Dick Cheney: Obama Has Learned That Bush Policies Were Right

Lamarr

Star
Registered
Like I've been saying all along......same foreign policy!

Source

President Obama has “learned from experience” that some of the Bush administration’s decisions on terrorism issues were necessary, according to former Vice President Dick Cheney.

In his first interview since undergoing major heart surgery last July, Cheney said he thinks Obama has been forced to rethink some of his national security positions now that he sits in the Oval Office.

"I think he's learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he's learned from experience. And part of that experience was the Democrats having a terrible showing last election."

Cheney also asserted that Obama has learned that the prison at Guantanamo Bay simply cannot be closed, despite the promises he made while campaigning for the White House.

"I think he's learned that he's not going to be able to close Guantanamo," Cheney said. "That it's — if you didn't have it, you'd have to create one like that. You've got to have some place to put terrorists who are combatants who are bound and determined to try to kill Americans."

Cheney made the comments about Obama in an interview that is set to air Tuesday on NBC’s “Today.” The interview was Cheney's first since before he underwent heart surgery in July. Doctors introduced a device into his heart that pumps blood from the ventricle chamber to his aorta.

The former vice president cited the Obama administration’s expanded use of drones in Pakistan as more evidence of continuity from the policies of the Bush White House.

"As I say, I think he's found it necessary to be more sympathetic to the kinds of things we did," Cheney said. "They've gotten active, for example, with the drone program, using Predator and the Reaper to launch strikes against identified terrorist targets in the various places in the world."

Cheney also weighed in during the interview on the Arizona shooting that left six people dead and injured 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). Cheney was cautious about what role heated political rhetoric played in the shooting.

"I think the event was caused by a deranged individual. And — that's where we ought to look in terms of trying to assess guilt," Cheney said.

But Cheney also said that it was important not to squelch spirited political debate in the shooting’s aftermath.

"I don't think we should anticipate that we can somehow take a system that was designed for political combat, if you will, between the parties, between ideas, between principles and set that aside. I wouldn't want to do that," Cheney said. "That's the heart and soul of our political system. And that's basically a good thing."

Cheney also confirmed an account from President George W. Bush's recently released memoir, “Decision Points,” that he had offered to resign multiple times during his administration.

"I didn't wanna stand in the way if, in fact, that kind of decision would enhance the president's prospects of winning reelection in 2004 when he was up against John Kerry," Cheney said. "And I thought he ought to have the freedom to change anybody he wanted, including me."
 
Dick's lying, not wholly but a partial lie is still a lie.

I've been against the Obama Administration and the Bush techniques and laws he's continued but Dick's revising history making it seem like Obama is following Bush foreign policy. The truth is Bush was following Obama's policy.
When the primary season began in 2007, Bush, like most Republicans, was against an withdrawal timeline in Iraq and continued to ignore Afghanistan. Then when Obama, running on that withdrawal timeline, gained momentum and became a serious contender, Bush changed and went about starting to establish said timeline. He saw the change in the populace, championed by Obama (Clinton and Edwards were non-committal), and made an adjustment.
Somehow that's been lost in the telling of the story.
Obama also did attempt to close Gitmo and was rebuffed by an uncooperative Congress. He could close it tomorrow but what would he do with the prisoners? He's already sent some to other countries to be detained (and many released). He can't even get them tried in court because Dick and his ilk thought torture was a good idea and any evidence they acquired using it is now inadmissible.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348247/Dick-Cheney-heart-transplant-attacks-30-years.html

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fJ1_3MU3VEQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fJ1_3MU3VEQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Like I've been saying all along......same foreign policy!

Source

President Obama has “learned from experience” that some of the Bush administration’s decisions on terrorism issues were necessary, according to former Vice President Dick Cheney.

In his first interview since undergoing major heart surgery last July, Cheney said he thinks Obama has been forced to rethink some of his national security positions now that he sits in the Oval Office.

"I think he's learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he's learned from experience. And part of that experience was the Democrats having a terrible showing last election."

Cheney also asserted that Obama has learned that the prison at Guantanamo Bay simply cannot be closed, despite the promises he made while campaigning for the White House.

"I think he's learned that he's not going to be able to close Guantanamo," Cheney said. "That it's — if you didn't have it, you'd have to create one like that. You've got to have some place to put terrorists who are combatants who are bound and determined to try to kill Americans."

