Knowing what we know now, would Obama and Hillary have still abandoned Iraq like they did?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually Dipshit of the Year nominee, we are talking about NOW and the future. It is my thread after all. If you failed to understand that we have left 2003 behind then you're a moron. So don't go around throwing around shit that you can't catch yourself. If you truly believe that Iraq is going to cost us 6 trillion dollars then most of that (5 trillion) is on Obama.

Trying to change the subject again. I'll remind you then; This is about now and the future. You are hung up in the past with your time machine. Get with the program and get out.

And yes, you got the price tag all wrong. Cite your claim if you don't want to be a fool....too late.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

We are not talking about the past.... We are talking about the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Are you high or something? Or do you have a natural dolt-like penchant for contradicting yourself? Last time I checked 2003 was 12 years in the past.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're hopelessly hung up on republican and democrat.

Translation – Stop reminding me about the democrats' dismal record of getting it wrong each time they flip-flopped on Iraq. I don't want to talk about that because it makes me squirm.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

The military as pawns? Like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld used them as their personal lackeys to secure the Iraqi oil?

Ahhh yes, the old libtard canard that the war was all about securing Iraqi oil. Try looking up who is buying most of Iraq's output these days, shithead. (Hint – it's not the US.)

Originally Posted by WombRaider

At some point, Iraq has to take responsibility for its own direction and success. I thought republicans were the party of personal responsibility? Unless it's their own responsibility we're talking about, right?

You already agreed Eisenhower did the right thing when he left troops behind in Korea in 1953. Obviously the South Koreans still needed a US presence while they started taking responsibility for their own success. And speaking of personal responsibility, why won't democrats admit they made a mistake by not following Ike's example in Iraq?


.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Trying to change the subject again. I'll remind you then; This is about now and the future. You are hung up in the past with your time machine. Get with the program and get out.

And yes, you got the price tag all wrong. Cite your claim if you don't want to be a fool....too late.

Cite a link? Easy enough. This isn't even news, btw. We knew the cost could swell to over $6 trillion two years ago. Shows how much you keep up.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars...illion/5350789

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-t...rillion-2013-3

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92D0PG20130314

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yes you did. Your words follow. You said IN.

Question - Would you have advised Eisenhower in 1953 to bring all the troops home from Korea and not to give a fuck because it was "Truman's war"?

I'll answer it; no.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Are you high or something? Or do you have a natural dolt-like penchant for contradicting yourself? Last time I checked 2003 was 12 years in the past.




Translation – Please stop reminding me about the democrats' dismal record of getting it wrong each time they flip-flopped on Iraq. I don't want to talk about that because it makes me squirm.




Ahhh yes, the old libtard canard that the war was all about securing Iraqi oil. Try looking up who is buying most of Iraq's output these days, shithead. (Hint – it's not the US.)




You already agreed Eisenhower did the right thing when he left troops behind in Korea in 1953. Obviously the South Koreans still needed a US presence while they started taking responsibility for their own success. And speaking of personal responsibility, why won't democrats admit they made a mistake by not following Ike's example in Iraq?


.

You're illiteracy is rearing its ugly head again. I plainly said in my post that I've quoted above, that my answer to that question was no. I did not think leaving behind troops for any long-term period was the right thing to do. Why won't conservatives admit that Bush negotiated a shitty exit. They didn't want us there. They're a sovereign nation. We don't get to decide those things. Would you be ok if someone were deciding those types of questions for 'Merica? No, I don't think you would. But you view the Iraqis as somehow less than yourself and incapable of knowing what they really want, so we'll just strong-arm them into doing what it is we want. How did that work in Iran? We did it to them one too many times and now the government hates us. Way to go, dipshits.

Not every situation is the same. What works in Korea may not work in Iraq. If you had read the article about creating a modern military in the middle east, you might be aware of the cultural issues that make operating in that theatre a bit different.

We made that mistake in Vietnam. We made it in many countries where we thought that what we want is what will work. We though the reason that Russia failed in Afghanistan was because of Russia. Wrong. Afghanistan, simply for it's geography, is a tough nut to crack. But as usual, we went in thinking that our american ingenuity and know how would crack that nut, no problem. That very ignorance coupled with audacity has led to just about every foreign policy disaster I can think of for the last 80 years, at least. We never listen. We think we know better. Countries get tired of that bullshit. It's enough already.

Military units were directed to protect Iraqi oil installations. This is a fact. It's not a canard. What in the name of Zeus' butthole does who is buying oil from Iraq today have to do with anything? That's in the past, as you clearly pointed out.

