Obama: I didn't draw the red line on Syria, world did [W:162]

[Navy Pride]

Barak Obama's accomplishments as President of the United States--------------being the first African American President of the United States. It pretty much stops there.

If he wasn't black he would not be president.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I don't know after all the lies Obama has told how anyone can believe him...The man has lost all creditability.

I can't even bear to listen to him anymore.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I can't even bear to listen to him anymore.

funny i thought you never listened to him anyway.

 

[head of joaquin]

God it's hilarious to watch conservative knownothings vent against Obama as he continues to have one policy success after the next, running circles around the dull witted conservatives that are becoming demographically extinct even as we speak.

In this case, since he's smart enough to deliberate and move cautiously (unlike that boob Bush), the knownothing tea partiers are all frustrated because they can't tell whether they're supposed to attack him for not using military force against Syria or attack him for using force against Syria. They have two rightwing noise machine memos in their hands and can't use one or the other yet

It sucks being a conservative Obamaphobe.

 

[Navy Pride]

I can't even bear to listen to him anymore.

I don't........

 

[head of joaquin]

If he wasn't black he would not be president.

Use the subjunctive please. Thus "If you weren't white, you wouldn't have graduated high school."

 

[EdwinWillers]

I don't........

That's why there's an "off" switch. And fortunately there's an "ignore" switch for his minions.

 

[upsideguy]

Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Bush screwed a lot of stuff up, but my goodness, if you can't see how Obama's massive screw-ups have exponentially trumped Bush's then you're just not paying attention at all.

Not correct.

 

[upsideguy]

Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

I would have thought that in 5 years you would have overcome the ignorance you continue to display. Bush didn't screw up the economy, that would be Obama. The economy was healing when Obama took office and today the results speak for themselves. the partisanship is coming from you, not me. I post facts and support those facts with logic and common sense. I don't understand how someone who claims to run a business can be so blind to what Obama is doing to that business.

I have no party line, I am a conservative and nothing Obama or the Democrats have done is conservative. I don't belong to the Republican Party, never have, and grew up a Democrat, registered Democrat for decades, voted for more democrats than you probably voted for Republicans. The difference between me and you is that I understand the economy and the private sector better than either you or Obama. You cannot tell me how Bush screwed up the economy because the war certainly didn't do that. Obama has no redeeming qualities but screwed up from day one, too bad you cannot see that.

My bad. You are correct, sir.

I just visited the Conservapedia website (Main Page - Conservapedia) where I was enlightened. Everything I knew and came to believe was so eloquently dispelled. It seems, contrary to my belief that it was GW Bush that began with balanced budget and delivered $1T deficits, the budgets were actually balanced on January 19, 2009.

It seems, according to Conservapedia, that was actually Obama that sold us on the excursion in Iraq, fooling us into believing it was no big deal as we had a Coalition of the Billing to share the burden and the oil would pay for it all...and, after all, it would only last 60 days, so we attacked Iraq in 2009. Apparently it was also Obama that championed tax cuts designed to cut the surplus, and when used when there was no surplus, only served to cut government revenue and raise deficits; and, it was Obama that championed Medicare Part D and when asked how to pay for it delivered this great speech:

Main Page - Conservapedia

I am so pleased to break with conventional wisdom; to get past this idea that Bush screwed everything up and Obama has just struggled with trying to fix it. This new enlightenment feels so great.

The only question I have for you is what time is the next flight from your planet back to earth? I really want to get home. On the other hand, I do worry that you get a bit lonely in this little alien world of yours.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Obama has no redeeming qualities he has screwed up from day one.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Moderator's Warning:

Stop the snipping and stop the trolling.

 

[cpwill]

Barak Obama's accomplishments as President of the United States--------------being the first African American President of the United States. It pretty much stops there.

Meh, he gets more credit than that from me. He was smart enough to abandon some of the sillier positions he took prior to winning the presidency with regards to the War on Terror; and pretty much followed the playbook the Bush people left him (at first) in Iraq and Afghanistan. We got rid of Khaddafi.

But yeah. This debacle....

.... it takes some impressive screw-uppery to manage to make Jimmy Carter look comparatively strong and resolute.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

My bad. You are correct, sir.

