Obama = Worse President Ever

[Redfish]

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

No, that isn't my criteria. My criteria is about starting things without considering the human impact.

Obama is not blameless. He went in and bombed Libya. He messed around in Egypt and supported the Arab Spring which hasn't exactly done wonders. Perhaps he thought he was doing a good thing supporting the Arab Spring. Hindsight here is a different matter. Libya I believe he did because he's a politician and wanted to not get under fire from McCain and the Republicans who were pushing for this because Libya is an OPEC country. And I can imagine enough advisers were on board too.

But it's not just about soldiers.

In Iraq more US soldiers died under Bush than Obama for obvious reasons. Bush signed the withdrawal at the end of his presidency and Obama oversaw this withdrawal. It's impossible to make comparisons here.
The number of people who died in Iraq because of Bush's ineptitude and giving the reigns to Bremer are possibly over one million. Did Bush care? Probably not. Again, under Obama this isn't an issue.

More soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. There are plenty of possibilities as to why.

Firstly when Bush was in charge, the defeat of the Taliban was quite quick, then the US moved in. The Taliban was licking its wounds. Then in 2003 the Iraqi war meant a lot of those who wanted to kill US soldiers when to Iraq. This happened, for example, with the future head of ISIS. He went to Afghanistan, then left and went to Iraq to fight there.
The Taliban picked itself up by 2005, they managed to become more guerrilla than they had been.

But in the time Bush was in power the number of troops was much lower. He didn't need those troops as much, but he didn't get rid of the Taliban either. So, things changed when the US pulled out of Iraq, then Afghanistan became the new battle ground. Obama's fault that US soldiers were dying in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

Look dude, we all agree that Iraq was a terrible waste of money and lives. WE AGREE.

What we don't agree on is your claim that Bush is solely responsible for that fiasco. To make such a claim is just ignoring history for partisan bullshit.

I do hold Bush responsible, I also hold the UN responsible, and the UK, the EU, saudi arabia, israel, and every US member of congress that voted to authorize and fund it.

Bush was the decider
Bush, as commander in chief ordered the invasion, he was under no obligation to do so

Bush was responsible

So lets make sure we understand. You are saying the a president is responsible for whatever happens during his administration. Is that right?

 

[rightwinger]

For some reason, you left out what Obama had to say about an Iraq invasion.....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world.

Yes, the kenyan messiah, the all seeing all knowing obozo the great was the only person in the world who knew the truth------------------all hail obozo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! King of the universe !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read Obamas assessment of the situation
History proved him right

Helped make him President

Then I assume that you will use Hillary's support of that fiasco against her in 2016. Remember, she had exactly the same intel the Bush had and came to exactly the same conclusions.

The intel was not cooked, it was flawed and they all bought it.

Already used it against her in 2008

Since that time, Hillary has admitted she was wrong about Iraq, which of her potential Republican oponents can say the same?

Many of them have said it. Especially the next president, Donald Trump.

Trump said it before the war

How many other Republicans are willing to stand up ?

 

[rightwinger]

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

No, that isn't my criteria. My criteria is about starting things without considering the human impact.

Obama is not blameless. He went in and bombed Libya. He messed around in Egypt and supported the Arab Spring which hasn't exactly done wonders. Perhaps he thought he was doing a good thing supporting the Arab Spring. Hindsight here is a different matter. Libya I believe he did because he's a politician and wanted to not get under fire from McCain and the Republicans who were pushing for this because Libya is an OPEC country. And I can imagine enough advisers were on board too.

But it's not just about soldiers.

In Iraq more US soldiers died under Bush than Obama for obvious reasons. Bush signed the withdrawal at the end of his presidency and Obama oversaw this withdrawal. It's impossible to make comparisons here.
The number of people who died in Iraq because of Bush's ineptitude and giving the reigns to Bremer are possibly over one million. Did Bush care? Probably not. Again, under Obama this isn't an issue.

More soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. There are plenty of possibilities as to why.