Cheney made the comments about Obama in an interview that is set to air Tuesday on NBC’s “Today.” The interview was Cheney's first since before he underwent heart surgery in July. Doctors introduced a device into his heart that pumps blood from the ventricle chamber to his aorta.

The former vice president cited the Obama administration’s expanded use of drones in Pakistan as more evidence of continuity from the policies of the Bush White House.

"As I say, I think he's found it necessary to be more sympathetic to the kinds of things we did," Cheney said. "They've gotten active, for example, with the drone program, using Predator and the Reaper to launch strikes against identified terrorist targets in the various places in the world."

Cheney also weighed in during the interview on the Arizona shooting that left six people dead and injured 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). Cheney was cautious about what role heated political rhetoric played in the shooting.

"I think the event was caused by a deranged individual. And — that's where we ought to look in terms of trying to assess guilt," Cheney said.

But Cheney also said that it was important not to squelch spirited political debate in the shooting’s aftermath.

"I don't think we should anticipate that we can somehow take a system that was designed for political combat, if you will, between the parties, between ideas, between principles and set that aside. I wouldn't want to do that," Cheney said. "That's the heart and soul of our political system. And that's basically a good thing."

Cheney also confirmed an account from President George W. Bush's recently released memoir, “Decision Points,” that he had offered to resign multiple times during his administration.

"I didn't wanna stand in the way if, in fact, that kind of decision would enhance the president's prospects of winning reelection in 2004 when he was up against John Kerry," Cheney said. "And I thought he ought to have the freedom to change anybody he wanted, including me."

And the revisionism continues...:smh:

This man is just as guilty as Bush, Cheney et al.

6a00d83451b39369e201310f344829970c-800wi
 
Lol maybe if this was coming from someone besides Cheney obviously he's worried about how he will be remembered. It wasn't that Bush policies were wrong, he was dealing with a series of unprecedented problems so any action he took was understandable. The Bush admin's execution of the policies is the problem, it was the worst display of incompetence in recent American history.
 
Lol maybe if this was coming from someone besides Cheney obviously he's worried about how he will be remembered. It wasn't that Bush policies were wrong, he was dealing with a series of unprecedented problems so any action he took was understandable. The Bush admin's execution of the policies is the problem, it was the worst display of incompetence in recent American history.

Balderdash! There's never an excuse to torture or spy on Americans.
 
Balderdash! There's never an excuse to torture or spy on Americans.


This response is suspect on so many levels I don't even know where to start dismantling it lol. But torture and spying where not part of Bush's policy they where steps taken to stop another terrorist attack on American soil.
 
This response is suspect on so many levels I don't even know where to start dismantling it lol. But torture and spying where not part of Bush's policy they where steps taken to stop another terrorist attack on American soil.

Which is it? Were they not part of the policy or were they steps taken? If they were the latter, that makes them policy.

The excuse of "trying to stop another terrorist attack" is not and was not a valid excuse to decide that the Constitution and various treaties and international agreements suddenly didn't exist.
 
Bush didn't start out torturing and spying so that wasn't his initial policy. After the war esculated and Al Qaeda seemed to be winning then torture and spying became part of the war plan. Most Americans believed it was ok if it prevented another 9-11 type attack. It's another thing to monday morning quarterback the situation like Obama does now he wasn't faced with losing in Iraq. What would he have done if he was in Bush's position is the question and what if he was wrong.
 
Balderdash! There's never an excuse to torture or spy on Americans.

Actually the spying started before/during the Clinton administration. Bush escalated it after 911. I had a conversation with someone and they were telling me about how the govt was tapping phone calls listening for certain key words. Cheating and taxes were not some of the key words. Mostly Arabic, Allah, bomb, ect.. This was back in early 96. Also you don't think the CIA was doing some torturing before Bush was in office? Again he escalated it where the military, FBI were also doing it. Obama talked a good game to get in office. I can't believe that people actually thought he was going to do all that shit. There are just some things I just don't want to know.
 
Actually the spying started before/during the Clinton administration. Bush escalated it after 911.

:yes:

Operation Echelon

In arguably the most secretive and far reaching electronic surveillance program ever created, the Clinton Administration and the National Security Agency employed a global spy system, code named Echelon, which monitored just about every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world.

