Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
That is a stupid post. However, it was not as stupid as the order the commander in chief gave when we invaded Iraq in response to 9/11.
Iraq was not invaded as a response to 9/11.
I posted the reasons for the Iraq invasion and you choose to continue your partisan, I hate Bush rant. You really ought to get your facts straight.
The Op talks about Obama compared to other presidents. I just went back one president and pointed out that because of his fuck-up, over 4,000 Americans died. That doesn't take into account all the Americans who committed suicide due to PTSD or the Americans who had parts of their body blown off. Only someone who truly "hates the troops" would not consider that a higher cost than anything Obama has done.
As far as your claim about the reason for the invasion, the following link shows that Rumsfeld was very clear in saying that George W Bush was focused on Iraq even just two weeks after 9/11:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
WASHINGTON — Just 15 days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush invited his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to meet with him alone in the Oval Office. According to Mr. Rumsfeld’s new memoir, the president leaned back in his leather chair and ordered a review and revision of war plans — but not for Afghanistan, where the Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington had been planned and where American retaliation was imminent.
“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”
I agree with you that Iraq was a major fuck-up and understand why you are trying to say the "buck does not stop" with George W Bush. Back during the invasion the right wing position was to "Support the troops" and question anybody's patriotism who said it was a fuck-up. Now you agree. Thank you for finally conceding this obvious fact. However, Bush and his administration pushed for the invasion and attacked the patriotism of anyone who didn't agree. It was a George W Bush fuck-up. Any true "constitutionalist" would never try and divert blame for a military order from anyone but the "commander in chief".
I am not trying to say the buck does not stop with Bush. I am saying everyone that was part of the decision to invade Iraq shares the responsibility. As far as I am concerned, the major fuck up happened when Obama was unable to convince the Iraqi government to agree to leaving a special ops force in Iraq to continue training their army and help put down any major attacks by al queda.
So everybody shares responsibility with Bush and we are supposed to believe all the bullshit about the WMDs was sincere and honest. However, Obama is solely responsible for anything bad happening now. If you were able to be objective about it then you would see how stupid that sounds. Bush isn't responsible for the economic collapse at the end of his term and initiating the government bailouts. Only Obama. The ignorance just never stops.
Bullshit. The president is the commander in chief. That is not up for debate. The decision to invade Iraq originated in the George W Bush administration and the order to start shooting was given by George W Bush himself. He is the one who entertained the chicken-hawks like Wolfowitz when he was still in the Governor's Mansion in Texas. It was his administration that bullied the intelligence employees that worked for the federal government. The WMD's were not there. The link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was not there. It was all a fuck-up and responsibility rests with the commander-in-chief that made it all happen. That is just how it works regardless of how much anybody hates Obama.
I am not trying to say the buck does not stop with Bush. I am saying everyone that was part of the decision to invade Iraq shares the responsibility. As far as I am concerned, the major fuck up happened when Obama was unable to convince the Iraqi government to agree to leaving a special ops force in Iraq to continue training their army and help put down any major attacks by al queda.
So everybody shares responsibility with Bush and we are supposed to believe all the bullshit about the WMDs was sincere and honest. However, Obama is solely responsible for anything bad happening now. If you were able to be objective about it then you would see how stupid that sounds. Bush isn't responsible for the economic collapse at the end of his term and initiating the government bailouts. Only Obama. The ignorance just never stops.
Bullshit. The president is the commander in chief. That is not up for debate. The decision to invade Iraq originated in the George W Bush administration and the order to start shooting was given by George W Bush himself. He is the one who entertained the chicken-hawks like Wolfowitz when he was still in the Governor's Mansion in Texas. It was his administration that bullied the intelligence employees that worked for the federal government. The WMD's were not there. The link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was not there. It was all a fuck-up and responsibility rests with the commander-in-chief that made it all happen. That is just how it works regardless of how much anybody hates Obama.
A Commander In Chief is not a "King", Bluesman...he or she does not have the power under our system of government to do whatever he or she feels like doing. The Founding Fathers deliberately set things up so that there would be a balance of power...so that we WOULDN'T be trading in one King (King George of Great Britain) for another King (King George Washington)! The decision to go into Iraq may have begun with George W. Bush but it had to be approved by Congress...and it was! Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted for the Iraq invasion...hence they bear part of the responsibility for what took place. THAT is what's not open for debate...despite your continued attempts to spin it so that they are absolved of responsibility for their votes.
So everybody shares responsibility with Bush and we are supposed to believe all the bullshit about the WMDs was sincere and honest. However, Obama is solely responsible for anything bad happening now. If you were able to be objective about it then you would see how stupid that sounds. Bush isn't responsible for the economic collapse at the end of his term and initiating the government bailouts. Only Obama. The ignorance just never stops.
