Jump to content

White House going to war with Cheney


Recommended Posts

In a seemingly unusual reaction, the White House on Tuesday used its official social-media accounts to promote a video blasting Cheney for his comments.

 

 

The author is an idiot. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about President Obama's going after critics personally.

 

 

Calling a social media hit piece as "WAR" is (unintentionally) funny though ..................... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my man Obama knew what he was doing going after that low hanging fruit that is Cheney. As soon as Cheney started blathering his ignorance four more senators came on board for the deal.

 

 

No wonder GOPers are jumping ship on the regular party. If Cheney is part of the face of the party Trump actually looks like a decent person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One thing you can say about Barry's legacy...he surpasses every president before him when it comes to being a thin-skinned butt-hurt nancyman.

 

Perfect opportunity to double down in the next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the WH be going to war, in one form or another, against:

1. ISIS(shooting war overt)

2. Iran(shooting war covert)

3. China(hacking, financial, internet, start rebuilding the Navy and get it over there)

4. Russia(hacking, finanical, internet, support Ukraine militarily)

5. North Korea(drop whoopee cushions and stink bombs on them, just for the hell of it...oh, and covertly attack their nuclear program)

6. Syria. Obama said he was going to go if NBCs were used. They were. Why aren't the Marines on the beach?

7. Lybia. Obama created that conflict, and then did nothing. Instead of having no terrorist bases and no NBC in Libya, now we're looking at a place which had the first, and will begin on the 2nd soon.

 

instead of going to war against Dick Cheney?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the WH be going to war, in one form or another, against:

1. ISIS(shooting war overt)

2. Iran(shooting war covert)

3. China(hacking, financial, internet, start rebuilding the Navy and get it over there)

4. Russia(hacking, finanical, internet, support Ukraine militarily)

5. North Korea(drop whoopee cushions and stink bombs on them, just for the hell of it...oh, and covertly attack their nuclear program)

6. Syria. Obama said he was going to go if NBCs were used. They were. Why aren't the Marines on the beach?

7. Lybia. Obama created that conflict, and then did nothing. Instead of having no terrorist bases and no NBC in Libya, now we're looking at a place which had the first, and will begin on the 2nd soon.

 

instead of going to war against Dick Cheney?

Cheney led the charge that killed 4,500 Americans over a phoney weapons story. That exceeds the actual total of US deaths attributable to all those countries and groups combined

Edited by JTSP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheney led the charge that killed 4,500 Americans over a phoney weapons story. That exceeds the actual total of US deaths attributable to all those countries and groups combined

There's a full report that states that exactly 0 intelligence was monkeyed around with by Bush, Cheney or anyone else.

 

Google is your friend. Funny, a reporter just asked about this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/10/james_rosen_to_earnest_how_can_obama_say_bush_altered_iraq_intel_while_reports_say_defense_distorted_isis_intel.html

 

So much for "then-Senator Obama's", and your, nonsense talking point.

 

And, there's a flip side to that statement. Currently, Obama is not leading any charges, anywhere, which is likely to get at least 4,500+ Americans killed in a single attack. And 10x that many if the entire Middle East melts down. If we continue to do nothing/negotiate with Iran/fail to crush ISIS now?

 

We will be losing 4500 Americans every month, later, when we are FORCED into war.

 

This is literally history repeating itself. But, since you obviously know jack schit about history, and even less about war, the military or anything related, I don't expect you to be capable of understanding this.

 

One thing you might understand: You and your pals were howling against The Surge in Iraq, and Harry Reid said "the war is lost". How'd The Surge turn out?

 

All of you Democratic party military experts. How could you have been so wrong? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...