Whenever you want to talk about Obama like on a forum, facebook or a blog… chances are people are going to bring Bush into everything. When you want to talk about an Obama crime, chances are people will do some google research to find something that Bush did similar and then they’ll blame Bush. Every time you talk about Barack Obama, George W. Bush’s name is brought up every time. For example things like Benghazi, Operation: F&F, drones, Obamacare, the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, etc. Bush is always brought into everything all of the time. Okay, I think you get my point now.
I think the reason people do it ’cause it’s their way of trying to shut you up about Barack Obama. They don’t like you accusing Obama of a lot things so they bring up things that Bush did hoping to shut you up. How? A lot of people believe that just because past presidents do something similar that gives Obama the right to do the same thing which that is how that makes them believe that Barack Obama is an innocent man. They also believe that since past presidents have not got in trouble for the things they did that makes them believe Barack won’t get in trouble.
Stop right there. Time out.
The things that past presidents did… doesn’t prove Barack Obama’s innocence. It’s also not stopping Barack for getting into trouble either. Barack is just using George W. Bush as his shield. Barack is using Bush as his protector by blaming everything on him and the American people is too naive to fall for his bullshit.
What past presidents did is not stopping Congress from fighting back at Barack. People blaming everything on Bush is not gonna prove anything. I don’t think George W. himself appreciates getting blamed for everything either. George W. hasn’t been in office for many years now and he’s still being talked about. Bush doesn’t respond to his accusations that are thrown at him ’cause he doesn’t have to. He’s probably doing better things like enjoying life with his family and stuff.
A lot of people say that Barack orchestrating the Benghazi attack is conspiracy theory well a lot of people still blaming Bush on 9/11/01. That’s conspiracy theory too.
That’s the problem in American politics when it comes to discussion. Back and forth hypocrisy. A lot of you guys like to accuse me of being a hypocrite but the truth is that’s what everyone else is. There are hypocrites everywhere and that includes all of you.
Barack is just using Bush as his shield. There are three ways of how Barack is protecting himself. He’s using his race and he blames George W. Bush and FOX News as his protective shield. That’s how he gets away with everything successfully. It’s amazing how people quickly falls for Barack’s bullshit.
No president is innocent of their crimes and scandals… that includes Bush. Conservatives already know that George W. is a war criminal, we’re not dumb.
What past presidents did is not stopping us from calling out Barack’s illegal actions in the White House. When a president does bad things in the White House, we’re always gonna call ’em out… doesn’t matter who the president is.
That’s how America works. A president treats the country badly, we’re gonna respond to him badly. The American people has every right to hate on a president if he’s treating us badly ’cause we live here. It’s amazing how anti-Obama people get into a lot of trouble when people have no problem talking all of hate at past presidents. Hypocrisy all over. Gotta love it.
I’m tired of George W. being brought into everything. That proves nothing. They do it ’cause it’s all they got and they’re just jealous as hell. Come up with something new, already.
Kev
K'Brocking 
The reason they bring up Bush with F&F is because HE is the one that started Project Gunrunner, which is what F^F is a part of. The same with Afghanistan/Iraq.
A lot of people believe that just because past presidents do something similar that gives Obama the right to do the same thing which that is how that makes them believe that Barack Obama is an innocent man.
The reason people bring up past Presidents is mot to “prove” Obama is innocent. They do it to show people out there that what Obama is doing is nothing new. That this has been going on forever. The idiots that are always bashing Obama don’t seem to realize this. They think Obama is the only one to ever do this shit.
They also believe that since past presidents have not got in trouble for the things they did that makes them believe Barack won’t get in trouble.
Stop right there. Time out. Wrong again (as usual)
The reason they believe Obama won’t get “in trouble” for it is because they know how the system works. They know Congress won’t act. Or they know that quite simply some (yes, some- not all) of it is ridiculous and there is no evidence.
For example: Benghazi. Everybody, including Congress knows that Obama didn’t order the attacks or give terrorists permission to attack, so that isn’t going to be pursued.
Now, thy do know, and there is evidence of a cover up. But what was being covered up is that the WH had knowledge and intel that an attack was being planned, but they did nothing about it.
Other instances where Obama did something wrong, but isn’t getting “:in trouble” (at least not they way you want him too) is because the offenses aren’t serious enough.
For example: The recess appointments. The NSA spying. Operation F&F.
In the case of the recess appointments, there was an issue over what constitutes a Congressional Recess. The worst case scenario here is that the appointments will be nullified and new appointments will have to be made. Congress will not impeach over this because it is not serious enough, and it is easily rectified.
As far as NSA and F&F, there were laws on the books allowing these things to happen. The Courts ruled the laws unconstitutional, and all that will happen here is the laws will be stricken from the books. There won’t be any ramifications for what happened while the laws were in effect.
That’s just the way it is and how the system works. You obviously don’t understand that.
And no matter how much you want it to be otherwise, it just isn’t going to happen.
