Worst American president in history?

[European Socialist Republic]

No, that's appeal to authority if anything, and even then, school textbooks are generally considered reliable sources. However, you are committing an ad hominem against the source by claiming that most economic historians are liberals, and implying that due to their political beliefs, their perspectives cannot be trusted, while not bothering to provide data to back either point.

Yumyumsuppertime,

From the leftwing Washington Post, 'College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds'. Textbooks are almost exclusively written by academics, it is no surprise that leftwing academics would make fallacious claims against a conservative administration.

Yes, yes, those ebul libruls and the gubbermint are the Ministry of Truth...

[Zaldakki]

Yumyumsuppertime,

From the leftwing Washington Post, 'College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds'. Textbooks are almost exclusively written by academics, it is no surprise that leftwing academics would make fallacious claims against a conservative administration.

Yes, yes, those ebul libruls and the gubbermint are the Ministry of Truth...

There's not a conspiracy of course, but there is still a bias. I'm centre-right, and if I wrote a textbook, it'd probably have biases too.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, that's appeal to authority if anything, and even then, school textbooks are generally considered reliable sources. However, you are committing an ad hominem against the source by claiming that most economic historians are liberals, and implying that due to their political beliefs, their perspectives cannot be trusted, while not bothering to provide data to back either point.

Yumyumsuppertime,

From the leftwing Washington Post, 'College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds'. Textbooks are almost exclusively written by academics, it is no surprise that leftwing academics would make fallacious claims against a conservative administration. I don't know where you are getting your information, perhaps leftwing academia

I'm aware. However, what you're essentially doing here is stating that due to the fact that they have certain political beliefs, they are utterly incapable of separating such beliefs from their studies, which seems like the sort of accusation one should back up with evidence.

[Death Metal]

You called Coolidge a rapist, but he believed that those that earn their money, should keep it. What do you call a president (Bush), a senator (Obama) and a party (democrats) who bailout Wall St. with Main St. wealth? (1)

([url=irellevant picture]Image[/url])(2)

Also, you stated that workers are the key to growth. Fair enough, it that was the case, why do workers put up with management or capitalists or whoever else you think is exploiting them? If they contribute all the brains and sweat, what is keeping them from jettisoning the greedy and corrupt dead wood?(3)

And finally, if government is so effective and brilliant, why must they maintain a coercive monopoly in the industries in which they predominate? If government bureaucrats and politicians were as magnificent as you claim, if their 'products and services' where so beneficial to individuals and society, why don't they compete on an even playing field with free market participants without all the guns and coercion and simply run the greedy, corrupt and buffoonish capitalist dogs out of business?(4)

(1) The bank bailout, you mean? The one designed to protect everyone's investments, rich and poor? I call it well intentioned but poorly designed. The bailout should have came with strings attached to prevent what happened (which was, of course, the CEOs taking most of the money)

(2) Has nothing to do with anything. And comes from a blatantly biased and poorly sourced blog, so dubious in accuracy.

(3) Because they're unwilling to compete with big businesses. It's a very big gamble- most small businesses fail within a year and take a large amount of capital to do so. Not sure how we can possibly fix that unless you want to go into an actual socialist state, and obviously you don't. Which isn't me saying we should mind you, nor does any politician in Washington want this either. Just saying that's an inherent part of the system. I suppose we could look into bank loan regulations to soften the blow, but that's more of a band-aid than a cure.

(4) First of all, they don't compete because it's not their job to compete. It's their job to maintain the safety, security, prosperity, and liberties of America. Second of all, I'm not endorsing state capitalism, so you can cut this farce of a straw argument here. Third of all, having full public or full private is an absolutely asinine argument; neither works. A mixed market is and has consistently proven to be the better option.


Side note: Way to completely avoid every single direct argument I made. As I expected you to do. Typical. When you have the intellectual integrity to actually debate, let me know. I'm ignoring you till then. Besides, you're probably AuSable under a new IP.

[East Denmark]

I’m just curious about what people would think. So just post the president you think is the worst and why.

1. Obama 2. Carter 3. Nixon 4. Johnson 5. Grant

[Caecuser]

I’m just curious about what people would think. So just post the president you think is the worst and why.

1. Obama 2. Carter 3. Nixon 4. Johnson 5. Grant

You didn't provide any reasons.

[Takuyama]

Franklin Wells Fargo.

[East Denmark]

1. Obama 2. Carter 3. Nixon 4. Johnson 5. Grant

You didn't provide any reasons.

