Obama --- One Of The Worst U.S. Presidents Of All Time

Bush did not go to war on the basis of bad intelligence. Bush went to war on the basis of ignoring "Good Intelligence" that made a joke out of the bad intelligence.

The administration was responsible for putting pressure on the intelligence community to come up with something/anything on Iraq. They then took what was given them and embellished it up to fantastic heights of fear mongering and ordered that anything in contradiction of their fabulous story to be suppressed.

 

If Bush believed there were WMD's then it wasn't a lie.

But when mustard gas and sarin gas was found in Iraq, the left said they didn't count. The usual suspects had already politicized the war in Iraq.

4,000 men and women killed in Iraq. I suppose you are referring to American troops. For a five year long war, the Iraq war had to have one of the lowest casualty rates when it comes to wars.

During the Philippine Insurrection war ( 1899-1902 ) over 4,200 American troops were killed.

How many American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen died during the Clinton administration ? The progressive liberals probably are clueless. 7,574 American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen died during the Clinton administration.
http://www.shastalibraries.org/images/pdfs/shasta/RL32492.pdf

 

Yes, Obama's the worst.

He's departed from 240 years of American history and taken us on a radical left turn. He has fundamentally changed Amerika.

And the U.S. is a joke abroad.

 

http://http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=555

 

I am not sure why you posted this as it does not conflict with anything I said.

Everyone knew that Saddam had chemical weapons in the past ?? We were helping Saddam to use them against Iran !

They found a few buried and unusable chemical weapons. Who cares. What does this have to do with Saddam having active WMD programs or being a nuclear threat.

.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/opinion/remember-that-mushroom-cloud.html?_r=0

What was this "clear evidence of Peril" in the form of a mushroom cloud ?

Our own Department of Energy told the administration that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for enrichment and likely for rockets. They were told to stand down.

Saddam was the blood enemy of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden was supported by the Saudi's and most of the 911 attackers were Saudi. Not was was an Iraqi.
Saddam's regime was secular which is an anathema to Al Qaeda who want strict sharia. They hated Islamic leaders of secular Muslim nations even more than the infidels in the west.

Here is a lie by lie account leading up to war http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

Saddam was not an "imminent threat" to the US as was purported by the Bush clowns. His airspace was controlled by US/NATO at the time and there were inspectors running around Iraq.

What possible "imminent threat" was there ?? Such talk was absurd nonsense than and with hindsight (knowing more about what the admin actually knew) it is even more nonsense.

Anyone who has done a stitch of objective research into this issue realizes this.

 

All the reports said he was stockpiling WMDs. For the record I opposed the war because I knew that it would destabilize the region. You need thugs like Saddam and Gaddafi to keep these religious zealots in place. Im also no fan of Bush I certainly never voted for him

 

Stockpiling is a disingenuous term. Saddam had a few weapons left over from previous years. He did not have an active chemical or biological weapons program as was purported.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the massive lies in relation to Saddam being some imminent threat to the US that required an invasion.

The simple fact that our closest allies (all of NATO except Britain which is a joke) refused to join the war. This alone should tell you how ridiculous the intelligence was ... especially in relation to Saddam being a nuclear threat. NATO would have been there in a heartbeat if such a threat was real... good gracious.

The simple fact is that the UN declined our petition an as such we were in violation of international law.

Saddam was not an imminent threat and this is what the intelligence stated.

The Bush admin did everything in its power to misrepresent the truth.

 

Nope, you are wrong. Which means you never watched the video, which means you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. Bush had first hand knowledge when the scientists informed him that the tubes were too thin to be used with enriched uranium, and he ignored that information. That was from Bush's own scientists testifying on video. So try and keep up. You'll look less foolish.

 

Oh I forgot that was the only evidence and the bombing of Dresden was far worse

 

Fascism has been given a bad rap. Well, losing a war will do that to you. But Fascist Italy had some pretty good things working for it, had Mussolini been able to steer clear of the war Italy might've been able to grow into a world power. They greatly improved domestic capabilities, they very neatly organized government.

Fascism is the best system for government, if the goal of government is to maximize human potential.

 

He never believed it, because the scientists with their own testimony cited that the aluminum tubes could not be used with enriched uranium to make a bomb. And that was explained to Bush, while he ignored that information. The testimony is in the video if you'd ever bothered to watch it. At this point, most on the Right would just assume live in ignorance and not know the real truth. No surprises there!

The amounts were insignificant, and we were the ones who gave the chemicals to Saddam to begin with. Not a reason to lose 4,000 soldiers.

