Every Right Winger All Over Obama For Calling Them ISIL

House Speaker John Boehner said they were worried that the broader strategy was insufficient.

"If our goal is to eliminate ISIL, there's a lot of doubt whether the plan that was outlined by the president... is enough to accomplish that mission," he said.

It really doesn't make a lot of difference. If they could find out how long a roll of toilet paper lasts him that would become extra cost and running up the debt.

 

Your attempt is futile. You gotta realize that it's not that Obama refers to them as ISIL, it's that he's Obama. He's Obama and he spoke. Therefore, what he said must be criticized.

 

I already blew up CatholicCrusader's attempt (it HAS to be something that Drudge or some Radio Righty has told him) at this story.

Prominent CONSERVATIVES including Ben Carson have called them "ISIL"

 

Bush played golf constantly while 4500 young Americans died in his unnecessary war in Iraq and nobody said a word. Now...the president is not even allowed a vacation. They've never stopped to think about the fact that the congress was taking a five week long vacation at the same time.

Here's the cowboy:

[video=youtube;2FWYE068Niw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FWYE068Niw[/video]

 

BTW, here's the link to the story about prominent conservatives using the term "ISIL".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...5bd386-230e-11e4-8b10-7db129976abb_story.html


Also note, how all the Rightwingers who have been led by the nose to go on blogs and repeat this talking point?.....all think THEY are the "first and original" one to do it.

 

It was Fox News that first starting calling them ISIL. Now, that Obama has used it, the far right have to stop using it, and claim they never did and bash Obama for using it.

Remind anyone of anything? This is the same policy used with the individual mandate, when they demanded Obama use it as an alternative to the Public Option, but once he agreed, act like it was his idea and bash him for it.

And the morons who follow them will believe it like the brainless, ignorant sheep they are.

 

Most of it is racism.....they can deny it all they want to but that's what it is. The Republican party has a real problem with that. It's why the south used to be nearly solid Democrat but after Kennedy/Johnson's civil rights and equal opportunities legislation they all switched. Now a political map of the south is solid red:

 

Maybe he is criticized because he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Who knows what he means? How can you guys defend his actions?

State Dept: We are not at war with ISIS…but Obama is using ...
poorrichardsnews.com/post/96496713483/state-dept-we-are... Cached
State Dept: We are not at war with ISIS...but Obama is using War Powers Act to bomb them This is such an astounding admission from the State Department’s paid liar ...




Obama Administration Says U.S. Is 'At War' With ISIS - NBC News
www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/obama... Cached
Sep 12, 2014 · The Obama administration said for the first time Friday that the United States is “at war” with ISIS militants. Josh Earnest, the White House press ...

 

It must be nice to be a liberal. You guys have the memory of a goldfish. You don't seem to remember anything past about seven seconds ago. What you've conveniently forgotten is that your boys Kennedy and Johnson opposed Republican President Eisenhower's Civil Rights Act of 1957. In fact, Johnson himself was responsible for completely blunting the act and making sure it didn't do anything significant:

There's your big civil rights hero showing his true colors. The same man that was subsequently quoted as saying:

Sorry, bud. The facts are that your people put party above justice and only decided to embrace civil rights once it became politically expedient. While Republicans were fighting for racial equality, Democrats were only concerned with self-preservation. Just like today.

 

LMAO!!!

I voted for Eisenhower. As a matter of fact it was the first time I ever voted. He started the Interstate highway system and played golf more times than any other president. Kennedy/Johnson were the only ones to ever actually help the Blacks in this country. Why don't you ever give a link to your foolishness....not that it would have made any difference.

In the last presidential election 91% of Blacks voted Democrat. 70% of Hispanics voted Democrats. More women voted Democrat than Republican and nearly every Gay person voted Democrat. The poor and aged voted Democrat. My 100 year old mother voted Democrat for the first time in her life. Why do you suppose that happened?

Oh.....my Mom turned 102 the last day of July.

ps Eisenhower warned this country against the very thing which has happened:

[video=youtube;8y06NSBBRtY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY[/video]

 

And you keep voting for the party that made it so. The Republicans have only held both houses of the congress for 10 of the last 80 years And Bush the 2nd is the only Republican president since The Great Depression to have as many as four years of his two terms with both houses of Congress controlled by his own party.. And domestically he governed to the left of Clinton.

 

LOL....George W. Bush made the warmonger's dream come true. They had been looking for a reason to invade Iraq since Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate GHW Bush in 1993. Thirty minutes after the hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon Donald Rumsfeld instructed his staff to prepare a plan for the invasion of Iraq. If anyone...ANYONE has ever had any doubt this letter to Bill Clinton from the PNAC in 1998 should lay their doubts to rest:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic,
political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

The much bigger problem is the fact that Ben Carson is considered a prominent anything by anybody.

He may have been a good doctor, I dunno

 

That letter only goes to show what Democrats themselves were saying before Bush ever got in office. So what's your point?

 

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
davidstuff ^ | 1/4/03 | davidstuff

Posted on Monday, January 5, 2004 12:28:26 AM by freedom44

"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, 2001001
"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

 

So what your really saying Finley is that Bush just did what everyone was asking to be done. Clinton didn't have the guts to do it so when 9/11 happened and we had to send troops over there anyway to fight in Afghanistan, Bush said we might as well kill two birds with one stone and take out Iraq too. Is that what your saying?

 

Liberals are often an irrational bunch.

 

Wasn't it also Ike that started operation Wetback and deported all the illegal Hispanics in this country?

 

Europe is also warning us what will happen, but are Liberals listening? Sure I know why most of those groups are voting Democrat. I voted Democrat for about 20 years, starting with Kennedy. I didn't vote earlier when I was in the Marines. But the reason they are voting Democrat is the reason we're in the shape were in now. Watch the video and tell me we aren't going down the same road with Democrats. http://www.cbn.com/tv/3255110732001

P.S. My parents and all of us 6 kids were Democrats. Now all the kids are Republicans.

 

That letter shows that the Republican party had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq ever since 1993 when Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar. Are you foolish or did you even read it?

Here...shift into your sixth grade reader and try it again:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic,
political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

Freebies!
Happy Birthday finlays mom.

 

Thank you for that. She's been pretty sick lately but for an old west TN girl who was born and raised on a dirt farm she's done well. Her brother was two years older than she was and at 95 he fell off a ladder cleaning the gutters on a house that he single handedly built when he was about eighty years old. It busted him up pretty bad and he didn't last long after that.

Once when he had just carried every bundle of shingles up a ladder and put them down building the new roof he stuck his little old wiry chest out and said, "I'll Bet There's Not Another Man My Age In Henderson County Who Could Have Done That!!"

 

~ "Liberals have memory of a goldfish" ~

 

Finley, I'm a conservative and I'm not all over President Obama for saying ISIL. I don't care what he said since he usually lies.

 

Is it agua or is it water and what's the difference?