Obama lied within 10 minutes

[Tam]

He said he did not want any troops left in the Iraq after the troop withdraw.
But he was negoitating to do exactly what he just claimed in the debate he didn't want.

When Barack Obama announced yesterday that all US troops would return from Iraq, he framed it as a campaign promise kept, although Obama promised to pull the troops out in 16 months and ended up sticking with the timeline set by George Bush instead. He also neglected to mention that his administration had spent the last several months trying to avoid the outcome he proudly proclaimed. This morning, the New York Times makes clear that neither side wanted a full withdrawal from Iraq, and that the collapse in negotiations came as a result of bungling by the White House:

President Obama's announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president's putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq's fragile security's requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. …

This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani's compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.

Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.

In other words, Obama wants to make a little political hay on the Left thanks to what looks like incompetence. That may come back to bite Obama, however, as some of the same troops whose return Obama wants to hail may have to make a U-turn in the next few months:


On Friday evening, an American official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said that negotiations would now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all United States troops leave.

Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to return in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago.

 

[TSR]

So Tam is Romney that clueless to call his hand????

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So Tam is Romney that clueless to call his hand????

Weren't you watching he did call him on it.

Pay attention.

 

[TSR]

I guess I missed it. I'll watch the replay.

 

[hypocritexposer]

I guess I missed it. I'll watch the replay.

and you'll still see and hear what you want to.

 

[TSR]

I guess I missed it. I'll watch the replay.

and you'll still see and hear what you want to.

And of course, you are totally objective! :shock:

 

[Tam]

Another lie He claims he started the Tough Sanctions on Iran and worked with the rest of the world to enforce them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran

Ahmadinejad government

After being elected president in 2005, President Ahmadinejad lifted the suspension of uranium enrichment that had been agreed with the EU3, and the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran's non-compliance with its safeguards agreement to the UN Security Council. The U.S. government then began pushing for UN sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.[7]

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1737 in December 2006, Resolution 1747 in March 2007, Resolution 1803 in March 2008, and Resolution 1929 in June 2010.

In June 2005, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13382 freezing the assets of individuals connected with Iran's nuclear program. In June 2007, the U.S. state of Florida enacted a boycott on companies trading with Iran and Sudan, while New Jersey's state legislature was considering similar action.[8]

On June 24, 2010, the United States Senate and House of Representatives passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), which President Obama signed into law July 1, 2010. The CISADA greatly enhanced restrictions in Iran. Such restrictions included the rescission of the authorization for Iranian-origin imports for articles such as rugs, pistachios, and caviar. In response, President Obama issued Executive Order 13553 in September 2010 and Executive Order 13574 in May 2011, and Executive Order 13590 in November 2011.

Looks like Bush started the touch sanctions NOT OBAMA.

 

[hypocritexposer]

I guess I missed it. I'll watch the replay.

and you'll still see and hear what you want to.

And of course, you are totally objective! :shock:

We could always take a poll. I'm pretty sure you'll lose

 

[Tam]

Lie number three he claimed Al Quaeda is weaker now that when he came into office I guess he forgot Lara Logan has already proved this to be a lie.

CBS Reporter Lara Logan Says Obama Is Lying About Winning War Against Taliban

During a recent keynote address at the Better Government Association annual luncheon last Tuesday, Logan delivered what the Chicago Sun Times called "a provocative speech" to some 1,100 movers in government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas.

She explained that the Taliban, al Qaeda and its proxies haven't gone away and are in fact re-energized and coming back in force. Logan also informed the crowd that a "lie" is being propagated by the American government.

"I chose this subject because, one, I can't stand, that there is a major lie being propagated…" Logan announced. The lie is that the U.S. military has tamed the Taliban.

"There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years," Logan began. It is driven in part by "Taliban apologists," who claim "they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban."

"It's such nonsense!"

The Sun Times continues:

Logan stepped way out of the "objective," journalistic role. The audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents, and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports. [...] She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war.

Logan went on to say that people have been duped into believing that the threat of radical Islam is merely a thing of the past, saying:

"You're not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script."

