It was amazing to see this debate. CNN deliberately – out of their blatant bias – engineered their shot at the Republican debate to force Republicans to attack each other. Every single question they asked in the Republican debate was, “Why don’t you think your opponent should be the next president?”
Many of the questions were framed in a way designed to encourage candidates to criticize other candidates’ positions on issues (or nonissues) rather than addressing issues themselves. (Others disagree with you. What do you think?! was the general thrust of the questioning.) “Mr Trump has repeatedly said that the $100 million you’ve raised for your campaign makes you a puppet for your donors. Are you?” Tapper asked Jeb Bush early on in the debate. There is no possible world in which that question could ever elicit an interesting or valuable answer.
But did CNN follow their own, let’s make the candidates eat each other and enjoy the Republican-on-Republican violence we ginned up? Nope.
[…] Moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper said in a Sunday interview, “Going into the Republican debates, you pretty much knew there were a number of candidates who were willing to [attack each other].” He added, “That’s not the case, so far as we’ve seen, on the Democratic side.”
“I’m always uncomfortable with that notion of setting people up in order to kind of promote some sort of a face off,” Cooper continued, contradicting the entire format of the Republican debate CNN hosted.
CNN’s Jake Tapper seemed very comfortable getting the GOP candidates to face off against each other.
“Look, these are all serious people,” explained Cooper. “This is a serious debate. They want to talk about the issues and I want to give them an opportunity to do that.”
This is a rabidly biased “journalist” from a rabidly biased “news network.” He’s telling us that Republicans have zero-point-zero interests in talking about issues, that really all they wanted to do was personally attack each other, and for some reason he had no problem being “uncomfortable” when he did to Republicans what he said he absolutely was NOT going to do to the Democrats. Because, after all, according to Anderson Cooper, Democrat candidates “are all serious people.” Whereas the governors and senators and incredibly successful field of Republicans are all clowns by simple definition of liberal demagogic ideology.
So what I’m telling you is that from the very outset, this debate was a JOKE.
And the result was it was boring and changed NOTHING. Hillary Clinton got sheltered when she should have been shellacked. And that was the plan. I suppose that’s what “no fireworks” meant; the purpose of this debate from the ideological plotters and schemers was to reinforce whatever preconceived script they wanted to.
So there weren’t any seriously tough questions asked of the Democrats that they didn’t want to answer the way Republicans are asked tough questions that they don’t want to answer. There also aren’t anywhere near as many debates for fascist Democrats who at this time in their wretched, degenerate existence despise free speech as there are for Republicans.
The debates were rigged from the outset to benefit the presumed queen empress of the space-time universe.
“Four debates. Four debates. Four debates, and only four debates. We are told—not asked—before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said on Friday. “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before.” […]
O’Malley says the DNC is only doing this to protect Clinton, and O’Malley isn’t alone in this theory. Sen. Bernie Sanders is unhappy as well.
“I believe at a time when so many people have given up on the political process, when 80 percent of people did not vote in the last election, 63 percent of the people did not vote, I believe that debates are a good thing,” Sanders said.
Democrats are by nature fascists and didn’t want to allow too many debates which would have allowed a challenger to rise and begin to threaten the selection by the Stalinist DNC – which is led by a fascist woman who implicitly acknowledged that there is ZERO difference between a “Democrat” and a “socialist” today.
“What is the difference,” between the platform of the Democratic Party and socialism Meet The Press host Chuck Todd asks Debbie Wasserman Schultz, leader of the Democrats. “Can you explain the difference?”
Again, she will not answer, following her non-answer to the same question on Thursday’s episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews.
Nobody had to answer much during the staged Democrat debate on CNN. That’s for sure.
As an example, I don’t recall very many questions about Bernie Sanders’ rape fantasy article that is just beyond creepy. The left and their media lackeys couldn’t care less; that kind of awfulness very clearly only matters if the candidate is a Republican. I mean, I’m sorry; Joy Behar of the ABC program The View gushed that Bernie Sanders is sexy; but aside from the fact that socialists are pathologically creepily in love with their masters (whether it was Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Bill Clinton or Obama or Sanders), it’s rather obvious that to put it in Sanders’ words, “she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously.’’
The CNN debate had the premise, “Let’s not all reveal what pieces of garbage all we liberals are.”
I remember the last decent Democrat named John F. Kennedy. I remember his saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Today to be a true Democrat means screaming, “NO! SCREW this country. TAKE from it! FORCE it to give to you! Do NOTHING for it but take and take and TAKE from it until it collapses so we can impose the communism that the American founding fathers would have rather died more deaths than Obama’s debt to stop. Because to be a damned Democrat is to hate the United States of America so much it is beyond unreal. Prominent Democrat Party members say the goal is socialism. Liberal academia say the goal is communism. The liberal ACLU says the goal is communism. The powerful liberal labor union SEIU says the goal is communism. The entire Obama presidency has been one to use manufactured crisis after manufactured crisis to impose a Stalinist dictatorship of government-by-executive order.