And your bullshit about stop reminding you of democrats flip-flopping is utter horseshit. Republicans flip just as much. I'm talking about conservatives and liberals. I think classic liberalism is a better system of political ideology. The modern democratic party is not an example of classic liberalism. The problem lies in the fact that the conservative party is much closer to actual conservative ideals in regards to politics than I'm comfortable. True liberals are for small government. Personal responsibility and free markets, free speech, press and assembly. The conservative ideology is a failure. They weren't even strong enough to start this country, goddamn, shouldn't that tell you something?


The men who started this country were classic liberals. They believed in free speech, press, assembly and all the rest. Limited government. Free markets. Personal ownership. Privacy. The men who had the balls to tell King George to choke on his dick, were liberals, not conservatives. Conservatives were the ones who said we should remain loyal to the crown. Go look it up. Go do some research. Now, I'm not saying the modern democratic party is anything resembling a classical liberal ideology. But they have ruined the word liberal and turned what was a beautiful system into what it is today. The conservatives are so afraid of change, they're pretty much the same as they were 100 years ago, except liberals forced them into accepting free black men, women voting and equal voting. Some are still upset about all those. Those would be conservatives, not liberals. Liberals are not afraid of radical change. Liberal has been co-opted to mean something that it isn't. It's not about handouts or free things for people who don't work.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Cite a link? Easy enough. This isn't even news, btw. We knew the cost could swell to over $6 trillion two years ago. Shows how much you keep up.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars...illion/5350789

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-t...rillion-2013-3

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92D0PG20130314

To quote George Bush 41, not gonna do it.... You're talking about Bush (even if it is the past) and you can't count the last six years. So get your ass together and only talk about 2003 to 2009 (Jan). You wanted the past, you have to stick with it time machine boy. Even your own sources contradict your and confirm what I said. Idiot!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're illiteracy is rearing its ugly head again. I plainly said in my post that I've quoted above, that my answer to that question was no. I did not think leaving behind troops for any long-term period was the right thing to do.

Every post you make follows the same pattern. You open your mouth and stick your foot in it. When your illogic is pointed out, you make yourself look like an even bigger fool by denying it. And when your denials are met with snickering, you turn them into howls of laughter by insisting that you didn't just have your ass handed to you (again) – it was the other guy!

Your reading comprehension sucks. Let's walk through it again. Yes, you plainly said your answer to my Eisenhower question was “no”. Which means you would NOT have advised Ike to bring all the troops home from Korea in 1953. Which means you DO think leaving some US troops behind was the right decision. Now you contradict yourself. Again. You flip-flop. You say one thing. Then you say the complete opposite. Then you call the other guy “illiterate”. You suck reading comprehension. You suck at making a coherent argument. You suck at not contradicting yourself. You suck at debate. You suck at logical thinking. You suck at persuading anyone you are not a complete idiot. You suck at telling the truth about your multiple handles. You suck at posting on a hooker board. You suck at life, undercunt. It really sucks to be you, doesn't it???

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Why won't conservatives admit that Bush negotiated a shitty exit. They didn't want us there. They're a sovereign nation. We don't get to decide those things. Would you be ok if someone were deciding those types of questions for 'Merica? No, I don't think you would. But you view the Iraqis as somehow less than yourself and incapable of knowing what they really want, so we'll just strong-arm them into doing what it is we want.

You obviously didn't pay a whit of attention to the historical facts when you embraced your false and simplistic narrative. Here is how it went down, you willfully ignorant fucktard. All of the deflection and finger-pointing by Odumbo's apologists can't obscure the plain fact that OBAMA FUCKED IT UP. He put politics ahead of doing what was right in 2011. Read this - and try to pay attention for once in your miserably misguided life!



Obama's Tragic Iraq Withdrawal

The president says we're leaving because of Iraqi intransigence—but he never took negotiations seriously.

By MAX BOOT
October 31, 2011

Friday afternoon is a traditional time to bury bad news, so at 12:49 p.m. on Oct. 21 President Obama strode into the White House briefing room to "report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year—after nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." He acted as though this represented a triumph, but it was really a defeat. The U.S. had tried to extend the presence of our troops past Dec. 31. Why did we fail?

The popular explanation is that the Iraqis refused to provide legal immunity for U.S. troops if they are accused of breaking Iraq's laws. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki himself said: "When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible. The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

But Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi political figures expressed exactly the same reservations about immunity in 2008 during the negotiation of the last Status of Forces Agreement. Indeed those concerns were more acute at the time because there were so many more U.S. personnel in Iraq—nearly 150,000, compared with fewer than 50,000 today. So why was it possible for the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Iraqis but not for the Obama administration?

Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The administration didn't even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate. The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn't insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn't require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers' excessive demands, but he didn't.

He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to "end" the "war in Iraq." Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.

The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis.

When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks.

