President Obama: 487 documented examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption & cronyism!

[Flash]

All politicians lie. It is not a new phenomenon.

They lie because they know they can fool most of the people most of the time.

Had Monica Lewinsky not produced the blue stained dress, millions of Americans would believe Bubba's lies.

Obama has lied more blatantly and more often than anybody I have ever seen in politics. He has set the new bar on it.

 

[konradv]

Didn't Cheney donate any money he would get from Halliburton to charity? Another failed attempt from deany. Also the last I heard Obama is still using Halliburton.

Without proof I'd say he didn't. You righties will swallow just about anything, if it comes from one of your approved sources.

 

[konradv]

Obama has lied more blatantly and more often than anybody I have ever seen in politics. He has set the new bar on it.

I don't know, it's pretty tough to beat calling Iraq an "immediate threat" to the U.S. and invoking a threat of mushroom clouds from Saddam. Both examples are much sketchier than anything Obama has said.

 

[jknowgood]

Didn't Cheney donate any money he would get from Halliburton to charity? Another failed attempt from deany. Also the last I heard Obama is still using Halliburton.

Without proof I'd say he didn't. You righties will swallow just about anything, if it comes from one of your approved sources.

Google it, I don't know of a single democrat that would do something like that.

 

[Flash]

Obama has lied more blatantly and more often than anybody I have ever seen in politics. He has set the new bar on it.

I don't know, it's pretty tough to beat calling Iraq an "immediate threat" to the U.S. and invoking a threat of mushroom clouds from Saddam. Both examples are much sketchier than anything Obama has said.

Bush caused me to dump the Republican Party a decade ago because of his big government polices so I have no love for him. The only thing I really think he did good is to initiate the income tax cut, which kept our economy from tanking after 911. Otherwise he was just another big government progressive.

I always opposed the Iraq War and I thought his excuse of WMDs to be a poor excuse for an invasion. However, I honestly don't think he knowing lied. I think that he was looking for an excuse to invade and found one that later proved to be incorrect. That is different that the blatant lying that we seen from the Obama Administration over Obamacare, the IRS scandal, Benghazi and others.

If you think that Bush lied over Iraq then you have to extend that to Obama's list because he continued with the war for three years and then called it a success.

I would say that Obama lied about Libya being somehow a threat to the US but he never articulated a real reason for the bombing. First it was he was doing the bombing for humanitarian reasons and then when it got closer to Qaddafi then it was to get him or some bullshit like that. All along it was just to secure the Libyan oilfields for the Europeans. The Euros put a lot of pressure on Obama to do it and he succumbed.

 

[Stephanie]

All politicians lie. It is not a new phenomenon.

They lie because they know they can fool most of the people most of the time.

Had Monica Lewinsky not produced the blue stained dress, millions of Americans would believe Bubba's lies.

Obama has lied more blatantly and more often than anybody I have ever seen in politics. He has set the new bar on it.

He take the prize. I've never seen a President lie like he does...It's downright scary and evil in my book. I don't how he lives with himself

 

[konradv]

Didn't Cheney donate any money he would get from Halliburton to charity?

Without proof I'd say he didn't.

Google it, I don't know of a single democrat that would do something like that.

Your contention; your obligation to provide evidence.

 

[jknowgood]

Didn't Cheney donate any money he would get from Halliburton to charity?

Without proof I'd say he didn't.

Google it, I don't know of a single democrat that would do something like that.

Your contention; your obligation to provide evidence.

20% capital partners for education
40% George Washington university medical faculty
40% university of Wyoming
That's the donations he gave, also paid taxes on the money before he donated it and didn't take the tax deduction he could have. Sucks being a hater, huh?

 

[konradv]

20% capital partners for education
40% George Washington university medical faculty
40% university of Wyoming
That's the donations he gave, also paid taxes on the money before he donated it and didn't take the tax deduction he could have. Sucks being a hater, huh?

That's not evidence, but I guess you do know all about being a hater

 

[gipper]

Obama has lied more blatantly and more often than anybody I have ever seen in politics. He has set the new bar on it.

I don't know, it's pretty tough to beat calling Iraq an "immediate threat" to the U.S. and invoking a threat of mushroom clouds from Saddam. Both examples are much sketchier than anything Obama has said.

BO and W are both liars, as nearly all of presidents are...though the MSM actually did their job under W, thus exposing his lies. Not so much under BO.

Both men can't hold a candle to FDR and LBJ. Both of whom caused the needless deaths of thousands of Americans in wars that should have been avoided.

