Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

News Hawk Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:45 pm

He interrogates and determines who will live or die—very violently!

Even Worse than Osama bin Laden? Wahid_2942025b_zpsaa9bda23

News Pigeon Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:11 pm

News Hawk Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:31 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKELtjoNrP

Lucky for you, I've changed the URL somewhat to temporarily protect Obama supporters, but will eventually let you see what Evil you're cheer-leading for...

.

News Pigeon Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:37 pm

News Buzzard Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:20 pm

Love the illustrations, News Pigeon. News Hawk is an idiot !

**WHL** Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:26 am

NP you keep harping about the Tea Party. There is nothing wrong with wanting more fiscal accountability, and less government control of our lives. I like the Tea Party so keep promoting it please.

News Pigeon Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:20 am

WHL wrote: I like the Tea Party so keep promoting it please.

OK....

Even Worse than Osama bin Laden? Mad-as-hell-tmdho090417

News Hawk Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:47 am

News Buzzard wrote:Love the illustrations, News Pigeon. News Hawk is an idiot !

This idiot has posted a news story into the "World News" forum. There's yet to be a response that comes close to being "World News".

The various TEA parties hopefully will open the eyes of those who unknowingly/unwittingly use American Communist Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to attempt ridicule in their quest to destroy the US from inside.

You won't want to view this violent video expressing Democrat "thought" after I've corrected the URL. It's a "recruitment" video for ISIS, to whom Obama has given the green light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKELtjoNrP

The video begins with a shot of Muslim Militants burning their passports from various countries. It continues with filming the results of planted IEDs blowing up many of Iraq's HumVees. Now I understand how our military had suffered so many injuries.

Sad

Is this beginning of The Muslim Caliphate?

pale

.

News Buzzard Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:02 pm

News Pigeon wrote:
WHL wrote: I like the Tea Party so keep promoting it please.

OK....

There you go again with the facts !

News Pigeon Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:19 pm

Yeah....if you can't get through with words, draw pictures... Laughing

News Hawk Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:36 am

News Buzzard wrote:
WHL wrote: I like the Tea Party so keep promoting it please.

OK....

There you go again with the facts ![/quote]

You wanted pictures?

Here's over an hour of pictures:

.

News Buzzard Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:50 am

There were no jihadists in Iraq until we went in there and did a regime change!

Mission Accomplished!

What's your endgame, News Hawk? Are you trying to get us into another war where thousands of our people will either be killed or maimed? The really sad part about our thirst for war is that it is usually the war mongers who don't want to spend the money to take care of the injured soldiers who came home. They are the Tea Party patriots, and they think war is a game. The millennial generation who so bravely served in the military after 9/11 were unfortunately hoodwinked by Bush and Cheney, and it was Bush and Cheney who let 9/11 happen in the first place.

News Pigeon Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:27 am

Nothing but the truth in that statement NB....

Even Worse than Osama bin Laden? 153c29297b8ee0a6616055147110463e

News Buzzard Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:55 am

News Pigeon wrote:Nothing but the truth in that statement NB....

Thank you, NP !

Outerlimits Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:52 pm

Invading Iraq was a massive mistake based on bad information.

Your revisionist history makes it sound like Bush made this decision alone. If memory serves there were 2 votes to go to war and it was the Dems who wanted the second vote. The first time there was backlash against the ones who voted against by the people. The second Vote a lot more Dems jumped on board. Bush had many vocal partners on both sides of the aisle including Hillary and Kerry.

But as President of the United States, Bush owns what happens under his watch.

All of it.

Now I am waiting for those on the left to hold Obama to that same standard. Instead of making excuses, and trying to minimize his mistakes just hold him accountable. The man is a proven liar and yet the left refuses to hold him accountable for it.

What's going on in Iraq "Obama's greatest success," as Biden told us, or isn't it?

When Bush left office, Iraq was stable and the war was won. ISIS was not taking over Iraqi cities, and murdering and beheading people until Obama screwed it all up for political expediency.