I just visited the Conservapedia website (Main Page - Conservapedia) where I was enlightened. Everything I knew and came to believe was so eloquently dispelled. It seems, contrary to my belief that it was GW Bush that began with balanced budget and delivered $1T deficits, the budgets were actually balanced on January 19, 2009.

It seems, according to Conservapedia, that was actually Obama that sold us on the excursion in Iraq, fooling us into believing it was no big deal as we had a Coalition of the Billing to share the burden and the oil would pay for it all...and, after all, it would only last 60 days, so we attacked Iraq in 2009. Apparently it was also Obama that championed tax cuts designed to cut the surplus, and when used when there was no surplus, only served to cut government revenue and raise deficits; and, it was Obama that championed Medicare Part D and when asked how to pay for it delivered this great speech:

Main Page - Conservapedia

I am so pleased to break with conventional wisdom; to get past this idea that Bush screwed everything up and Obama has just struggled with trying to fix it. This new enlightenment feels so great.

The only question I have for you is what time is the next flight from your planet back to earth? I really want to get home. On the other hand, I do worry that you get a bit lonely in this little alien world of yours.

Nice sarcasm, but the problem is the Treasury Dept., BLS.gov, and BEA.gov. support my statements and refute yours. Seems to me that you have a bad case of BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, and because you have made the statements over and over again you believe what you stated is correct.

It really is sad, what exactly did Bush do to you and your family that creates this hatred and here we are five years after leaving office you still have to promote those liberal lies to divert from the Obama record?

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Debt when Obama took office was 10.6 trillion dollars and it is now approaching 17 trillion. Obama signed the Bush budget in March 2009 after adding to it. The Bush projected deficit was not a trillion dollars and the continuing resolutions from Oct. 2008 to January 21, 2009 did not create the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit for fiscal year 2009. Further the Treasury Dept. does not show a Clinton surplus that you and others claim existed.

I wouldn't have expected someone who claims to be in business to be so poorly informed about either economic policies or actual results.

 

[joG]

Talk about slithering snakes...

Unbelievable.

I have never thought choosing the inexperienced man as President was a really good idea. Some of the things he has done were really bad and saying he did not draw the Red Line is as silly as the other guy's saying he had had nor sex with that woman. He hype was stupid.

But he is right here. The international community's credibility is on the line. And that is bad because we are going to need that credibility with the political capital that brings with it, if we want to stop the slide into a multipolar international system with its near certainty of world war in this century. Of course we ie the international community should not have let the dictator commit mass murder in the first place. But gassing the civilian population is certainly something you cannot just stand by and watch. That makes one an accomplice.

 

[Mizmo]

I have never thought choosing the inexperienced man as President was a really good idea. Some of the things he has done were really bad and saying he did not draw the Red Line is as silly as the other guy's saying he had had nor sex with that woman. He hype was stupid.

But he is right here. The international community's credibility is on the line. And that is bad because we are going to need that credibility with the political capital that brings with it, if we want to stop the slide into a multipolar international system with its near certainty of world war in this century. Of course we ie the international community should not have let the dictator commit mass murder in the first place. But gassing the civilian population is certainly something you cannot just stand by and watch. That makes one an accomplice.

"That makes one an accomplice." Then the whole world is an accomplice. Of course Assad should be punished, severely, even taken out. But, Obama's lack of experience and indecisiveness makes that nearly impossible now. Hitting fixed targets is a pinprick since they can be replaced or repaired in a relatively short period. Also, there will be blowback on a much larger scale.

 

[Gladiator]

"That makes one an accomplice." Then the whole world is an accomplice. Of course Assad should be punished, severely, even taken out. But, Obama's lack of experience and indecisiveness makes that nearly impossible now. Hitting fixed targets is a pinprick since they can be replaced or repaired in a relatively short period. Also, there will be blowback on a much larger scale.

If all the leaders signed a cease fire, what are the options for handling violations of he Cease fire by Assad? By the FSA? Who would decide what was self-defense?

