Obama: Worst President Ever? (1 Viewer)

[jamny]

Bush was more pushed by his administration to invade Iraq because there was $$ in it. But it was based on lies. Bush II is almost a non-POTUS. He was just there in name only.

I can buy that he might have been manipulated by people around him. I don't believe he lied or purposely went in under false pretenses.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet history is already vetting that, and it's not on GWB's side.

Of course it is. That's all it can be at this point from either side. I don't think he was a great President but I think he's a good man who cared about his country and did the best he could. 9/11 happened on his watch and it shaped his presidency. Who knows what he would have been like without the attack. But he dealt with it whether you like the results or not.

Without 9/11, they would had invaded Iraq anyway. You had **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Colin Powell fell on the sword for it. They did everything they could to justify the invasion. The only ones who win in Iraq are the ones that profit from it as far as $$. Because that's what it's all about.

yeah, I just don't believe that.

 

[drummer]

Bush was more pushed by his administration to invade Iraq because there was $$ in it. But it was based on lies. Bush II is almost a non-POTUS. He was just there in name only.

I can buy that he might have been manipulated by people around him. I don't believe he lied or purposely went in under false pretenses.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet history is already vetting that, and it's not on GWB's side.

Of course it is. That's all it can be at this point from either side. I don't think he was a great President but I think he's a good man who cared about his country and did the best he could. 9/11 happened on his watch and it shaped his presidency. Who knows what he would have been like without the attack. But he dealt with it whether you like the results or not.

Without 9/11, they would had invaded Iraq anyway. You had **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Colin Powell fell on the sword for it. They did everything they could to justify the invasion. The only ones who win in Iraq are the ones that profit from it as far as $$. Because that's what it's all about.

yeah, I just don't believe that.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HAL

 

[jamny]

Bush was more pushed by his administration to invade Iraq because there was $$ in it. But it was based on lies. Bush II is almost a non-POTUS. He was just there in name only.

I can buy that he might have been manipulated by people around him. I don't believe he lied or purposely went in under false pretenses.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet history is already vetting that, and it's not on GWB's side.

Of course it is. That's all it can be at this point from either side. I don't think he was a great President but I think he's a good man who cared about his country and did the best he could. 9/11 happened on his watch and it shaped his presidency. Who knows what he would have been like without the attack. But he dealt with it whether you like the results or not.

Without 9/11, they would had invaded Iraq anyway. You had **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Colin Powell fell on the sword for it. They did everything they could to justify the invasion. The only ones who win in Iraq are the ones that profit from it as far as $$. Because that's what it's all about.

yeah, I just don't believe that.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HAL

 

[drummer]

Bush was more pushed by his administration to invade Iraq because there was $$ in it. But it was based on lies. Bush II is almost a non-POTUS. He was just there in name only.

I can buy that he might have been manipulated by people around him. I don't believe he lied or purposely went in under false pretenses.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet history is already vetting that, and it's not on GWB's side.

Of course it is. That's all it can be at this point from either side. I don't think he was a great President but I think he's a good man who cared about his country and did the best he could. 9/11 happened on his watch and it shaped his presidency. Who knows what he would have been like without the attack. But he dealt with it whether you like the results or not.

Without 9/11, they would had invaded Iraq anyway. You had **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Colin Powell fell on the sword for it. They did everything they could to justify the invasion. The only ones who win in Iraq are the ones that profit from it as far as $$. Because that's what it's all about.

yeah, I just don't believe that.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HAL

Are you saying Halliburton isn't involved anywhere in Iraq? Is this what you're saying?

 

[Rove!]

Bush was more pushed by his administration to invade Iraq because there was $$ in it. But it was based on lies. Bush II is almost a non-POTUS. He was just there in name only.

I can buy that he might have been manipulated by people around him. I don't believe he lied or purposely went in under false pretenses.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet history is already vetting that, and it's not on GWB's side.

Of course it is. That's all it can be at this point from either side. I don't think he was a great President but I think he's a good man who cared about his country and did the best he could. 9/11 happened on his watch and it shaped his presidency. Who knows what he would have been like without the attack. But he dealt with it whether you like the results or not.

Without 9/11, they would had invaded Iraq anyway. You had **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Colin Powell fell on the sword for it. They did everything they could to justify the invasion. The only ones who win in Iraq are the ones that profit from it as far as $$. Because that's what it's all about.

Clinton already bombed it a few times and everybody in his administration railed about how big of threat he was. Congress passed a bill in '98 saying he needed to go. Saddam wasn't going to show his cards on WMD. The CIA was saying it was a slam dunk he had WMD. It was just a matter of time. People had been saying since the first Gulf War that we should have "finished the job" then....

