Obama = Worse President Ever

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sure they could find him the worst on a list of one too.

"OBAMA, WORST BLACK PRESIDENT EVER!!!"

nice try at bringing race into it. But his failures and incompetence have nothing to do with his being half black/half white.

But how about explaining why someone who is half white and half black is considered black in your small mind. Why isn't he just a human being? you libs are the most racist people in the world.

You ask why I brought race into it. Let's see. Maybe I was parodying.

Then you go off making comments about race, after just asking why people aren't just considered people.

The answer isn't actually that difficult. If you look at slavery, segregation, and the other fights that black people have had to endure of the history of the US, for a black person to make it to be president, in a country that simply would not have ever voted for a guy who even so much as looks black, to there being enough people in the US who don't think black people are inferior, shows a major change in US society.

society changed because society matured, not because the government dictated that it change.

today's racism is exclusively a product of the left. its a poorly veiled attempt to remain in power by creating racial chaos. Do you think idiots like Sharpton and Farrakhan want racial harmony? of course they dont, it would put them out of a job.

President Obama sure has a way of bringing out the racist and exposing them for what they are. Racist however did not change. Racist in 2008 are still racist in 2015, mostly.

knock it off. Bush was hated, Clinton was hated. not one of them for their freaking skin color. so take your racist and sit on it. Obama is hated for being one the coldest, uncaring person I've had to live under as President

Why is he the coldest, most uncaring president?

Clinton cared about Clinton. He went and helped out in Kosovo and Bosnia because he wanted to go down as the sort of president who would do that sort of thing. It was all about Clinton.

Bush W. invaded countries to reduce the impact of OPEC and didn't give a flying **** about who got in the way. He went and took out the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader of Venezuela who was trying to help the poor in his country, simply because it didn't align with US policy and because Chavez was trying to make OPEC stronger.
Is that caring? No the hell it is not. Bush was in it for himself and his friends, he was not in it for the US people and he was not in it for the people of anywhere else either.
He didn't give a **** about the deaths of US soldiers due to his incompetent policies and didn't care about anyone who had less than $1 million in their bank account.

 

[Redfish]

my mistake.

I agree that Iraq was a stupid mistake. But Bush did not do it on his own. Both parties authorized and funded that fiasco. The quotes from prominent democrats at the time have been posted many times. Both clintons said exactly the same things that Bush said based on the exact same flawed intel. So did the UN, EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UK, France, Germany, et al.

To put the blame solely on Bush is partisan stupidity and can only be done after ignoring history.

Why don't you post the quote from Obama where he called it a stupid war?

Obama knew what Bush didn't it appears

I called it a stupid war at the time, so did many conservatives and republicans. So you found one instance where I agree with obama----------------great, lets all dance around the may pole.

How many Republicans voted against the Iraq war?
Six?

"what difference, at this point, does it make?" The point is that both parties authorized and funded it, including both clintons.

your tired talking points are bullshit, and even you know it.

Then again, who voted for the war knowing the "intel" was fake and who voted for it believing it was real? Does that not make a difference?

they all thought it was real, no one "knew" it was wrong. and, in fact it may have been correct that Saddam sent those WMDs to Syria before anyone got there. Syria did gas some of its own people, did they use Saddam's gas? Are you sure?

 

[Redfish]

"what difference, at this point, does it make?" The point is that both parties authorized and funded it, including both clintons.

your tired talking points are bullshit, and even you know it.

The difference is that Iraq was fabricated and pushed by the Bush administration. The difference is they doctored intelligence to release only information that supported the decision, they downplayed questions about the validity of the Intel and they wrapped the invasion I post 9-11 patriotic fervor to force it through Congress

Iraq was pushed by Republicans, almost unanimously approved by republicans and the invasion was ordered by Bush. Most Democrats voted against invasion

Republican revisionist history tries to apply equal blame.

I fully understand that that is what you want to believe. But it is simply not true.

Yes, the intel was flawed. But it was not fabricated by Bush or anyone else. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam.

The intel agencies of every country had the exact same intel and came to the exact same incorrect conclusions based on Saddam's lies.

