by, To The Point News
LBJ:
· We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)
Nixon:
· I am not a crook
GHW Bush:
· Read my lips – No New Taxes
Clinton:
· I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinski
GW Bush:
· Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
Obama:
· I will have the most transparent administration in history.
· The stimulus will fund shovel-ready jobs.
· I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.
· The IRS is not targeting anyone.
· It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.
· If I had a son.
· I will put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division, conflict and cynicism”.
· You didn’t build that!
· I will restore trust in Government.
· The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.
· The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk
· It’s not my red line – it is the world’s red line.
· Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.
· We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.
· I am not spying on American citizens.
· Obama Care will be good for America.
· You can keep your family doctor.
· Premiums will be lowered by $2500.
· If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan.
· It’s just like shopping at Amazon.
· I knew nothing about “Fast and Furious” gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.
· I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups.
· I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi.
· I have never known my uncle from Kenya who is in the country illegally and that was arrested and told to leave the country over 20 years ago.
· And, I have never lived with that uncle. He finally admitted (12-05-2013) that he DID know his uncle and that he DID live with him.
And the biggest one of all:
· “I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”
I believe we have a winner!
Sorry, but we have evidence that Bush was not wrong on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Where do you think Syria got the weapons they are using on Al Qaeda- from?
Remember that massive sand storm that kept us from going to Baghdad at the beginning of the war?
Also, biological tests taken of the waters in the Tigris River tested positive for chemical warfare agents.
However, the truth never fits the script the MSM follows, so most Americans believe GW lied about weapons of mass destruction.
It is sad that you too, have fallen for the lies from the left Jack.
Oh yeah, as for Nixon and the Gulf of Tonkin? It was Johnson who set that lie up, not Nixon. The incident took place in 1964. Nixon would not become President for another 4 years when he beat Hubert Humphery in the 1968 election.
Also, we did get attacked, but it was by the French who attacked our ships with the full knowledge of the US government. Us and the French lied about the whole attack and the MSM willingly accepted the lies told by the liberal Johnsosn.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. The MSM carried the water for the left, and twisted history to make Nixon look guilty when he wasn’t even president yet. It worked though, because like the chemicals of mass destruction, you also thought Nixon was to blame for the gulf of Tonkin lie.
Vietnam was a French colony, and they were getting their butts kicked by the Communists. They needed a way to get out, but we did not want Vietnam to fall to the Communists. So an agreement was cooked up to make it look like the communists attacked American ships, but in fact the shots were fired by the French.
I knew a Frenchman in the early “70”s who fought for the French underground during WWII. Well after WWII, his son joined the army and was sent to Vietnam. Unfortunately hi son was killed. Mr Chamois, still had friends in high places of the government, and so when I met him he told me things most Americans would not learn for years.
The way I met MR Pier Chamois was when I and a friend picked grapes for him. We were stationed in Mannheim Germany at the time, but went AWOL for two Months. During that time we ended up in France, and it was at a local bar in Puget-Ville France that we met Mr Chamois. He hired us to pick grapes and even gave us a huge tent to set up for sleeping quarters while we worked for him.
It’s a great story of when I was young and caught up in being stupid, but many stories I could tell of those days.
Oh please. Defending the Iraq war? The region is more unstable, we have lost thousands of lives and spent billions over there rebuilding that country while our own country falls apart.
As long as we keep defending terrible Republican policy we will keep getting more of it. Bush brought us No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D and two unaffordable wars. Electing Obama just opened our empty wallets more and kept on running up the credit cards. He has taken Bush’s ball and run with it: Affordable Care Act, Common Core, etc.
Both are corrupt administrations that reward massive corporations and banks while punishing the middle class.
Love the Nixon dude! Bottom Line Nixon preformed treason by delaying the end of the Viet Nam war to win an election
News Flash the LBJ tapes came out and the whole world knows!
here ya go listen again!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R7v69T0528
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video?id=6396535
LOL Nixon? try that on a national level!
I understand the point of this, but I’m sure those other presidents listed told more than just one lie during their entire presidential career, especially if you stretch the definition of “lie” as much as it appears to be stretched for some of these.
“I will have the most transparent administration in history.”
Yeah, that one’s definitely a lie.
