Typical: Democrats Trying to Steal the Recall Election in Colorado

Currently in Colorado there is a recall election being staged for two Democrat State Senators. Naturally, Democrats have already been caught trying to steal this election with rampant voter fraud.

Senate President John Morse and Pueblo Senator Angela Giron, both Democrats, are being recalled because of their anti-Second Amendment votes and because they have systematically ignored the will of their constituents by voting along with the desires of the national Democrat Party instead of on local issues.

These two elections are fraught with national significance and a ton of outside money from the left, and some but not nearly as much from the right, have flooded these two districts.

Because of the national profile of these elections as a fight over the Second Amendment, Democrats are desperate to win and–as usual–will break any law to force that win.

In the video you see Democrats being accused of stuffing the ballot boxes with perhaps hundreds of illicit ballots dropped off when the election itself is supposed to be a walk-in vote only with only “hardship” ballots mailed in or dropped off early.

Figures, doesn’t it? Thieves and crooks will never change their spots and you can’t be a Democrat without those indelible spots in full bloom.

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 6, 2013.
Filed under 2nd Amendment, Big government, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Gun control, Liberals.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    For the left it isn’t wrong unless you can be convicted in a court of law, laws are meant for your enemies and not for you and elections are not exercises in democracy but a system to be gamed and perverted to your advantage.

    • 914

      BJ Jeffersonian was convicted of perjury and brandishing a used cigar? oh, wait. That was a warrantless witch hunt? Never mind.

  • what

    I didn’t know unsupported allegations turns = being “caught” committing “voter fraud” and trying to “steal” an election.

    OMGZ I CAN HAZ PROOF.

    • LiberalNightmare

      really? this is the opposition? We deserve better.

  • Brucehenry

    Yes two suburban churchlady matrons making unsubstantiated allegations on video, accompanied by ominous horror-film music, constitutes ironclad proof of rampant voter fraud — in the mind of Warner Todd Houston.

    • Retired military

      Meanwhile a NY Times columnist publishes a piece this week on how present day Syria is all Bush’s fault and yet another columnists writes that Bush needs to do something about Syria instead of sitting in his bathtub painting pictures.

      BTW the above bathtub statement might be in the article mentioned above. I just found it ironic that the some on the left are bemoaning Bush isn’t doing anything about Syria today when he hasn’t been President for 5 years.

      Also my first impressions on the article and the video are
      a. no proof of voter fraud
      b. no proof of wrong doing by democrats.
      I am not saying that voter fraud isn’t taking place, I am saying that there isn’t any proof of it being done at all much less by democrats.

      • Brucehenry

        I looked up and read the article you referred to. I’m having a tough time finding a fact or opinion in it which can’t be supported by logic. Please tell me which points the guy makes that you disagree with and why.

        http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/the-bush-burden/?ref=opinion&_r=1

        • jim_m

          If you got to the third paragraph and didn’t laugh hysterically then you are an ass. Oh wait, you are an ass, never mind.

          • Brucehenry

            So specific.

            Who’s the ass again?

          • jim_m

            You are. And the NYT author.

            You buy into this crap that Iraq and Afghanistan was the worst fiasco in a generation? Please. Yes, we lost several thousand troops but we freed 50 million people from tyranny. But then the left never did care about people being gassed by their own government until it started to make obama look bad, now you are willing to start a war with both Russia and China in order to advance your on leftist ideology. You don’t give a damn about the people.

            Especially now as it looks like the gassing may be a false flag operation and the CIA may have even signed off on it.

            So your first response is to blame Bush. You are so naive. Either that or you are so dishonest.

            [edit] What sways world opinion against intervention is not what Bush did in Iraq, but how obama has followed up. obama has abandoned and betrayed our allies. Why would they stick with him?

            obama has abandoned the hopes for any democracy and has engaged the Taliban in peace talks.

            obama is asking for our allies to side with al qaeda in Syria.

            obama expected Iran to take his side against their long time ally, Syria. THAT is perhaps the most ignorant and insanely laughable policy from him yet. And yet ignorant a-holes like you think that the whole problem is Bush?!?!?! Grow up. Stop being such an apologist for the fascist in chief. obama is an incompetent fool and you look like even more the fool by floating asinine ideas of why he is failing.

            obama fails because obama is incompetent.

            [edit again]And what gets me is that you ignore 5 years of this buffoon shitting on our allies, screwing up virtually every international relationship our country has, and you fall for this bullshit that it is all Bush’s fault and obama has had nothing to do with it.

          • Brucehenry

            Which “500 million” people was that, Jim? Iraq’s population was about 26 million and Afghanistan 10 million or so, if I recall. So even if you accept the premise that those folks were freed from tyranny, which is arguably true (but, it seems, they were delivered from the frying pan of tyranny into a fire of chaos and anarchy), that doesn’t add up to 500 million.

            I’m not in support of military action. I’m just pointing out that, as the NYT writer asserts, there IS such a thing as the “Bush hangover.”

            That happens when America asserts the need to take action because a dictator has or has used WMDs and the rest of the world yawns and says, “Yeah, whatever, that’s what you said about Iraq. Never did find ‘em there.”

            That’s exactly what Russia and China are saying — cynically, for their own foreign policy purposes. That’s what the British Parliament said. That’s what large majorities in America (and in other countries) are saying. Do you not get that?

            I’m not, and the NYT writer is not fully blaming Bush for the mess in Syria. He is explaining why there is such resistance to Obama’s proposal. While his logic isn’t flawless, and he makes a leap or two, his argument is not without merit.

            My reply to RM was because he seemed to equate the NYT op-ed with this piece by Warner claiming that accusation=proof.

            Edit: To reply to your second edit, that’s because the history of the last 5 years of “Obama shitting on our allies” is wholly the product of the imagination of rightwing nutjob websites and rubes like yourself who have internalized the zombie lies they tell. “Apology tours” and “DVD-gate” yada yada.

          • jim_m

            That should have been 50 million. slip of the key. The 50M figure has been used before, I did not bother to calculate it myself.

            You are an ignorant ideologue apologizing for the worst president in US history. A President that has destroyed virtually ALL our traditional alliances.

            People would follow the US into Syria IF obama had proven himself a trustworthy ally. But he has not. He has demonstrated himself to be feckless and someone who cannot be trusted for even a moment.

            The fact that he asks for the world t intervene on behalf of al qaeda should be enough for anyone to conclude that he is dangerously deluded and his foreign policy is irresponsible to the point of being treasonous to the interests of the west.

