One can only imagine the horrors if Mitt Romney would have succeeded in fooling
the American people.Barack Obama is a great man and truly wanted to
be a bi-partisan leader. Republican "Party of NO" representatives
simply wanted this great man to be a failure.They won't
Did he intentionally lie?I wonder if that criteria could be used on
President Bush in regard to Iraq?Were we lied to? Were they
planning an attack even before 911?
And here I thought this was going to be about 'Dishonest president' GW
Bush, Mission Accomplished, Weapons of Mass Destruction, 5,000 dead - 75,000
wounded American servicemen/women, and $4 Trillion of unfunded spending...But Utah, the Deseret News and the Republican establishment with their
15 second goldfish memories can't seem to EVER remember.Only
Obama and his, "secret" birth certificate, Benghazi cover-ups, and
telling "millions" of Americans [all 0.4% of them] who had their
substandard insurance policies cancelled.I'd like to know, Does ANYBODY in Utah know personally of ANYBODY who has received one of these
letters and been dropped?[on the contrary, I've talked with many who
have been previously denied, who can now get it.]I've been
asking this for weeks now -- and still haven't heard of anyone.
Since before Jan 20, 2009 you continually judge a man by a different standard
than those before. I wonder where your outrage was for those who lost their
insurance before the ACA or were forced to file bankruptcy because of medical
reasons or those who were 'misled' to search for weapons of mass
destruction or the thousands that died after "mission accomplished".
It's amazing that it's a lie when this POTUS speaks but when the last
guy speaks it's just politics.
@Wayne Maden "Democrats who are up for re-election next year are starting to
distance themselves from him and his plans."Wow, I believe I
have just met the master of understatement. Distancing themselves? They're
fleeing like rats from a burning ship.The problem for them is that
the botched rollout was preceded by botched legislation. And they all voted for
As I am not a mind-reader, I don't know if O is a conscious liar or not. I
don't know if GW Bush was a conscious liar when he got us into Iraq. I
doubt either of them intended to create a debacle. History will judge the
consequences of both. I suspect history will be kinder to Obama.
President Obama made a statement that was true for about 95% of the people. And
he should have clarified that it wouldn't apply to the other 5%. But on the
other side, opponents of the ACA have been spouting one outrageous lie after
another e.g. death panels, government takeover of all healthcare, people will
get microchipped by the government, etc.These same people that have
been lying through their teeth are now absolutely outraged that the president
made a statement that was only 95% true.
Irony Guy sums it up well and let me add to his comments by saying that all
Presidents either lie or were incorrect when stating supporting arguments for
NatePleasant Grove, UT@Wayne Maden "Democrats who are up for
re-election next year are starting to distance themselves from him and his
plans."Wow, I believe I have just met the master of
understatement. Distancing themselves? They're fleeing like rats from a
burning ship.The problem for them is that the botched rollout was
preceded by botched legislation. And they all voted for it.8:32 a.m.
Nov. 20, 2013===== Wow Nat -- I thought you were
talking about the new and improved Mike Lee, member key-figurehead of the
Republican Tea-Party Caucus.or the NOW "I'm not a
Tea-Partier" Mia Love.Talk about the #1 play from Mitt
Romney's Flip-Flop political playbook.
Mr. Maden wrote: "Did he intentionally lie? That's quite hard to prove,
and he knows that. But remember, the best con men are the ones who draw you into
their confidence."The letter was not about former Presidents.
It was about our current President. Surely no one would claim that a former
President is forcing Obama to lie. Surely no one would tell us that Obama is
just a puppet for some former President. Surely no one would stoop so low as to
divert attention away from Obama.Obama is the President. The facts
are beginning to come in about ObamaCare. The facts being presented by
DEMOCRATS contradict what Obama said. The facts show that Obama knew that his
"promises" were untrue.The question demands that we evaluate
Obama. Either Obama is a dupe who doesn't know what is going on or he
purposefully lied to us. Which is worse? Which would engender trust?Obama has used up his allotment of "trust". He needs to feel the
consequences of what he has done (or failed to do, if he really is ignorant of
the consequences of signing ObamaCare).
Let's not forget -- President George "Read My Lips, NO new
taxes!" Bush.President finger waging Bill "I did not have sexual
relations" Clinton, President Reagan and Iran-Contra, President
Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon, But, let's stay
focused on the only President ever capable of telling a 95% half/truth...
