Al Qaeda = Boogeyman propaganda, ISIS = Legit threat, Obama will save us!

[HitandRun Reggie]

It's all relative. Regular posters have been doing it to you for 8 years.

[Akrazotile]

shouldn't you be more concerned that bush WAS exploiting fear of al-qaeda to do whatever he wanted in the middle east and that obama IS exploiting fear of isis to do whatever he wants in the middle east... than any liberal double standard between the two?

what's really important?

I cant know those things with certainty. What I do know is that liberals were literally screaming bloody murder about Bush, yet Obama doing the same things doesnt draw a peep out of these people.

Besides, my individual opinion is not going to change anything. The public needs to be united to effect change and how is that supposed to happen when liberals are more concerned with rabbid partisan preening than any consistent application of principles?

[MadeFromDust]

lmao at title. Demonrats = worst hypocrites in history

[KevinNYC]

I remember how the liberals were all claiming Bush was just using Al Qaeda as a boogeyman to steal oil and do whatever he wanted in the middle east.


Where is that talk about Obama? ISIS is just al qaeda all over again. The new boogey man.


How come libs don't hold Obama accountable for any of the things they literally marched and screamed and cried in the streets about Bush doing?

Honestly, do people get any more retarded and hypocritical??

Cute Post, it's ahistorical and a pile of straw, but it's cute.

Al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on 9/11 and it's a disgrace to their memory that you are ignoring their deaths in a cheap-little political strawman argument. Nobody was saying they were a boogeyman after that. Bush's popularity was at 90%.

It was only when he turned away from Al Qaeda and starting trying to implement a longheld desire to take out Saddam, that people starting to stop supporting him. It was the contained Saddam, that Bush propped up into a boogeyman.


There were virtually no marches against fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. There was large marches against the Iraq War.

For your analogy to be correct, Obama would have to use the war against ISIS to pursue some other policy.

[Horde of Temujin]

9/11 werent a tangible freat??

9/11 = Operation Northwoods

[RidonKs]

You never make any ****ing sense.

depends on the reader it would seem



starface, you can know those things. perhaps not without a measure of doubt, but there is enough evidence available to conclude that the bush administration used manipulative propaganda and shifty argumentation to ratchet up fear both of al-qaeda and then of saddam hussein whose history and current activities they completely misrepresented. there is less evidence (partly because its more recent, partly because its less blatant) of obama propagating isis as a threat to the american people but there's still more than enough to again come to a firm conclusion that misrepresentation and spin are in the cards of his administrations public relations.

as for the liberal hypocrites, i don't care for them either. but most of them as you rightly said are just partisan hacks. and talking to them is an effort in futility. their mind has already been made up and you aren't going to change it.

i'm not sure i know what you mean by that second paragraph. your individual opinion is part of the very public you say needs to be united to effect change... and depending on how you decide to spend your time, you can either be a part of the push to unite people or indifferent to it or antagonistic to it. entirely up to you. depending on how well you've thought out your tactics, your effect may be very great or very small. depending on who you are, your effect may be very good or very bad. all up to you.

don't give me this "my voice doesn't matter" nonsense. you're an american goddamnit.

blue dogs are assholes and there are also a lot of nitwits on the very progressive/anarchist end of the spectrum where people oppose both parties and all warmongering but are easily confused by simple conversations. that's all just a fact of the world so deal with it.

but there are intelligent independents out there who hear what people are saying "out there" but haven't made up their mind on what they should really believe. perhaps they just haven't befriended the right political mind to offer them some guidance on what is often a very confusing world of history and jargon that make it hard to keep up with.

so if you want to have your voice heard, target those people by addressing them directly and firmly (which we know you can do) as well as politely and honestly (which we aren't sure you can do). they're more likely to hear you anyway... though if you're going to tell them the same stuff you spew on here i dunno how receptive they'll be

[Patrick Chewing]

There you go

[Godzuki]

