PDA

View Full Version : Public more aligned with Obama than GOP


TonyR
02-21-2013, 06:13 AM
President Obama starts his second term with a clear upper hand over GOP leaders on issues from guns to immigration that are likely to dominate the year, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds. On the legislation rated most urgent — cutting the budget deficit — even a majority of Republican voters endorse Obama's approach of seeking tax hikes as well as spending cuts.

The survey underscores the quandary for the GOP as it debates the party's message in the wake of disappointing losses last November for the White House and in the Senate.

Now just 22% of Americans, nearly a record low, consider themselves Republicans.

And those automatic spending cuts, known as the sequester, that are poised to take effect next week?

If no deal is reached to avert them, half of Americans say congressional Republicans will be more to blame. Less than a third would blame Obama first.

"On many of the issues, President Obama has staked out positions that seem to be closer to the public's thinking than the positions Republicans have staked out," says Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The poll is the first in a new partnership between Pew and USA TODAY. "The challenge for him is in building the public's sense of immediacy on some of these issues, particularly on climate change and guns."

Republicans have the opposite challenge. "Their focus on the deficit is in tune with the public's priorities right now," he says. "Yet their positions are not quite in step with the kind of compromises that the public tells us they want to see." Read the whole thing here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/21/poll-pew-obama-gop-guns-energy-immigration-sequester/1934233/

peacepipe
02-21-2013, 08:29 AM
Rethugs have Obama right where they want him,behind them with their pants around their knees.

TonyR
02-21-2013, 09:29 AM
Here is the research in detail:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/21/if-no-deal-is-struck-four-in-ten-say-let-the-sequester-happen/

Pony Boy
02-21-2013, 09:47 AM
Rethugs have Obama right where they want him,behind them with their pants around their knees.

Or more like peacepipe giving TonyR a reach around .......

houghtam
02-21-2013, 09:50 AM
Here is the research in detail:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/21/if-no-deal-is-struck-four-in-ten-say-let-the-sequester-happen/

Facts and figures?? Oh no not this **** again!!

LOL

It's November all over again.

Lonestar coming in to deny the data, say everything is fine and good with his beloved Republican Party, and that stupid "I don't read science/liars always figure" mantra in 3...2...1...

Rohirrim
02-21-2013, 10:29 AM
The ideology of Right Wing extremists provides all the "facts" they need. Since the dogma can never be wrong, why bother with information from "outsiders?"

Bacchus
02-21-2013, 12:53 PM
Obama's approval ratings are the highest in 3 years at 55%.

lonestar
02-21-2013, 12:55 PM
Or more like peacepipe giving TonyR a reach around .......

:thumbs:

those FLL really like to quote those liberal rags..

lonestar
02-21-2013, 12:56 PM
Obama's approval ratings are the highest in 3 years at 55%.

lets see what they are come march 5th..

lonestar
02-21-2013, 01:00 PM
Facts and figures?? Oh no not this **** again!!

LOL

It's November all over again.

Lonestar coming in to deny the data, say everything is fine and good with his beloved Republican Party, and that stupid "I don't read science/liars always figure" mantra in 3...2...1...

holier than those houghtam

we all know that questions on polls can be rigged to get the answer you want to here as well as calling those areas that voted heavily for nobama each time..

sorry but most of the intelligent thinkers in the heartland do not believe your regurgitation from the FLL....

Blart
02-21-2013, 01:24 PM
Anyone seen the WWE's new "villain"?

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7FwKg8KMdUk" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>


I wonder why people don't like the Tea Party, hrm.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/17810/large/tea-party-racism.jpg?1359771397

TonyR
02-21-2013, 01:27 PM
sorry but most of the intelligent thinkers in the heartland do not believe your regurgitation from the FLL....

LOL You really do live in your own alternate reality. And the best part is you have no idea!! :rofl:

houghtam
02-21-2013, 01:57 PM
holier than those houghtam

we all know that questions on polls can be rigged to get the answer you want to here as well as calling those areas that voted heavily for nobama each time..

sorry but most of the intelligent thinkers in the heartland do not believe your regurgitation from the FLL....

