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?
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.
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.
Couldn't have SAID it better myself,Dr. Villarosa. Continue with the discussion! Obama is beyond a disaster!
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.
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.
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.
Here we go with Bush bashing. What does this have to do with the topic?
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.
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.
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.
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.
For one who loves to eat oatmeal, you elevating it to just above eating garbage, is to me an abomination of the highest order.
May I also recommend some cardboard and unseasoned brown rice? With a side of tofu?
I did not know that aside from being an atheist, you are also a food faddist of the highest order.
A food what? You do realize that the entire joke I was making was that oatmeal (and cardboard, tofu, etc.) is extremely bland-tasting, right?
Well I can't find anything in Wikipedia that says oatmeal is bland tasting or like cardboard - maybe you can add that to the WIki page on oatmeal - it says "This article needs additional citations for verification" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oatmeal
If you are going to make an assertion about oatmeal your "Bible" Wikipedia really should back you up. I mean isn't that unwikiscriptural
I was as being playfully sarcastic as you are. There is no rule against that on HubPages I'm sure,.
Is there a VAT tax on it though? I mean, come on, how are we going to redistribute the sarcasm equally if we don't tax those who use sarcasm in the first place?
Zelkiiro does this to threads - a thread about Obama's presidency has now become about oatmeal.
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!
I believe President Obama's abysmal performance speaks for itself and requires no comparison
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who is behind Obama? Neocons right? Therefore capitalism. Once more the implementation of capitalistic policies on the American society is a failure.
Neocons are not behind Obama.
Capitalism has not failed American society.
Greed, laziness and a desire for the nanny state have failed American society.
How did you not catch THIS little mistake? The very foundation of Capitalism is greed.
And Socialism/communism/any other society, is not? How do you come to that conclusion?
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."
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.
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.
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.
The very foundation of socialism is theft of income.
On a historical level 40% approval is pretty good for a second term president. Certainly not a disaster anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The last great president we've had was Franklin Roosevelt. And before that, it was Teddy Roosevelt. And before that, it was Lincoln himself.
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.
FDR >>>>> Kennedy > Clinton > Truman >>>>>>>>>> the rest
Are you saying that you consider President Obama, Carter, and LBJ to be all equal? Zelkiiro, are you avoiding the question? 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.
I would put FDR first followed by Clinton, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Obama.
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.
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
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
First... my points were not made to prove Bush lied. I do not believe he did.
But, everything else said about the WMDs, I believe, was either circumstantial, or the result of rationalizations.
Point - He won't let us inspect them so he must have them rationalization - well, he may have had them, but we still don't know because we did not find them - circumstantial logic?
Point - He must have them hidden - the man, (his name was "Spider" (nic) Marks, I think he was a 1-star general), tasked with developing the plans and teams for handling the WMDs, that everyone knew was there, after the invading force went in only had the assurances of Rumsfeld's word, the various "yes they have them" intel reports, (multiple sources), and the aforementioned nuclear inspector's list of over 900 possible sites.
He had no hard intel. It was all the list and "everybody says so" Woodward goes into quite a bit of detail about Mark's struggles with the other agencies in trying to get more information, (specifically about the list which was created back in 1998 - I think that's right) to help him develop both his plans and his team.
As we know now, that list proved worthless - no WMDs, and after a bit Marks was replaced, the discovery teams re-composed with a new focus of locating people that might have been involved with WMD programs - instead of hard WMD stash sites - alas, still no WMDs.
As for the clamor for some kind of WMD validation, the administration was clutching at any possibilities.... remember the public I told you so announcement that they had found two mobile chemical/biological labs that a day or two later were confirmed to be (I think) mobile hydrogen generation labs? (I forget the purpose for the hydrogen, but it wasn't WMDs)
Also, do you remember the news and rumors that Powell was threatening to resign before giving the UN "here's why we have to go to war" speech - because he did not believe the intel? And then he relented when the "yellow cake - Nigeria" reference was changed from an unqualified fact to a British intelligence evaluation - according to Woodward's interview of Powell, the rumor was true. Powell did threaten to resign rather than give the speech. Then the admin pulled the "it's your patriotic duty" trick and changed the speech to something Powell could swallow as long as he held his nose. (the yellow cake reference)
and there were more instances of here they are! oops, no they aren't, but I am only making the point that what the public heard, and was led to believe is just as you say, but the inner sanctum folks in the administration were scrambling like hell to find real and concrete justifications - and they failed.
Woodward seems to paint the picture of Bush believing Saddam had them, and that war was necessary, but it was Chaney and Rumsfeld that then took the ball and did all they could to get the Boss what he needed. Rice appears as complicit, but compliant to Chaney and Rumsfeld's directions.
All of that long winded explanation actually justifies the public perception as being just as you say - it seemed a reasonable conclusion - but the reality is that the movers and shakers working to carry out the president's orders had far less conclusive evidence, and manipulated and massaged every public utterance and image to fortify and validate the president's position.