Bush was such a weak Prez his vice Prez pulled all of his strings. its pitiful if u ever watch any of the inside documentaries of the Bush Administration. the way Cheney and Rumsfeld ran things while W. Bush was more like a puppet figure head with a weak personality is so pitiful. i don't even get how Repub's can defend him at all, he had THE worst Presidency i've ever seen in so many facets, even just carrying himself dignified was bad. dude was like the epitome of political strings pulled to get someone into office related to a previous Prez, with the people behind him calling the real shots.

it makes me laff how Repubs reinvent history with W. Bush these days

[NumberSix]

it makes me laff how everybody reinvent history with everything these days

fixed

[Patrick Chewing]

Bush was such a weak Prez his vice Prez pulled all of his strings. its pitiful if u ever watch any of the inside documentaries of the Bush Administration. the way Cheney and Rumsfeld ran things while W. Bush was more like a puppet figure head with a weak personality is so pitiful. i don't even get how Repub's can defend him at all, he had THE worst Presidency i've ever seen in so many facets, even just carrying himself dignified was bad. dude was like the epitome of political strings pulled to get someone into office related to a previous Prez, with the people behind him calling the real shots.

it makes me laff how Repubs reinvent history with W. Bush these days

No one has been weaker than the current President.


But let's not forget how weak Presidents really are. They are not Kings.

They get advised and advised and advised again by Cabinet members, Senators, and by the Military. Then, he makes a decision. And even then after making a decision, he has to go through hoops to get anything accomplished, especially if he's a controversial President as Odumbo is.

[MadeFromDust]

...For your analogy to be correct, Obama would have to use the war against ISIS to pursue some other policy.

The Llama in chief is pursuing a policy of mass illegal cellphone wiretapping on ordinary citizens through the NSA, taking advantage of his renewed Wore On Terra campaign all in the name of "homeland security"

[Norcaliblunt]

The fake left while Bush was in office were champions of blowback theory, but yet these days they seem to be all about arming the so called FSA.

It's not surprising that on a sports site you would see people treat politics like some sort of sporting event, and battle back in fourth like its 2 rival fan groups going at each other. The hypocrisy of all this would be hilarious if it just wasn't so sad.

[Dresta]

Cute Post, it's ahistorical and a pile of straw, but it's cute.

Al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on 9/11 and it's a disgrace to their memory that you are ignoring their deaths in a cheap-little political strawman argument. Nobody was saying they were a boogeyman after that. Bush's popularity was at 90%.

It was only when he turned away from Al Qaeda and starting trying to implement a longheld desire to take out Saddam, that people starting to stop supporting him. It was the contained Saddam, that Bush propped up into a boogeyman.


There were virtually no marches against fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. There was large marches against the Iraq War.

For your analogy to be correct, Obama would have to use the war against ISIS to pursue some other policy.

Yeah, the removal of Saddam was on the US agenda long before the Taliban and Afghanistan were, and it has been consistently backed by both parties until things went badly and one side decided they were going to score populism points by expressing moral outrage. Yet they rarely mention the Iraq Liberation Act, which passed through the Senate with unanimous consent in 1998, under the Clinton administration. Yet for some reason Iraq is only Bush's and the Republican party's war, Democrats are absolved from blame because they care more or something.

[KevinNYC]

Yeah, the removal of Saddam was on the US agenda long before the Taliban and Afghanistan were, and it has been consistently backed by both parties until things went badly and one side decided they were going to score populism points by expressing moral outrage. Yet they rarely mention the Iraq Liberation Act, which passed through the Senate with unanimous consent in 1998, under the Clinton administration. Yet for some reason Iraq is only Bush's and the Republican party's war, Democrats are absolved from blame because they care more or something.

Your last sentence is only confusing if you don't understand the wide Gulf between supporting Iraqi opposition to Saddam and started a war of choice to remove him ourselves.

You can find many Republicans who were opposed to this war of choice. Some of them were in the Bush Administration, but they were overruled.

When the transition of power occurred between Administrations, the Democrats told the incoming Administration that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat. This was ignored and top foreign policy issue of the Bush Admistration from day one was Saddam Hussein.