The quotes from prominent dems at the time have been posted many times, they said exactly the same things that bush said and advocated the exact same actions.

I know you need this as a partisan weapon, but it is not working because you are lying about what really happened.

The Intel of other countries told them to stay the hell out of Iraq and that Saddam was not a threat. France, Germany, Italy, Canada all knew better
Bush called them cowards

History will record Iraq as Bush's war.
Conservatives are already trying to share the blame

wrong. read and learn

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

For some reason, you left out what Obama had to say about an Iraq invasion.....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world.

Yes, the kenyan messiah, the all seeing all knowing obozo the great was the only person in the world who knew the truth------------------all hail obozo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! King of the universe !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Redfish]

nice try at bringing race into it. But his failures and incompetence have nothing to do with his being half black/half white.

But how about explaining why someone who is half white and half black is considered black in your small mind. Why isn't he just a human being? you libs are the most racist people in the world.

You ask why I brought race into it. Let's see. Maybe I was parodying.

Then you go off making comments about race, after just asking why people aren't just considered people.

The answer isn't actually that difficult. If you look at slavery, segregation, and the other fights that black people have had to endure of the history of the US, for a black person to make it to be president, in a country that simply would not have ever voted for a guy who even so much as looks black, to there being enough people in the US who don't think black people are inferior, shows a major change in US society.

society changed because society matured, not because the government dictated that it change.

today's racism is exclusively a product of the left. its a poorly veiled attempt to remain in power by creating racial chaos. Do you think idiots like Sharpton and Farrakhan want racial harmony? of course they dont, it would put them out of a job.

President Obama sure has a way of bringing out the racist and exposing them for what they are. Racist however did not change. Racist in 2008 are still racist in 2015, mostly.

knock it off. Bush was hated, Clinton was hated. not one of them for their freaking skin color. so take your racist and sit on it. Obama is hated for being one the coldest, uncaring person I've had to live under as President

Why is he the coldest, most uncaring president?

Clinton cared about Clinton. He went and helped out in Kosovo and Bosnia because he wanted to go down as the sort of president who would do that sort of thing. It was all about Clinton.

Bush W. invaded countries to reduce the impact of OPEC and didn't give a flying **** about who got in the way. He went and took out the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader of Venezuela who was trying to help the poor in his country, simply because it didn't align with US policy and because Chavez was trying to make OPEC stronger.
Is that caring? No the hell it is not. Bush was in it for himself and his friends, he was not in it for the US people and he was not in it for the people of anywhere else either.
He didn't give a **** about the deaths of US soldiers due to his incompetent policies and didn't care about anyone who had less than $1 million in their bank account.

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

 

[rightwinger]

The difference is that Iraq was fabricated and pushed by the Bush administration. The difference is they doctored intelligence to release only information that supported the decision, they downplayed questions about the validity of the Intel and they wrapped the invasion I post 9-11 patriotic fervor to force it through Congress

Iraq was pushed by Republicans, almost unanimously approved by republicans and the invasion was ordered by Bush. Most Democrats voted against invasion

Republican revisionist history tries to apply equal blame.

I fully understand that that is what you want to believe. But it is simply not true.

Yes, the intel was flawed. But it was not fabricated by Bush or anyone else. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam.

The intel agencies of every country had the exact same intel and came to the exact same incorrect conclusions based on Saddam's lies.

The quotes from prominent dems at the time have been posted many times, they said exactly the same things that bush said and advocated the exact same actions.

I know you need this as a partisan weapon, but it is not working because you are lying about what really happened.

The Intel of other countries told them to stay the hell out of Iraq and that Saddam was not a threat. France, Germany, Italy, Canada all knew better
Bush called them cowards

History will record Iraq as Bush's war.
Conservatives are already trying to share the blame

wrong. read and learn

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

For some reason, you left out what Obama had to say about an Iraq invasion.....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world.

Yes, the kenyan messiah, the all seeing all knowing obozo the great was the only person in the world who knew the truth------------------all hail obozo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! King of the universe !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read Obamas assessment of the situation
History proved him right

Helped make him President

 

[rightwinger]

You ask why I brought race into it. Let's see. Maybe I was parodying.