There is still a possibility for close U.S.-Iraqi military cooperation under the existing Strategic Framework Agreement. This could authorize joint exercises between the two countries and even the presence of a small U.S. Special Operations contingent in Iraq. But it is no substitute for the kind of robust U.S. military presence that would be needed to bolster Iraq's nascent democracy and counter interference from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional players that don't have Iraq's best interests at heart.

Iraq will increasingly find itself on its own, even though its air forces still lack the capability to defend its own airspace and its ground forces cannot carry out large-scale combined arms operations. Multiple terrorist groups also remain active.

So the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is a tragedy, not a triumph—and a self-inflicted one at that.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.


.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Every post you make follows the same pattern. You open your mouth and stick your foot in it. When your illogic is pointed out, you make yourself look like an even bigger fool by denying it. And when your denials are met with snickering, you turn them into howls of laughter by insisting that you didn't just have your ass handed to you (again) – it was the other guy!

Your reading comprehension sucks. Let's walk through it again. Yes, you plainly said your answer to my Eisenhower question was “no”. Which means you would NOT have advised Ike to bring all the troops home from Korea in 1953. Which means you DO think leaving some US troops behind was the right decision. Now you contradict yourself. Again. You flip-flop. You say one thing. Then you say the complete opposite. Then you call the other guy “illiterate”. You suck reading comprehension. You suck at making a coherent argument. You suck at not contradicting yourself. You suck at debate. You suck at logical thinking. You suck at persuading anyone you are not a complete idiot. You suck at telling the truth about your multiple handles. You suck at posting on a hooker board. You suck at life, undercunt. It really sucks to be you, doesn't it???

.

You suck dick. And apparently you suck reading comprehension too. Does it have a big dick that makes you choke?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You obviously didn't pay a whit of attention to the historical facts when you embraced your false and simplistic narrative. Here is how it went down, you willfully ignorant fucktard. All of the deflection and finger-pointing by Odumbo's apologists can't obscure the plain fact that OBAMA FUCKED IT UP. He put politics ahead of doing what was right in 2011. Read this - and try to pay attention for once in your miserably misguided life!



Obama's Tragic Iraq Withdrawal

The president says we're leaving because of Iraqi intransigence—but he never took negotiations seriously.

By MAX BOOT
October 31, 2011

Friday afternoon is a traditional time to bury bad news, so at 12:49 p.m. on Oct. 21 President Obama strode into the White House briefing room to "report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year—after nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." He acted as though this represented a triumph, but it was really a defeat. The U.S. had tried to extend the presence of our troops past Dec. 31. Why did we fail?

The popular explanation is that the Iraqis refused to provide legal immunity for U.S. troops if they are accused of breaking Iraq's laws. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki himself said: "When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible. The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

But Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi political figures expressed exactly the same reservations about immunity in 2008 during the negotiation of the last Status of Forces Agreement. Indeed those concerns were more acute at the time because there were so many more U.S. personnel in Iraq—nearly 150,000, compared with fewer than 50,000 today. So why was it possible for the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Iraqis but not for the Obama administration?

Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The administration didn't even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate. The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn't insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn't require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers' excessive demands, but he didn't.

He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to "end" the "war in Iraq." Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.

The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis.

When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks.

There is still a possibility for close U.S.-Iraqi military cooperation under the existing Strategic Framework Agreement. This could authorize joint exercises between the two countries and even the presence of a small U.S. Special Operations contingent in Iraq. But it is no substitute for the kind of robust U.S. military presence that would be needed to bolster Iraq's nascent democracy and counter interference from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional players that don't have Iraq's best interests at heart.

Iraq will increasingly find itself on its own, even though its air forces still lack the capability to defend its own airspace and its ground forces cannot carry out large-scale combined arms operations. Multiple terrorist groups also remain active.

So the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is a tragedy, not a triumph—and a self-inflicted one at that.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.


.

The Council on Foreign Relations is in the tank for conservatives. Nice try, dickcheese. You give me some opinion piece and try to pass it off as fact. You're full of shit as usual. Bush negotiated the withdrawal. It's only fair, seeing as how he pulled us into that shitty war.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You obviously didn't pay a whit of attention to the historical facts when you embraced your false and simplistic narrative. Here is how it went down, you willfully ignorant fucktard. All of the deflection and finger-pointing by Odumbo's apologists can't obscure the plain fact that OBAMA FUCKED IT UP. He put politics ahead of doing what was right in 2011. Read this - and try to pay attention for once in your miserably misguided life!



.

It's pretty obvious that you are the one who absolutely sucks at reading comprehension.

I believe that it was a mistake to leave Iraq as early as we did. The Iraq war, just like any other war, is a long term commitment that (once we're already in there) needs our continued presence. I've said this before multiple times, feel free to put your bets in and I'll provide you with my posts.

BUT you are forgetting 2 very important factors:

1) THE ENTIRE WAR WAS A SHAM.