“The IRS is not targeting anyone.”
Did he say this? I don’t remember Obama ever making a flat denial.
“It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.”
Not a lie. This was what the administration was told by the CIA, who based this on eyewitness reports. The CIA did not correct this until after Susan Rice went on the talk shows and said what she had been told by the CIA.
“If I had a son.”
Is this about Trayvon Martin? I don’t get how that’s a lie.
“You didn’t build that!”
Not a lie. He was referring to the societal structures that allow businesspeople to make a living. That was built by a lot of people, not just one individual. In that same speech he did praise business owners and entrepreneurs for their successes. He was not saying they didn’t build their own businesses, but it sounds like he did if you purposefully take him out of context. It was actually Republicans who lied about his meaning here.
“The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.”
That’s an opinion, not a lie. I actually agree with that opinion.
“Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.”
I’m definitely with you here. Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are just two examples of Obama’s war on whistleblowers. Everyone from anti-government Tea Partiers to Occupy Wall Street supporters should be demanding full immunity for these guys.
“I am not spying on American citizens.”
Don’t know if he said this, but his administration has definitely been dishonest about the extent of government surveillance.
“Obama Care will be good for America.”
Again, opinion, and one that we really can’t discount just yet.
“You can keep your family doctor.”
This was not true for everyone, and Obama shouldn’t have said it. It was a lie.
“Premiums will be lowered by $2500.”
Premiums are lower for most people but I’m not sure by how much.
“If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan.”
Again, he made this sound like it was universally true, which was a lie. He absolutely deserves criticism for this. I defended this statement for a long time, but I was wrong.
“I knew nothing about “Fast and Furious” gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.
I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups.”
Has it been proven that he has?
“I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi.”
He never said this. There was misinformation at the beginning, but it seemed to be a genuine intelligence failure, not a cover-up.
The rest I can’t really speak for.
Great post!
I am not sure how anyone can defend the amount of lies that have come out of this administration, starting with his inaugural speech about hope verse what has transpired.
One thing he did recently say I do agree with:
“What I think is absolutely true is it’s not sufficient for citizens to just take my word for it that we’re doing the right thing,” Obama said.
I do believe that we should not take his word for anything any longer, he long ago violated that trust, at least with me.
I’d love to know the number of Pinocchios he’s been awarded by the Washington Post.
Here’s the WP’s SOTU article on how many lies he told.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/28/fact-checking-the-2014-state-of-the-union-address/
Given what President Obama and his administration knew from briefings and reports about the al Qaeda operations and activities in Benghazi prior to the September 11 attack it is doubtful that the video story was anything other than a cover up to get them past the election. A more forthright and honest report by Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows would have included the likely possibility that it was a planned terror attack. The administration was playing politics both for Obama and for Hillary Clinton.
“I do believe that we should not take his word for anything any longer, he long ago violated that trust…”
Harold I’m in full agreement with you.
Tina: “Given what President Obama and his administration knew from briefings and reports about the al Qaeda operations and activities in Benghazi prior to the September 11 attack it is doubtful that the video story was anything other than a cover up to get them past the election.”
Please explain how that theory accounts for the fact that the CIA’s own talking points attributed the attack to a spontaneous protest triggered by outrage over the video.
Until you can explain that, your conspiracy theory is baseless.
The Weekly Standard, “The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth”:
Given what President Obama and his administration knew from briefings and reports about the al Qaeda operations and activities in Benghazi prior to the September 11 attack it is doubtful that the video story was anything other than a cover up to get them past the election. A more forthright and honest report by Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows would have included the likely possibility that it was a planned terror attack. The administration was playing politics both for Obama and for Hillary Clinton.
Charles Krauthammer Explains Obama’s Lawlessness in 50 Seconds:
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/02/charles-krauthammer-explains-obamas-lawlessness-50-seconds/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Tina, quoting the Weekly Standard: “If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.”
Tina, if you had kept up with this story as much as you should have given your near-obsession with Benghazi, you’d know that the House report did NOT provide an “accurate and complete depiction of the emails.” Republicans selectively leaked and, in at least one case, actively fabricated details from e-mails in order to make the White House look like it was involved in a cover-up. Later released e-mails vindicated the White House of this charge.
