Al Qaida seized Fallujah

http://www.kare11.com/story/news/2014/01/04/al-qaeda-militants-in-iraq-seize-fallujah/4319233/

I wonder how many American soldiers died taking that city and trying to defend it before we left Iraq?
I certainly hope Obama does not do what I expect him to do and send our troops back into that country. He should have ended the war there as soon as he took office. He kept it going long enough that it became both his war and George W Bush's war.
It should have never been America's war in the first place.
God, don't let it become our war again.

Hopefully he won't order any significant troop increase in Iraq. As much of a snake as SH was - sometimes it's better to leave the devil you know alone. The whole mideast is a mess. I'm sure Obama regrets his many statements about how Al Qaeda has been decimated, killing them off is about as easy as ridding the world of roaches.

nochain wrote:

Hopefully he won't order any significant troop increase in Iraq. As much of a snake as SH was - sometimes it's better to leave the devil you know alone. The whole mideast is a mess. I'm sure Obama regrets his many statements about how Al Qaeda has been decimated, killing them off is about as easy as ridding the world of roaches.

Geez...again is this surprising?....remember---"Al qaeda is on the run"..cowh!....According to John 'Ready for Duty' Kerry there will be no troops sent into Iraq and that it's "their war"....When this administration continues to not want to accept that there are terrorists and terrorist actions that the terrorists will continue...Roaches describes them correctly...

Don't blame the current administration for the Iraq war. They didn't start it. The elder Bush was correct in not taking the war to Baghdad. "W" just HAD to finish what his daddy started and Iraq is more unstable now than before we started.

Remember, it was "W" that stood on the navy ship right after we took Baghdad and declared victory.

The current administration got us out of Iraq. It wasn't pretty, but we're mostly out of Iraq. And they're getting us out of Afghanistan. An earlier administration got us in that one too.

Eric wrote:

Don't blame the current administration for the Iraq war.  They didn't start it.  The elder Bush was correct in not taking the war to Baghdad.  "W" just HAD to finish what his daddy started and Iraq is more unstable now than before we started.  

Remember, it was "W" that stood on the navy ship right after we took Baghdad and declared victory.

The current administration got us out of Iraq.  It wasn't pretty, but we're mostly out of Iraq.  And they're getting us out of Afghanistan.  An earlier administration got us in that one too.

..Where was it mentioned that the current administration was responsible for the war in Iraq?. It wasn't so that was just a comment made with no basis....The decision was made with the intelligence based on at the time that sadaam had and would expand his use of chemical weapons in the area---it was supported by both republicans and democrats and then suddenly some that supported began playing politics and second guessing themselves as Monday morning quarterbacks and being so smart after the fact....No revisionist history attempt here...Believe the quote was Mission Accomplished that caused all the uproar even though it was expressed that it was an end to major air combat missions but no matter not a good statement...So the former administration was wrong about Afghanistan too?. Based upon the comment 'an earlier administration got is in that one too'..Again seems that the reasoning and logic were pretty much explained for that action...Have no problem with pulling everyone out of Afghanistan but let's not act surprised/outraged when the 'one the run' al qaeda gears up to take over....

Eric wrote:

Don't blame the current administration for the Iraq war.  They didn't start it.  The elder Bush was correct in not taking the war to Baghdad.  "W" just HAD to finish what his daddy started and Iraq is more unstable now than before we started.  

Remember, it was "W" that stood on the navy ship right after we took Baghdad and declared victory.

The current administration got us out of Iraq.  It wasn't pretty, but we're mostly out of Iraq.  And they're getting us out of Afghanistan.  An earlier administration got us in that one too.

I don't recall blaming BHO for Iraq, I served in Desert Storm and W SR did exactly what was required and nothing more. Junior was led into the mess by faulty intelligence but I stand by my statement - better the devil you know - so invasion II should not have happened.

I am not surprised the misconception about Bushs carrier speech is so embedded that it has become an artificial fact. As I recall and the link substantiates he never declared victory. A few quotes on what was said on board the carrier returning from an 11 month deployment:

Bush declared: “Our mission continues.” It is true that Bush’s speech, in which he announced the end of major combat operations, was far too triumphant about U.S. military achievements. But he never “famously declared that America’s mission in Iraq had been accomplished.”
On the contrary, he said that following the fall of Baghdad, “now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country... We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.” Bush's goal in Iraq was never purely military – his mission was to bring freedom and democracy to a vital part of the Middle East.
Here are some more quotes from the speech:
“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”
“Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed.”
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.”
“America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.”