Come on wilderness, you have seen through a lot of other government minion shenanigans, don't let this one fool you just because you want to believe the president was right.
And I am not going so far as to say he was wrong, I am just saying what the public was told may not have been the whole story. Just the story needed to get the job done.
Even if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - there is still the possibility that it isn't a duck.
But perhaps I missed something. What was the known evidence you referred to?
The known evidence was what Bush had; according to you a CIA report that there WMD's in Iraq. Coupled with the death of millions in the country from the use of WMD's, attributed to Hussein, it makes a reasonable conclusion that there were WMD's in Iraq.
Did I misunderstand? Did the CIA not tell him the weapons were there? Did Saddam not use WMD's? Because that's all I refer to - the information that Bush had and used to justify the war.
Yes, I think you did misunderstand my comments. I was not saying everyone lied about the WMDs. I was not saying the president lied about the WMDs.
... and yes, your first paragraph does describe the basis of what we knew and why we did believe he had WMDs.
... except, the CIA report that he did have WMDs was really only an inspector's list of suspected stashes - not a "yes he has them here they are" report.
My only point was that what we really knew was not nearly as conclusive as it was portrayed. Other than the fact that Saddam had used WMDs in the past - and that he kicked out the inspectors, (as if he had something to hide) - we had no firm verifiable proof that he had them at the time we went to war.
My point was that we were acting on assumptions from past data - not firm proof, and because we could not find proof that he did not have them, we continued to believe that he did - because that is what we wanted to believe.
Sort of like Obamacare now - the president made a decision, so now it was up to his administration to prove him right in support of him. Sometimes facts get in the way.
I think we understand each other. And even, pretty much, agree here. Bush had information, both circumstantial and suspected by experts he relied on. He used that information to start a war. IMHO whether the war was justified or not, Bush thought it was based on the information he had.
Whether that information was later proven to be false or not, circumstantial or not or anything else, is irrelevant. The president, operating with what he thought was true, acted. That does not make him a bad person or even a liar.
Now one can declare that Bush knew better, that he started the war because he wanted oil or he wanted to kill people or he wanted Saddam dead, but none of those are backed by fact. They are only opinion, and opinion based on nothing but hatred, usually of a political party opposing the declarers own political stance.
There were more band things than just WMDs and there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Arti … found.html
I think you missed the point of my comments, and I don't think your source list is what the administration was talking about.
Some of those items on your list pre-dated 1991, Some projected as far back as 1980. The uranium found was not weapons grade and was already cataloged for what it was in the first Gulf war.
My point is that none of this is part of a resurgent WMD program that the public was led to believe existed.
I must return to my clarification that I was not saying Bush lied. I am saying the intel was either exaggerated or flat wrong. And it is my opinion that several of the most important folks in the inner circle knew 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
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
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
Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Oct. 9, 1998
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.
Okay, I'm a bit perplexed about what we are debating. I never said the intelligence was good, only that it was consistently propagated among countless politicians. However, let's not forget that President Bush claimed that they had intelligence suggesting that weapons of mass destruction were moved from Iraq to Syria. Now, we are dealing with weapons of mass destruction in Syria. We'll likely never know if any of these weapons were, in fact, Iraq's weapons.
George Bush did not lie; he, along with many politicians, made decisions based upon faulty information that was supplied to them, poor intelligence. Some of these statements occurred prior to the war. This just bolsters the fact that the same intelligence had been offered to our politicians for quite some time. In the past two or three years, both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have stated that, knowing what they now know, they would still support war.
Well golly gee... it was just semantics after all.
Yes I think we were both on the same page but talking past each other. I just have a problem with folks continuing to preach the "he had them" mantra - long after we know that he did not have them.
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.
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.
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?
How does Obama compare to LBJ, FDR, KFK, Carter, and Clinton? Is President Obama better than any of these Democratic presidents?
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.
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.
by Kawai 2 years ago
Is Obama a good president?I don't live in the states so it would be interesting get a feel of how people living there think of him..did you personally benefited from his presidency?
by Yves 2 years ago
Would a Trump Presidency Be an Embarrassment for the United States and the Republican Party?Trump has been a Democrat most of his life. He brags that he can buy politicians, having given millions to Hillary's campaign and well as her Foundation. He scammed thousands of people out of millions of...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
presidency thus far? Do you believe that President Obama is doing a good job as president? If not, who do YOU wished you have voted for instead of President Obama? Why?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama? The main crux of Obama's...
by Philip Cooper 4 years ago
Do you think Hilary Clinton will become the Democratic nomination in 2016?
by JON EWALL 6 years ago
Will President Obama be forthright with the American people ?Will President Obama be forthright with the American people when he delivers his second ''state of the union '' speech on wed 1/27/10 ?the president has broken many of his promises to the American people when he was campaigning for the...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|