So look at the bright side. BO has yet to cause the deaths of 420,000 Americans, as FDR did...and yet, some Americans consider FDR a great POTUS.

Should BO cause war with Russia, maybe he will be considered great too.

 

[jknowgood]

20% capital partners for education
40% George Washington university medical faculty
40% university of Wyoming
That's the donations he gave, also paid taxes on the money before he donated it and didn't take the tax deduction he could have. Sucks being a hater, huh?

That's not evidence, but I guess you do know all about being a hater

Not really i'm glad Cheney made liberals look like the idiots you are, and gave it to charity. Makes the heart feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Funny how how Pubs just talk and talk bs about this, and never DO anything about this, hater dupes. 487 pieces of poop, for brainwashed chumps only.

 

[francoHFW]

Obama has lied more blatantly and more often than anybody I have ever seen in politics. He has set the new bar on it.

I don't know, it's pretty tough to beat calling Iraq an "immediate threat" to the U.S. and invoking a threat of mushroom clouds from Saddam. Both examples are much sketchier than anything Obama has said.

.
BO and W are both liars, as nearly all of presidents are..though the MSM actually did their job under W, thus exposing his lies. Not so much under BO.

Both men can't hold a candle to FDR and LBJ. Both of whom caused the needless deaths of thousands of Americans in wars that should have been avoided.

So look at the bright. BO has yet to cause the death of 420,000 Americans, as FDR did...and yet, some Americans consider FDR a great POTUS.

Should BO cause war with Russia, maybe he will be considered great too.

The hell they did, until years later. They now repeat Pub bs without any journalistic fact checking. Pathetic.

 

[konradv]

Not really i'm glad Cheney made liberals look like the idiots you are, and gave it to charity. Makes the heart feel all warm and fuzzy.

Do even understand what proof is? You haven't proven anything yet.

 

[Faun]

Great .... another 448 and he'll finally catch up to Bush ...

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

 

[Flash]

BO and W are both liars, as nearly all of presidents are...though the MSM actually did their job under W, thus exposing his lies. Not so much under BO.

Both men can't hold a candle to FDR and LBJ. Both of whom caused the needless deaths of thousands of Americans in wars that should have been avoided.

So look at the bright side. BO has yet to cause the deaths of 420,000 Americans, as FDR did...and yet, some Americans consider FDR a great POTUS.

Should BO cause war with Russia, maybe he will be considered great too.

Lets not forget FDR's lies about the Great Depression. He blamed it on everybody except himself. Economists believe that his commie policies of blaming business instead of the government extended the depression by seven years. No telling how many Americans starved to death during that period.

FDR s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years UCLA economists calculate UCLA

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

 

[Spare_change]

I have sat here, and dutifully read every one of the 53 posts thus far.

I am absolutely amazed by the level of ignorance, naivete, and downright lies on both sides of this discussion. There's an old saying, "You're allowed to have an opinion about everything, whether you know anything about it or not." Well, it certainly has been stressed here.

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president. Those who do are guilty of a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time, refuse to consider the geopolitical situation, and have conveniently forgotten their own complicity. Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface. Frankly, presidents after six months barely know where the bathrooms are in the WH, much less have an in-depth grasp of the geopolitical situation. They rely on their advisers to provide them insight, alternatives, and recommendations.

In this case, the idea that 19 terrorists would capture three airplanes and slam them into buildings was, simply, beyond the pale. It was not something terrorists had ever tried, no intercepted data revealed this plan. It simply just wasn't an alternative. Data that would indicate that would tend to be disregarded ... reports that indicated increased terrorist activities would be seriously considered, but flying airplanes into buildings would have, in all probability, have been given very little credibility.

So, 9/11 happened - now, a response had to be orchestrated. It would have been easy to bomb Riyadh, SA into submission (more on that later), but you have give the administration credit for not over-reacting. Instead, they looked at the total Middle East situation. There needed to be developed a total strategy to resolve the complete Middle East problem, not just punish a small group of people who had the temerity to attack the US. Such an attack would only exacerbate the Middle East problem.

No one seriously questioned that Iran was the primary source of trouble in the ME, and would have to be dealt with. However, Iraq had the 3rd largest Army in the world, and had a history of using WMDs. If the coalition attacked Iran directly, Iraq would step into the power vacuum, and in conjunction with Syria and Libya, present a more formidable foe in the future.