            Where did Bush alienate our allies? Go to Europe sometime and you will find them wistfully remembering Bush not blaming hims for obama’s idiocy.

            The only people blaming Bush are you and the rest of the obama sycophants. The rest of the world places the blame for obama’s failures on obama. WHy not go and look at what they are saying or are you claiming that the rest of the world is too ignorant to know what they really think?

          • Brucehenry

            “People would follow the US into Syria IF Obama had proven himself a trustworthy ally.”

            That is your opinion, pulled straight out of your ass. The NYT writer has an opinion, too, and I find it more credible.

            I hear the new talking points, though. Now Obama is asking the world to intervene on Al Qaeda’s behalf. What does that make guys like you and John Bolton, who have argued for anti-Assad military intervention right up to the moment Obama proposed it? Then, true to form, it was a BAD IDEA.

          • jim_m

            Well, technically, if obama were a trustworthy ally he would not be trying to lead anyone into Syria.

            I have not argued intervention for some time now. I have been consistent in my stand that we should have intervened a long time ago. I have been consistent in my argument that that time has long past. I have also been consistent in my claims that obama is not fit to lead this nation in a military conflict of any kind.

            Nothing has changed. You are only noticing for the first time the full extent of my position.

            This would have been a workable idea over a year ago, before Russia and China got involved. It would have been a decent idea over a year ago when there might have been a chance to marginalize the al qaeda elements and create a secular government.

            But you don’t want to listen to what the rest of us are saying you are only maneuvering so you can play the race card.

          • Brucehenry

            A year ago Assad hadn’t gassed 1400 civilians.

            Russia and China were at least as opposed to intervention a year ago as they are now. Politically, it would have been impossible to intervene a year ago to take the “chance” to marginalize the al qaeda elements — for EXACTLY the reasons the NYT writer lists.

            And I don’t know why the “race card” should be mentioned. Not in this conversation. But who is this “the rest of us” of whom you speak? It’s only you and me here since I commented this afternoon!

          • jim_m

            You could have intervened in ways other than bombing Assad or putting troops in. You could have stolen the initiative and caught them flat footed before they had the opportunity to send multiple warships to the region.

            I mention the race card because that is what you and the rest of the left are doing. At least Ed Asner, the communist, has the honesty that you lack to say that you refuse to oppose obama as you would have opposed Bush because you are afraid to oppose a black man and be called a racist for doing so just like you are going to accuse everyone who opposes obama.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL I’ll have to speak to my personal friend Ed Asner since I’m accountable for everything he says now.

            BTW, I have held my nose and stated in the Wizbang comment section that Rodney G Fucking Graves is right on this issue. I oppose military intervention in Syria. I therefore oppose Obama on this issue.

            But your first paragraph is masterful. Wish we had elected you president, since you have the awesome power of knowing in hindsight what would have worked. What did Mitt have to say about intervening in Syria, BTW?

            http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/05/biden-during-2012-campaign-romney-ready-to-go-to-war-in-syria/

          • jim_m

            Hindsight is almost as easy as seeing that obama is a buffoon who is not capable of leading this nation and has no interest in anything beyond his own aggrandizement and fortune.

            Almost. But seeing how epically incompetent obama is is frighteningly easy. I don’t deserve any credit for that.

            I really do not care what Romney had to say about Syria. It is not relevant in any wayy to this discussion.

            Why not find another way to blame Bush?

          • Brucehenry

            Geez that’s almost exactly what sane people think about Bush. Guess everyone’s got an opinion, huh? Including NYT op-ed writers, even.

            But anyway, from now on, since I’m responsible for everything Ed Asner, the communist, says, I’m gonna hold YOU accountable for everything Ted Nugent, the wingnut, says. Fair enough?

          • jim_m

            Sorry if I find Asner more representative of the ideology expressed by Sharpton, Jackson, Pelosi, Holder and obama, than I find Nugent representative of most people on the right and even less representative of the libertarian conservative.

            And Asner would not object to the characterization so why do you?

          • Brucehenry

            Well you didn’t ask me for permission to allow Asner to speak for me, so it’s Wango Tango for you, dude.

          • jim_m

            I’m finding very few differences between you and him too. You both oppose intervention in Syria but support obama in everything else.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, and Nugent shit his pants to avoid being sent to Vietnam. I’m pretty sure you’d shit if you had to go to war, too. That doesn’t stop either of you from embracing military intervention now that other people will have to do the dirty work.

            Unless Obama proposes the intervention. THEN, it’s a Bad Idea, and also Unconstitutional.

          • jim_m

            No. I’m just crazy enough to not worry much about death. I’d probably be rejected for that.

            If obama turned around and opposed intervention I would say that he has realized that supporting al qaeda is against our national interest and that he probably realizes that he cannot lead successfully in a military conflict.

            I don’t think you can find any comment thread on this subject where I have not stated that obama would be a disaster leading us into combat.

          • jim_m

            No. I’m just crazy enough to not worry much about death. I’d probably be rejected for that.

            If obama turned around and opposed intervention I would say that he has realized that supporting al qaeda is against our national interest and that he probably realizes that he cannot lead successfully in a military conflict.

            I don’t think you can find any comment thread on this subject where I have not stated that obama would be a disaster leading us into combat.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, and Nugent shit his pants to avoid being sent to Vietnam. I’m pretty sure you’d shit if you had to go to war, too. That doesn’t stop either of you from embracing military intervention now that other people will have to do the dirty work.

            Unless Obama proposes the intervention. THEN, it’s a Bad Idea, and also Unconstitutional.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            as far as the race card. I have seen several leftists playing it on this matter. Not you but on tv. It really does get old and does more damage than good

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            as far as the race card. I have seen several leftists playing it on this matter. Not you but on tv. It really does get old and does more damage than good

          • Retired military

            I cant speak for Jim.
            I would have opposed it no matter who suggested it. We don’t need any more wars, police actions, or whatever right now unless we are attacked or someone can prove an attack will take place if we don’t intervene. We haven’t seen that. We have seen conflicting stories on who is responsible for using the WMD.
            As I said before. Obama should tell the world that the UN should handle it since everyone said that about Iraq and Afghanistan and that the US will not take any part unless we or our allies are attacked or are about to be attacked
            And if you are going to start something. FINISH it. Don’t bomb for a week or a day or two and then say ‘hey I tried”
            I am not saying put boots on the ground. I am saying bomb the hell out of whoever is responsible and when they ask about nationbuilding funds tell them to go fuck themselves.

          • Brucehenry

            In your second and third paragraphs you come pretty close to agreeing with the main points of the NYT op-ed writer.

