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

[Spare_change]

SC 10392994

Make it easy --- explain the responses to the other 49 questions ... we'll wait. Clearly, they construct a picture far different from the nonsense you're trying to shovel.

Clearly you are mistaken. On March 04&05 2003 60 percent of respondents answered YES in favor of Bush waiting and giving the UN inspectors more time to finish their work. I make no other point than exactly that.

It is a fact you cannot accept because it defies your false premise and slur against the majority of Americans around after the 9/11 attacks who
were not hungry for revenge to be taken out on Iraqis who had nothing to do with what sl Qaeds from Afghanistan leadership did,

FYI I would have answered other question that I approved of taking military action against Iraq if Iraq did not allow inspectors to return as he actually did. So the other question do not change my strong preference that Bush give the inspectors the time they needed to finish and avoid war.

So I was not hungry for revenge with regard to Iraq and WMD, I was hungrier for the UN and Iraq to resolve the matter peacefully.

Your characterization of my views and those of 6 of 10 Americans prior to the invasion as hungry for revenge is careless and foolish on your part.

I was not hungry for revenge in 2003 and that is exactly why I am certain that the best course back then was to let the inspections play out.

That there was no threat from Iraq when the invasion was launched is obvious by your stunt to blame it on hunger for revenge rather than a credible threat in the first place. Had there truly been a credible threat there wouid have been no such option to respondents in a poll to have ongoing inspections continue. Now would there?

I have no doubt that using the threat of military force backed in advance of resumed inspections by the US Congress in October 2002 contributed to the fact that Saddam did in fact allow the inspectors to return and begin resolving the WMD issues in unprecedented actions taken by the Iraqi regime.

The issue under discussion is not what YOU think, or what YOU would have done ... you tried to intentionally mislead readers by perverting history, misrepresenting the opinions of the people at that time, and trying to apply reverse engineering to show how wrong the decision was.

It is your credibility that is in question, not your political position.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10393507

The issue under discussion is not what YOU think, or what YOU would have done

I know. It is about what you wrote that you think most Americans were hungry for revenge to be taken out on Iraq.

You claimed to know that I oppose the war NOW but didn't oppose the war THEN. If its not about what I think then why did you tell me what I think now and thought then about the US invasion of Iraq.

Is this a restricted monologue where you are the only one who is qualified to post what you think went on during the run up to the US invasion of Iraq?

When did that happen.

SC 10388097

See? This is my point --- you selectively chose a single question that seemed to support your position. However, when you look at the survey in toto, you get a completely different picture

Wait a minute. I cited one question that shows consistent opinion by nearly six of ten respondents who wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time.

What completely different picture of that question and answer do you see?

Are you saying a majority of Americans wanted Bush to end inspections right away because of how they answered the other questions?

You make no sense. Perhaps you can explain what the different picture is .

I keep reading that poll question and when I read the others it does not change. It still reads that nearly six of ten Americans in that poll consistently wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time.

What do you think that question and answer is saying?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10393507

you tried to intentionally mislead readers by perverting history

That is a vague, general unsubstantiated charge. What history did I pervert?

If some historical fact that I have put in writing is not true or may be incorrect you need to spell it out so I can see if it needs to be corrected. How can I come to know all the historical truth that you possess if you won't tell me and that readers what has supposedly been 'perverted' by me?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10393507

Hardly the picture of an electorate that was being fooled ... they seem to pretty much know what was going on, and understood the cost of taking action. Further, they clearly thought the US was on the right track, and showed much less confidence in the UN.

I see where you have made your gross and disturbingly inexplicable error. You believe somehow for no reason that I am trying to paint some picture that the electorate in the first three months of 2003 was being fooled.

That is nonsense. I am quite clearly saying the electorate (nearly six of ten) at the time was impressively wise in wanting Bush to give the inspectors more time. And that 'wisdom' was maintained despite the anti-UN media and government barrage that was launched in support of invasion.

You are the one presenting the generalized case for a stupefied electorate motivated by a hunger for revenge in the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks, not me.

Most Americans preferred to give inspectors more time. That means they would support an invasion of Iraq if the UN inspectors confirmed without a doubt that Iraq was never going to be brought into WMD compliance,

Six of ten of us very wise Americans have every right to condemn and blame Bush for not heeding our advice.