//

 

[bubbabgone]

Here's what has become clear over the last 4+ years and brought into crystal clarity with Benghazi & Syria serving as evidence.
People are starting to apply the terms incompetent & unqualified to Obama but that's only partly true.
As a foreign policy President it's 100% accurate ... but he didn't run as a foreign policy president and never wanted or intended to be one.
His interest was and remains domestic policy. His goal is to Europeanize the USA and he's really good at that.
Obamacare ? Good example. Huge progress toward European Socialism.
Policies that keep the economy and employment growth weak so as to increase the dependent class leading to perpetuation of his Party which leads to more of the same.
Institutionalizing a dependency that'll be damn near impossible to reverse.
This is the kind of thing he was trained to do and he's doing it really well.

 

[Conservative]

Here's what has become clear over the last 4+ years and brought into crystal clarity with Benghazi & Syria serving as evidence.
People are starting to apply the terms incompetent & unqualified to Obama but that's only partly true.
As a foreign policy President it's 100% accurate ... but he didn't run as a foreign policy president and never wanted or intended to be one.
His interest was and remains domestic policy. His goal is to Europeanize the USA and he's really good at that.
Obamacare ? Good example. Huge progress toward European Socialism.
Policies that keep the economy and employment growth weak so as to increase the dependent class leading to perpetuation of his Party which leads to more of the same.
Institutionalizing a dependency that'll be damn near impossible to reverse.
This is the kind of thing he was trained to do and he's doing it really well.

Yep, the new American national anthem

Obamaville Song - YouTube

 

[EdwinWillers]

I have never thought choosing the inexperienced man as President was a really good idea. Some of the things he has done were really bad and saying he did not draw the Red Line is as silly as the other guy's saying he had had nor sex with that woman. He hype was stupid.

...and incompetently foolish.

But he is right here. The international community's credibility is on the line. And that is bad because we are going to need that credibility with the political capital that brings with it, if we want to stop the slide into a multipolar international system with its near certainty of world war in this century. Of course we ie the international community should not have let the dictator commit mass murder in the first place. But gassing the civilian population is certainly something you cannot just stand by and watch. That makes one an accomplice.

You don't go to war, you don't send young men and women into combat, risking their lives, sending however many of them to their deaths to uphold someone's credibility or some nations credibility. There is no "political capital" to be gained in favor of helping someone save face. To do so is pure foolishness.

I agree, gassing a civilian population is a horrific thing; and no, we cannot just "stand by and watch." But neither can we do something that is likely guaranteed to result in far more deaths, if not potentially lead to another world war.

And realize what we're actually considering doing - siding with Al Qaeda (who are the ones fighting Assad's regime), a mortal enemy with whom we've been fighting for the past 12 years, which a successful outcome of our involvement would only mean ensconcing an avowed enemy of the United States into power - and think about it - power over and possession of a vast storehouse of chemical weapons. We're also considering letting the Saudi government pay for our soldiers, fundamentally turning the United States armed services into a mercenary force. There's so much more...

Finally, where is the proof Assad is the one who actually set off those chemical weapons? There isn't any, which is part of the reason why so many of our allies are not in favor of this. Those of our allies who are in favor of this have their own political reasons for wanting us to overthrow Assad - NONE OF WHICH HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE GASSING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS.

Think about it - the "innocent civilian" meme is really just an excuse. If our president, if the international community were so concerned about the loss of innocent life, why is there no outrage over the forced starvation deaths of over 20,000 civilians in North Korea? Hmmm? See also here and here.

"Political capital" might be an appropriate word - but it has nothing to do with "compassion" over innocent lives. No, I don't buy for an instant that rationale.

 

[upsideguy]

Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Nice sarcasm, but the problem is the Treasury Dept., BLS.gov, and BEA.gov. support my statements and refute yours. Seems to me that you have a bad case of BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, and because you have made the statements over and over again you believe what you stated is correct.

It really is sad, what exactly did Bush do to you and your family that creates this hatred and here we are five years after leaving office you still have to promote those liberal lies to divert from the Obama record?

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Debt when Obama took office was 10.6 trillion dollars and it is now approaching 17 trillion. Obama signed the Bush budget in March 2009 after adding to it. The Bush projected deficit was not a trillion dollars and the continuing resolutions from Oct. 2008 to January 21, 2009 did not create the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit for fiscal year 2009. Further the Treasury Dept. does not show a Clinton surplus that you and others claim existed.

I wouldn't have expected someone who claims to be in business to be so poorly informed about either economic policies or actual results.

Yawn.... Yet, I have to hand it to you, you have made DP posting very efficient: 4 original works posted 40,000 times.

That said, the Treasury Dept, BLS and BEA numbers are facts, which taken out of context, as you continually do, mean nothing. You are more than happy to tell us that change in the federal debt between Jan 20, 2009 and today... we can all look it up. Attributing that change to Obama, however, has no basis as you never explain what he has done to make that debt happen. While arguments deal with causation, yours deals with circumstance. Citing the change in debt and declaring it Obama's fault is about as meaningful analysis as going to the Doctor with a list a symptoms validate your symptom; or calling a structural engineer into analyze a collapsed building and having him declare it a mess or attributing to the night watchman, because the night watchman was the only one in the building.... its NON analysis; its meaningless.

So, I will give you another shot. I have told you that Bush started with essentially a balanced budget and delivered $1.1T running deficits (which he did; my cite posted numerous times, happy to post again, if you need). I then explained how those deficits were racked up: 1) tax cuts which cut income tax revenue, which racked up $2T of the debt and $200B of annual deficit; 2) wars and related occupations which cost $1.5T to $4.0T depending on how you look at it and 3) an unfunded expansion of Medicare (Part D), which added about $50B annually to the deficit. This was all compounded by a recession that took $400B out tax revenues and added $100B in unemployment (each, of which, have evaporated during the Obama administration).... That was my argument of how GW Bush screwed up the economy. BTW, I have supported, numerous times each of these assertions and can do so again, if necessary.

Now, you have thrown out the rather absurd proposition that Bush did not screw up the economy; Obama did. May I present that post where you make this absurd statement:

I would have thought that in 5 years you would have overcome the ignorance you continue to display. Bush didn't screw up the economy, that would be Obama. The economy was healing when Obama took office and today the results speak for themselves. the partisanship is coming from you, not me. I post facts and support those facts with logic and common sense. I don't understand how someone who claims to run a business can be so blind to what Obama is doing to that business.

I have no party line, I am a conservative and nothing Obama or the Democrats have done is conservative. I don't belong to the Republican Party, never have, and grew up a Democrat, registered Democrat for decades, voted for more democrats than you probably voted for Republicans. The difference between me and you is that I understand the economy and the private sector better than either you or Obama. You cannot tell me how Bush screwed up the economy because the war certainly didn't do that. Obama has no redeeming qualities but screwed up from day one, too bad you cannot see that.

Results do not speak for themselves.... you have to link the facts to the "crime" and show us how Obama is responsible for the results.... Now, here is your chance to come up with robo post #5.... prove that point. Tell us all, exactly how Obama screwed up the economy. And, since your assertion was a complex one that says Bush DID NOT screw up the economy, your proof must include substantiation that Bush delivered Obama a sound economy. I don't know why I am wasting my time with this post as I don't believe you are capable of such a proof.... the good Dr. Conservative will once again tell us the symptoms and be totally unable to identify the disease nor explain how it got out of control..... But, give it a try.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

=upsideguy;1062301338]Yawn.... Yet, I have to hand it to you, you have made DP posting very efficient: 4 original works posted 40,000 times.

Sometimes you have to be repetitive when you are dealing with people with very short attention span and lack of any ability to do any research.

That said, the Treasury Dept, BLS and BEA numbers are facts, which taken out of context, as you continually do, mean nothing. You are more than happy to tell us that change in the federal debt between Jan 20, 2009 and today... we can all look it up. Attributing that change to Obama, however, has no basis as you never explain what he has done to make that debt happen. While arguments deal with causation, yours deals with circumstance. Citing the change in debt and declaring it Obama's fault is about as meaningful analysis as going to the Doctor with a list a symptoms validate your symptom; or calling a structural engineer into analyze a collapsed building and having him declare it a mess or attributing to the night watchman, because the night watchman was the only one in the building.... its NON analysis; its meaningless.

Yes, I keep hearing that the data is taken out of context yet not once have you or anyone else put it in "context" and it does seem the data was "in context" when it was used during the Clinton term to tout his "superior" performance. I wonder if this is the way you run your business?

Leadership is about taking responsibility something you have to do in the business world but Obama never does. What Obama did was spend more money than Bush as the Treasury Dept shows and implemented economic policies that haven't put millions of Americans back to work so they are paying taxes. There are two sides to the debt, revenue and expenses. Unemployed people don't pay much in taxes and spending more increases expenses. I would have thought someone in business would understand that. Now please put the Obama results into context and feel free to explain why we have so many unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, so many on food stamps, so many dependent on the taxpayers and so many discouraged and dropping out of the labor force. I love context so please offer it.

So, I will give you another shot. I have told you that Bush started with essentially a balanced budget and delivered $1.1T running deficits (which he did; my cite posted numerous times, happy to post again, if you need). I then explained how those deficits were racked up: 1) tax cuts which cut income tax revenue, which racked up $2T of the debt and $200B of annual deficit; 2) wars and related occupations which cost $1.5T to $4.0T depending on how you look at it and 3) an unfunded expansion of Medicare (Part D), which added about $50B annually to the deficit. This was all compounded by a recession that took $400B out tax revenues and added $100B in unemployment (each, of which, have evaporated during the Obama administration).... That was my argument of how GW Bush screwed up the economy. BTW, I have supported, numerous times each of these assertions and can do so again, if necessary.

Yes, you did, yet you ignored that the country was going into recession and then we had 9/11. Apparently those facts escaped you and of course you ignored context. Then of course there is the context that you are assigning to Bush a deficit for a budget that was never approved by Congress but was signed by Obama in March 2009. I guess that is context that doesn't matter to you. You claim that income taxes cut revenue and yet we set record tax revenue under the Bush term, wonder how that is out of context? How do you know we cut tax revenue since you never post data showing that, actual data, not projected data. I love the unfunded Medicare Part D program that Democrats wanted to double in expenses. Guess that is out of context as well?

I do love how that liberal proclaimed dumb cowboy from TX destroyed the economy all by himself with a Congress totally controlled by Democrats. That is quite an accomplishment, don't you think?

Now, you have thrown out the rather absurd proposition that Bush did not screw up the economy; Obama did. May I present that post where you make this absurd statement:

I stand by that statement because I understand leadership and our our Congress works, apparently you don't

Results do not speak for themselves.... you have to link the facts to the "crime" and show us how Obama is responsible for the results.... Now, here is your chance to come up with robo post #5.... prove that point. Tell us all, exactly how Obama screwed up the economy. And, since your assertion was a complex one that says Bush DID NOT screw up the economy, your proof must include substantiation that Bush delivered Obama a sound economy. I don't know why I am wasting my time with this post as I don't believe you are capable of such a proof.... the good Dr. Conservative will once again tell us the symptoms and be totally unable to identify the disease nor explain how it got out of control..... But, give it a try.

Results don't matter in the liberal world when there is a liberal President, now that is my opinion based upon observations here. It does seem that liberals don't understand leadership nor are willing to do any research. It is very easy to post why Obama is responsible because Obama's economic policy went into effect almost day one, that was a Stimulus plan which stimulated spending to the states and debt, not stimulating the private sector of the economy. Obama had total control of the Congress and did nothing to grow the economy other than spend money. When he saw the stimulus not working he then proposed Obamacare and got it passed. Yes, that is really setting priorities and of course is ignored by supporters like you.

Obama claimed he had the solutions to the economy and today we aren't better off than we were before the recession began. We are down 2 million workers today when recession began. You simply don't seem to understand the role of leadership, the responsibilities of leadership, and the lack of executive experience of this "leader" We have a private sector economy that you don't seem to understand. Leaders are responsible for the hand they are dealt. Obama was responsible for the economy that he inherited just like Bush was because he was in the Democrat controlled Congress. Maybe it should be you that needs to take a leadership class, an economics class, but more importantly a civics class so you understand who controls the purse strings and who controls the legislative agenda.

you seem to live in a liberal dream world but certainly don't understand responsibilities of leadership. If you generated the Obama results almost 5 years after taking office, you would have lost your business or been fired. I assure you that no one is motivated by the wealth redistribution rhetoric and policies of this President except supporters like you