1. Obama: Benghazi. Fast & Furious. He also has claimed ignorance to all of these scandals. He bugged the entire nation (NSA scandal) and denied he knew about it. So he either lies or he's stupid.

2. Carter: He was a weak President, no numbers improved, unemployment got worse. He had a good message in his Crisis of Confidence speech but said it badly and at the wrong time. His Presidency brought the country, in general, down.

3. Nixon: Because he was a crook.

4. Johnson: He caused many problems in his Presidency, handled funds badly, and was the first of the "scandal" Presidents.

5. Grant: He was a good man but he did a terrible job after the Civil War. He did not welcome the south back to the Union well at all and caused years of resentment between the north and south that lasted well into the Great Depression.

[Kazarogkai]

I would say probably buchanan maybe Andrew johnson,he ended damaged reconstruction and he betrayed the nation with his damn pardons.

[Kazarogkai]

You didn't provide any reasons.

1. Obama: Benghazi. Fast & Furious. He also has claimed ignorance to all of these scandals. He bugged the entire nation (NSA scandal) and denied he knew about it. So he either lies or he's stupid.

2. Carter: He was a weak President, no numbers improved, unemployment got worse. He had a good message in his Crisis of Confidence speech but said it badly and at the wrong time. His Presidency brought the country, in general, down.

3. Nixon: Because he was a crook.

4. Johnson: He caused many problems in his Presidency, handled funds badly, and was the first of the "scandal" Presidents.

5. Grant: He was a good man but he did a terrible job after the Civil War. He did not welcome the south back to the Union well at all and caused years of resentment between the north and south that lasted well into the Great Depression.

Under his regime corruption was bad But I am sympathetic for his radical reconstruction, The south deserved to be pummeled into submission for daring to do what they did, radical reconstruction allowed the african americans to empower themselves politically, once radical reconstruction ended Jim crow began. I do not see why the feelings of traitorous scum are more important than the people they put down and oppressed and fought for the right to oppress.

[Death Metal]

1. Obama: Benghazi. Fast & Furious. He also has claimed ignorance to all of these scandals. He bugged the entire nation (NSA scandal).

Two manufactured controversies and something that was started under Bush and technically illegal for the president to shut down because it would be a violation of the Counter Espionage Act of 1911. What else you got?

Also, "bugged the entire nation" isn't even close to accurate.

[East Denmark]

1. Obama: Benghazi. Fast & Furious. He also has claimed ignorance to all of these scandals. He bugged the entire nation (NSA scandal).

Two manufactured controversies and something that was started under Bush and technically illegal for the president to shut down because it would be a violation of the Counter Espionage Act of 1911. What else you got?

Also, "bugged the entire nation" isn't even close to accurate.

Common Core.

[East Denmark]

Two manufactured controversies and something that was started under Bush and technically illegal for the president to shut down because it would be a violation of the Counter Espionage Act of 1911. What else you got?

Also, "bugged the entire nation" isn't even close to accurate.

Common Core.

But first give me proof they were manufactured.

[Death Metal]

Two manufactured controversies and something that was started under Bush and technically illegal for the president to shut down because it would be a violation of the Counter Espionage Act of 1911. What else you got?

Also, "bugged the entire nation" isn't even close to accurate.

Common Core.

Started by Bush Sr.

Let's try this again: Have anything not parroted over and over by airheads spewing Orwellian newspeak like Glen Beck and Alex Jones?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You didn't provide any reasons.

1. Obama: Benghazi. Fast & Furious. He also has claimed ignorance to all of these scandals. He bugged the entire nation (NSA scandal) and denied he knew about it. So he either lies or he's stupid.

2. Carter: He was a weak President, no numbers improved, unemployment got worse. He had a good message in his Crisis of Confidence speech but said it badly and at the wrong time. His Presidency brought the country, in general, down.

3. Nixon: Because he was a crook.

4. Johnson: He caused many problems in his Presidency, handled funds badly, and was the first of the "scandal" Presidents.

5. Grant: He was a good man but he did a terrible job after the Civil War. He did not welcome the south back to the Union well at all and caused years of resentment between the north and south that lasted well into the Great Depression.

1. Reagan was worse on both counts. Got 300 Marines killed in Beirut because of piss-poor security, and sold weapons to a terrorist state.

2. Actually, unemployment did not get significantly worse during Carter's administration, or at least not worse than it did under his successor. Inflation did get worse, though, and it could be argued that Iran was badly bungled. Still not sure that he was among the worst, but okay.

