Who do you hate more - Bush or Obama?

[Dianne]

Simple question to y'all.

As far as I am concerned, as much as I disagree with and dislike Obama's policies, I could never bring myself around to hate him as much as I hated, and still hates, Bush. The primary reason is the Iraq War, which was sold to us, and started, based on lies, and really putting on steroids, this unending militaristic adventures and kick-starting this overbearing police/surveillance state. Now we have successfully created two mega-clusterfucks - Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and everything else we touched (most of which was Obama, to be clear.) On the domestic front, again, Bush spent like a drunken sailor with Medicare Part D, NCLB etc, so he is in no way inferior to Obama in that regard.

My conservative FB friends go ballistic over EVERY little thing Obama does, it really looks ridiculous. Now, I have serious issues with Obama regarding NSA, the wars, Obamacare etc, but I don't have this unadulterated hate towards him. Every single day, every single issue, the root cause, according to my conservative friends is because "Obama is a Marxist-Leninist Kenyan Muslim Communist Who Hates America". If Obama hugs people, "Oh look, that's just how Hitler hugged people.". If Obama makes a joke about himself, "Oh look, what a narcissist".

Sure, Obama continued the same Bush policies, and in many cases, one-upped him, but I still can't get over the fact that it was Bush & Cheney who started all this.

Who do you hate more - Bush or Obama?

Then how does it make you feel that Obama (YOU, the TAXPAYER) is funding obama al qaeda? Just curious why anyone would suggest Obama may have a hint of worthiness, allowing your phones to be tapped, allowing invasion of our southern border, touchy, feeling chit on granny at the airport, drone strikes everywhere and anywhere, in the name of saving us from al qaeda when your tax dollars are funding it ... What about the Southern Border, where Homeland Security has opened the gates for terrorists and drug cartels to enter; while keeping border patrol busy, under gag orders, changing diapers ..

Obama is an extreme muslim terrorist ... How you can't see this, I will never know. George Bush is mentally retarded ... Obama is a Criminal Illegal Alien that should be in prison, along with his husband.

 

[lib3rtarian]

Then how does it make you feel that Obama (YOU, the TAXPAYER) is funding obama al qaeda? Just curious why anyone would suggest Obama may have a hint of worthiness, allowing your phones to be tapped, allowing invasion of our southern border, touchy, feeling chit on granny at the airport, drone strikes everywhere and anywhere, in the name of saving us from al qaeda when your tax dollars are funding it ... What about the Southern Border, where Homeland Security has opened the gates for terrorists and drug cartels to enter; while keeping border patrol busy, under gag orders, changing diapers ..

Obama is an extreme muslim terrorist ... How you can't see this, I will never know. George Bush is mentally retarded ... Obama is a Criminal Illegal Alien that should be in prison, along with his husband.

I have no love for Obama, but there is very little that he is doing which Bush and Cheney already wasn't. Or to be precise, if Obama is being evil, Bush and Cheney wrote the manual for it.

As an example, in light of the recent crisis, it's bad enough that Obama sent off 300 "advisers" to die there, but what if it was Bush/Cheney? That number would be 3,000 or 30,000. At least Obama makes some pro forma talk about how we can't be always babysitting the Iraqis and how they should do more to keep their country together. Does the Bush/Cheney neocon wing know or say ANYTHING other than more military intervention? Problem in Nigeria? Send troops. Problem in Syria? Send troops. Problem in Iraq? Send troops.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I have no love for Obama, but there is very little that he is doing which Bush and Cheney already wasn't. Or to be precise, if Obama is being evil, Bush and Cheney wrote the manual for it.

As an example, in light of the recent crisis, it's bad enough that Obama sent off 300 "advisers" to die there, but what if it was Bush/Cheney? That number would be 3,000 or 30,000. At least Obama makes some pro forma talk about how we can't be always babysitting the Iraqis and how they should do more to keep their country together. Does the Bush/Cheney neocon wing know or say ANYTHING other than more military intervention? Problem in Nigeria? Send troops. Problem in Syria? Send troops. Problem in Iraq? Send troops.