When are you going to admit that this war was the biggest foreign policy fuckup in modern history?

Bush was a fucktard, and our service men died for absolutely NOTHING. not to even mention the countless dead Iraqis.

We have all seen you flip-flopping in WTF's thread over the simplest of questions. WOULD YOU, KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW, GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ?
Anyone with an IQ of above 10 will answer that question in the negative.


2) The Iraqis wanted us out.
I don't know how many times WR will have to repeat that to get it through your ginormously thick head.

Like it or not, they wanted us out. They are a sovereign nation and we can't be in anyone else's country against their wishes. That's something Russia would do *cough*Ukraine*cough*.




So, in conclusion, withdrawing from Iraq is a foreign policy mistake. But it is a mistake borne out of circumstance: Iraq is not our property no matter how much you'd like it to be.
Also, it absolutely pales in comparison to the mistake that got us into the situation we are in and the mistake that you refuse to admit ever happened.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Which means you would NOT have advised Ike to bring all the troops home from Korea in 1953. Which means you DO think leaving some US troops behind was the right decision.

.

You still stuck on Ike?

Look ladybug Ike advised against fall8ng into "the vast military industrial complex"spell of continuous wars....something you seem not to have done.

Answer me this bugereater, Knowing then wtf your pea brain knows now , would you still invade Iraq in 2003?

How about this one : If you had bet on the Steelers to win the Super Bowl last year but you could go back and change your ignorant ass bet, would you do so ???? would you bet on Brady and the Pats? You one of them numbnuts that even with hindsight would do the exact same thing?
Last example that Shirley you will get:
If you got caught sucking JD's lil clit would you still do it? Would you want everyone to know you sucked JD's pecker?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

The Council on Foreign Relations is in the tank for conservatives. Nice try, dickcheese.

Once again, you're full of shit. The Council on Foreign Relations is centrist and non-partisan. Here are some links to substantiate that. Of course, shooting the messenger is the easier way out for an unthinking faux intellectual scoundrel like you. That way you don't have to deal with the substance of the arguments.

If you had any erudition or sophistication at all, you would know the Council on Foreign Relations publishes one of the most highly regarded and influential journals in the world – Foreign Affairs. It offers a platform for informed and intelligent opinions and debate on ALL sides of ALL foreign policy issues. Which means it is far above your pay grade or your woefully uninformed hyper-partisan gutter-sniping reading comprehension level.

According to the US News and World Report link below, the Council's employees favored Democrats over Republicans in their political donations by a whopping 70% to 30% margin. Does that sound like they're “in the tank for conservatives”?

Nice try, dogpatch faggot.


http://www.citizensource.com/Opinion...ThinkTanks.htm

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...port-democrats

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You suck dick. And apparently you suck reading comprehension too.

Oh my, how clever you are, undercunt. In my haste to list the many things you suck at, I inadvertently left out the word "at" in front of "reading comprehension". Nice catch! Damn, you really made me look stupid there. Almost as stupid as your saying "we're not talking about the past - we're talking about 2003!" Almost as stupid as your saying no means yes on the Korea question. Almost as stupid as... aw, forget it, everyone already knows how stupid you are!

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You obviously didn't pay a whit of attention to the historical facts when you embraced your false and simplistic narrative. Here is how it went down, you willfully ignorant fucktard. All of the deflection and finger-pointing by Odumbo's apologists can't obscure the plain fact that OBAMA FUCKED IT UP. He put politics ahead of doing what was right in 2011. Read this - and try to pay attention for once in your miserably misguided life!




.

Bush put politics ahead of doing what was right in 2003. Checkmate. Chicken Dick. Admit he was wrong, for once in your miserable existence.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Once again, you're full of shit. The Council on Foreign Relations is centrist and non-partisan. Here are some links to substantiate that. Of course, shooting the messenger is the easier way out for an unthinking faux intellectual scoundrel like you. That way you don't have to deal with the substance of the arguments.

If you had any erudition or sophistication at all, you would know the Council on Foreign Relations publishes one of the most highly regarded and influential journals in the world – Foreign Affairs. It offers a platform for informed and intelligent opinions and debate on ALL sides of ALL foreign policy issues. Which means it is far above your pay grade or your woefully uninformed hyper-partisan gutter-sniping reading comprehension level.

According to the US News and World Report link below, the Council's employees favored Democrats over Republicans in their political donations by a whopping 70% to 30% margin. Does that sound like they're “in the tank for conservatives”?

Nice try, dogpatch faggot.


http://www.citizensource.com/Opinion...ThinkTanks.htm

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...port-democrats

Hyper-partisan. Says the dumbfuck who is shitting on Obama at every turn? You undermine any credibility you may have. We see you.

As for your articles, I don't buy it. Corporations often give equally to democrats and republicans. Doesn't mean shit. They're in the tank.