Is Obama Really this Bad?

[mardi gras skin]

Doesn't the VP and President not telling the truth put artificial pressure on Congress?

If you're going to quote that much from the Politifact entry, you really should finish out the quote:

Whether or not Bush was aware of the Pentagon's doubts is not yet clear.

Peter, how do you account for the many, many politicians who were SURE Saddam had WMD before the Bush administration and before al-Janabi ever started lying? How do you account for the CIA and numerous other intelligence agencies around the world who agreed (with a high degree of confidence) that Saddam had WMDs in his position and were confident that he would have nuclear capabilities soon?

Al-Janabi's lies only confirmed what the entire intelligence community was already sure of. Of course Bush and Hillary and all the others were quick to believe al-Janabi...they already knew he was right. But for you to use this as you stand with conspiracy theorists and perpetuate a "Bush Lied" mantra, as if Bush (stupid redneck that he is) tricked the world into thinking Saddam had WMD's, is as silly of you as Wrong Direction's initial post in this thread.

[@DCGoldPants]

All these other countries and all these intelligence agencies felt Saddam had WMD, yet nobody was confident enough in that info to do something....until our President decided it was time.

Sometimes you gotta ask WHY they didn't do anything before? and WHY was our info any different enough to invade. Especially when we were already involved in something else that could have used all that attention.

So,...its fun to say that members of congress or governors believed whatever we think. Bottom line is that the WH and the Admin had the best intell of all and in a lot of cases, got to decide what was shared and how it was shared.

and now it sucks for those trying to defend by pointing what others THOUGHT because those others didn't act on it.

[Thiebear]

All these other countries and all these intelligence agencies felt Saddam has WMD, yet nobody was confident enough in that info to do something....until our President decided it was time.

Sometimes you gotta ask WHY they didn't do anything before? and WHY was our info any different enough to invade. Especially when we were already involved in something else that could have used all that attention.

So,...its fun to say that members of congress or governors believed whatever we think. Bottom line is that the WH and the Admin had the best intell of all and in a lot of cases, got to decide what was shared and how it was shared.

Well, There were 17 resolutions through 2+ years in the United Nations: this was not a weekend at Bernies.

We also had a MAJOR force costing millions per day sitting off the coast?

With Saddam NOT helping his cause by him saying they don't have them but if the Ameicans attach he will use them on the invaders.

[@DCGoldPants]

Well, There were 17 resolutions through 2+ years in the United Nations: this was not a weekend at Bernies.

We also had a MAJOR force costing millions per day sitting off the coast?

With Saddam NOT helping his cause by him saying they don't have them but if the Ameicans attach he will use them on the invaders.

Of course he said he had something going on. He needed his own neighbors to believe that. Long story short is that we were left grasping at excuses as to why nothing was ever found.

[mardi gras skin]

All these other countries and all these intelligence agencies felt Saddam had WMD, yet nobody was confident enough in that info to do something....until our President decided it was time.

This is not true...its just another layer of the conspiracy theory.

Clinton was sure Saddam had WMD's so he bombed Iraq. And he didn't take this action unilaterally. United States and British forces sustained the Desert Fox bombing campaign for several days. This was carried out at the behest of Democratic leadership in Congress:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

And Clinton obliged. Despite this, Saddam remained opaque and intelligence agencies around the world remained convinced that Saddam had WMDs. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry spoke for many Democrats during the Bush administration in explaining why they felt it was time to take the next steps and voted for war with Iraq:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

They and many other Democrats made a compelling case, given Saddam's history, that we had given Iraq enough time to come clean and it was time to end the threat Saddam posed.

[@DCGoldPants]

not sure how I got sucked back in to this one. My fault no doubt.

Feels like I'm being told "If Barron wasn't called for that hold on Orakpo....then Romo sits to pee's TD would have counted".

Yeah....but they called him for the hold and Dallas didn't win.

Senators were so quick to say they saw Bin Laden's pictures after being killed. They are so quick to run their mouths as much as possible.

I'm saying that the admin has better intell than these Senators and if what was shown to them made them think Saddam had current WMD and was getting ready to attack the US....then so be it. They weren't President....and good thing they never became President then, eh?

Believing is one thing, doing something about it is another. If you choose to go on that information and its wrong. Its on you. Not those who didn't have the authority to do it. Not those who went on TV and said Saddam had a role in the OKC bombings, or that he and Bin Laden were in bed together.