There were no questions about the sixty million abortions every single Democrat will one day scream in hell for. No questions about the fact that to be a Democrat today means to be a sodomy-worshiping pervert who sticks his or her middle finger up at the God of the Bible and shrieks, “F*ck YOU! Bring your wrath that you tell us about in Romans chapter one ON, God! Give us raging floods and storms in one place and burning drought in another according to Amos 4:7. We’ll just blame Your wrath on Republicans!”
I wish there were some religious questions, such as, “How do you respond to Jesus’ narrow, exclusivist statement of John 14:6, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through Me.” I’d like to hear the candidates deal with the question, “Why has the Democrat Party so rabidly turned against Jesus Christ and the moral teachings of the Bible?” But no.
There was one question that exposed the complete cowardice of the Democrat Party today. Anderson Cooper asked each candidate to respond to the question, “Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter?” And there was only ONE candidate on the stage – and no Democrat will vote for him because to be a Democrat is to be a toxically depraved human being – who answered that all lives matter. That’s because to be a Democrat is to be an abject SLAVE to your party’s special interest, to your party’s rabid leftist base.
And so a good follow-up question would have been, “Why don’t you believe that white lives matter in America today? Just why is it that you were such a damn, miserable COWARD to answer that last question the way you did, you despicable political weasels?” But no.
No questions about how encouraging entire generations of Democrats to be welfare parasites for the incredibly cynical purpose of trying to force them to vote Democrat for life is “doing what you can for your country” rather than “not asking what your country can do for you.”
But that would be about actual reality. And to be a Democrat is to be a snarling hater of reality.
So no real questions about how all the Democrats on the platform seem to be channeling the uber-leftist message that more Obamaesque policies will somehow lead to “social justice” and end income inequality when Obama’s damn policies have done more to make actual income inequality worse than any and all presidents before him.
There were no questions about why all the Democrat candidates vying for Obama’s ninth through twelfth years in office are making the horror of income inequality a primary issue in the seventh damn year of Obama. What exactly did Democrats do to solve income inequality when Barack Obama was Democrat president, Harry Reid was Democrat Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi was Democrat Speaker of the House? They made it worse than George W. Bush EVER made it. Even the damn Obama White House’s own Economic Advisors’ Report acknowledges that Obama has exploded income inequality. We just came out with a jobs report that features the lowest labor participation rate in the work force in 38 years. I mean, “Yes, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.1 percent, but only because the workforce shrank by 300,000 or so.” Which is a direct quote from PBS about the last jobs report. But that’s reality.
And Democrats hate reality more than they love life.
So Democrats can explode a problem into a crisis and then exploit the crisis they create to slander and lie and demonize everybody but themselves. Nobody has a job because they have regulated jobs out of existence. But now they can exploit the fact that they destroyed all the jobs to blame those greedy, rich people should go bankrupt being forced to pay wages and benefits they can’t possibly afford to pay while they’re being forced to spend exorbitantly to conform to regulations they can’t possibly conform to.
And stupid people who despise reality believe their lies.
The labor participation rate – the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn JOB – has SHOCKINGLY PLUNGED under the wicked, depraved, foolish, idiotic policies of Democrat fascist socialist statism. Even the New York Times is forced to call Obama’s last jobs report “grim.” Because he has wildly FAILED.
No significant questions about Hillary Clinton’s private server or the pathologically fascist, paranoid and secretive shrew she had to have been and continues to remain in order to install one in the first place. I would have loved to see Anderson Cooper treat the Democrat candidates like Republicans with questions such as, “Would you have installed a private email server and obliterated all legitimate transparency and accountability by purging your communications AFTER they had been lawfully subpoenaed? Would YOU have risked national security by throwing out over 400 top-secret emails without adequate protections the way Hillary Clinton did? Would you endorse right now every single Republican politician and appointee being able to install private servers in their homes to avoid accountability the way Hillary Clinton was able to do? Do you believe there ought to be such a thing as transparency and accountability as Hillary Clinton very clearly does not? Do you agree with Hillary Clinton that there ought to be one standard for her and a vastly different one for everyone else? Or do you agree with Hillary Clinton as when Americans are being murdered under her watch, “What difference does it make?”
But no. That would be dealing with reality. And you’re not allowed to be a Democrat unless you have fang-dripping hatred for reality.