And you cannot dissolve that fact that was confirmed in the same poll where the rest of it you like just because you want all Americans to be lumped in with your 'hungry for revenge' nonsense,

Most Americans were smarter than you think. And it's quite obvious by this exchange that they were in pre-invasion 2003, much smarter than you.

 

[Politico]

Now there should be something in this list for everyone. I will start out with the one I think he is most guilty but no one seems to give much a crap.

16) Had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process

Obama had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process.

The ACLU accused Obama of violating the U.S. Constitution for doing this.

U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) said that Obama’s actions might be an impeachable offense.

President Obama 487 documented examples of his lying lawbreaking corruption cronyism - Dr. Rich Swier

Only four? Shame.

Obama didn't take us into Afghanistan.

No he has just kept us there.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10393507

and trying to apply reverse engineering to show how wrong the decision was.

I'm not sure what the charge of 'reverse engineering' is about, but I do need to make sure that the 'decision' you are referring to is the same decision that I have been referring to,

That is the decision made between March 7, 2003 and March 17, 2003 that the peaceful means of disarming Iraq through ongoing UN Security Council sanctioned inspections under UNSC Resolution 1441 should not be given more time because they would not lead to a determination by the UN inspectors that Iraq could be brought into full compliance.

That decision was made by George W Bush and by him alone.

No one else made that decision or determination but Bush.

I have not engineered that reality. It is reality.

 

[zeke]

Six of ten of us very wise Americans have every right to condemn and blame Bush for not heeding our advice.

Amen.

 

[Spare_change]

SC 10393507

Hardly the picture of an electorate that was being fooled ... they seem to pretty much know what was going on, and understood the cost of taking action. Further, they clearly thought the US was on the right track, and showed much less confidence in the UN.

I see where you have made your gross and disturbingly inexplicable error. You believe somehow for no reason that I am trying to paint some picture that the electorate in the first three months of 2003 was being fooled.

That is nonsense. I am quite clearly saying the electorate (nearly six of ten) at the time was impressively wise in wanting Bush to give the inspectors more time. And that 'wisdom' was maintained despite the anti-UN media and government barrage that was launched in support of invasion.

You are the one presenting the generalized case for a stupefied electorate motivated by a hunger for revenge in the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks, not me.

Most Americans preferred to give inspectors more time. That means they would support an invasion of Iraq if the UN inspectors confirmed without a doubt that Iraq was never going to be brought into WMD compliance,

Six of ten of us very wise Americans have every right to condemn and blame Bush for not heeding our advice.

And you cannot dissolve that fact that was confirmed in the same poll where the rest of it you like just because you want all Americans to be lumped in with your 'hungry for revenge' nonsense,

Most Americans were smarter than you think. And it's quite obvious by this exchange that they were in pre-invasion 2003, much smarter than you.

Go back to your vaunted poll (versus a vaulting pole) ... you continue to extol the virtues of a single question artfully removed from context.

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? 56 – 89% approval

2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling foreign policy? 51 – 75% approval

4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq? 51 – 54% approval

8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power? 66 – 74% approval

9. How would you rate the way the United Nations is handling the situation with Iraq? Is it doing a good job or a poor job handling Iraq? 48 – 58% Good job

12. Do you think the Bush Administration has presented enough evidence to show that military action against Iraq is necessary right now, or haven't they done that yet? 45 – 52% yes

13. What if the U.N. Security Council votes against the U.S. sponsored resolution to take military action against Iraq? Would you approve or disapprove of the U.S. taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power without U.N. approval? 55% approval

15. Do you have confidence that George W. Bush will make the right decision about a possible war with Iraq or are you uneasy about his approach? 52% yes

16. Do you have confidence in George W. Bush's ability to deal wisely with an international crisis, or are you uneasy about his approach? 46 – 55% have confidence

23. From what you know so far about Iraq's level of cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, how much would you say Iraq is cooperating C a lot, some, not much, or none at all? Some 36 not much 41 not at all 20

32. Do you think removing Saddam Hussein from power is worth the potential loss of American life and the other costs of attacking Iraq, or not? 46 – 57% worth it

34. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq would result in substantial Iraqi civilian casualties, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq? 46 – 50% favor

35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq? 47 – 49 Favor 46 - opposed

47. Do you think removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq will lead to greater stability in the Middle East, less stability, or won't it have any effect on the stability of the Middle East? 55 greater stability – 19 less

Now, explain to me how a poll that records that kind of confidence, and commitment, by the American people can possibly be construed as failing to support the actions of the President. When you consider an electorate that is THAT aware, and that involved, and that much in support of the President, for you to try to use a single response to support your position is, simply, intellectually dishonest. You cannot misconstrue the position of the American people based on a single response - but you did.