Then you go off making comments about race, after just asking why people aren't just considered people.

The answer isn't actually that difficult. If you look at slavery, segregation, and the other fights that black people have had to endure of the history of the US, for a black person to make it to be president, in a country that simply would not have ever voted for a guy who even so much as looks black, to there being enough people in the US who don't think black people are inferior, shows a major change in US society.

society changed because society matured, not because the government dictated that it change.

today's racism is exclusively a product of the left. its a poorly veiled attempt to remain in power by creating racial chaos. Do you think idiots like Sharpton and Farrakhan want racial harmony? of course they dont, it would put them out of a job.

President Obama sure has a way of bringing out the racist and exposing them for what they are. Racist however did not change. Racist in 2008 are still racist in 2015, mostly.

knock it off. Bush was hated, Clinton was hated. not one of them for their freaking skin color. so take your racist and sit on it. Obama is hated for being one the coldest, uncaring person I've had to live under as President

Why is he the coldest, most uncaring president?

Clinton cared about Clinton. He went and helped out in Kosovo and Bosnia because he wanted to go down as the sort of president who would do that sort of thing. It was all about Clinton.

Bush W. invaded countries to reduce the impact of OPEC and didn't give a flying **** about who got in the way. He went and took out the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader of Venezuela who was trying to help the poor in his country, simply because it didn't align with US policy and because Chavez was trying to make OPEC stronger.
Is that caring? No the hell it is not. Bush was in it for himself and his friends, he was not in it for the US people and he was not in it for the people of anywhere else either.
He didn't give a **** about the deaths of US soldiers due to his incompetent policies and didn't care about anyone who had less than $1 million in their bank account.

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

That is a total lie

 

[CarterD]

Historians agree overwhelmingly that President Obama is the worse President in history:

Most Presidential Experts Agree: Obama is Worst President In History | Wizbang

While I am certainly not a historian, I certainly agree that on both the home front and on foreign policy, history will indeed record Obama as the worse President ever.

I think Obama is an ok president.

 

[skye]

Historians agree overwhelmingly that President Obama is the worse President in history:

Most Presidential Experts Agree: Obama is Worst President In History | Wizbang

While I am certainly not a historian, I certainly agree that on both the home front and on foreign policy, history will indeed record Obama as the worse President ever.

I think Obama was an ok president.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

he was scum!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why don't you post the quote from Obama where he called it a stupid war?

Obama knew what Bush didn't it appears

I called it a stupid war at the time, so did many conservatives and republicans. So you found one instance where I agree with obama----------------great, lets all dance around the may pole.

How many Republicans voted against the Iraq war?
Six?

"what difference, at this point, does it make?" The point is that both parties authorized and funded it, including both clintons.

your tired talking points are bullshit, and even you know it.

Then again, who voted for the war knowing the "intel" was fake and who voted for it believing it was real? Does that not make a difference?

they all thought it was real, no one "knew" it was wrong. and, in fact it may have been correct that Saddam sent those WMDs to Syria before anyone got there. Syria did gas some of its own people, did they use Saddam's gas? Are you sure?

Bush new it was fake. It's impossible he didn't know it was fake.

Why would you have two "intelligence" agencies, one who gives you a true picture of what is out there, another which gives a completely diddled picture which just happens to support what you need in order to get war, and you completely ignore the first and you completely go with the second?

Why weren't people being told about the intelligence that was real? Bush KNEW about the real intelligence, he ignored it. Did Congress know about the real intelligence? I'm sure some did.

Bush got some guy up in front of the Senate, some guy was all he was. He HAD worked for the Iraqi nuclear program, he'd stopped working for them in about 1991, and he left the country in 1994. So, in 2003, 9 years AFTER he'd left the country, after years of sanctions and so on, the Bush govt decided this guy would be perfect to tell Congress all about what Iraq had. How did he know what Iraq had? He hadn't been working for their nuclear program for like 12 years. The simple answer is he didn't. He played along, he had his agenda, the Bush govt had their agenda, and everyone fell for it. The guy's name was "curveball". I wonder why.