 

[drummer]

Bush was more pushed by his administration to invade Iraq because there was $$ in it. But it was based on lies. Bush II is almost a non-POTUS. He was just there in name only.

I can buy that he might have been manipulated by people around him. I don't believe he lied or purposely went in under false pretenses.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet history is already vetting that, and it's not on GWB's side.

Of course it is. That's all it can be at this point from either side. I don't think he was a great President but I think he's a good man who cared about his country and did the best he could. 9/11 happened on his watch and it shaped his presidency. Who knows what he would have been like without the attack. But he dealt with it whether you like the results or not.

Without 9/11, they would had invaded Iraq anyway. You had **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Colin Powell fell on the sword for it. They did everything they could to justify the invasion. The only ones who win in Iraq are the ones that profit from it as far as $$. Because that's what it's all about.

Clinton already bombed it a few times and everybody in his administration railed about how big of threat he was. Congress passed a bill in '98 saying he needed to go. Saddam wasn't going to show his cards on WMD. The CIA was saying it was a slam dunk he had WMD. It was just a matter of time. People had been saying since the first Gulf War that we should have "finished the job" then....

They had Saddam during Desert Storm. They could had stopped him then. GHB didn't want to. There are obvious reasons why.

 

[jamny]

Bush was more pushed by his administration to invade Iraq because there was $$ in it. But it was based on lies. Bush II is almost a non-POTUS. He was just there in name only.

I can buy that he might have been manipulated by people around him. I don't believe he lied or purposely went in under false pretenses.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet history is already vetting that, and it's not on GWB's side.

Of course it is. That's all it can be at this point from either side. I don't think he was a great President but I think he's a good man who cared about his country and did the best he could. 9/11 happened on his watch and it shaped his presidency. Who knows what he would have been like without the attack. But he dealt with it whether you like the results or not.

Without 9/11, they would had invaded Iraq anyway. You had **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Colin Powell fell on the sword for it. They did everything they could to justify the invasion. The only ones who win in Iraq are the ones that profit from it as far as $$. Because that's what it's all about.

yeah, I just don't believe that.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HAL

Are you saying Halliburton isn't involved anywhere in Iraq? Is this what you're saying?

No, I'm saying there are plenty of people who profit from war but that doesn't mean it is the impetus for it. At least in the case of starting the Iraq war just to benefit Halliburton.

 

[drummer]

Bush was more pushed by his administration to invade Iraq because there was $$ in it. But it was based on lies. Bush II is almost a non-POTUS. He was just there in name only.

I can buy that he might have been manipulated by people around him. I don't believe he lied or purposely went in under false pretenses.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet history is already vetting that, and it's not on GWB's side.

Of course it is. That's all it can be at this point from either side. I don't think he was a great President but I think he's a good man who cared about his country and did the best he could. 9/11 happened on his watch and it shaped his presidency. Who knows what he would have been like without the attack. But he dealt with it whether you like the results or not.

Without 9/11, they would had invaded Iraq anyway. You had **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Colin Powell fell on the sword for it. They did everything they could to justify the invasion. The only ones who win in Iraq are the ones that profit from it as far as $$. Because that's what it's all about.

yeah, I just don't believe that.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HAL

Are you saying Halliburton isn't involved anywhere in Iraq? Is this what you're saying?

No, I'm saying there are plenty of people who profit from war but that doesn't mean it is the impetus for it. At least in the case of starting the Iraq war just to benefit Halliburton.

So Halliburton is not profiting from this.

 

[jamny]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

 

[tommyboy]

there's just so many reasons that obama is a total failure it would take me a couple hrs to type it all out. Suffice to say he might not be the worst ever, but he's in the discussion.

 

[drummer]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

 

[drummer]

there's just so many reasons that obama is a total failure it would take me a couple hrs to type it all out. Suffice to say he might not be the worst ever, but he's in the discussion.

tommyboy has $$ on the table!

 

[jamny]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

In Afghanistan?

 

[drummer]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

In Afghanistan?

We can question Afghanistan too. But right now, we are talking Iraq.

 

[Sinrman]

Man there is all kinds of wrong on both sides here...

 

[drummer]

Man there is all kinds of wrong on both sides here... :0

You don't have to unpack this.

 

[jamny]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

In Afghanistan?

We can question Afghanistan too. But right now, we are talking Iraq.

Why? I brought it up as a response to your comment.