 

[g5000]

A quick scan of the list reveals it is pretty much a lot of whining. Mostly whines about promises he broke or things he said which the list compiler didn't like.

Supported the $700 billion TARP corporate-welfare bailout just like Bush

 

[g5000]

And just for the record, it should be well known I oppose TARP. I blasted it just the other day, in fact.

But I strongly believe the Right needs to stop being a pack of whining, pessimistic cowards and start putting solutions on the table instead.

All this whining is a big smoke screen to conceal the Right's own utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

 

[Spare_change]

And just for the record, it should be well known I oppose TARP. I blasted it just the other day, in fact.

But I strongly believe the Right needs to stop being a pack of whining, pessimistic cowards and start putting solutions on the table instead.

All this whining is a big smoke screen to conceal the Right's own utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

You're right ... all those solutions sent to the Dem Senate don't mean a thing ... the fact that the liberal left has blocked every proposal for the past 6 years means nothing ... NOTHING, I say !!!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

• Now, explain to me how a poll that records that kind of confidence, and commitment, by the American people can possibly be construed as failing to support the actions of the President

It is because at the time the poll was taken most of the respondents believed that Bush was working hard to reach a diplomatic solution as he had promised. We were still giving Bush the benefit of the doubt that he would not be too quick to get American military forces involved unless it was absolutely necessary.

. 14. In its dealings with Iraq, do you think the Bush Administration tries hard enough to reach diplomatic solutions, or is it too quick to get American military forces involved?

• Tries hard enough to reach diplomatic solution
• Too quick to get forces involved
• DK/NA

01/19-22/03 38 55 07
02/05-06/03 47 43 10
02/10-12/03 45 48 07
03/07-09/03 51 41 07.

Having roughly six of ten Americans having confidence that their president would use restraint and good judgment before committing Americans to a war of choice in no way conflicts with those same Americans committing to support a sound decision that results in war if that good judgment by the president were to be employed.

15. Do you have confidence that George W. Bush will make the right decision about a possible war with Iraq or are you uneasy about his approach?

• Confidence
• Uneasy
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 52 46 03

Do you have something against demanding good judgment from a president who might be deciding to start a war only if it proved to be absolutely necessary,

The restraint and good judgment questions are as follows:

• give the inspectors more time before taking military action against Iraq.
• take into account the views of its allies before taking military action against Iraq.
• take into account a veto of the resolution before taking military action against Iraq.
• recognized that Bush did not have a plan for aftermath of regime change.

For the record:

. 21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time

• Take action soon
• Give inspectors time
• DK/NA

02/05-06/03 35 61 04
02/10-12/03 37 59 03
02/24-25/03 36 62 02
03/04-05/03 35 60 05
03/07-09/03 44 52 04

. 10. When it comes to Iraq, do you think United States should do what it thinks is right no matter what its allies think, or should the U.S. take into account the views of its allies before taking action?

• Do what it thinks right
• Take allies into account
• DK/NA

02/24-25/03 27 70 03
03/04-05/03 38 56 06
03/07-09/03 36 60 04

11. When it comes to Iraq, do you think the United States should do what it thinks is right even if countries like Russia, France or China vetoes the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, or should the United States take into account a veto of the resolution before taking action?

• What it thinks right
• Take veto into account
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 44 49 07

45. So far, do you think the Bush Administration has developed a clear plan for rebuilding Iraq after a possible war there, or hasn't it developed one yet?

• Has a clear plan
• Not done that yet
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 29 49 22

Are these answers expressing confidence in the Bush Administration?

37. Do you think the members of the Bush Administration are telling people everything they need to know about the reasons for possibly attacking Iraq at this time or are they not telling the public important information it needs to know?

• Telling everything
• Not telling
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 33 62 05

And here we see no advance solid support for a long drawn out war like the one Bush gave us and was expected to be wise enough to avoid.

35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq.

• Favor
• Oppose
• DK/NA

09/02-05/02 49 44 08
10/03-05/02 49 44 07
02/10-12/03 47 47 06
03/07-09/03 47 46 06.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10384688.01

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.