Firstly when Bush was in charge, the defeat of the Taliban was quite quick, then the US moved in. The Taliban was licking its wounds. Then in 2003 the Iraqi war meant a lot of those who wanted to kill US soldiers when to Iraq. This happened, for example, with the future head of ISIS. He went to Afghanistan, then left and went to Iraq to fight there.
The Taliban picked itself up by 2005, they managed to become more guerrilla than they had been.

But in the time Bush was in power the number of troops was much lower. He didn't need those troops as much, but he didn't get rid of the Taliban either. So, things changed when the US pulled out of Iraq, then Afghanistan became the new battle ground. Obama's fault that US soldiers were dying in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

Look dude, we all agree that Iraq was a terrible waste of money and lives. WE AGREE.

What we don't agree on is your claim that Bush is solely responsible for that fiasco. To make such a claim is just ignoring history for partisan bullshit.

I do hold Bush responsible, I also hold the UN responsible, and the UK, the EU, saudi arabia, israel, and every US member of congress that voted to authorize and fund it.

Bush was the decider
Bush, as commander in chief ordered the invasion, he was under no obligation to do so

Bush was responsible

So lets make sure we understand. You are saying the a president is responsible for whatever happens during his administration. Is that right?

A Commander in Chief is responsible for his specific order to invade

In Bush's case he got to celebrate with a landing on an Aircraft Carrier to declare Mission Accomplished, Seems he was willing to take credit when the war looked good. Once the war soured, Republicans are looking to blame the Democrats for not stopping them

 

[Redfish]

Yes, the kenyan messiah, the all seeing all knowing obozo the great was the only person in the world who knew the truth------------------all hail obozo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! King of the universe !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read Obamas assessment of the situation
History proved him right

Helped make him President

Then I assume that you will use Hillary's support of that fiasco against her in 2016. Remember, she had exactly the same intel the Bush had and came to exactly the same conclusions.

The intel was not cooked, it was flawed and they all bought it.

Already used it against her in 2008

Since that time, Hillary has admitted she was wrong about Iraq, which of her potential Republican oponents can say the same?

Many of them have said it. Especially the next president, Donald Trump.

Trump said it before the war

How many other Republicans are willing to stand up ?

I don't know, who cares?

Back to the topic of the thread. I think that obama is the worst president in history. You think he is the wonderful savior of the world. Nothing you say will change my opinion and nothing I say will change yours. So crawl back under your rock and practice saying "president Trump".

 

[Redfish]

more US soldiers died under obama's rule than under Bush's. If thats your criteria, Obama is much worse.

No, that isn't my criteria. My criteria is about starting things without considering the human impact.

Obama is not blameless. He went in and bombed Libya. He messed around in Egypt and supported the Arab Spring which hasn't exactly done wonders. Perhaps he thought he was doing a good thing supporting the Arab Spring. Hindsight here is a different matter. Libya I believe he did because he's a politician and wanted to not get under fire from McCain and the Republicans who were pushing for this because Libya is an OPEC country. And I can imagine enough advisers were on board too.

But it's not just about soldiers.

In Iraq more US soldiers died under Bush than Obama for obvious reasons. Bush signed the withdrawal at the end of his presidency and Obama oversaw this withdrawal. It's impossible to make comparisons here.
The number of people who died in Iraq because of Bush's ineptitude and giving the reigns to Bremer are possibly over one million. Did Bush care? Probably not. Again, under Obama this isn't an issue.

More soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. There are plenty of possibilities as to why.

Firstly when Bush was in charge, the defeat of the Taliban was quite quick, then the US moved in. The Taliban was licking its wounds. Then in 2003 the Iraqi war meant a lot of those who wanted to kill US soldiers when to Iraq. This happened, for example, with the future head of ISIS. He went to Afghanistan, then left and went to Iraq to fight there.
The Taliban picked itself up by 2005, they managed to become more guerrilla than they had been.

But in the time Bush was in power the number of troops was much lower. He didn't need those troops as much, but he didn't get rid of the Taliban either. So, things changed when the US pulled out of Iraq, then Afghanistan became the new battle ground. Obama's fault that US soldiers were dying in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

Look dude, we all agree that Iraq was a terrible waste of money and lives. WE AGREE.