You have to understand how impeachment works, and how the decision to impeach is made. It is a very expensive process, and there needs to be absolute proof. No one is going to start the process without knowing ABSOLUTELY that they will be successful.
Consideration also has to be given for the fallout- the impact it will have on the Country, the government, foreign relations…so many other things.
Impeaching, especially a failed attempt would make the US look bad-VERY bad on the world stage. It will be viewed as a major weakness. We would lose power, respect…the economy will be affected…
In the end, it really boils down to one thing-
which is the lesser of two evils.
The reason they bring up Bush with F&F is because HE is the one that started Project Gunrunner, which is what F^F is a part of. The same with Afghanistan/Iraq.
Project Gunrunner and Operation: F&F are not the same thing. Both are totally separate and unrelated.
Read this interesting article explaining how:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/project_gunrunner_wasnt_fast_and_furious_by_any_means.html
The reason people bring up past Presidents is mot to “prove” Obama is innocent. They do it to show people out there that what Obama is doing is nothing new. That this has been going on forever. The idiots that are always bashing Obama don’t seem to realize this. They think Obama is the only one to ever do this shit.
We all know that Obama is not the only one doing this shit. It’s just that what you can’t get through your thick head is that what Obama has been doing is way more and way worse than past presidents ever had. Can you count how many crimes and scandals past presidents have? They haven’t had many from what I remember. Nixon: Watergate Scandal. Reagan: Iran/Contra affair, Beirut Bombings. Bill Clinton: Monica Lewinksy scandal, Waco bombing, Desert Storm. JFK: Cuban Missile Crisis/Bay of Pigs, Vietnam War, etc. I think you get my point. Obama makes past presidents look too good. Obama has way too many crimes and scandals than any president in the past. You know that.
The reason they believe Obama won’t get “in trouble” for it is because they know how the system works. They know Congress won’t act. Or they know that quite simply some (yes, some- not all) of it is ridiculous and there is no evidence.
For example: Benghazi. Everybody, including Congress knows that Obama didn’t order the attacks or give terrorists permission to attack, so that isn’t going to be pursued.
Now, thy do know, and there is evidence of a cover up. But what was being covered up is that the WH had knowledge and intel that an attack was being planned, but they did nothing about it.
You haven’t been following the news lately haven’t you? Congress is already acting. They’ve been investigating Obama since 2008 for his crimes like Benghazi, IRS, NSA, etc. They’ve been investigating him for a long time. The Republicans in Congress have been anyway. Many Republicans believe that Obama was responsible too.
Other instances where Obama did something wrong, but isn’t getting “:in trouble” (at least not they way you want him too) is because the offenses aren’t serious enough.
For example: The recess appointments. The NSA spying. Operation F&F.
You have no idea how the impeachment process work at all. An impeachable offense doesn’t have to be something serious and huge. I explained that many times. An impeachable offense CAN be something small as the recess appointments. You are not understanding what they really mean by “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It means that it can be something political, not really criminal.
Here’s a nice article explaining it:
http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
In the case of the recess appointments, there was an issue over what constitutes a Congressional Recess. The worst case scenario here is that the appointments will be nullified and new appointments will have to be made. Congress will not impeach over this because it is not serious enough, and it is easily rectified.
Of course, it’s serious enough. If you disobey the Constitution, it’s always serious and a big deal. They can impeach over this absolutely. All they have to do is file in the articles of impeachment ’cause there’s already proof that Obama didn’t follow the Constitution with the recess appointments.
As far as NSA and F&F, there were laws on the books allowing these things to happen. The Courts ruled the laws unconstitutional, and all that will happen here is the laws will be stricken from the books. There won’t be any ramifications for what happened while the laws were in effect.
That’s just the way it is and how the system works. You obviously don’t understand that.
Did you go to law school? No. I bet you didn’t. You have no idea whether or not the Obama administration are doing anything criminal.
You have to understand how impeachment works, and how the decision to impeach is made. It is a very expensive process, and there needs to be absolute proof. No one is going to start the process without knowing ABSOLUTELY that they will be successful.
Like I said before, you have no idea how the impeachment process works. There don’t need to be absolute proof to get the impeachment hearings rolling. All somebody have to do is that if somebody in the House feels that the President is not doing a good job as President whether he is disobeying the Constitution or committing crimes, he/she can file articles of impeachment. Then they’ll debate it, vote and if it’s passed… the president is impeached. Then they’ll get tried for the Senate.
There doesn’t need to be absolute proof for impeachment. Anybody can file if they feel that the president isn’t doing a good job.
I believe that the only reason people in Congress isn’t doing anything ’cause like one reader said on here the race card would get played. People in Congress are scared of being called racist if they act.
They can file articles of impeachment anytime they want to. You’re just full of shit like usual. All you make are assumptions.