Operation Echelon: Will Obama resurrect Clinton's spy program?
 
Bush didn't start out torturing and spying so that wasn't his initial policy. After the war esculated and Al Qaeda seemed to be winning then torture and spying became part of the war plan. Most Americans believed it was ok if it prevented another 9-11 type attack. It's another thing to monday morning quarterback the situation like Obama does now he wasn't faced with losing in Iraq. What would he have done if he was in Bush's position is the question and what if he was wrong.

Completely irrelevent. It could have started with Carter, he acted upon it and made them his policy, though both were illegal.
Human and civil rights aren't supposed to be up for popular opinion. I'm amazed at how people worry so hard about the Constitution now but seemed to not be worried when the previous Administration bragged about violating them.
You do not let the government infringed on your rights. Once that door is open, it will never be closed.
And I don't see how escalation in either Afghanistan or Iraq was the catalyst for increased warrantless wiretapping and torturing of detainees.

Actually the spying started before/during the Clinton administration. Bush escalated it after 911. I had a conversation with someone and they were telling me about how the govt was tapping phone calls listening for certain key words. Cheating and taxes were not some of the key words. Mostly Arabic, Allah, bomb, ect.. This was back in early 96. Also you don't think the CIA was doing some torturing before Bush was in office? Again he escalated it where the military, FBI were also doing it. Obama talked a good game to get in office. I can't believe that people actually thought he was going to do all that shit. There are just some things I just don't want to know.

The only people that thought Obama was going to fulfill that Christmas list were the painfully naive, who are now so bitter they hate him like he punched their mother. I'm not one of those.
All the same, he made waterboarding illegal (as it always has been until Bush-Cheney) and attempted to close Gitmo and has made moves on getting trials going for detainees.
 
Key words: "Obama has learned".
Fucking hilarious!
....lol

Americans still dont get it. They continue to sit on their hands like good little Dependants and wait for instructions. Thats one of many reasons why a President like Obama continues to look weak, and like Cheney stated, "...learns" instead of conducting change.

Same ol' shit different color.....




Bush didn't start out torturing and spying so that wasn't his initial policy.


Theres a few things that didnt start under the Bush Admin, the problem was he magnified the BS that came before him during his 8 year reign. After Obama leaves office...it'll be the same with him.

Instead of looking at Obama...pay attention to who surrounds him. Obama wasnt prepared/qualified for the position that he now holds. He subliminally admitted to that a couple of years ago.

So lets see...Obama wasnt qualified...he surrounded himself with people from the past Admin along with other incompetent people......lets take a look at who was seated in the House and Senate....before and after the repubs started to take over. Those people that were seated in the house and senate are the reasons why a Health Care bill that was still full of BS and not consumer and small business owner friendly was passed. Oh ..dont forget....Americans are stil doing what Americans do.

Seriously....what did you all think was gonna happen? Did yall really think something was gonna "Change" for the good?

:lol:
 
Last edited:
If you want to get technical about it the Govt been spying since day one. J Edgar Hoover was wiretapping, American born Asians were in U.S concentration camps during WWII if that isn't unconstitutional what is.

The Bush admin is infamous for it's incompetence not for setting precedence they didn't start anything that wasn't being done already. Bush was faced with the worst terrorist attack in U.S history and history will decide if he was right or wrong for spying and using torture personally I wouldn't bet against him.
 
Instead of looking at Obama...pay attention to who surrounds him. Obama wasnt prepared/qualified for the position that he now holds. He subliminally admitted to that a couple of years ago.

So lets see...Obama wasnt qualified...

No one is prepared for that office until they've beenin it so in that Obama is not alone.




he surrounded himself with people from the past Admin along with other incompetent people......lets take a look at who was seated in the House and Senate....before and after the repubs started to take over. Those people that were seated in the house and senate are the reasons why a Health Care bill that was still full of BS and not consumer and small business owner friendly was passed. Oh ..dont forget....Americans are stil doing what Americans do.

I have two (TWO) threads up that dispute this and I've yet to see you in them to disprove them.



If you want to get technical about it the Govt been spying since day one. J Edgar Hoover was wiretapping, American born Asians were in U.S concentration camps during WWII if that isn't unconstitutional what is.

It wasn't and his administration gets knocked for that and they had to pay those people.