A majority of "Bush Supporters" were of the opinion {according to the same poll we have been discussing) said Bush was motivated in part by a personal desire to accomplish what his father's administration did not do. And you are saying they have a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time. Perhaps its you that lacks understanding. You need to start soul searching and get on a path to recognizing that.

36. When it comes to deciding whether to take military action in Iraq, do you think George W. Bush is motivated in part by a personal desire to accomplish what his father's administration did not do in the Persian Gulf War, or do you think his personal desires are not involved in his decision?

• Personal desire
• Personal desires not involved
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 48 46 06

 

[Kosh]

SC 10384688.01

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.

A majority of "Bush Supporters" were of the opinion {according to the same poll we have been discussing) said Bush was motivated in part by a personal desire to accomplish what his father's administration did not do. And you are saying they have a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time. Perhaps its you that lacks understanding. You need to start soul searching and get on a path to recognizing that.

36. When it comes to deciding whether to take military action in Iraq, do you think George W. Bush is motivated in part by a personal desire to accomplish what his father's administration did not do in the Persian Gulf War, or do you think his personal desires are not involved in his decision?

• Personal desire
• Personal desires not involved
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 48 46 06

More ranting's of a far left drone ignoring Obama's illegal wars..

 

[Spare_change]

• Now, explain to me how a poll that records that kind of confidence, and commitment, by the American people can possibly be construed as failing to support the actions of the President

It is because at the time the poll was taken most of the respondents believed that Bush was working hard to reach a diplomatic solution as he had promised. We were still giving Bush the benefit of the doubt that he would not be too quick to get American military forces involved unless it was absolutely necessary.

. 14. In its dealings with Iraq, do you think the Bush Administration tries hard enough to reach diplomatic solutions, or is it too quick to get American military forces involved?

• Tries hard enough to reach diplomatic solution
• Too quick to get forces involved
• DK/NA

01/19-22/03 38 55 07
02/05-06/03 47 43 10
02/10-12/03 45 48 07
03/07-09/03 51 41 07.

Having roughly six of ten Americans having confidence that their president would use restraint and good judgment before committing Americans to a war of choice in no way conflicts with those same Americans committing to support a sound decision that results in war if that good judgment by the president were to be employed.

15. Do you have confidence that George W. Bush will make the right decision about a possible war with Iraq or are you uneasy about his approach?

• Confidence
• Uneasy
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 52 46 03

Do you have something against demanding good judgment from a president who might be deciding to start a war only if it proved to be absolutely necessary,

The restraint and good judgment questions are as follows:

• give the inspectors more time before taking military action against Iraq.
• take into account the views of its allies before taking military action against Iraq.
• take into account a veto of the resolution before taking military action against Iraq.
• recognized that Bush did not have a plan for aftermath of regime change.

For the record:

. 21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time

• Take action soon
• Give inspectors time
• DK/NA

02/05-06/03 35 61 04
02/10-12/03 37 59 03
02/24-25/03 36 62 02
03/04-05/03 35 60 05
03/07-09/03 44 52 04

. 10. When it comes to Iraq, do you think United States should do what it thinks is right no matter what its allies think, or should the U.S. take into account the views of its allies before taking action?

• Do what it thinks right
• Take allies into account
• DK/NA

02/24-25/03 27 70 03
03/04-05/03 38 56 06
03/07-09/03 36 60 04

11. When it comes to Iraq, do you think the United States should do what it thinks is right even if countries like Russia, France or China vetoes the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, or should the United States take into account a veto of the resolution before taking action?

• What it thinks right
• Take veto into account
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 44 49 07

45. So far, do you think the Bush Administration has developed a clear plan for rebuilding Iraq after a possible war there, or hasn't it developed one yet?

• Has a clear plan
• Not done that yet
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 29 49 22

Are these answers expressing confidence in the Bush Administration?

37. Do you think the members of the Bush Administration are telling people everything they need to know about the reasons for possibly attacking Iraq at this time or are they not telling the public important information it needs to know?

• Telling everything
• Not telling
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 33 62 05

And here we see no advance solid support for a long drawn out war like the one Bush gave us and was expected to be wise enough to avoid.

35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq.

• Favor
• Oppose
• DK/NA

09/02-05/02 49 44 08
10/03-05/02 49 44 07
02/10-12/03 47 47 06
03/07-09/03 47 46 06.

that's funny shit, i don't care who you are .... nice perversion of reality.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10400028

nice perversion of reality.