CNN.com - Pentagon's prewar intelligence role questioned - Jul 11, 2004

"Roberts cited false information on Iraq that the Bush administration had taken from a source code-named Curveball.

"Curveball really provided 98 percent of the assessment as to whether or not the Iraqis had a biological weapon," Roberts said.

"Yet the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, knew of his background. He has a very troubled background."

Based on this source's claims, the administration argued that Iraq had biological weapons capability, Roberts said.

"That's the kind of flaw in intelligence and I think -- I won't say willful -- but the DIA should have shared that information with the CIA. And the CIA should have gone from there.""

So what the hell was the CIA doing?

Who knew what the CIA was doing? Bush did.

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Section VII of the Committee's report focuses on the intelligence behind Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN on February 5, 2003. The report describes the process whereby the CIA provided a draft of the speech to the National Security Council (NSC), and then, at the request of the NSC, worked to expand the speech with additional material, especially regarding Iraq's nuclear program. The report also describes the subsequent review made by Colin Powell and analysts from the State Department with analysts from the CIA. In the speech, Powell said that "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Despite this, the Committee concluded that "[m]uch of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for inclusion in Secretary Powell’s speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect.""

So Powell lied. Whether he lied because he knew what he was saying, or whether he lied because he didn't know what was going on is neither here nor there. He didn't vote for war. He merely was part of the Executive which DID KNOW.

Backed up by sources, well, the sources were wrong.

The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion | VICE News

For example.

The CIA said:

"Iraq "probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant" to manufacture biological weapons "but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed." The NIE also said Hussein did not have "sufficient material" to manufacture any nuclear weapons and "the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.""

This is information that Bush was getting.

1) They didn't know if Saddam had resumed biological weapons research.
2) Could not manufacture nuclear weapons.
3) Probably (probably is one of those words which means they don't know) renovated a production plant, but they don't know.

So what did Bush say?

"But in an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, then-President George W. Bush simply said Iraq, "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.""

1) Saddam DOES HAVE biological AND Chemical weapons. (They didn't know)
2) There's evidence that Saddam is reconstituting his nuke program. (They knew he wasn't)
3) They are using production plants to make these weapons (but they didn't know)

I mean, seriously.

You have the CIA diddling the facts, then you have Bush diddling what the CIA is telling him. If Bush didn't know, then he was a freaking moron, but those with power within his executive, people he controlled, knew what was going on, and knew this was a lie, and that he was telling Congress porkers.

 

[Unkotare]

fdr was the worst ever, but obama is trying hard to catch up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

No, that isn't my criteria. My criteria is about starting things without considering the human impact.

Obama is not blameless. He went in and bombed Libya. He messed around in Egypt and supported the Arab Spring which hasn't exactly done wonders. Perhaps he thought he was doing a good thing supporting the Arab Spring. Hindsight here is a different matter. Libya I believe he did because he's a politician and wanted to not get under fire from McCain and the Republicans who were pushing for this because Libya is an OPEC country. And I can imagine enough advisers were on board too.

But it's not just about soldiers.

In Iraq more US soldiers died under Bush than Obama for obvious reasons. Bush signed the withdrawal at the end of his presidency and Obama oversaw this withdrawal. It's impossible to make comparisons here.
The number of people who died in Iraq because of Bush's ineptitude and giving the reigns to Bremer are possibly over one million. Did Bush care? Probably not. Again, under Obama this isn't an issue.

More soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. There are plenty of possibilities as to why.

Firstly when Bush was in charge, the defeat of the Taliban was quite quick, then the US moved in. The Taliban was licking its wounds. Then in 2003 the Iraqi war meant a lot of those who wanted to kill US soldiers when to Iraq. This happened, for example, with the future head of ISIS. He went to Afghanistan, then left and went to Iraq to fight there.
The Taliban picked itself up by 2005, they managed to become more guerrilla than they had been.