Wouldn't matter if it was 100 years. Your argument is irrelevant. 4,000 plus died for absolutely nothing. Millions of refuges were displaced and killed and now we are the cause of ISIS while hundreds of thousands die and are miss placed all over Europe, because of what Bush did. That's right! Bush is directly responsible for the refuge crisis going on now.

None of this has anything to do with Bush's lies that caused the senseless death of hundreds of thousands.

And by the way, 70% of the military deaths that occurred during Clinton, were from accidents, homicides, and illness, making your argument out to be a false comparison. What a joke.

 

Fascism is a movement that relies on fear, ignorance, hatred, and a disregard for individual autonomy to function. Fascism is the worship of conformity, and if conformity is your god then your devil is independence.

Fascism needs to remain buried, and every leader who attempts it executed for their crimes.

 

Only evidence? And that alone isn't enough? Lol! The scientists were saying Saddam had no nuclear weapon capability, you know WMD's, because the tubes were too thin. What other evidence would you need? Your explanation is beyond laughable. You see, this is why folks like you lost this argument a long time ago. You pedal ridiculous excuses and expect to be taken seriously. Why would you support a liar, who sent our people into harms way for no good reason and at a cost of thousands of our own men and women? That right there is something I will never understand from people like you. Taking up for a premeditated murderer.

 

4000 lives and tens of thousands injured upping the veterans expense bigtime. Not to mention the Trillions of dollars down the toilet which endangers the future economic security of our children.

Total Military Spending was roughly 350 Billion when Bush stepped into office. When he stepped out TM spending was over 900 billion and it rose to over 1 trillion shortly after.

Had we just kept spending at inflation that would have freed up 550 Billion/year over 14 years = 8 Trillion Plus that could have been spent on technology, infrastructure and growing/enabling our economy to compete in the 3rd Millennium.

Instead we threw this money down the toilet. Fought a completely unnecessary war with no return on investment. A war which destabilized the Iraq leading in part to the creation of ISIS (now we have to spend more money to deal this this), and killed over one hundred thousand Iraqi's who's relatives will hate our guts for decades.

It is amazing that folks are still even debating this given all the information that is easily available for those with eyes.

 

It's not a disregard for individual autonomy to function, but rather that individual autonomy without restraint, simply leads to anarchy. Indeed, all other systems have collapsed in short order because the Individual did not respect the greater value of the whole. And yet, we find that the difference is that once the individual respects the Whole, the individual gets even greater freedom than ever before. For he is now synergetic with the system, and the system with him.

One and whole, never again separate nor will the forces compel against each other but instead will work with each other. Fascism doesn't rely on fear, ignorance or hatred. It relies on self-will, self-restraint and self-disicipline. Acknowledging our talents are best utilized properly, not given to the whims of chance.

 

Thanks for filling in the rest of the blanks that I left out. It is amazing and quite disgusting, that some folks still try and milk this as a debate.

 

Some of us, a minority have actually read the debriefings of Saddam Hussein. How about you ?

Lucky you, you can read the declassified debriefings of Saddam. Unfortunately you are not going to be able to read the classified version, just to embarrassing for a former Presidential administration during the mid-late 1990's and for those liberals who quickly politicized the war in Iraq.

 

Lol! I intend on flying someday without wings. It's just that I do not posses that capability yet. Saddam did not have the capability at the time. Therefore, he was of no real threat to the U.S.

And what does this have to do with the intelligence of the tubes being too thin?

Lucky me, I haven't gone off the deep end yet I don't think.

I fail to see how any of these casual conversations with Saddam reveals anything about aluminum tubes being sufficient to make a bomb with enriched uranium. You aren't trying to go off the reservation here are you, by deliberately taking your point no where? Not to mention, these conversations with Saddam were after the fact that Bush lied us into war. We executed Saddam. Do you really believe a casual conversation with him about who knows what, is ever going to change the reality that Bush initially was provided information about WMD's, then held that information back from the public, and went to war anyway?

And do you really believe Saddam would divulge anything he might have known to us, knowing he was going to be executed anyway? Lol! That'll be the day.

 

They will never execute Obama

- - - Updated - - -

Saying the tubes were too thin does not mean he had no WMDs. If only it were that simple. Again I think Bush was a horrible president but Im not going to blame him for this.

 

You closed minded Republicans will be banging your heads against the wall on election day 2016 when another Democratic President is elected. It's amazing to read some of the threads posted about how awful President Obama has been, but they bury their heads in the dirt when presented FACTS of the (*)(*)(*)(*) storm GW Bush handed off to Obama in 2009 and then the Republican solution to making Obama a one term President was to slow down the economic recovery by doing everything they could to work against him with fillerbustering. Live in your little fantasy land right now of Jeb Bush being elected President like you guys did with Flip Flopney, but when these idiots get into the General Election they're going to get smashed like Bugs.

