Is Obama the 21st century's "Neville Chamberlain"?

[JQPublic1]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....
Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

Nope. Obama did what the left wanted, not the American people. He kept his promise and people are being slaughtered. Nice work.

I don't see how you can separate the so-called "left" from the American people. They are the American people too. Frankly, though, I am doubtful that the "left" or "right" monikers really apply to people as rigidly as you posit. If that were the case, one party would have all the power all the time.

People are being killed in that region because BOOSH, killed the great stabilizer, Saddam Hussein under the false pretense of his alleged WMDs. Obama did the right thing and let those people decide their own fate. Two unfunded wars started by BOOSH on top of his extended tax cuts for the rich was far more destructive to our economy than you want to admit. Obama made the promise in light of that and kept it. He was elected again as a result by the American people.

 

[CowboyTed]

This is all a big joke, the RWs here have asked for the invasion of:
Syria
Yeman
Iran
Iraq

Now at the going rate of a war each of these countries will need
$2 trillion (low ball number)
250,000 troops
each

That is a total of $8 trillion and a million troops with no help from the rest of the world.

This is from the guys who thought (and alot still do) invading Iraq was a good idea. So RWs you had your failure a decade ago, we are not listening to you, no one is going to back your misadventures of troops on the ground all over ME.
You are proven losers, so let the adults clean up you mess and politely shut and stop embarrassing yourselves.

It is amazing how stupid these guys are... Eventually ISIS are going to have to run a country, that is where they are screwed.

Concentrate at spending your $8 trillion at home on new energy tech.

 

[JGalt]

The RIght WIng buzzards are circling again but they must be starving. There has been no political stench lately on which they could feed. So, they regurgitate a bit of Chamberlain' corpse on Obama's doorstep and soon other RW vultures join the party hoping Obama supporters will come out and fall on the slimy mess.


In addressing you birds of a feather one has t be careful, lest he/she be tainted by the fowl odors that define you and signal your presence. Standing up wind I say this:

Obama is no Chamberlain, nor is he a Jimmy Carter. I can't imagine either of those pusillanimous characters taking our Osama B. or using drones to kill militant Islamic leaders.... Even as he assures the Islamic world that he means them no harm.... heh heh heh! Smart man and he is on YOUR SIDE, idiots!

Neither one of those characters

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....

Yeah, Johnboy......we saw how well the "military modality" worked during the aughts.....

Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

Are you fucking smoking crack cocaine or something??? When did the American people start wanting to lose wars? It's when you shitheads on the Left, guided by your Marxist friends in Russia and China started telling us we are losing. This goes all the way back to Vietnam when you dick smokers and your news media were already telling us we lost.

You are completely oblivious to what has happened around your for the last 7 years. Pull your head out of your ass while you still have one. National debt? Obama has singlehandedly managed to make more money go up in smoke than all other presidents combined. What has taken every president in this country's history 239 years to do was doubled in only seven. Can you not do math? Come on, nobody could possibly be that brainwashed.

 

[JGalt]

This is all a big joke, the RWs here have asked for the invasion of:
Syria
Yeman
Iran
Iraq

Now at the going rate of a war each of these countries will need
$2 trillion (low ball number)
250,000 troops
each

That is a total of $8 trillion and a million troops with no help from the rest of the world.

This is from the guys who thought (and alot still do) invading Iraq was a good idea. So RWs you had your failure a decade ago, we are not listening to you, no one is going to back your misadventures of troops on the ground all over ME.
You are proven losers, so let the adults clean up you mess and politely shut and stop embarrassing yourselves.

It is amazing how stupid these guys are... Eventually ISIS are going to have to run a country, that is where they are screwed.

Concentrate at spending your $8 trillion at home on new energy tech.

Get your story straight. Nobody ever "invaded" Yemen. We had a deal worked out with them to launch drone strikes from their soil. It was working out great for His Majesty and he even got a Nobel Peace Prize for killing so many innocent women and children.

But he bungled that too and Yemen fell into terrorist hands. So His Majesty is having a harder time living up to his Nobel Prize.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama is an amateur with no training and no experience I don't know why anyone is surprised he looks the bungling fool.

 

[JGalt]

Obama is an amateur with no training and no experience I don't know why anyone is surprised he looks the bungling fool.

Unintentional or well-planned, he is the single worst threat to this country since September 11th, 2001. The Left can deny that all they want to and stick their heads in the sand if they want, but I seriously hope they get a good butt-fucking in the process.

Although from what I'm seeing most of them would probably enjoy it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama is an amateur with no training and no experience I don't know why anyone is surprised he looks the bungling fool.

Unintentional or well-planned, he is the single worst threat to this country since September 11th, 2001. The Left can deny that all they want to and stick their heads in the sand if they want, but I seriously hope they get a good butt-fucking in the process.