So how did the belief that he declared “mission accomplished” become so deeply embedded in the public consciousness? The reason is that the ship’s crew, in collusion with White House staff, had strung a large banner bearing the words “mission accomplished” behind the spot where Bush was due to speak. The banner was seen on TV throughout the president’s speech. But Bush himself knew nothing about the decision to display the banner, and certainly did not approve it.
“Irregardless,” as Bush himself used to say, the speech became known as the “mission accomplished” speech, and will probably always be known that way. A striking visual image trumps the spoken word any day. And it’s almost certainly too much to hope that the media will go back and read the speech and see what he actually said. You can forget about renaming it the “mission continues” speech, even if that would be much more accurate.

http://csis.org/blog/bush-never-said-%E2%80%9Cmission-accomplished%E2%80%9D

I think there will always be a question about whether Junior was led into the mess by faulty intelligence or whether he pushed for it regardless of the intelligence.
Remember those words in his state of the union address that he later disavowed?

I do and so do lots of other people.

He "sort of" retracted them the day after it came out that he knew better when he spoke them:

July 7, 2003 - the day AFTER Wilson's article ran

The WH finally backed off the 16 words claim. They released this statement:

"There is other reporting to suggest that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa; However, the information is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made." (New York Times)



However, at the same time, Rice and Rumsfeld were still saying that there was other evidence that Saddam tried to get uranium from Africa.

Of course, they never have produced this evidence."

from Democratic Underground

Regardless of whether you like DU or not, those are all verifiable facts of history.

Conversely:

In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam ... would have been too big a risk."

Did Iraq have an active nuclear program - doubtful, more likely they were stockpiling items for later use. They did - without question - have chemical weapons though.

I was just replying to

Quote :

"Al qaeda is on the run"..cowh!

... where I inferred that a smear was made on the current administration... as if the current administration was responsible for the hunt for al Qaeda. America had hit the "tarbaby" with two fists when the current administration inherited the mess. The current administration didn't start the war and is trying to bring them to a close. It isn't pretty and I believe we are leaving the Middle East in worse shape than when we started. It's a damn shame that so many of our young men sacrificed their lives and limbs in this conflict.

I was also not aware that we found 550 tons of yellowcake. Is there a good source of info about this that this misinformed reader can study up on?

Yes, I have to admit that I am remembering the widely-distributed picture of Bush with the banner. Bush didn't see the banner before the photo-op?

Here's the truth of what that yellowcake was. I took this from an NBC news site, FYI:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."there



Therefore, there was no new evidence of yellowcake when Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, and the yellocake that was already in Iraq (which is what you referred to being moved) was already documented and safeguarded by UN inspectors prior to the war that George W began.

Those are the facts.
Spin them some more.

Here's the link to the NBC article about the removal of that very old and well known to the UN yellocake:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.Usr9XLRMite

Otter wrote:

Here's the truth of what that yellowcake was. I took this from an NBC news site, FYI:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."there



Therefore, there was no new evidence of yellowcake when Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, and the yellocake that was already in Iraq (which is what you referred to being moved) was already documented and safeguarded by UN inspectors prior to the war that George W began.

Those are the facts.
Spin them some more.

Here's the link to the NBC article about the removal of that very old and well known to the UN yellocake:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.Usr9XLRMite

Read my post again, I didn't "spin" anything. I have stated it doubtful they had an active program and that Iraq II was a mistake. I've been there - nothing we can do over there will ever improve the situation. Now spin that or are you just stirring the pot?

Eric wrote:

I was just replying to

Quote :

"Al qaeda is on the run"..cowh!

... where I inferred that a smear was made on the current administration... as if the current administration was responsible for the hunt for al Qaeda.  America had hit the "tarbaby" with two fists when the current administration inherited the mess.  The current administration didn't start the war and is trying to bring them to a close.  It isn't pretty and I believe we are leaving the Middle East in worse shape than when we started.  It's a damn shame that so many of our young men sacrificed their lives and limbs in this conflict.

I was also not aware that we found 550 tons of yellowcake.  Is there a good source of info about this that this misinformed reader can study up on?

Yes, I have to admit that I am remembering the widely-distributed picture of Bush with the banner.  Bush didn't see the banner before the photo-op?