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/
The Senate Report is much more comprehensive and clearly shows that the CIA’s first draft of the talking points attributes the attack to a spontaneous protest triggered by other anti-video protests across the Muslim world.
It is absurd to argue that the CIA would do this simply to help Barack Obama’s election chances. It is absurd to argue that this would have even had an impact on the election, which was about who was best for the economy, not the war on terror or foreign policy.
The Senate Report found no evidence of a cover-up, because there WAS no evidence of a cover-up. Period.
Peggy, did you know that Obama has issued executive orders at a lower rate than any president in the last 117 years?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/31/obamas-love-affair-with-executive-orders-or-not-in-1-chart/
The New American takes a look at the Presidents executive orders in a piece titled, “Obama Executive Orders Nationalizing Energy, Food, Water, Everything Else”:
Our readers might find the quality, rather than quantity, of the President’s Executive Orders of great importance.
#14 Chris, Yes I knew that. But, you should know it’s not the number that matters it’s the content or subject matter. Even Democrats are saying he’s gone beyond the scope and limitations of past presidents and has violated or close to violating the Constitution.
As president he doesn’t have the authority of doing the work of Congress. The duties and responsibilities for the executive and legislative branches are clearly defined in the Constitution. It doesn’t allow him to change laws he likes or doesn’t like at will like he’s done with, NLRB, No Child Left Behind, Immigration, ObamaCare, etc.
BASTASCH: Obama has done more to circumvent Congress than Bush:
“While Bush and Obama have issued roughly the same number of executive orders in their first five years as president, the scope of Obama’s actions are more far-reaching than Bush’s.
Many of the Obama’s most controversial moves have come from actions outside of executive orders — the traditional way the president asserts his authority. For example, Obama ordered federal agents to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” when dealing young illegal immigrants. This was done via memorandum, not an executive order. (list continues.)
And Obama continued the presidential signing statements, adding his own changes to bills as he signs them into law.
“Obama’s not interpreting the law; he’s changing the law. He’s changing deadlines that were the subject of intense legislative debate,” said Turley, who disclosed that he voted for Obama. “President Obama meets every definition of an imperial presidency. He is the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
Whether it’s climate, healthcare or immigration, Obama has bypassed Congress to implement major policy changes that affect million of people across the country. On climate issues alone, Obama’s actions will raise power prices and cause more layoffs as coal plants are retired. But despite the consequences, the White House shows no indication of slowing down.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/31/bastasch-obama-has-done-more-to-circumvent-congress-than-bush/#ixzz2sD6QtJhu
Obama’s use of executive power faces reckoning at Supreme Court:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/195155-supreme-court-to-decide-the-limits-of-executive-power
You have to admit being compared to Richard Nixon is pretty bad.
Also, realize that some day a Republican will be sitting in the Oval Office and Obama will have set the pathway for even wider usage all because of what Obama did.
Obama could have overturned Bush’s EOs, but he didn’t. He must have approved of them or he would have.
Sorry Chris I stand by my assertion:
“Given what President Obama and his administration knew from briefings and reports about the al Qaeda operations and activities in Benghazi prior to the September 11 attack it is doubtful that the video story was anything other than a cover up to get them past the election. A more forthright and honest report by Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows would have included the likely possibility that it was a planned terror attack. The administration was playing politics both for Obama and for Hillary Clinton.”
But you go ahead and believe that the President knew absolutely nothing about Benghazi being a terror attack before he abandoned the incident as it unfolded or in the hours after when he manipulated the language to deceive in the Rose Garden speech. keep believing that the president, who everyone on your side defends as engaged and briefed daily, was not made aware prior to the incident of the AQ training camps, the terror attack on the Red Cross, the fact that it was so dangerous that England pulled its embassy people out, or that Stevens had requested more security that was denied. You go ahead an buy all the excuses and explanation designed to make the President and Hillary Clinton seem engaged and professional in their duties.
By my estimation the more we learn the more we know that just the opposite is true.
The video story is a complete joke in the face of what we know happened before during and after the incident. that you buy it is just indicative of your partisan ignorance and enthusiasm.
Hey Chris, Here you go. It’s just beginning. Tell me how would you feel if this was one of your kids?
Sick Kids Denied Specialty Care Due to Obamacare in Washington:
“In Washington state, some sick kids have been denied specialty care due to Obamacare, a local news outlet reports:
“Administrators at Seattle Children’s today said they predicted this would happen, and it’s even worse than they expected,” says the local news anchor. “Patients being denied specialty treatment at the hospital by insurance providers on the Washington health benefits exchange. Children’s filed request on behalf of 125 of their patients. Of those, they say they got only 20 responses, eight of which were denials. Dr. Sandy Melzer says all this comes after reassurances of certain unique specialty cases would still be covered.”
Dr. Sandy Melzer says, “Well, some of the patients who were denied are ones who clearly would fall into that unique category. A two-year-old with new significant neck mass that was being evaluated for infection or malignancy, an older child with a chronic severe medical condition requiring multidisciplinary care here, a baby that had a skull abnormality.”
The anchor explains, “Children’s went ahead and treated those cases anyway, but Dr. Melzer said they can’t afford to keep doing that it way.”
video
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sick-kids-denied-specialty-care-due-obamacare-washington_776030.html
Here’s more about the same hospital having similar problems last year.
You Can’t Keep Your Doctor: Seattle Hospital Sues After Obamacare Cuts Children’s Access:
“Seattle Children’s Hospital filed suit against Washington State’s Office of the Insurance Commissioner this week, after Obamacare implementation caused the hospital to be cut from four of the six insurance plans offered by the new Washington Health Benefit Exchange.
As millions lose their insurance nation wide and are forced into plans with significantly higher premiums, the reality of rationed care, initially denied by adamant supporters of the bill, has now hit the country’s most vulnerable, with doctors at Seattle Children’s Hospital speaking out.
“There becomes a point when if you start denying access to care, that you can hurt children and children’s health and that’s what we believe is at risk here,” said Dr. Sandy Melzer, the hospital’s chief strategy officer and senior vice president.”
Continued with video.
Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/cant-keep-doctor-seattle-hospital-sues-obamacare-cuts-childrens-access/#ixzz2sE6SR7S9
Tina: “Sorry Chris I stand by my assertion:”
Of course you do. You’re a conspiracy theorist; your beliefs are not based on evidence, so why would I expect any amount of evidence to sway you?
“The video story is a complete joke in the face of what we know happened before during and after the incident. that you buy it is just indicative of your partisan ignorance and enthusiasm.”
My god, I don’t know if you are just incapable of understanding any argument presented by someone who disagrees with you, or if you intentionally twist them in a desperate attempt to make your side look better.
I do not “buy” the “video story.” Everyone knows now that the attack was not inspired by the video. That is no longer in dispute. What is relevant is whether or not the intelligence community believed this at the time or not. Clearly, they did. You have been provided with plenty of evidence that they did believe this, and you have provided zero evidence that they did not.
The only rational conclusion is that the intelligence community initially believed this was a spontaneous protest triggered by the video, and that the White House followed their lead.
Your conclusion is this:
Obama knew this was an al Qaeda attack right away (even though we still don’t know that for sure now). He panicked because he thought that a terrorist attack would lose him the election (even though he called it an “act of terror” the VERY NEXT DAY, and no one can show that Benghazi was or would have been an election issue). He then forced the CIA to lie in its talking points for a week (which he probably couldn’t do), then sent Susan Rice out to lie to the America public about the cause of the attack (even though he would have known that the truth would eventually come out, probably before the election). Then the CIA decided to stop caving to the president’s demands (for some reason) and started revealing the truth about possible al Qaeda involvement (even though they would have had their own reasons to keep this information secure for a while). The White House eventually admitted that the attack was not inspired by the video (obviously because Republicans were getting too close to the truth, and not because the CIA changed its opinion based on new evidence). Republicans were the only ones to notice this sneaky behavior and tried to make Benghazi an election issue (and failed). Even though Republicans kept accusing Obama of lying to the public about Benghazi (with no evidence of their claims) Obama still won because he managed to convince the public that this wasn’t a terrorist attack (even though by Election Day he had called it an act of terror many times and admitted that the video was not the issue).