What we don't agree on is your claim that Bush is solely responsible for that fiasco. To make such a claim is just ignoring history for partisan bullshit.

I do hold Bush responsible, I also hold the UN responsible, and the UK, the EU, saudi arabia, israel, and every US member of congress that voted to authorize and fund it.

Bush was the decider
Bush, as commander in chief ordered the invasion, he was under no obligation to do so

Bush was responsible

So lets make sure we understand. You are saying the a president is responsible for whatever happens during his administration. Is that right?

A Commander in Chief is responsible for his specific order to invade

In Bush's case he got to celebrate with a landing on an Aircraft Carrier to declare Mission Accomplished, Seems he was willing to take credit when the war looked good. Once the war soured, Republicans are looking to blame the Democrats for not stopping them

The next time Bush runs for something you can use that against him.

Shall we discuss the mistakes made by other historical presidents? How many innocents the Truman murder? How many women did Kennedy screw in the whitehouse? Why did the Kennedys murder Marilyn Monroe?

WTF is it with you libs and your obsession with Bush? Is it because all of your candidates are profound losers?

 

[rightwinger]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

 

[Redfish]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

 

[rightwinger]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

 

[Redfish]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

I don't see the word "coincidence" anywhere in my post, could you point them out to me?

I would like to see your proof that the white house prepared the banner that the ship displayed.

Oh, I forgot, libs don't have to prove their claims.

 

[rightwinger]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

I don't see the word "coincidence" anywhere in my post, could you point them out to me?

I would like to see your proof that the white house prepared the banner that the ship displayed.

Oh, I forgot, libs don't have to prove their claims.

CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.
During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

 

[Redfish]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

I don't see the word "coincidence" anywhere in my post, could you point them out to me?

I would like to see your proof that the white house prepared the banner that the ship displayed.

Oh, I forgot, libs don't have to prove their claims.

CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.
During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

Ok. so CNN (clinton news network) says that the Navy used the whitehouse as a printing shop. Do you actually believe that? That Navy ship had the printing facilities to make that banner easily, but instead the Navy ordered it from the whitehouse and had it shipped to the ship? Come on, dude, Think.

But, yes, declaring victory at that time was premature. What point are you trying to make here. We agree that Iraq was a mistake and that Bush was responsible for it, the only thing we don't agree on is your claim that he was SOLELY responsible for it.

 

[rightwinger]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

I don't see the word "coincidence" anywhere in my post, could you point them out to me?

I would like to see your proof that the white house prepared the banner that the ship displayed.

Oh, I forgot, libs don't have to prove their claims.

CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.
During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

Ok. so CNN (clinton news network) says that the Navy used the whitehouse as a printing shop. Do you actually believe that? That Navy ship had the printing facilities to make that banner easily, but instead the Navy ordered it from the whitehouse and had it shipped to the ship? Come on, dude, Think.

But, yes, declaring victory at that time was premature. What point are you trying to make here. We agree that Iraq was a mistake and that Bush was responsible for it, the only thing we don't agree on is your claim that he was SOLELY responsible for it.

I figured you would not be man enough to admit you are wrong

 

[Redfish]

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

I don't see the word "coincidence" anywhere in my post, could you point them out to me?

I would like to see your proof that the white house prepared the banner that the ship displayed.

Oh, I forgot, libs don't have to prove their claims.

CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.
During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

Ok. so CNN (clinton news network) says that the Navy used the whitehouse as a printing shop. Do you actually believe that? That Navy ship had the printing facilities to make that banner easily, but instead the Navy ordered it from the whitehouse and had it shipped to the ship? Come on, dude, Think.

But, yes, declaring victory at that time was premature. What point are you trying to make here. We agree that Iraq was a mistake and that Bush was responsible for it, the only thing we don't agree on is your claim that he was SOLELY responsible for it.

I figured you would not be man enough to admit you are wrong

What was I wrong about? I didn't say that your claim about who made the banner was not true, I asked you to prove it, then you submit a clip from CNN that is an illogical scenario based on what I know about the facilities on Navy ships. I still question your claim, but as your female messiah says, what difference does it make?

