Obama: 'That's the Good Thing as a President, I Can Do Whatever I Want'

[healthmyths]

Conservatives on this board have gotten so cute. They think their ignorance is equal to our intelligence.

The OP does what Republican politicians do, which is to prey on only those dumb enough to not understand what context means.

People like that lady at the Republican event who said Obama should be executed. She'd be nice and dumb enough to buy what this OP is sellin'.

In what kind of "context"was what has been called the BIGGEST LIE of 2013.."If you like your plan you can keep your plan" made?
Or how about these people that are totally 100% representative of ALL liberals...
These are typical liberal grab yours from Obama's stash voters!

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?
WOMAN #1: To get some money.
ROGULSKI: What kind of money?
BWOMAN #1: Obama money.
ROGULSKI: Where's it coming from?
WOMAN #1: Obama.
ROROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?
WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from, but he givin' it to us,
WOMAN #2: And we love him.
WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!


Or maybe this person... "I wont have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage..
You know, If I help him, he's gonna help me."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slUBWQ1AUEg]YouTube[/ame]

Frankly I'd be very concerned about the image of a liberal with 100% of liberals attitudes AND intelligence displayed by the likes above!

 

[History]

He didn't have to tell me that, I already knew and have known for 5 years.

 

[Indeependent]

Yet another Conservative Disingenuous Thread Title.
Help Conserve bandwidth.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Obama: 'That's the Good Thing as a President, I Can Do Whatever I Want'

The word "President" should be replaced with the word "King", because Obama is on one major power trip to grab even more power and he doesn't give a damn who he steps on to get it.

Why is it that on all the "government is corrupt, lets found a new nation" threads of mine, one or two people who agree with me show up versus an army of blindly loyal morons, then on threads like this, all the anti-US government people show up on here?! And I dislike king, that would imply he came from a wealthy and brilliant family that has ruled America for generations. Ideologically, you could make the point about some democrats that way, but I prefer the term "dictator."

 

[healthmyths]

Of course what you always leave out are two things...

whether or not the WMDs posed a threat to American interests. Obviously Clinton thought differently about the intel than Bush did. And secondly, after Bush's gang took over CIA they began slanting the intel that found it's way to Congress.

Colin Powell's speech to the UN was based widely on intel gained from a source called "curveball".

Curveball interview - Man whose Lie caused Iraq War tells all. - YouTube

Powell's speech was in February 2003 but the briefings the congressmen and women received was much earlier. It was revealed later on that the CIA had never actually talked to the source of the bad intel prior to sending in American troops.

It is understandable in post 9/11 that you'd be wanting to strike back at those who attacked. While that is understandable it doesn't apply, of course, to Iraq.

Bush cooked the intel and Congress of course believed it. Perhaps they shouldn't have trusted Bush the same way Boehner doesn't trust Obama. More Americans would be alive today if Congress had been smarter and knew Bush was lying at best (or worst) or was just incompetent at worst (or best).

So I take it you would prefer 2.7 million children dead from starvation because Saddam wouldn't comply with WMD sanctions?
I take it you would prefer Saddam to have continued
1) Attack UN/US air craft in the "No fly" zone?
2) That Saddam continued to allow children to be starved while he added to the 91 palaces he built with the "Oil for Food" program?
3) "So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.

10 Years After the Fall of Saddam, How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War? - J.J. Gould - The Atlantic

4) Were you aware that The anthrax attacks following 9/11 seem to be almost completely forgotten today. However, these anthrax attacks were an unalienable part of the actual 9/11 perpetration and not to mention them in this book at least briefly would be a lapse. At least for the sake of history this perpetration has to be remembered. Bio-terrorism -- anthrax attacks following September 11

5) Were you aware that :
"In a major development, potentially as significant as the capture of Saddam Hussein, investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter, author of Losing bin Laden, told Accuracy in Media that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program.
anthrax

Given all the above were you aware of these events and situations and articles and FACTS that following the attack on US Soil on 9/11 with 3,000 deaths..
you would want 28 million people to be afraid of people that would live under this??

Ahmad was Uday's chief executioner. Last week, as Iraqis celebrated the death of his former boss and his equally savage younger brother Qusay, he nervously revealed a hideous story. His instructions that day in 1999 were to arrest the two 19-year-olds on the campus of Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts and deliver them at Radwaniyah. On arrival at the sprawling compound, he was directed to a farm where he found a large cage. Inside, two lions waited. They belonged to Uday. Guards took the two young men from the car and opened the cage door. One of the victims collapsed in terror as they were dragged, screaming and shouting, to meet their fate. Ahmad watched as the students frantically looked for a way of escape. There was none. The lions pounced. 'I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite and then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men. By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh,' he recalled last week."
-- Sunday Times, London, July 27, 2003


"Ali would then draw out a pair of pliers and a sharp knife. Gripping the tongue with pliers, he would slice it up with the knife, tossing severed pieces into the street. "'Those punished were too terrified to move, even though they knew I was about to chop off their tongue,' said Ali in his matter-of-fact voice. 'They would just stand there, often praying and calling out for Saddam and Allah to spare them. By then it was too late.