Bernie Sanders suggests that he was not being political when he said that his rival’s emails ought to be off-limits in the debate. That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders being decent or courageous; it’s because he recognizes that Democrats frankly are miserable, wicked, depraved moral scum who don’t CARE that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who broke the law and horrifyingly violated our national security and belongs in prison. He said what he said because he knew that the same damn perverted cowards who would have booed him if he’d had the courage and the decency to say that all lives matter would also have booed him if he pointed out Hillary Clinton’s crimes.
Because to a Democrat, abject, despicable moral COWARDICE masquerades for courage. Which is why Democrats stupidly believe that Barack Obama is actually brave to be the modern equivalent of Neville Chamberlain who freed Hitler to unleash hell by his abject failure to stand up and have any kind of a backbone when the world desperately needed one in the days leading up to World War II.
No questions about our national debt and how it has exploded under Barack Obama and what Democrat presidents would do to reduce it rather than explode it even more. No question of how Barack Obama wasn’t the worst hypocrite in the history of the entire universe when he demonized George Bush with these words on July 3, 2008 because George Bush had disgustingly added $4 trillion to the national debt:
Obama: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
No questions about the fact that Barack Obama has now more than doubled Bush’s debt after hypocritically demonizing him for it and no questions about the fact that by the time Obama leaves office, he will personally have added more to the debt than every single U.S. president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED.
Because to be a Democrat is to be so viciously hateful toward reality it is beyond unreal.
But wouldn’t that have been a good question: “How in the hell are you going to do all this leftist socialist crap and not bankrupt America? Or are you going to be the same sort of rabid, demon-possessed LIAR the last Democrat president was and vomit out an ocean of lies?
No significant questions about the rise and spread of the threat of Islamic State or the caliphate Barack Obama’s foolish and depraved policies allowed them to carve out of a country where Obama once took credit for securing and a country where Obama once issued an infamous “red line” that he subsequently allowed his enemies to walk all over.
Because if you’re a Democrat you truly don’t give one flying DAMN about the actual state of the world. You are a demon-possessed fool who lives in a web of lies spun by worse fools who are even more demon-possessed.
Meanwhile, the same ISIS that has owned Syria is now advancing on Baghdad. And somehow Obama’s idiotic Democrat Party rhetoric is not stopping the screaming jihadists armed with heavy weapons.
Hey, I’ve got an idea: let’s just pretend that if we’re really, really nice to them and disarm our military capacity and bare our throats to their knives, they’ll see we’re no threat to them and leave us alone. Because I’m a Democrat and I’ve never actually so much as touched actual reality in my entire useless life.
Listening to the Democrats on the stage, you got a vivid picture of why everything has melted down in the world: George W. Bush. Seven years after he left office, he is STILL the ONLY actual leader who is to be held responsible for ANYTHING in America. On their presentation, the world was idyllic and wonderful before Bush came along. We were at peace and harmony with all living things. And then the devil Bush came along and plunged America into war. And even is spite of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is the true Messiah, come to save us from not having a nanny-state government that will wipe our filthy bottoms for us, he has not been able to overcome the wicked work of the devil Bush.
Gosh, you’d have to seriously hate reality to not remember that Democrats very clearly agreed with George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein DID in FACT have weapons of mass destruction that needed to be dealt with. Democrats like then-president Bill Clinton and then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright issued crystal-clear statements that Saddam Hussein had WMD going back a full three years before George W. Bush assumed office:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Let’s just use our power of liberalism to whitewash reality and smear it with whatever fecal matter that has been crammed into our heads that Hillary Clinton was just ONE of the Democrats who acknowledged Bush’s legitimacy in going to war after the United States was massively attacked on 9/11/2001. Let’s just forget that Hillary Clinton AFTER Bush had invaded Iraq in response to the 9/11 attack said:
I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. — Sen. Hillary Clinton
Just consider how completely full of lies the Democrat narrative as presented on that staged stage last night truly revealed themselves to be. On their warped, wicked, presentation of “reality,” all the 9/11 terrorists DIDN’T come into America when Bill Clinton was president. Even though in actual reality ALL the 9/11 terrorists came into America while the president of the United States’ initials were W.J.C. rather than G.W.B.
There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America. They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.
It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia, the U.S.S. Cole and other debacles that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:
“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden
Bill Clinton was forced to acknowledge that he could have easily killed Osama bin Laden. But bin Laden was just one more Clinton mess to leave for the hated Republican administration. So to hell with it.
Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”
In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.
Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.
“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “
After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.
“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”
Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse and a recession that was very nearly every bit as bad as the one in 2008 that Democrats used to pervert their way to power. Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???
Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 economic crash. But hey, that crash that Bill Clinton’s policies directly fed gave Democrats an excuse to say, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” So it was all good to the DNC.
Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.
So that was the world before George W. Bush attacked Iraq. And Democrats are truly demon-possessed to demonize him the way they do.