          • jim_m

            Except he doesn’t blame it all on Bush. You missed that part. It only happens to be the whole premise of the column.

          • Brucehenry

            No, he’s blaming “Bush fatigue.” While that’s not the whole explanation for the world’s (and Congress’s) reluctance to approve Obama’s intervention, it IS part of it, no matter how many times you stamp your foot and wish it wasn’t so.

          • jim_m

            A distinction without a difference and one that exempts obama from any examination of his actions over the last 5 years and how they have contributed to the situation.

            Funny how Bush, as hated as the left told us he was by the international community, managed to get 40 countries to support his invasion of Iraq and yet obama can’t scare up a single ally despite being universally loved as the Nobel Peace Prize winner and messiah of all humanity, who made the seas stop rising when he was nominated. And that is supposed to be all Bush’s fault? It beggars belief.

          • Brucehenry

            Are you deliberately mocking yourself? An American president told those 40 countries the Iraq action was necessary because WMDs yada yada and guess what? There WERE no WMDs.

            Now when an American president says action in Syria is necessary because WMDs yada yada he can’t get support. THAT’S THE WRITER’S POINT, dumbass.

            As those 40 countries might say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.. ummm…..fool me, can’t get fooled again…”

            EDIT: BTW, opponents of the Iraq invasion, including me, warned in 2003 that the time would come that this would happen, and were called disloyal.

          • jim_m

            That American President had a resolution with 12 criteria and the backing of the UN. obama has nether of those, in fact the Secy General of the UN has already come out against him.

            But go ahead and repeat the vulgar lie that Iraq was only ever about WMD. Lie, lie, lie. We all know you are full of shit. We had this out with Chico earlier this week and he admitted that he was wrong (or essentially so by following up with a cop out that WMD were the only reasons that mattered) and never mind the fact that the WMD intel was all from Clinton.

            Those 40 countries are not say fool me once… They are saying we won’t follow obama the betrayer and we won’t serve the interests of al qaeda, who want to kill us all.

            Funny how you cannot wrap your head around the fact that obama is serving the enemies of our nation. Funny how you cannot wrap your head around the fact that obama wants to defend the people that committed 9/11.

            Who could blame the world from walking away from such a perfidious person. Who would dare call him an ally?

          • Brucehenry

            Look up your assertion about the Iraq invasion having “the backing of the UN,” Jim.

            BTW one of the reasons I oppose the bombing of Syria is that I think the rebels would be worse or no better than Assad. So there’s that.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            [period citation required]

          • jim_m

            Why did you vote him up?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            ??

          • Brucehenry

            Are you deliberately mocking yourself? An American president told those 40 countries the Iraq action was necessary because WMDs yada yada and guess what? There WERE no WMDs.

            Now when an American president says action in Syria is necessary because WMDs yada yada he can’t get support. THAT’S THE WRITER’S POINT, dumbass.

            As those 40 countries might say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.. ummm…..fool me, can’t get fooled again…”

            EDIT: BTW, opponents of the Iraq invasion, including me, warned in 2003 that the time would come that this would happen, and were called disloyal.

          • jim_m

            A distinction without a difference and one that exempts obama from any examination of his actions over the last 5 years and how they have contributed to the situation.

            Funny how Bush, as hated as the left told us he was by the international community, managed to get 40 countries to support his invasion of Iraq and yet obama can’t scare up a single ally despite being universally loved as the Nobel Peace Prize winner and messiah of all humanity, who made the seas stop rising when he was nominated. And that is supposed to be all Bush’s fault? It beggars belief.

          • Brucehenry

            No, he’s blaming “Bush fatigue.” While that’s not the whole explanation for the world’s (and Congress’s) reluctance to approve Obama’s intervention, it IS part of it, no matter how many times you stamp your foot and wish it wasn’t so.

          • jim_m

            Except he doesn’t blame it all on Bush. You missed that part. It only happens to be the whole premise of the column.

          • Brucehenry

            In your second and third paragraphs you come pretty close to agreeing with the main points of the NYT op-ed writer.

          • Retired military

            I cant speak for Jim.
            I would have opposed it no matter who suggested it. We don’t need any more wars, police actions, or whatever right now unless we are attacked or someone can prove an attack will take place if we don’t intervene. We haven’t seen that. We have seen conflicting stories on who is responsible for using the WMD.
            As I said before. Obama should tell the world that the UN should handle it since everyone said that about Iraq and Afghanistan and that the US will not take any part unless we or our allies are attacked or are about to be attacked
            And if you are going to start something. FINISH it. Don’t bomb for a week or a day or two and then say ‘hey I tried”
            I am not saying put boots on the ground. I am saying bomb the hell out of whoever is responsible and when they ask about nationbuilding funds tell them to go fuck themselves.

          • mikegiles

            If there’s any “hangover” at all, it’s the hangover left by that democratic buffoon, Carter. His belief that the Ayatollah was simply a simple religious figure – and not the mad fanatic he actual was, is where all this crap in the Middle East actually started. Oh, and don’t bring up the US backed coup against Mossadegh, that at least was a successful operation.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes of course you are right. History began in 1979 and the hated Shah, installed by the US and the UK in 1953, was a “success,”

            Yes, your wisdom in discerning that “all this crap” is Carter’s fault is inarguable.

          • jim_m

            It’s every bit as plausible as your claim that it belongs to Bush. Too bad you could not grasp the irony in the comment above.

          • Brucehenry

            And again, if you read the NYT op-ed, and if you, you know, actually read my comments, the claim is not made that Syria is Bush’s fault. Or that “all this crap” is Bush’s fault.

            What the NYT writer is asserting, and what I am agreeing is plausible, is that support for Obama’s intervention is not forthcoming at least partially because America is less credible when making claims about WMDs than it was before Bush’s Folly.

            Another funny thing is Giles’ claim that “all this crap” started 34 years ago, but dismisses out of hand the idea that events 26 years before that could possibly have a bearing on the matter.

          • jim_m

            I understood that completely you dumbass. And have I not argued that it has been obama’s actions that are why he cannot get any support?

            Perhaps you should read my responses you ass.

            Maybe the allegations that the gassing was a false flag operation conducted by al qaeda with the blessing of the US has something to do with obama’s credibility. And what does it say about that credibility that foreign nations take that allegation seriously?

            obama has demonstrated himself to be an ignorant buffoon and not to be taken seriously as a President. That is why he can get no one to follow him.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, I do, but you keep arguing against claims that have not been made. That’s why I keep repeating myself. That’s why I keep repeating myself.