Although from what I'm seeing most of them would probably enjoy it.

If its any consolation it is the Democrats and their base who have suffered the most under him.

 

[Political Junky]

Neville Chamberlain was a conservative.

They always ignore that fact.

 

[Political Junky]

Obama has done far more damage than Chamberlain. The problem is he's the first mongrel president so he gets treated special.

Thank god you Cons aren't racist.

 

[JQPublic1]

The RIght WIng buzzards are circling again but they must be starving. There has been no political stench lately on which they could feed. So, they regurgitate a bit of Chamberlain' corpse on Obama's doorstep and soon other RW vultures join the party hoping Obama supporters will come out and fall on the slimy mess.


In addressing you birds of a feather one has t be careful, lest he/she be tainted by the fowl odors that define you and signal your presence. Standing up wind I say this:

Obama is no Chamberlain, nor is he a Jimmy Carter. I can't imagine either of those pusillanimous characters taking our Osama B. or using drones to kill militant Islamic leaders.... Even as he assures the Islamic world that he means them no harm.... heh heh heh! Smart man and he is on YOUR SIDE, idiots!

Neither one of those characters

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....
Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

Are you fucking smoking crack cocaine or something??? When did the American people start wanting to lose wars? It's when you shitheads on the Left, guided by your Marxist friends in Russia and China started telling us we are losing. This goes all the way back to Vietnam when you dick smokers and your news media were already telling us we lost.

You are completely oblivious to what has happened around your for the last 7 years. Pull your head out of your ass while you still have one. National debt? Obama has singlehandedly managed to make more money go up in smoke than all other presidents combined. What has taken every president in this country's history 239 years to do was doubled in only seven. Can you not do math? Come on, nobody could possibly be that brainwashed.

The war was won, Hussein was killed, his red guard was destroyed. That was, ostensibly, the object of Bush's invasion of IRAQ: Revenge for the attempted assassination of his father by Saddam. Obviously, the majority of Americans are more informed than you are and they didn't want to spend billions on other people's domestic problems.

I guess you didn't read posts #42 and especially #33? If you did read them and still think the way you do, you are just plain stupid.

I've already showed how two un-budgeted wars and extended tax cuts for the rich contributed significantly to that debt while the housing crisis and big bank bailouts, which started under Bush, were mushrooming out of control. Obama didn't create those disasters but he was left holding the bag when they occurred.

He has, under those dire circumstances, done a great job. Oh, yeah, even with the obstructionist republican house cats to contend with, Obama has prevailed. Ironically, spending under Obama has been less than any president in decades. Say it is due to the obstructionists if you will, but you can't have it both ways. Either Obama has spent the least of presidents in a long while or he has spent the most, even with the obstructionist GOP house cats holding the purse strings. Which is it?

 

[World Savior]

In short he IS.. The future both dark and bloody WILL prove that out.

Great! Nothing like a confederate flag carrying ignorant bigot to entertain us on this forum.

 

[JGalt]

Neville Chamberlain was a conservative.

They always ignore that fact.

What your definition of a "conservative" and the definition of a 1930's British "conservative: doesn't matter. What does matter is that you are witnessing a spineless selling out of your country to an enemy who would like nothing better than to put a bullet in you and your family's heads, burn down everything you own, and destroy any remembrance that you ever existed. Do you not see the similarity between Naziism and radical Islam? Wake up!

 

[JGalt]

The RIght WIng buzzards are circling again but they must be starving. There has been no political stench lately on which they could feed. So, they regurgitate a bit of Chamberlain' corpse on Obama's doorstep and soon other RW vultures join the party hoping Obama supporters will come out and fall on the slimy mess.


In addressing you birds of a feather one has t be careful, lest he/she be tainted by the fowl odors that define you and signal your presence. Standing up wind I say this:

Obama is no Chamberlain, nor is he a Jimmy Carter. I can't imagine either of those pusillanimous characters taking our Osama B. or using drones to kill militant Islamic leaders.... Even as he assures the Islamic world that he means them no harm.... heh heh heh! Smart man and he is on YOUR SIDE, idiots!

Neither one of those characters

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

Are you fucking smoking crack cocaine or something??? When did the American people start wanting to lose wars? It's when you shitheads on the Left, guided by your Marxist friends in Russia and China started telling us we are losing. This goes all the way back to Vietnam when you dick smokers and your news media were already telling us we lost.

You are completely oblivious to what has happened around your for the last 7 years. Pull your head out of your ass while you still have one. National debt? Obama has singlehandedly managed to make more money go up in smoke than all other presidents combined. What has taken every president in this country's history 239 years to do was doubled in only seven. Can you not do math? Come on, nobody could possibly be that brainwashed.

The war was won, Hussein was killed, his red guard was destroyed. That was, ostensibly, the object of Bush's invasion of IRAQ: Revenge for the attempted assassination of his father by Saddam. Obviously, the majority of Americans are more informed than you are and they didn't want to spend billions on other people's domestic problems.