The CBS foreign correspondent, who broke with her traditional journalist's role and actually shared her personal opinion with the group, also called for retribution for the slaying of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, two Navy SEALs and one additional U.S. civil servant in Libya.

According to the Sun Times, Logan hopes America will "exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it."

 

[TSR]

and you'll still see and hear what you want to.

And of course, you are totally objective! :shock:

We could always take a poll. I'm pretty sure you'll lose

No doubt at this site but would you be as comfortable to take the same poll at a different site. :wink:

 

[hypocritexposer]

And of course, you are totally objective! :shock:

We could always take a poll. I'm pretty sure you'll lose

No doubt at this site but would you be as comfortable to take the same poll at a different site. :wink:

name the site, give me a week to blend in...I'd win there too

 

[TSR]

We could always take a poll. I'm pretty sure you'll lose

No doubt at this site but would you be as comfortable to take the same poll at a different site. :wink:

name the site, give me a week to blend in...I'd win there too

You blend in??????I have my doubts, without some misrepresentation. But this could go on and on???Have a good one.

 

[hypocritexposer]

No doubt at this site but would you be as comfortable to take the same poll at a different site. :wink:

name the site, give me a week to blend in...I'd win there too

You blend in??????I have my doubts, without some misrepresentation. But this could go on and on???Have a good one.

I've already blended in at sites like Huffington Post and Democratic Underground, yet you still have to blend in here.

"I win"

 

[Tam]

Fourth lie Obama said the Auto makers should go bankrupt and The Government should stay out of it BUT What Romney claimed was he said a MANAGED BANKRUPCY AND GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE FINANCES

This is from his NY Times op-ed

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs.

The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year's Republican presidential nomination.

Obama lied again as Romney did say the Federal government would have a roll in saving them and that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPEN.

 

[djinwa]

Has Romney never lied? That would be hard to believe.

On another note, I was confused by Romney, because conservatives believe muslims are bad people. So Romney starts saying how we need to provide economic development for them. Is he a muslim-lover or what?

Then later he and Obama say they need sanctions on Iran to cripple their economy. So which is it - economic development, or economic damage?

Romney also stated that Syria killing 30,000 people was a humanitarian disaster. I thought we were trying to kill muslims so why would it be a disaster? Seems like it just saves us having to do it.

Why can't we just leave them all alone?

 

[hypocritexposer]

Has Romney never lied? That would be hard to believe.

On another note, I was confused by Romney, because conservatives believe muslims are bad people. So Romney starts saying how we need to provide economic development for them. Is he a muslim-lover or what?

Then later he and Obama say they need sanctions on Iran to cripple their economy. So which is it - economic development, or economic damage?

Romney also stated that Syria killing 30,000 people was a humanitarian disaster. I thought we were trying to kill muslims so why would it be a disaster? Seems like it just saves us having to do it.

Why can't we just leave them all alone?

Wasn't it obama that implemented the sanctions on the Syrian Muslims? does he hate Muslims?

 

[Steve]

Has Romney never lied? That would be hard to believe.

he is a politician.. (even if he is the most honorable and honest one).. that group isn't know for being completely honest..

On another note, I was confused by Romney, because conservatives believe muslims are bad people. So Romney starts saying how we need to provide economic development for them. Is he a muslim-lover or what?

there you go again.. no one group is all bad.. even muslims.. I am sure that as a leader and a decent Christian.. Romney will treat them fairly and try to help them.

Then later he and Obama say they need sanctions on Iran to cripple their economy. So which is it - economic development, or economic damage?

I know liberals have a tough time with this concept.. but generally you punish bad behavior and reward good behavior..

Romney also stated that Syria killing 30,000 people was a humanitarian disaster. I thought we were trying to kill muslims so why would it be a disaster? Seems like it just saves us having to do it.

any decent person doesn't condone genocide... let alone sit by and do nothing about it...

Why can't we just leave them all alone?

your right.. that has worked well in the past.. so has singing Kumbaya with rogue leaders and terrorists,.. but next time the rogue leaders and terrorists are planning to behead or blow something up,.. could you ask them "Why can't you just leave them all alone?"