Mortar shells?Bush said Nuclear weapons.Today is
2013.Your claim is proven wrong. Again.
To "Pagan" lets see what dear Leader has to say about comprimise. From
the Huffington Post we see the headline "Obama Fiscal Cliff Speech: I
'Won't Compromise' On Taxes ".How about "Reid
Won’t Allow Vote on Obama’s Fiscal Cliff Plan" at national
review.Also, FYI, WMDs were found. In later reports we saw
"WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising
Results" Wired October 23, 2010 They detail how WMDs were found."Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq" WorldNetDaily June 21, 2006"Iraq mortar shells contain blister agent" USA Today January 11,
2004 How could they have found mortar shells with blister agents if Sadam
didn't have any WMDs?
Questioning if Obama wants bipartisan support ignores the attempts President
Obama has made to compromise. What has been the response from the
GOP?'The single most important thing we want to achieve is for
President Obama to be a one-term president.' - Republican Senate minority
leader, Mitch McConnell. Oct. 23, 2010 It is hypocritical to ask why
Obama is not looking for bipartisan support... When the Republican
Senate has made public declarations of Obstruction... and the
Republican House has only passed 3% of any legislation. The least American of
legislation passed, in American history. Obama agreed to cuts in
Social security. The Republican party, only ever wants more
compromise, for them. FYI? Today is 2013.
Zero WMD's ever found in Iraq. The claim again was:"The
Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is
seeking nuclear weapons.' - George W. Bush - Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
Re:LostinDCWHY did Bush send troops in when UN Weapons Inspectors
had not completed their inspections, were finding nothing, and wanted more time?
"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources
he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the
Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who
served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of
Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA,
was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."The Duelfer report found what was going on in Iraq's govt preceding the
Iraq War:The NMD director met with Republican Guard military leaders
on 25 January 2003 and advised them they were to sign documents saying that
there was no WMD in their units, according to a former Iraqi senior officer.
Husam Amin told them that the government would hold them responsible if UNMOVIC
found any WMD in their units or areas, or if there was anything that cast doubt
on Iraq's cooperation with UNMOVIC. Commanders established committees to
ensure their units retained no evidence of old WMD.
LockeRexburg, IDWho voted for this guy?1:06 p.m.
Jan. 30, 2013=========== Um...65,899,660
Americans51.1% of the voters332 or 62% of the Electoral College"He has no prior executive experience..."Ya- I mean
c'mon, being President of the United States? - The ONLY member of the
Executive Branch in our Constitutional Government for 4 years doesn't mean
he has experience...Locke - get a clue.This is WHY you lost,
Invisible HandHow else should he deal with an avowed enemy who uses
every trick in the book to block, denigrate, and otherwise prevent any of his
policies in the political, economic and even personal arena? How
should he deal with people who will shut down businesses, layoff workers,
withhold investments and then put the blame on him? And when confronted would
say that his polices made them uncertain that they would make a profit. How should he deal with those who would gut the American government for
financial gain?How should he deal with those who killed 5000
American soldiers and untold numbers of their families on the home front? Just
to eliminate a business competitor. The republicans have shown by
their actions that they are anti-people, anti-workers and anti-American.
When anyone disagrees with Pres. Obama, he says they are "politicizing"
the issue.When anyone agrees with Pres. Obama, he says they are
"doing the right thing."He will not compromise -- never has
yet. He has a predefined agenda based purely on an academic ideology. He has
no prior executive experience, and it shows in his unwillingness (or inability?)
to negotiate or compromise -- the "meetings" he has had with Congress,
business leaders, and special interest groups, were purely cosmetic. He just
bulls ahead with his agenda, painting the opposition as selfish or
unreasonable.Who voted for this guy?
I don't want a bipartisan solution. I want the correct solution that has
no to very few unintended consequences.
Eric,we won?so did the lamanites in about 365 AD. So did the
Japanese for a while on Corrigador (sp??)LDS?libSHOW ME what
bush fabricated. SHOW me how he manipulated the intel so that EVERYONE,
including the other nations in the region thought Saddam had WMD. But how could
he, since according to you and the left he was too stupid to be pres. but if
someone that stupid can so easily fool so many dems, what does that say about
their intelligence? you throw out this hatred often. What specifically did
bush make up?BO wants NOTHING bi-partisan. since he was re-elected,
he's now not only the annointed one, but god incarnate. If the repubs want
to come along, they are welcome. BUT THEY GOTTA RIDE IN THE BACK OF THE BUS!
No more than Abraham Lincoln wanted a bi-partisan solution for approval for the
13th Ammendment.He got just enough votes to the thing passed.BTW -- Bush and Cheney lied and decieved like Satan himself to get their
so-called bi-partisan solutions to invade the Middle East approved. Is that what
you are suggesting Obama should do?
So Republicans are principled, and the President is intransigent? Also, uh, we
@UltraBob: Thank you for demonstrating the problem. Both sides need to recognize
that their political opponents aren't trying to wreck the country. They
aren't horrible people. We can have different ideas on how to improve the
country without being complete idiots or diabolical schemers. Surely we can
agree on some things, particularly immigration reform. It looks like the
Republicans are willing to ignore the strident right wing on this one, the
question is will Obama put aside his partisan politics long enough to get a
“Does Obama really want a bipartisan solution?”NO. If he
want to serve the American people. Promote the general welfare and resume the
progress toward a greater civilization of man. NO. If he wants
working people to share in the bounty of the American nation. NO.
If he wants America to be a leader of good in the world. YES. If he
wants America to return to the world of yesteryear where a tiny few owns
everything and people are treated like cattle. YES. If he wants
America to be a jungle.
Obama has said change comes from outside Washington. I think that is what he is
speaking to. I agree. Legislators aren't going to compromise and work
together until/unless they feel huge pressure to do so. Right now we have a
very active and vocal minority that extreme right-winged legislators are
listening to. They haven't noticed the Republicans lost the last election.
They are unaware that Democrats got more votes in the House, Senate and
Presidential races--that only gerrymandering saved their seats. They continue
to listen to the sources that told them Romney had it in the bag.
Republican's only take away from the election is that we need more brown
votes, and we need to tweak our messaging. Congress has a low
approval rating--especially the Republicans in Congress. Republicans were very
outfront with their main goal--to deny Obama a 2nd term. Didn't work out
so well did it?
From the title of the article ‘Does Obama really want a bipartisan
solution?’Couldn't the same be asked in reverse?Does the GOP really want a bipartisan solution?
Obama also mentions that compromise means neither side is completely happy with
the deal. And anyone who honestly looks at what is going on in Washington knows
that Democrats have been willing to compromise where Republicans have not. If you are going to slam on Obama for a "my way or the highway"
position, you need to at least be willing to admit that Republicans have the
same attitude. And for the record - just as Republicans have ideals
and think their positions are the best, so do Democrats. Compromise truly does
mean both sides have to give a little (which, if you read the entirety of
Obama's interview, is his actual position). Most Republicans have proven
unwilling to give any ground and those few who do get torn apart in the media -
just look at the reactions to the fiscal cliff deal and debt ceiling
discussions. Look at the reactions to bi-partisan immigration reform....