OBAMA Does anyone really believe a word he says anymore?

[frigidweirdo]

And there you have it...right on cue, Jillian is here to make that claim...just as she was making it back then. When did we take their oil, Jillian? We controlled the country. When did we take Iraq's oil?

It's amazing how every time someone makes the claim that the US went in for oil, someone else then asks the question "when did we take Iraq's oil?".

They're two completely different things.

One is getting rid of Saddam and weakening the power of OPEC ans increasing the output of oil, which is what the US did. The other is getting rid of Saddam and pumping the oil to the US.

No one is claiming the latter, but it's easy for you to simply change the question.

 

[bluesman]

And there you have it...right on cue, Jillian is here to make that claim...just as she was making it back then. When did we take their oil, Jillian? We controlled the country. When did we take Iraq's oil?

It's amazing how every time someone makes the claim that the US went in for oil, someone else then asks the question "when did we take Iraq's oil?".

They're two completely different things.

One is getting rid of Saddam and weakening the power of OPEC ans increasing the output of oil, which is what the US did. The other is getting rid of Saddam and pumping the oil to the US.

No one is claiming the latter, but it's easy for you to simply change the question.

According to the George W Bush, we went there because there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It doesn't take that much geopolitical savvy to know that Al Qaeda would have killed a secular leader like Saddam. The other thing George W Bush did was put pressure on the intelligence community to make the WMDs claim. George W Bush and his chicken-hawk accomplices just "knew" there were WMDs. The also said the response from Iraq was going to be parades. It was all going to be over in no time. However, it still isn't over. Al Qaeda is now active in Iraq. Iran knows the American public does not want another invasion. Many thousands of Iraqis were killed. Well over 4000 Americans died. And after all that, we are worse off because of the bone-head decision of George W Bush. The only people who think Obama is worse than George W Bush are not using lost American lives as a gauge.

On top of that George W Bush, as commander in chief, backed the use of torture supposedly in the name of liberty which gave Al Qaeda the perfect ammunition to use in recruiting more terrorists. The whole thing was an ignorant cluster fuck.

 

[Rambunctious]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wfl55GgHr5E#t=4]"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oldstyle]

And there you have it...right on cue, Jillian is here to make that claim...just as she was making it back then. When did we take their oil, Jillian? We controlled the country. When did we take Iraq's oil?

It's amazing how every time someone makes the claim that the US went in for oil, someone else then asks the question "when did we take Iraq's oil?".

They're two completely different things.

One is getting rid of Saddam and weakening the power of OPEC ans increasing the output of oil, which is what the US did. The other is getting rid of Saddam and pumping the oil to the US.

No one is claiming the latter, but it's easy for you to simply change the question.

Change the question? LOL For YEARS people on the far left have ranted about "blood for oil" and accused the Bush Administration of going into Iraq simply because they wanted Iraq's oil. That always was a bullshit argument made by ignorant ideologues. We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a sociopath who fancied himself as the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar...a despotic ruler who wanted to use his oil money to obtain nuclear weapons. A man who used chemical weapons. A man who attacked peaceful neighbors. A man who provided large cash awards to the families of suicide bombers. A man who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein wouldn't abide by UN sanctions and was once again rebuilding his military with the use of black market sales of oil for weapons to circumvent those sanctions. It had NOTHING to do with weakening OPEC!

 

[bluesman]

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube

According to right wing rhetoric, everybody is losing their plan. I didn't lose my plan. Besides, right wingers don't give a damn about people having insurance anyway. Even though America was founded on puritan Christian principles, these new "conservatives" do not agree that all Americans should have access to healthcare. They are willing to let the poor people go without healthcare and now we a supposed to think that they are really that concerned about anybody "losing" their plan. Obama haters just want to hate on Obama. It is the same idea with Benghazi. They don't give a shit about the 4 Americans; they just want to use them to attack Obama. If the right really cared about Americans losing their lives, then they wouldn't give George W Bush a free pass on Iraq.

Since the Op said that Obama was the worst President in terms of lies. I am just going back one president to George W Bush. Are right wingers less upset about the over 4,000 Americans that were killed in Iraq? George W Bush made all kinds of bogus claims before he, as commander in chief, ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians lost their lives but I know many right wingers don't count that since they are "white people". However it is still a crime against humanity to kill over one hundred thousand people based on trumped up excuses.