          • jim_m

            You just made a claim that I was not responding to the NYT article because the article said that the reason obama cannot get help is because of Bush. I just reminded you that all my responses have been on that subject.

            If it appears to you that I am not speaking to the issues raise, perhaps it is because you are subnormal in your ability to read with comprehension. That would certainly explain why you missed the central point of our discussion.

          • Brucehenry

            You keep claiming that I and the NYT guy are claiming that “it is all Bush’s fault” or that “everything is Bush’s fault” when that is not what either of us have been saying.

            And please, the “you have a problem reading with comprehension” is the tiredest trope on the internet.

          • jim_m

            No dumbass. I said that you and the NYT are claiming that no one will follow obama because of Bush. You just made that claim above and I have been arguing against that it is Bush’s fault that obama cannot get support.

            Stop lying already.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, fair enough. It was RM who claimed the NYT guy said everything was Bush’s fault.

            What I am saying here is that the NYT guy has a fair point. It doesn’t explain all the reluctance but it does explain some of it. The fact that you can’t admit it notwithstanding.

          • jim_m

            No he has an idiotic point that is made by bootlicking obama sycophants who have less brainwave activity that Terry Schiavo. He attempts to blame Bush for creating an atmosphere around obama that clearly is of his own creation.

            Have you so conveniently forgotten that when obama took office the claim was that suddenly we had a smarter foreign policy, that everyone in the world loved obama because he was so much more sophisticated than Bush? The left claimed an immediate change in the world’s perception of the US because of obama. Now they want it the opposite way of what they claimed and what was visible those first 12 months.

            I remember that obama had been President for only a year when that had worn thin and his presence in Copenhagen for the Olympic decision was decisive in turning the committee against Chicago as everyone found him insufferably arrogant. It is that arrogance that the world hates and is a key reason why no one will follow him. He thinks only of himself and not for his country or its allies. THAT is why no one will follow him.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes of course everything is either Black or White and one set of reasons for this reluctance completely excludes the other set.

            There is no way a head of state could find Obama arrogant and also recall being burned by Bush, and therefore fail to support this action. It’s either one or the other.

            Pardon me for not grasping this essential truth earlier, Jim.

            PS: Terry Schiavo jokes. Priceless.

          • jim_m

            When did Bush burn the UK? or Canada? Nothing like the multiple times obama has burned both those nations? When did Bush burn Italy? When did Bush burn Poland and the Czech Republic? You do recall the grave insult obama gave both those nations? Nothing like capitulating to the Russians on missile defense for Poland on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

            Those snubs were deliberate and done on dates that were deliberately selected to offend.

            What is amazing is how you have gone the last 5 years ignoring the manifest offenses that obama has given, constantly ignoring them, excusing them and blaming Bush and now that obama is reaping the reward of his faithlessness to our allies you are blaming Bush once again.

            Why the F*** should anyone take any argument from you seriously when you show such a feeble grasp of the history of the last 5 years? You show all the memory of a goldfish.

          • Brucehenry

            The burn, genius, was in the claims that there were WMDs in Iraq that Saddam was about to use or give to terrorists – the “smoking gun that comes in the form of a mushroom cloud.” They were “north, south, east, and west of Tikrit.” Colin Powell had “evidence” that he sold at the UN.

            Poland, the UK, and several other countries sent their sons and daughters to fight and die for these ephemeral WMDs.

            Now, as you were warned 10 years ago, when we arguably need other countries to support us in the matter of REAL WMDs, no one is willing to support us. You say that’s entirely because of Obama’s “fecklessness” and whatever. I say it’s at least partially because of the aforementioned burn. I suspect we may both have more of a point than the other is willing to admit.

            And now we’ve each said the same thing repeatedly. I’m calling it a night.

          • jim_m

            They sent troops to support the US as it fought an enemy that supported the 9/11 terrorists, paid terrorist bombers, defied the UN and who the US, UK and others all declared had WMD’s. Or have you forgotten that too, Mr Goldfish?

            The perception under Bush was that the US was a nation that would support its allies. The perception under obama is that the US cannot be trusted to stand by any ally and that the US will cut and run and leave those erstwhile allies in the lurch (pun intended Mr Secretary). obama has walked away from multiple commitments that this nation gave to our allies. No one trusts him. He treats our enemies better than our allies. WHy should anyone ally with the US when being our enemy is so much more profitable?

          • Brucehenry

            And they DIDN’T have WMDs. So now they’re not in a rush to bomb when a US president says jump.

          • jim_m

            Look Bruce, the decline n US influence is traced not to Bush and the Iraq war, but to the left wing ideology that the US should not be an international leader and that the US lacks the moral credibility to lead.

            The left has preached this for 5 decades and for the first time we have an admin that believes this ideology to its very core (not even Clinton believed this with such conviction). When you have a President preaching to the world that the US should be apologizing for everything that has happened in the last 100+ years you get governments that think the US is not competent or trustworthy to lead. ( and indeed the first act of obama as President was to go on a world wide apology tour explaining to the world how bad the US was and how they should not follow our lead)

            If there were mistakes about WMD’s (and while the situation was not nearly as bad as everyone feared there had been WMD’s in Iraq and Hussain had done his best to conceal the current state to everyone including the UN. Look it up. THAT was one of the reasons stated to go to war, not the presence of the WMD’s but the blocking of the UN inspectors. Or are you going to lie about that too?)

          • Brucehenry

            I would grant that you might have a point if you didn’t write in overdramatic teenage terms.

            “When you have a President preaching to the world that the US should be apologizing for everything that has happened in the last 100+ years…” A tired trope pulled straight out of the asses of wingnut blog writers in 2009 that you have internalized and now believe as Gospel.

            And then there’s your rewrites of history: “If there were mistakes made about WMDs…” As if you think Colin Powell’s performance was a simple mistake. As if you think “aluminum tubes” was a simple mistake.

            And then there’s the lies/ignorance. Saddam let the UN inspectors back in. They WEREN’T FINDING ANYTHING. Bush couldn’t have that, you see. It was fear of being caught in the Shock and Awe that made Annan withdraw them.

          • jim_m

            The UN weapons inspectors reported repeatedly that they did not feel that they were getting cooperation from Iraq. Or do you wish to rewrite THAT part of history too? No one ( and I mean no one except for the radical and epically ignorant and ideologically straight jacketed left like you , Bruce) believes that Iraq never had WMD’s.

            I made a point and if you consider my method adolescent it is only because I am speaking to a person with a pre-adolescent world view.