That's a smear!????....That's the words of the cowh--nothing added to that statement...You'd have to question the cowh and this administration about that statement...How many times does it need to be said the current administration didn't start either war...no one has indicated anything different...Intelligence information can be very faulty and believe we dodged a bullet when the drums were beating for action in Syria...Not partisian at all--the cowh was in agreement with republicans like McCain and Graham there were a majority of Dems and Republicans that brought that to an end because of lack of support and clear definition---as said when there's agreement with politicians ranging from Rand Paul to Harry Reid then there's a red flag...In the case of Bush there were not many red flags from either democrats or republicans and after the fact several suddenly gained much wisdom and attempted to separate themselves from their own positions..statements..and votes...As Bush may not have seen the banner on the ship....perhaps the cowh should check his teleprompter before his ill advised statements. Two bad statements one no better than the other..nope no wdm were found and that's about as much of a false claim that they were there as al-qaeda is on the run...As in ANY war or any military action...it's a damn shame that so many men and women sacrificed with their lives and limbs...

"How many times does it need to be said..."

I repeated myself one time about them not starting the war. How many times have you said "they lied"? Ten? Twenty?

Intelligence CAN be faulty but Bush sending us to war in Iraq was not the fault of our intelligence gathering. He listened to what he wanted to hear and to nothing else.
I said it was now both Bush's war and Obama's war because Obama should have stopped it earlier on in his administration. He should have immediately worked to bring our guys home. Yes, he gets credit for finally doing it, but he is not blameless.
Nevertheless, he did not start it and the fault has to also go back to the Bush administration. Blaming it on the COWH (who you obviously cannot show the respect of even calling the POTUS) just isn't right.
I'm thinking you never called GWB the COWH, did you?

Bush lied in those 16 words in his SOTU address and he emphasized his lie with his voice and facial expressions during that speech. Then he blamed it on faulty intelligence when there was nothing wrong with the intelligence. Joe Wilson was the thorn in his side that proved his lie, so he set his administration about the task of destroying Wilson's wife's career.

Real history is a bummer but it's verifiable.

Eric wrote:

"How many times does it need to be said..."

I repeated myself one time about them not starting the war.  How many times have you said "they lied"?  Ten?  Twenty?

    Lied about what?....Benghazi?...Healthcare promises?....So those weren't intentional lies even though in both cases they knew their positions were not truthful?...Unless you can somehow prove they didn't lie and or coverup the truth then please try and convince all those that can see it for what it is....Just watched an interview from 2010 with Biden...He (Biden) proclaimed that Iraq would be a huge accomplishment for the [name] cowh administration because Iraq is moving towards stability and a representative government...Just what is this administration accountable for?....They didn't start it and didn't want it but will take credit at the time when things were good...so now after their actions and the most current news does this mean they are responsible for the terrorists taking over key cities?...Can't have it both ways...but they'll try.... In 2002 on Meet the Press then Sen HRC voted FOR the military force in Iraq and then later said on the NBC Talkshow...I thought it was a measure to send and keep inspectors in to do their jobs...This is just one example of the hypocrisy of those that supported and then ran away from their own vote/opinions....either she actually believed and supported the measure or was too stupid to understand but yet voted for it.....For the record the cowh as a state senator did speak out against the measure...

Otter wrote:

Intelligence CAN be faulty but Bush sending us to war in Iraq was not the fault of our intelligence gathering. He listened to what he wanted to hear and to nothing else.
I said it was now both Bush's war and Obama's war because Obama should have stopped it earlier on in his administration. He should have immediately worked to bring our guys home. Yes, he gets credit for finally doing it, but he is not blameless.
Nevertheless, he did not start it and the fault has to also go back to the Bush administration.  Blaming it on the COWH (who you obviously cannot show the respect of even calling the POTUS) just isn't right.
I'm thinking you never called GWB the COWH, did you?

Bush lied in those 16 words in his SOTU address and he emphasized his lie with his voice and facial expressions during that speech. Then he blamed it on faulty intelligence when there was nothing wrong with the intelligence.  Joe Wilson was the thorn in his side that proved his lie, so he set his administration about the task of destroying Wilson's wife's career.

Real history is a bummer but it's verifiable.

Just go back and read comments from the individuals from both parties that feared wmd being in the possession of sadaam...Then check their votes on the use of military force and both parties supported the measure enough for it to be passed...The cowh wasn't on the national scene but while running for state office he opposed the use of force...You tried on the other forum to whine about the use of cowh and the lack of respect (your opinion) and it's really tired and lame for you to continue here...You are so blinded by whatever kool aid you're drinking...NEVER blamed the cowh for starting the Iraq War...but nice try...someone else already tried that move...