 

[Oldstyle]

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube

According to right wing rhetoric, everybody is losing their plan. I didn't lose my plan. Besides, right wingers don't give a damn about people having insurance anyway. Even though America was founded on puritan Christian principles, these new "conservatives" do not agree that all Americans should have access to healthcare. They are willing to let the poor people go without healthcare and now we a supposed to think that they are really that concerned about anybody "losing" their plan. Obama haters just want to hate on Obama. It is the same idea with Benghazi. They don't give a shit about the 4 Americans; they just want to use them to attack Obama. If the right really cared about Americans losing their lives, then they wouldn't give George W Bush a free pass on Iraq.

Since the Op said that Obama was the worst President in terms of lies. I am just going back one president to George W Bush. Are right wingers less upset about the over 4,000 Americans that were killed in Iraq? George W Bush made all kinds of bogus claims before he, as commander in chief, ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians lost their lives but I know many right wingers don't count that since they are "white people". However it is still a crime against humanity to kill over one hundred thousand people based on trumped up excuses.

That was the most rambling, incoherent defense of Obama's lies I've heard in years. Bush...you're racists...Bush...you're racists...Bush...you're racists!

You can't bring yourself to admit that Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all deliberately lied to the American people REPEATEDLY about what was in the ACA and what it would mean for them if it was passed! You can't keep your plan if you like it...PERIOD! You very well may not be able to keep your doctor! If you're a typical Middle Class family the ACA will not lower your health care costs by an average of $2,500 a year! Those three Democratic leaders chose to lie to the American public because they think the end justifies the means.

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm always amused at the liberals here who put blinders on and declare the Iraq war a Republican endeavor. It wasn't! The list of Democrats who saw the same intel reports as George W. Bush did and voted in favor of action against Saddam Hussein makes it clear that this was something with bi-partisan support. Or did you miss John Kerry babbling like an idiot as he tried to rationalize first voting FOR the Iraq war before he changed his mind and voted against it later! Or have you conveniently forgotten that Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."?

What amazingly short memories so many of you have, Bluesman!

 

[TooTall]

And there you have it...right on cue, Jillian is here to make that claim...just as she was making it back then. When did we take their oil, Jillian? We controlled the country. When did we take Iraq's oil?

It's amazing how every time someone makes the claim that the US went in for oil, someone else then asks the question "when did we take Iraq's oil?".

They're two completely different things.

One is getting rid of Saddam and weakening the power of OPEC ans increasing the output of oil, which is what the US did. The other is getting rid of Saddam and pumping the oil to the US.

No one is claiming the latter, but it's easy for you to simply change the question.

According to the George W Bush, we went there because there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It doesn't take that much geopolitical savvy to know that Al Qaeda would have killed a secular leader like Saddam. The other thing George W Bush did was put pressure on the intelligence community to make the WMDs claim. George W Bush and his chicken-hawk accomplices just "knew" there were WMDs. The also said the response from Iraq was going to be parades. It was all going to be over in no time. However, it still isn't over. Al Qaeda is now active in Iraq. Iran knows the American public does not want another invasion. Many thousands of Iraqis were killed. Well over 4000 Americans died. And after all that, we are worse off because of the bone-head decision of George W Bush. The only people who think Obama is worse than George W Bush are not using lost American lives as a gauge.

On top of that George W Bush, as commander in chief, backed the use of torture supposedly in the name of liberty which gave Al Qaeda the perfect ammunition to use in recruiting more terrorists. The whole thing was an ignorant cluster fuck.

Bush went into Iraq with the consent of the US Congress and the United Nations. Material breach of the ceasefire under the terms of Res 687 and several other reasons as well.

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

I suggest the indiscriminate use of drones by the Obama administration that kill all men, women and children in the vicinity of the blast does more for recruiting more terrorists than the water boarding two or three terrorists could ever do.

 

[Wyld Kard]

OBAMA Does anyone really believe a word he says anymore?

I have never believed a goddamn word that lying piece of shit Obama has ever said about anything, maybe it's because I don't drink the Kool-Aid like the liberal shit-for-brains do.

 

[Rocko]

Obama doesn't believe what he says. But he things the Small Folk are stupid enough to believe it.

Some people are, but I believe most people know he's full of shit. They just don't care anymore.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[bluesman]

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube

According to right wing rhetoric, everybody is losing their plan. I didn't lose my plan. Besides, right wingers don't give a damn about people having insurance anyway. Even though America was founded on puritan Christian principles, these new "conservatives" do not agree that all Americans should have access to healthcare. They are willing to let the poor people go without healthcare and now we a supposed to think that they are really that concerned about anybody "losing" their plan. Obama haters just want to hate on Obama. It is the same idea with Benghazi. They don't give a shit about the 4 Americans; they just want to use them to attack Obama. If the right really cared about Americans losing their lives, then they wouldn't give George W Bush a free pass on Iraq.