          • Brucehenry

            Again, and repeatedly on this thread, you engage in the dishonest practice of ex post facto editing of your comments. Please stop doing that. And don’t deny it, it’s obvious.

          • jim_m

            I have not denied it. I added the last sentence to the first paragraph. It does not alter my point in the least. It does amplify it and it does point out what an ignorant ass you are. I suppose the latter is what you really object to.

            When I do make edits, and I frequently will make a minor revision immediately after I post, these are done within minutes of a comment being posted and as I said sometimes immediately (especially if I have pasted in a block quote where the formatting needs to be edited).

            Almost never do I make any edits that materially change the comment and when I do it is usually in response to a correction which I acknowledge.

            [edit]Quit being a whining baby. You whine because you know I have demonstrated your position to be pure bullshit.

          • Brucehenry

            I answer a point you have made which you later amplify or expand upon. Sometimes it’s immediately and sometimes it’s 20 or 30 minutes, or even hours, later.

            But on second thought, you should keep doing it. Shows you for who and what you are.

          • jim_m

            I don’t do it hours later. I understand your frustration but I do not change the meaning of my posts. I am not playing any gotcha games with them. And I do point out where I have made a significant edit that I have done so.

            Stop being a wuss and address the content.

          • Brucehenry

            When you and I are engaging in a back and forth and answering each other immediately, it’s dishonest to post a comment and then edit it while the other guy is formulating and typing his response. Or to add a point after the other guy has announced “I’m calling it a night.”

            If you can’t understand that I’m afraid you have, to borrow a phrase from you, “lost your moral compass.” LOL.

            If you want to be honest, explain what you REALLY meant to say in your next comment, don’t go back and add an insult here or an amplification there while the other guy is unaware of what you’re doing.

          • jim_m

            But you aren’t responding immediately. I see if a comment is put in and if you have responded then I do not make any changes and I DO clarify in the following comment.

            What you are griping about is that you go away for an extended period, come back and do not refresh you screen so you miss an edit.

            Feel free to amend your own posts where appropriate. It doesn’t take that long to write a comment.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL it does for me. I’m a hunt’n’peck-er. Two-fingered typist.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Iraq used chemical weapons both against Iran and against their own population (marsh arabs) prior to GW1.

          • jim_m

            But Bruce KNOWS that Iraq never had WMD’s. It is a central tenet of leftist faith.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            And like so much of what he knows it just ain’t so.

          • Brucehenry

            Where have I said that? Liar.

          • jim_m

            Why will no one follow obama? Here’s why:

            the president of the United States should not state that presidents of countries in upheaval (e.g., Bashar Assad) “must go,” should not draw “red lines” and ignore them, should not devise plans to punish rogue leaders but not actually damage their war-making ability, should not promise action and send forces to carry out the action, and then have, in current parlance, a public conversation” with himself about whether to do anything, and should not thereby abdicate his great office in all respects except the salary and perquisites.

            Why would anyone follow such an incompetent, vacillating boob? And this was from a supporter.

          • jim_m

            Why won’t other nations follow obama? Well it must be Bush’s fault. It certainly can;’t be that no one can trust anything he says:

            With respect to Syria, the president tells us there will be no U.S. boots on the ground. Um, would that be like:

            – If you like your health coverage you can keep it. Most people won’t be able to.

            – Health insurance premiums for a family would be $2,500 lower by the end of his first term in office. They were actually about $3,000 higher.

            – The Obama administration was not responsible for proposing the budget sequester idea. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward challenged this claim and forced the administration to backtrack.

            – Money from the nearly $800 billion stimulus package would be spent on “shovel-ready projects” and unemployment would drop to 5.3 percent by the end of his first term. The president later conceded the projects weren’t as shovel ready as he had hoped and unemployment was 7.9 percent.

            – There was nothing Obama could do about Benghazi. Subsequent revelations and congressional testimony have shown just how disengaged or disinterested the administration was.

            – The Justice Department told a judge that Fox News reporter James Rosen was a “co-conspirator” and a security threat? The DOJ later apologized and tried to make amends with Washington reporters.

            – That Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t know about the Fast and Furious gun-running program? Investigators have found documents confirming that he did have knowledge.

            Or how about when Obama told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that he hadn’t raised taxes when there were 21 new or increased taxes in ObamaCare alone. Or when he claimed that he didn’t draw the “red line”with respect to Syria, the international community did, when it is very
            obvious from his taped statements that he alone drew the line.

            Lie after lie to the American public. WHy would a foreign leader take anything this ass says at face value the way you do?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Indeed he is an ass, and a racist one at that.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Indeed he is an ass, and a racist one at that.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Of course you do…

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Of course you do…

  • justsaynotostupid

    Is there any real proof? If this story was the opposite, you morons would be screaming for actual proof. The only time you let this kind of cap go is when it benefits you. Just like all of the other made up crap, BENGHAZI!!!!

    • jim_m

      Yeah we just made up that crap about 4 people being killed by al qaeda terrorists. Oh wait, no it was obama that made up crap about a video and the dead people and al qaeda part was the truth.

  • Retired military

    Bruce
    To respond to your question (and not get in between your love fest with Jim) I will answer here.
    a. Saying that Bush hangover is the cause of Syria today (after 5 years) would be akin to saying 9/11 is Clinton hangover (and that was with Clinton 9 months out of office).
    How about the recession that Bush had his first year in office? I don’t recall any NY Times writers saying anything about it being Clinton’s fault. I do recall however hearing the words “Jobless recovery” coming from the NY Times and the rest of the leftwing media back when we had 5% unemployment. Obama hasn’t seen the 7% unemployment yet. Plus we have the lowest workforce participation rate in 30+ years. If we counted the same number of people in the employment numbers as when Obama took office unemployment would be around 12 or 13%.
    Despite everything Obama says at some point he is responsible for stuff that he has done. No one heard of the Muslim brotherhood when Bush was in office. Was Quaddafi part of the “Carter hangover”? If Syria had kicked up within 3-6 months after Obama took office than I could maybe see the correlation. But hey Saddam came to power in 79. Shall we blame Carter for all the troubles we had with him? How about blaming the Russians for invading Afghan and creating a terrorist leader called Osama Bin Laden?
    b. To say that Bush should do something about Syria other than paint pictures in his bathtub implies that he has the power to do something. Which he doesn’t. He has no power at all according to the constitution (though that doesn’t seem to phase Obama any)
    I look at Obama and see the spoiled adult living with his parents and blaming them for all the troubles in his life. yeah his parents may have sucked ass (in some people’s opinion) at being a parent but at some point that kid is responsible for his life and stop blaming all his troubles on his parents.
    Bush didn’t do it. Reagan didn’t do it. I don’t think Clinton or Carter did it either. In fact, Up until Obama, I cant think of one president who blamed his predecessor for all of his troubles Much less during his 2nd term.
    Obama needs to man up and stop saying “everyone else is to blame for this” and start acting like an adult. Because he is making himself and the US look weak and when he does that it becomes dangerous for us.
    You stated that the writer of the article had an opinion. You are correct. However, it doesn’t entitle him to the facts and it damn sure doesn’t mean his opinion is correct.