The 300 figure is a joke. It was upped to 1,000 last I heard, but regardless that too is a joke. JSOC and mercenaries will be operating out of Iraq for decades to come (unless their checks start bouncing). Thousands of them. The CIA is there as well.

They operate the way they do, and Obama knows this, to one, be able to legitimately lie to the people on the number of troops there and two, to escape Congressional oversight. They have bastardized the meaning of "preparing the battle space" and using absurd precedent operate under a different Title of the US Code (precisely for the two previous reasons I mentioned). Yes, Dick Cheney largely vamped up (and what a suiting word for the occasion) this tactic but nonetheless, Barack Obama understands it and has used it quite extensively. The list of countries American forces, troops or otherwise, are in, probably, or rather, in all certainty, outnumbers the ones they aren't in.

This didn't start with Bush.

WITHIN THE US LAWS governing military and intelligence operations, there are gray areas. Title 50 of the US code, or federal law, sets out the rules and structures for intelligence operations, while Title 10 covers military actions. The code under which a particular operation is performed has serious implications for oversight and accountability. The terms “covert” action and “clandestine” operations are often thrown around as though they mean the same thing. They do not. “Covert action” is a doctrinal and legal term that, broadly speaking, refers to an activity whose sponsorship is meant to be a secret. It is meant to provide the United States with “plausible deniability.” Such operations are extremely risky—not just in terms of the operational danger, but because they often involve secret US agents conducting operations inside the borders of a sovereign country without alerting its government. If the operation is exposed or disrupted, the potential for scandal is very real. The legal definition of covert action, according to Title 50, is “An activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.” A covert action requires a presidential finding and for the White House to brief the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on its contents. This briefing must occur before the covert action unless there are “extraordinary circumstances.” The requirements for congressional involvement were established to prevent scandals such as the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and Iran-Contra. Those operations were passionately supported by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Although they no doubt regretted the fact that Iran-Contra became public and stirred controversy, they did not regard the operation itself as a scandal but rather as a model for how the United States should conduct its dirty business.

Military doctrine defines another class of activities, “clandestine operations,” in which the point of secrecy is to protect the integrity of the mission, not to conceal its sponsor, the US government. The military may conduct operations that are both covert and clandestine, but these are rare. Unlike covert actions, clandestine operations do not require a presidential finding if “future hostilities” are “anticipated” in the country where they are taking place. Nor is the administration required to report the operation to Congress. Such operations are defined as “Traditional Military Activities” and offer the intelligence committees no real-time oversight rights. Under US law, the military is not required to disclose the specific actions of an operation, but the US role in the “overall operation” should be “apparent” or eventually “acknowledged.”

Jeremy Scahill. Dirty Wars (Kindle Locations 1951-1971). Nation Books.

 

[lib3rtarian]

The 300 figure is a joke. It was upped to 1,000 last I heard, but regardless that too is a joke. JSOC and mercenaries will be operating out of Iraq for decades to come (unless their checks start bouncing). Thousands of them. The CIA is there as well.

They operate the way they do, and Obama knows this, to one, be able to legitimately lie to the people on the number of troops there and two, to escape Congressional oversight. They have bastardized the meaning of "preparing the battle space" and using absurd precedent operate under a different Title of the US Code (precisely for the two previous reasons I mentioned). Yes, Dick Cheney largely vamped up (and what a suiting word for the occasion) this tactic but nonetheless, Barack Obama understands it and has used it quite extensively. The list of countries American forces, troops or otherwise, are in, probably, or rather, in all certainty, outnumbers the ones they aren't in.

This didn't start with Bush.