"'I would read them out the verdict and cut off their tongue without any form of anaesthetic. There was always a lot of blood. Some offenders passed out. Others screamed in pain. They would then be given basic medical assistance in an ambulance which would always come with us on such punishment runs. Then they would be thrown in jail.'"

-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003
Saddam has reduced his people to abject poverty.
He wiped out families, villages, cities and cultures, and drove four million people into exile.
He killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. He killed as many as 300,000 Shiites in the uprising after the Persian Gulf war. He killed or displaced 200,000 of the 250,000 marsh Arabs who had created a unique, centuries-old culture in the south. He drained the marshes, an environmental treasure, and turned them into a desert.

And you feel all that should exist today? Saddam killing people? Saddam allowing 2.7 million kids to starve?

That's what you would prefer???
Kind of a sick person aren't you that you are willing to let millions of people live in the above environment with 2.7 million kids starved to death? SICK!

I would prefer you tell the truth but like most dreams; that isn't going to happen. The entire thread is a monument to your half-truths. Did Bush EVER talk about 2.7 million kids being the reason for going to war? No. What you're doing is looking for cause after the fact to justify the encyclopedia of systematic lies told by the administration in an attempt to sell the war.

At least be man enough to admit it and say that the ends justify the means in your mind. I don't see any sign of manhood from you so I won't hold my breath.

Well ABSOLUTELY the end justified the means! NO question! And so?
The ENDS were millions of people saved from a dictator who had a history of using WMDs on his OWN people! You want that to continue?? Where is your compassion?
The ENDS were 2.7 million kids did not starve as they would have if the dictator you LOVED was not the ENDS of the MEANS! Damn right I admit it!
I don't think there is ANY question in this person's mind that the ENDS justified the MEANS!!!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"

 

[candycorn]

So I take it you would prefer 2.7 million children dead from starvation because Saddam wouldn't comply with WMD sanctions?
I take it you would prefer Saddam to have continued
1) Attack UN/US air craft in the "No fly" zone?
2) That Saddam continued to allow children to be starved while he added to the 91 palaces he built with the "Oil for Food" program?
3) "So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.

10 Years After the Fall of Saddam, How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War? - J.J. Gould - The Atlantic

4) Were you aware that The anthrax attacks following 9/11 seem to be almost completely forgotten today. However, these anthrax attacks were an unalienable part of the actual 9/11 perpetration and not to mention them in this book at least briefly would be a lapse. At least for the sake of history this perpetration has to be remembered. Bio-terrorism -- anthrax attacks following September 11

5) Were you aware that :
"In a major development, potentially as significant as the capture of Saddam Hussein, investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter, author of Losing bin Laden, told Accuracy in Media that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program.
anthrax

Given all the above were you aware of these events and situations and articles and FACTS that following the attack on US Soil on 9/11 with 3,000 deaths..
you would want 28 million people to be afraid of people that would live under this??

Ahmad was Uday's chief executioner. Last week, as Iraqis celebrated the death of his former boss and his equally savage younger brother Qusay, he nervously revealed a hideous story. His instructions that day in 1999 were to arrest the two 19-year-olds on the campus of Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts and deliver them at Radwaniyah. On arrival at the sprawling compound, he was directed to a farm where he found a large cage. Inside, two lions waited. They belonged to Uday. Guards took the two young men from the car and opened the cage door. One of the victims collapsed in terror as they were dragged, screaming and shouting, to meet their fate. Ahmad watched as the students frantically looked for a way of escape. There was none. The lions pounced. 'I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite and then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men. By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh,' he recalled last week."
-- Sunday Times, London, July 27, 2003


"Ali would then draw out a pair of pliers and a sharp knife. Gripping the tongue with pliers, he would slice it up with the knife, tossing severed pieces into the street. "'Those punished were too terrified to move, even though they knew I was about to chop off their tongue,' said Ali in his matter-of-fact voice. 'They would just stand there, often praying and calling out for Saddam and Allah to spare them. By then it was too late.

"'I would read them out the verdict and cut off their tongue without any form of anaesthetic. There was always a lot of blood. Some offenders passed out. Others screamed in pain. They would then be given basic medical assistance in an ambulance which would always come with us on such punishment runs. Then they would be thrown in jail.'"

-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003
Saddam has reduced his people to abject poverty.
He wiped out families, villages, cities and cultures, and drove four million people into exile.
He killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. He killed as many as 300,000 Shiites in the uprising after the Persian Gulf war. He killed or displaced 200,000 of the 250,000 marsh Arabs who had created a unique, centuries-old culture in the south. He drained the marshes, an environmental treasure, and turned them into a desert.

And you feel all that should exist today? Saddam killing people? Saddam allowing 2.7 million kids to starve?

