Comparing Putin and Obama...

You obviously cannot defend Obama’s actions.    

Obama rightfully criticized Bush for using military assets against two countries that had not attacked the US first, nor posed any imminent threat. Obama claimed the president lacked constitutional authority to attack a country who had not attacked us first, nor posed a threat.  
 
Obama and Hillary also criticized Bush for using drones, but both have supported a spike in the use of drones once in office. They have upped the ante by claiming authority to use them domestically against our citizens without due process.

Once in office, Obama, Biden, and Hillary Clinton, joined together and used military assets against five countries who never attacked us, nor posed any threat.

How did Libya, Egypt, Yemen or Syria turn out. We all remember the lie over a video that nobody watched, as cover for their incompetency in Benghazi. Even the Rubenesque, Candy Crowley, provided cover for Obama during the presidential debate. The media is always willing to repeat the lies, in Obama's defense…and so do you.

Now President Incompetent is going to slash our military to pre-WWII levels, not to pay down the debt, but to use the funds to buy more votes for his party.

In Syria, Obama drew an imaginary 'red line' that Assad thumbed his nose at, and remains in power.

Will we learn from our mistakes?  

Hillary Clinton led the Obama foreign policy while the myriad of disasters happened, so there is no reason to believe she will suddenly acquire foreign policy competence.

It must get tiresome to always be defending the indefensible. I am sorry your little god lied to you.

You don't have anyone who will come within double digits of Hillary, that's how bad you are flailing!

NB, I can't even read your pathetic attempts at defending your hero Obama, any more.

WHL wrote:NB, I can't even read your pathetic attempts at defending your hero Obama, any more.  

And I see the other side of that, WHL. The Republicans threw everything but the kitchen sink at Obama, by way of obstruction, and he is still doing a great job pulling this country from the brink that was the Great Recession. I think he has done a spectacular job, and you're not going to beat Hillary. The economy is going to be humming along by the time 2016 comes around, and the Republicans will have nothing to show for it.

I doubt if the economy will be humming along, unless the Republicans take the Senate and force him to change his strategy. He has had enough time to fix the economy and hasn't done it. He is a failure.

The living former Democratic presidents are distancing themselves from the current Democratic president. Parade magazine sat down with Jimmy Carter and, in anticipation of the full article's release, led with Carter sounding dismissive of Barack Obama.

"He’s done the best he could under the circumstances. His major accomplishment was Obamacare, and the implementation of it now is questionable at best.”

I can't see him, but I think Jimmy Carter is smiling.




.

WHL wrote:I doubt if the economy will be humming along, unless the Republicans take the Senate and force him to change his strategy.  He has had enough time to fix the economy and hasn't done it.  He is a failure.

I guess you're smarter than all of the economists who say that the economy will have good growth over the next 2 years,   and I don't see the significance of the Republicans taking over the Senate. They have already brought the congress down to it's most unproductive period in history. Zero productivity minus zero productivity is still zero productivity. If Obama is such a failure, how come he won twice?   

Once again, you pick and choose the facts you want to believe.

I have no idea why Obama got elected twice!!! Either voters are not very bright or there was some cheating going on.

We know why he won twice.

He won the Illinois Senate by having a California judge "unseal" his opponent's sealed divorce papers. That kind of shady politics is part and parcel of Obama's advisor, David Axelrod.

Sadly, America's future  has come down to this.




.

WHL wrote:Once again, you pick and choose the facts you want to believe.  

I have no idea why Obama got elected twice!!! Either voters are not very bright or there was some cheating going on.

The fact is it doesn't mean a hill of beans if the Republicans take over the Senate, because Obama can veto anything that a Democrat's filibuster can't!

Obama won twice because the Republicans wrote off women, African Americans, Asians and Hispanics. Mitt Romney found out that the angry old white guys can't get it done! Mitt Romney couldn't even take New Hampshire. How pathetic is that???

News Buzzard wrote:...If Obama is such a failure, how come he won twice?   

Obama won twice because there are two Americas.

The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.
The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.  
The America that is the faucet, and the America that is the drain.