Bullshit. The president is the commander in chief. That is not up for debate. The decision to invade Iraq originated in the George W Bush administration and the order to start shooting was given by George W Bush himself. He is the one who entertained the chicken-hawks like Wolfowitz when he was still in the Governor's Mansion in Texas. It was his administration that bullied the intelligence employees that worked for the federal government. The WMD's were not there. The link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was not there. It was all a fuck-up and responsibility rests with the commander-in-chief that made it all happen. That is just how it works regardless of how much anybody hates Obama.
A Commander In Chief is not a "King", Bluesman...he or she does not have the power under our system of government to do whatever he or she feels like doing. The Founding Fathers deliberately set things up so that there would be a balance of power...so that we WOULDN'T be trading in one King (King George of Great Britain) for another King (King George Washington)! The decision to go into Iraq may have begun with George W. Bush but it had to be approved by Congress...and it was! Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted for the Iraq invasion...hence they bear part of the responsibility for what took place. THAT is what's not open for debate...despite your continued attempts to spin it so that they are absolved of responsibility for their votes.
The commander in chief does have the authority to direct the military to invade or not invade. Congress cannot do that. The parts of the government that were responsible for gathering and reporting intelligence were under the direct control of the executive branch. It isn't the fault of congress or any democratic politician that the George W Bush Administration was so focused on invading Iraq. It wasn't congress that was looking for a reason to invade Iraq or trying to scare the American public. They were lied to just like the rest of the country. There is no question that Iraq was George W Bush's war. He made it happen. As Donald Rumsfeld said in his book: "the president insisted".
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
WASHINGTON Just 15 days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush invited his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to meet with him alone in the Oval Office. According to Mr. Rumsfelds new memoir, the president leaned back in his leather chair and ordered a review and revision of war plans but not for Afghanistan, where the Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington had been planned and where American retaliation was imminent.
He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nations history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied, Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. He wanted the options to be creative.
The intelligence services that report to the President also report to Congress, Bluesman.
Yes, as the Obama White House attempts to bully the CIA into revising their report on Benghazi clearly show, Administrations DO try to bend the intelligence services to their point of view but we have Congressional oversight on intelligence so that the power of the Executive Branch in that regard is limited.
A Commander In Chief is not a "King", Bluesman...he or she does not have the power under our system of government to do whatever he or she feels like doing. The Founding Fathers deliberately set things up so that there would be a balance of power...so that we WOULDN'T be trading in one King (King George of Great Britain) for another King (King George Washington)! The decision to go into Iraq may have begun with George W. Bush but it had to be approved by Congress...and it was! Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted for the Iraq invasion...hence they bear part of the responsibility for what took place. THAT is what's not open for debate...despite your continued attempts to spin it so that they are absolved of responsibility for their votes.
The commander in chief does have the authority to direct the military to invade or not invade. Congress cannot do that. The parts of the government that were responsible for gathering and reporting intelligence were under the direct control of the executive branch. It isn't the fault of congress or any democratic politician that the George W Bush Administration was so focused on invading Iraq. It wasn't congress that was looking for a reason to invade Iraq or trying to scare the American public. They were lied to just like the rest of the country. There is no question that Iraq was George W Bush's war. He made it happen. As Donald Rumsfeld said in his book: "the president insisted".
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
WASHINGTON — Just 15 days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush invited his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to meet with him alone in the Oval Office. According to Mr. Rumsfeld’s new memoir, the president leaned back in his leather chair and ordered a review and revision of war plans — but not for Afghanistan, where the Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington had been planned and where American retaliation was imminent.
“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Press Release of Intelligence Committee
-- Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office --
“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses..."
"...The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed..."
The intelligence services that report to the President also report to Congress, Bluesman.
Yes, as the Obama White House attempts to bully the CIA into revising their report on Benghazi clearly show, Administrations DO try to bend the intelligence services to their point of view but we have Congressional oversight on intelligence so that the power of the Executive Branch in that regard is limited.
The commander in chief does have the authority to direct the military to invade or not invade. Congress cannot do that. The parts of the government that were responsible for gathering and reporting intelligence were under the direct control of the executive branch. It isn't the fault of congress or any democratic politician that the George W Bush Administration was so focused on invading Iraq. It wasn't congress that was looking for a reason to invade Iraq or trying to scare the American public. They were lied to just like the rest of the country. There is no question that Iraq was George W Bush's war. He made it happen. As Donald Rumsfeld said in his book: "the president insisted".
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
WASHINGTON — Just 15 days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush invited his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to meet with him alone in the Oval Office. According to Mr. Rumsfeld’s new memoir, the president leaned back in his leather chair and ordered a review and revision of war plans — but not for Afghanistan, where the Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington had been planned and where American retaliation was imminent.
“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Press Release of Intelligence Committee
-- Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office --
“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses..."
"...The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed..."
The intelligence services that report to the President also report to Congress, Bluesman.