I'm not denying that lies were made... all administrations lie... it seems to be a requirement for the position of politician.  Those people that are naive and don't understand that have my sympathy.

Maybe I am being overly critical Mediawatcher.  It is just that you predictably bring up the word "lie", "lied", or "lies" regarding the administration and BHO in particular, seemingly at least once a week.  I am not the kind of person that keeps copies of other people's posts, so I cannot say how many quotes of "lies" are actually repeats of the same content, but I suspect some are repeats.

The current administration does not have my trust or allegiance.  As a matter of fact, I hope enough Republicans are elected to override a presidential veto of legislation repealing Obamacare.  The 2016 presidential election should be interesting.

Edit: According to Wikipedia (I know): In the second Democratic debate of the 2008 presidential race, Clinton said that she voted for the resolution under the impression that Bush would allow more time for UN inspectors to find proof of weapons of mass destruction before proceeding.

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

Intelligence CAN be faulty but Bush sending us to war in Iraq was not the fault of our intelligence gathering. He listened to what he wanted to hear and to nothing else.
I said it was now both Bush's war and Obama's war because Obama should have stopped it earlier on in his administration. He should have immediately worked to bring our guys home. Yes, he gets credit for finally doing it, but he is not blameless.
Nevertheless, he did not start it and the fault has to also go back to the Bush administration.  Blaming it on the COWH (who you obviously cannot show the respect of even calling the POTUS) just isn't right.
I'm thinking you never called GWB the COWH, did you?

Bush lied in those 16 words in his SOTU address and he emphasized his lie with his voice and facial expressions during that speech. Then he blamed it on faulty intelligence when there was nothing wrong with the intelligence.  Joe Wilson was the thorn in his side that proved his lie, so he set his administration about the task of destroying Wilson's wife's career.

Real history is a bummer but it's verifiable.

     Just go back and read comments from the individuals from both parties that feared wmd being in the possession of sadaam...Then check their votes on the use of military force and both parties supported the measure enough for it to be passed...The cowh wasn't on the national scene but while running for state office he opposed the use of force...You tried on the other forum to whine about the use of cowh and the lack of respect (your opinion) and it's really tired and lame for you to continue here...You are so blinded by whatever kool aid you're drinking...NEVER blamed the cowh for starting the Iraq War...but nice try...someone else already tried that move...

It seems to me that when Bush started our war with Iraq he was the COWH, wasn't he?  Don't pretend it's not a term of derision and that you show a complete lack of respect for the office when you use it.  It's not bothering Obama, it only shows your lack of class and acceptance of the fact that the POTUS was duly elected by the American people- twice, in fact.  And the fact that Obama opposed the use of military force when the war was started only shows his intelligence and insight into the situation. History has proven that we shouldn't have been there and the new fall of Fallujah shows we accomplished nothing.
Thanks for bringing up the fact the Obama opposed the war. So did I, for what it's worth. And we were both right. At that time the war was supported by congress and the American people. I don't deny that. It wasn't supported by Obama and it wasn't supported by about 13% of Americans who knew we weren't going to change the middle east no matter what we did. Religious fanaticism can't be destroyed by guns.  It can only disappear with education and enlightenment.  And also, if I remember correctly, at least 13% of us knew that it was 19 or 20 Saudis that attacked the WTC and not a single Iraqi.

Sorry if it only makes you feel better to believe that everyone agreed with the insanity, but that's not correct. All what happened back then proves is you can fool most of the people some of the time. That is, if you're a proficient enough liar.

Eric wrote:

I'm not denying that lies were made... all administrations lie... it seems to be a requirement for the position of politician.  Those people that are naive and don't understand that have my sympathy.

Maybe I am being overly critical Mediawatcher.  It is just that you predictably bring up the word "lie", "lied", or "lies" regarding the administration and BHO in particular, seemingly at least once a week.  I am not the kind of person that keeps copies of other people's posts, so I cannot say how many quotes of "lies" are actually repeats of the same content, but I suspect some are repeats.

The current administration does not have my trust or allegiance.  As a matter of fact, I hope enough Republicans are elected to override a presidential veto of legislation repealing Obamacare.  The 2016 presidential election should be interesting.

Edit: According to Wikipedia (I know): In the second Democratic debate of the 2008 presidential race, Clinton said that she voted for the resolution under the impression that Bush would allow more time for UN inspectors to find proof of weapons of mass destruction before proceeding.