This is insane.

Obama gets no credit for the death of Bin Laden because Bush's policies is what really got it done, even though Obama specifically changed policy and refocused on getting Bin Laden. BUT...Bush doesn't get dinged for being in charge when we went into Iraq for changing reasons because of what some other elected officials SAID throughout the years.

I give.

Obama = Worst President of all Time.

[Hitman21ST]

I have a better title for this thread.

Is the GOP really this petty and unapologetically political?

Yes, the answer is yes.

They criticized Obama for ordering the wrong kind of mustard and for giving an address to school children telling them to work hard and get good grades.

Of course they will criticize him for killing the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden.

And the Democrats are any better? They criticized Bush for reading to school children when the attacks happened, they actually even called Bush the enemy, saying 9-11 was an "inside job." Don't go acting like the Dems aren't "unapologetically political" either.

[PeterMP]

If you're going to quote that much from the Politifact entry, you really should finish out the quote:

Peter, how do you account for the many, many politicians who were SURE Saddam had WMD before the Bush administration and before al-Janabi ever started lying? How do you account for the CIA and numerous other intelligence agencies around the world who agreed (with a high degree of confidence) that Saddam had WMDs in his position and were confident that he would have nuclear capabilities soon?

Al-Janabi's lies only confirmed what the entire intelligence community was already sure of. Of course Bush and Hillary and all the others were quick to believe al-Janabi...they already knew he was right. But for you to use this as you stand with conspiracy theorists and perpetuate a "Bush Lied" mantra, as if Bush (stupid redneck that he is) tricked the world into thinking Saddam had WMD's, is as silly of you as Wrong Direction's initial post in this thread.

1. Ahh yes, the fact that the President was ignorant of doubts by people at the Pentagon that the things he was saying were in fact true is somehow suppossed to alleviate him of wrong doing.

2. I'd like to see somebody that actually believe he'd soon have nuclear capabilities that wasn't ignoring information. The only evidence he had a nuclear program were the centrifuge tubes, which many people doubted could be used for a nuclear program, including our Dept. of Energy.

And Iraq didn't get the tubes.

Even your factcheck link talks about how the INR had dissented on him having an active nuclear program.

3. Curveball was IMPORTANT and gave information that did that helped argue for an attack, which is why his information made it into Powell's speech.

Generally speaking, people believed Saddam had WMD because previous inspectors had found them, and there was no reason to believe that he had independently destroyed them.

Sadaam seems to have been stuck is a situation where he didn't want to admit that he had them publically because that would leave him vurneralbe to attacks by others and that was enough to mislead people that actively wanted to believe he had them that he did.

[mardi gras skin]

I give.

Obama = Worst President of all Time.

Oh, don't play the victim. That's not my point at all. Obama did exactly the right thing to take aggressive action based on the intelligence at hand. In the same way, Bush/Clinton/Kerry and the rest in Congress did exactly the right thing to take aggressive action based on the intelligence at hand. I've been clear on this.

But the hypocrisy of those on the right and left who are unwilling to acknowledge that both Presidents acted based on the best intelligence at their disposal is annoying.

[Henry]

Why? This is why:

You really should put a link with that.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/barack-obama-action-figure-rambama.html

Following the link the article provided sends you to the company that makes that action figure.

http://herobuilders.com/political/

Here are a few others.

[ATTACH]45372[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]45373[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]45374[/ATTACH]

Clearly it's a joke.

[Henry]

What more did he do? Did he train the SEALs? Did he fly the helos that dropped them off or picked them up? Did he pull the trigger? No. He was informed that the SEALs had reached their objective and approved the killing of Bin Laden. That's all he did. He doesn't need to get an action figure for it. The reasoning behind the "action" figure is what's frustrating people, not the actual "action" figure. Why in the world would he get one? Did Truman get an action figure when Hitler died?

One of the toughest military/foreign policy decisions? Not even close. Bin Laden was a mass murderer, who had called for more attacks on the U.S. He was the enemy in an unconventional war. If Obama gets the credit for killing Bin Laden, give Bush credit for Hussein and starting the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. Making the decision to go to war is a tough one, not killing an enemy.

Reagan gets ALL kinds of credit for winning the Cold War.

Are we ready to amend that now?

[Jumbo]

Clearly it's a joke.

please. sir....don't upset the residents...the next round of meds is over four hours from now

[mardi gras skin]

1. Ahh yes, the fact that the President was ignorant of doubts by people at the Pentagon that the things he was saying were in fact true is somehow suppossed to alleviate him of wrong doing.