The Bush admin is infamous for it's incompetence not for setting precedence they didn't start anything that wasn't being done already. Bush was faced with the worst terrorist attack in U.S history and history will decide if he was right or wrong for spying and using torture personally I wouldn't bet against him.


That's already been decided: he was wrong. The only people who think otherwise think he was a good President.
:smh: at people just surrendering their rights without a fight.
 
Bush's Approval Ratings higher than Obama's


By JAMES HOHMANN | 12/6/10 1:46 PM EST Updated: 12/7/10 7:41 AM EST


George W. Bush’s job approval rating as president has spiked to 47 percent, according to a Gallup poll released Monday.

That’s 1 point higher than President Barack Obama’s job approval rating in a poll taken the same week.

This is the first time Gallup asked Americans to retrospectively rate Bush’s job performance. And it was a stunning turnaround from his low point of 25 percent in November 2008. The 47 percent number is 13 points higher than the last Gallup poll taken before Bush left office in 2009 and the highest rating for him since before Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Obama’s stumbles and dimming public memories of Bush’s shortcomings appear to be helping fuel the more positive reassessment of him. And, in recent weeks, Bush’s tour to promote his new memoir, “Decision Points,” and the groundbreaking of his new library in Dallas have generated mostly positive press.

Bush’s 47 percent approval rating also raises serious questions about the wisdom of the White House’s decision to relentlessly attack him in the months before the Democrats’ historic losses in the midterm elections. The president had kept warning a House Republican majority would return to Bush-era policies. But Obama’s message did little to galvanize the liberal base, and independents flocked to the GOP on Election Day.

Bush’s rebound gives some credence to what he has long said — that history will eventually judge his presidency.

One of his role models is Harry Truman, who left office deeply unpopular but now gets credit for laying the groundwork to fight the Cold War. Bush sees parallels with his own efforts in the early days of the global war on terror.


Bush had the right idea but couldn't make it work mainly because of hard line neocons. History will vindicate him and Cheney will be the bad guy.
 
Bush had the right idea but couldn't make it work mainly because of hard line neocons. History will vindicate him and Cheney will be the bad guy.


What idea was that? To make a stronger Iran? A stronger North Korea? That's what he did by putting all of his eggs into Iraq. That's what history will show, that what the present shows. And Dick will be vilified but W. was the President so he's going to get the lion's share, as he should.

Your article has two flaws:

First, it's over a month old. Obama's approval rating has improved among all sectors, even Republicans.

Second, your comparing a sitting President, who is actively making decisions and governing to someone outside the public sphere, with no responsibilities and on a book tour. All former Presidents see their approval ratings go up after they leave office and some time has elapsed. Bush had no where to go but up.
 
I've been against the Obama Administration and the Bush techniques and laws he's continued but Dick's revising history making it seem like Obama is following Bush foreign policy. The truth is Bush was following Obama's policy.
When the primary season began in 2007, Bush, like most Republicans, was against an withdrawal timeline in Iraq and continued to ignore Afghanistan. Then when Obama, running on that withdrawal timeline, gained momentum and became a serious contender, Bush changed and went about starting to establish said timeline. He saw the change in the populace, championed by Obama (Clinton and Edwards were non-committal), and made an adjustment.
Somehow that's been lost in the telling of the story.

I can't speak to "W" his timeline strategy, who knows......matter of fact, he was over there on a surprise visit announcing his intentions of ending the combat phase but somehow that was overshadowed when he was duckin those shoes!

Maybe Dick is bending the truth, does it really matter? Are we still occupying their land?

Honestly, these are mere technicalities when discussing policy. Timeline, or not, the fact is troops are still there to this day. Halliburton, Blackwater, Raytheon and others are still getting no-bid contracts. Follow me, If it was a mistake to go in, it's a mistake to stay! And they have intentions of staying in Iraq for a long time.....maybe not as a combat brigade, but as a "training force" (contractors are still getting paid swell). The Iraqi's still see us as occupiers, regardless of the change in lingo. Hey, they want their country back too :)

Obama also did attempt to close Gitmo and was rebuffed by an uncooperative Congress. He could close it tomorrow but what would he do with the prisoners?