News Buzzard Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:11 pm

Outerlimits wrote:Invading Iraq was a massive mistake based on bad information...........When Bush left office, Iraq was stable and the war was won.

Invading Iraq was a massive mistake and the Congress voted on that bad information. The Commander In Chief gives the final order to invade and that was Bush. Iraq was never stable after our invasion. The invasion was a complete disaster because we only had a fraction of the troops necessary and we created a vacuum after Hussein was deposed. Reports are that Maliki is not much more than a thug and that's why Iraq is in the shape it's in today, so why did we replace a thug with a thug? Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, he wanted no part of al Qaeda and he had no weapons of mass destruction, so taking him out was a huge mistake !

The result in Afghanistan is not going to come out any better, and that was also Bush's fault.

You can't blame Obama for any of this. He was dealt a deck of cards that he couldn't do much with. Bush presided over 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and the recession and Bush owns all of it.

Outerlimits Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:40 pm

…and Obama is not responsible for anything that happened during his terms? You act as though every Presidential term operates in a vacuum. But digging deeper your thinking is not even that logical, you simply believe everything wrong with this country is the fault of Republicans and the Democrats are infallible.

Thanks for validating my statement. You refuse to hold Obama responsible for anything.

The reality is; by the time Obama took office, the Iraq was won. Obama then failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq and that is why ISIS is cutting through the country as we speak.

Not only did Obama fail to negotiate the agreement but then he lied about it for political gain.

When Romney called him on it, Obama told him he was mistaken.

Romney was right, Obama lied about it to get reelected and the lemmings just ate it up. Obama did try to get a status of forces agreement and failed. But like a true politician, he went on embrace the fact he has removed all troops from Iraq, while knocking Romney for supporting what he originally had hoped to achieve.

The President's Daily Brief, The White House Situation Room, The State Department, Congressional committees on Intelligence,the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering methods/reports all stated at the time this was a huge mistake and Obama ignored them all.

Still, in your world, its Bush’s fault.

News Buzzard Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Outerlimits wrote:The reality is; by the time Obama took office, the Iraq was won. Obama then failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq and that is why ISIS is cutting through the country as we speak.

Do you sell snake oil for a living ?

The Status Of Forces Agreement was signed by President George W Bush in December of 2008.

The Status Of Forces Agreement stipulated that all US forces would be out of Iraq by December, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

The right wing never lets the facts get in their way ! Thank you for the link, NP.

News Pigeon Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:41 pm

You're welcome....

Outerlimits Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:28 am

You know full well we are talking about the status of forces agreement needed to leave a certain amount of U.S. troops behind as peacekeepers after our withdrawal.

Obama was "given" a completed victory in Iraq and then completely botched the withdrawal. Obama and his team took a big victory lap in 2011 proclaiming they ended the war in Iraq and brought our troops home when in fact they did absolutely nothing but leave on the day the previous administration negotiated.

Now you are saying that despite being left with a stable situation, any subsequent problems are not Obama's fault, but that of the previous administration?

I know, Obama can do no wrong, therefore it is always someone else's fault and never his.

It is interesting- the left claims that Obama cannot fix the economy, national debt and foreign affairs because he was left with a "terrible mess". It’s as if they believe no political problems can ever be cured and no president has ever inherited a problem to deal with.

Are libs that dense? It is obvious to anyone who is not completely blind or ignorant that Obama is the worst president in US history. Can ANYONE point out a "success" for Obama in domestic or foreign policy?

If you cannot admit that Obama is a failed president, you have lost any objectivity or rationality in favor of "idol worship" and blind party partisanship.

News Pigeon Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:33 am

....what more can one say when facts don't register? The agreement was reached before Obama took office, yet you think he should have gone against that agreement??? I don't follow your "logic"...the democratically elected leader, refused any residual troops.

Outerlimits Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:37 am

News Pigeon wrote: ....what more can one say when facts don't register? .

It appears, you and the facts have never been in the same room.

News Pigeon wrote:The agreement was reached before Obama took office, yet you think he should have gone against that agreement???