3. You mean "Because he got caught", right?

4. Okay

5. Eh, others were arguable worse in this regard, but I won't quibble.

[Death Metal]

Common Core.

But first give me proof they were manufactured.

Dylan Davies was not anywhere near the embassy when it was attacked: http://townhall.com/video/benghazi-witn ... s-n1743412

CNN admits their own coverage of F&F scandal turned out to be based on falsehoods: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 ... ous-truth/

[Pasovo-nacoBo]

Anyone further than The second Roosevelt expressed very poor leader,nwhich outweighed the other ones.
Hmm....Obama's not THAT bad, he was just given a turn-of-history situation and demolished it.....I think the worst president is yet to come.....
No more voting because someone is a skin color, or religion, if that's what you only believe you can vote for, wait until an election that DOES concern you.
Honestly, Obama, Bush, Nixon.

OBAMA-
Refuses to calm the American People even when their rights are invaded by the NSA.
Wants to go to war with Syria, and Iran, resulting in a nuclear war.
Interfere's with peace in Korea, while not defending East Asia against China expansion.
Doesn't even hide actions many do not approve of.
Not even an Natural-Born American
AND
hypocracy:
Promised Guantanamo Bay will be closed.
Said unnatural things about health care, too.

[Death Metal]

OBAMA-
Refuses to calm the American People even when their rights are invaded by the NSA.
Wants to go to war with Syria, and Iran, resulting in a nuclear war.
Interfere's with peace in Korea, while not defending East Asia against China expansion.
Doesn't even hide actions many do not approve of.
Not even an Natural-Born American
AND
hypocracy:
Promised Guantanamo Bay will be closed.
Said unnatural things about health care, too.

All of these things are false.

[The Scientific States]

Anyone further than The second Roosevelt expressed very poor leader,nwhich outweighed the other ones.
Hmm....Obama's not THAT bad, he was just given a turn-of-history situation and demolished it.....I think the worst president is yet to come.....
No more voting because someone is a skin color, or religion, if that's what you only believe you can vote for, wait until an election that DOES concern you.
Honestly, Obama, Bush, Nixon.

OBAMA-
Refuses to calm the American People even when their rights are invaded by the NSA.
Wants to go to war with Syria, and Iran, resulting in a nuclear war.
Interfere's with peace in Korea, while not defending East Asia against China expansion.
Doesn't even hide actions many do not approve of.
Not even an Natural-Born American
AND
hypocracy:
Promised Guantanamo Bay will be closed.
Said unnatural things about health care, too.

Their rights aren't being invaded. I don't like the NSA, but Bush did start it, so you can't blame Obama.
He doesn't want to go to war with Iran, and some humanitarian intervention in Syria couldn't cause a nuclear war.
No.
Examples?
Bullshit.
More bullshit.

[WRIF Army]

You called Coolidge a rapist, but he believed that those that earn their money, should keep it. What do you call a president (Bush), a senator (Obama) and a party (democrats) who bailout Wall St. with Main St. wealth? (1)

([url=irellevant picture]Image[/url])(2)

Also, you stated that workers are the key to growth. Fair enough, it that was the case, why do workers put up with management or capitalists or whoever else you think is exploiting them? If they contribute all the brains and sweat, what is keeping them from jettisoning the greedy and corrupt dead wood?(3)

And finally, if government is so effective and brilliant, why must they maintain a coercive monopoly in the industries in which they predominate? If government bureaucrats and politicians were as magnificent as you claim, if their 'products and services' where so beneficial to individuals and society, why don't they compete on an even playing field with free market participants without all the guns and coercion and simply run the greedy, corrupt and buffoonish capitalist dogs out of business?(4)

(1) The bank bailout, you mean? The one designed to protect everyone's investments, rich and poor? I call it well intentioned but poorly designed. The bailout should have came with strings attached to prevent what happened (which was, of course, the CEOs taking most of the money)

(2) Has nothing to do with anything. And comes from a blatantly biased and poorly sourced blog, so dubious in accuracy.

(3) Because they're unwilling to compete with big businesses. It's a very big gamble- most small businesses fail within a year and take a large amount of capital to do so. Not sure how we can possibly fix that unless you want to go into an actual socialist state, and obviously you don't. Which isn't me saying we should mind you, nor does any politician in Washington want this either. Just saying that's an inherent part of the system. I suppose we could look into bank loan regulations to soften the blow, but that's more of a band-aid than a cure.

