MasterJaguar01
Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoscoX
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
No. Bush created that too... Al Bagdhadi was a former POW in Bushs war. The stupid "surge" involved paying off massive amounts of money to Sunni "Awakenig Councils". Many of the former members of those councils joined ISIS when the U.S. money dried up, and theyy saw that the Shia still controlled parliamennt.
You are literally living in a cartoonish fantasy 
ISIS wasn't a thing during the Bush years
Leftists claimed that Iraq was unwinnable, fiercely resisted the Bush surge (which was a massive success), that the Obama administration tried to take credit for
And then team Obama gifted Iraq and Syria to ISIS, on a silver platter
You keep claiming that Cheney gave Iran nukes in your insanity... Let's hear some of the actual wisdom from the former Vice President, rather than your baseless and meaningless empty-headed howling:
Cheney: Iran Deal Did Not Begin With Bush Administration
A prevailing media narrative is that while Republicans have pitched a fit over Barack Obama’s negotiated deal with Iran over that country’s nuclear program, the seeds of such a deal were sown by the previous administration.
“Nine years ago, President George W. Bush agreed to join Europeans at the negotiating table with Iran,” wrote the New York Times's Alan Rappeport in July. Rappeport also quoted former Bush State Department official Philip Zelikow: “It’s conceptually a deep irony because this diplomatic outreach was originally designed and engineered by President Bush.” Zack Beauchamp at Vox.com said the same thing in a headline reading, “The Iran deal began with George W. Bush."
But that’s not true, says Bush’s vice president, Dick Cheney. In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Cheney dismissed the idea that what the Bush administration pursued led to the current deal. “I can’t believe we would ever have agreed to what Obama has agreed to,” he said.
“Our objective always was that the Iranians would have no nuclear weapons. That was the Obama objective when they started,” Cheney said. The problem, he explained, was that the Obama administration did not stick to this objective.
“One of the things that Obama has done with the agreement that he has reached is that it basically legitimizes Iran to go forward with enrichment capability. That’s a major break with what has been the traditional practice of the [non-proliferation treaty],” Cheney said. “And also, I think there’s some six UN Security Council resolutions dealing with the Iranian nuclear program that got wiped out by virtue of that provision with this agreement.”
In Exceptional, Cheney’s new book co-authored by his daughter Liz Cheney, the former vice president outlines how the Bush administration made efforts in its second term both to ramp up economic sanctions against Iran as well as to consider diplomatic talks to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
The Cheneys give credit to Stuart Levey, an undersecretary of the Treasury, for reinvigorating the idea of economic sanctions in 2005 and 2006, when the widely held belief was that Iran had been “sanctioned out.” Levey, they write, devised new ways to block economic activity by meeting with CEOs of international banks and impressing on them the reality of what business with Iran meant: money flowing directly to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a regime that was the leading state sponsor of terror.
On the diplomatic side, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced in May 2006 that the United States would be willing to pursue multilateral talks with European allies and Iran. “To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance the prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table with our EU-3 colleagues and meet with Iran's representatives,” said Rice.
Ultimately and unsurprisingly, the Iranians rejected the enrichment requirement and the negotiations never materialized. Is it fair to say this initial effort to negotiate started the process that got us to the current deal?
“I’m trying to recall, now, exactly what the transaction was. It actually was with our European friends, primarily. They were eager to pursue some kind of discussions,” Cheney said. “I’d have to go back and check the record for specific details. My recollection in part was that the Europeans were interested in having talks in order to avoid a situation where military force was used to deal with the Iranian threat, so there was an effort in the closing stages of our administration.”
But the Obama administration, the Cheneys argue in their book, took a “different approach,” one that presupposed the United States had been the roadblock to any agreement with Iran. Instead of recognizing, as presidents had done in the past, that relations with the Islamic Republic were marred by decades of Iranian aggression toward the U.S., Obama argued there were simply “serious differences” between the two nations.
“In this view, there wasn’t any moral distinction between the way America and Iran had operated on the world stage, there were just matters on which we seriously didn’t agree,” the Cheneys write.
Exceptional, which was released Tuesday, is part a history of the United States as a global superpower, part an excoriation of the Obama administration’s foreign and national security policies, and part a diagnosis for how the U.S. can regain its role as leader of the free world. The Cheneys adopt the concept introduced by Charles Krauthammer of history’s “hinge points,” whereby critical, challenging moments in American history have been met by “great men.”
“We are living at another hinge point of history and require a president equal to this moment,” write the Cheneys, who note the external threats to American security and hegemony. “We must choose wisely.”
MORE
facepalm.
You are now down to quoting a weekly standard article that quotes.... The Cheneys!
The only people on this earth with less credibility than trump.
I absolutely LOVE this part:
But the Obama administration, the Cheneys argue in their book, took a “different approach,” one that presupposed the United States had been the roadblock to any agreement with Iran. Instead of recognizing, as presidents had done in the past, that relations with the Islamic Republic were marred by decades of Iranian aggression toward the U.S., Obama argued there were simply “serious differences” between the two nations.
“In this view, there wasn’t any moral distinction between the way America and Iran had operated on the world stage, there were just matters on which we seriously didn’t agree,” the Cheneys write.
He manages to leave out the part where he was selling oil services to Iran, nuclear technology to them (via their subsidiary, Oriental Oil Kish), and generally boosting their economy, all through secret Halliburton subsidiaries in the UK and the Cayman Islands to bypass US sanctions, ALL while publicly lobbying AGAINST sanctions on Iran.
Oh... but it was Obama that took a "different approach"!
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a load of horseshit.
|
RE: HuffPo Howlers Side With Terroristic Iranian Govern... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread