Who else will miss Obama?
-
Bernnard_Black — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 04:25 PM)
That's the Donald for you.
But don't be too proud of Obama. He has the worst win rate against the Supreme Court of any modern president, with 79 cases upheld and96 not, or 48%. And this from a supposed Constitutional scholar. I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm not on the Obama bandwagon either.
Whores will have their trinkets. -
roland-rockerfella — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 11:54 AM)
On the whole Obama has done a pretty decent job. I know right wingers will attack him for this and that but look at the mess your country was in after Bush Jr. The economy was in tatters and the country was bogged down in 2 pointless unwinnable wars. Obama has steadied the ship. Sure he isn't perfect and didn't deliver that much change as he promised but considering what he started with the U.S. is in a far better place today than it was 8 years ago. What it will be like after Trump has finished with it, well that's a diffirent question.
-
Beck_Mill_00 — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 07:48 PM)
The economy was in a mess because of Glass-Steagall safeguards being repealed via Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999, signed into law by Bill Clinton, with vast majority support from BOTH democrats and republicans. Some economists even say it began with Carter's Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 because that's when the lending standards were first relaxed, and got worse over time. Bush is definitely guilty of contributing the Dream Downpayment Act in 2003 to the mess, but in fairness, he tried to reign in Fanny and Freddy for six years before the meltdown, and it was democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd that said it was a "non-issue" because "people tend to pay their mortgages" and just not long before the 2008 meltdown, they turned around and said "why weren't we doing something about this sooner?" The truth of the matter is, this was the slowest recovery to any recession in history, and that the administration added more to our national debt than all previous administrations combined, and that our national debt ratio is at a frightening 106% (anything near 100% is awful). Yes, our unemployment number is low, but so is our labor participation rate (as it has been hovering near a 4 decade low for years now), as wages have stagnated and in some industries, have gone down. Our growth has been abysmal and we have more people on welfare and food stamps than ever before. Better than the beginning of 2009? Absolutely. Something to sing about? Not so much.
As far as the wars, well, the majority of democrats in the senate VOTED for them, and they voted for it for the same reason the democrats had us bomb Iraq at the end of 1998WMDs. That's all we heard about from Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, and all the dems throughout most of 1998how we had to do something about Saddam's WMDs. Sorry, you can't say WMDs were real enough in December of 1998 to bomb Iraq and that they magically became lies in 2001 and 2002. Have to pick a lane on that one. The sad thing is, we're STILL there, and after Obama promised to bring the troops home, we sent some more back over there.
The worst part about the past administration is that our country is now more divided by race/gender/class than ever before. All we heard were songs from school children in 2009 about "yes we can" (kind of like how they have kids in North Korea sing about their "dear leader") and how having the first (half) black president was going to unite the country, but just the opposite happened while he was in office. Sadly, the media didn't help in any of this, flaming as much division as possible to sell web clicks/newspapers, but a better leader wouldn't have been undermining our own law enforcement while sending envoys to the funerals of career criminals. -
roland-rockerfella — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 10:56 PM)
As far as the wars, well, the majority of democrats in the senate VOTED for them, and they voted for it for the same reason the democrats had us bomb Iraq at the end of 1998WMDs. That's all we heard about from Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, and all the dems throughout most of 1998how we had to do something about Saddam's WMDs. Sorry, you can't say WMDs were real enough in December of 1998 to bomb Iraq and that they magically became lies in 2001 and 2002. Have to pick a lane on that one. The sad thing is, we're STILL there, and after Obama promised to bring the troops home, we sent some more back over there.
That is all true but there is a big diffidence between lobbing a few cruise missiles into a target and full out invasion and occupation of a sovereign country based on lies and faulty intelligence. Hans Blix was head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq for years had stated categorically the Saddam had no usable WMD's after 9/11.
This was the guy on the ground, the man in the know, guess what, he was ignored because the story he was telling didn't fit the invasion storyline coming out of Washington. Then when they finally do get into Iraq guess what? no WMD's. Oh well that was overrated anyway the spin doctors at FOX tried to tell us, we are here for regime change because Saddam was a bad guy. Oh for beep sake.
Then the whole thing blew up in their faces and deservedly so. I feel sorry for the soldiers sent to fight this giant con of a war and for all the Iraqi's killed trying to defend their nation from invasion. Bush and co should be tried for war crimes. but sadly that will never happen because they are rich and powerful and the rich and powerful can do whatever they like and get away with it it seems. What the world needs is a new Frence Revoloution. -
Beck_Mill_00 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 06:06 AM)
That is all true but there is a big diffidence between lobbing a few cruise missiles into a target and full out invasion and occupation of a sovereign country based on lies and faulty intelligence. Hans Blix was head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq for years had stated categorically the Saddam had no usable WMD's after 9/11.
