Let's go over this again for merkle and pacedog.

Merkles and pacedog are posting threads on the general forum and on the politics forum to write history this way. That Bush was a skillful commander-in-chief who started the war in iraq because the Al Qaeda in Iraq was threatening to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction. And Bush stopped the Al Qaeda iraq threat to the U.S. and then made Iraq into a democracy.
But after that, obama lost the war in iraq and let Al Qaeda take over the country.

Okay, for openers, let's start with this report from the New York Post (owned and operated by News Corp the same company which owns and operates Fox News)...

http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

Bush hid from the American people 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report which we now realize was the evidence that the Saudi government financed and supported the 9/11 hijackers.
Bush covered this up because the Bush family did and still does have so many ties and business partnerships with the Saudi royal family which of course are the muslim dictators whose regime runs Saudi Arabia.

Do the math. Bush waged war against Iraq to throw all the attention away from the Saudi government's involvement with the hijackers and 9/11.

And by doing so, he deposed Saddam Hussein who was a bitter enemy to the fundamentalist Islamic government in Iran.

Once Saddam and the sunnis were removed from power in Iraq, a shia government took it's place which now has ties to the shia led government of Iran.

Yep, Hussein kept his rein of terror in Iraq and also kept the terrorist's out. His so call WMD's if he had them were used in country. Although the US has always been a champion of human rights, it is not our right to tell dictator's how to run their country if it stays within their country.

Bob wrote:Merkles and pacedog are posting threads on the general forum and on the politics forum to write history this way.  That Bush was a skillful commander-in-chief who started the war in iraq because the Al Qaeda in Iraq was threatening to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.   And Bush stopped the Al Qaeda iraq threat to the U.S. and then made Iraq into a democracy.
But after that,   obama lost the war in iraq and let Al Qaeda take over the country.

Okay,  for openers,  let's start with this report from the New York Post (owned and operated by News Corp the same company which owns and operates Fox News)...

http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

Bush hid from the American people 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report which we now realize was the evidence that the Saudi government financed and supported the 9/11 hijackers.
Bush covered this up because the Bush family did and still does have so many ties and business partnerships with the Saudi royal family which of course are the muslim dictators whose regime runs Saudi Arabia.  

Do the math.  Bush waged war against Iraq to throw all the attention away from the Saudi government's involvement with the hijackers and 9/11.

And by doing so,  he deposed Saddam Hussein who was a bitter enemy to the fundamentalist Islamic government in Iran.

Once Saddam and the sunnis were removed from power in Iraq,  a shia government took it's place which now has ties to the shia led government of Iran.

Ramble ramble ramble....throw something on wall hope it sticks. The Muslims involved in the 9-11 attacks were Sunni/Wahabbi and they believe Shia are apostate and vice versa.

Let me know when you can understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims and get back to me.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Bob wrote:Merkles and pacedog are posting threads on the general forum and on the politics forum to write history this way.  That Bush was a skillful commander-in-chief who started the war in iraq because the Al Qaeda in Iraq was threatening to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.   And Bush stopped the Al Qaeda iraq threat to the U.S. and then made Iraq into a democracy.
But after that,   obama lost the war in iraq and let Al Qaeda take over the country.

Okay,  for openers,  let's start with this report from the New York Post (owned and operated by News Corp the same company which owns and operates Fox News)...

http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

Bush hid from the American people 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report which we now realize was the evidence that the Saudi government financed and supported the 9/11 hijackers.
Bush covered this up because the Bush family did and still does have so many ties and business partnerships with the Saudi royal family which of course are the muslim dictators whose regime runs Saudi Arabia.  

Do the math.  Bush waged war against Iraq to throw all the attention away from the Saudi government's involvement with the hijackers and 9/11.

And by doing so,  he deposed Saddam Hussein who was a bitter enemy to the fundamentalist Islamic government in Iran.

Once Saddam and the sunnis were removed from power in Iraq,  a shia government took it's place which now has ties to the shia led government of Iran.

Ramble ramble ramble....throw something on wall hope it sticks. The Muslims involved in the 9-11 attacks were Sunni/Wahabbi and they believe Shia are apostate and vice versa.

Let me know when you can understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims and get back to me.

pacedog,

Even though the great majority of the Iraqi population are shias,  Saddam Hussein's ruling regime was the baathist party which was dominated by sunni muslims.  

The Ayatollah and the rest of the ruling regime in Iran are shia.  

Saddam Hussein and his regime were natural enemies to the shia controlling Iran.  Iran was also an enemy to the United States government.  That's why our government allied with Saddam when he started a war with Iran.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait,   Osama bin Laden wanted desperately to send his fellow mujahideen (the jihadists who evolved into Al Qaeda) to repel Saddam's forces. After the Gulf War, bin Laden continued to criticize Saddam's baath regime, emphasizing that Saddam could not be trusted. Bin Laden told his biographer that "the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother."

So both the shia fundamentalists controlling Iran,  and Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda,  were all enemies of Saddam Hussein.

When Bush's invasion and occupation removed Saddam and the baathists from power,  it left a vacuum in a country whose population is mostly shia.
Which of course led to a new Iraqi government which is allied with shia muslims.  The same muslim sect who are controlling Iran.