And somehow, to you, this explanation is the more convincing of the two.
Wow.
Oh, and as for this:
“he abandoned the incident as it unfolded”
Go read the Senate Report yourself. I don’t have time for any more this bullshit tonight.
Tina: “The New American takes a look at the Presidents executive orders in a piece titled, “Obama Executive Orders Nationalizing Energy, Food, Water, Everything Else”:”
This crap has been debunked even by conservative sources such as Hot Air, you paranoid freak:
“While the timing of the EO is curious — why send it out on a Friday afternoon when an administration is usually trying to sneak bad news past the media? — the general impact of it is negligible. This EO simply updates another EO (12919) that had been in place since June 1994, and amended several times since…
…Again, this is almost identical to EO 12919 from 18 years earlier. Note what this EO specifically orders: identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation. None of these items claim authority to seize private property and place them at the personal disposal of Obama. What follows after Section 103 are the directives for implementing these rather analytical tasks, mostly in the form of explicit delegations of presidential authority to Cabinet members and others in the executive branch.
Why the update? If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the Cabinet itself. In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (ten in all). Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.
In fact, that’s almost entirely what it is. The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives. It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush.
Barack Obama may be arrogant, and the timing of this release might have looked a little strange, but this is really nothing to worry about at all.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/18/national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order-power-grab-or-update/
It is frightening how much ridiculous shit you are willing to believe as long as it allows you to see your opponents as monsters.
Chris: “What is relevant is whether or not the intelligence community believed this at the time or not. Clearly, they did.”
Clearly they did not but they sure wanted to give the impression that they did…with pressure from the State Department!
Clearly what they knew is that AQ was active in the city of Benghazi.
Clearly the threats were bad enough that England got their people out and Stevens made several attempts to get better security which were ignored.
Clearly the anniversary of 911 has ALWAYS been a day exploited by AQ and with the black lags flying in Benghazi and several attacks, including on the Red Cross, this was a high probability even before officials determined the cause.
Clearly the President of Libya, Mohammed al-Magariaf, said immediately that he had “no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”
Clearly the President referenced terror in his Rose Garden Speech and proudly said that he had in a later debate with Romney.
Clearly at the time they wanted to have it both ways.
Clearly the administration knew this would look bad before an election and with the help of sympathetic officials (Podesta) at the CIA were aided in editing the talking points. Susan rice was trotted out to spread the official story which was shortly to be BOGUS.
The President is the President Chris. He’s supposed to determine what to tell the people. He should have know from his own briefings that this was a probability, never mind in hindsight allowing the floating of that damn video excuse.
Big whoop you didn’t “buy” the video story (now)…you sure as hell have defended it on these pages and continue to try to make me or others here a point of distraction.
Your attempts to make me look like a crazed conspiracy freak is a joke since the real freaks are the administration you defend and support as they spin their own little conspiracy of lies and deflections. This incident is a tragedy because it didn’t have to happen but for the lack of concern by those in power and by their own selfish interests that took precedence!
My opponents are not monsters by my reckoning…they are revealed as monsters by their own actions and by the fact that they put their own interests (winning elections and fundamentally transforming the country) ahead of their sworn duties…even to the point of people dying needlessly!
Chris breaks his own rules regarding argumentation and resorts to name calling and mockery:
A street fight response would be appropriate about now.
Tina, a few questions:
1. If Obama thought that an act of terror under his watch would look bad right before an election, and was determined to cover it up, why did he call the event an “act of terror” the next morning?
2. If the CIA was aiding Obama in a cover-up of the attack, why did they change their minds six days later?
3. Why does the Senate Report say that references to al Qaeda were removed from the first draft of the CIA talking points BEFORE e-mails was exchanged between the CIA and the White House?
4. How could Obama have immediately known that al Qaeda was involved, when their involvement has been the subject of debate during the entire intelligence investigation?
5. How could Obama have known there would be an attack on this day, when the Senate Report says that there was likely not significant pre-planning for the attack, and that it might not have been planned until that very day?
6. How exactly do you think the election would have turned out differently if Obama had immediately declared this an al Qaeda attack, against the security concerns of the intelligence community?
I apologize for the “freak” crack, but I stand by the word “paranoid.”