It’s not really about the haves and the have-nots.  It’s about the dos and the don’ts.

Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others well...they just don’t. They are the takers.

That’s the divide in America.

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.  It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.  It’s a group that claims racism obstructionism when they don’t get their way.  Their way is the only way.
It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. Right and wrong has no place it’s all, its’ all about power and who will win the next election.

That’s not invective, that’s truth.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, and Obama will take it for you.

That is how Obama won twice.

News Buzzard wrote: Mitt Romney found out that the angry old white guys can't get it done! Mitt Romney couldn't even take New Hampshire. How pathetic is that???

Excerpt:

"Again … who are these idiots in New Hampshire?

Do they not get that Romney was (is) a socialized medicine-loving, bailout-backing, global interventionist, crony capitalist of the worst sort … different from U.S. President Barack Obama only by the slightest ideological degrees?"

http://www.fitsnews.com/2014/01/31/mitt-romney-leads-new-hampshire-poll/


.

Obama delivered this statement: “The United States will stand with the international community ..."




.

Let's make Mitt Romney a 3 time loser!   

News Buzzard wrote:Let's make Mitt Romney a 3 time loser!   

This thread is comparing Obama with Putin.

This is what I meant:







.

Robert Gates recalls when Putin went into Georgia on Bush's watch:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/03/09/former-defense-secretary-robert-gates-admonishe/198417

Both major republics look to the West, and remain considered for NATO admission.

Compared to the loss to The West of Crimea under Obama, the "loss" of Georgia's Southern Ossetia isn't comparable.

You'll notice the signs in Ukraine are printed in English, so America can react appropriately. (Maybe even after a game of golf!)





.

What happened to Gates? He has a brace around his neck.

WHL wrote:What happened to Gates?  He has a brace around his neck.

Bush did it!    (He fell and fractured a vertebrae)

Excerpt:

"...What Putin saw was a series of green lights.

Members of both parties are oddly aligned when it comes to what to do about Russia's incursion in Ukraine -- pursue trade and other economic pressure, they say, but not U.S. military action. But Republicans nevertheless are blaming Obama in part for Putin's aggression, pointing to a series of steps, or missteps, over the last five years.


Rogers said the first was the controversial 2009 decision to abandon a missile-defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic. The administration argued at the time that it no longer needed the infrastructure to counter Iran and could make do by upgrading existing interceptors

But Russia was watching..."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/03/did-russias-cold-warrior-read-obama-perfectly/?intcmp=obinsite





.

Excerpt:

"Russian journalist Leonid Ragozin wrote here about Putin’s renewed crackdown on the media: What began just days before the Olympics with a Kremlin attack on Dozhd, the last independent television station in Russia, has now extended to Lenta.ru, arguably the best news site in Russia.

On Wednesday, the site’s editor-in-chief was fired and replaced with a Kremlin loyalist, and the whole staff quit in protest."
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117007/while-west-watches-crimea-putin-cleans-house-moscow

Should we be grateful that Britain publishes actual news?




.

Watching Obama's ineptitude in dealing with Russia's aggression to the Ukraine and Crimea, I ask myself - is this the "flexibility" Obama promised Putin once he got re-elected?




.

News Hawk wrote:
Watching Obama's ineptitude in dealing with Russia's aggression to the Ukraine and Crimea, I ask myself - is this the "flexibility" Obama promised Putin once he got re-elected?




.

Never a solution, only criticism. What did Bush do when Russia went into Georgia? A one word answer is sufficient. (Hint: Nothing!)

News Buzzard wrote:

News Hawk wrote:
Watching Obama's ineptitude in dealing with Russia's aggression to the Ukraine and Crimea, I ask myself - is this the "flexibility" Obama promised Putin once he got re-elected?




.

Never a solution, only criticism. What did Bush do when Russia went into Georgia? A one word answer is sufficient. (Hint: Nothing!)

Bush was leaving the White House, while Obama has three additional years to screw up.




.

Twenty years from now Bush will be deleted from The Right Wing Book Of Mythology!