According to the Politifact article, Democrats in Congress were made as aware of the doubts within our intelligence agencies as President Bush.

2. I'd like to see somebody that actually believe he'd soon have nuclear capabilities that wasn't ignoring information. The only evidence he had a nuclear program were the centrifuge tubes, which many people doubted could be used for a nuclear program, including our Dept. of Energy.

And Iraq didn't get the tubes.

Even your factcheck link talks about how the INR had dissented on him having an active nuclear program.

http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html

Nuclear Weapons: The document also said "most" US intelligence agencies believed that some high-strength aluminum tubes that Iraq had purchased were intended for use in centrifuge rotors used to enrich uranium, and were "compelling evidence" that Saddam had put his nuclear weapons program back together.

On the matter of the tubes, however, the report noted that there was some dissent within the intelligence community. Members of Congress could have read on page 6 of the report that the Department of Energy "assesses that the tubes are probably not" part of a nuclear program.

Some news reports have said this caveat was "buried" deeply in the 92-page report, but this is not so. The "Key Judgments" section begins on page 5, and disagreements by the Department of Energy and also the State Department are noted on pages 5,6,8 and 9, in addition to a reference on page 84.

Though much has been made recently of doubts about the tubes, it should be noted that even the Department of Energy's experts believed Iraq did have an active nuclear program, despite their conclusion that the tubes were not part of it. Even the DOE doubters thought Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb.

3. Curveball was IMPORTANT and gave information that did that helped argue for an attack, which is why his information made it into Powell's speech.

Generally speaking, people believed Saddam had WMD because previous inspectors had found them, and there was no reason to believe that he had independently destroyed them.

Sadaam seems to have been stuck is a situation where he didn't want to admit that he had them publically because that would leave him vurneralbe to attacks by others and that was enough to mislead people that actively wanted to believe he had them that he did.

Yes, it seems that way now. We didn't know that until after the Iraq invasion.

[Barney B]

And the Democrats are any better? They criticized Bush for reading to school children when the attacks happened, they actually even called Bush the enemy, saying 9-11 was an "inside job."

If you want to post the names of prominent Democrats who said that, that would be good.

That way we can all laugh at them.

[Henry]

Mardi,

Let me add here that I can't believe you resurrected this thread for sake of arguing that tangent.

[mardi gras skin]

Mardi,

Let me add here that I can't believe you resurrected this thread for sake of arguing that tangent.

Yeah, when I did it I imagined Wrong Direction saying, "Damn you MGS!"

[CrabR]

Reagan gets ALL kinds of credit for winning the Cold War.

Are we ready to amend that now?

Most of it comes from right wing protagonist. Reagan was average as a president. The right tried to make him out to be something he wasn't, just as the left did with JFK

Wonder who has more gvt property named after them

Originally Posted by Hitman21ST

And the Democrats are any better? They criticized Bush for reading to school children when the attacks happened, they actually even called Bush the enemy, saying 9-11 was an "inside job."

I criticized Bush for continuing to set there after the SECOND plane had hit the WTC

[mardi gras skin]

Most of it comes from right wing protagonist. Reagan was average as a president. The right tried to make him out to be something he wasn't, just as the left did with JFK

Wonder who has more gvt property named after them

On the other hand, Bush Sr. doesn't get nearly enough recognition for his handling of the fall of the Soviet Empire, the adult decisions he made regarding the economy, or his masterful handling of the coalition forces against Iraq. The right wing protagonist let Bush Sr. down big time.

[twist]

And the Democrats are any better? They criticized Bush for reading to school children when the attacks happened, they actually even called Bush the enemy, saying 9-11 was an "inside job." Don't go acting like the Dems aren't "unapologetically political" either.

Why don't you find me the loud and proud multiple day long backlash against president Bush for the very act of reading to school children or eating the wrong kind of mustard and we can talk.

Otherwise this is a false equivalency.

Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cetwHTY4YeA&feature=related

Watch:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/07/hannity-attacks-obama-for_n_198851.html?show_comment_id=24007604

Find me the same. News sorce of your choice.

Or, be quiet.

I also don't remember 911 “truthers” becomeing a major subsection of the Democratic Party in the same way as "birthers" did with the Republican Party, to the point where they were fielding a serious candidate who was polling in the lead in new Hampshire.