It’s not against the agreement in place. A SOFA Agreement regarding residual forces is agreed to AFTER the war/conflict is over. See Korea, Japan and Germany.

Obama did act as though a SOFA was necessary and so did the DOD, State Department, and NSA.

0bama failed to secure something as simple as a SOFA agreement. He abandoned Iraq, and washed his hands of the entire country even though he was told exactly what would happen if he did not leave forces there.

Once again your statement was made out of ignorance or you were deliberately trying to deceptive.

News Pigeon wrote:I don't follow your "logic"...the democratically elected leader, refused any residual troops.

Of course you don't. But this is what happened:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “the democratically elected leader of Iraq” wanted a residual U.S. force of 20,000 troops. A number our generals on the ground agreed would be a minimum. Obama offered 2500-5000. Maliki said: “You're not serious.”

Obama also could not negotiate U.S. troops legal immunity. Yet Maliki and other government officials had expressed the same reservation in 2008, when there were far more American troops in the country.

Nevertheless, President Bush was able to secure an agreement.

Why?

President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Obama did not.

1. Obama had not spoken with Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations.
2. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly.
3. Obama’s constant bragging about ending the war, which culminated in his decision to keep 5000 or less troops in Iraq convinced Maliki that Iraq would be left to fend largely for themselves.

Can you see the logic yet?

News Buzzard Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:14 pm

News Pigeon wrote: ....what more can one say when facts don't register? The agreement was reached before Obama took office, yet you think he should have gone against that agreement??? I don't follow your "logic"...the democratically elected leader, refused any residual troops.

Amazing, isn't it? What part of all US forces have to be out by Dec, 2011 is ambiguous ?

News Pigeon Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:46 pm

I'm amazed at how he continues to distort reality....the Sunni & Shia have been enemies for centuries, unfortunately it took a brutal dictator to keep the peace. I don't remember anyone telling Obama to continue this futile attempt in Iraq.

American-led Coalition forces participating in the 2003 invasion of Iraq were initially subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their parent states. After the handover of sovereign power to an Iraqi administration, Coalition forces in Iraq were nominally subject to Iraqi jurisdiction, and operated without any Status of Forces Agreement.[17] In theory, Iraqi Courts had the right to try Coalition forces for any alleged offenses, though this right was never exercised.[citation needed]

In an interview January 24, 2008, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated that work on a SOFA had barely been started. [18] On June 13, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that negotiations with the United States on a long-term security pact were deadlocked because of concern the deal infringes Iraqi sovereignty. "We have reached an impasse because when we opened these negotiations we did not realize that the U.S. demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept", he said in Amman, Jordan. "We cannot allow U..S forces to have the right to jail Iraqis or assume, alone, the responsibility of fighting against terrorism", Maliki told Jordanian newspaper editors, according to a journalist present at the meeting.[19]

On July 1, 2008, Zebari said he briefed members of the Iraqi Parliament that U.S. contractors would no longer have immunity from Iraqi prosecution under negotiated terms of the long-term security pact. U.S. State Department officials could not be immediately reached for comment, but Iraqi member of parliament Mahmoud Othman said he attended the meeting and that Iraqi representatives were very pleased with the immunity agreement.[20]

On July 8, 2008, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani rejected the proposed agreement on the basis that it violates Iraqi sovereignty, following a meeting with Iraq National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie.[21] Rubaie, clarifying remarks by Maliki on July 7 that Iraq would accept a memorandum of understanding in lieu of a SOFA, stated "We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops".[22] Deputy speaker Khaled al-Attiyah also said on July 8 that the Iraqi parliament would insist on vetting any agreement with the United States and would likely veto the agreement if American troops were immune from Iraqi law: "Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds".[23]

On October 16, 2008, after several more months of negotiations, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice briefed senior U.S. lawmakers on the draft SOFA, and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki prepared to circulate it with Iraq's Political National Security Council before going on to the Council of Ministers and the Iraqi parliament. Despite a compromise on the issue of jurisdiction over off-duty U.S. troops who commit crimes under Iraqi law, issues related to the timeline for U.S. withdrawal and Iraqi insistence on "absolute sovereignty" remained.[24]
Approval process

On 16 November, Iraq's Cabinet approved the agreements; on 27 November, the Iraqi Parliament ratified them; on December 4, Iraq's presidential council approved the security pacts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

A simple search produced these results...