Yes, as the Obama White House attempts to bully the CIA into revising their report on Benghazi clearly show, Administrations DO try to bend the intelligence services to their point of view but we have Congressional oversight on intelligence so that the power of the Executive Branch in that regard is limited.
The Op compared Obama to all other presidents. 4 Americans died in Benghazi. There were one thousand times as many who died in Iraq. That makes it one thousand times worse. Therefore in comparison, Obama is not the worst. Again, that assumes that you value the lives of American troops.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Bluesman...but didn't Barack Obama order a "surge" that involved sending tens of thousands MORE American troops into harms way? Is he responsible for the deaths of those men? And if he sent them into a situation that he had already decided we shouldn't be in...who's "worse"...a President who commits troops to try and get rid of a threat like Saddam Hussein...or a President who commits troops to something he doesn't believe in simply because it makes him look less weak?
The truth is...more troops have died in Afghanistan under Barack Obama's 5 plus years of leadership than died under George W. Bush's 8 years of leadership. As a matter of fact it's not even close! 581 with Bush...1662 with Obama.
Isn't this the same intelligence community that told B. Insane that there was no Protests in Benghazi before B. Insane insisted, and sent Susan Rice out in front of FIVE different Sunday Political TV shows, and LIED THROUGH her teeth....THAT intelligence community?
Isn't this the same intelligence community that told B. Insane that there was no Protests in Benghazi before B. Insane insisted, and sent Susan Rice out in front of FIVE different Sunday Political TV shows, and LIED THROUGH her teeth....THAT intelligence community?
Why do you keep abandoning the flow of the conversation? If you want to reply to what I said, then use the quote feature so the context will remain intact and show that you are trying to dodge what I am saying.
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Press Release of Intelligence Committee
-- Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office --
“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses..."
"...The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed..."
The Op compared Obama to all other presidents. 4 Americans died in Benghazi. There were one thousand times as many who died in Iraq. That makes it one thousand times worse. Therefore in comparison, Obama is not the worst. Again, that assumes that you value the lives of American troops.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Bluesman...but didn't Barack Obama order a "surge" that involved sending tens of thousands MORE American troops into harms way? Is he responsible for the deaths of those men? And if he sent them into a situation that he had already decided we shouldn't be in...who's "worse"...a President who commits troops to try and get rid of a threat like Saddam Hussein...or a President who commits troops to something he doesn't believe in simply because it makes him look less weak?
The truth is...more troops have died in Afghanistan under Barack Obama's 5 plus years of leadership than died under George W. Bush's 8 years of leadership. As a matter of fact it's not even close! 581 with Bush...1662 with Obama.
I agree. The invasion was not thought out in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, you are skipping over the part where we were lied to as far as the reason for invading Iraq. I posted the results of a bi-partisan report showing the Bush administration lied. Obama didn't commit troops to Afghanistan under false pretenses. It was something that was underway when he arrived. So as far as the topic of this thread goes, considering the loss of American lives based on presidential lies, I have shown that Bush is way ahead of Obama. Therefore his lies were worse and he is the bigger liar.
The Op compared Obama to all other presidents. 4 Americans died in Benghazi. There were one thousand times as many who died in Iraq. That makes it one thousand times worse. Therefore in comparison, Obama is not the worst. Again, that assumes that you value the lives of American troops.
The truth is...more troops have died in Afghanistan under Barack Obama's 5 plus years of leadership than died under George W. Bush's 8 years of leadership. As a matter of fact it's not even close! 581 with Bush...1662 with Obama.
I agree. The invasion was not thought out in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, you are skipping over the part where we were lied to as far as the reason for invading Iraq. I posted the results of a bi-partisan report showing the Bush administration lied. Obama didn't commit troops to Afghanistan under false pretenses. It was something that was underway when he arrived. So as far as the topic of this thread goes, considering the loss of American lives based on presidential lies, I have shown that Bush is way ahead of Obama. Therefore his lies were worse and he is the bigger liar.
Robert Gates wrote in his book about Barack Obama and the surge in Afghanistan:
“If I had ever come to believe the military part of the strategy would not lead to success as I defined it,” writes Gates. “I could not have continued signing the deployment orders." How can a commander in good conscience send troops on a mission he doesn’t believe in, a mission from which he knows some will never return? Even worse, Obama ordered a major escalation, expending much blood but not an ounce of his own political capital. Over the next four years Obama ignored the obligation of any commander to explain, support and try to rally the nation to the cause. And when he finally terminated the surge, he did so in the middle of the 2012 fighting season. Militarily incoherent — but politically convenient. It allowed Obama to campaign for re-election proclaiming that “the tide of war is receding.”
The difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama is a stark one...one man sent US troops to fight and possibly die because he believed in the mission whole heartedly...the other man sent US troops to fight and die because it was politically expedient even though he made it clear he never supported either the strategy or the mission.
