Obama's Abominations 2009-2012

[RidgeDad]

Affirmative action was not concieved to create racism. It was to try and combat it. Admitedly it was poorly conceived.

We agree on something. Some common ground. Maybe we can have dialog without name calling and stereotyping? Deal?

I will give you that those pushing for affirmative action probably had the best of attentions. But just like most government programs, the wanted results were no where close to the actual results. One of the many reasons conservatives push for smaller government.

I agree with Moldo. Government control of health care scares the living crap out of me.

[southpaw]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_ ... _swine_flu

I'll post it again. This is current and note that the initial gov't plan laid out by Sebelius in July was for 120 million doses of H1N1 to be available by mid-Oct. We are past mid Oct. and I haven't heard how many are available. My guess is about 10 million as the only ones vaccinated are those with chronic medical conditions and infants. Now my whole point to all of this is the glaring fact that IF Bush was still POTUS the msm outcry would be unrelenting but with Barry the msm is mum. Is it Barry's fault this is a fiasco? I really don't know the POTUS isn't God (although some wacko libs think the current one is). The comparison w/ Katrina was that Bush was blamed solely for the tragedy. Was it his fault? I really don't know. FEMA could have done a better job and the real culprits were the idiots in charge in New Orleans. Did the media factor those things in? Did Oprah? Did Barry? No. Everything that happened since 9/11 was blamed on Bush by the wacko liberal media at MSNBC, Huffington, Daily Kooks, Soros, ACORN, etc. Now its Barry's turn to get blamed for everything instead of blaming everything on Bush.

It is a vicious cycle were in...w/ no end in site.

[Manfred]

Instead of jackasses or dumbo's, you could vote......libertarian! Just something different, not plugging for anyone in particular, just a reminder there are alternatives. We might consider term limits and tort reform as two blockbuster issues.

[once a runner]

So basically everything isn't Obama's fault....the right wing is still pissed that Bush got blamed for everything and they are going to do the same thing to Obama no matter what he does? I'm no fan of Bush, but I don't think he was at fault for everything that happened with Katrina. However, the man made himself such an easy target. He seemed downright annoyed that he had to end his vacation early. He made no statements on the tragedy until well after the major damage had been done.

After people started to question Bush on Iraq he seemed very disinterested in the presidency altogether. By virtue of a record number of vacation days and the fewest press conferences he made himself very detached from the American people and his ever declining approval rating was evidence of that detachment. You blame the MSM all you want, but between Bush's lack of empathy and his incompetent speech is what really sent him down hill.

At least Obama has shown, at least to this point, that he cares about the job and is trying to tackle an unbelievable amount of major problems at the same time. I do agree that we are in a vicious cycle right now. The outright glee taken by the extremists on either side at the others failures is just wrong. If they want to laugh at Obama for failing to secure the Olympics, that is their right. Just remember that it would have been GOOD for the United States to host the games.

If someone disagrees with their policy because they believe it is bad for our country, that is a legitimate debate. For someone to want to see the president fail even if it hurts the citizens is just wrong... and I will reiterate that goes for both sides.

[El-Moldo]

You mean like all the democrats in the house and senate who were rooting for us to lose in Iraq when President Bush was in office?

[RidgeDad]

He seemed downright annoyed that he had to end his vacation early. He made no statements on the tragedy until well after the major damage had been done.

Please provide some proof of this statement. Some links, or something to back up your claim.

After people started to question Bush on Iraq he seemed very disinterested in the presidency altogether. By virtue of a record number of vacation days and the fewest press conferences he made himself very detached from the American people and his ever declining approval rating was evidence of that detachment.

Again, some proof please.

At least Obama has shown, at least to this point, that he cares about the job and is trying to tackle an unbelievable amount of major problems at the same time.

Are you seriously implying that Bush did not care about the job? Seriously? Did you not see the man weep because of 9/11? At least Bush was sincere. Obama is a fake. His only care is how he can get benefits for his cronies in Chi-town.

[RidgeDad]

OAR, this one's for you. I hope President isn't becoming disinterested.......

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0 ... _golf.html

[vman]

Re. Katrina,there was a lot of follow up investigation and Louisiana's corruption stood in the way of a lot of help! And people criticized Bush's response!

Well what about the response by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, yet another cash-cow piece of our over-sized government that was established by the Democrats?

Or the response by the governor of Louisiana (who, by the way, was a Democrat she never called out the National Guard?

Orthe response by the Mayor of New Orleans (again, a Democrat?)

Or the response of the layabout entitlement-minded people of New Orleans who sat in their homes and waited for Big Government to come in and rescue them? And what about the people who applied for Federal aid and spent the money on brand new Cadillacs and HDTVs?

BOTTOM LINE: If you live in a city that's protected by a levy, you live there at your own risk -- and you had dang well better have flood insurance. It's not the job of the Federal Government to rebuild your home. If you're being told a Category V Hurricane is coming your way, it's your responsibility to get to safety, not Uncle Sam's. And if you're displaced because of a natural disaster, the only things you should expect from your government are the basics like food, clothing, and shelter -- not expensive luxury items.

[once a runner]

Ridgedad,

First of all, in two of my posts I said "it seems".... that would imply that I'm giving my impression. It's kind of hard to find sources for that and post them for you. Regarding Katrina, here is a source...
http://www.factcheck.org/article348.html

Obviously Bush spoke on the topic, but only while he was busy giving speeches on other topics (Iraq, end of WWII anniversary). He only said that help would be sent. He did not meet with his cabinet on the situation until 2 days after the hurricane hit N.O. In my opinion, he did not give the crisis the attention it demanded.

Regarding vacation days... http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/16 ... 8085.shtml

When Obama comes close the 900 days Bush spent in Texas and Camp David, then we'll talk about him being disinterested. 900 days is about 2.5 years out of the 8 he spent in office.

By the way, I also stated that Bush did not become disinterested until he started getting questioned on the Iraq war.... which was well after 9/11.

[vman]

Re. Bush getting questioned on the war in Iraq, we never saw these quotes leading up to the election:

But Sen. Levin And Other Democrats Said That Iraq Was A Part Of The War On Terror.

Sen. Levin(D-MI): "The War Against Terrorism Will Not Be Finished As Long As Is In Power." (CNN's "Late Edition," 12/16/01)

Sen. Levin: "We Begin With The Common Belief That Saddam Hussein Is A Tyrant And A Threat To The Peace And Stability Of The Region." (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/19/02)

Sen. Clinton (D-NY): " Has Also Given Aid, Comfort, And Sanctuary To Terrorists, Including Al-Qaida Members, Though There Is Apparently No Evidence Of His Involvement In The Terrible Events Of September 11, 2001. ... This Much Is Undisputed." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Sen. Kerry (D-MA) Says Saddam Hussein Is Part Of The "Global Menace" Of Terrorism. CNN'S LARRY KING: "What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places ..." KERRY: "Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

Sen. Levin Admits That Democrats Also Believed That Saddam Hussein Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD). SEN. LEVIN: "You know, the administration continues to talk about everybody believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That is true, but that isn't the issue." (CNN's "American Morning," 11/14/05)

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV): "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. And Then Could Have It Earlier If He's Able To Obtain Materials On The Outside Market Which Is Possible. Difficult But Possible." (Sen. John Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, Pg.S10306)

Sen. Kerry: "According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, pp. S10172-10173)

Senator Charles Schumer: When I consider that Hussein could either use or give to terrorists weapons of mass destruction biological, chemical or nuclear and that he might just be mad enough to do it I find, after careful research, the answer to my question: we cannot afford to leave him alone over the next five or even three years. (Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.)

Rep. Pelosi (D-CA): "Saddam Hussein Certainly Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. There's No Question About That." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/17/02) .........there's more:

Senator Daschle:

"Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Biden:

"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Lieberman:

"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called 'three strikes and you are out,' three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Levin:

"Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Kerry:

"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses." [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]


Consider the following remarks by a key Democrat: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . .Saddam should never doubt the will of the American people, their legislators, their military, or their commander-in-chief to protect our interests, defend our security, and ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens and that of our friends and allies around the world. He should know that when it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one. We will speak as one. And whenever, necessary, we will act as one."

Of course, these were the comments of Vice President Al Gore in February 1998, not those of presidential aspirant Al Gore in September 2002. And yet, they claim that Republicans are the ones politicizing the case against Iraq?