    BTW Bruce. Both Obama and BIden supported Assad’s positions during the Bush presidency.

    • jim_m

      Workforce participation fell below that of 1978 last month. That’s 35 years ago for those keeping score. obama has succeeded in rolling the economy back to the days of Jimmy Carter.

      But I am sure that erasing all the gains of Reagan, Clinton and two Bush’s is George W Bush’s fault.

    • jim_m

      Workforce participation fell below that of 1978 last month. That’s 35 years ago for those keeping score. obama has succeeded in rolling the economy back to the days of Jimmy Carter.

      But I am sure that erasing all the gains of Reagan, Clinton and two Bush’s is George W Bush’s fault.

    • Retired military

      Bruce
      Let me ask you this.
      Say Obama does or does not bomb Syria.
      either way.
      5 years after Obama leaves office say that one or the other side in the Syrian conflict gets ahold of a nuke and some way shape or form gets it into the US and detonates it.
      Will you say that it is Obama’s fault for his action or inaction?

      My point is Bruce that you can always rewrite history 5, 10, or 15 years after the fact to blame whoever you want to blame. That is one of many reasons why they say hindsight is 20/20. The same way you can look at a you tube video of 2 women talking about voter fraud and not have any proof other than that of it actually going on.

      • Brucehenry

        That’s an uncharacteristically (for you) dumb question.

        One, we’re not talking about nukes. Two, it would depend on the exact chain of events, not some vague prediction. Three, I DON’T WANT WAR.

        • Retired military

          Bruce
          While you may consider it dumb I consider it very unlikely but possible.
          1. Nukes and Chemical weapons are both considered WMD. Replace nukes with chemical weapon attack if it makes you feel better.
          2. Exactly my point. When you talk about exact chain of events 5, 10, or 20 years after the fact all you have is a bunch of snippets of stuff that happened. Not the day by day stuff that you make the decisions on at the time. It is like asking a couple that got a divorce 5 years before exactly what caused the divorce. Chances are you will get 2 very different stories and neither of them will be very close to the actual chain of events.
          3. Neither do I. Nor did I say that you did.
          As I stated above hindsight is 20/20. You can point to what Bush did during his term and say this caused Syria and you may even have been right. But as you stated to Jim above it is only your opinion as to what decisions have been made in the moment. It can be equally said that if Bush had done X then things could have been a lot worse or if he had done Y it could have been a lot better. Same for Carter or Clinton with Saddam, or if the Russians had never attacked Afghanistan than Osama bin laden may have never been a player in the terrorist world.

          • Brucehenry

            But again, RM, neither I nor the NYT guy is arguing that “Syria is Bush’s fault.” He is saying, and I am at least partially agreeing, that the reluctance in Congress and around the world to endorse Obama’s proposal to use force is because many in Congress and around the world feel “burned’ by Bush’s spurious justification for the Iraq invasion.

            I suspect you didn’t read the guy’s column before taking issue with it.

          • jim_m

            Bruce, the column is BS. The whole premise is stupid. In order to make any claim that the world refuses to follow obama because of Bush you have to ignore the last 5 years of obama screwing over every ally we have.

            If obama had followed through on our commitments (hell, if he would just follow through on his own commitments) he wouldn’t have these problems. obama has countless times deliberately offended or outright betrayed the trust of our allies. Bush never did that.

            Regardless of whether or not a country believes that Iraq was right or not Bush didn’t screw our allies over. We took the lead, we took the brunt of the attacks, we shouldered most of the burden. obama is looking for a free ride from everyone. They aren’t inclined to give him one based on his record of perfidy.

            To claim that this has anything to do with Iraq is insane and belies an underlying refusal to confront reality and deal with the fact that obama has on multiple occasions demonstrated that he cannot act decisively, cannot act in a timely manner on matters of national security and cannot be trusted to defend his allies or even his own people.

            Yet given all this you are so quick to jump on the “It’s all Bush’s fault that no one will follow obama” bandwagon. It would be funny if it weren’t so freaking stupid.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I already get that you feel that way. I was responding to RM’s comment.

          • jim_m

            Wait I wasn’t done editing that one ;)

            Yeah, I know you were responding to RM but why pretend that none of the other argument has taken place? Why pretend that no one has raised any counter argument to your BS?

            It’s just more of the make believe world that obama supporters must live in because they KNOW that he is the light worker, he is the messiah that stopped global warming, he is the Peace Prize winner just because he is obama and not because of anything he has done.

            You have to live in a fantasy world ignoring the facts of obama’s actions and instead believing that everything that happens is because, despite being a super genius, he is incapable of overcoming the actions of his predecessor. And you ignore the fact that none of his actions have been intended to repair this damage that has supposedly been wrought.

            In order to believe that there is any factual basis for the column you cite, you have to pretend that obama has never done anything to sour our relations with other countries. I seem to recall last year MP’s getting up during question time and pronouncing that the special relationship between Great Britain and the US was no longer and they blamed obama for that, not Bush.

            I’m trying to get you to open your eyes for the first time in 5 + years and actually look at obama’s words and deeds and tell us with a straight face that he has always supported our allies, he has never offended them deliberately, he has never committed a symbolic faux pas that offended entire nations.

            Because that is what you are claiming, whether you want to admit it or not.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL I’m not pretending anything, I just grew tired of my every comment becoming a pretext for you to launch into another long rant about light workers, messiahs, and betrayals.

            As for MPs getting upset with Obama, we had Congressmen calling potatoes “freedom fries” and declaring our alliance with France over, yet it continues. NATO hasn’t dissolved. Everything is as the wingnut pundits explain it in your book, I guess, but on Planet Earth we must soldier on dealing with reality.

            As to your kooky notion that, because a Polish or Czech wingnut appears on FOX in full faux outrage mode, Obama has “offended entire countries,” see paragraph two above.