Three times as many US servicemen have died in Afghanistan under Barack Obama then died there under George W. Bush! What's most disturbing about that statistic is that they have died fighting for a President who never believed in what they were doing in the first place.
The intelligence services that report to the President also report to Congress, Bluesman.
Yes, as the Obama White House attempts to bully the CIA into revising their report on Benghazi clearly show, Administrations DO try to bend the intelligence services to their point of view but we have Congressional oversight on intelligence so that the power of the Executive Branch in that regard is limited.
I don't believe a word out of his mouth anymore myself. I stopped believing at lie #3. Ive never known anyone to lie as much as him.
At what point to Dems realize the lies are hurting fellow Americans.
The Op compared Obama to all other presidents. 4 Americans died in Benghazi. There were one thousand times as many who died in Iraq. That makes it one thousand times worse. Therefore in comparison, Obama is not the worst. Again, that assumes that you value the lives of American troops.
The truth is...more troops have died in Afghanistan under Barack Obama's 5 plus years of leadership than died under George W. Bush's 8 years of leadership. As a matter of fact it's not even close! 581 with Bush...1662 with Obama.
I agree. The invasion was not thought out in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, you are skipping over the part where we were lied to as far as the reason for invading Iraq. I posted the results of a bi-partisan report showing the Bush administration lied. Obama didn't commit troops to Afghanistan under false pretenses. It was something that was underway when he arrived. So as far as the topic of this thread goes, considering the loss of American lives based on presidential lies, I have shown that Bush is way ahead of Obama. Therefore his lies were worse and he is the bigger liar.
Robert Gates wrote in his book about Barack Obama and the surge in Afghanistan:
If I had ever come to believe the military part of the strategy would not lead to success as I defined it, writes Gates. I could not have continued signing the deployment orders." How can a commander in good conscience send troops on a mission he doesnt believe in, a mission from which he knows some will never return? Even worse, Obama ordered a major escalation, expending much blood but not an ounce of his own political capital. Over the next four years Obama ignored the obligation of any commander to explain, support and try to rally the nation to the cause. And when he finally terminated the surge, he did so in the middle of the 2012 fighting season. Militarily incoherent but politically convenient. It allowed Obama to campaign for re-election proclaiming that the tide of war is receding.
The difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama is a stark one...one man sent US troops to fight and possibly die because he believed in the mission whole heartedly...the other man sent US troops to fight and die because it was politically expedient even though he made it clear he never supported either the strategy or the mission.
Three times as many US servicemen have died in Afghanistan under Barack Obama then died there under George W. Bush! What's most disturbing about that statistic is that they have died fighting for a President who never believed in what they were doing in the first place.
I agree. The invasion was not thought out in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, you are skipping over the part where we were lied to as far as the reason for invading Iraq. I posted the results of a bi-partisan report showing the Bush administration lied. Obama didn't commit troops to Afghanistan under false pretenses. It was something that was underway when he arrived. So as far as the topic of this thread goes, considering the loss of American lives based on presidential lies, I have shown that Bush is way ahead of Obama. Therefore his lies were worse and he is the bigger liar.
Robert Gates wrote in his book about Barack Obama and the surge in Afghanistan:
If I had ever come to believe the military part of the strategy would not lead to success as I defined it, writes Gates. I could not have continued signing the deployment orders." How can a commander in good conscience send troops on a mission he doesnt believe in, a mission from which he knows some will never return? Even worse, Obama ordered a major escalation, expending much blood but not an ounce of his own political capital. Over the next four years Obama ignored the obligation of any commander to explain, support and try to rally the nation to the cause. And when he finally terminated the surge, he did so in the middle of the 2012 fighting season. Militarily incoherent but politically convenient. It allowed Obama to campaign for re-election proclaiming that the tide of war is receding.
The difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama is a stark one...one man sent US troops to fight and possibly die because he believed in the mission whole heartedly...the other man sent US troops to fight and die because it was politically expedient even though he made it clear he never supported either the strategy or the mission.
Three times as many US servicemen have died in Afghanistan under Barack Obama then died there under George W. Bush! What's most disturbing about that statistic is that they have died fighting for a President who never believed in what they were doing in the first place.
Does Gates vote Republican?
Bush sent troops into Iraq, he got rid of the Iraqi army and police force, made a power vacuum that caused no end of trouble in Iraq and got thousands more troops killed there than would have happened under a command that was competent.
Bush didn't lie about WMDs. He acted on information given to him and the information was accurate. Saddam DID have WMDs, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to USE THEM on Iran and the Kurds. The reason they found no WMDs is because Saddam had a YEAR to get rid of them.
If you had a kilo of cocaine in your house, and the cops called and told you they were gonna raid your house next week, would you leave the coke in your house or would you stash it at a friend's house?
