Can We Agree Obama Failed?

[candycorn]

Blaming Obama for the pain you feel when tweezing nose hairs is getting old.

Can't we honestly just observe that government as a whole has failed. Obama is just one current piece of the puzzle. Congress and the Supreme Court have equal status in the triad of governance the president is a part of.

Government has misused the public trust for a very long time.

Nope. "They all do it" won't wash. Obama over rode Congress many times with his pen and phone. He created a climate of regime uncertainty that accounts for our poor business investment and consequently poor economy.

Trying to speak rationally with a non-thinker never works this girl is still waiting for her government supplied birth-control

I know, Rabbi hasn’t thought in years.

You’re waiting for birth control? Look in the mirror…that is the most effective form of contraception you’ll find.

Sandra fluke got her free birth control which is why she is smiling in that avi pic..there's easier ways to get birth control other than testifying before congress

Actually she didn’t. This has been shown to you several times.

 

[Markle]

Rabbi 14284673

. oops. we're still there, ANother Obama failure.
A U.S. Marine is killed in Iraq, the second combat casualty of the ISIS Obama's Iraq policy was a failure. He was advised by his own people it would be a failure. Can you not acknowledge that?

Being there is a failure and not being there to you is also a failure. You cannot be taken seriously.

You are very humorous.

You use the screen name NotfooledbyW yet there was never anything to fool you.

Then you are obviously fooled by the administration of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama.

It is unquestionable that it is you who cannot be taken seriously.

Good work.

 

[candycorn]

I suppose he is the first President to lose soldiers in war?

Was there some kind of point in your comment? Obama's Iraq policy was a failure. He was advised by his own people it would be a failure. Can you not acknowledge that?

We’re not spilling blood by the gallon over there in unwinable wars any longer.

That is what most Americans refer to as a victory.

Sorry.

Beiong dragged back into a war that was over is called a victory?
Iraq was a stable democracy when Obama took office. Now its a craphouse with Americans dying.

I prefer we just left them alone too.
Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn” rule of “you break it, you’ve bought it” applies at some level. We should have never gone in to start with. Now that we did, we have to do some things I prefer we wouldn’t do. One is to try to get Iraq to stand on their own. Instead of sending entire divisions over there to get shot at for no reason, we are sending advisors who, in the case that you’re speaking of, was unfortunately killed. Its a tragedy and a travesty.

Your trying to blame the President is about a cheap and demented as it gets but we get it. You hate Obama and you will keep up this shit until he’s out of office.

Iraq was a stable democracy when we left. We did buy it and we did fix it. But Obama wanted to rush out of Iraq and make his base happy and recklessly withdrew, against the advice of his senior staff. Then things went to shit.
This isnt even open for discussion. You can quibble we should have all you want but the facts are the facts.

As you just stated, we’re still there…now we left?

Either way, Iraq hasn’t been stable since we went in. Nobody would make such an asinine assertion unless they had some ulterior motive such as hating Obama and blaming him for not clearing up the mess he inherited.

Please tell us…on what specific date….name the date…that Iraq was a “stable democracy”.

 

[candycorn]

Oh come on, you don’t really believe that do you?

You're hero is easy fodder

Oh okay…

Your hero is easier fodder?

Not sure what the game is but I do enjoy winning it.

You win the prize for Most Dense.

You win the prize for poor English.

How would you know? Mandarin is your native language.

Mandarin? Whatever….

Were you dropped on your head at birth?

 

[Markle]

The theme of both Democrat candidates is things are terrible, working class people are getting screwed, the economy sucks.
Who has been in charge for the last 7+ years? Who had 2 years of filibuster proof Congress and passed major legislation, like Dodd-Frank, the stimulus, and OBamacare?
If things suck as bad as Bernie and Hillary tell us, then isnt it the fault of Obama and the Democrats and their shitty policies?
Why would we want to double down on stupid?
If Dems agree Obama has been a failure, then is there anyone who can say otherwise?

your premise is moot for the same reason Repubs in the senate won't do their jobs to consent to a SCOTUS appointee (not to mention the House )

/end thread

That there is a Supreme Court nominee by Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is a moot point isn't it?

Not to concern yourself. Obviously, Donald Trump has some excellent selections in mind for the position.

