congress and the American people before he gave his infamous dog and pony show at the U.N.

Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'

Saturday, April 3, 2004 Posted: 11:05 AM EST (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said his pre-war testimony to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's alleged mobile, biological weapons labs was based on information that appears not to be "solid."

Powell's speech before the Security Council on February, 5, 2003 --detailing possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- was a major event in the Bush administration's effort to justify a war and win international support.

Powell said Friday his testimony about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs was based on the best intelligence available, but "now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid," Powell said.
.
.
(continues

You can pick and choose from the examples in the article, but remember George Tenet's "slam dunk?" Remember the infamously unreliable testimony from "Curveball? :roll:

Powell also told columnist, Robert Scheer that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim.

Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us
.
.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.
.
.
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

?The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,? Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush?s State of the Union speech? ?That was a big mistake,? he said. ?It should never have been in the speech. I didn?t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn?t a Niger connection. He didn?t tell us anything we didn?t already know. I never believed it.?

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn?t the president: ?That was all Cheney.?
.
.
(continues)

I said, it was long. Sorry, but obviously, some memories have to be refreshed.
 
Last edited:

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Is anyone surprised? Jeb is also bringing along the clown car of fuckwits that pushed going into Iraq.

y'know, Iraq, the country that was the base of the 911 attackers....
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,890
55,160
136
It's all one big run on war over there. Obama promised to end the war over there and just starts more wars.

I blame both parties. There's always some "good reason" to blow people up.

False equivalence is their best friend. You're just playing into their hands.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,149
9,116
136
False equivalence is their best friend. You're just playing into their hands.

BothSides™ is what enables the insanity on the right.

Sure, they may have Ted Cruz, a sitting Senator, but the left has their crazies too, in some state or another, who post crazy things on forums!!1
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
What you're saying is totally right, but for the wrong reason. What Jeb is saying is a totally dishonest crock of crap precisely because at the time people DIDN'T all think we should go to war in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution

So while Hillary did vote for the AUMF, Congressional Democrats on the whole rejected it. In the House, 96% of Republicans voted for it, and 39% of Democrats did. In the Senate 58% of Democrats voted for it and 98% of Republicans voted for it. The idea that 'anyone who saw the intelligence would have voted for it' ignores the fact that a majority of Democrats in Congress who saw the intelligence... didn't.

Over the years there's been this false narrative that has been built up that the Iraq War was some kind of bipartisan misadventure. It wasn't. It was pushed by the Bush White House and it passed due to Republican support in Congress. That's the reality, and Jeb's trying to get a pass for it.

Yet another example of you skimming an article rather than reading the article :D Then letting your bias take over.
 

mindmajick

Senior member
Apr 24, 2015
226
0
16
False equivalence is their best friend. You're just playing into their hands.
Whose hands? Has either party ended this perpetual war?

Since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. in other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.

AND of the 248 armed conflicts since WWII, the US started 201 of them.

These statistics are accurate up to 2014.
 

Ventanni

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2011
1,432
142
106
Jeb Bush governed Florida well. I have no doubt he could govern the United States pretty well too, as I consider him the smartest and most capable of the Bush dynasty. The problem is though is that he surrounds himself with the same council as his brother. That's a deal breaker for me.

I think he's incredibly dangerous to elect.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,890
55,160
136
Whose hands? Has either party ended this perpetual war?

Since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. in other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.

AND of the 248 armed conflicts since WWII, the US started 201 of them.

These statistics are accurate up to 2014.

How many people have died in conflicts this administration has started vs. the previous administration? How much money have we spent on conflicts that this administration started vs. the previous one?

It is perfectly reasonable to criticize Obama for conflicts he has started or enabled. To say there's no difference between his conflicts and those of GWB however, is ridiculous.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,149
9,116
136
Whose hands? Has either party ended this perpetual war?

Since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. in other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.

AND of the 248 armed conflicts since WWII, the US started 201 of them.

These statistics are accurate up to 2014.

The US is an Empire.

Once you accept this, it becomes easy to understand that all US Presidents are Elected Emperors. Some attempt to physically conquer more than others. Some attempt to keep the peace without invading and occupying countries.

All of them are Emperors for the Empire.
 

mindmajick

Senior member
Apr 24, 2015
226
0
16
How many people have died in conflicts this administration has started vs. the previous administration? How much money have we spent on conflicts that this administration started vs. the previous one?

It is perfectly reasonable to criticize Obama for conflicts he has started or enabled. To say there's no difference between his conflicts and those of GWB however, is ridiculous.

Both parties worship their politicians as ones who can do no wrong.

According to figures obtained from the Department of Defense, a total of 263 U.S. military personnel died in the Iraq war after 2008. Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from that country in December 2011.

Meanwhile, he increased the number of troops in Afghanistan, where 1,564 U.S. military men and women have died since 2008.

-- these numbers are accurate through Obama's first term only so I'm sure the death toll has risen.

The point isn't who killed more people.. It's that both parties are war hawks. I find it amusing that republicans think democrats want to "take their guns"... When they're just as violent.

How many more conflicts are we engaged in now compared to when bush was in office?

Did "honest Obama" close guantanamo?

And STFU republicans... You guys don't even pretend to care.

Edit : here-you'll like this. It vilifies bush properly but it also explains that Obama is "more of the same". I'll gladly list all of the Bush policies that Obama continued, if you like. And the ones he went even further with (like busting medicinal marijuana clinics)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/24/george-w-bushs-presidency-in-24-charts/
 
Last edited: