jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (95 posts)

The Obama Presidency---on life support?

  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago

    Obama and his leftist ideology, coupled by sheer incompetence has come back to haunt/daunt  him and bite him in so many places, that people are wondering if his Presidency would ever recover from the myriad scandals that has plagued his second term, from  Benghazi to the IRS to the spying, and now ObamaCare. Some have suggested that the failure of Obamacare, was  not only because of the bungled./fumbled website, but mostly because of its sheer/severe untrammeled/unfettered  governmental over-reach at people's healthcare. Waterloo everyone?

    1. profile image83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Obamacare will be his legacy.  So far, it's not a good legacy.

      The POTUS may well be guilty and involved in scandal(s).  That's been difficult to prove.  We can, however, say that any president who is truly so disengaged from what is happening among his political appointees and administration is, at best, a weak president.  Still, Obamacare will be the big thing people remember.  Right now, it doesn't look good for President Obama's legacy, but only time will tell.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Education:
        Just yesterday, 2 days after that Nov. 30 deadline of fixing the website, Obama's allies said ObamaCare "may take until 2017 to work really well..."
        By that time a Republican president would have been elected, and Obamacare dumped into the dustbin of history where it properly belongs.
        So until then, Obama is doing his mighty best to blame anyone and everyone for the botched roll out, and the continuing rejection by a majority of the American people of his beloved  single and yet partisan legislative "achievement". He does not seem to understand that lying boldfaced to the American people is an unforgivable offense.  If it were another president  i.e. non-black and or non-liberal,  the mainstream media would be calling for his immediate impeachment.
        He apparently is going on another one of those tours of his, where he speechifies about the glory of ObamaCare... at our taxpayer's expense of course.

    2. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Couldn't have SAID it better myself,Dr. Villarosa.  Continue with the discussion! Obama is beyond a disaster!
      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8414290_f248.jpg

      1. profile image61
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ditto

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      With the actions of congress and the reporting of the news the presidency is irrelevant. There are too many other forces in play to make any single arm of the government in power or for that matter representative.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @rhamson:
        Obama was elected partially on the promise that he would fundamentally transform the country, but in what direction, he was a little vague about. He dropped a helpful hint when, while discussing some local issues with Joe the plumber during the 2008 Presidential campaign, he said:".. its all about income re-distrubution.."

        Enter Obamacare, 3 years into his presidency, which to most interested observers  smacks of wealth  and income redistributtion via taxation and more taxation under the guise of  providing "universal health care". The law was passed  unread by most of the people who voted for it, and without much public debate. The law of unintended (and intended)  consequences have now caught up with the American people, and they have decided to hell with it.

        Quite ironic that Obama thought he woud be a relevant and consequential president but  with his single legislative "achievement"(ObamaCare) unraveling and imploding, hisdream of being on a pedestal together with the likes of FDR and Ronald Reagan has now turned out to be a pipe dream.

    4. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      History will treat Obama just well enough. Just look at how well "W" has ridden off into the sunset. He may have been the first President that could have been run off to the Hague and tried for war crimes yet his vacancy from the public arena has dimmed the memory. True "W" probably did more for aids victims in Africa but his absence from the limelight makes that a distant memory also.

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Here we go with Bush bashing.  What does this have to do with the topic?

        1. Zelkiiro profile image82
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You can't tell? It's a comparison of how history will remember Obama with how history now remembers George W., who was one of the worst presidents in recent history.

          1. profile image61
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The ejecta from Obama's plummet to earth has buried what little awfulness the lefty media invented about GWB.  The Obama crater will take centuries to fill.  People still remember what a miserable President Jimmy Carter was and Obama looks like he will be supplanting that peanut as the template for crummy Presidents.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              @retief:
              It is so reassuring to know that I am not the only one who has the same perception and interpretation of Obama and his presidency.

          2. profile image83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            President Obama is far worse than George Bush ever was, but that's not really the point here.  The topic is supposed to be about President Obama.  It seems that liberals consistently respond by saying, "Yeah, but he's better than Bush."  Great.  Shouldn't President Obama's accomplishments stand for something?  It's pretty bad when the best thing you can say about President Obama is that he's better than the last guy.  The debate has become a more of a "who was worse?" kind of debate.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image82
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well, it's like eating oatmeal. The only way to describe the taste of oatmeal, which has no taste to speak of, is that it's better than eating garbage.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Zelkiiro"
                For one who loves to eat oatmeal, you elevating it to just above eating garbage,  is  to me an abomination of the highest order.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image82
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  May I also recommend some cardboard and unseasoned brown rice? With a side of tofu?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    @Zelkiiro:
                    I did not know that aside from being an atheist, you are also a food faddist  of the highest order.

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My point is that no matter how bad a presidency is there is an amnesia Americans have when it comes to treating their history in a revisionist manner. I thought it was a pretty easy post to follow. Of course the leftist/rightist issues abound when making comparisons no matter the content of the statement. And we wonder what is wrong with this country. Jeesh!

          1. profile image83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol  I believe President Obama's abysmal performance speaks for itself and requires no comparison

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry you cannot get the gist of the statement which has nothing to do with your replies sad

          2. L.M. Hosler profile image84
            L.M. Hoslerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I still remember what a failure Jimmy Carter was and it has been how many years since he was president? I think people will remember Obama as an even worse failure for many years to come. I know I will and I know my kids will.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think there will be many that remember Obama's failures and unfulfilled promise but as with Jimmy Carter's ties to the disastrous economy debacle the revisionists are ready to rewrite what that whole event meant and where it led. Look at how revered Andrew Jackson and is even memorialized on our currency. Ask an Indian what their thoughts are on him and you may see a different take on him.

              1. L.M. Hosler profile image84
                L.M. Hoslerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I wrote an article on the story of the Indians and Andrew Jackson. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 also known as The Trail Of Tears.  I don't understand where they come up with putting Jackson on our currency because he actually committed genocide where Indians are concerned.

                1. profile image61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I am confused by the annual Jefferson/Jackson Dinner the Democrats throw every year, given that Jackson practiced ethnic cleansing and Jefferson was unreconstructed slave holder.

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image82
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    History has a habit of filtering information, particularly about those who make it, into bite-sized caricatures, whether good or bad.

                    Andrew Jackson may have been a magnificent bastard when it came to Colonist-Indian relations, but most people would only remember that he was one of the most cantankerous and animated and dangerous Presidents in our history. And he was very quotable. The Trail of Tears really is a great stain on his presidency, but it seems like one of those scandals that people would rather forget we were ever involved in.

                    As for Thomas Jefferson, well, it's kinda hard to write off the guy who nearly single-handedly penned our entire system of government. You really can't throw someone like that under the bus, no matter what he did.

                2. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What is even more astonishing in revisionist amnesia to his detriment is that Jackson was one vote shy of impeachment. But if congress was as full of hypocrites and criminals as it is today I wonder what the validity of their actions truly were. Never the less the revisionist mentality of our historical scribes have turned from Jacksons failings and remembered him as a war hero and leader who did not shy away from controversy.

    5. maxoxam41 profile image77
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Who is behind Obama? Neocons right? Therefore capitalism. Once more the implementation of capitalistic policies on the American society is a failure.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image88
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Neocons are not behind Obama.

        Capitalism has not failed American society.

        Greed, laziness and a desire for the nanny state have failed American society.

        1. gmwilliams profile image82
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Aptly and succinctly put.

        2. Zelkiiro profile image82
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How did you not catch THIS little mistake? The very foundation of Capitalism is greed.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And Socialism/communism/any other society, is not?  How do you come to that conclusion?

            1. Zelkiiro profile image82
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's simple. Capitalism is "I must have more," whereas Socialism is "We all must have more," and Communism is "We all must have more, but we should be equal in the more we have."

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, socialism is "I must have more, but without earning it" as the poor demand their entitlements and wealth redistribution.  And communism is "we at the top need more - the plebes can starve".

                It doesn't matter what the style is, people want more.  And they do not put other's needs ahead of their own desires to any large degree.

                1. gmwilliams profile image82
                  gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course Wilderness, in Communist Russia, the wealthier classes had dachas and educational privileges.  They even shopped in private stores.  It was the lower classes who had to wait in consignment lines for items such as food and clothing.  Wilderness, some souls really do not know.  We KNOW.   Everything was not equal in communism at all.   It is basic human nature that people are going to want.  It is also natural that there is going to be a societal pecking order.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Equality has not been found in any human society yet.  And won't be for many decades, if ever.

          2. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I agree that capitalism tugs at greed much more easily than most other forms of societies. The problem with all of the basic societal systems is that the human condition overtakes the moral consequences leaving all with expectations that fall short of the goals they espouse.

          3. profile image83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The very foundation of socialism is theft of income.

  2. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    On a historical level 40% approval is pretty good for a second term president.  Certainly not a disaster anyway.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @Psyche:

      I suppose when it comes to Obama, liberals would always see his presidency as a half-filled glass, despite the fact that it is fast becoming fully empty.
      The Titanic was supposed to have been unsinkable until it hit an iceberg. Well, Obama's presidency did  hit an iceberg ( a self-created one at that) when he lied bold-faced to the American people: "If you like your healthcare  plan you can keep your healthcare  plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".... and other similar miscreant statements  that are now too numerous to count.

  3. Zelkiiro profile image82
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Oh please, he's nowhere even close to being the worst President. He's merely okay at best and mediocre at worst. He's Rutherford Hayes.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      disagree.

      1. gmwilliams profile image82
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Obama's grade would be
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8555421.png

        Can't get NO WORSE than the above.

    2. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @Zelkiiro:
      I will e-mail your post to the White House... I'm sure the occupants over there are not going to be too pleased ( in fact they are going to be raging mad)  that a liberal like you is comparing him to Rutherford Hayes... a non-existent president if there ever was one.

  4. profile image83
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    He's the worst president in years.  As a Republican, I'm not too fond of any Democratic president, but President Clinton could have run circles around President Obama.  President Obama makes President Carter look good, and that's saying something!

    I have a question for all of my liberal friends here on HubPages.  I understand that most of you believe that President Obama is better than most or all of the Republican presidents.  That goes without saying.  Do any of you believe that President Obama is better than Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Harry Truman, or Franklin Roosevelt? Do you believe he is the weakest of the Democratic presidents, at least within the past sixty to seventy years?  Do you believe that he is not the weakest within this group? 

    In my book, FDR crushes Obama.  Truman makes Obama look weak.  President Obama comes up on the bottom of the list when I compare all of these Democratic presidents.  What do you think?

    1. Zelkiiro profile image82
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The last great president we've had was Franklin Roosevelt. And before that, it was Teddy Roosevelt. And before that, it was Lincoln himself.

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How do you feel President Obama stacks up to other Democratic presidents within the past 60-70 years?  I'd love to see your order for:

        FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama

        For me, President Obama would be at the bottom of this list.  I suspect that most of the Left here at HubPages would largely rank him near the same place, the bottom.

        I'd be happy to do the same, rank order the Republican presidents since Eisenhower.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image82
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          FDR >>>>> Kennedy > Clinton > Truman >>>>>>>>>> the rest

          1. profile image83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Are you saying that you consider President Obama, Carter, and LBJ to be all equal?  Zelkiiro, are you avoiding the question?  lol  If you were pressed to do so, where would you put these three?  Please. . .

            By the way, we're pretty close in our assessment of the best Democratic presidents.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I would put FDR first followed by Clinton, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Obama.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              BTW Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican.

              1. Zelkiiro profile image82
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Party lines mean nothing when you're a certified badass with a Certified Badass Mustache.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But of course, you would have loved him more if he was a liberal  just like  his cousin Franklin.

            2. profile image61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Difficult to decide which bad President to put first.  If I were to rank them rather than discard all of them, I would put them in order of who had the least disastrous impact on the country - God forgive me - that puts Clinton first and, naturally, FDR last(as it should be)  FDR was the worst President this country has ever produced, when judging from the aforementioned criterion.

              1. Zelkiiro profile image82
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And George Washington would be the worst president under the criterion of "Presidents Who Were Elected Most Recently." But of course, he is clearly not the worst president. And neither is FDR.

                In fact, most rankings put both presidents in the Top 5:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical … ey_results

                1. profile image61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  An appeal to authority is a classic informal fallacy, please do continue there isn't much on television.

  5. Alphadogg16 profile image87
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    @Education Answer - to answer your question, in my opinion Clinton is the best democratic President, at least during my lifetime.
    @A.Villarasa - you say any other non black president would have been impeached for lying to the people, then why wasn't Bush impeached for starting a war for WMD that didn't exist? There's no question Obamas tenure has been mediocre at best, but he's certainly not the worst.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @alphadog:
      The decision to invade Iraq was a bipartisan vote both in the Congress and in the Senate whose members, were as convinced as the Bush administration that Sadam Hussein did have biologic-chemical weapons. After all he has used those weapons to kill thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq, and thousands of Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war. What was missing during the period prior to the invasion was an "on the ground"  i.e. human(CIA operatives) presence that would and could have  determined the accuracy of the  non-human evaluation of Sadam's stockpile. Additionally, the war was not a sole American enterprise...the allies, as well as some middle eastern countries were supportive of that war effort.
      The fact that no WMD's were found was a reflection not of Bush's complicity, but of poor "on the ground" intelligence that Sadam's weapon have been degraded to the point of un-usability.

      1. Alphadogg16 profile image87
        Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, fair enough... And Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech stating Saddam wanted uranium from Africa wasn't a lie? His 2003 End of Combat Operations speech with the " Mission Accomplished" banner right behind him, still at war 10 years after that, & we can't forget the infamous " Michael Brown, FEMA Director is doing " a heckuva job". The Market also crashed during Bush's tenure. I actually agree with some of the things you say against Obama, but for you to say he's the worst is coming acrossed extremely biased.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @Alpha:
          Honestly I am not a fan of George Bush, I think he badly mismanaged or bungled or botched the Iraqi invasion and subsequent occupation. we are still seeing the result of that mismanagement with an Iraq that is unstable as ever. So in the  pantheon of historical/consequential Presidential accomplishment  I put him way down below, even lower than Richard Nixon.

          1. profile image83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The initial strike was brilliant.  After we put feet on the ground, our mission began to expand; Bush's leadership and our strategic plan, after the initial attack, was subpar.  We can agree on that.

        2. profile image83
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          FEMA did not do a good job. . .Bush owns that.

          Mission Accomplished. . . nope.

          Bush used the intelligence he received from the CIA.  We can prove that he did not lie about WMD's.

          Yes, the housing collapse occurred during the Bush presidency.  It is important to note that his administration and other conservatives warned, well before the collapse, that we needed to react before a collapse.  They could see that there was a problem, and they tried to fix it.  President Bush and some Republicans tried to address the issue prior to the collapse. 

          View this for proof:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

        3. profile image61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa

          1. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Nope, this has been repeatedly debunked. The original, (and sole), source was a discredited German intelligence asset code named "Curveball"

            U.S. intelligence received this information second-hand via German/U.S. intelligence sharing - our spooks never even spoke to the "asset"

            Tenet's CIA never confirmed this action happened, and former Ambassador Wilson's investigative trip to Nigeria confirmed it was bad intel.

            No one but the back-to-the-wall war hawks continued to insist it happened - mostly as their own CYA maneuvers

            GA.

            1. profile image61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It wasn't Wilson's trip to Niger that confirmed that Iraq was not pursuing a deal with Niger.  Wilson was too much of a dilettante for any real work.  It was an Italian intelligence report that revealed that false documents had been created by a Italian intelligence asset ( hired spy) named Rocco Martino who circulated those fake documents.

              Not Bush's fault - at least that part is true. I appreciate the challenge that made me dig further, GA.

              1. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, you are right about Wilson - almost. Even being the lightweight, (in this arena), that he was, he still was able to confirm the story could not be confirmed.

                And, as for the CYA I mentioned earlier - your Italian connection is just an added Non-Bush CIA source used for cover by those needing the CYA - our CIA promoted their source as the German "Curveball" source I mentioned, as for which came first....?

                Of course, since I am relying on what I read by Woodward, I could be as wrong as I think I am right.

                GA

            2. profile image83
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              George Tenet did tell President Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  He is on the record saying that he personally handed the intelligence to President Bush; he has, in fact, confirmed this multiple times in the past few years.  Further, President Clinton had the same intelligence.  In fact, in 1998, President Clinton said, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."  I doubt that President Clinton or President Bush fabricated intelligence and lied about the CIA's belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

              1. profile image61
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Iraq was required, under the conditions for cease fire from the Gulf War, to provide proof that all banned weapons had been destroyed.  This included all WMDs plus all means of manufacturing and delivering them.  Iraq refused to meet these conditions.  Given that this violated the terms for ceased fire from the Gulf War, I doubt that a formal war declaration was even necessary.  Saddam was a bad actor, had used WMDs on the Kurds, refused to prove he no longer had WMDs, therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Iraq still had them.  No one needed the CIA to confirm it, reason alone does so.

                1. GA Anderson profile image84
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  ...No one needed the CIA to confirm it, reason alone does so.

                  And even after the reality of the war and the lack of finding any WMD evidence, you still believe that?

                  Each to his own I suppose.

                  GA

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree with retief; with the known evidence at the  time the conclusion that there were WMD's was quite reasonable. 

                    Whether history would find any or not, the conclusion was a reasonable one.

                  2. profile image61
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There were more band things than just WMDs and there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

                    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Arti … found.html

              2. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                .
                Well then, perhaps your source of information is better than mine. As mentioned, I drew from Bob Woodward's book State of Denial, in which Woodward drew from extensive interviews - with Tenet and other involved parties - to layout the flow of events that led to this issue.

                Although he, (Tenet), was forced to, in Woodward's words, "fall on his sword" and take the blame for not stopping the "famous 16 words" inclusion, he did force State, (I think it was Hadley), to also admit they dropped the ball on this.

                At no time did I read Tenet as saying he explicitly told Bush there were confirmed WMDs. Much was made of the fact that the largest piece of intel used was a 1991(?) post-nuclear inspector's report listing 946 probable/possible WMD sites. None of which Tenet's CIA were able to confirm pre-war.

                So, perhaps I should look deeper, and put less faith in Woodward. What were your sources, and I hope you don't say press briefings.

                ps. as before, I will say I do not think Bush was lying - I think he was not given the best info and advice. My impression is that Tenet's failure was a lack of courage to buck the trend of Chaney, Rice, and Rumsfeld and speak forcefully to the president. All of their face-to-face  encounters, (and they were few) described by Woodward portrayed Tenet as wishy-washy in his efforts to confirm that they could not confirm the WMDs

                GA

                1. profile image83
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  First off, here's what CNN has to say about that same source:

                  "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a 'slam dunk case' that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward."

                  http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/ … ward.book/


                  Here are many additional quotes from people who received the same intelligence that George Bush received:

                  "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
                  President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

                  "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.  We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
                  President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

                  "Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
                  Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998

                  "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
                  Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998

                  "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
                  programs."
                  Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

                  "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
                  Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

                  "Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
                  Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

                  "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
                  Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

                  "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
                  Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

                  "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
                  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

                  "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
                  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

                  "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
                  Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

                  "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.  We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.  Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
                  Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

                  "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
                  Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

                  "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
                  Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct. 10, 2002

                  "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
                  Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

                  "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked
                  to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.  He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.  It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
                  Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002

                  "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
                  Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23, 2003

                  "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
                  programs."
                  Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Oct. 9, 1998

                  1. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have also read Plan of Attack, and I read your link. But it does not really contradict my point, which I think you misunderstood - I was not saying Bush or his administration were lying - I am saying they were presenting assumptions as facts.

                    Plan of Attack was the first of three books Woodward did on Bush's presidency, State of Denial was the third and final book.

                    It is documented that Tenet did initially tell Bush it was a "slam-dunk," but that did not make him right, and the sources I have mentioned were his basis for that statement. Later efforts to bolster the proof to back up that statement, (prior to the actual war), were as I mentioned - unconfirmed.
                    State of Denial continues the timeline documenting Tenet's efforts to corroborate his "slam-dunk" statement - and he failed. Beyond such instances as the "Nigerian Yellow Cake" proof.

                    Maybe I am clutching at straws, but I do not see how the information in your CNN link counters my points about later events in the timeline from State of Denial



                    So? I made no points about Clinton's statements. And even so, this offers nothing to indicate facts - just a determination of policy.



                    These are just statements of intentions - they offer nothing to contradict my points about the lack of firm proof.  And again - they are pre-Bush and pre-war initiative - so what is their bearing on my comments?



                    You want to quote Pelosi? Really? And again, you offer pre-Bush declarations - but even so, what proof does her statement offer?



                    Again a pre-Bush public statement - as above, I do not see this as contradicting what I have said, and what proof do you have that she was speaking from knowledge of conclusive evidence, and not assumptions, (like the ones I am saying Bush's administration were relying on)?



                    You want to offer a "There is no doubt" statement from a Senator - when later investigations have documented that there may not have been any doubt* - but there was also no proof.

                    I don't remember the name, or exact quotes, so I guess I will have to go dig out the info about one of Saddam's inner circle defectors, (one we deemed credible) - I seem to remember him being on the par of our National Security Adviser, that continually asserted that Saddam had not continued his WMD pursuits after the Gulf War. (as the after-the facts search results seemed to confirm), I will get back to you on that.



                    You offer another politician's public statement as rebuttal? Do you think this senator had better intel than the administration's sources?



                    And how did "we" know this? Do you think he is speaking of the famous Inspector's list of 946 stash sites that proved to be a dud? Maybe he was right, maybe Saddam out-smarted everyone and emptied those 946 suspected "stashes" - but isn't that just a supposition, rather than proof?

                    Once more I do not see your supplied quotes as negating or contradicting my comments.



                    Another public statement? Validated by what proof?



                    ditto above Gore response



                    geesh... all you are listing are politician's declarations. Look at their qualifiers; confident, belief, believe, etc., why aren't they saying "we have proof?"



                    I guess I should have just responded to your list of proofs in bulk - because all you are offering are public statements that we already knew were made - none appear to contradict the later facts of the administration's failure to find concrete proof - as I related them.


                    Ok, I give, what is his unmistakable evidence?

                    EA, time has shown that almost all of your offered quotes were later proven to be factually incorrect, or at the least unsupported. Why would you offer these to counter my description of the Bush administration's struggle to find any kind of factual validation for their declarations?



                    Bingo! You got one half right this time! Yes, he did violate UN resolutions. And yes he did refuse to "prove" that he had destroyed his WMD capability. But on the other hand, where is our "proof" that he did not destroy them?



                    I am surprised you included this one. Perhaps you could source these intelligence sources that  confirm these actions. I found no mention of actual sources, and post-war inspections seemed to prove them to be false.

                    Comfort and aid to al Qaeda? This has been publicly debunked by Tenet himself when he admitted that the three so-called al Qaeda/Saddam administration meetings that took place outside of Iraq could not be confirmed, and in fact seemed to have never happened. - I don't care to track down the details of this "debunking" but if you don't believe it - that's OK too.



                    ditto ditto ditto ditto et al.



                    EA, you went to a lot of effort to refute a point you thought I was making - That Bush lied! When I did not make that point at all.

                    And maybe I am too dense to see it, but even if I had made that point, I don't see anything you presented as proving it wrong. Actually, I think you helped affirm my comments by further illustrating the perception created by what the public was told - but which no facts were found to validate.

                    To be more clear, my point(s) were that the public, (and many in the administration), were told war was justified because of confirmed facts - when in truth, hindsight has shown that we were shown mountains that in reality were molehills.

                    ps. I think invading Iraq was necessary for our future national security, and supported the war - just not for the reasons we were told.

                    GA

        4. GA Anderson profile image84
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          hmmm... while it is true Bush wanted those "famous 16 words" to be true - it helped validate his reason for the war in Iraq...

          He did not put them there. His speech writers did - and he was told by his State Dept. they were true, and not told by his primary intelligence agency, (CIA), that they weren't. So while the responsibility was his... he was not lying because he did not know they were wrong.

          Also, even being the major screw-up it was, Mission Accomplished was removed from his speech - but somebody forgot to tell the Navy, who was responsible for placing the banner - again, Bush has to take ultimate responsibility for it - but he did not order it done.

          ps. Bob Woodward does a good job explaining this in his book 'State of Denial'

          as for ....Brownie... that was a hardwired Bush trait of being loyal to his people. Bush's admin. was scrambling to find a replacement for him before that speech was made. He was already headed for the door, and Bush did not want to publicly humiliate him. Good move? Bad move? Your call.

          The market crash? I think a lot more folks than Bush need to share the blame for that.

          pss. I am not elevating Bush, I do not think he was one of our better presidents - but not one of the worse either.

          GA

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @GA:
            As usual your  interpretation of recent  events  is as historically factual as ever. Thanks for giving Alpha a short crash course in how to avoid factoids.

            1. GA Anderson profile image84
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              hmm... is a factoid a good or bad thing?

              Are you saying I did good or bad?

              Do I need to go to the back of the class?

              GA

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @GA:
                As far as I am concerned you can stay at the front of the class anytime you want to and you wont hear a "bleeping" complaint from me.

                Factoids are, I'm sure you know, a bad thing.

    2. profile image83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How does Obama compare to LBJ, FDR, KFK, Carter, and Clinton?  Is President Obama better than any of these Democratic presidents?

    3. profile image83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      George Tennet, the Cia director, has repeatedly stated that he personally handed intelligence to George Bush that said Iraq had WMD's.  How can you say that Bush lied when that was the intelligence he received?  A few years earlier, in 1998, Bill Clinton said, "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."  He, too, received information that there were WMD's.  There was no conspiracy to lie.  There was horrible intelligence gathering. 

      It's also important to note that Bush claimed WMD's had been moved to Syria.  Now, we know that Syria has WMD's.  We can't prove that these are WMD's from Iraq, but it does lend some credibility to the possibility that Bush was correct.

      1. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        hmmm...as an avid Bob Woodward reader who, rightly or wrongly, believes he has tremendous credibility - I think your "... Tenet repeatedly told him..." statement is wrong.

        In his book State of Denial which is about Bush during the Iraq war time frame, Woodward states that Tenet repeatedly told the Bush administration, via Rice and Rumsfeld mostly, that the CIA could not confirm that Saddam had WMDs. But it appears that his statements to Bush himself were a diluted, ...we can't be sure, not a firm ...we cannot confirm

        *Tenet even made sure those famous 16 words were removed from an earlier speech Bush gave somewhere, (sorry, don't remember the details), before the State of the Union - where they were reinserted to help make the case for war - a speech Tenet admits he failed to read and vet - as was his duty. But Rice's State Dept. knew they were in the speech, and wrong, yet let them stay in.

        Woodward includes a much lengthier explanation, but I feel comfortable saying he did not repeatedly tell Bush Saddam had WMDs.

        ... but it does appear that Bush really was never told directly that Saddam did not have WMDs, (to the contrary his staff team members, and his cabinet; Rice, Rumsfeld and Chaney managed the input to Bush so as to reenforce his beliefs about Saddam's WMDs), - he was just badly served by his team. So he really wasn't purposely lying - at least that's my opinion.

        as for the rest of your comment... I see a whole lot of CYA going on and would not put too much trust in most of the explanations.

        GA

 
working