Again, keep choosing to believe that. It's exactly what lost you the election in November. We're all laughing. Until people like you realize that you're not only in the minority, but a small minority and getting smaller as you all die off, the Republicans will never win another national election.

Ever.

And we'll still be laughing.

lonestar
02-21-2013, 02:06 PM
LOL You really do live in your own alternate reality. And the best part is you have no idea!! :rofl:

Since you just misquoted me.

I can rig a poll to come up with any answer I want. They have been doing it for years. If not,decades. If the FLL want nobama to be ahead in the polls it is a matter of asking the right questions to the targete audience to get the results they want to publish.

So I guess it is you that is living in your own alternate reality.

As I said before the post yoi took out of context wait till after march 5-6 th when some almost million folks are standing in unemployment lines. Because this moron wanted sequestration and now he has it.

BroncoInferno
02-21-2013, 02:10 PM
Since you just misquoted me.

I can rig a poll to come up with any answer I want. They have been doing it for years. If not,decades. If the FLL want nobama to be ahead in the polls it is a matter of asking the right questions to the targete audience to get the results they want to publish.

So I guess it is you that is living in your own alternate reality.

As I said before the post yoi took out of context wait till after march 5-6 th when some almost million folks are standing in unemployment lines. Because this moron wanted sequestration and now he has it.

Funny how all the polls you and your ilk claimed were doctored prior to the election turned out to be accurate. And, yet, you still cling to these paranoid delusions. Alternate reality, indeed. The results of the election proved that the views of youself and those who think like you reside on the lunatic fringes of society.

lonestar
02-21-2013, 02:12 PM
Again, keep choosing to believe that. It's exactly what lost you the election in November. We're all laughing. Until people like you realize that you're not only in the minority, but a small minority and getting smaller as you all die off, the Republicans will never win another national election.

Ever.

And we'll still be laughing.

Aha. Now you are thinking that I lost. WE ALL LOST.

As for republicans, they said that after many elections. One was when carter was elected, another in 92.

We all saw what happened after those elections.

The pendulum has swung to the xtreme far left crap happens. But it will indeed swing back.

Btw I'm a registered Democrat that was smarter than to vote for numb nuts.

lonestar
02-21-2013, 02:16 PM
Funny how all the polls you and your ilk claimed were doctored prior to the election turned out to be accurate. And, yet, you still cling to these paranoid delusions. Alternate reality, indeed. The results of the election proved that the views of youself and those who think like you reside on the lunatic fringes of society.

Not sure I ever said those polls were rigged. Not sure I ever had the illusion that romeny would indeed win.

Just like cliton nobama is charismatic and that is hard to beat. I hedged my bets and am now making a killing in the stock market.



So he who laughs last.....

BroncoInferno
02-21-2013, 02:19 PM
Not sure I ever said those polls were rigged.

How do we determine which polls are rigged, then, in your view, since you claim so many of them are? Seems to me you simply don't like what this poll has to say, so you've dismissed it as rigged without even attempting to offer evidence of such.

nyuk nyuk
02-21-2013, 03:38 PM
Funny - That poll shows that less than 25% of this "path to citizenship" horse crap the Dems have been trying to assrape us with is popular with the public.

Deceptive clowns on both sides of the aisle said after the 86 fiasco that they would be "getting tough now," and "no more amnesty!"

They lied then. They're lying now. The 86 amnesty is what brought all these people here. They knew if they pushed the door hard enough we'd cave in and pay their bills, so here they are.

"Path to citizenship" is another word for amnesty. ANY legalization is, period.

nyuk nyuk
02-21-2013, 03:39 PM
How do we determine which polls are rigged, then, in your view, since you claim so many of them are? Seems to me you simply don't like what this poll has to say, so you've dismissed it as rigged without even attempting to offer evidence of such.

And libs have done this how many times on this forum?

Requiem
02-21-2013, 03:40 PM
Obama is a boss. Voted for the dude twice. Just crown him emperor.

nyuk nyuk
02-21-2013, 03:41 PM
Obama's approval ratings are the highest in 3 years at 55%.

Not quite. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html)

nyuk nyuk
02-21-2013, 03:42 PM
Obama is a boss. Voted for the dude twice. Just crown him emperor.

Too late - he already crowned himself.

Requiem
02-21-2013, 03:48 PM
Official Obama 2013 Inauguration Jam.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EUMRCEDfG7A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

FIRE.

Arkie
02-21-2013, 05:03 PM
Now just 22% of Americans, nearly a record low, consider themselves Republicans.

The party that doubled the size of government under Bush is not the answer for real conservatives. The Democrats biggest lead was in 2008. Now a record number of Americans claim to be independent. The Democrats need to make the most of their time in power before the opposition reorganizes.

peacepipe
02-21-2013, 05:40 PM
The party that doubled the size of government under Bush is not the answer for real conservatives. The Democrats biggest lead was in 2008. Now a record number of Americans claim to be independent. The Democrats need to make the most of their time in power before the opposition reorganizes.

You guys need to do more then reorganize,our country is shifting & unfortunately for you it's not shifting in your direction. I wouldn't be going out on a limb when I say we're a center-left country.

Rohirrim
02-21-2013, 07:17 PM
If the SCOTUS had not selected George Bush, Al Gore would have (rightfully) been president and guess what? No 911. No Iraq.

We wouldn't be in this mess.

Thank you, Right Wingers, for Dubya.

http://www.sattlers.org/mickey/site/archive/2005/07/images/happy_dubya.jpg

lonestar
02-21-2013, 07:23 PM
How do we determine which polls are rigged, then, in your view, since you claim so many of them are? Seems to me you simply don't like what this poll has to say, so you've dismissed it as rigged without even attempting to offer evidence of such.

I'll do this slowly. I do not believe I ever said the polls before the election were rigged.

Now as to polls in general. A good pollster can word a poll to assure an afirmative answer to prove the point/politician is how they want it to come out. That plus only asking the question to certain a demographic..

This manipulate the answer they are looking for.

I have seen enough exposes with man on the street cameras to know just how dumb 90+% of the American public is.

Please tell me that you are not really dumb enough to believe said polls.

lonestar
02-21-2013, 07:27 PM
Not quite. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html)


President Obama Job Approval
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 1/30 - 2/20 -- 50.6 42.6 +8.0
Gallup 2/18 - 2/20 1500 A 50 42 +8
Rasmussen Reports 2/18 - 2/20 1500 LV 51 47 +4
Bloomberg 2/15 - 2/18 1003 A 55 40 +15
USA Today/Pew Research 2/13 - 2/18 1504 A 51 41 +10
CBS News 2/6 - 2/10 1148 A 52 38 +14
FOX News 2/4 - 2/6 1010 RV 49 45 +4
Quinnipiac 1/30 - 2/4 1772 RV 46 45 +1
All President Obama Job Approval Polling Data
RCP POLL AVERAGE
President Obama Job Approval
50.6
Approve
42.6
Disapprove

houghtam
02-21-2013, 07:28 PM
I'll do this slowly. I do not believe I ever said the polls before the election were rigged.

Now as to polls in general. A good pollster can word a poll to assure an afirmative answer to prove the point/politician is how they want it to come out. That plus only asking the question to certain a demographic..

This manipulate the answer they are looking for.

I have seen enough exposes with man on the street cameras to know just how dumb 90+% of the American public is.

Please tell me that you are not really dumb enough to believe said polls.

This is why any reputable polling center posts its research methodology. See post #3, read the research and please, tell me exactly how the polls were manipulated.

W*GS
02-21-2013, 07:32 PM
There are some, almost all on the right, who will never accept anyone other than a white man as President.

elsid13
02-22-2013, 06:13 AM
If the SCOTUS had not selected George Bush, Al Gore would have (rightfully) been president and guess what? No 911. No Iraq.

We wouldn't be in this mess.

Thank you, Right Wingers, for Dubya.



As much as I think W was not very good president, there is no indication that 9-11 would not have occurred. There was systemic failure on many levels that there is very strong chance some terrorist event would have occurred. Now I would agree if you stated that there wouldn't have been another Iraq conflict and Afghanistan would have been different strategy.

Rohirrim
02-22-2013, 06:53 AM
As much as I think W was not very good president, there is no indication that 9-11 would not have occurred. There was systemic failure on many levels that there is very strong chance some terrorist event would have occurred. Now I would agree if you stated that there wouldn't have been another Iraq conflict and Afghanistan would have been different strategy.

What we know is that Cheney and Rice laughed off Clarke's warnings. Would Gore have done the same? Clarke wanted them to "shake the tree" and see what falls out. What would easily have fallen out is two of the Saudis taking flight lessons in San Diego. There is, in fact, a very strong argument that 911 would have been averted had somebody been in power who gave a ****. And as the Daily Kos pointed out, "There are many reasons why, but the primary one is the fact there is absolutely no way that he (Al Gore) would have blown off the August 6th PDB. Vice President Gore took personal and direct charge of the Safety and Counter-Terrorism planning for the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 simply because NSC Counter-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke asked him to get involved."

Cheney, who Bush put in charge of anti-terrorism, spent that eight months putting sweetheart energy deals together with his buddies in the energy industry and didn't hold his first anti-terrorism meeting until a week before 911. And regarding Irag, you think Al Gore would have bought into the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine? Really? Your argument has no merit.

elsid13
02-22-2013, 06:59 AM
What we know is that Cheney and Rice laughed off Clarke's warnings. Would Gore have done the same? Clarke wanted them to "shake the tree" and see what falls out. What would easily have fallen out is two of the Saudis taking flight lessons in San Diego. There is, in fact, a very strong argument that 911 would have been averted had somebody been in power who gave a ****. And as the Daily Kos pointed out, "There are many reasons why, but the primary one is the fact there is absolutely no way that he (Al Gore) would have blown off the August 6th PDB. Vice President Gore took personal and direct charge of the Safety and Counter-Terrorism planning for the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 simply because NSC Counter-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke asked him to get involved."

Cheney, who Bush put in charge of anti-terrorism, spent that eight months putting sweetheart energy deals together with his buddies in the energy industry and didn't hold his first anti-terrorism meeting until a week before 911. And regarding Irag, you think Al Gore would have bought into the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine? Really? Your argument has no merit.

Transition time in president's administration are always difficult times, so I like I stated we don't know if made a difference, especial with all the systemic problems that occurred. I lean on the probability that attack would occurred in same fashion no matter who was president.

Also I as I attempted to state I believe that Gore would focused on the real enemies power base - Afghanistan, and not taken us into the ****-up that was Iraq.

Rohirrim
02-22-2013, 07:38 AM
Transition time in president's administration are always difficult times, so I like I stated we don't know if made a difference, especial with all the systemic problems that occurred. I lean on the probability that attack would occurred in same fashion no matter who was president.

Also I as I attempted to state I believe that Gore would focused on the real enemies power base - Afghanistan, and not taken us into the ****-up that was Iraq.

Had Bush not been selected by Scalia and Al Gore made rightful president, there would have been little to no "transition" whatsoever given that Gore was already there and would have kept many of Clinton's people. So, wrong again. Gore was also deeply involved in anti-terrorism and took it very seriously. He would no doubt have put Richard Clarke in immediate control of anti-terrorism efforts with a free hand and full backing of the powers of the federal government. The transition would have been nearly seamless. We know that Bush worked hardest that first eight months in completely overhauling nearly every position in Washington and filling it with a neocon.

In regards to anti-terrorism, we know that Cheney and Rice not only did absolutely nothing, but they ignored the information they were given. They not only made no efforts, they were disinterested in those who were trying to make efforts. The difference in outcome of the two approaches would have been enormous. You're arguing that if one group does something and another group does nothing, the outcomes will be the same. Ridiculous.

There is a human failing that says the fait accompli was always the best outcome. Why? Because it happened. We accept Iraq simply because it's over. We accept 911 as inevitable simply because it happened. It's how we hide from our mistakes. It's how the right wing apologists cover their tracks. 911 was the most easily preventable attack in American history. Why? Because it was so slapdash and low tech, and we already had the evidence in our possession to stop it. It actually required a vacuum of leadership at the top for it to succeed. That vacuum, provided by George Bush, was an element of its success.

The reverberations of the disaster that was George Bush will ripple out for decades and may succeed in ending this country as we knew it. I think historians will consider his presidency the turning point to the downfall of America.

Too bad that so many Americans (specifically of the Right Wing, Tea Party persuasion) still don't grasp that their ignorant decisions have had a crushing and devastating effect on this country and the world. They continue their ideological crusade still. I don't know how much devastation they require before they accept that their ideas and policies are poison. I guess we'll see.

BroncoBeavis
02-22-2013, 09:41 AM
There is a human failing that says the fait accompli was always the best outcome..

A corollary human failing is one where a person believes everything in the world would've been improved if only their own personal preferences had been followed.

Most of your post is a shining example.

Arkie
02-22-2013, 11:16 AM
If the SCOTUS had not selected George Bush, Al Gore would have (rightfully) been president and guess what? No 911. No Iraq.

We wouldn't be in this mess.

Thank you, Right Wingers, for Dubya.

http://www.sattlers.org/mickey/site/archive/2005/07/images/happy_dubya.jpg

There's no way to know "what if's", but you're giving too much credit to one man to change things that dramatically. Only a dictator who loves his people could have prevented this mess. There are so many more variables before Bush, during Bush, and after Bush that were out of Bush's control. If the President really does have that much power, then we need to shrink his power.

Our foriegn policy hasn't changed much under different presidents. The same scenario could have happened under Gore. He likely would have invaded Iraq in 2003. He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.

TonyR
02-22-2013, 11:26 AM
He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.

I partly agree, they aren't faultless. But at the same time you have to consider that they were going off of the false information that team Cheney created and propagated.

TonyR
02-22-2013, 11:28 AM
Most of your post is a shining example.

You do realize you've posted nothing to argue or contradict his posts, right? He made a good argument, right or wrong. You've made no argument.

houghtam
02-22-2013, 11:28 AM
There's no way to know "what if's", but you're giving too much credit to one man to change things that dramatically. Only a dictator who loves his people could have prevented this mess. There are so many more variables before Bush, during Bush, and after Bush that were out of Bush's control. If the President really does have that much power, then we need to shrink his power.

Our foriegn policy hasn't changed much under different presidents. The same scenario could have happened under Gore. He likely would have invaded Iraq in 2003. He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.

You realize Cheney and Rumsfeld were the ones who were immediately searching for a link between OBL and SH, right? Something tells me that the guys who ended up getting rich off the war would have been more likely to find a way to go to war than Gore/Lieberman. Unless our tanks and planes were solar powered.

peacepipe
02-22-2013, 11:32 AM
There's no way to know "what if's", but you're giving too much credit to one man to change things that dramatically. Only a dictator who loves his people could have prevented this mess. There are so many more variables before Bush, during Bush, and after Bush that were out of Bush's control. If the President really does have that much power, then we need to shrink his power.

Our foriegn policy hasn't changed much under different presidents. The same scenario could have happened under Gore. He likely would have invaded Iraq in 2003. He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.
Actually we wouldn't be in Iraq, just cause Hillary voted for it, doesn't mean al gore would've made a push for an Iraq war. There never would've been a vote for the Iraq war had al gore been Pres. Al gore was such a part of the Clintons that he did everything he could in the 2000 campaign to distance himself from the Clintons.

BroncoBeavis
02-22-2013, 12:19 PM
I partly agree, they aren't faultless. But at the same time you have to consider that they were going off of the false information that team Cheney created and propagated.

The Clintons? R U Serious? You do realize that until January 2001, the Clintons OWNED the intelligence apparatuses.

Read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, or any number of Clinton WMD statements/condemnations from around the same time. Then tell me how they just didn't know any better and had the wool pulled over their eyes by the Governor of Texas.

Rohirrim
02-22-2013, 12:41 PM
A corollary human failing is one where a person believes everything in the world would've been improved if only their own personal preferences had been followed.

Most of your post is a shining example.

I made a logical argument. You, on the other hand, have nothing. As usual.

BroncoBeavis
02-22-2013, 12:47 PM
I made a logical argument. You, on the other hand, have nothing. As usual.

Argument? Read more like a laundry list of cliched memes to me. :)

But to each his own I guess.

TonyR
02-22-2013, 01:48 PM
Then tell me how they just didn't know any better and had the wool pulled over their eyes by the Governor of Texas.

It wasn't "the Governor of Texas" doing the wool pulling dummy. It was the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld show. And if you think they were letting the Clintons in on what they had going on while they were running things then I have some swamp land in Florida you might be interested in.

bronco militia
02-22-2013, 02:22 PM
http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/02/2-21-13-27.png



http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/20/about-the-survey-59/



ZZZ...

BroncoBeavis
02-22-2013, 02:50 PM
I partly agree, they aren't faultless. But at the same time you have to consider that they were going off of the false information that team Cheney created and propagated.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton. 1998, while George W was Governor of Texas. Tricky Dick Cheney was enjoying fine stogies at Halliburton HQ and Donald was semi-retired.

Rohirrim
02-22-2013, 03:07 PM
President Clinton. 1998, while George W was Governor of Texas. Tricky Dick Cheney was enjoying fine stogies at Halliburton HQ and Donald was semi-retired.

Man, you should really just stop posting. You're an embarrassment.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

The year was 1997.

Rohirrim
02-22-2013, 03:10 PM
Judging by recent interviews Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz gave to a handful of media outlets during the past week, the short answer is yes, the public was misled into believing Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Both admit that the war with Iraq was planned two days after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Read more: http://www.utne.com/2003-08-01/Wolfowitz-Admits-Iraq-War-Planned-Two-Days-After-9-11.aspx#ixzz2LfkfrERz

BroncoBeavis
02-22-2013, 03:22 PM
Man, you should really just stop posting. You're an embarrassment.

Herpy Derp


Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

The year was 1997.

Informationclearinghouse? LOL Did you get that link from Gaff? LOL

Anywho, I'm not sure what you're limply trying to establish here. The point is that nobody can argue that the Clintons were deceived into believing the WMD justifications for war, when they were the ones who laid all the necessary groundwork for that justification just a few years earlier.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S0f5u_0ytUs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rohirrim
02-22-2013, 03:54 PM
Herpy Derp



Informationclearinghouse? LOL Did you get that link from Gaff? LOL

Anywho, I'm not sure what you're limply trying to establish here. The point is that nobody can argue that the Clintons were deceived into believing the WMD justifications for war, when they were the ones who laid all the necessary groundwork for that justification just a few years earlier.


Same ole ****. Get proved wrong and pretend you meant something else. Tired and pathetic trick.

elsid13
02-22-2013, 05:00 PM
There's no way to know "what if's", but you're giving too much credit to one man to change things that dramatically. Only a dictator who loves his people could have prevented this mess. There are so many more variables before Bush, during Bush, and after Bush that were out of Bush's control. If the President really does have that much power, then we need to shrink his power.

Our foriegn policy hasn't changed much under different presidents. The same scenario could have happened under Gore. He likely would have invaded Iraq in 2003. He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.

I highly doubt he authorize the invasion of Iraq. There was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq. The only reason Iraq occurred is because of Cheney and his crew at the Pentagon.

BroncoBeavis
02-23-2013, 07:19 AM
Same ole ****. Get proved wrong and pretend you meant something else. Tired and pathetic trick.

You're comical. Someone says "How can you blame bush for hoodwinking the Clinton's on Wmds when they started the whole story while Bush was still Governorin' Texas?" And all you come up with is RUMSCHENYBURTONOWITZ!!!! INFORMATIONCLEARINGHOUSE!!! YEEEAAAAAAARRRRRGH!!!

The more this goes the more I start to think I'm arguing with some kind of chatbot. Just a dictionary of responses queued up to respond to certain keywords and catch phrases. LABF version 2,5 maybe. With the gif flood bug finally patched. LOL

Play2win
02-23-2013, 07:33 AM
If it was done by one person– not an entire nation– the war on Iraq would have been premeditated murder.

TonyR
02-23-2013, 07:58 AM
Someone says "How can you blame bush for hoodwinking the Clinton's on Wmds when they started the whole story while Bush was still Governorin' Texas?"

You're entirely missing the point and/or changing the argument, as per usual. This isn't about anyone being "hoodwinked". This is about the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which was done primarily based on a false information campaign perpetuated by the Bush Admin, with the Cheney faction leading the charge. This directly from Wiki:

...While it never made an explicit connection between Iraq and the 11 September attacks, the George W. Bush administration repeatedly insinuated a link, thereby creating a false impression for the U.S. public. Grand jury testimony from the 1993 World Trade Center attack trials cited numerous direct linkages from the bombers to Baghdad and Department 13 of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in that initial attack marking the second anniversary to vindicate the surrender of Iraqi armed forces in Operation Desert Storm. For example, The Washington Post has noted that,

“While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."[75]”

Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, observed in March 2003 that "The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between 11 Sept. and Saddam Hussein]". This was following a New York Times/CBS poll that showed 45% of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the 11 September atrocities. As the Christian Science Monitor observed at the time, while "Sources knowledgeable about U.S. intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the 11 Sept. attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda... the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime." The CSM went on to report that, while polling data collected "right after 11 Sept. 2001" showed that only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein, by January 2003 attitudes "had been transformed" with a Knight Ridder poll showing that 44% of Americans believed "most" or "some" of the 11 September hijackers were Iraqi citizens.[76]

According to General Tommy Franks, the objectives of the invasion were, "First, end the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from that country. Fourth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needy Iraqi citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq’s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. And last, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.”[77]

The BBC has also noted that while President Bush, "never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington", he, "repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September", adding that, "Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two." For instance, the BBC report quotes Colin Powell in February 2003, stating that, "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." The same BBC report also noted the results of a recent opinion poll, which suggested that "70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks."[78]

Also in September 2003, the Boston Globe reported that "Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the 11 Sept. attacks."[79] A year later, presidential candidate John Kerry alleged that Cheney was continuing "to intentionally mislead the American public by drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in an attempt to make the invasion of Iraq part of the global war on terror."[80]

Throughout 2002, the Bush administration insisted that removing Hussein from power to restore international peace and security was a major goal. The principal stated justifications for this policy of "regime change" were that Iraq's continuing production of weapons of mass destruction and known ties to terrorist organizations, as well as Iraq's continued violations of UN Security Council resolutions, amounted to a threat to the U.S. and the world community.

The Bush administration's overall rationale for the invasion of Iraq was presented in detail by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council on 5 February 2003... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Clintons or anyone else.

houghtam
02-23-2013, 09:54 AM
MSNBC recently ran a special on the manufactured war in Iraq. Since you're too dumb to realize that they used real sources and will immediately go "MSNBC ROBBLEROBBLEROBBLE" (why do you think I made it the first word of my post? Got your attention now?), I'll just list the Wiki article and you can read the info directly on the sources' websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

But here's a good tidbit from PBS' Frontline in 2006. I thought this **** was common knowledge by now? Oh wait, it is...to all but you few deniers.

In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency, under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, V.P. Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. The questionable intelligence acquired by this secret program was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public. In some cases, Cheney’s office would leak the intelligence to reporters, where it would be reported by outlets such as The New York Times. Cheney would subsequently appear on the Sunday political television talk shows to discuss the intelligence, referencing The New York Times as the source to give it credence.

Open your freaking eyes and stop being such a smug little dunce. It's not a good thing to be proud of being stupid or ignorant.

nyuk nyuk
02-23-2013, 10:18 AM
The public is so aligned with Obama that he bled over 6 million votes from 2008.