 

[Dot Com]

we were in vietraq 10+ tyears dummy AKA- Markle to the tune of $3,000,000,000,000 (borrowed by BushCo as opposed to paid) and 4500+ casualties and they didn't learn to love thier occupiers. It was long past time to declare victory and GTFO just like 'nam

You're welcome

 

[Markle]

Rabbi 14284926

You mean the iran deal that the White House admitted they lied about in order to get it passed?

The White House admitted no such thing.

You're a few fries short of a happy meal aren't you? You really need to read something other than your far left Progressive sites. Either that or you love being the fool. I've not been on this forum for long, so I'm not sure which.

 

[Dot Com]

The theme of both Democrat candidates is things are terrible, working class people are getting screwed, the economy sucks.
Who has been in charge for the last 7+ years? Who had 2 years of filibuster proof Congress and passed major legislation, like Dodd-Frank, the stimulus, and OBamacare?
If things suck as bad as Bernie and Hillary tell us, then isnt it the fault of Obama and the Democrats and their shitty policies?
Why would we want to double down on stupid?
If Dems agree Obama has been a failure, then is there anyone who can say otherwise?

your premise is moot for the same reason Repubs in the senate won't do their jobs to consent to a SCOTUS appointee (not to mention the House )

/end thread

That there is a Supreme Court nominee by Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is a moot point isn't it?

Not to concern yourself. Obviously, Donald Trump has some excellent selections in mind for the position.

You're an idiot

Back to topic: rw hack OP's butt hurt over our proud two-term, African American President cleaning-up his Repub predecessor's mess

 

[Dot Com]

Rabbi 14284926

You mean the iran deal that the White House admitted they lied about in order to get it passed?

The White House admitted no such thing.

You're a few fries short of a happy meal aren't you? You really need to read something other than your far left Progressive sites. Either that or you love being the fool. I've not been on this forum for long, so I'm not sure which.

exactly. you're a n00b and a mouthy one at that. n00bs should lurk before bellowing all over the forum and declaring their hackery

 

[deltex1]

Rabbi 14284926

You mean the iran deal that the White House admitted they lied about in order to get it passed?

The White House admitted no such thing.

You're a few fries short of a happy meal aren't you? You really need to read something other than your far left Progressive sites. Either that or you love being the fool. I've not been on this forum for long, so I'm not sure which.

exactly. you're a n00b and a mouthy one at that. n00bs should lurk before bellowing all over the forum and declaring their hackery

Ignore dot com. Her motto is "make America like Venezuela"

 

[Markle]

we were in vietraq 10+ tyears dummy AKA- Markle to the tune of $3,000,000,000,000 (borrowed by BushCo as opposed to paid) and 4500+ casualties and they didn't learn to love thier occupiers. It was long past time to declare victory and GTFO just like 'nam

You're welcome

Since the War on Terror began in 2003.

The War On Terror Has Cost Taxpayers $1.7 Trillion
Niall McCarthy
CONTRIBUTOR
Data journalist covering technological, societal and media topics
FEB 3, 2015

According to data compiled by the Mercatus Center citing the Congressional Research Service, the cost of global “War on Terror” operations (including both Afghanistan and Iraq) since 2001 had reached about $1.6 trillion by FY2014. When war funding approved by Congress for FY2015 is taken into account, the total reaches $1.7 trillion.

The majority of that funding, some $1.562 trillion, has been allocated to the Department of Defense. The “War on Terror” is proving extremely expensive compared to past military campaigns. Putting the cost into context, the bill for the Vietnam War comes to about $686 billion when adjusted for inflation.

Read more:
The War On Terror Has Cost Taxpayers $1.7 Trillion [Infographic]

 

[Markle]

Rabbi 14284926

You mean the iran deal that the White House admitted they lied about in order to get it passed?

The White House admitted no such thing.

You're a few fries short of a happy meal aren't you? You really need to read something other than your far left Progressive sites. Either that or you love being the fool. I've not been on this forum for long, so I'm not sure which.

exactly. you're a n00b and a mouthy one at that. n00bs should lurk before bellowing all over the forum and declaring their hackery

Ignore dot com. Her motto is "make America like Venezuela"

So I have seen!