Recent polls indicate that if the last election were held today, Romney would
win. It's called buyers remorse. Obama has been exposed as a rigid
ideologist who still believes that nothing good can come unless the government
does it. He has subsidized a dependent class of voters that is his base. The
census bureau revelations concerning their manipulation of job creation and
unemployment prior to the last election confirm that the supine media and this
dishonest administration stop at nothing to present their fantasy of prosperity.
The ACA fiasco is not the problem, it is a symptom of the administration's
incompetence and dishonesty.
You have your choice of dishonesty or ignorance. Pick the one you feel
comfortable with. The trouble with being honest 95% of the time is that one
cannot tell when the other 5% is being spoken.
@Roland Kayser "President Obama made a statement that was true for about 95%
of the people."That's incorrect. You're not figuring
in the employer mandate, which kicks in next year. The Obama administration has
estimated that somewhere between 39% and 69% of health care plans would be
replaced under Obamacare. They have argued this before the Supreme Court, while
Obama was telling everyone "If you like your health care plan, you'll
be able to keep your health care plan. Period."The 5% figure is
another Obama lie. Don't be suckered in by it. He's not credible.
embarrassed Utahn!RE: "Barack Obama is a great man and truly
wanted to be a bi-partisan leader. Republican "Party of NO"
representatives simply wanted this great man to be a failure"...If he really wanted to be a bi-partisan leader... then why did he allow his
super-majority in Congress actually LOCK the doors to the room where they were
discussing and crafting the Obama Care legislation and not allow a single
Republican into the room??Google it... Democrats actually had the
locks changed on the doors to keep Republicans out of the chambers where they
were discussing the legislation!How the heck is THAT
"bi-partisan"??Barack Obama PROMISED to change Washington
politics as usual... but name even ONE thing he has actually done to even TRY to
accomplish that!Locking Republicans out does NOT accomplish that.
Congressional leaders telling Republicans "We don't need your votes so
you won't be involved in the conversation"... does not send that
message to the other party.IF Obama really wanted to be bi... he
would have reigned in his party' leaders in Congress and INSISTED they
involve Republicans in crafting his first legislation.
New report indicates 500,000 peopled died in Iraq. No WMD's. Lets have a honest conversation about a lying President….
It started out as a true statement when made before the healthcare bill passed
because all plans before then would be grandfathered in. It's only plans
developed after Obamacare passed that fail to meet Obamacare standards that
there are issues with. These issues affect around 5% of people. It's just silly the feigned outrage as if this is the first time a
politician has ever said a statement that turned out to be false.@Nate"You're not figuring in the employer mandate, which kicks
in next year."The employer mandate has nothing to do with this.
@2bitsIt takes two to tango and the Republicans have shown no
willingness to work on anything (where's their immigration bill btw?).
Pagan,RE: "New report indicates 500,000 peopled died in
Iraq"... andAre you aware that more American soldiers have died
in the first 5 years Obama has been President than the whole 8 years Bush was
President? ---It's not so fun when you realize
that your partisan game ends up pointing more to your guy than to the one you
WANTED to vilify.This is a quote from an article dated June 27
2013)..."575 US troops died in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency.
By August 18, 2010, following two troop surges initiated by President Obama,
that number had doubled. Today, over 1500 US troops have died in Afghanistan
since President Obama took office".That was dated June 27 2013,
so it's even worse now... And now your hero Obama has signed an agreement
to keep US troops in Afganistan till 2024... what do you have to say about
THAT?I remember in a debate when Senator McCain said he thought we
would be involved in Afghanistan for a decade, and Obama and the Democrat-Media
ridiculed McCain over that. It's weird that you think this
vilifies Bush and not Obama.
Pagan....Please do some research on the internet and you find that
the US did Actually find WMD's in IRAQ after their invasions...what they did not find is any "NEW" WMD's, but they did find some
WMD's that was suppose to be destroyed under the UN mandate of 1991...Sorry to bust your bubble, the fact that no liberal News media reported
it shows the bias. Check out wikileaks and Huffington Post for more details.
hmmm, so Obama lied about something that is helping 47 million people or more in
the long run?But, Bush merely made a "mistake" by invading
Iraq due to bad info about WMD's? Bush's "mistake" has killed
over 4,000 Americans and more than 100,000 Iraqi's. Bush's
"mistake" has kept the U.S. in Afghanistan for the longest war in our
history.Bush's "mistakes" have cost $trillions and will
take another decade to correct.Obama's "lie" about a
few people being able keep their current Doctors and coverage is much worse
though.Is that about right???
Obama will be judged as failure or success depending upon whos talking. To me
Carter/Obama will go down as the worst in modern times. To some of you, that
honor will go to Reagan/Bush. So What!! The main point I want to make is it is
useless to debate over Bush or any past President. The only thing that can be
changed is the here and now. And here and now we have President Obama. His
program is losing popularity, (not that it ever had any) and his approval rating
are falling like the stock market in 1929. It is up to the one with power today
to either fix things or continue to ruin things. It's up to Obama. I
don't think the man has it in him. To inexperienced, bad advisors, and I
think he has the kind of character flaws, (Nixon for example) that will leave
his problems unfixed and will ruin his record and legacy. 3 more years.
With Obama it is one of 2 things. Either he is a liar when it comes to what he
knew and when he knew it or else he is an incompetent leader.Just
look at the scandals surrounding his presidency. He has 2 basic excuses for not
knowing about the scandals. He has used the "I didn't know about that
until I saw it in the news" excuse for quite a few scandals. Doesn't
that show that he is not in control of his own cabinet since the scandals have
been traced to White House level officials?His other excuse is to
say that he didn't really mean what he said before or that he mis-spoke.
Basically this is an admission of being a poor communicator.So,
either he is a liar or incompetent. Do we want a President that is a liar or is
incompetent running this nation?
@Confused. Sorry you've been mislead by you radio.Intelligence
Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the
intelligence and the threat from Iraq".Source: Press
Release of Intelligence Committee Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils
Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Two Bipartisan
Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and
Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy OfficeThursday, June 5, 2008
embarrassed,RE: "One can only imagine the horrors if Mitt Romney would
have succeeded in fooling the American people"... I suspect
that we would be basically right were we are today IF Romney had won. No... it
would not have been "horrific", "the end of the world",
"cats and dogs living together", etc... ObamaCare probably
would have been delayed or redone instead of just plowing ahead with it
ready-or-not... but everything else would have been pretty much the same.I think Romney has seen business plans that were in trouble before (ie
the SLC Olympics, Staples, etc) and he probably would have noticed that we
didn't do any scalability testing on the website and done something about
it.---ConservativeCommonTater,I'm pretty sure
Iraq decision was about more than just WMDs. If you can ignore all the OTHER
reasons for addressing Saddam Hussein, and just focus on ONE THING... you may be
able to make the case that the decision to use military force was a lie.But then you have to explain why the decision got unanimous bi-partisan
support in Congress (including Democrats)
ConservativeCommonTaterYou crack me up... Is ObamaCare fully
implemented yet? NO....So it may help some now... but when the
employer mandate kicks in next year.. well the being helped is going to go down
substantially.by the way, go talk to those .04 percent people and
see if they care if it helps 47 million...Second, go look at the
number of American killed in Afghanistan since Obama took over. Now they are
going to keep troops their until 2024? Third, tell me what
"mistake" Bush made.... just because you do not like the war in IRAQ
does not make it a mistake. There was WMD's in IRAQ, There was a bounty on
Bush's father, there was payment to suicide bombers by Sadaam. So not sure
what "mistake" you are talking about. If you think it was a mistake, go
talk to an Iraqi about it.
Happy Valley...Sorry no Radio .. never listen to it...Second,
The "Intelligence" (that is a contradiction) committee was made up of
democrats that wanted to smear the Bush administration. The facts
are 1) Congress had the same intelligence reports as the president 2) both
Russia and British intelligence reports said the same thing. 3) Bush himself
said that the report was flawed because AT THE TIME the intelligence community
was not working together. That is why we now how HomeLand security agency.
@2bit"ObamaCare probably would have been delayed or redone instead of
just plowing ahead with it ready-or-not... but everything else would have been
pretty much the same."Depends on if Democrats still held the
Senate. It would be interesting to see how Romney would've operated with a
Democratic Senate when it comes to Obamacare. I wonder if he'd return to
his Massachusetts way of trying to work with the other party, or if he'd be
like the House and consider compromise a 4 letter word.
@2bit"But then you have to explain why the decision got unanimous
bi-partisan support in Congress (including Democrats)"The war in
Afghanistan war was near unanimous (I want to say Barbara Lee was the only one
or one of few to oppose that). The war in Iraq was not unanimous at all, though
it did get many Democrats there was a sizable number that opposed it.
@atl134 "The employer mandate has nothing to do with this."Yes, it does.If you were to check the Federal Register dated June
17, 2010 (vol. 75, no. 116) you would see estimates from the Obama
administration that between 39% and 69% of employer plans would lose their
grandfather status by the end of 2013. The mid-range estimate is 51%.
That's a lot of millions of people. For small business employers, the
projection is between 49% and 80%.It didn't come up as an issue
this year, because Obama unilaterally postponed the application of the employer
mandate until the beginning of 2015. This means that 90-day cancelation notices
will start going out in October of 2014 -- one month before midterm elections.
This is why Democrats up for reelection are so panicked.I'll be
surprised if one of them doesn't co-author the repeal bill himself.
@happy2behere"To me Carter/Obama will go down as the worst in modern
times. To some of you, that honor will go to Reagan/Bush. "I'd go with the likes of Buchanan, Pierce, and Hoover at the bottom.
I'd put Reagan somewhere in the middle, Obama in the teens (with an
eventual range of around 12-25 depending primarily on how the healthcare bill
turns out years down the road), and W. Bush somewhere in the mid 30s.
To: embarrassed Utahn! - First of all, if Mitt Romney were in this office, he
would have a far greater understanding of this particular issue than does our
current president. He also has a much better knowledge and understanding of how
business works. So don't be comparing apples to oranges. Second, the
American people were sold a bill of goods that had never been fully vetted. Even
the great Nancy Pelosi stated that we must first pass the law to know what is in
it. She was on Meet the Press last Sunday and did a horrible job trying to
defend that statement. I actually felt embarrased for her. Yes, this was
President Obama's agenda and it was rushed out long before it was ready.
Yes, he did not understand what the problems were even though we now find out
that these issues were brought up to him. Have other presidents made the same
type of mistake, yes!. But we are dealing with this mistake now and we want to
get this right or corrected or thrown out, if thats what it takes.
@ 2 bits"Google it... Democrats actually had the locks changed on the
doors to keep Republicans out of the chambers where they were discussing the
legislation!"Not true.In October 2009, democrats did
change locks on a committee room door. However, the committee meeting in
question had absolutely nothing to do with the PPACA and nothing to do with
legislation at all. In fact it was a meeting by the House Oversight and
Governmental Reform Committee to discuss Countrywide Mortgage.I
googled it. Either you failed to do the research, or you lied when you tried to
tie the lock changing incident to PPACA legislation. That you posted
this misinformation as a comment in this particular article is thick with irony,
hypocrisy or both.
atl134Well, my definition of "modern times" is post WW2 or
say FDR forward. As for those other Presidents, I really haven't studied
enough to have an opinion. Obama does still have 3 more years, so I might be
premature to label him as bad as I think he is. However, I don't see it in
his nature to change much, so I'm going on the assumption that his high
point as President will have been giving the order to kill Bin Laden, killing
many other terriorists with drone strikes, giving the order to save many others
with military action. His military successes certainly have been much better
than Carters, but one can't deny that Obama also inherited from Bush not
only a bad economy, but his military policy too. And so I don't give full
credit to Obama for that anymore than I give full blame to Obama for the bad
economy. I only blame him for doing what I think has been the wrong things to
bring this country out of the bad economy. And, I sound like a broken record,
adding 6 plus trillion to the debt.
to: "Confused""by the way, go talk to those .04 percent
people and see if they care if it helps 47 million..."The
Republican way, "I've got mine and I don't care if no one else
gets theirs."Why don't you ask the 47 million if they care
that the .04% have to get something different. You will find that you are
outvoted.Yes, you are right about Bush having other reasons for
starting and unfunded war in Iraq. Bush wanted to be America's Greatest War
Hero, surprising since he essentially deserted his position in the Texas ANG to
work on a Republican political campaign.GW Bush also started the war
in Iraq in part because "He (Saddam) tried to kill my daddy." As for the WMD's, we're still waiting to find the ones you and Bush
claim were there.You also overlooking the Republican mantra of low
taxes and less government, while starting 2 wars and not funding either, but
putting them on the credit card.But, that's different.
ConservativeCommonTaterYour response to my .04 percent is pretty
predictable from a liberal... Yet, you have no problem with taking from others
WHAT they earned and giving to yourself... interesting huh?Second,
Google about WMD's found in IRAQ. There are several sources that confirmed
the finding of WMD's, just not any "New" ones. Third,
The "unfunded" of the wars is erroneous, it was funded fully by
congress. Not sure why you liberals always say that it was unfunded.. it was
part of Bush driving up the debt.fourth, I never said I liked Bush
and ALL his decisions, He made some real bad decision when it came to economy
and the budget, but that does not negate the fact that his decision to go into
IRAQ was wrong.and lastly, The GOP party during the time of Bush II
is what pushed this country to the fiscal cliff we faced, now the democrats and
Obama are determined to push us over the cliff without a parachute.
Bush's mistake in Iraq did not result in 100,000 much less 500,000 Iraqi
deaths. The Shiite-Sunni conflict is the 1200 year old problem. More US troops
have died in Obama's Afghanistan war than in Iraq. Mr. Obama adopted the
Afghan war soon after his election and though he would like to blame Bush, even
Jay Carney wouldn't put that forth.
I am amazed that anyone could say Obama DIDN'T lie about this. Every speech
he gives is veted by dozens of people and every word is examined. This was an
out right lie - not just once but at least 29 times. For those who excuse this
by vilifying Bush, remember Bush took every bit of information he had to
Congress who discussed at length and took a vote on where to go to war with the
information they had. The vote was to do just that. In addition the US had the
support of dozens of nations with access to the same data. In contrast - Obama
was well aware that a good percentage of people would lose their coverage under
Obamacare and be pushed into the exchanges. It was the plan all along.
Re:2bits"But then you have to explain why the decision got
unanimous bi-partisan support in Congress (including Democrats)"More Democrats voted against the Iraq War Resolution than voted for it. Specifically, 111 yeas, 147 naysRepublicans 263 yeas, 7 nays
When did George Bush apologize for Iraq? People died there and are still being
blown p weekly due to the destabilization.
Re: CunfusedSandy, UrahPlease tell us more about "the
weapons of mass destruction that were found in Iraq after the invasion "I some how must have missed it.
'Are you aware that more American soldiers have died in the first 5 years
Obama has been President than the whole 8 years Bush was President?' Did Obama start the Iraq war x7 years before he was elected
President? Or did George W. Bush?
"Did he intentionally lie?"---------------Wayne,
no one can "lie" UN-intentionally.One can unintentionally
and unknowingly say something that is false. But, Part of the definition of
lying is to knowingly and thus intentionally, convey a falsehood.We
now have abundant proof that the flaws with both the web site and Obamacare
itself were known many months in advance of the actual "roll-out" date.
It is inconceivable that Obama, the Chief Executive Officer of the entire
government, was unaware of this. Even if his audacious hopefulness compelled
him to paint the rosiest scenario of the impending "roll-out", there is
no chance the completely inevitable cancellation of millions of current
healthcare plans was not only known but actually designed.Not only
is Obama a serial and flagrant liar, something most people nowadays consider a
given for any politician, the entire administration is being run, more and more,
as a criminal enterprise.BUT, it is WE, the people, the electorate,
who put them in power and it is WE who can and **must** replace them, for our
own sake and that of our descendants.
How did Democrats changing the locks and locking Republicans out show how
committed they were to Bi-Partisanship (even if they didn't discuss
ObamaCare in the meeting)?The minute Obama was elected... Democrats
started shunning Republicans and locking them out. Exactly HOW does that show
their concern for bi-partisanship?IF Obama is a leader.. and he
promised to END partisan politics in Washington during his campaign...
Shouldn't he have said something to Reid and Pelosi and demanded they open
the doors and be bi-partisan?Shouldn't the President have
INSISTED that Republicans be allowed to participate in legislation instead of
being locked out because he didn't need any of their votes to quickly pass
the Democrat agenda?Can anyone name ONE THING Obama has done to
sponsor bi-partisanship in Washington....
2 Bits"Can anyone name ONE THING Obama has done to sponsor
bi-partisanship in Washington...."Don't hold your breath.
We have been waiting 5 years since his promise bring the nation together, and so
far he says and does only what divides, in an attempt to dominate,
abusively/illegally as needed.
Right. So death panels, threats of socialism, communism, riots in the streets,
he's on the way to take your guns so hurry and buy more for him to - take?
I don't see the rationale unless you know your lying.So I
figure the right is lying about Obama lying again. Little story called, Chicken
Little.Just because I know it causes a Pavlovian reaction, Benghazi!