Here is a thought, read the article and look at the sources quoted in the story. Goes a long way in helping you not look like a dumbass. Seriously. If you write this off as nothing more than the liberal media throwing shade at W, you're a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, retarded fucking idiot. With all due respect of course.
I'm saying I don't really care. That's what I'm saying.
I don't know what his reasons were. I do know raining hell on Saudi isn't the smartest idea. They may have individual assholes, but as a whole they're about our only semi-friend in the region at that time. Whatever happened, whatever was done, there are times that it's not our place to second guess. In times of war, sometimes you have to make horrible decisions. I don't know if this is one or not, but it does happen.
I don't care if Reagan sold weapons to the Contras. Sometimes you do what you have to do. Sometimes you take a bitter pill in order to avoid a worse illness.
And yes, the liberal media, Hussein Obama and every democrat in America has been slinging mud at Bush for eight long years. The policies of Bill Clinton led to a large percentage of the struggles Bush endured -- and for that matter, some Obama is getting tagged with, too.
I'm tired of it. I'm tired of this entire cycle of liberals trashing people after the fact. They tried to drag Reagan through the mud for years. Still try. And they've been riding the Bush horse for almost a decade. Is it true that he didn't want the Saudis to become our enemies? Did he (or someone in his employ, perhaps Cheney or Powell or whoever) "protect" the Saudis so that entire region didn't blow up in our face? Maybe so.
If so? It's STILL less horrific or egregious than Hellary Clinton's decisions in regard to Libya or her callous disregard for our people in Benghazi. It's still less offensive than the decisions made by this stuffed shirt terror sympathizer in regard to Israel, Russia, Syria, Afghanistan, any of the middle east nations, or the US military.
15 Replies
4311 Views