But let’s now cut to after the war. Let’s point out for the damn factual record the REALITY that George W. Bush left office as a VICTOR in that war in Iraq.
“I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin’ home by the end of the summer. You’re gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin’ toward a representative government. I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed, how they have been deciding to use the political process, rather than guns, to settle their differences.” — Vice President Joe Biden
Barack Obama admitted it and even celebrated it:
“Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Obama, February 27, 2009
Even al Qaeda in Iraq itself acknowledged that George W. Bush had won the war in Iraq:
By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq. I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters. — General Jack Keane
There is ZERO question that the war in Iraq – a war Democrats supported before treasonously turning against it because the Democrat Party is the PARTY of treason- was WON by the time Obama metastasized his way into the presidency.
Let’s go back to 2009 and see what Barack Obama did treasonously undermined EVERYTHING our generals and military commanders deeply believed we needed to do:
US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth PorterWASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.
Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”
Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.
Barack Obama didn’t have to leave Iraq. HE WANTED TO IN SPITE OF ANY AND ALL WISDOM WHATSOEVER.
And a bloodbath has happened as a direct result of a pathologically wicked Democrat president of a pathologically wicked Democrat Party.
“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — President George W. Bush
Bush was right. Reality is a witness. And Democrats need to be hunted down with dogs and burned alive if we are to have any chance of survival as a nation.
You listen to the morally diseased Democrat cockroaches who were spreading their filth on that stage last night and it was George W. Bush who somehow created the absolute meltdown in Syria.
First of all, it wasn’t George W. Bush who created the instability in Syria. It was Barack Obama’s evil Federal Reserve policies that essentially created food riots. Because the United States is – but won’t be for much longer, thanks to Obama’s fiscal insanity – the world’s Reserve Currency, all commodities such as oil are bought and sold in U.S. dollars. And Obama’s fiscal policies ended up poisoning the currencies in poorer Middle Eastern countries as food prices skyrocketed relative to purchasing power. Which the leftist mainstream media due to their own failure to comprehend reality had the moral idiocy to call “the Arab Spring” like it was somehow a good thing. They were riots because people were starving because Barack Obama has failed the entire planet so abysmally.
Then there was Obama’s “red line” fiasco after the food riots dissolved Syria into brutal civil war that has now claimed about a quarter of a million lives while Obama dithered. It was such a fiasco that Obama being the pathological liar and coward that he is claimed he didn’t say it. Without any question to any rational mind capable of waking up and smelling the real world emboldened our worst enemies.
Conservative columnist Marc Thiessen more than a year and a half ago prophetically wrote an article with this title:
That article – written not yesterday but more than a year and a half ago – ends with these words:
Today, America is projecting weakness. Obama’s failure to enforce his red line in Syria projected weakness. His constant talk of withdrawal and ending wars so we can focus on “nation-building here at home” projects weakness. His decision to gut the U.S. defense budget and reduce the Army to pre-World War II levels projects weakness.
When your adversaries believe you are weak, they are emboldened to act — and prone to miscalculate. Putin believes there will be no real costs for his intervention in Ukraine because there were no costs in Syria. He knows the Obama Doctrine is to do just enough “not to get mocked.” If he is proved right, it will have consequences far beyond the Crimean Peninsula. A failure to impose costs on Russia will further embolden adversaries from Beijng to Pyongyang to Tehran — all of whom are measuring Obama’s resolve in Ukraine, just as Putin measured Obama’s resolve in Syria and found it lacking.
You tell me how Thiessen wasn’t right now that Putin just swarmed into Syria, ordered the United States it had better stay the hell clear from them unless Obama wanted to get punched right in the mouth, and proceeded to start killing all of the few remaining U.S. allies in the region that we had left. As Russia just snarled, “The Middle East is OURS now, America. Get out, you pathetic little weasel coward Obama turds!” And that is exactly what we’ve done. Just as we’ve gotten out of the largest trading route in the world as China built an island and then militarized that island in the South China Sea while Obama did NOTHING because he has no credible threat whatsoever.
And we did it because Russia with Putin has demonstrated that he has the spine to fight and Barack Obama has demonstrated to the world that he is a pathetic coward who will NOT risk losing the support of his rabid leftist base that yearns for America to suffer terrible defeat so they can exploit the next crisis. Nobody believes that weak little coward pussy will do anything no matter how much our worse enemies humiliate us or walk all over us.
And Democrats have the Lucifer in them to say that was Bush’s fault.
Everything about this debate was nothing but a sick joke.
But there is no possibility of any kind of actual “debate” when you have liars debating liars about whose lies sell to the membership of the most stupid and most depraved and most demonic party in the history of the world.
Newsweek
Start Thinking Right 