I guess you didn't read posts #42 and especially #33? If you did read them and still think the way you do, you are just plain stupid.

I've already showed how two un-budgeted wars and extended tax cuts for the rich contributed significantly to that debt while the housing crisis and big bank bailouts, which started under Bush, were mushrooming out of control. Obama didn't create those disasters but he was left holding the bag when they occurred.

He has, under those dire circumstances, done a great job. Oh, yeah, even with the obstructionist republican house cats to contend with, Obama has prevailed. Ironically, spending under Obama has been less than any president in decades. Say it is due to the obstructionists if you will, but you can't have it both ways. Either Obama has spent the least of presidents in a long while or he has spent the most, even with the obstructionist GOP house cats holding the purse strings. Which is it?

Throw some made up figures and charts out there and hope someone believes you? You're both a liar and a tool, and not even doing a good job of convincing anyone but yourself.

 

[JQPublic1]

Obama is an amateur with no training and no experience I don't know why anyone is surprised he looks the bungling fool.

Obama has 7 years training and experience. Far more than any of the RW contenders out there including "the Donald."

 

[JQPublic1]

Neville Chamberlain was a conservative.

They always ignore that fact.

What your definition of a "conservative" and the definition of a 1930's British "conservative: doesn't matter. What does matter is that you are witnessing a spineless selling out of your country to an enemy who would like nothing better than to put a bullet in you and your family's heads, burn down everything you own, and destroy any remembrance that you ever existed. Do you not see the similarity between Naziism and radical Islam? Wake up!

Oh, I thought you were taking about the KKK, CCC or any number of Confederate flag wavers who have coalesced under the new banner of the GOP. That similarity to ISIS, Al Queda or the Taliban is uncanny, don't you think?

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama is an amateur with no training and no experience I don't know why anyone is surprised he looks the bungling fool.

Obama has 7 years training and experience. Far more than any of the RW contenders out there including "the Donald."

7 years of failure does not constitute experience you libs are funny!

 

[JGalt]

Obama is an amateur with no training and no experience I don't know why anyone is surprised he looks the bungling fool.

Obama has 7 years training and experience. Far more than any of the RW contenders out there including "the Donald."

Enough of the knob-slobbering already. You probably consider yourself a "master propagandist" along the line of Josef Goebbels, but nobody's buying it any more. Obama has failed at everything he's done for 7 years. But worst of all he's failed the people of this country. And even worse than that, is the fact that you keep pumping him up by spewing the same garbage over and over like some demented parrot. The DNC must be paying you well. You are not "John Q. Public". You are a Quisling, no better than that cocksucker in the White House who is selling this country out to the enemy.

 

[JGalt]

Neville Chamberlain was a conservative.

They always ignore that fact.

What your definition of a "conservative" and the definition of a 1930's British "conservative: doesn't matter. What does matter is that you are witnessing a spineless selling out of your country to an enemy who would like nothing better than to put a bullet in you and your family's heads, burn down everything you own, and destroy any remembrance that you ever existed. Do you not see the similarity between Naziism and radical Islam? Wake up!

Oh, I thought you were taking about the KKK, CCC or any number of Confederate flag wavers who have coalesced under the new banner of the GOP. That similarity to ISIS, Al Queda or the Taliban is uncanny, don't you think?

Actually, I don't. It's not my politics that have a higher body count than Stalin, it's yours. Since you monsters on the Left gave us abortion in the 70's, you really have some major blood on your hands. Real blood. I'm surprised you can even live with yourself, but then you probably have no conscience anyway.

 

[JQPublic1]

The RIght WIng buzzards are circling again but they must be starving. There has been no political stench lately on which they could feed. So, they regurgitate a bit of Chamberlain' corpse on Obama's doorstep and soon other RW vultures join the party hoping Obama supporters will come out and fall on the slimy mess.


In addressing you birds of a feather one has t be careful, lest he/she be tainted by the fowl odors that define you and signal your presence. Standing up wind I say this:

Obama is no Chamberlain, nor is he a Jimmy Carter. I can't imagine either of those pusillanimous characters taking our Osama B. or using drones to kill militant Islamic leaders.... Even as he assures the Islamic world that he means them no harm.... heh heh heh! Smart man and he is on YOUR SIDE, idiots!

Neither one of those characters

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

Are you fucking smoking crack cocaine or something??? When did the American people start wanting to lose wars? It's when you shitheads on the Left, guided by your Marxist friends in Russia and China started telling us we are losing. This goes all the way back to Vietnam when you dick smokers and your news media were already telling us we lost.