But in the time Bush was in power the number of troops was much lower. He didn't need those troops as much, but he didn't get rid of the Taliban either. So, things changed when the US pulled out of Iraq, then Afghanistan became the new battle ground. Obama's fault that US soldiers were dying in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

 

[rightwinger]

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

No, that isn't my criteria. My criteria is about starting things without considering the human impact.

Obama is not blameless. He went in and bombed Libya. He messed around in Egypt and supported the Arab Spring which hasn't exactly done wonders. Perhaps he thought he was doing a good thing supporting the Arab Spring. Hindsight here is a different matter. Libya I believe he did because he's a politician and wanted to not get under fire from McCain and the Republicans who were pushing for this because Libya is an OPEC country. And I can imagine enough advisers were on board too.

But it's not just about soldiers.

In Iraq more US soldiers died under Bush than Obama for obvious reasons. Bush signed the withdrawal at the end of his presidency and Obama oversaw this withdrawal. It's impossible to make comparisons here.
The number of people who died in Iraq because of Bush's ineptitude and giving the reigns to Bremer are possibly over one million. Did Bush care? Probably not. Again, under Obama this isn't an issue.

More soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. There are plenty of possibilities as to why.

Firstly when Bush was in charge, the defeat of the Taliban was quite quick, then the US moved in. The Taliban was licking its wounds. Then in 2003 the Iraqi war meant a lot of those who wanted to kill US soldiers when to Iraq. This happened, for example, with the future head of ISIS. He went to Afghanistan, then left and went to Iraq to fight there.
The Taliban picked itself up by 2005, they managed to become more guerrilla than they had been.

But in the time Bush was in power the number of troops was much lower. He didn't need those troops as much, but he didn't get rid of the Taliban either. So, things changed when the US pulled out of Iraq, then Afghanistan became the new battle ground. Obama's fault that US soldiers were dying in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

More soldiers died under Bush than Obama

In addition, over 100,000 civilians died because of Bush's blunder

 

[Redfish]

society changed because society matured, not because the government dictated that it change.

today's racism is exclusively a product of the left. its a poorly veiled attempt to remain in power by creating racial chaos. Do you think idiots like Sharpton and Farrakhan want racial harmony? of course they dont, it would put them out of a job.

President Obama sure has a way of bringing out the racist and exposing them for what they are. Racist however did not change. Racist in 2008 are still racist in 2015, mostly.

knock it off. Bush was hated, Clinton was hated. not one of them for their freaking skin color. so take your racist and sit on it. Obama is hated for being one the coldest, uncaring person I've had to live under as President

Why is he the coldest, most uncaring president?

Clinton cared about Clinton. He went and helped out in Kosovo and Bosnia because he wanted to go down as the sort of president who would do that sort of thing. It was all about Clinton.

Bush W. invaded countries to reduce the impact of OPEC and didn't give a flying **** about who got in the way. He went and took out the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader of Venezuela who was trying to help the poor in his country, simply because it didn't align with US policy and because Chavez was trying to make OPEC stronger.
Is that caring? No the hell it is not. Bush was in it for himself and his friends, he was not in it for the US people and he was not in it for the people of anywhere else either.
He didn't give a **** about the deaths of US soldiers due to his incompetent policies and didn't care about anyone who had less than $1 million in their bank account.

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

That is a total lie

nope, look it up.

 

[Redfish]

I fully understand that that is what you want to believe. But it is simply not true.

Yes, the intel was flawed. But it was not fabricated by Bush or anyone else. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam.

The intel agencies of every country had the exact same intel and came to the exact same incorrect conclusions based on Saddam's lies.

The quotes from prominent dems at the time have been posted many times, they said exactly the same things that bush said and advocated the exact same actions.

I know you need this as a partisan weapon, but it is not working because you are lying about what really happened.

The Intel of other countries told them to stay the hell out of Iraq and that Saddam was not a threat. France, Germany, Italy, Canada all knew better
Bush called them cowards

History will record Iraq as Bush's war.
Conservatives are already trying to share the blame

wrong. read and learn

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

For some reason, you left out what Obama had to say about an Iraq invasion.....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world.