[IHOPSkins]

........ Reagan was average as a president......

Is that you Jimmy?

I thought all the Peanut Farmers where in Georgia? :pfft:

[mardi gras skin]

I also don't remember 911 “truthers” becomeing a major subsection of the Democratic Party in the same way as "birthers" did with the Republican Party, to the point where they were fielding a serious candidate who was polling in the lead in new Hampshire.

In 2007, only 39% of Democrats believed Bush didn't know about the WTC bombing in advance. Lucky for you guys, The Apprentice wasn't on its deathbed back then so Trump was too busy to exploit the crazies in your party.

[twist]

In 2007, only 39% of Democrats believed Bush didn't know about the WTC bombing in advance. Lucky for you guys, The Apprentice wasn't on its deathbed back then so Trump was too busy to exploit the crazies in your party.

51% of your Republican faithful were birthers at one point in time, so your beating any equivalency by around 12% (math error the first time I did this)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110220/pl_ac/7899930_poll_51_percent_of_republicans_are_birthers__and_why_it_doesnt_matter

And Donald Trump would have been taken soooooo seriously by the Democratic faithful. Thankfully the liberal side of the media doesn’t feed these monstrosities.

Dennis Kucinich is as close to a 9-11 ”truther” candidate for the Democrats got and his polling was laughable.

Can't find anything more petty than the mustard thing can you?

Should I post the terrorist fist bump thing for giggles?

[mardi gras skin]

51% of your Republican faithful were birthers at one point in time,

Only 29% of Republicans believe Obama was born in America. Only 39% of Democrats believe Bush wasn't complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans. We've got you on volume of loons but your conspiracy nuts have ours beat on sheer nastiness.

Can't we just agree that the idiots on both sides suck and appreciate our non-loony cross-party unity? Reject the conspiracy nuts on the right AND the left.

[twist]

29% of Republicans are believe Obama was born in America. 39% of Democrats believe Bush wasn't complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans. Everyone else is a loon. We've got you on volume of loons but your conspiracy nuts have ours beat on sheer nastiness.

Can't we just agree that the idiots on both sides suck and appreciate our non-loony cross-party unity. Skip the loons on the right AND the left.

I think we agreed on the idiot thing from the beginning, but I was making the point of the massive pettiness of political commentators and influential folks on your side who feed it.

The point is not that there are massive amounts of silly ideas and people but that there are certain people who are content to pander to it so long as they win.

The president is the quarterback of the team he gets undue blame and undue credit. There are certain levels of pettiness that go across the line and it is not acceptable from either side, and should not be accepted by anyone.

Instead of defending it hold them accountable and demand higher standards from everyone.

If the American right wing can not simply be happy that Osama is dead because it helps Obama politically then I feel sorry for them. The Bush administration jamboree that came out of the woodwork to make their arguments all over again and the political commentators that are trying to do spin control are doing it from a nakedly political place.

[Big Will]

I seriously don't understand how an Administration can bungle the aftermath of one of the most important days in the last 10 years so badly.

I have asked this question myself. And many have. It is a reasonable question. How could the administration seem so ill prepared to handle the public relations aftermath of the Bin Laden raid? Particularly since they have had this intel and had this military operation in the works for months. You would think there would be a public relations plan in place as well.

There is a theory I've heard that makes some sense. Keep in mind I'm usually not a conspiracy theorist and there is, of course, no proof so I don't necessarily believe it myself.. So take it for what it is. A theory.

The raid was never supposed to happen. And by that I mean had that helicopter not crashed, the Seals could have taken Bin Laden's body for DNA testing, taken the pictures, and dumped him in the sea. And nobody would have even known we were there.

Advantage of this plan would be for the US to have the element of surprise with regards to any intel and contacts they pull from the compound. I'd imagine that when the killing became public, any terrorist with even a small connection to Bin Laden in that compound had a nice little head start either disposing of their prospective intel or skipping town.

Another advantage of this plan would be to hold a political trump card. We could offer Pakistan sole credit for killing Bin Laden. Making them seem tough on terrorism. And if Pakistan didn't want credit, Obama could hold onto this information until a later date. Maybe a tad bit closer to election time but certainly after all of the intel from the compound had been processed and followed up on.

However, the helicopter crashed. And there was unmistakable proof that we were there even after we detonated the helicopter. So, the administration had to scramble to formulate a PR plan for the raid.