You are completely oblivious to what has happened around your for the last 7 years. Pull your head out of your ass while you still have one. National debt? Obama has singlehandedly managed to make more money go up in smoke than all other presidents combined. What has taken every president in this country's history 239 years to do was doubled in only seven. Can you not do math? Come on, nobody could possibly be that brainwashed.

The war was won, Hussein was killed, his red guard was destroyed. That was, ostensibly, the object of Bush's invasion of IRAQ: Revenge for the attempted assassination of his father by Saddam. Obviously, the majority of Americans are more informed than you are and they didn't want to spend billions on other people's domestic problems.

I guess you didn't read posts #42 and especially #33? If you did read them and still think the way you do, you are just plain stupid.

I've already showed how two un-budgeted wars and extended tax cuts for the rich contributed significantly to that debt while the housing crisis and big bank bailouts, which started under Bush, were mushrooming out of control. Obama didn't create those disasters but he was left holding the bag when they occurred.

He has, under those dire circumstances, done a great job. Oh, yeah, even with the obstructionist republican house cats to contend with, Obama has prevailed. Ironically, spending under Obama has been less than any president in decades. Say it is due to the obstructionists if you will, but you can't have it both ways. Either Obama has spent the least of presidents in a long while or he has spent the most, even with the obstructionist GOP house cats holding the purse strings. Which is it?

Throw some made up figures and charts out there and hope someone believes you? You're both a liar and a tool, and not even doing a good job of convincing anyone but yourself.

Made up figures? Did you read the fine print at the bottom of that chart. OMB means something as does CBO. If you are too stupid to know that OMB is the Office Of Management and Budget and that CBO means Congressional Budget Office, I pity you.
They don't make things up, especially with the GOP holding the purse strings, dope!

 

[JGalt]

The RIght WIng buzzards are circling again but they must be starving. There has been no political stench lately on which they could feed. So, they regurgitate a bit of Chamberlain' corpse on Obama's doorstep and soon other RW vultures join the party hoping Obama supporters will come out and fall on the slimy mess.


In addressing you birds of a feather one has t be careful, lest he/she be tainted by the fowl odors that define you and signal your presence. Standing up wind I say this:

Obama is no Chamberlain, nor is he a Jimmy Carter. I can't imagine either of those pusillanimous characters taking our Osama B. or using drones to kill militant Islamic leaders.... Even as he assures the Islamic world that he means them no harm.... heh heh heh! Smart man and he is on YOUR SIDE, idiots!

Neither one of those characters

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

Are you fucking smoking crack cocaine or something??? When did the American people start wanting to lose wars? It's when you shitheads on the Left, guided by your Marxist friends in Russia and China started telling us we are losing. This goes all the way back to Vietnam when you dick smokers and your news media were already telling us we lost.

You are completely oblivious to what has happened around your for the last 7 years. Pull your head out of your ass while you still have one. National debt? Obama has singlehandedly managed to make more money go up in smoke than all other presidents combined. What has taken every president in this country's history 239 years to do was doubled in only seven. Can you not do math? Come on, nobody could possibly be that brainwashed.

The war was won, Hussein was killed, his red guard was destroyed. That was, ostensibly, the object of Bush's invasion of IRAQ: Revenge for the attempted assassination of his father by Saddam. Obviously, the majority of Americans are more informed than you are and they didn't want to spend billions on other people's domestic problems.

I guess you didn't read posts #42 and especially #33? If you did read them and still think the way you do, you are just plain stupid.

I've already showed how two un-budgeted wars and extended tax cuts for the rich contributed significantly to that debt while the housing crisis and big bank bailouts, which started under Bush, were mushrooming out of control. Obama didn't create those disasters but he was left holding the bag when they occurred.

He has, under those dire circumstances, done a great job. Oh, yeah, even with the obstructionist republican house cats to contend with, Obama has prevailed. Ironically, spending under Obama has been less than any president in decades. Say it is due to the obstructionists if you will, but you can't have it both ways. Either Obama has spent the least of presidents in a long while or he has spent the most, even with the obstructionist GOP house cats holding the purse strings. Which is it?

Throw some made up figures and charts out there and hope someone believes you? You're both a liar and a tool, and not even doing a good job of convincing anyone but yourself.

Made up figures? Did you read the fine print at the bottom of that chart. OMB means something as does CBO. If you are too stupid to know that OMB is the Office Of Management and Budget and that CBO means Congressional Budget Office, I pity you.
They don't make things up, especially with the GOP holding the purse strings, dope!

Lying again. People aren't buying into it any more. I could make a simple chart like that in Word and make it say anything I want, plus put CBO, OMB, or any fucking thing I wanted to on the bottom. Do you fucking think everyone is as stupid as you are, you fucking inbred peasant?

Quit lying. Yours is the party of liars. Your president was voted to have told the "Lie of the Year" my a major magazine.

Now go curl up in your closet, suck your thumb, and cry yourself to sleep you little twinkie.