Yes, the kenyan messiah, the all seeing all knowing obozo the great was the only person in the world who knew the truth------------------all hail obozo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! King of the universe !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read Obamas assessment of the situation
History proved him right

Helped make him President

Then I assume that you will use Hillary's support of that fiasco against her in 2016. Remember, she had exactly the same intel the Bush had and came to exactly the same conclusions.

The intel was not cooked, it was flawed and they all bought it.

 

[Redfish]

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

No, that isn't my criteria. My criteria is about starting things without considering the human impact.

Obama is not blameless. He went in and bombed Libya. He messed around in Egypt and supported the Arab Spring which hasn't exactly done wonders. Perhaps he thought he was doing a good thing supporting the Arab Spring. Hindsight here is a different matter. Libya I believe he did because he's a politician and wanted to not get under fire from McCain and the Republicans who were pushing for this because Libya is an OPEC country. And I can imagine enough advisers were on board too.

But it's not just about soldiers.

In Iraq more US soldiers died under Bush than Obama for obvious reasons. Bush signed the withdrawal at the end of his presidency and Obama oversaw this withdrawal. It's impossible to make comparisons here.
The number of people who died in Iraq because of Bush's ineptitude and giving the reigns to Bremer are possibly over one million. Did Bush care? Probably not. Again, under Obama this isn't an issue.

More soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. There are plenty of possibilities as to why.

Firstly when Bush was in charge, the defeat of the Taliban was quite quick, then the US moved in. The Taliban was licking its wounds. Then in 2003 the Iraqi war meant a lot of those who wanted to kill US soldiers when to Iraq. This happened, for example, with the future head of ISIS. He went to Afghanistan, then left and went to Iraq to fight there.
The Taliban picked itself up by 2005, they managed to become more guerrilla than they had been.

But in the time Bush was in power the number of troops was much lower. He didn't need those troops as much, but he didn't get rid of the Taliban either. So, things changed when the US pulled out of Iraq, then Afghanistan became the new battle ground. Obama's fault that US soldiers were dying in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

More soldiers died under Bush than Obama

In addition, over 100,000 civilians died because of Bush's blunder

those people died because of the blunder of the USA, the UN, the UK, the EU, and most of the civilized world.

are you really so fricken dumb that you think bush did it all on his own? are you saying the GW Bush was such a convincing communicator that he fooled the entire world? I thought you said he was an idiot.

 

[Redfish]

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

No, that isn't my criteria. My criteria is about starting things without considering the human impact.

Obama is not blameless. He went in and bombed Libya. He messed around in Egypt and supported the Arab Spring which hasn't exactly done wonders. Perhaps he thought he was doing a good thing supporting the Arab Spring. Hindsight here is a different matter. Libya I believe he did because he's a politician and wanted to not get under fire from McCain and the Republicans who were pushing for this because Libya is an OPEC country. And I can imagine enough advisers were on board too.

But it's not just about soldiers.

In Iraq more US soldiers died under Bush than Obama for obvious reasons. Bush signed the withdrawal at the end of his presidency and Obama oversaw this withdrawal. It's impossible to make comparisons here.
The number of people who died in Iraq because of Bush's ineptitude and giving the reigns to Bremer are possibly over one million. Did Bush care? Probably not. Again, under Obama this isn't an issue.

More soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. There are plenty of possibilities as to why.

Firstly when Bush was in charge, the defeat of the Taliban was quite quick, then the US moved in. The Taliban was licking its wounds. Then in 2003 the Iraqi war meant a lot of those who wanted to kill US soldiers when to Iraq. This happened, for example, with the future head of ISIS. He went to Afghanistan, then left and went to Iraq to fight there.
The Taliban picked itself up by 2005, they managed to become more guerrilla than they had been.

But in the time Bush was in power the number of troops was much lower. He didn't need those troops as much, but he didn't get rid of the Taliban either. So, things changed when the US pulled out of Iraq, then Afghanistan became the new battle ground. Obama's fault that US soldiers were dying in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

Look dude, we all agree that Iraq was a terrible waste of money and lives. WE AGREE.

What we don't agree on is your claim that Bush is solely responsible for that fiasco. To make such a claim is just ignoring history for partisan bullshit.