(4) First of all, they don't compete because it's not their job to compete. It's their job to maintain the safety, security, prosperity, and liberties of America. Second of all, I'm not endorsing state capitalism, so you can cut this farce of a straw argument here. Third of all, having full public or full private is an absolutely asinine argument; neither works. A mixed market is and has consistently proven to be the better option.


Side note: Way to completely avoid every single direct argument I made. As I expected you to do. Typical. When you have the intellectual integrity to actually debate, let me know. I'm ignoring you till then. Besides, you're probably AuSable under a new IP.

(1) Who told you that Wall St. needed a bail out? Wall St. ? You do know that there is a revolving door between Wall St & Washington. You do know that both politicians and bankers use this relationship to fatten their own wallets & power?

(2) The source that you question without offering any counter evidence besides your personal opinion is from a leftwing source that shows (a) the stock market has seen massive gains since 2009 (true), (b) corporate profits have increased significantly since 2009 (true) & wages have been pretty much stagnant (true). Do you seriously refute these obvious facts ?

(3)Why are workers 'unwilling to compete with big business' when management & capitalist are simply greedy, corrupt & inefficient cogs in the machine ? Your argument that workers are so powerful, necessary and beneficial, yet so clueless & helpless against selfish, corrupt, inefficient and unnecessary capitalists is unconvincing .

(4) Government does have role to maintain safety & enforce the laws, impartially. Capitalism without protections from coercion would dissolve into totalitarianism. So I obviously support some government. However, government is unable to manage a profitable & sustainable business, if it could, why does it tax? Another obvious indictment on government is that government requires armed force to compel citizens to use it's services, while free market firms are peaceful & voluntary. Not only that, private sector firms make profits despite being plundered by government AND competing against government at the same time.

[WRIF Army]

1. Obama: Benghazi. Fast & Furious. He also has claimed ignorance to all of these scandals. He bugged the entire nation (NSA scandal).

Two manufactured controversies and something that was started under Bush and technically illegal for the president to shut down because it would be a violation of the Counter Espionage Act of 1911. What else you got?

Also, "bugged the entire nation" isn't even close to accurate.

Wrong, Bush started a program (Linebacker ?) that he was smart enough to shutdown. Fast and Furious was started long after Bush left office.

That Bush Card must be getting plenty dog eared. Obama and his super majority in the House and 59 Senate democrats certainly could have brought NSA abuses to the people and Congress for a vote that undoubtedly would be supported, yet he didn't. Why am I not surprised.

[Geilinor]

Anyone further than The second Roosevelt expressed very poor leader "expressed very poor leader" is grammatically incorrect.,nwhich outweighed the other ones.
Hmm....Obama's not THAT bad, he was just given a turn-of-history situation and demolished it How did he demolish the country?.....I think the worst president is yet to come.....
No more voting because someone is a skin color, or religion, if that's what you only believe you can vote for, wait until an election that DOES concern you. People don't really vote on the basis of that. Black people didn't overwhelmingly vote for Obama because he was black, most of them had been voting Democratic for decades.
Honestly, Obama, Bush, Nixon.

OBAMA-
Refuses to calm the American People even when their rights are invaded by the NSA. He's reassured the people numerous times. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/politics/nsa-data-mining/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/obama-nsa-reform_n_4394842.html
Wants to go to war with Syria, and Iran, resulting in a nuclear war. He doesn't want to go to war with Iran and why would they nuke us?
Interfere's with peace in Korea, while not defending East Asia against China expansion. Obama has increased the US's presence in Asia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_foreign_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration
Doesn't even hide actions many do not approve of. You want him to lie and hide things?
Not even an Natural-Born American "Natural born" isn't a thing.
AND
hypocracy:
Promised Guantanamo Bay will be closed. Congress won't allow the prisoners to be moved into the United States. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
Said unnatural things about health care, too. What do you mean, "unnatural"?

[WRIF Army]

1. Obama: Benghazi. Fast & Furious. He also has claimed ignorance to all of these scandals. He bugged the entire nation (NSA scandal) and denied he knew about it. So he either lies or he's stupid.

2. Carter: He was a weak President, no numbers improved, unemployment got worse. He had a good message in his Crisis of Confidence speech but said it badly and at the wrong time. His Presidency brought the country, in general, down.

3. Nixon: Because he was a crook.

4. Johnson: He caused many problems in his Presidency, handled funds badly, and was the first of the "scandal" Presidents.

5. Grant: He was a good man but he did a terrible job after the Civil War. He did not welcome the south back to the Union well at all and caused years of resentment between the north and south that lasted well into the Great Depression.

