President Obama: 487 documented examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption & cronyism!

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10386824.01

... you have also failed to consider that up to 70% (depending on the month) were in favor of going into Iraq,

I have failed to consider no such thing. The facts shows that I do consider the actual poll question as asked and not phrased the way Spare_Change has chosen to phrase it.


Here is a typical poll question on Pre-Invasion public opinion about a pending war in Iraq:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

I myself would approve taking military action... which could be a bombing campaign to supporting locals in removing Saddam Hussein without a huge ground invasion. That does make me 'IN FAVOR" as Spare_Change conveniently puts it of 'going into Iraq'... in a massive ground invasion.

See how that polling data progress from February 2002 to March 2003:

8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?

• Approve
• Disapprove
• DK/NA

02/24-26/02 74 18 08
07/08-09/02 73 21 06 *There was intensive bombing of Iraq going on at this time:
11/20-24/02 70 23 06
01/19-22/03 64 30 05
02/10-12/03 66 29 05
03/04-05/03 69 26 05
03/07-09/03 66 30 40

I would approve taking military action had Saddam Hussein not let the inspectors back in. That does not mean I would favor going in as Spare-Change phrased it just because Bush arbitrarily wanted to 'go in'.

Most Americans were more concerned about the existence of WMD in Iraq than were with removing Saddam Hussein from power.

26. Are you personally more interested in removing weapons of mass destruction from Iraq, or more interested in removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?

• Remove weapons
• Remove Hussein
• Both (vol.)
• DK/NA

03/04-05/03 48 27 19 06
03/07-09/03 40 34 22 04

And as for favoring 'going in' for a long protracted ground war ... NOT SO MUCH:

35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?

• Favor
• Oppose
• DK/NA

09/02-05/2002 49 44 08
10/03-05/2002 49 44 07
02/10-12/2003 47 47 06
03/07-09/2003 47 46 06

A 50/50 split did not want to be there for 'months'. or years Spare_Change. That is not 70% FAVORING GOING IN by any interpretation.

 

[Spare_change]

Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Your semantic gymnastics are fun to watch ... but, frankly, hurt your credibility significantly.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10409412

Figures don't lie..

That's why I've been showing all the figures.

You wrote: SC 10386824.01

... up to 70% (depending on the month) were in favor of going into Iraq

When asked if they we're "in favor of going into Iraq" ... The response to the poll question was quite different from where that 70% figure comes from.

Here is that question is again:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

Its "military action" not "going in". Do you believe there is only one type of 'military action'? And it is ground invasion.

The question that was much closer to your version - (in favor of going in ) - the results were 50/50 not 70% in favor.

Here the 50/50 question is again:

If "the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?"

I present the figures: they don't lie. Whoever maintains that the answer to that question is 70% in favor is the one doing the lying. Its 50/50.

No majority in favor of a long protracted deadly and costly war.

Your thesis that Americans were hungry for revenge is pure nonsense.

You got nothing to back it up and it shows.

 

[JFK_USA]

Who is worse, Hitler or Stalin?

I just love this game.

Of course, it's Obama. He is going to set up FEMA camps to kill all white people!! It's coming, Glenn Beck said so!

 

[Spare_change]

SC 10409412

Figures don't lie..

That's why I've been showing all the figures.

You wrote: SC 10386824.01

... up to 70% (depending on the month) were in favor of going into Iraq

When asked if they we're "in favor of going into Iraq" ... The response to the poll question was quite different from where that 70% figure comes from.

Here is that question is again:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

Its "military action" not "going in". Do you believe there is only one type of 'military action'? And it is ground invasion.

The question that was much closer to your version - (in favor of going in ) - the results were 50/50 not 70% in favor.

Here the 50/50 question is again:

If "the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?"

I present the figures: they don't lie. Whoever maintains that the answer to that question is 70% in favor is the one doing the lying. Its 50/50.

No majority in favor of a long protracted deadly and costly war.

Your thesis that Americans were hungry for revenge is pure nonsense.

You got nothing to back it up and it shows.

give it a rest, man ... your tortured logic is an embarrassment. Your semantic somersaults accomplish nothing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

give it a rest, man ... your tortured logic is an embarrassment. Your semantic somersaults accomplish nothing.

Here's a question:

"35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?"

Did 70% in February and March 2003 say they were in favor of that?

No. It was 47% in favor.

So you were wrong to say:

SPARE_CHANGE SAID: ↑
"... up to 70% (depending on the month) were in favor of going into Iraq"

Do you always call it tortured logic when someone points out that your facts don't match the reality and the data?

There is no logic needed here. You are just plain wrong.

 

[Spare_change]

8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power? 66 – 74% approval

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10411998

8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power? 66 – 74% approval

Why did you rephrase that question to this?

"↑... up to 70% (depending on the month) were in favor of going into Iraq"

The very same poll asked this question

""35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?""

In Feb and March 2003, only 47% were in favor of doing that.

Question 35 is much more specific than question 8 with respect to the duration of military action beng involved .

 

[Spare_change]

SC 10411998

8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power? 66 – 74% approval

Why did you rephrase that question to this?

"↑... up to 70% (depending on the month) were in favor of going into Iraq"

The very same poll asked this question

""35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?""

In Feb and March 2003, only 47% were in favor of doing that.

Question 35 is much more specific than question 8 with respect to the duration of military action beng involved .

No .... I disagree. First, I didn't 'rephrase the question' ... it's a direct correlation to the original poll you posted.

Second, you choose to say question 35 is more specific, and then claim that is more indicative. Semantic cartwheels .. give it up. You are so prejudiced you can't even read the words.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

re: Wrong to blame Bush for invading Iraq - Right to blame Obama for ISIS invading Iraq" being debunked

re: Polls: 70% in favor of going into Iraq SC 10412406

Second, you choose to say question 35 is more specific, and then claim that is more indicative.

It is very precise and quite lucid that question 35 is more specific and indicative (*see comparison to your phrasing with Q8 and Q35 below) of the mood of the people polled just prior to the invasion. And there is no doubt that Q35 is closer to your choice of words than Q8. None.

But lets review what this is all about as you try to wiggle out of your errors and misinformed status on the actual polling on Iraq prior to the actual invasion:

SC 10388097.01

See? This is my point --- you selectively chose a single question that seemed to support your position. However, when you look at the survey in toto, you get a completely different picture. For example:

34. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq would result in substantial Iraqi civilian casualties, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq? 46 – 50% favor

35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq? 47 – 49 Favor 46 – opposed

Hardly the picture of an electorate that was being fooled ... they seem to pretty much know what was going on, and understood the cost of taking action.

As you can see Spare_Change states that the electorate seems "to pretty much know what was going on, and understood the cost of taking action." The underlined point is true but the polling shows that question 35 is the one where the electorate understands the cost of taking action. AND THEY are NOT IN FAVOR of GOING IN TO IRAQ by a margin of 7 out of 10. That is not true. they are evenly divided at 47% in favor to 46-47% opposed. It is false. Spare_Change is trying to sell that 70% from question 8 by selectively choosing that single question and disregarding question 35 as irrelevant.

His entire dissertation on this thread that I would title "Wrong to blame Bush for invading Iraq - Right to blame Obama for ISIS invading Iraq" is built on false premises and misinterpretation of fact and reality in such obvious ways it is difficult to understand how anyone could arrive at such conclusions and opinions in the first place.


The actual words put on paper speak for themselves:

Comparison of Spare_Change phrasing to The New York Times CBS News Poll questions *8 and *35:

Spare-Change wrote: "↑... up to 70% (depending on the month) were in favor of going into Iraq"

8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power? 66 – 74% approval

35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq? (March 09 2003 47 Favor vs 46 – opposed)

Question 8 is referring to 'taking military action'. Which is less specific than 'going into Iraq' as Spare_Change re-phrased it to be able to apply the 70% approval to his warped sense that the American people were in favor of five years of the tragedy, death and suffering and quagmire that the Iraq war became. It is a no-brainer that question 35 certainly informs anyone reading the entire poll that it is both more indicative and more specifically a more accurate response by Americans prior to the invasion who understood the cost of taking action would get our troops involved in a war there for months or even years, - JUST EXACTLY as Spare_Change wrote it in post SC 10388097.01 quoted above,

Americans "seem to pretty much know what was going on, and understood the cost of taking action"​

 

[LeftofLeft]

Obama had four Americans killed? Wow, Bush had over 3,000 killed when he sent them to Iraq to stir up business for his friends.