This was the guy on the ground, the man in the know, guess what, he was ignored because the story he was telling didn't fit the invasion storyline coming out of Washington. Then when they finally do get into Iraq guess what? no WMD's. Oh well that was overrated anyway the spin doctors at FOX tried to tell us, we are here for regime change because Saddam was a bad guy. Oh for beep sake.
Nowhere was I comparing the scope of the two, it's just that the left loves to rewrite history and claim that WMDs were lies in 2001 and 2002, but real in December of 1998, and even in 1999. Neither Hans Blix, NOR ANYONE, could have possibly have known what Iraq did or didn't have, especially after FOUR YEARS of inspectors not being in the country, they weren't allowed back in until 2002. In fact, Hans Blix sent mixed messages when he also stated that Iraq wasn't cooperating with the "spirit of inspections" in 2002. People could only guess what Iraq did or didn't have after going four years unsupervised, and much of the world believed they had WMDs still, at the time.
Then the whole thing blew up in their faces and deservedly so. I feel sorry for the soldiers sent to fight this giant con of a war and for all the Iraqi's killed trying to defend their nation from invasion. Bush and co should be tried for war crimes. but sadly that will never happen because they are rich and powerful and the rich and powerful can do whatever they like and get away with it it seems. What the world needs is a new Frence Revoloution.
If "Bush and Co" should be tried for war crimes, then all the democrats who voted for it (including Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Schumer, Reid, and the rest of the other majority of democrats in the Senate) should be, too.
Yeah..a "Frence Revoloution"how would that work? Which "rich" people get rounded up? Who sets the criteria for what's "rich?" LOL. 100k/yr is very "rich" in some states and cities, and not even lower middle class in others. Sacr Bleu! -
byachmon — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 06:28 AM)
If "Bush and Co" should be tried for war crimes, then all the democrats who voted for it (including Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Schumer, Reid, and the rest of the other majority of democrats in the Senate) should be, too.
Are you trying to say that lying to start a war is the same as being lied to to start a war?
Wait..What? -
Beck_Mill_00 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 06:59 AM)
You must have missed the whole entire point, aboveif WMDs were lies in 2001 and 2002, then they were lies in 1998 and 1999, too. The democrats said WMDs were a very real problem in 1998 and 1999, which is why we bombed Iraq, so they, like everyone else, believed they were real in 2001 and 2002 based on the intelligence of the time, too. It was only after the fact that they claimed they were lies and ignored (tried to bury) the fact that they claimed all throughout 1998 that we had to do something about those very WMDs.
-
SunnyWays — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 07:41 AM)
I think that it's important not to whitewash the Dem support for invasion in the 2000s, but you cannot leave out a key part of the overall story:
WMDswhich is why we bombed Iraq- it was the Republican Administration that sought and managed the Iraq invasion
- James Mann's
The Rise of The Vulcans
and other credible journalistic works, like Bob Woodward's books, go into great detail into how Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby and other Republican senior officials sought an aggressive foreign affairs and military posture for situations like Iraq, rejecting multilateralism and caution. - WMDs were the excuse, but not the whole story or rationale for the invasion.
-
byachmon — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 07:52 AM)
In fact, wasn't the initial rational that Iraq was behind 9/11? WMDs didn't come up until the war was started, and it was well established that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Also, wasn't part of the reason Clinton pulled us out of Iraq that we had destroyed all known WMDs?
Wait..What? -
-
Beck_Mill_00 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 09:20 AM)
- it was the Republican Administration that sought and managed the Iraq invasion
And got it with the majority of Senate democrats voting for it. And it was the democrat administration that told us we had to do something about those very WMDs in 1998, and in fact, had us bomb Iraq because of them.
-Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998: "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."
-Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 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."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998: "Iraq is a long way from here, 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."
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-Letter to President Clinton, signed by democrat senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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."
-Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 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."
-Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999: "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Bill Clinton transcript of speech, Dec. 16, 1998: "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.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. " - WMDs were the excuse, but not the whole story or rationale for the invasion.
Excuse or not, it doesn't change the fact that in 1998 and 1999, the democrats said they were real and we had to do something about them.
- it was the Republican Administration that sought and managed the Iraq invasion
-
SunnyWays — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 10:52 AM)
Beck I feel like I made you work for that post!
it is true that in to the early 2000s most everybody thought that Saddam had lots of WMDs, that's not in question if I recall, the issue in the early 2000s was that most of the world thought that sanctions and pressure might be working, forcing the regime to deweaponize, and wanted more time for the inspectors to do their jobs before cowboying an invasion. but if I recall there was indeed little opposition to the war in your Congress (there was lots of opposition internationally). -
Unshaken_Unstirred — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 01:45 PM)
I will, if for no other reason than that Morrissey can go **** himself and my brother in law stopped playing this song:
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/morrissey/america+is+not+the+world_10183666.html
You don't have to be faster than the shark -
NorthernLad — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 02:44 PM)
Amazing 8 years! So proud of him. No things weren't perfectbut it was nice to have a president with a decent approval rating for once. I'm going to miss him greatly.
American Horror Story Season 7: Donald Trump