The Pres. had a super-majority for 2 yrs, and the Dems failed to follow through on one of Pres. Obama's campaign pledges. It really makes me wonder what did the left "hate" so much about "W" Bush
 
I can't speak to "W" his timeline strategy, who knows......matter of fact, he was over there on a surprise visit announcing his intentions of ending the combat phase but somehow that was overshadowed when he was duckin those shoes!

Maybe Dick is bending the truth, does it really matter? Are we still occupying their land?

Honestly, these are mere technicalities when discussing policy. Timeline, or not, the fact is troops are still there to this day. Halliburton, Blackwater, Raytheon and others are still getting no-bid contracts. Follow me, If it was a mistake to go in, it's a mistake to stay! And they have intentions of staying in Iraq for a long time.....maybe not as a combat brigade, but as a "training force" (contractors are still getting paid swell). The Iraqi's still see us as occupiers, regardless of the change in lingo. Hey, they want their country back too :)

I agree with this. We should be leaving but I know, no matter who the President is/was, we weren't going to leave quickly. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul and others can say otherwise but they've never been in the White House. Obama said some things that he probably felt and believed but it's always easier said than done.
The contractors and their contracts have been bull$h!t from the beginning and I've always been against them, whether it's Bush or Obama.


The Pres. had a super-majority for 2 yrs, and the Dems failed to follow through on one of Pres. Obama's campaign pledges. It really makes me wonder what did the left "hate" so much about "W" Bush

There was no super majority in the Senate. They never had 60 votes. They had 58 Dems and 2 Independents, one of whom is a solid liberal.
You know there's a difference between the (I hate this term) "professional Left" and Congressional Democrats. There are very few with any loyalty to liberal/progressive ideas or ideals. When the pressure of housing Gitmo detainees came up, they folded.
 
What idea was that? To make a stronger Iran? A stronger North Korea? That's what he did by putting all of his eggs into Iraq. That's what history will show, that what the present shows. And Dick will be vilified but W. was the President so he's going to get the lion's share, as he should.

Your article has two flaws:

First, it's over a month old. Obama's approval rating has improved among all sectors, even Republicans.

Second, your comparing a sitting President, who is actively making decisions and governing to someone outside the public sphere, with no responsibilities and on a book tour. All former Presidents see their approval ratings go up after they leave office and some time has elapsed. Bush had no where to go but up.


Facts mean nothing to you do they. It's all about what you think isn't it. Bush's idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East is showing signs of life it could actually work. How is Iran stronger or North Korea. They talked a lot of trash, put on some displays but both countries are being challenged to move to democratic elections and free market economies.

The poll shows that Americans are starting to realize that Bush had the right idea. That bringing democracy to Iraq could spread across the Middle East. If neocons hadn't tried to fight the war on the cheap we could have left a long time ago. Obama has to follow the policy because its the best option.
 
The poll shows that Americans are starting to realize that Bush had the right idea. That bringing democracy to Iraq could spread across the Middle East. If neocons hadn't tried to fight the war on the cheap we could have left a long time ago. Obama has to follow the policy because its the best option.


So American polls are the determinant for other sovereigns destiny.

Way to go!
 
Facts mean nothing to you do they. It's all about what you think isn't it. Bush's idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East is showing signs of life it could actually work. How is Iran stronger or North Korea. They talked a lot of trash, put on some displays but both countries are being challenged to move to democratic elections and free market economies.

How can you ask me if facts mean anything to me then spout off some incredibly uninformed nonsense like that?
Iran, more than any other country, has benefitted the most with Saddam Hussein being deposed. This isn't even debated by intelligent people. They have become the major player in the Arab world because Hussein isn't there to be a counter.
Neither they or NK are any closer to democratic elections than they were in 2001. Kim Jung Il has already chosen a successor.

The poll shows that Americans are starting to realize that Bush had the right idea. That bringing democracy to Iraq could spread across the Middle East. If neocons hadn't tried to fight the war on the cheap we could have left a long time ago. Obama has to follow the policy because its the best option.


Obama has to stay longer because it's the best option of several horrible ones. Where's the proof of democracy spreading through the Middle East?
And honestly, who really thinks that just because a country has elections that they won't still be enemies to the US?
The poll shows that Americans are starting to realize that Bush had the right idea.


There is no poll showing that. Not one.
 