In addition, Iraq occupied a unique geographical position in the Middle East. If you look at a map, Turkey and Iraq control the western borders of Iraq, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan control the eastern Iranian border. Given the working agreements with Pakistan and Turkey, controlling Iraq and Afghanistan isolates Iran from other terrorist-supporting states, such as Syria and Libya. The primary reasons Iraq was selected: 1) Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, 2) Iraq was a serious military challenge, 3) Iraq had a proven track record of war crimes and WMDs, and 4) Iraq occupied a crucial tactical geographical position.

As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did. The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge. All the decision makers knew the deal, and all of Congress voted for it. It's nice, convenient, and it satisfies our need to ignore our own complicity, but the reality is, we were all complicit in that decision.

It is impossible for us to admit that we participated in a decision that we now regret ... therefore, we have to find somebody to blame. Some blame Bush ... but most blame Cheney. It's a lot easier than looking in the mirror.

2) Post-Bush, Obama has had an "anti-war at all costs" agenda. He sabotaged the Iraq SOFA discussions in order to advance his pre-election promise to get us out of Iraq, over the objec ... errr .... recommendations of his military advisers. He delayed his surge decision in Afghanistan over 90 days (how long does it take to make a decision, anyway?) and then, only provided about 60% of the troops requested. He compounded that by arbitrarily defining a withdrawal date, and announced it to the public, thus greatly hampering actions in-country. Some will agree with his approach, some will oppose it. But, the simply truth is that he has no taste for war - under any circumstances.

The infamous 'red line in the sand' scenario is another example - he threatened, and then he failed to back it up. We can talk about 'consensus' and 'international opinion', but the fact is that he said it, and he has to back it up. His retreat greatly harmed his position in the international community.

3) As for the lying .... Obama is an idealist. He intentionally uses 'misstatements' to accomplish his political goals, He, frankly, doesn't care one way or the other what people think of his honor. He strongly believes that he will be judged by his legacy, not by his methodology. Right or wrong? Who knows?

 

[Stephanie]

I have sat here, and dutifully read every one of the 53 posts thus far.

I am absolutely amazed by the level of ignorance, naivete, and downright lies on both sides of this discussion. There's an old saying, "You're allowed to have an opinion about everything, whether you know anything about it or not." Well, it certainly has been stressed here.

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president. Those who do are guilty of a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time, refuse to consider the geopolitical situation, and have conveniently forgotten their own complicity. Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface. Frankly, presidents after six months barely know where the bathrooms are in the WH, much less have an in-depth grasp of the geopolitical situation. They rely on their advisers to provide them insight, alternatives, and recommendations.

In this case, the idea that 19 terrorists would capture three airplanes and slam them into buildings was, simply, beyond the pale. It was not something terrorists had ever tried, no intercepted data revealed this plan. It simply just wasn't an alternative. Data that would indicate that would tend to be disregarded ... reports that indicated increased terrorist activities would be seriously considered, but flying airplanes into buildings would have, in all probability, have been given very little credibility.

So, 9/11 happened - now, a response had to be orchestrated. It would have been easy to bomb Riyadh, SA into submission (more on that later), but you have give the administration credit for not over-reacting. Instead, they looked at the total Middle East situation. There needed to be developed a total strategy to resolve the complete Middle East problem, not just punish a small group of people who had the temerity to attack the US. Such an attack would only exacerbate the Middle East problem.

No one seriously questioned that Iran was the primary source of trouble in the ME, and would have to be dealt with. However, Iraq had the 3rd largest Army in the world, and had a history of using WMDs. If the coalition attacked Iran directly, Iraq would step into the power vacuum, and in conjunction with Syria and Libya, present a more formidable foe in the future.

In addition, Iraq occupied a unique geographical position in the Middle East. If you look at a map, Turkey and Iraq control the western borders of Iraq, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan control the eastern Iranian border. Given the working agreements with Pakistan and Turkey, controlling Iraq and Afghanistan isolates Iran from other terrorist-supporting states, such as Syria and Libya. The primary reasons Iraq was selected: 1) Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, 2) Iraq was a serious military challenge, 3) Iraq had a proven track record of war crimes and WMDs, and 4) Iraq occupied a crucial tactical geographical position.

As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did. The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge. All the decision makers knew the deal, and all of Congress voted for it. It's nice, convenient, and it satisfies our need to ignore our own complicity, but the reality is, we were all complicit in that decision.

It is impossible for us to admit that we participated in a decision that we now regret ... therefore, we have to find somebody to blame. Some blame Bush ... but most blame Cheney. It's a lot easier than looking in the mirror.