 

[drummer]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

In Afghanistan?

We can question Afghanistan too. But right now, we are talking Iraq.

Why? I brought it up as a response to your comment.

I figured when you brought something else to the table, you wanted to share it.

 

[jamny]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

In Afghanistan?

We can question Afghanistan too. But right now, we are talking Iraq.

Why? I brought it up as a response to your comment.

I figured when you brought something else to the table, you wanted to share it.

OK, I'll avoid the tangent. Getting back on topic, I still don't think that Bush knowingly went into Iraq with false information. He didn't lie and he didn't have an ulterior motive.

 

[jamny]

Obama is Carter without a crisis. I hope we never have to see how Obama responds to a real situation.

Something he just couldn't ignore.

 

[timschochet]

Obama is Carter without a crisis. I hope we never have to see how Obama responds to a real situation.

Something he just couldn't ignore.

Umm, we did have a real crisis: Iran was about to obtain nuclear weapons. Obama deftly avoided this by working with the EU and the UN tonegotiate with Iran and get them to give up their nuclear ambitions in exchange for increased trade. The latest news is that this plan has been successful. It's a major diplomatic accomplishment.

 

[drummer]

Obama is Carter without a crisis. I hope we never have to see how Obama responds to a real situation.

Something he just couldn't ignore.

Have another drink

 

[cstu]

Obama is Carter without a crisis. I hope we never have to see how Obama responds to a real situation.

Something he just couldn't ignore.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Obama is Carter without a crisis. I hope we never have to see how Obama responds to a real situation.

Something he just couldn't ignore.

Plenty of crisis to go around these days IMO.

 

[cstu]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

Money was a pleasant side effect for Cheney and those who profited but I believe the primary goal was to extend American power and influence over the Middle East (oil). Neocons had been planning an Iraq invasion long before 9/11.

 

[drummer]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

Money was a pleasant side effect for Cheney and those who profited but I believe the primary goal was to extend American power and influence over the Middle East (oil). Neocons had been planning an Iraq invasion long before 9/11.

Yeah of course, but the huge gain was in the money, not how they could expand Democracy. Everybody knows that's a futile attempt there, even when the US installed Shah's and had Saddam and such as allies. I mean, who really loses here? This was a slam dunk for Cheney.

At the height of PNAC, everybody was on board. Now all that's left is William Kristol, lol. Cheney still bangs the terror drum like it was an Orange Alert when GWB's poll number's dipped. It's a cash register. Nothing more.

 

[cstu]

It's laughable to include Obama in the discussion as worst ever. The discussion of worst ever includes Wilson, Nixon, Fillmore, Pierce, Johnson, and Harding. My vote goes to Harding.

No mention of Hoover? Guy was partially responsible for the Great Depression.

Yup, honorable mention considering the other guys on my list either made policies that directly led to the civil war, were bigots, brought the US close to a dictatorship, or was known best as having been a great poker player.

Being partially responsible for the Depression is really bad, but gets an honorable mention in comparison.

Obama's starting to look pretty good though, isn't he?

TARP was probably the most important economic policy implemented in the 20th century. If anything, Bush was the reason there was no depression.

He earned back some respect for that. Doesn't make up for lying us into a war but prevents him from being the WOAT.

I disagree with how that is stated. I don't think he lied. He based his case on the evidence at hand which both parties bought into. Some of the stuff seen as a lie such as imminent threat was stuff Chenney said several months after the fact. Bush's case was based on questionable information from our intelligence information and aided by the fact Sadamm was uncooperative.

Bush pushed people to give him evidence he could use to invade Iraq and got it.

Maybe 'lie' isn't 100% accurate but I don't believe he cared at all if the information he got was accurate just so long as he could convince people with it.

In your unbiased opinion.

Have you read this book - Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War?

 

[jon_mx]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

Money was a pleasant side effect for Cheney and those who profited but I believe the primary goal was to extend American power and influence over the Middle East (oil). Neocons had been planning an Iraq invasion long before 9/11.

Yeah of course, but the huge gain was in the money, not how they could expand Democracy. Everybody knows that's a futile attempt there, even when the US installed Shah's and had Saddam and such as allies. I mean, who really loses here? This was a slam dunk for Cheney.

At the height of PNAC, everybody was on board. Now all that's left is William Kristol, lol. Cheney still bangs the terror drum like it was an Orange Alert when GWB's poll number's dipped. It's a cash register. Nothing more.

Absolutely absurd.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Bush was more pushed by his administration to invade Iraq because there was $$ in it. But it was based on lies. Bush II is almost a non-POTUS. He was just there in name only.

I can buy that he might have been manipulated by people around him. I don't believe he lied or purposely went in under false pretenses.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet history is already vetting that, and it's not on GWB's side.

Of course it is. That's all it can be at this point from either side. I don't think he was a great President but I think he's a good man who cared about his country and did the best he could. 9/11 happened on his watch and it shaped his presidency. Who knows what he would have been like without the attack. But he dealt with it whether you like the results or not.

Without 9/11, they would had invaded Iraq anyway. You had **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Colin Powell fell on the sword for it. They did everything they could to justify the invasion. The only ones who win in Iraq are the ones that profit from it as far as $$. Because that's what it's all about.

yeah, I just don't believe that.

Lol. You ignore their conferences on getting rich off of that exact subject.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's laughable to include Obama in the discussion as worst ever. The discussion of worst ever includes Wilson, Nixon, Fillmore, Pierce, Johnson, and Harding. My vote goes to Harding.

No mention of Hoover? Guy was partially responsible for the Great Depression.

Yup, honorable mention considering the other guys on my list either made policies that directly led to the civil war, were bigots, brought the US close to a dictatorship, or was known best as having been a great poker player.

Being partially responsible for the Depression is really bad, but gets an honorable mention in comparison.

Obama's starting to look pretty good though, isn't he?

TARP was probably the most important economic policy implemented in the 20th century. If anything, Bush was the reason there was no depression.

He earned back some respect for that. Doesn't make up for lying us into a war but prevents him from being the WOAT.

I disagree with how that is stated. I don't think he lied. He based his case on the evidence at hand which both parties bought into. Some of the stuff seen as a lie such as imminent threat was stuff Chenney said several months after the fact. Bush's case was based on questionable information from our intelligence information and aided by the fact Sadamm was uncooperative.

Bush pushed people to give him evidence he could use to invade Iraq and got it.

Maybe 'lie' isn't 100% accurate but I don't believe he cared at all if the information he got was accurate just so long as he could convince people with it.

In your unbiased opinion.

Have you read this book - Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War?

Wouldnt matter, he chooses to be willfully ignorant.

 

[jon_mx]

 

[Riversco]

A better question is where would Obama rank among all democrat presidents after FDR?

Rank these presidents: Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

Its a better question because it avoids the D vs R spitball fights.

 

[jon_mx]

A better question is where would Obama rank among all democrat presidents after FDR?

Rank these presidents: Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

1. Clinton

2. Kennedy. (But mostly because his short time in office or he might be first)

.

.

.

3. Obama

4. LBJ

5. Carter.

 

[timschochet]

1. LBJ

2. Obama

3. Clinton

4. Kennedy

5. Carter

Obama keeps rising in my mind as a result of this Iran deal. If that turns out to be a permanent achievement (which at the moment looks promising) then Obama will shoot to #1 on this list and might make top 15 overall.

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooKs love fighting dumb wars poorly.

 

[Riversco]

I cannot understand how historians can rank Jefferson the 4th best president on average. His presidency was a disaster. At least some of these historians must be ranking them on things they did outside the presidency.

 

[timschochet]

I cannot understand how historians can rank Jefferson the 4th best president on average. His presidency was a disaster. At least some of these historians must be ranking them on things they did outside the presidency.

That Louisiana territory turned out to be a pretty good buy.

 

[Riversco]

1. LBJ

2. Obama

3. Clinton

4. Kennedy

5. Carter

Obama keeps rising in my mind as a result of this Iran deal. If that turns out to be a permanent achievement (which at the moment looks promising) then Obama will shoot to #1 on this list and might make top 15 overall.

Just about everyone is going to say FDR was a great president. But when you remove FDR and look at the democrat presidents that came after there isn't any that will be remembered as great, so I think its an interesting discussion because there will be a lot of varying opinions.

 

[Riversco]

I cannot understand how historians can rank Jefferson the 4th best president on average. His presidency was a disaster. At least some of these historians must be ranking them on things they did outside the presidency.

That Louisiana territory turned out to be a pretty good buy.

The Embrago act of 1807 wrecked the US economy. The only reason it was necessary was that Jefferson was a angry hothead with no political skill and was unable to work with congress to increase the size of military to support and defend shipping and trade.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I'm not taking either side, but an interesting article, and it is from the Huff Post which def isn't a GWB supporter.

Income inequality much worse under Obama than Bush

From over a year ago, so I would be inclined that this trend got a lot worse last year.

Of course income inequality is greater under Obama, because the economy is better. Poor people basically make the same amount whether the economy is good or bad. The incomes of rich people, however, will fluctuate by millions or more.

So why is this accepted under Obama, but under Bush it was a HUGE flaw for his administration?

ETA: I know that was a dumb question, it's because there's a "D" by his name.

My bad

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I'd probably rate them:

Kennedy - hurt by limited time in office, but many of the good programs that happened in LBJ's presidency had their genesis in the Kennedy admin. Handled the most imminent foreign threat to the U.S. mainland since the early-nineteenth century. Inspired a generation of liberal thinkers/leaders that followed. ETA: and depending on how much credit you want to give him for getting the U.S. to the Moon, that was not only a major accomplishment but a boon to U.S. innovation for two-plus decades.

Clinton - Like Eisenhower on the Republican side, was a centrist who presided over a period of stable economic growth and balanced the Federal budget. Aside from sound fiscal policy though, he doesn't have many signature accomplishments. The welfare reform he passed was an unnecessary bill that has caused more problems than it solved, which isn't difficult since it hasn't solved anything.

LBJ - Hardest to rate for me. There's no question he moved forward Civil Rights by as much as a decade. Plus he addressed serious needs with Medicare and Medicaid, programs that continue to help millions of people every year. In terms of accomplishments, he's by far the most prominent Democrat after FDR. But Vietnam...

Obama - I think he's likely to end up being regarded on a similar level as Kennedy in the long run. With perspective, I think there will be a generally kinder view of the economy than what we feel today. It's been improving from a mild depression/severe recession for his entire tenure. He inherited a gigantic fiscal mess from his predecessor and I think will be viewed as doing the right things to turn that around. If ACA ends up sticking around for 20+ years before another major reform is needed he's probably a slam dunk to move up the list. There will be a flip side though, the NSA spying stuff is deeply troubling and even though I don't really consider it his policy direction, he hasn't exactly stepped in to stop it either.

Carter - Had bad circumstances, didn't do much with them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When Democrats say that the George W. Bush years were the worst political times in the nation's history, "I may mention the internment of Japanese Americans under FDR, the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams, or a hundred years of lynchings under several dozen administrations as having been possibly worse, and suggest we all take a deep breath." -- Barrack Obama, The Audacity of Hope.

 

[drummer]

Of course Halliburton profited from the Iraq War. I'm just not willing to make the leap that their profit was the deciding factor in going in. People take advantage of upcoming situations all the time. For all I know Cheney lost a lot of money in other investment s that didn't pan out. I'm not as cynical as you. I'm more of an optimist. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't care.

When our country decides to go to war, it's not the time for optimism. It's the time to seek the truth. The truth is: it was about $$ all along.

Money was a pleasant side effect for Cheney and those who profited but I believe the primary goal was to extend American power and influence over the Middle East (oil). Neocons had been planning an Iraq invasion long before 9/11.

Yeah of course, but the huge gain was in the money, not how they could expand Democracy. Everybody knows that's a futile attempt there, even when the US installed Shah's and had Saddam and such as allies. I mean, who really loses here? This was a slam dunk for Cheney.

At the height of PNAC, everybody was on board. Now all that's left is William Kristol, lol. Cheney still bangs the terror drum like it was an Orange Alert when GWB's poll number's dipped. It's a cash register. Nothing more.

Absolutely absurd.

Take a bong hit jon. That might help. Or it might do damage. Either way, you're better off.

 

[Archer]

Yes OP, he's the worst ever. Carter has done more for this country after his presidency than Barak has the last 6 years. Habitat for Humanity is a great organization.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1. LBJ

2. Obama

3. Clinton

4. Kennedy

5. Carter

Obama keeps rising in my mind as a result of this Iran deal. If that turns out to be a permanent achievement (which at the moment looks promising) then Obama will shoot to #1 on this list and might make top 15 overall.

 

[Dr Oadi]

When Democrats say that the George W. Bush years were the worst political times in the nation's history, "I may mention the internment of Japanese Americans under FDR, the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams, or a hundred years of lynchings under several dozen administrations as having been possibly worse, and suggest we all take a deep breath." -- Barrack Obama, The Audacity of Hope.

He even admits he hates America. Tyrant!

 

[Homer J Simpson]

70 yes votes.

 

[johnjohn]

70 yes votes.

I am surprised its only 70

 

[Archer]

70 yes votes.

I am surprised its only 70

Should be 700

 

[squistion]

70 yes votes.

I am surprised its only 70

Should be 700

The 700 Club does not get a 10-1 vote bonus.