I do hold Bush responsible, I also hold the UN responsible, and the UK, the EU, saudi arabia, israel, and every US member of congress that voted to authorize and fund it.

 

[rightwinger]

The Intel of other countries told them to stay the hell out of Iraq and that Saddam was not a threat. France, Germany, Italy, Canada all knew better
Bush called them cowards

History will record Iraq as Bush's war.
Conservatives are already trying to share the blame

wrong. read and learn

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

For some reason, you left out what Obama had to say about an Iraq invasion.....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world.

Yes, the kenyan messiah, the all seeing all knowing obozo the great was the only person in the world who knew the truth------------------all hail obozo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! King of the universe !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read Obamas assessment of the situation
History proved him right

Helped make him President

Then I assume that you will use Hillary's support of that fiasco against her in 2016. Remember, she had exactly the same intel the Bush had and came to exactly the same conclusions.

The intel was not cooked, it was flawed and they all bought it.

Already used it against her in 2008

Since that time, Hillary has admitted she was wrong about Iraq, which of her potential Republican oponents can say the same?

 

[Redfish]

I called it a stupid war at the time, so did many conservatives and republicans. So you found one instance where I agree with obama----------------great, lets all dance around the may pole.

How many Republicans voted against the Iraq war?
Six?

"what difference, at this point, does it make?" The point is that both parties authorized and funded it, including both clintons.

your tired talking points are bullshit, and even you know it.

Then again, who voted for the war knowing the "intel" was fake and who voted for it believing it was real? Does that not make a difference?

they all thought it was real, no one "knew" it was wrong. and, in fact it may have been correct that Saddam sent those WMDs to Syria before anyone got there. Syria did gas some of its own people, did they use Saddam's gas? Are you sure?

Bush new it was fake. It's impossible he didn't know it was fake.

Why would you have two "intelligence" agencies, one who gives you a true picture of what is out there, another which gives a completely diddled picture which just happens to support what you need in order to get war, and you completely ignore the first and you completely go with the second?

Why weren't people being told about the intelligence that was real? Bush KNEW about the real intelligence, he ignored it. Did Congress know about the real intelligence? I'm sure some did.

Bush got some guy up in front of the Senate, some guy was all he was. He HAD worked for the Iraqi nuclear program, he'd stopped working for them in about 1991, and he left the country in 1994. So, in 2003, 9 years AFTER he'd left the country, after years of sanctions and so on, the Bush govt decided this guy would be perfect to tell Congress all about what Iraq had. How did he know what Iraq had? He hadn't been working for their nuclear program for like 12 years. The simple answer is he didn't. He played along, he had his agenda, the Bush govt had their agenda, and everyone fell for it. The guy's name was "curveball". I wonder why.

CNN.com - Pentagon's prewar intelligence role questioned - Jul 11, 2004

"Roberts cited false information on Iraq that the Bush administration had taken from a source code-named Curveball.

"Curveball really provided 98 percent of the assessment as to whether or not the Iraqis had a biological weapon," Roberts said.

"Yet the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, knew of his background. He has a very troubled background."

Based on this source's claims, the administration argued that Iraq had biological weapons capability, Roberts said.

"That's the kind of flaw in intelligence and I think -- I won't say willful -- but the DIA should have shared that information with the CIA. And the CIA should have gone from there.""

So what the hell was the CIA doing?

Who knew what the CIA was doing? Bush did.

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Section VII of the Committee's report focuses on the intelligence behind Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN on February 5, 2003. The report describes the process whereby the CIA provided a draft of the speech to the National Security Council (NSC), and then, at the request of the NSC, worked to expand the speech with additional material, especially regarding Iraq's nuclear program. The report also describes the subsequent review made by Colin Powell and analysts from the State Department with analysts from the CIA. In the speech, Powell said that "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Despite this, the Committee concluded that "[m]uch of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for inclusion in Secretary Powell’s speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect.""

So Powell lied. Whether he lied because he knew what he was saying, or whether he lied because he didn't know what was going on is neither here nor there. He didn't vote for war. He merely was part of the Executive which DID KNOW.