Thank you!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2011 as negotiations on a new SOFA with Iraq were ongoing, said “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

Very clearly indeed:

Markle 14286871

NotfooleedbyW, you're way to easy. I agree that you probably didn't see it at the time

You are way too stupid and very uninformed. And you did not respond to what I wrote specifically for a very specific reason

NFBW 14286153

There is not one of Obama's own people who advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq after the deadline set within Bush's surrender agreement with Maliki was reached. Not one adviser to Obama told him to keep troops in Iraq when the Iraqi Government decided US troops would no longer be granted immunity from Iraqi courts. No one ever advised Obama to keep troops there under those conditions.

You see I don't read the Nation or Daily Koz. I find the facts Based on what people actually say as close to the issue as can be found and stick with them. Panetta did not advise Obama to leave troops in Iraq without immunity. I did my homework / you didn't read what you pounced on.


NFBW 10908353

Panetta in October 2011 said "“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

So no it's not exactly what you are saying. You are repeating right wing malicious propaganda

Panetta said exactly the opposite during the 2011 negotiations of what you are saying:

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

Do you know what that makes you?

.
After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

Learn to read before you blast off on something.

 

[Dot Com]

we were in vietraq 10+ tyears dummy AKA- Markle to the tune of $3,000,000,000,000 (borrowed by BushCo as opposed to paid) and 4500+ casualties and they didn't learn to love thier occupiers. It was long past time to declare victory and GTFO just like 'nam

You're welcome

Since the War on Terror began in 2003.

The War On Terror Has Cost Taxpayers $1.7 Trillion
Niall McCarthy
CONTRIBUTOR
Data journalist covering technological, societal and media topics
FEB 3, 2015

According to data compiled by the Mercatus Center citing the Congressional Research Service, the cost of global “War on Terror” operations (including both Afghanistan and Iraq) since 2001 had reached about $1.6 trillion by FY2014. When war funding approved by Congress for FY2015 is taken into account, the total reaches $1.7 trillion.

The majority of that funding, some $1.562 trillion, has been allocated to the Department of Defense. The “War on Terror” is proving extremely expensive compared to past military campaigns. Putting the cost into context, the bill for the Vietnam War comes to about $686 billion when adjusted for inflation.

Read more:
The War On Terror Has Cost Taxpayers $1.7 Trillion [Infographic]

ummm..... factor in healthcare for 30+ years kiddo

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Rabbi 14284926

You mean the iran deal that the White House admitted they lied about in order to get it passed?

The White House admitted no such thing.

You're a few fries short of a happy meal aren't you? You really need to read something other than your far left Progressive sites. Either that or you love being the fool. I've not been on this forum for long, so I'm not sure which.

Careful...it'll start a butt hurt thread about you in the FZ

 

[Faun]

The theme of both Democrat candidates is things are terrible, working class people are getting screwed, the economy sucks.
Who has been in charge for the last 7+ years? Who had 2 years of filibuster proof Congress and passed major legislation, like Dodd-Frank, the stimulus, and OBamacare?
If things suck as bad as Bernie and Hillary tell us, then isnt it the fault of Obama and the Democrats and their shitty policies?
Why would we want to double down on stupid?
If Dems agree Obama has been a failure, then is there anyone who can say otherwise?

your premise is moot for the same reason Repubs in the senate won't do their jobs to consent to a SCOTUS appointee (not to mention the House )

/end thread

That there is a Supreme Court nominee by Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is a moot point isn't it?

Not to concern yourself. Obviously, Donald Trump has some excellent selections in mind for the position.

Not like Trump will ever get to actually use that list.

 

[Dot Com]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2011 as negotiations on a new SOFA with Iraq were ongoing, said “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

Very clearly indeed:

Markle 14286871

NotfooleedbyW, you're way to easy. I agree that you probably didn't see it at the time

You are way too stupid and very uninformed. And you did not respond to what I wrote specifically for a very specific reason

NFBW 14286153

There is not one of Obama's own people who advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq after the deadline set within Bush's surrender agreement with Maliki was reached. Not one adviser to Obama told him to keep troops in Iraq when the Iraqi Government decided US troops would no longer be granted immunity from Iraqi courts. No one ever advised Obama to keep troops there under those conditions.

You see I don't read the Nation or Daily Koz. I find the facts Based on what people actually say as close to the issue as can be found and stick with them. Panetta did not advise Obama to leave troops in Iraq without immunity. I did my homework / you didn't read what you pounced on.