 

[kiwiman127]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

I don't see the word "coincidence" anywhere in my post, could you point them out to me?

I would like to see your proof that the white house prepared the banner that the ship displayed.

Oh, I forgot, libs don't have to prove their claims.

CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.
During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

The invasion of Iraq was not part of the war on terror, it was W's vendetta against Saddam.

 

[Redfish]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

I don't see the word "coincidence" anywhere in my post, could you point them out to me?

I would like to see your proof that the white house prepared the banner that the ship displayed.

Oh, I forgot, libs don't have to prove their claims.

CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.
During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

The invasion of Iraq was not part of the war on terror, it was W's vendetta against Saddam.

Did both clintons share in that vendetta? they must have since they both fully supported it.

 

[kiwiman127]

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

I don't see the word "coincidence" anywhere in my post, could you point them out to me?

I would like to see your proof that the white house prepared the banner that the ship displayed.

Oh, I forgot, libs don't have to prove their claims.

CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.
During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

The invasion of Iraq was not part of the war on terror, it was W's vendetta against Saddam.

Did both clintons share in that vendetta? they must have since they both fully supported it.

A lot of people were for the invasion based on faulty and also manipulated intelligence.
Regarding the Clintons, that doesn't effect my opinion as I have stated several times that I'm not a fan of either and never have been. Better try another approach.

 

[rightwinger]

I didn't see Bush invite any Democrats to stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner

But once the war went to shit, the Republican position has changed to "It was a joint decision by Democrats and Republicans"

the banner had to do with the mission of that ship and was put up by the ship, not Bush.

But the facts refute your argument. both parties authorized and funded it. Yes, Bush is responsible, but so is every member of congress who voted for it, so is the UN, so is UK.

Your obsession with Bush has become a sickness. Denigrating him does not purge the kenyan messiah of being the worst president in history.

Oh...I forgot

It was just a "coincidence" that Bush happened to give his speech under that banner
It was just a "coincidence" that Bush never mentioned the carrier in his speech
And a "coincidence" that the White House prepared that banner

I don't see the word "coincidence" anywhere in my post, could you point them out to me?

I would like to see your proof that the white house prepared the banner that the ship displayed.

Oh, I forgot, libs don't have to prove their claims.

CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.
During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

The invasion of Iraq was not part of the war on terror, it was W's vendetta against Saddam.

Agree

Bush abandoned the war on terror so that he could attack Iraq

 

[gipper]

"First, President Obama ranks 18th overall, but beneath the surface of the aggregate figures lurks evidence of significant ambivalence. For example, those who view Obama as one of the worst American presidents outnumber those who view him as one of the best by nearly a 3-1 margin. Similarly, nearly twice as many respondents view Obama as over-rated than do those who consider him under-rated. One area where there is significant expert consensus about the president, however, concerns how polarizing he is viewed as being - only George W. Bush was viewed as more a more polarizing president.

Next, Obama does not perform well on more specific dimensions of presidential greatness, often viewed as average or worse. For example, he is the midpoint in terms of both personal integrity and military skill (e.g., 10th of 19 in both categories), but falls to 11th when it comes to diplomatic skill and 13th with respect to legislative skill. Even so, when asked which president should be added as the fifth face of Mt Rushmore, Obama ties with James Madison as the 7th most popular choice.

What can we take away from this? First, it is easy to infer that scholars and the public alike expected greatness from Obama early on and awarded it to him prematurely. Compare, after all, the fact that Obama’s first ranking in a major greatness poll was at #15; one must go back a half-century to Lyndon Johnson to find a president who entered the rankings at a higher number (#10), and LBJ was a well-known figure on the national stage who entered office after the national tragedy of his predecessor’s assassination. Second, scholars seem to hold Barack Obama in high regard personally, but view his skills and performance as mediocre to poor. Few think of Obama as an excellent president, while many more rate his presidency quite low, with the bulk of experts appearing to give him a passing grade but not one that would get him on the Dean’s list."

========
Why the hell do Republicans keep harping about Obama?

He is not running again.

He is on his way out.

You are campaigning against a dead man ( figuratively ).

