Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to mention he's one of the few recent Presidents to finish out two full terms without some kind of massive scandal during his presidency.
Bush II: Fabricating Iraq War evidence, Katrina ball-dropping
Clinton: Lewinsky Scandal/Impeachment
Bush I: Single Term
Reagan: Iran/Contra incident
Carter: Single Term
Ford: Single Term
Nixon: Watergate
You have to go all the way back to Johnson in 1963-1969 without coming up with someone who didn't ROYALLY screw up two terms, and even Johnson screwed the pooch by escalating the Vietnam war far more than he should have.
Love him or hate him, Obama had his **** together.
Those who seriously claim there were no scandals are mostly his cult following who choose to gloss over or ignore them.
IRS targeting, Fast & Furious, secrecy/FOIA & spying on the press (AP), Libya and Benghazi, Solyndra, Bergdahl, ISIS festering and the reactions ("JV team" and shunning Paris march).
Now, not all of these may qualify technically as scandals depending on one's definition, but a few are extremely serious and definitely scandal-worthy.
And for the others, Lewinsky was bad but still overblown, and there's still disagreement on W about any "fabrication."
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggunsmallbrains
Is being president while being black a scandal? I think to some it sure is. That's ok. They have their "definitely going to be the next president this time and all around winner" in Trump.
The old race card... isn't that getting tired yet?
Those who seriously claim there were no scandals are mostly his cult following who choose to gloss over or ignore them.
IRS targeting, Fast & Furious, secrecy/FOIA & spying on the press (AP), Libya and Benghazi, Solyndra, Bergdahl, ISIS festering and the reactions ("JV team" and shunning Paris march).
Now, not all of these may qualify technically as scandals depending on one's definition, but a few are extremely serious and definitely scandal-worthy.
And for the others, Lewinsky was bad but still overblown, and there's still disagreement on W about any "fabrication."
The old race card... isn't that getting tired yet?
I don't think there's even that much disagreement about Bush lying about WMD. He did not lie about WMD and those still peddling that BS are full of it.
It's the Democrats that lied (making up the accusation) to gain political power. Just like Harry Reid saying he had it on insider knowledge that Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years or Obama saying 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.'
Remember, lying and being incorrect are not one and the same. Lying means starting something that the person making the claim knows is not correct.
I don't think there's even that much disagreement about Bush lying about WMD. He did not lie about WMD and those still peddling that BS are full of it.
It's the Democrats that lied (making up the accusation) to gain political power.
LOL! Some of the posts on C-D are so hilarious they defy belief. I doubt there's anyone on the entire planet--save a few conservatives attempting to rewrite history--who believes the above.
LOL! Some of the posts on C-D are so hilarious they defy belief. I doubt there's anyone on the entire planet--save a few conservatives attempting to rewrite history--who believes the above.
Funny, funny stuff, LIS!
Hillary Clinton: Saddam Has WMD, Terrorist Ties (Video)
While voting YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:
Quote:
"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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
I guess it was bound to happen. A pragmatic, moderate president that has managed to guide America out of a deep economic crisis, keep us out of stupid "preemptive wars", not too mention has been relatively scandal free and has accomplished much even though congress has agressively attempted to obstruct him at every turn, should and is receiving high approval ratings in his last year in office.
Plus, people watching the farce of a Republican primary are obviously even more approving of the president in comparison to what furball the right is hacking up.
Funny, since many folks on here were predicting how his numbers would be just as bad as Bush's 27% approval rating as he left office. I guess when reality doesn't bend your way it's best to deny reality. Many on the right have become quite good at that.
Hillary Clinton: Saddam Has WMD, Terrorist Ties (Video)
While voting YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
Here's more from that speech that you for some reason neglected to quote:
"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program."
Of course, we know there were no diplomatic efforts because Bush & Co had already made the decision to invade.
She goes on:
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
The speech is quite long, and she goes through many options that the U.S. should employ other than using force. But in the end, she believed the lies from the Bush Administration just like most everyone else in Congress did, and did vote to give him authorization to use force, should all other avenues fail. And of course, no other avenues were ever explored once Bush got the authorization he sought.
Here's more from that speech that you for some reason neglected to quote:
"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program."
Of course, we know there were no diplomatic efforts because Bush & Co had already made the decision to invade.
She goes on:
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
The speech is quite long, and she goes through many options that the U.S. should employ other than using force. But in the end, she believed the lies from the Bush Administration just like most everyone else in Congress did, and did vote to give him authorization to use force, should all other avenues fail. And of course, no other avenues were ever explored once Bush got the authorization he sought.
Do not change the subject. The Clintons believed Saddam had WMDs.
I guess it was bound to happen. A pragmatic, moderate president that has managed to guide America out of a deep economic crisis, keep us out of stupid "preemptive wars", ....
Barack is a radical extremist, not a moderate. We are still very much in a deep economic crisis. There has been no recovery, and there is no end in sight unless we cut taxes, cut spending, and slash big government. Until those things take place, forget it. His economic plan involves government dependence and welfare.
Quote:
...not to mention has been relatively scandal free...
Nonsense. Obama has had numerous scandals (the VA mess, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan...", Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, et al). His reputation is one of a pathological liar. Where exactly have you been?
Quote:
... and has accomplished much even though congress has agressively attempted to obstruct him at every turn, should and is receiving high approval ratings in his last year in office.
When the Democrats were in charge, they just sat there mostly, even though they managed to get Obamacare passed two years in. After the Republicans took hold of Congress once again, they failed to stand up to Obama and his pathetic policies and plans. They were supposed to oppose him. That's not obstruction; that's common sense.
Quote:
Funny, since many folks on here were predicting how his numbers would be just as bad as Bush's 27% approval rating as he left office. I guess when reality doesn't bend your way it's best to deny reality. Many on the right have become quite good at that.
Fortune Magazine is a business publication first, but you can tell by the article that it is very left-leaning. They want us to believe that people are "falling in love" with Barry, but the truth is, he is not held in high regard by many folks. When a guy in office cannot bring himself to identify the enemy of our land (Radical Islam) and then go celebrate while our allies burn in ruin, you know you've got a kook in charge. He may come across to some as a "good orator" or "the guy next door", but underneath that exterior is a very evil man. To me, he is nothing but an angry community organizer and a loser who hasn't gotten his way. He is using the presidency to get a big chip off his shoulder, and it appears he's done that. And his departure will not nearly come soon enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