    So in the case of hrc...she voted for something that involved Americans being sent into harms way without actually knowing what she was voting for...strange what happens when politicians begin to 'cya'....they dig themselves into deeper holes...but she's consistent because that's how her incompetence was on display as Sec of State during Benghazi...When there's a pattern voters shouldn't ignore....When discussing the cowh it's difficult not to say some form of the word 'lie' especially when discussing healthcare and Benghazi....like usual in a lot of cases it's not the mistake/error etc....it's the deception and cover-ups that make it much worse...Agree with you about the trust and allegiance statement and I'm not comforted with the 'rino's'...country club establishment republicans to somehow have a fix for the problems that we face...There are enough career..power driven...controlling politicians on both sides that are past their exparation dates in Congress...Only hope that the republicans don't turn to a recycled...status quo candidate for their nominee...

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

Intelligence CAN be faulty but Bush sending us to war in Iraq was not the fault of our intelligence gathering. He listened to what he wanted to hear and to nothing else.
I said it was now both Bush's war and Obama's war because Obama should have stopped it earlier on in his administration. He should have immediately worked to bring our guys home. Yes, he gets credit for finally doing it, but he is not blameless.
Nevertheless, he did not start it and the fault has to also go back to the Bush administration.  Blaming it on the COWH (who you obviously cannot show the respect of even calling the POTUS) just isn't right.
I'm thinking you never called GWB the COWH, did you?

Bush lied in those 16 words in his SOTU address and he emphasized his lie with his voice and facial expressions during that speech. Then he blamed it on faulty intelligence when there was nothing wrong with the intelligence.  Joe Wilson was the thorn in his side that proved his lie, so he set his administration about the task of destroying Wilson's wife's career.

Real history is a bummer but it's verifiable.

     Just go back and read comments from the individuals from both parties that feared wmd being in the possession of sadaam...Then check their votes on the use of military force and both parties supported the measure enough for it to be passed...The cowh wasn't on the national scene but while running for state office he opposed the use of force...You tried on the other forum to whine about the use of cowh and the lack of respect (your opinion) and it's really tired and lame for you to continue here...You are so blinded by whatever kool aid you're drinking...NEVER blamed the cowh for starting the Iraq War...but nice try...someone else already tried that move...

It seems to me that when Bush started our war with Iraq he was the COWH, wasn't he?  Don't pretend it's not a term of derision and that you show a complete lack of respect for the office when you use it.  It's not bothering Obama, it only shows your lack of class and acceptance of the fact that the POTUS was duly elected by the American people- twice, in fact.  And the fact that Obama opposed the use of military force when the war was started only shows his intelligence and insight into the situation. History has proven that we shouldn't have been there and the new fall of Fallujah shows we accomplished nothing.
Thanks for bringing up the fact the Obama opposed the war. So did I, for what it's worth. And we were both right. At that time the war was supported by congress and the American people. I don't deny that. It wasn't supported by Obama and it wasn't supported by about 13% of Americans who knew we weren't going to change the middle east no matter what we did. Religious fanaticism can't be destroyed by guns.  It can only disappear with education and enlightenment.  And also, if I remember correctly, at least 13% of us knew that it was 19 or 20 Saudis that attacked the WTC and not a single Iraqi.

Sorry if it only makes you feel better to believe that everyone agreed with the insanity, but that's not correct. All what happened back then proves is you can fool most of the people some of the time.  That is, if you're a proficient enough liar.

Again....tired and lame.....Your opening statement just proves that you are unable to comprehend...never said Bush wasn't the President responsible and accountable and further don't believe that he's ever attempted to not to take that responsibility for making his decision...don't know how much clearer that can be to you...It seems that the cowh has been the individual that has not been held either responsible and/or accountable for his actions [healthcare...NSA...IRS...Fast & Furious...Benghazi]...Like many others it's much easier to blame the former president rather than the cowh and his administration for their 'mistruths...cover-ups...and broken promises'...

First of all, Obama did apologize in a national address for saying thata anyone who wants to keep their healthcare can do so. I'm sorry you didn't watch the speech. As for apologizing for Obamacare itself, he has no reason to do so, not yet anyway. The full repurcussions of Obama care haven't not been realized yet, and they may turn out in a year or so to prove to be very positive.
Therefore, no apology for passing the law, which Congress did, is necessary yet.

The NSA spying began under GWB. He hasn't apologized for that either.
He also hasn't apologized for manipulating the intelligence that led us into the deaths of over 5000 young Americans in the wars he started.
The administration "accepted responsibility" for Benghazi. That was an unforseen event that they should have been more prepared for. Their representatives appeared before congress and answered the questions asked of them.
Bush never did that for the Iraq war.