Backed up by sources, well, the sources were wrong.

The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion | VICE News

For example.

The CIA said:

"Iraq "probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant" to manufacture biological weapons "but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed." The NIE also said Hussein did not have "sufficient material" to manufacture any nuclear weapons and "the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.""

This is information that Bush was getting.

1) They didn't know if Saddam had resumed biological weapons research.
2) Could not manufacture nuclear weapons.
3) Probably (probably is one of those words which means they don't know) renovated a production plant, but they don't know.

So what did Bush say?

"But in an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, then-President George W. Bush simply said Iraq, "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.""

1) Saddam DOES HAVE biological AND Chemical weapons. (They didn't know)
2) There's evidence that Saddam is reconstituting his nuke program. (They knew he wasn't)
3) They are using production plants to make these weapons (but they didn't know)

I mean, seriously.

You have the CIA diddling the facts, then you have Bush diddling what the CIA is telling him. If Bush didn't know, then he was a freaking moron, but those with power within his executive, people he controlled, knew what was going on, and knew this was a lie, and that he was telling Congress porkers.

Nice cut and paste job. your computer skills are just amazing!

Now, look up what both clintons said at the time, and remember, they had exactly the same intel that Bush had.

 

[rightwinger]

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

No, that isn't my criteria. My criteria is about starting things without considering the human impact.

Obama is not blameless. He went in and bombed Libya. He messed around in Egypt and supported the Arab Spring which hasn't exactly done wonders. Perhaps he thought he was doing a good thing supporting the Arab Spring. Hindsight here is a different matter. Libya I believe he did because he's a politician and wanted to not get under fire from McCain and the Republicans who were pushing for this because Libya is an OPEC country. And I can imagine enough advisers were on board too.

But it's not just about soldiers.

In Iraq more US soldiers died under Bush than Obama for obvious reasons. Bush signed the withdrawal at the end of his presidency and Obama oversaw this withdrawal. It's impossible to make comparisons here.
The number of people who died in Iraq because of Bush's ineptitude and giving the reigns to Bremer are possibly over one million. Did Bush care? Probably not. Again, under Obama this isn't an issue.

More soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. There are plenty of possibilities as to why.

Firstly when Bush was in charge, the defeat of the Taliban was quite quick, then the US moved in. The Taliban was licking its wounds. Then in 2003 the Iraqi war meant a lot of those who wanted to kill US soldiers when to Iraq. This happened, for example, with the future head of ISIS. He went to Afghanistan, then left and went to Iraq to fight there.
The Taliban picked itself up by 2005, they managed to become more guerrilla than they had been.

But in the time Bush was in power the number of troops was much lower. He didn't need those troops as much, but he didn't get rid of the Taliban either. So, things changed when the US pulled out of Iraq, then Afghanistan became the new battle ground. Obama's fault that US soldiers were dying in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

Look dude, we all agree that Iraq was a terrible waste of money and lives. WE AGREE.

What we don't agree on is your claim that Bush is solely responsible for that fiasco. To make such a claim is just ignoring history for partisan bullshit.

I do hold Bush responsible, I also hold the UN responsible, and the UK, the EU, saudi arabia, israel, and every US member of congress that voted to authorize and fund it.

Bush was the decider
Bush, as commander in chief ordered the invasion, he was under no obligation to do so

Bush was responsible

 

[Redfish]

wrong. read and learn

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

For some reason, you left out what Obama had to say about an Iraq invasion.....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world.

Yes, the kenyan messiah, the all seeing all knowing obozo the great was the only person in the world who knew the truth------------------all hail obozo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! King of the universe !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read Obamas assessment of the situation
History proved him right

Helped make him President

Then I assume that you will use Hillary's support of that fiasco against her in 2016. Remember, she had exactly the same intel the Bush had and came to exactly the same conclusions.

The intel was not cooked, it was flawed and they all bought it.

Already used it against her in 2008

Since that time, Hillary has admitted she was wrong about Iraq, which of her potential Republican oponents can say the same?

Many of them have said it. Especially the next president, Donald Trump.