            Lalaland must be nice this time of year. Of course you’ve been living there since 2009, so…

            I see what you’re trying to do and appreciate the effort. And I’m trying to get you to argue honestly and without hyperbole. Not every writer you disagree with is an idiot or a sycophant or an apologist. Not every action by Obama is treasonous or feckless; sometimes it’s just an action YOU wouldn’t take were you in charge.

          • jim_m

            No, not every action of his is. But I do point out the ones that are.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            You would have a great deal of difficulty calling this a crime too. You could never bring yourself to actually find fault with your savior.

          • Brucehenry

            Good catch

          • Retired military

            Bruce

            Let me quote a few things from the article.

            The voice that stands out most by his silence, the one that grates with its public coyness, is Bush himself. He has refused to take a side in the Syrian conflict. The president, he said, “has a tough choice to make.” Beyond that, “I refuse to be roped in.”

            This is cowardice on a grand scale. Having set in motion a doctrine that touches all corners of the earth and influences every leader with a say in how to approach tyrants who slaughter innocents, Bush retreats to his bathtub to paint.

            Again what does Bush have the power to do?

            Does he come out in favor of Obama’s plan? After Obama has blamed everything in the world on him? So if things go wrong then Obama blames Bush yet again for the failure and Bush’s endorsement of the war.

            Does Bush come out against the war. Yep I can see Obama out there now saying that racism is in full force. Republicans go to war with a white president but not a black one.

            Bush is doing what every president up until Clinton did.

            Keeping his mouth shut about the person doing the job he once had. Which is what is appropriate. Bush isn’t getting the daily briefings that Obama gets. Which is another point I am sure that leftwing media will make if Bush comes out against the war.

            ” A war-weary public that can turn an eye from children being gassed — or express doubt that it happened — is another poisoned fruit of the Bush years

            Gee So now Bush is responsible for everything that the public thinks. Makes me think of a certain poster proclaiming he is not responsible for what Ed Asner thinks.

            Let me offer a different hypothesis.

            Bush had at least half the folks in the country behind him and 40 other countries when we went into Iraq.

            Yet Obama doesn’t have half the folks and only one country. And maybe, just maybe, for once that is Obama’s fault and not Bush’s. A leader can get people to follow him despite the cause based on his leadership qualities. Obama’s lies about crap doesn’t help. And his ridiculous red line speech last week made him look like a fool and a very weak fool at that. it would be akin to NK saying “we will nuke SK if the US doesn’t withdraw all forces within the next week”. THe next week comes and the US forces are still there and NK says “We didn’t mean we would nuke right away but we will nuke eventually”.

            “And for the nearly 200 members of both houses of Congress who voted on the Iraq war in 2002 and are still in office and facing a vote this month, Bush shadows them like Scrooge’s ghost.

            And yet we are supposed to believe that Obama has been in charge for 5 years and that has absolutely nothing to do with Congress’s decision.

            “Blame Bush? Of course, President Obama has to lead; it’s his superpower now, his armies to move, his stage.”

            Yet Obama doesn’t see this. On anything that goes wrong (and a lot has gone wrong in the past 5 years ). instead everything is Blame Bush, Blame Bush.

            “Calling Obama a weak leader, he (rumsfield) said: “Did he need to go to Congress? No. Presidents as commanders in chief have authority, but they have to behave like a commander in chief.” In other words, more swagger, bluster and blind certainty.
            Yet we have a President who appears weak, indecisive and uncertain about almost everything.
            One military axiom goes something like this. When in doubt, make a decision. You can always make adjustments later but at least you made a decision.
            Indecisiveness in a world leader is a terrible thing. Especially for the leader of the world’s one superpower. The US cant afford vaciliation. That leads to chaos. And in chaos folks who are willing to make decisions (namely tyrants and dictators) can do just about anything they want.

            Personally , I don’t think Obama had to get Congressional approval to strike. But that is just me. I also don’t believe we should get involved in Syria. As I stated. Obama should have kicked this into the UN’s courtyard long ago. But he wants to have it both ways. He wants to get the accolades when things go right and be able to blame everyone but himself when things go wrong. His ego is his main flaw. I just hope as a country we can survive it.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            The Assads have been in charge of Syria since 1971. Maybe it is all Nixon’s fault.
            My point is that Assad would be there no matter what Bush had done in Iraq or not.
            Did the muslim brotherhood spawn because of Bush? I mean he hasn’t been blamed for it yet that I know of but I can see that coming from the left as well.
            And there is nothing that you can point to to prove that congress’ reaction or the reaction of people now is a direct result of Bush and Iraq.
            I am extremely leary of everything that Obama says regardless of what Bush might have said or not said. He has shown to me that he cant be trusted as President, as a leader, or as an ally. Given his record if I were an ally I wouldn’t put my country’s troops lives at stake.

          • Brucehenry

            To reply to points in both of your comments:

            I agree with you, and disagree with the NYT guy, when you say Bush should not weigh in on the matter. However, when he says that a war-weary public turning aside or expressing doubt about chemical weapon use is a poison fruit of the Bush years he has a point. The public, in America and around the world, feels like they were fooled by claims of WMDs in 2002 and they’re not buying US claims about it now.

            Bush did have a lot of folks behind him in 2003. Some of that was due to the dishonest conflation of Iraq with 9/11 practiced by Cheney and company.

            Indecisiveness in a world leader IS a terrible thing, but it’s equally terrible to have a decisive leader who is fucking WRONG about stuff, like Bush was.

            Finally, you are incorrect when you say there is nothing to indicate Congressional and public reluctance to support the use of force is because of what happened in Iraq. There are innumerable statements out there by Congressmen, world leaders, and man-on-the-street interviewees saying exactly that.

          • Retired military

            “Some of that was due to the dishonest conflation of Iraq with 9/11 practiced by Cheney and company. ”

            Whether Bush was wrong about Iraq is a matter of opinion. you have yours I have mine. In addition, may I point out that not only did US intelligence say Saddam had WMD, but so did everyone else’s a long with Bill and Hillary, Kerry, Albright, and numerous other democrats.

            “‘There are innumerable statements out there by Congressmen, world leaders, and man-on-the-street interviewees saying exactly that.

            And there are innumerable statements out there by everyone you mentioned that Obama is the reason he hasn’t built a coalition behind a Syria attack.

          • Brucehenry

            Right. And I never claimed that the reasons cited by the NYT writer guy are the only ones. Only Jim claimed that there was NO merit in his argument.