That's what you would prefer???
Kind of a sick person aren't you that you are willing to let millions of people live in the above environment with 2.7 million kids starved to death? SICK!

I would prefer you tell the truth but like most dreams; that isn't going to happen. The entire thread is a monument to your half-truths. Did Bush EVER talk about 2.7 million kids being the reason for going to war? No. What you're doing is looking for cause after the fact to justify the encyclopedia of systematic lies told by the administration in an attempt to sell the war.

At least be man enough to admit it and say that the ends justify the means in your mind. I don't see any sign of manhood from you so I won't hold my breath.

Well ABSOLUTELY the end justified the means! NO question! And so?
The ENDS were millions of people saved from a dictator who had a history of using WMDs on his OWN people! You want that to continue?? Where is your compassion?
The ENDS were 2.7 million kids did not starve as they would have if the dictator you LOVED was not the ENDS of the MEANS! Damn right I admit it!
I don't think there is ANY question in this person's mind that the ENDS justified the MEANS!!!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"

I would have liked it a lot better if Bush just came out and said that it was about oil and saving 2.7 million instead of lying to Congress and the American people about a threat that was not there, never there, and wouldn't be there for likely a generation.

Would you?

Or do you prefer the "means" where the intel was cooked and Congress and the American people were mis-lead (to say the least).

 

[healthmyths]

I would prefer you tell the truth but like most dreams; that isn't going to happen. The entire thread is a monument to your half-truths. Did Bush EVER talk about 2.7 million kids being the reason for going to war? No. What you're doing is looking for cause after the fact to justify the encyclopedia of systematic lies told by the administration in an attempt to sell the war.

At least be man enough to admit it and say that the ends justify the means in your mind. I don't see any sign of manhood from you so I won't hold my breath.

Well ABSOLUTELY the end justified the means! NO question! And so?
The ENDS were millions of people saved from a dictator who had a history of using WMDs on his OWN people! You want that to continue?? Where is your compassion?
The ENDS were 2.7 million kids did not starve as they would have if the dictator you LOVED was not the ENDS of the MEANS! Damn right I admit it!
I don't think there is ANY question in this person's mind that the ENDS justified the MEANS!!!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"

I would have liked it a lot better if Bush just came out and said that it was about oil and saving 2.7 million instead of lying to Congress and the American people about a threat that was not there, never there, and wouldn't be there for likely a generation.

Would you?

Or do you prefer the "means" where the intel was cooked and Congress and the American people were mis-lead (to say the least).

Look.. these 32 democrat quotes seem to be misleading Americans BEFORE BUSH!
So please don't blame Bush for AFTER 9/11 and the anthrax attacks NOT to believe and be as wise a Monday morning quarterback with 20/20 hindsight such as you!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.


"Between 1999 and 2001, the U.S. and British-led air forces in Iraq dropped 1.3 million pounds of bombs in response to purported violations of the no-fly zones and anti-aircraft fire from Saddam Hussein.
A sweeping attack, conducted in January of 1999, rained down 25 missiles on Iraqi soil, killing civilians. Clinton said the attack was in response to four planes violating the no-fly zones.
Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair authorized air strikes on more than 100 days in 1999, sometimes several times per day. The bombings were ostensibly in response to Husseins refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country, though critics alleged the move was aimed at deflecting attention from impeachment.
The Raw Story | Clinton bombing of Iraq far exceeded Bush's in run-up to war; Bush 'spikes of activity' questioned

And so do you think Bush would go against these comments???
Especially when Al Gore blamed Bush's Dad for NOT taking Saddam out in 1991!

Here is a quote from a speech Senator Al Gore gave in 1992.
'He,'' meaning Saddam Hussein, `had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush[George H..] looked the other way.
He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush looked the other way.
He was already deeply involved in the efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.
Congressional Chronicle - C-SPAN Video Library

So would you say Al Gore lied to American People also???

But again.. the ENDS justified the means and this entire war was over in less then 6 weeks.
Why it was going on for another 6 years was because WE HAD traitors who probably like you never considered the power of words that Harvard study showed
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So according to the above when statements like these were made violence increased!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

The war in Iraq would have NOT lasted 6 years if idiots like these and defenders of these idiots possibly like you would have paid attention the interest of Americans' lives rather their political future!

You can not honestly tell me that the terrorists that planted bombs on kids to blow up when reaching for candy from US troops DIDN"T USE the above words to recruit more terrorists!
I mean you would have to be totally naive to think terrorists cared about "context"!
During WWII 99% of americans knew the phrase "loose lips sink ships"! Do you understand that these traitors above put their own agenda ahead of American lives!
These traitors didn't care that terrorists were using Reid's comments "war is lost".. Or Murtha's "our troops killed innocent civilians" or Obama "air raiding villages killing civilians"..
YOU would have to be living in a cave NOT to understand the enemy LOVEs to hear Americans bad mouthing fellow Americans!!!