Obama is no saint and he makes sweet talk and does stuff behind our backs. I get it. But when you have Obama AT LEAST paying lip service to the idea of a more restrained FP, and Cheney advocating to put our already messed up FP on steroids, how do you not get more angry towards the latter?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Obama is no saint and he makes sweet talk and does stuff behind our backs. I get it. But when you have Obama AT LEAST paying lip service to the idea of a more restrained FP, and Cheney advocating to put our already messed up FP on steroids, how do you not get more angry towards the latter?

They are both war criminals and should be tried as such.

Give them the old RICO charges. They can sit on the same bench.

Who is better, who is worse? I just don't much think about it that way.

 

[Dianne]

Then how does it make you feel that Obama (YOU, the TAXPAYER) is funding obama al qaeda? Just curious why anyone would suggest Obama may have a hint of worthiness, allowing your phones to be tapped, allowing invasion of our southern border, touchy, feeling chit on granny at the airport, drone strikes everywhere and anywhere, in the name of saving us from al qaeda when your tax dollars are funding it ... What about the Southern Border, where Homeland Security has opened the gates for terrorists and drug cartels to enter; while keeping border patrol busy, under gag orders, changing diapers ..

Obama is an extreme muslim terrorist ... How you can't see this, I will never know. George Bush is mentally retarded ... Obama is a Criminal Illegal Alien that should be in prison, along with his husband.

Wow, what did I miss? I think Obama is the worst terrorist that ever hit the U.S. shores. Obama doesn't have one iota of wothiness in him.. What did I say to make you think that?

 

[Dianne]

They are both war criminals and should be tried as such.

Give them the old RICO charges. They can sit on the same bench.

Who is better, who is worse? I just don't much think about it that way.

Peeps must begin to demand justice !!! Bush/Bush/Clinton/Obama/Cheney should all be in prison, in my view... Liars, cheats, mafia, crime bosses, drug dealers, first degree murderers ... You name it, they are guilty and should all be enjoying three hots and a cot for the rest of their pitiful, filthy, sickening lives.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Obama is no saint and he makes sweet talk and does stuff behind our backs. I get it. But when you have Obama AT LEAST paying lip service to the idea of a more restrained FP, and Cheney advocating to put our already messed up FP on steroids, how do you not get more angry towards the latter?

So we should prefer the bigger liar because his lies sound nicer?

 

[lib3rtarian]

So we should prefer the bigger liar because his lies sound nicer?

I am talking only about FP here. I believe Obama's response to the Iraq crisis is better than what it would have been under Bush/Cheney. Obama's response here is more in line with Rand's than with the GOP hawks. Or do you disagree with that?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I am talking only about FP here. I believe Obama's response to the Iraq crisis is better than what it would have been under Bush/Cheney. Obama's response here is more in line with Rand's than with the GOP hawks. Or do you disagree with that?

Dude is considering re-invading the country.

 

[lib3rtarian]

Dude is considering re-invading the country.

Obama? Where do you see that? While he might slip in a few "advisers", I don't think Obama is crazy enough to do a full scale re-invasion of Iraq. His base doesn't want it, the country doesn't want it, except for the Establishment cronies. Because if there is one thing Obama cares about, it is that he will do the popular thing. Now Cheney, if he had any shame, he wouldn't show his face in public after the Iraq War debacle, but since he is back and nuttier than ever, I am convinced that either he is mentally ill and truly believes he is right, or he is really evil and wants permanent war. Either way, he would have launched a full scale re-invasion of Iraq even if 99% of the country said 'no' in the polls. So Obama > Cheney.

 

[Feelgood]

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Obama? Where do you see that? While he might slip in a few "advisers", I don't think Obama is crazy enough to do a full scale re-invasion of Iraq. His base doesn't want it, the country doesn't want it, except for the Establishment cronies. Because if there is one thing Obama cares about, it is that he will do the popular thing. Now Cheney, if he had any shame, he wouldn't show his face in public after the Iraq War debacle, but since he is back and nuttier than ever, I am convinced that either he is mentally ill and truly believes he is right, or he is really evil and wants permanent war. Either way, he would have launched a full scale re-invasion of Iraq even if 99% of the country said 'no' in the polls. So Obama > Cheney.