NFBW 10908353

Panetta in October 2011 said "“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

So no it's not exactly what you are saying. You are repeating right wing malicious propaganda

Panetta said exactly the opposite during the 2011 negotiations of what you are saying:

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

Do you know what that makes you?

.
After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

Learn to read before you blast off on something.

^ that

Poor, poor, Markle

 

[regent]

The Great Depression started in 1929 and it left Hoover despondent!

FDR did not take office until 1933, near the height of the Great Depression.

FDR policies may not have been remedies to restore the economy(which, by the way, was a global phenomena requiring nations to work together. I.e. even "right wing" solutions would not have in isolation) but it did save lives versus some of the leading Austrian economists solution as in doing nothing!

Yes, the big right wing solution of the day was to sit back and let the economy work itself out.

If some of you listened to the right during the great recession of 2007,you would have heard the same thing dribbling from the lips of many Republican: sit back and do nothing. No bailouts, No tarp, just nothing.

As the Great Depression has shown, we could all be dead long before the economy work itself out. Yet the right is mysterfied when the nation buckles under their leadership and lurches left.

If the right could ever get over its federalophobia, they may never lose power!. Bismarck did and the conservatives dominated German politics for more than 20 years, crushing and humiliating all left wing opponents.

That's history right wingers do not wish to learn! Yet its a noted part of conservative history!

In the 1890's Bismarck recognized that communism was appealing to the German people so instead of trying to scare the people with McCarthyism, Bismarck instituted socialized medicine in Germany.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

.... Obama wanted to rush out of Iraq and make his base happy and recklessly withdrew, against the advice of his senior staff.

According to Leon Panetta in 2011 Obama should not have forced US will on Iraq:

NFBW 10152020

Ste 10151876

Panetta is just helping the President save face, like any loyal member of a presidential administration would do. It is not surprising, but it also isn't an honest assessment by Panetta.

Are you saying that none of this is true?

Panetta in November 2011: (A) "This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. ..." (B) This is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. (C) This was about their needs. (D) This is not about us telling them what we're going to for with them or what they're going to have to do. "

If you think it is not true, please explain why not?

Panetta in November 2011: (A) "This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. ..." (B) This is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. (C) This was about their needs. (D) This is not about us telling them what we're going to for with them or what they're going to have to do. "


Iraqis wanted us gone. It did not matter what Panetta wished would have hapoened. It's a matter that Panetta at the time said is what was going to happen. Our troops had to leave. Bush's surrender agreement with corrupt Maliki who was under the thumb of anti-American Shiite Cleric Muqtada Al Sadr gave Iraq the authority and wherewithal to kick us out at the end of 2011. No US adviser or politician or military officer had one lick of influence or pressure that could persuade Sadr and his armed militia to keep US troops in Iraq beyond the Bush Maliki deadline.

Only true Bush duped fools believe something could have been done.

I gotta hand it to Trump. He is not a Bush duped fool like so many that still exist here.

 

[deltex1]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2011 as negotiations on a new SOFA with Iraq were ongoing, said “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

Very clearly indeed:

Markle 14286871

NotfooleedbyW, you're way to easy. I agree that you probably didn't see it at the time

You are way too stupid and very uninformed. And you did not respond to what I wrote specifically for a very specific reason

NFBW 14286153

There is not one of Obama's own people who advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq after the deadline set within Bush's surrender agreement with Maliki was reached. Not one adviser to Obama told him to keep troops in Iraq when the Iraqi Government decided US troops would no longer be granted immunity from Iraqi courts. No one ever advised Obama to keep troops there under those conditions.

You see I don't read the Nation or Daily Koz. I find the facts Based on what people actually say as close to the issue as can be found and stick with them. Panetta did not advise Obama to leave troops in Iraq without immunity. I did my homework / you didn't read what you pounced on.


NFBW 10908353

Panetta in October 2011 said "“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

So no it's not exactly what you are saying. You are repeating right wing malicious propaganda

Panetta said exactly the opposite during the 2011 negotiations of what you are saying:

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

Do you know what that makes you?

.
After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

Learn to read before you blast off on something.

Obabble should have known enough to tell Panetta to tell Maliki how things would work...or else he...Maliki...would be gone. That's what strong leaders do...enforce the rules.