 

It is that simple when you cannot produce other tangible parts to a WMD that says this is a WMD. So yes, it does mean exactly that. Saddam did not have any WMD's and none were found during the time frame that he was accused of having them. Stop covering for this liar and murderer. You have no tangible evidence for one thing, and as a result, you posses no logical reason to vouch for a murderer like Bush who lead us into war because of a lie. Telling me "this does not mean he had no WMD's, is an insult to your intelligence and mine. Give it up chief. It's a lost cause. Your argument is dead. What Bush did will never come close to Obama.

 

Reminder that fascism lasted roughly a decade and accomplished nothing meaningful during that time

 

If you Google "Historical Rankings of Presidents of the United States", you'll find rankings by Presidentisl historians, from conservative through liberal. You'll find that Bush is one of the worst and the worst in a century or so. Obama will be ranked as mediocre to OK.

 

Are you one of the uninformed who believed that Iraq (Saddam Hussein) surrendered during the first Gulf war ???

There was no surrender, just a cease fire agreement with conditions that Hussein failed to follow.

So technically the USA and the UK were still at war with Iraq.

Then there was the attempted assassination attempt of G.H. Bush (41) an act of war. What was then President Clinton's response, he fired off some Tomahawk cruise missiles that sent a message confirming to Osma bin Laden that America was a paper tiger, that Clinton had the talk but not the walk.

It's all in Bin Laden's first fatwa and it's why Bin Laden thought that he could attack America on it's own soil (9-11-01) and the only response would be cruise missiles.
It's all here. -> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec96-fatwa_1996/

Iraq in violation of the cease fire agreement ( UN Security Council Resolution 688 ) violated and targeted U.S. and UK aircraft that were enforcing the "No Fly Zone" with Iraq violated and or attacking American and UK aircraft 500 times.

Then you have Resolution 687, "Weapons Inspections" that Iraq ignored and violated the terms of the cease fire agreement. Saddam wanted Iran and the rest of the world to think he still had WMD's.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31641.pdf

Saddam Hussein had been a pain in the butt for over ten years and President Clinton had eight years to take care of the problem but failed just like Obama failed when it came decimating Al Qaeda and having Al Qaeda on the run, it was all just a lie to get reelected in 2012.

It was never about WMD';s but it was the only way to get pantywaist liberals to get on board.

The mission of the Iraq war was regime change, not WMD's. That mission was quickly accomplished.

Now my self, I didn't support putting ground troops into Iraq because President G.W. Bush wasn't going by the "Weinberger Doctrine" and the "Powell Doctrine."

file:///home/chronos/u-b0705d1faf56c6f81959b1f472cf69a4c1462df0/Downloads/UP149.001.00019.00011.archival.pdf

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/4100/the-powell-doctrines-enduring-relevance

The Weinberger-Powell Doctrine calls for putting enough boots on the ground to kick ass and win. But unlike G.H. Bush (41) who went to war with Reagan's military during the first Gulf war and was able to put 500,000 American boots on the ground, G.W. Bush (43) was going to war with Clinton's military and was only able to put 200,000 American boots on the ground.

Clinton and the liberals over downsized the U.S. military during the 1990's and 200,000 troops was enough to accomplish the mission of regime change but it would take from 400,000 to 500,000 troops to occupy Iraq after the mission was completed.

We didn't have 500,000 troops or even 400,000 troops to put on the ground in Iraq. So what we ended up with was two wars. The first war of regime change we won but not being able to occupy Iraq you had the new second war, the Iraqi insurrection. A six month war turns into a five year war because after we (the right) won the Cold War, the left thought that peace in our times, the world was a safe place. Lets down size the military. As usual the left were wrong again.

But as soon as the first American soldiers and Marines crossed the border into Iraq I had to support the war because not supporting the war is the same as back stabbing the American soldier in the back and I know what that personally feels like when your peers and government back stabs you in the back when you're on the battlefield, I remember it clearly over forty five years ago in some place called Vietnam.

As history has shown us, when one side politicize a war, you are never going to achieve the victory that you started out going for.

 

And what proof do you have of this ??? You haven't looked very hard . Bush 2 lied about a war and caused the death or injury to over 30000 troops Obama hasn't done that. Atleast her at PF we a simple request back up your opinion with some credible facts.

I can walk into a bar and yell fire because it is my right to do so, but it doesn't make it true.

- - - Updated - - -

So you willfully admit Bush 2 lied about WMD and he assassinated a foreign head of state??? Wow just how many laws are you going to accuse Bush of breaking lol