Then they started getting creative:

On January 2, 2008, Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth died in Iraq after being electrocuted by his shower. It was, according to the medical reports, a slow and painful death. The water pump was not grounded and, when it shorted, the electricity flowed through the pipes and water to kill Sgt. Maseth.

This is not an uncommon event in Iraq and Afghanistan where hundreds have experienced shocks and at least twelve have died in showers built by Haliburton subsidiary, KBR. Haliburton and KBR “won” the no-bid contracts for troop support in the two war zones under the Bush administration. Coincidentally, then-Vice President Cheney was the former CEO of Haliburton but these are two surely unrelated facts.

Addicting Info 8211 Military Contractor Gets Away With Electrocuting American Soldier In Iraq

You should add Lyndon Johnson and FDR to your list. Your Logic requires it.

 

[Spare_change]

B-O-R-I-N-G !!!!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10413510

B-O-R-I-N-G !!!!

If you are truly bored Spare_Change you could try answering some questions such as this one:

NF 10411820

"35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?"

Did 70% in February and March 2003 say they were in favor of that?

That's an easy one. But once you answer truthfully that the answer is no, you can then be moved on to learn why so many aspects of your "Wrong to blame Bush for invading Iraq - Right to blame Obama for ISIS invading Iraq" screed is so readily de-bunkable.

And learning new realities is not boring to most intelligent folks.

 

[Faun]

2000 -- "I will tell you this ... if we catch him [Saddam Hussein] developing weapons of mass destruction in any way, shape or form, I'll deal with that in a way that he won't like." - George Bush

2006 -- "The main reason we went into Iraq, at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush

George Bush: Oops, sorry.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

zeke10383010.1

…, it was not Congress who chose to go to war in Iraq. It was your Mr. Wonderful Bush.

eagle 10383017.1

The LIE that is repeatedly quoted by the left..

What Zeke says is true. Its in the AUMF.

"The Dems in Congress gave authorization for Bush to determine if invading Iraq was necessary in order to enforce relevant UN Resolutions regarding Iraq."

They gave Bush43 the authority use what ever military action he decided to take in order to:



(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[107th Congress Public Law 243]. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002. Public Law 107-243. 107th Congress. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''. [[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So how do you call what Zeke said a lie, Eagle1? Its not is exactly the truth as the AUMF is written.

 

[Vigilante]

One of my favorites...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Vigi 10470825

One of my favorites...

Yeah cutting taxes for the wealthy during war time was quite unpatriotic ... and then starting a war about WMDs when there were no WMD's was doubly unpatriotic.

2006 -- "The main reason we went into Iraq, at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush

 

[Vigilante]

Vigi 10470825

One of my favorites...

Yeah cutting taxes for the wealthy during war time was quite unpatriotic ... and then starting a war about WMDs when there were no WMD's was doubly unpatriotic.

2006 -- "The main reason we went into Iraq, at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush

Perhaps you don't remember that EVERYONES TAXS were cut, but your Obomanation just let all those cuts EXPIRE...and there were 550 METRIC TONS of yellowcake LEFT UNGUARDED when the 2003 war broke out... need a link, or do you have brains enough to find that fact for yourself? Also it seems ISIS has found small caches of chemical weapons in Iraq... Do a search on that also,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Vigi 10470984

Perhaps you don't remember that EVERYONES TAXS were cut,

I didn't forget. The point is that during war time the wealthy are expected to carry the heaviest burden of financing the war. Bush had no business starting the war in Iraq and borrowing money to pay for it.

 

[Vigilante]

Vigi 10470984

Perhaps you don't remember that EVERYONES TAXS were cut,

I didn't forget. The point is that during war time the wealthy are expected to carry the heaviest burden of financing the war. Bush had no business starting the war in Iraq and borrowing money to pay for it.

Of course he did, Iraq was shooting at our planes in the NO FLY ZONE which was part of the Gulf War I peace treaty...THAT ALONE was cause for war!.... Originally that war was to be paid for by IRAQ OIL, but you fucking liberal scum, made such a talking point out of WAR FOR OIL, that you scumbags STUCK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE with the costs! You assholes NEVER remember that part!