I see. This is a perversion of reality to you:

• give the inspectors more time before taking military action against Iraq.
• take into account the views of its allies before taking military action against Iraq.
• take into account a veto of the resolution before taking military action against Iraq.
• recognized that Bush did not have a plan for the aftermath of regime change ten days before Bush actually launched the invasion for regime change.

So lets take the fourth bullet Spare_Change. Since you are declaring that concern by a majority of Americans in a poll taken shortly before the invasion is a perversion of reality; did you think at that time that Bush had a plan for the post invasion occupation of Iraq a week and a half before he decided 'unwisely' to invade?

Or are you shutting up now that reality has been put in front of you for possibly the very first time.

Is......

that's funny shit

.... the best that you can do now?

 

[Spare_change]

SC 10400028

nice perversion of reality.

I see. This is a perversion of reality to you:

• give the inspectors more time before taking military action against Iraq.
• take into account the views of its allies before taking military action against Iraq.
• take into account a veto of the resolution before taking military action against Iraq.
• recognized that Bush did not have a plan for the aftermath of regime change ten days before Bush actually launched the invasion for regime change.

So lets take the fourth bullet Spare_Change. Since you are declaring that concern by a majority of Americans in a poll taken shortly before the invasion is a perversion of reality; did you think at that time that Bush had a plan for the post invasion occupation of Iraq a week and a half before he decided 'unwisely' to invade?

Or are you shutting up now that reality has been put in front of you for possibly the very first time.

Is......

that's funny shit

.... the best that you can do now?

Actually, what's funny is that your prejudice is so ingrained, and so absolute, that you fail to see logic at its most basic. I have explained my position to you several times, I have shown you the fallacy in your position several times, and yet you ignore it. You fail to recognize basic truth. Instead, you simply parrot the same refrain over and over. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that you aren't interested in the truth ... you're only interested in proving your position, no matter how flawed.

I explained my position, not for you, but for anyone who chooses to read this thread. They don't seem to have a problem with it - only you. My mission is done ... and you were lost. You don't want to learn, so I can't teach you. This is an argument I can't win -- so, if you wish, call it a victory, crow to the heavens, and I will move on, comfortable that I have explained my position to others, and only left one ideologue out in the cold.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10384688.01

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.

SC 10384688.02

Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface.

But the invasion of Iraq was decided a go about 15 months after that. Why was it not possible for Bush to have a plan in place for post-invasion occupation of Iraq? Is that Obama's fault to that Bush did not have a plan?

45. So far, do you think the Bush Administration has developed a clear plan for rebuilding Iraq after a possible war there, or hasn't it developed one yet?

• Has a clear plan
• Not done that yet
• DK/NA

03/07-09/03 29 49 22

Only 29% thought Bush had a plan. Were you in that group Spare_Change?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10400225

I will move on, comfortable that I have explained my position to others, and only left one ideologue out in the cold.

Having explained your position does not make it valid. It would help if you could answer a question or two. such as:

NF 10400268

Why was it not possible for Bush to have a plan in place for post-invasion occupation of Iraq?

Or did you think he had a plan?

You came out swinging condemning Bush critics. Now you can't tell us if you think Bush had a plan or not occupying Iraq after regime change?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

re: not Congress who chose to go to war in Iraq


zeke10383010.1

… it was not Congress who chose to go to war in Iraq. It was your Mr. Wonderful Bush.

Keep in mind the key word "chose". Zeke's statement is absolutely correct and irrefutable. That is because Bush did not 'choose' to go to war until some time after March 7, 2003. The vote to authorize use of force "if necessary" took place five months prior to Bush making his "Choice" being the infamous decider. All that happened in between the vote and the choice has to be part of the conversation. Eagle ignored all that happened in between when flinging out this mindless retort:

eagle 10383017.1

The LIE that is repeatedly quoted by the left..

Why is it a lie, Eagle? Same to you Wildman? If it was a vote for war by Congress in October 2002, what was the UN inspection process all about? That process was intended to avoid war did it not? Why did Bush not decide on war until after sometime around March 7 through 10?

Wildm10383026

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz <>

Same to you Wildman? Can you wake up long enough to discuss the facts? If it was a vote for war by Congress in October 2002, what was the UN inspection process all about? That process was intended to avoid war did it not? Why did Bush not decide on war until after sometime around March 7 through 10?