Since the Op said that Obama was the worst President in terms of lies. I am just going back one president to George W Bush. Are right wingers less upset about the over 4,000 Americans that were killed in Iraq? George W Bush made all kinds of bogus claims before he, as commander in chief, ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians lost their lives but I know many right wingers don't count that since they are "white people". However it is still a crime against humanity to kill over one hundred thousand people based on trumped up excuses.

That was the most rambling, incoherent defense of Obama's lies I've heard in years. Bush...you're racists...Bush...you're racists...Bush...you're racists!

You can't bring yourself to admit that Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all deliberately lied to the American people REPEATEDLY about what was in the ACA and what it would mean for them if it was passed! You can't keep your plan if you like it...PERIOD! You very well may not be able to keep your doctor! If you're a typical Middle Class family the ACA will not lower your health care costs by an average of $2,500 a year! Those three Democratic leaders chose to lie to the American public because they think the end justifies the means.

You somehow don't want to discuss the people who died in Iraq. There were over 4,000 Americans. That is over 1,000 times as many as died in Benghazi. The Op is about the president who was the worst liar. What has Obama done or said that is worse than getting over 4,000 Americans killed? All I did was go back one president.

 

[bluesman]

And I'm always amused at the liberals here who put blinders on and declare the Iraq war a Republican endeavor. It wasn't! The list of Democrats who saw the same intel reports as George W. Bush did and voted in favor of action against Saddam Hussein makes it clear that this was something with bi-partisan support. Or did you miss John Kerry babbling like an idiot as he tried to rationalize first voting FOR the Iraq war before he changed his mind and voted against it later! Or have you conveniently forgotten that Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."?

What amazingly short memories so many of you have, Bluesman!

Here in America we have a document called the constitution. You might want to read the part about there being one individual who is the commander in chief. The commander in chief who ordered the invasion of Iraq was your boy George W Bush. As a result, over 4,000 Americans died. Another thing about America is that we require accountability. If the commander in chief makes a mistake, then the buck stops there. That is just how it works.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Change the question? LOL For YEARS people on the far left have ranted about "blood for oil" and accused the Bush Administration of going into Iraq simply because they wanted Iraq's oil. That always was a bullshit argument made by ignorant ideologues. We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a sociopath who fancied himself as the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar...a despotic ruler who wanted to use his oil money to obtain nuclear weapons. A man who used chemical weapons. A man who attacked peaceful neighbors. A man who provided large cash awards to the families of suicide bombers. A man who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein wouldn't abide by UN sanctions and was once again rebuilding his military with the use of black market sales of oil for weapons to circumvent those sanctions. It had NOTHING to do with weakening OPEC!

This issue isn't one that is black and white, it's not a "there is only one reason".

The Israelis were pushing for something to happen in Iraq, just as they're pushing for something to happen in Iran and have been for a long while.

However, the US govt will only go in if their own interests are being served. Looking at US action since the end of the Cold War and you get a very keen sense that this is to with oil.

For example, the case of Libya.

John McCain was pushing for the US to go into Libya, he massively criticised Obama for not doing anything quickly enough.

McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya - CNN.com

"McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya" April 22, 2011

Graham, McCain Critical of Slow Response in Libya | S E N A T U S

"Graham, McCain Critical of Slow Response in Libya" MARCH 20, 2011

McCain, Lieberman: Obama Too Slow on Libya

"McCain, Lieberman: Obama Too Slow on Libya" Sunday, 20 Mar 2011

PostPartisan - McCain: U.S. 'making up reasons' to avoid action on Libya

"McCain: U.S. 'making up reasons' to avoid action on Libya" 03/ 1/2011

So the question is, why was McCain so desperate in Libya?

Now the other question is, why did McCain not give a damn about the Ivory Coast?