How can you ask me if facts mean anything to me then spout off some incredibly uninformed nonsense like that?
Iran, more than any other country, has benefitted the most with Saddam Hussein being deposed. This isn't even debated by intelligent people. They have become the major player in the Arab world because Hussein isn't there to be a counter.
Neither they or NK are any closer to democratic elections than they were in 2001. Kim Jung Il has already chosen a successor.




Obama has to stay longer because it's the best option of several horrible ones. Where's the proof of democracy spreading through the Middle East?
And honestly, who really thinks that just because a country has elections that they won't still be enemies to the US?



There is no poll showing that. Not one.

I understand that but if their were, should the world conduct themselves from the whims of American's fickle opinion polls?
 
How can you ask me if facts mean anything to me then spout off some incredibly uninformed nonsense like that?
Iran, more than any other country, has benefitted the most with Saddam Hussein being deposed. This isn't even debated by intelligent people. They have become the major player in the Arab world because Hussein isn't there to be a counter.
Neither they or NK are any closer to democratic elections than they were in 2001. Kim Jung Il has already chosen a successor.




Obama has to stay longer because it's the best option of several horrible ones. Where's the proof of democracy spreading through the Middle East?
And honestly, who really thinks that just because a country has elections that they won't still be enemies to the US?



There is no poll showing that. Not one.

When was the last time you heard anything out of Iran that even implies they are stronger. Heard anything about the alleged nukes lately. Are they threatening anyone. Has their president even showed his face. Iran is dealing with democratic revolts in their country. So is Syria, Lebanon and you already know about the Afgani situation. Democracy has a chance of becoming a reality in the Middle East.

American polls are showing support for Bush Middle East policy and Obama is benefiting from Bush's newfound popularity it by staying the course in the Middle East.
 
I understand that but if their were, should the world conduct themselves from the whims of American's fickle opinion polls?

No.

When was the last time you heard anything out of Iran that even implies they are stronger. Heard anything about the alleged nukes lately. Are they threatening anyone. Has their president even showed his face. Iran is dealing with democratic revolts in their country. So is Syria, Lebanon and you already know about the Afgani situation. Democracy has a chance of becoming a reality in the Middle East.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5363098.stm

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2007/04/iran-emboldened-tehran-seeks-to-dominate-middle-east-politics
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/dpa/2010/08/17/268938/Impact-of.htm

Read them at your leisure. I put them in chronological order.

American polls are showing support for Bush Middle East policy and Obama is benefiting from Bush's newfound popularity it by staying the course in the Middle East.


Post these polls. Tell us where to find them. I just don't believe you. Bush's approval rating went up like all President's after they leave office. It's hard to maintain 28%, no matter who you are. Where's the ones showing growing support for his Middle East policy?
 
No.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5363098.stm

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2007/04/iran-emboldened-tehran-seeks-to-dominate-middle-east-politics
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/dpa/2010/08/17/268938/Impact-of.htm

Read them at your leisure. I put them in chronological order.




Post these polls. Tell us where to find them. I just don't believe you. Bush's approval rating went up like all President's after they leave office. It's hard to maintain 28%, no matter who you are. Where's the ones showing growing support for his Middle East policy?


When I posted a poll from a month ago showing Bush and his policies were more popular than Obama you said.


Your article has two flaws:

First, it's over a month old. Obama's approval rating has improved among all sectors, even Republicans.


Then you proceed to post articles from 2006 to make your point that Iran is stronger today. Like I said facts, context, mean nothing to you it's all about your opinion, what you think.
 
When I posted a poll from a month ago showing Bush and his policies were more popular than Obama you said.





Then you proceed to post articles from 2006 to make your point that Iran is stronger today. Like I said facts, context, mean nothing to you it's all about your opinion, what you think.


Are you intentionally making your posts near perfect examples of irony?

When I criticized the polls you showed, it wasn't the age of the polls but the fact that the poll numbers had changed. That's like posting a new column about sitting President Bush in 2011.

The articles I posted were a direct answer to your question on whether I had heard anything about Iran being stronger since our invasion of Iraq. Just so no one could say my sources had any type of bias, I acquired them from sources with dissimilar political viewpoints.
Only one of them comes from 2006. Another from 2007 and the other 2010, also something I did purposely to show how the story has progressed over time. Not only have they been saying Iran has been the biggest beneficiary of our Iraq invasion and dethroning of Hussein, there's been no sign of that situation changing except for the worse.
 
Back
Top