Herp-a-derp!

nyuk nyuk
02-23-2013, 10:19 AM
MSNBC recently ran a special on the manufactured war in Iraq. Since you're too dumb to realize that they used real sources and will immediately go "MSNBC ROBBLEROBBLEROBBLE" (why do you think I made it the first word of my post? Got your attention now?), I'll just list the Wiki article and you can read the info directly on the sources' websites.

If you and yours don't accept Fox News as a source, then don't jab your thumb in your mouth about MSNBC.

BroncoBeavis
02-23-2013, 05:09 PM
I don't know why you keep bringing up the Clintons or anyone else.

Uhhhhh...

He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.

I partly agree, they aren't faultless. But at the same time you have to consider that they were going off of the false information that team Cheney created and propagated.

The Clintons? R U Serious? You do realize that until January 2001, the Clintons OWNED the intelligence apparatuses.

Read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, or any number of Clinton WMD statements/condemnations from around the same time. Then tell me how they just didn't know any better and had the wool pulled over their eyes by the Governor of Texas.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Clintons or anyone else.

TonyR
02-24-2013, 11:11 AM
Beavis, you are so ponderous. Did you even read posts #55 and #56? Do you even understand what this discussion is about? Sorry to break it to you but no matter how you try to spin it the Clintons weren't in power leading up to 9/11 or the 2003 invasion.

Requiem
02-24-2013, 11:45 AM
The public is so aligned with Obama that he bled over 6 million votes from 2008.

Herp-a-derp!

There was roughly ~ 3% (2.7) less voter turn out in 2012 compared to 2008.

Obama had ~ 69.5 million votes in 2008 and ~ 66 million (figures rounded) in 2012. That's 3.5 million votes less. If turnout was the same, his numbers this year (total votes) would have risen and the numbers wouldn't have been anywhere near a six million vote disparity you are discussing.

Romney's vote total was ~ 1.5% better than McCain, roughly a million votes.

So in reality, in a year with much less turnout, Obama still performed well. Either way, your goofy math doesn't add up. Try again.

peacepipe
02-24-2013, 11:53 AM
Beavis, you are so ponderous. Did you even read posts #55 and #56? Do you even understand what this discussion is about? Sorry to break it to you but no matter how you try to spin it the Clintons weren't in power leading up to 9/11 or the 2003 invasion.

That's the bottom line,it blows beavis argument apart. He can say all he wants about Clinton,but Clinton wasn't president on 9/11 nor was he in control of the intelligence apparatus in 2003. At the end of the day it was the GWB/Cheney admin that lead us into iraq & dropped the ball on 9/11. Beavis can't defend bush so he wants to deflect blame away from bush.

BroncoBeavis
02-25-2013, 08:19 AM
That's the bottom line,it blows beavis argument apart. He can say all he wants about Clinton,but Clinton wasn't president on 9/11 nor was he in control of the intelligence apparatus in 2003. At the end of the day it was the GWB/Cheney admin that lead us into iraq & dropped the ball on 9/11. Beavis can't defend bush so he wants to deflect blame away from bush.

I'm not defending Bush from his decision. But so long as people are willing to entertain whatif games on a hypothetical President Gore, you can't suddenly hide behind who was and wasn't President.

Fact: The Clinton Administration believed Iraq possessed illegal chemical and biological weapons.

Fact: The Clinton Administration made regime change in Iraq formal United States policy.

Fact: The Clinton Administration both threatened and used force in response to perceived noncompliance on the issue of illegal WMDs.

Fact: President Gore, supported the first Iraq invasion, and even went so far as to later criticize Bush Sr for disengaging in the Gulf War as quickly as he did.

It's an argument that's been had over and over again.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/gore_president_iraq/

It's ok for you to make the argument that we MIGHT not have gone to war in Iraq under President Gore. But to pretend that that was a certainty is just the partisan kool aid talking again. It's easy to look back in hindsight now with the assumption the weapons weren't there. But nobody believed that at the time. Not Bush. Not Clinton. Not Gore. Nobody.

And the idea that during the post-9/11 frenzy, people were going to stand by for another decade of impotent "You Stop That Saddam!" condemnations is pretty comically unrealistic. Try to put yourself back in that place in time. Not knowing anything you know now. Different ball game.