Whether you like it or not he IS the President and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

So suck it and shut the fuck up and talk about someone who matters.

One would think you would know why, since D's are still blaming W for all things imaginable.

 

[rightwinger]

"First, President Obama ranks 18th overall, but beneath the surface of the aggregate figures lurks evidence of significant ambivalence. For example, those who view Obama as one of the worst American presidents outnumber those who view him as one of the best by nearly a 3-1 margin. Similarly, nearly twice as many respondents view Obama as over-rated than do those who consider him under-rated. One area where there is significant expert consensus about the president, however, concerns how polarizing he is viewed as being - only George W. Bush was viewed as more a more polarizing president.

Next, Obama does not perform well on more specific dimensions of presidential greatness, often viewed as average or worse. For example, he is the midpoint in terms of both personal integrity and military skill (e.g., 10th of 19 in both categories), but falls to 11th when it comes to diplomatic skill and 13th with respect to legislative skill. Even so, when asked which president should be added as the fifth face of Mt Rushmore, Obama ties with James Madison as the 7th most popular choice.

What can we take away from this? First, it is easy to infer that scholars and the public alike expected greatness from Obama early on and awarded it to him prematurely. Compare, after all, the fact that Obama’s first ranking in a major greatness poll was at #15; one must go back a half-century to Lyndon Johnson to find a president who entered the rankings at a higher number (#10), and LBJ was a well-known figure on the national stage who entered office after the national tragedy of his predecessor’s assassination. Second, scholars seem to hold Barack Obama in high regard personally, but view his skills and performance as mediocre to poor. Few think of Obama as an excellent president, while many more rate his presidency quite low, with the bulk of experts appearing to give him a passing grade but not one that would get him on the Dean’s list."

========
Why the hell do Republicans keep harping about Obama?

He is not running again.

He is on his way out.

You are campaigning against a dead man ( figuratively ).

Whether you like it or not he IS the President and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

So suck it and shut the fuck up and talk about someone who matters.

One would think you would know why, since D's are still blaming W for all things imaginable.

Like starting two wars , trashing the economy and engaging in torture?

 

[gipper]

"First, President Obama ranks 18th overall, but beneath the surface of the aggregate figures lurks evidence of significant ambivalence. For example, those who view Obama as one of the worst American presidents outnumber those who view him as one of the best by nearly a 3-1 margin. Similarly, nearly twice as many respondents view Obama as over-rated than do those who consider him under-rated. One area where there is significant expert consensus about the president, however, concerns how polarizing he is viewed as being - only George W. Bush was viewed as more a more polarizing president.

Next, Obama does not perform well on more specific dimensions of presidential greatness, often viewed as average or worse. For example, he is the midpoint in terms of both personal integrity and military skill (e.g., 10th of 19 in both categories), but falls to 11th when it comes to diplomatic skill and 13th with respect to legislative skill. Even so, when asked which president should be added as the fifth face of Mt Rushmore, Obama ties with James Madison as the 7th most popular choice.

What can we take away from this? First, it is easy to infer that scholars and the public alike expected greatness from Obama early on and awarded it to him prematurely. Compare, after all, the fact that Obama’s first ranking in a major greatness poll was at #15; one must go back a half-century to Lyndon Johnson to find a president who entered the rankings at a higher number (#10), and LBJ was a well-known figure on the national stage who entered office after the national tragedy of his predecessor’s assassination. Second, scholars seem to hold Barack Obama in high regard personally, but view his skills and performance as mediocre to poor. Few think of Obama as an excellent president, while many more rate his presidency quite low, with the bulk of experts appearing to give him a passing grade but not one that would get him on the Dean’s list."

========
Why the hell do Republicans keep harping about Obama?

He is not running again.

He is on his way out.

You are campaigning against a dead man ( figuratively ).

Whether you like it or not he IS the President and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

So suck it and shut the fuck up and talk about someone who matters.

One would think you would know why, since D's are still blaming W for all things imaginable.

Like starting two wars , trashing the economy and engaging in torture?

All valid points Leftnutter, just not to this debate.

Leftnutter it is best to know what the thread is about, before posting your usual partisan crap.