You don't like Obama because he's a Democrat so you aren't capable of looking through clear eyes towards him. If you did, you could actually use his name in your discussions instead of a derisive term that proves you didn't like him to begin with and had no intent of giving him a chance. That's all you prove when you call him the COWH- that you are incapable of judging his actions in an impartial way.
He's the POTUS and will be for almost 3 more years. He won't be impeached- if he is, he won't be sent packing.
I'm sorry that you are going to be angry for 3 more years, but I'm pretty sure you will.

Otter wrote:

You don't like Obama because he's a Democrat so you aren't capable of looking through clear eyes towards him.

I don't understand why some people can't accept the fact that others who just don't like the policies of a politician, don't like some of the outright lies, obfuscation, and poor decisions regarding major legislation - it's not necessarily the party but the individual in office at that time. Party affiliation has more to do with raising money from particular demographics than anything else. Choose your side! I prefer to be an independent thinker who will vote for what is best for the country regardless of party - not a particular demographic. Unfortunately most politicians get captured by the D.C. mentality and end up as corrupt as the rest of the bunch. Somehow the country keeps stumbling along though - have to give a lot of credit to the founders who laid the foundation however imperfect at times.

Otter wrote:

First of all, Obama did apologize in a national address for saying thata anyone who wants to keep their healthcare can do so. I'm sorry you didn't watch the speech. As for apologizing for Obamacare itself, he has no reason to do so, not yet anyway. The full repurcussions of Obama care haven't not been realized yet, and they may turn out in a year or so to prove to be very positive.
Therefore, no apology for passing the law, which Congress did, is necessary yet.

The NSA spying began under GWB. He hasn't apologized for that  either.
He also hasn't apologized for manipulating the intelligence that led us into the deaths of over 5000 young Americans in the wars he started.  
The administration "accepted responsibility" for Benghazi.  That was an unforseen event that they should have been more prepared for. Their representatives appeared before congress and answered the questions asked of them.
Bush never did that for the Iraq war.

You don't like Obama because he's a Democrat so you aren't capable of looking through clear eyes towards him. If you did, you could actually use his name in your discussions instead of a derisive term that proves you didn't like him to begin with and had no intent of giving him a chance. That's all you prove when you call him the COWH- that you are incapable of judging his actions in an impartial way.
He's the POTUS and will be for almost 3 more years. He won't be impeached- if he is, he won't be sent packing.
I'm sorry that you are going to be angry for 3 more years, but I'm pretty sure you will.

NO!!!!....He said that with a qualifier---blaming the insurance companies for cancelling the policies in the first place...the administration didn't see this coming when the insurance companies were mandated to comply?...Nice try but that certainly was no apology of taking responsibility...I dislike the policies of the cowh and for the record disliked the over spending of President Bush while he campaigned a fiscal conservative and yet did not govern as one...Made me laugh...you accuse me of not judging him in an impartial way because of referring to him as the cowh....New but lame....NSA Spying began under President Bush???? WOW....so it all began with Bush?. No other president utilized those capabilities?..Now is that your defininition of impartial judging?...The cowh went on a world tour of apologizing so yes like his speech in Egypt....Believe it or not angry is not an accurate label whatsoever...the cowh didn't fool me and didn't support him twice...seems like the 'teaparty' democrats [far far left] appear to be much angrier because they thought the cowh would be even more of a socialist...But nice statement...."He wont be impeached-if he is, he wont be sent packing"---now that's confidence in his governing abilities...Lastly never have called for him to be impeached but in your world by referring to him as cowh that probably means otherwise....

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

You don't like Obama because he's a Democrat so you aren't capable of looking through clear eyes towards him.  

I don't understand why some people can't accept the fact that others who just don't like the policies of a politician, don't like some of the outright lies, obfuscation, and poor decisions regarding major legislation - it's not necessarily the party but the individual in office at that time. Party affiliation has more to do with raising money from particular demographics than anything else. Choose your side! I prefer to be an independent thinker who will vote for what is best for the country regardless of party - not a particular demographic. Unfortunately most politicians get captured by the D.C. mentality and end up as corrupt as the rest of the bunch. Somehow the country keeps stumbling along though - have to give a lot of credit to the founders who laid the foundation however imperfect at times.

Now all that's needed is better choices of candidates to make the choice from and voters that have a clue instead of asking/expecting the opposite of what President Kennedy called for...What you can do for your country....

If Kennedy was in the White House would the republicans call for him to be impeached?