About 211,000,000 results (0.87 seconds)
Search Results

Republicans Blame Obama For Iraq When It Was Bush Who ...
www.politicususa.com/.../republicans-blame-obama-iraq-bush-signed-ag...
3 days ago - Still, Republicans are assailing the President for abandoning Iraq ... religious sectarianism targeting Sunnis since before the insurgency ... Republicans Blame Obama For Iraq When It Was Bush Who Signed The Agreement to Leave was ..... A SOFA does not constitute a security arrangement; it establishes ...
Fox News Praises George W. Bush's Ability To Anticipate ...
thinkprogress.org/.../fox-news-celebrates-george-...
ThinkProgress
by Igor Volsky - in 929 Google+ circles
2 days ago - In July of 2007, Bush did predict higher levels of violence if America ... even though by the time Obama came into office, the opinion of U.S. commanders had shifted. The Bush administration had agreed to withdraw all troops from Iraq by ... end of 2011, in order to obtain a status of forces agreement in 2008.
Obama abides by Bush's timeline for leaving Iraq, although ...
blogs.ajc.com/.../obama-abides-by-bush...
The Atlanta Journal‑Constitution
Oct 21, 2011 - After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq ... He made no mention of the Status of Forces Agreement from October 2008, ratified ... Obama campaigned on pulling out of Iraq long before this agreement went into affect. .... He did not do that and kept his promise.
Bush warned this would happen in Iraq | AEIdeas
www.aei-ideas.org/.../bush-warned-this-would-happen-in-iraq/
AEI Ideas
6 days ago - In 2007, President George W. Bush warned that if America withdrew prematurely from .... Bush signed the STOFA in 2008 before leaving office. ..... So why did Bush negotiate and sign the SOFA in 2008 that withdrew all troops ...
Remember when George W. Bush predicted exactly what ...
buzzpo.com/remember-george-w-bush-predicted-exactly-happen-pulled...
1 day ago - Given the recent dramatic events in Iraq, it looks like Mr. Bush knew what he was talking about. ... Clinton and Biden was to “pull back from [Baghdad] before the Iraqis ... When Mr. Bush left office in January 2009, he could rightly claim to ... Yup, he did said that then he signs SOFA which removed our troops!
Iraq War salesman Marc Thiessen: Bush 'warned' we'd have ...
www.dailykos.com/.../-Iraq-War-salesman-Marc-Thiessen-Bus...
Daily Kos
5 days ago - The people who brought you the Iraq War are feeling very proud of ... executed the war from the comfort of their recliners and padded office chairs, ... bit as certain of his armchair general-ing as he was the day before the ..... So, we were told to leave by 2012 and we did. ..... let them sort it out for themselves.
Last US Troops Leave Iraq, President Bush ... - Daily Kos
www.dailykos.com/.../-2010-John-McCain-Tweet-Last-Americ...
Daily Kos
5 days ago - 2010 McCain Tweet 'Last U.S Troops Leave Iraq, President Bush Deserves ... the Iraq war over and withdrawing troops before attaining "victory. ... In factual world, a place McCain never enters, the United States did not win any war in Iraq. ... we all know the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Iraq ...

News Pigeon Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:06 pm

Rather than argue over the SOFA, perhaps you should educate yourself about ISIS...it really explains how Iraq became a cesspit.
http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/what-is-isis

Sponsored content

Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

You Supporters of Iraq's Abandonment Shouldn't View This Video...

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Video has Real Terror

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?

Re: Even Worse than Osama bin Laden?