Second Ivorian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Second Ivorian Civil War[8][9] broke out in March 2011 when the crisis in Ivory Coast escalated into full-scale military conflict between forces loyal to Laurent Gbagbo, the President of Ivory Coast since 2000, and supporters of the internationally recognised president-elect Alassane Ouattara. After months of unsuccessful negotiations and sporadic violence between supporters of the two sides, the crisis entered a critical stage as Ouattara's forces seized control of most of the country, with Gbagbo entrenched in Abidjan, the country's largest city. International organizations have reported numerous instances of human rights violations by both sides, in particular in the city of Duékoué. The UN and French forces took military action, with the stated objective to protect their forces and civilians. Ouattara's forces arrested Gbagbo at his residence on 11 April."

So, civil war in Libya, the US has to help, civil war at the same time in the Ivory Coast and the US doesn't give a damn, I doubt most Americans even knew it was happening. To be honest, I type in "john McCain Côte d'Ivoire" and i get nothing, absolutely nothing, he didn't say much if anything about this conflict.

What about Syria?

Did McCain criticise Obama for being too slow in Syria? It started March 15th 2011. It's been going on for more than 3 years and the US hasn't intervened.

McCain has called for military action at times John McCain: Congressional Vote Against Military Action In Syria Would Be 'Catastrophic'

"John McCain: Congressional Vote Against Military Action In Syria Would Be 'Catastrophic'" 09/03/2013

though this was 2 years after the crisis started

McCain calls for airstrikes on Syria - CNN.com

"http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/05/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html" March 6, 2012

and this was 1 year after it started.

Syria: Intervention is in Our Interest | TIME.com

He even made the case that intervention was in the interests of the US.

"For America, our interests are our values, and our values are our interests." which is a bit of a joke.

But this was all in the past few years. What did he say at the time?

McCain: Syria military intervention too risky - CBS News

"McCain: Syria military intervention too risky" April 28, 2011

Yep, he was saying no intervention. Why was Libya so urgent, but Syria not?

Sen. John McCain: U.S. Must Sustain Momentum of Arab Spring | United States Institute of Peace

"Sen. John McCain: U.S. Must Sustain Momentum of Arab Spring" May 20, 2011

Here's an idea of why he may have changed his mind. He wanted the Arab Spring to work. Why? Could it possibly have anything to do with Iran?

"“It should also put to rest the ugly claim, heard all too often over the past decade, that the Arab world is somehow condemned to despotism – that unlike people everywhere else, Arabs are not ready, not capable, or not fit for democracy,” the senator said in USIP’s Great Hall in its Washington headquarters."

He seems to be claiming that it's all about democracy. Heard this one a lot, even when they took down the democratically elected leader of Venezuela in a coup they claimed it was for democratic purposes. Is the US the only country in the world that can destroy democracy and claim it is acting in the interests of democracy?

"Sen. McCain called for changing anti-American regimes, consolidating nascent democracies, reforming pro-American autocracies and renewing the Israel-Palestinian peace process -- echoing many of the same themes President Obama had touched on in his own speech."

Wait, they want to get rid of anti-American regimes.

"Countries with regimes that are incompatible with a free Middle East must be forced to change. The U.S. must support Iran’s Green Movement, for example, by placing effective sanctions on that country."

Hmmm, democracy and freedom again.

"“We must do all we can, short of military action, to help the Syrian revolution to succeed,” Sen. McCain said, "

Oh, no military intervention.

"In Libya, Sen. McCain would like the U.S. to move away from an “incremental escalation of pressure on Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi in favor of a more decisive course of action.” He said he would like to have U.S. strike aircraft “back into the fight” to destroy the Libyan leader’s command-and-control sites and have the American government recognize the transitional national council in Benghazi as “the legitimate voice” of the Libyan people."

But is talking up intervention in Libya at the same time.

"In other countries, the U.S. has been criticized for its lukewarm opposition to regimes where people have called for change – like in Bahrain. “The United States is fully committed to our partnership with the Kingdom of Bahrain, as well as its Gulf neighbors, but we want them to stay on the right side of history in their countries – because that is where the United States must, and will, remain,” he said. It is critical now for the U.S. to sustain the momentum that has already begun in the birthplace of the Arab Spring, he said."

But, oh, Bahrain, no, no, no, don't want to hurt those who are pro-US, so it's nothing to do with democracy, that's a load of bull.

Do you not see that you're making a claim that they said something, so you're willing to believe. Actions speak a lot louder than words, and in the case of countries the US is willing to intervene in, it has to be about US interests, and those interests are OPEC.

McCain has been trying to make Syria about US interests, but no one is buying it.

So, there are very, very few options left as to why the US wants to invade Iran, bombed Libya, invaded Iraq, and helped a coup in Venezuela while ignoring the Ivory Coast, not intervening in Syria etc.