1. Reagan was worse on both counts. Got 300 Marines killed in Beirut because of piss-poor security, and sold weapons to a terrorist state.

2. Actually, unemployment did not get significantly worse during Carter's administration, or at least not worse than it did under his successor. Inflation did get worse, though, and it could be argued that Iran was badly bungled. Still not sure that he was among the worst, but okay.

3. You mean "Because he got caught", right?

4. Okay

5. Eh, others were arguable worse in this regard, but I won't quibble.

1. I liked Reagan, but your right on this one. Although, the security was put in place by the colonel in command who placed the Marines in a depression along the coast near the airport, very bad. Also, he restricted the Marines rules of engagement (I think). However, the buck stops with Reagan.

2. If you want to blame Reagan for the economic situation he inherited from Carter, then please don't absolve Obama from Bush's recession. Also, Reagan outperformed Obama as recoveries go:



3. Nixon was dangerous and dysfunctional.

4. Okay.

5. Agreed, but it was a near impossibility to sooth the ill will between the South and North.

[Gauthier]

Gauthier,

Did you seriously just claim that Clinton (Monicagate, impeachment....) didn't have to put up with as much partisan crap as Obama ? Which still confirms my statement that Obama, by his own admission and yours, doesn't solve problems, he makes excuses or in many cases, claims he didn't know.

Did you seriously just cite Media Matters as an objective source ? Are you bragging about the record increase in food stamps enrollment? Shouldn't you be bragging about an increase in high wage, middle class jobs? This is what the Obama 'recovery' looks like, and why many food stamp recipients have jobs but require government assistance:

(Image)

Somehow, not surprised you blame Obama entirely for all the downsizing and outsourcing that resulted in burger flipping and table waiting being the only sorts of significant job growth. But hey, someone did say you're probably AuSable under another account.

Did you seriously just cite the New York Times as an objective source? Also, your 'objective' source dropped the ball on it's prediction that the economy would grow at an anemic 2% since the economy grew at 4% last quarter. It appears that the lefty economists cited by the Times are as clueless as Obama when predicting the future.

The outlook turned out better than predicted and only you would use that as a talking point for an Obamarant.

It seems that Obama and his supporters judge success by the increase in spending on welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, minimum wage law..... and less on identifying and correcting the causes of poverty, joblessness and low wages. This may be a good political strategy, but it is bad for societal prosperity.

Like say, downsizing and outsourcing designed to maximize profit and minimize overhead at the same time? Until that gets taken care of people still need to eat and pay bills while looking for jobs that might be better than burger flipping if they're lucky.

Of course, Saddam wanted to look stronger to deter Iranian aggression, that strawman tidbit you offered does nothing to deflect the fact that he also wanted a nuclear weapon capability, he said so himself. And Niger has only one export product of note - uranium. And Niger only needs one import product of note - cash. Iraq had oil money and Iraq (like every tinhorn dictator in the Middle East) wanted uranium. But don't trust my word on this, listen to these statesmen politicians:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

The most pathetic and meaningless Appeal to Authority I have seen to date from you.

I rather much trust the IAEA's words on that matter:

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html

As of 16 December 1998, the following assessment could be made of Iraq's clandestine programme:

• There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalisation of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation.
• Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon
• There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes.
• There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material.
• All the safeguarded research reactor fuel was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq.
• There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.

[WRIF Army]

Gauthier,

(1) You cited Media Matters and the NYTimes in the same post, I thought that was stretching the quota on bias.

(2) I am not blaming Obama solely for low wage jobs replacing mid-wage jobs. I blame a government that is for sale to the highest bidder, everyone in Washington is complicit, including Bush, progressive democrats and most republicans except those in the Tea Party, who not surprisingly are taking a lot of heat trying to shut down the status quo.

(3) If your concerned about outsourcing, ponder these 'shovel ready' jobs in ........ courteous of Bush, Obama, RINOs, and progressive democrats. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with GM opening a plant anywhere, but not when it is on my dime. Also, if your concerned about the downtrodden making ends meet, why are you trying to protect huge domestic producers of consumer goods by shutting out lower cost competition from overseas ? Wal-mart saves the poor consumer thousands of dollars a year, also many small businesses depend on low cost production goods from overseas manufacturers. The only group that benefits from protectionism is the politically connected corporation that wants to dump high priced, low quality goods and services on the American consumer and small businesses.

(4) Hey, if you trust the IAEA more than Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Biden, et al.....I won't argue with you on that.