DISQUS

justinb · 1 year ago

What is a tougher case to make is that Saddam was somehow complicit other than to turn a blind eye to terrorists living and operating within Iraq, so long as they did not attack Iraq's political leadership. We know he knew about who and what was going on there. We are not sure how extensively he cultivated relationships with these leaders, but we do know that at very least, he was aware that these folks were there and he turned a blind eye because they had mutual enemies.

robert108 · 1 year ago

It still makes Obama a liar, even if it's as minimal as you claim. His giving financial incentive to the families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers was outright support of terrorism. I doubt that he limited himself to that.

Kenny · 1 year ago

[quote]It still makes Obama a liar, even if it's as minimal as you claim. His giving financial incentive to the families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers was outright support of terrorism. I doubt that he limited himself to that. [/quote]

I don't think Obama's a liar. I just think he's REALLY [b]REALLY[/b] stupid.

Like his idea to invade Pakistan. He has no clue what's going on in the world around him.

Or his calls for Universal Optional Health Care.

laydownSally · 1 year ago

Kenny,

[quote]I don't think Obama's a liar. I just think he's REALLY [b]REALLY[/b] stupid. [/quote]

Either way...it does'nt make him a very attractive candidate.

robert108 · 1 year ago

Kenny: Right, of course, but I'm specifically referring to his statements that AQ wasn't in Iraq before we went in to depose Saddam. It's simply false; he should know better, so I have to assume either extreme ignorance on his part, or a cynical arrogance in thinking his speaking style will fool people, no matter what he says.

Kenny · 1 year ago

[quote]Kenny: Right, of course, but I'm specifically referring to his statements that AQ wasn't in Iraq before we went in to depose Saddam. It's simply false; he should know better, so I have to assume either extreme ignorance on his part, or a cynical arrogance in thinking his speaking style will fool people, no matter what he says. [/quote]

There are a lot of people who believe that AQ wasn't in Iraq before the invasion, many of whom still support the war. It's not dishonest, because many people didn't actually pay attention to foreign affairs before 2004. It's simple confusion.

I find it hard to believe that a man as clueless about the world as Obama is has done even an iota of research into Iraq.

Put simply, I don't expect the man who doesn't realize that health care can't be both optional and universal to understand that al Quida has dozens of front groups that run by different names in other countries. The truth is just too complex for his empty little head.

robert108 · 1 year ago

Kenny: Interesting thesis, but his claim that he voted against the war as a Senator kinda blows that out of the water. It's hard to believe that he was unaware of the MSM claims against the President that are detailed in the article I posted. I suppose one could believe that he cast his vote without doing any research at all...

Kenny · 1 year ago

[quote]Kenny: Interesting thesis, but his claim that he voted against the war as a Senator kinda blows that out of the water. It's hard to believe that he was unaware of the MSM claims against the President that are detailed in the article I posted. I suppose one could believe that he cast his vote without doing any research at all... [/quote]

Pacifists are stupid by definition. The argument of the fool was "the sanctions are working!" Obama made that argument quite a few times. He's simply too stupid to understand how the world works. His danger is in his complete and utter imbecility.

There is nothing to Barack Obama. Absolutely nothing. He is a brightly polished soda can with nothing inside. He may have the most liberal voting record in the Senate (because he votes however the majority of his party tells him to), but a quick look at his record of proposing legislation shows he is the least qualified candidate to ever run for any office...let alone President.

And that he's succeeding shows how stupid a great many Democrats are.

Ray Robison · 1 year ago

The great frustration is the framing of this entire argument "al qaeda wasn't in Iraq". It is common practice in the middle east for regimes to pay and support these extremist groups to get them out of the country. What is important is not whether they were in Iraq, but was Saddam supporting them to attack Americans. Undoubtedly he was as we show in the book Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents. www.bothinontrench.com