 

[frigidweirdo]

OBAMA Does anyone really believe a word he says anymore?

I have never believed a goddamn word that lying piece of shit Obama has ever said about anything, maybe it's because I don't drink the Kool-Aid like the liberal shit-for-brains do.

But you will believe the other liars, right?

 

[Vigilante]

OBAMA Does anyone really believe a word he says anymore?

I have never believed a goddamn word that lying piece of shit Obama has ever said about anything, maybe it's because I don't drink the Kool-Aid like the liberal shit-for-brains do.

But you will believe the other liars, right?

Obama supporters will go hysterical over this well sourced list of 634 examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc.

Obama supporters will go hysterical over this well sourced list of 634 examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc. | Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

 

[S.J.]

Rather than list his lies (which would take way too much time and space), wouldn't it be easier to list the times he has told the truth? He said he was gonna "change" America. Well, he did. That's the only one I can think of. Anybody else have any?

 

[Vigilante]

Something about REDISTRIBUTE YOUR WEALTH, or something like that!

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm always amused at the liberals here who put blinders on and declare the Iraq war a Republican endeavor. It wasn't! The list of Democrats who saw the same intel reports as George W. Bush did and voted in favor of action against Saddam Hussein makes it clear that this was something with bi-partisan support. Or did you miss John Kerry babbling like an idiot as he tried to rationalize first voting FOR the Iraq war before he changed his mind and voted against it later! Or have you conveniently forgotten that Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."?

What amazingly short memories so many of you have, Bluesman!

Here in America we have a document called the constitution. You might want to read the part about there being one individual who is the commander in chief. The commander in chief who ordered the invasion of Iraq was your boy George W Bush. As a result, over 4,000 Americans died. Another thing about America is that we require accountability. If the commander in chief makes a mistake, then the buck stops there. That is just how it works.

Hate to break this to you, Sparky but that document you're referring to requires the Commander in Chief to get approval of the Congress before he can wage war. Bush did so with the a fore mentioned "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution"...something that prominent Democrats like Kerry and Clinton voted in favor of. Somehow you think THEY have no accountability for that vote! You'll have to explain why that is. From where I'm sitting it looks like you desperately want to solely blame Bush for Iraq while giving a pass to any Democrat who voted to support military action there. You CAN of course do that but you're going to look like a total head in the sand partisan while you do so.

 

[bluesman]

And I'm always amused at the liberals here who put blinders on and declare the Iraq war a Republican endeavor. It wasn't! The list of Democrats who saw the same intel reports as George W. Bush did and voted in favor of action against Saddam Hussein makes it clear that this was something with bi-partisan support. Or did you miss John Kerry babbling like an idiot as he tried to rationalize first voting FOR the Iraq war before he changed his mind and voted against it later! Or have you conveniently forgotten that Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."?

What amazingly short memories so many of you have, Bluesman!

Here in America we have a document called the constitution. You might want to read the part about there being one individual who is the commander in chief. The commander in chief who ordered the invasion of Iraq was your boy George W Bush. As a result, over 4,000 Americans died. Another thing about America is that we require accountability. If the commander in chief makes a mistake, then the buck stops there. That is just how it works.

Hate to break this to you, Sparky but that document you're referring to requires the Commander in Chief to get approval of the Congress before he can wage war. Bush did so with the a fore mentioned "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution"...something that prominent Democrats like Kerry and Clinton voted in favor of. Somehow you think THEY have no accountability for that vote! You'll have to explain why that is. From where I'm sitting it looks like you desperately want to solely blame Bush for Iraq while giving a pass to any Democrat who voted to support military action there. You CAN of course do that but you're going to look like a total head in the sand partisan while you do so.

Why is George W Bush off limits? This thread is about the biggest presidential liar. Only a pure idiot would try and claim that George W Bush wasn't responsible for Iraq. He pushed for the bogus intel. He proliferated the cowardly "be afraid" message. I agree it was a major fuck-up and I understand that right wing partisans would want to dodge the blame but it was a presidential fuck-up. It was George W Bush that was the head of the executive branch that came up with the bogus WMDs evidence as well as the "link" between Al Qaeda and Saddam. If Al Gore had been in the white house, then we wouldn't have had the push for bogus intel and the invasion would not have happened. Republican President, George W Bush, was the only one with the constitutional authority to give the order to invade and that is specifically what he did. Iraq is George W Bush's war. That is a historical fact.