2) Post-Bush, Obama has had an "anti-war at all costs" agenda. He sabotaged the Iraq SOFA discussions in order to advance his pre-election promise to get us out of Iraq, over the objec ... errr .... recommendations of his military advisers. He delayed his surge decision in Afghanistan over 90 days (how long does it take to make a decision, anyway?) and then, only provided about 60% of the troops requested. He compounded that by arbitrarily defining a withdrawal date, and announced it to the public, thus greatly hampering actions in-country. Some will agree with his approach, some will oppose it. But, the simply truth is that he has no taste for war - under any circumstances.

The infamous 'red line in the sand' scenario is another example - he threatened, and then he failed to back it up. We can talk about 'consensus' and 'international opinion', but the fact is that he said it, and he has to back it up. His retreat greatly harmed his position in the international community.

3) As for the lying .... Obama is an idealist. He intentionally uses 'misstatements' to accomplish his political goals, He, frankly, doesn't care one way or the other what people think of his honor. He strongly believes that he will be judged by his legacy, not by his methodology. Right or wrong? Who knows?

No one forces you to do anything. but you are longwinded and petty much a jerk. I don't why people would pay you any attention

 

[Spare_change]

I have sat here, and dutifully read every one of the 53 posts thus far.

I am absolutely amazed by the level of ignorance, naivete, and downright lies on both sides of this discussion. There's an old saying, "You're allowed to have an opinion about everything, whether you know anything about it or not." Well, it certainly has been stressed here.

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president. Those who do are guilty of a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time, refuse to consider the geopolitical situation, and have conveniently forgotten their own complicity. Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface. Frankly, presidents after six months barely know where the bathrooms are in the WH, much less have an in-depth grasp of the geopolitical situation. They rely on their advisers to provide them insight, alternatives, and recommendations.

In this case, the idea that 19 terrorists would capture three airplanes and slam them into buildings was, simply, beyond the pale. It was not something terrorists had ever tried, no intercepted data revealed this plan. It simply just wasn't an alternative. Data that would indicate that would tend to be disregarded ... reports that indicated increased terrorist activities would be seriously considered, but flying airplanes into buildings would have, in all probability, have been given very little credibility.

So, 9/11 happened - now, a response had to be orchestrated. It would have been easy to bomb Riyadh, SA into submission (more on that later), but you have give the administration credit for not over-reacting. Instead, they looked at the total Middle East situation. There needed to be developed a total strategy to resolve the complete Middle East problem, not just punish a small group of people who had the temerity to attack the US. Such an attack would only exacerbate the Middle East problem.

No one seriously questioned that Iran was the primary source of trouble in the ME, and would have to be dealt with. However, Iraq had the 3rd largest Army in the world, and had a history of using WMDs. If the coalition attacked Iran directly, Iraq would step into the power vacuum, and in conjunction with Syria and Libya, present a more formidable foe in the future.

In addition, Iraq occupied a unique geographical position in the Middle East. If you look at a map, Turkey and Iraq control the western borders of Iraq, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan control the eastern Iranian border. Given the working agreements with Pakistan and Turkey, controlling Iraq and Afghanistan isolates Iran from other terrorist-supporting states, such as Syria and Libya. The primary reasons Iraq was selected: 1) Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, 2) Iraq was a serious military challenge, 3) Iraq had a proven track record of war crimes and WMDs, and 4) Iraq occupied a crucial tactical geographical position.

As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did. The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge. All the decision makers knew the deal, and all of Congress voted for it. It's nice, convenient, and it satisfies our need to ignore our own complicity, but the reality is, we were all complicit in that decision.

It is impossible for us to admit that we participated in a decision that we now regret ... therefore, we have to find somebody to blame. Some blame Bush ... but most blame Cheney. It's a lot easier than looking in the mirror.

2) Post-Bush, Obama has had an "anti-war at all costs" agenda. He sabotaged the Iraq SOFA discussions in order to advance his pre-election promise to get us out of Iraq, over the objec ... errr .... recommendations of his military advisers. He delayed his surge decision in Afghanistan over 90 days (how long does it take to make a decision, anyway?) and then, only provided about 60% of the troops requested. He compounded that by arbitrarily defining a withdrawal date, and announced it to the public, thus greatly hampering actions in-country. Some will agree with his approach, some will oppose it. But, the simply truth is that he has no taste for war - under any circumstances.

The infamous 'red line in the sand' scenario is another example - he threatened, and then he failed to back it up. We can talk about 'consensus' and 'international opinion', but the fact is that he said it, and he has to back it up. His retreat greatly harmed his position in the international community.