You have a lot of faith in the word of a man who has never told the truth in his life. As for me, I haven't drunk either flavor of the koolaid and I'm not about to.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Let's invade 2 nations and bomb 4 right out in the open vs lets invade 4 countries and bomb 8 all up in secret. Yeah, I'm not finding any real benefit to the second choice to recommend it to me over the first.

 

[acptulsa]

Let's invade 2 nations and bomb 4 right out in the open vs lets invade 4 countries and bomb 8 all up in secret. Yeah, I'm not finding any real benefit to the second choice to recommend it to me over the first.

It has been my experience that the overtly evil individual is always less dangerous than the equally evil individual with a talent for fooling people into believing he's a good guy.

Of course, Dubya would have remained pretty good at fooling people that way if he had only kept Cheney locked up in the closet where he spent 2001-2002...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It has been my experience that the overtly evil individual is always less dangerous than the equally evil individual with a talent for fooling people into believing he's a good guy.

Of course, Dubya would have remained pretty good at fooling people that way if he had only kept Cheney locked up in the closet where he spent 2001-2002...

Yeah, I'd rather see what the guy was doing to me than to have it sneak up and bite me in the rear. Doesn't mean I prefer W's either. He forged all the tools that Ohbombya is now using against us. Do I want another W to forge more tools, or another O to abuse the hell out of them?

Do I want to be shot in the head or in the heart?

"Neither" for a dollar please. None of the above, in fact. They both feed off of each other and are equally wrong in their own way.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You have a good point that the kind of evil that deceives people into seeming good, is particularly evil. I don't think we need examples of the unrejected messiahhood of the O doing that as that is his basic MO and most everybody recognizes it.

http://www.gop.com/act/i-miss-george-w-bush-t-shirt-43

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I guess what I'm saying is even acknowledging that the worst part is how they deceive people, there is still not enough there to really recommend one team over the other. To judge better or worse here I would have to ask "who violated the Constitution more?"

Bush opened nearly all of the doors; and then Obama ran down the aisles of the China Shop in a BEARCAT. Who disrespected the Constitution more? Seems to me they share an equal burden here.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Obama? Where do you see that? While he might slip in a few "advisers", I don't think Obama is crazy enough to do a full scale re-invasion of Iraq. His base doesn't want it, the country doesn't want it, except for the Establishment cronies. Because if there is one thing Obama cares about, it is that he will do the popular thing. Now Cheney, if he had any shame, he wouldn't show his face in public after the Iraq War debacle, but since he is back and nuttier than ever, I am convinced that either he is mentally ill and truly believes he is right, or he is really evil and wants permanent war. Either way, he would have launched a full scale re-invasion of Iraq even if 99% of the country said 'no' in the polls. So Obama > Cheney.

Obama has normalized the policies of Bush and Cheney et. al. He has expanded many of them. From assassinating American citizens, to his drone program, to signature strikes, to the use of Title 50 rather than Title 10 with regards to JSOC and their ever expanding endeavors into torture, assassination and regime change.

He isn't better. If anything he's worse. But I despise neoconservatives and the war mongering pigs so much that I cannot possibly say that. Besides, the sorts of evil these particular individuals are responsible for really need not be compared. It is atrocious how they joke and laugh, lavishly living and squandering wealth. They ought be tried, together, at the Hague.

 

[KingNothing]

Boy, I don't know. There's just so much to hate about both. On one hand, Bush ruined conservatism, handed oodles of money to entrenched corporations and banks and started wars that have destroyed millions of lives and wasted trillions of dollars. On the other hand, Obama ruined liberalism, handed oodles of money to entrenched corporations and banks, continued the wars though on a slightly smaller scale, killed an American without trial, and brought in Obamacare, the worst piece of economic legislation in American history.

It amounts to a distinction without a difference.

I'd have to say that Obama is a more colossally terrible president, but only because he had the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giant.