So,  the result of Bush's invasion and ten year occupation of Iraq,  was to remove a barrier (Saddam Hussein) which had kept Iran from gaining a foothold in Iraq,  and replacing it with a government which is a friend to Iran.

If it was just a mistake in policy,  it would be a terrible blunder on the part of a U.S. President and Commander-In-Chief.  Any president.

But just recently,  because of a report in a Rupert Murdoch newspaper,  we are learning that it was more than just a blunder.
It is now becoming more clear what Bush's motives probably were.  
We now have very good evidence that Bush covered up the Saudi government's involvement in financing and supporting the 9/11 terrorists.
And we know for a fact that the Bush family had very close business ties to the Saudi Royal family for a very long time.
Starting a war in Iraq threw all the attention away from the Saudi involvement in 9/11.

And thankfully, our government will not send U.S. troops back into that hell-hole. The strife currently going on in Iraq was predicted long-before Bush43 left office. The government knew as soon as we pulled our troops out that country was going to descend into chaos.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/05/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

It is going to become a Chinese problem. They now import 50% of Iraq's revived petroleum output.

Thankfully for us, oil from the Persian Gulf becomes less relevant with every uptick in U.S. shale-oil production.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/opinion/hitting-the-trifecta.html

Hitting The Trifecta

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 7, 2001

Shortly after Sept. 11, George W. Bush interrupted his inveighing against evildoers to crack a joke. Mr. Bush had repeatedly promised to run an overall budget surplus at least as large as the Social Security surplus, except in the event of recession, war or national emergency. ''Lucky me,'' he remarked to Mitch Daniels, his budget director. ''I hit the trifecta.''

Lucky him, indeed. The Enron analogy will soon become a tired cliché, but in this case the parallel is irresistible. Enron management and the administration Enron did so much to put in power applied the same strategy: First, use cooked numbers to justify big giveaways at the top. Then, if things don't work out, let ordinary workers who trusted you pay the price. But Enron executives got caught; Mr. Bush believes that the events of Sept. 11 will let him off the hook.

Earlier this year Mr. Bush used projections of vast budget surpluses to push through a huge, 10-year tax cut. Most of that tax cut went to people with incomes of more than $200,000 per year. Now Mr. Daniels tells us that the budget -- not just the budget outside Social Security, but the whole enchilada -- will be in deficit through 2004. Since the administration's phony budget math (''fuzzy'' just doesn't cut it at this point) gets phonier the further you go into the future, this means that we have effectively returned to a state of permanent deficit.

However, with television busy reporting from the caves of Tora Bora, this revelation -- which shows that the tax cut was sold on utterly false premises -- wasn't even considered headline news.

Administration officials insist that the economic slowdown and the war on terror, not the tax cut, are responsible for the red ink. But this is flatly untrue: antiterror spending is a minor factor, and the persistence of projected deficits into the indefinite future tells us that it's not caused by the recession either.

Anyway, they're missing the point. Opponents of the administration's plan always warned that it was foolish to lock in a giant tax cut on the basis of hypothetical surplus projections. They urged, to no avail, that we wait to see the actual budget results. Now their warnings have proved prophetic -- and ordinary Americans will suffer because they were ignored.

The administration now says that the tax cut was necessary to fight the current recession. But nobody is questioning the $40 billion in rebates actually paid out so far, and few would complain about another round of temporary tax cuts for the year ahead. It's the huge further tax cuts that will take place after 2002 -- tax cuts that are now the law of the land -- that are the problem. But we're supposed to accept those future cuts as a fait accompli. Hey, Mr. Bush hit the trifecta.

Meanwhile, the return of budget deficits has real, nasty consequences. Prescription drug insurance is, of course, dead. Bolstering Social Security? Don't be silly: payroll tax receipts are being used neither to acquire assets nor to pay down federal debt; instead, they are subsidizing deficits in the rest of the government.

And austerity rules, even in areas you might have thought were of the highest priority. Money to rebuild New York? Sorry, no. The government's own experts say we need $3 billion to guard against bioterrorism? Cut the number in half. Tax cuts are more important.

Meanwhile, state and local governments, savaged both by recession and by new security expenses, are firing teachers and slashing services. How about some revenue-sharing from the feds? Never mind.

Whenever they were asked, voters said that the ''compassionate'' parts of Mr. Bush's campaign promises -- securing Social Security, providing more money for prescription drugs and education -- were more important to them than tax cuts. But they were assured that there was enough money for everything. Those assurances were false -- but the tax cut is sacrosanct, while the rest is expendable.

Mr. Bush could try to undo some of the damage, by canceling future tax cuts for the top income bracket. Instead, he wants to accelerate those cuts. That's the moral equivalent of the big bonuses Enron gave to executives just days before it went bankrupt.

Horse racing is a zero-sum game; so, it seems, is budget politics. Mr. Bush hit the trifecta; the great majority of Americans lost, big time.


-----------------------------




"You know, I was campaigning in Chicago and somebody asked me, is there ever any time where the budget might have to go into deficit? I said only if we were at war or had a national emergency or were in recession. Little did I realize we'd get the trifecta."

George W. Bush never would have expected we would have gotten to war, had a national emergency or go into a recession during his presidency.