            ADDING: it’s not really a matter of opinion that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet a majority of Americans in 2003 thought there was a connection. That was because the Bush administration and its apologists in the press (including not only FOX but Judith Miller and others) managed to convey that impression. And it’s not really a matter of opinion that there were no WMDs found in Iraq after the invasion. There weren’t, aside from evidence that the programs had been dismantled after Clinton’s 1998 strikes.

          • jim_m

            That’s because there is none. As I have repeatedly said, in order to blame Bush for obama’s failure to put together a coalition and to garner UN support you have to ignore multitudes of screw ups by obama whereby he offended nearly every single ally we have ever had.

            You refuse to even acknowledge that he has ever offended anyone. THAT is the problem.

          • Brucehenry

            No, I refuse to agree to your claim that he has “offended whole countries” and other hyperbolic nonsense. Of course he has made comments and taken actions that offended some in allied countries.

            Just as Rumsfeld referring to France and Germany as “old Europe” and Poland and the Czech Republic as “new Europe” offended some in France and Germany. Just as the gratuitous Merkel backrub offended some in Germany. But removing Churchill busts and giving DVDs to the Queen as gifts weren’t catastrophic for trans-Atlantic relations, any more than Bush winking at Her Majesty was.

            For that matter, Eisenhower BLASTED France, Britain, and Israel in 1956 for their actions in the Suez crisis and we remained close allies. There were massive protests in Europe against US involvement in Vietnam and yet we didn’t leave NATO. Again you have no perspective. Everything is doomsday when it comes to Obama. You’re like a 13 year old girl: “I hate him! He sucks!”

          • jim_m

            I have pointed out a stream of reasons why obama is mistrusted and I didn’t even raise the issues you just mentioned.

            I have plenty of perspective. I have mentioned the issues that foreign leaders have complained about. You talk about Vietnam and I talk about insults directly to other nations and how obama has betrayed their national security.

            How dare you compare some European protest against US involvement against Vietnam to obama betraying eastern Europe’s missile defense and national security. There is no comparison. One is about US involvement elsewhere and the other is about the US betraying their own security and future. There is a difference between politics and your own security. One you might be offended by, the other you resent and remember.

            You talk about getting perspective. Get some yourself. How fucking self centered do you have to be to think that Vietnam is the fucking be all and end all of world events. Grow up.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I guess you told me!

          • Brucehenry

            You have the president of Poland complaining about Obama’s “betrayal”? Is he using that term? How about the Czech foreign minister? Any statements where he calls the missile defense thing a ‘betrayal” or an insult?

            What you have is some talking heads on FOX or some blogger claiming that grievous harm was done to US-Poland or US-Czech relations, but no official protest, no permanent consequences. Same for all your other over-the-top claims of doom and gloom.

          • jim_m

            You talk about protests about policy under Nixon and Johnson and I tell you that obama has betrayed our allies, something you do not other to deny and you claim that it is your 50 + year old protests that are exerting the influence on the world vis-a-vis supporting the US and that obama’s own missteps are unimportant.

            In fact up to now you have denied they even took place.

            You cannot escape the fact that 50+year old events are not nearly as significant in forming the US image as are events made by the current President. You will deny it (you have been) but it is still a lie.

            You say there are no permanent consequences to obama’s actions and I am telling you that the chickens of his foreign policy are coming home to roost.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, unlike in your case, for most people history didn’t begin on January 20, 2009.

            Geez, I get wingnuts still complaining about Yalta fer fuck’s sake. On this very thread some fool named mikegiles explained oh-so-rationally that “all this crap” started because Carter misjudged the Ayatollah in 1979, although he dismissed the possibility that the Mossadegh thingie was relevant.

            Now please list the allies that have renounced their alliances with us. Who has left NATO? Is our Pacific alliance called NZUS now because Australia walked out?

            The fact is both Russia and China have made statements opposing military action in Syria and using as justification the Iraq misadventure. And many around the world find those statements credible.

          • jim_m

            You know that I don’t think that history began then. But unlike you I do think that obama’s presidency began then. You seem to think that it has yet to start because nothing has been done for anyone to take issue with.

          • Brucehenry

            Look, I disagree with Obama on several issues, particularly about this whole Syria thing. I think he has mishandled it and that the “red line” thing was a stupid thing to say. He is not as adept at foreign policy as, say, the first Bush (41).

            That said, the NYT guy has a point.He may be over-emphasizing it, but I insist part of the world’s reluctance to follow a US president’s lead into a military adventure in the Middle East is the bitter experience of Iraq and Bush.

            You may insist that there is NO connection until you’re blue in the face, but you are just plain wrong.

            Notice that I don’t say “ALL the reluctance” or that “Obama is always right” or any of the other words you keep trying to put in my mouth. What a dishonest argument you make, Jim. As freaking always.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            We’d be a hell of a lot better off if the oval office had sat empty for the last four years and eight months.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            He (Bush 43) is actually following the precedent established by our first president and observed by every president since (with the exception of the second worst president, behind 0bama; Dhimmy Carter) of not commenting on issues impacting the current President.

  • http://foxmuldar-conservative-thinker.blogspot.com/ Foxmuldar

    No voter ID for the drop off ballots. Must be poor black folks living in the swamps that cant get to vote so these brave souls drove out to the swamps and handed them the ballots and were so happy to hand them in so they could vote. And we all know that only Democrats are poor black folks living in the swamps and other places where they can’t possibly make it to the voting areas to cast their votes. Some are still chained to their barns when not working. Well thats what you would think listening to folks like Tawana Brawley Sharpton and I spit in Whiteys soup Jackson.

  • Retired military

    My apologies to Mr Houston for being the source of hijacking on this thread. I didn’t know that I was going to have us refighting the Iraq war again along with Syria.
    Not to mention I cant find the comments I recently wrote. Oh well.

    • jim_m

      You can always find your most recent comments by clicking on your avatar. Your most recent comments will appear below your profile information and you can click on the time of posting and it will bring you right to them.

      You can also click the time it was posted in the sidebar on the blog page.

  • Pingback: Democrats Engage in Voter Fraud In Colorado Recall Elections..........

  • Pingback: Right Wing Links Sept 8, 2013 Via Beach Fluff 'N Stuff - Blur Brain

  • narciso

    It makes no sense to highjack this thread, the Colorado Senate, seized upon the preventable Aurora massacre, to curb the Second Amendment from responsible gun owner, now they are trying to prevent these Senators from being accountable to the people, and citing Egan’s idiocy doesn’t help your case.

  • Pingback: Colorado Recall Voter Fraud | Reality Check

  • Pingback: Voting Rights | Sunset Daily