3) As for the lying .... Obama is an idealist. He intentionally uses 'misstatements' to accomplish his political goals, He, frankly, doesn't care one way or the other what people think of his honor. He strongly believes that he will be judged by his legacy, not by his methodology. Right or wrong? Who knows?

No one forces you to do anything. but you are longwinded and petty much a jerk. I don't why people would pay you any attention

Same reason they pay attention to you, I reckon ... oh wait, they don't.

If you can't handle an in-depth discussion of an issue, you probably should just go ahead and continue to quote headlines and sound bytes.

 

[Faun]

I have sat here, and dutifully read every one of the 53 posts thus far.

I am absolutely amazed by the level of ignorance, naivete, and downright lies on both sides of this discussion. There's an old saying, "You're allowed to have an opinion about everything, whether you know anything about it or not." Well, it certainly has been stressed here.

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president. Those who do are guilty of a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time, refuse to consider the geopolitical situation, and have conveniently forgotten their own complicity. Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface. Frankly, presidents after six months barely know where the bathrooms are in the WH, much less have an in-depth grasp of the geopolitical situation. They rely on their advisers to provide them insight, alternatives, and recommendations.

In this case, the idea that 19 terrorists would capture three airplanes and slam them into buildings was, simply, beyond the pale. It was not something terrorists had ever tried, no intercepted data revealed this plan. It simply just wasn't an alternative. Data that would indicate that would tend to be disregarded ... reports that indicated increased terrorist activities would be seriously considered, but flying airplanes into buildings would have, in all probability, have been given very little credibility.

So, 9/11 happened - now, a response had to be orchestrated. It would have been easy to bomb Riyadh, SA into submission (more on that later), but you have give the administration credit for not over-reacting. Instead, they looked at the total Middle East situation. There needed to be developed a total strategy to resolve the complete Middle East problem, not just punish a small group of people who had the temerity to attack the US. Such an attack would only exacerbate the Middle East problem.

No one seriously questioned that Iran was the primary source of trouble in the ME, and would have to be dealt with. However, Iraq had the 3rd largest Army in the world, and had a history of using WMDs. If the coalition attacked Iran directly, Iraq would step into the power vacuum, and in conjunction with Syria and Libya, present a more formidable foe in the future.

In addition, Iraq occupied a unique geographical position in the Middle East. If you look at a map, Turkey and Iraq control the western borders of Iraq, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan control the eastern Iranian border. Given the working agreements with Pakistan and Turkey, controlling Iraq and Afghanistan isolates Iran from other terrorist-supporting states, such as Syria and Libya. The primary reasons Iraq was selected: 1) Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, 2) Iraq was a serious military challenge, 3) Iraq had a proven track record of war crimes and WMDs, and 4) Iraq occupied a crucial tactical geographical position.

As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did. The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge. All the decision makers knew the deal, and all of Congress voted for it. It's nice, convenient, and it satisfies our need to ignore our own complicity, but the reality is, we were all complicit in that decision.

It is impossible for us to admit that we participated in a decision that we now regret ... therefore, we have to find somebody to blame. Some blame Bush ... but most blame Cheney. It's a lot easier than looking in the mirror.

2) Post-Bush, Obama has had an "anti-war at all costs" agenda. He sabotaged the Iraq SOFA discussions in order to advance his pre-election promise to get us out of Iraq, over the objec ... errr .... recommendations of his military advisers. He delayed his surge decision in Afghanistan over 90 days (how long does it take to make a decision, anyway?) and then, only provided about 60% of the troops requested. He compounded that by arbitrarily defining a withdrawal date, and announced it to the public, thus greatly hampering actions in-country. Some will agree with his approach, some will oppose it. But, the simply truth is that he has no taste for war - under any circumstances.

The infamous 'red line in the sand' scenario is another example - he threatened, and then he failed to back it up. We can talk about 'consensus' and 'international opinion', but the fact is that he said it, and he has to back it up. His retreat greatly harmed his position in the international community.

3) As for the lying .... Obama is an idealist. He intentionally uses 'misstatements' to accomplish his political goals, He, frankly, doesn't care one way or the other what people think of his honor. He strongly believes that he will be judged by his legacy, not by his methodology. Right or wrong? Who knows?

For one thing, you're wrong when you assert every member of Congress was provided the same intel as Bush. Obviously, only select members of Congress possess the same level of clearance as the president.

Also, you mentioned Iran ... who kept Iran in check before we invaded Iraq?