Kev
And to answer your last question, Bush is obviously the lesser evil. Bush wasn’t a great president but he WAS better than Obama. At least Bush was a patriot and showed his love for the country while Obama did nothing but show hatred for us.
Kev
And you are still talking like a liberal too. Give it up, man.
Kev
For the millionth time, do you even know what the Supreme Court does? They aren’t there to hand down indictments or make criminal or civil judgments against people – the decision doesn’t get anybody in trouble, Kev.
You could be right but he still got busted either way. He got caught with his lawlessness. The Supreme Court is a federal court, highest court in government who takes the Constitution very seriously. They’ll call out anything that disobey’s the constitution. They won’t care if it’s something like this. When the Supreme Court proves that the president disobeyed the Constitution, the House can feel free to file articles of impeachment. Can happen anytime now. It’ll be interesting how this turns out.
Kev
The Constitution is not to be played with and Obama is shredding it to pieces and the Supreme Court finally got him. Get over it.
Kev
You’re not understanding that article on F&F and Project Gunrunner.
Gunrunner was started by Bush. F&F was started by Obama.
BUT, and that’s a big but- F&F falls under Gunrunner. That does not absolve Obama, and it dopes not blame Bush. Bush had nothing to do with F&F. THAT is purely under the Obama administration. But again, it is part of an act started, or put in place by the Bush administration.
Try to keep up.
Regarding Impeachment: Again, try to keep up here. I am NOT debating what is or is not an impeachable offense, or whether or not Congress CAN or can NOT take action.
My point is a matter of WILL THEY take action.
Do you understand the difference between CAN act and WILL act? I’m guessing you don’t, since you have a hard time following the subject and every time I talk about what they WILL or WILL NOT do, you respond with what they CAN do.
THAT is not the question there.
Also lacking in understanding on your part is the difference between impeachment and impeachment proceedings.
You do indeed need proof to succeed with impeachment. BUT, without evidence, NO ONE is going to start impeachment proceedings.
Here’s how it works- first there is an investigation, which indeed is going on now. Now, pending the results of that investigation, an impeachment process will or will not happen.
THIS is will be based on whatever “evidence” is uncovered in the investigation.
And a gain, getting back to “can” vs “will”…CAN they start impeachment proceedings based on what they know of the recess appointments? Yes, they can. But the bigger question is WILL they? And to that, the answer is most definitely, NO. They will not.
Again, try yo keep up here. It shouldn’t be that difficult.
All that above is just YOUR definition of “impeachment proceedings”. Where’s your source for all this???
Kev
And the truth is there is really no proof or hard evidence yet of whether or not Operation: F&F was started by Bush. It’s nothing but speculation for now. Bush never sent guns to drug lords in Mexico. Obama did.
Kev
Kev Brock says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:34 pm
And to answer your last question, Bush is obviously the lesser evil. Bush wasn’t a great president but he WAS better than Obama. At least Bush was a patriot and showed his love for the country while Obama did nothing but show hatred for us.
When I mentioned the lesser of two evils, it wasn’t “Bush vs Obama”, it was to impeach or not to impeach, and it was in relation to the recess appointments.
It’s very clear here that NOT impeaching is the lesser of two evils. This is something that can easily be fixed without impeachment, and the fallout of impeach would be far too serious in relation to the crime. It would be the equivalent of giving someone prison time for a speeding ticket.
The punishment has to fit the crime. The crime has to fit the punishment.
Get it yet?
I get your point but If you say that Obama won’t get in trouble with the recess appointments ’cause you claim it’s not that serious, then the Supreme Court wouldn’t have called him out on it. Well, the Supreme Court just said he was wrong on it so it must be serious. Anything that disobeys the Constitution is serious, man. He should be punished for something like that. If you disobey the Constitution even if it’s something small as this, he should get some kind of punishment. A president’s job is to be faithful to the Constitution at all times. He must faithfully execute… preserve, protect and defend. Doesn’t matter what it is, it’s always bad for the Constitution.
You shouldn’t assume they won’t do anything ’cause that’s all you do… “assume”.
If Obama was republican and white, he would have been impeached a long time ago.
Kev
I think it’s pretty likely that Obama will be impeached later this year ’cause it’s looking like the Republicans will get our Senate back. Quite a bit of republicans have been winning the Senate seat lately. We all know that the Republicans will act on Obama, it’s just that those blind and ignorant democrats/liberals in Congress won’t do anything. All the republicans want Obama out but the dems still have a hard on for him.
Argue all you want, dude, I’m standing to my beliefs that Obama is responsible for a lot of his crimes and scandals.
If you think Obama isn’t capable of doing such things, then you’re delusional.
Kev
And impeachment is only an accusation. You still need a conviction to remove someone from office.
Remember now, Clinton was impeached. But Congress failed to reach a conviction.
If, at sometime, they finally do decide to impeach Obama, it does not mean he will be removed from office.
I know that. An Obama impeachment could probably be successful through the House since it’s republican controlled but would be difficult through the Senate since it’s full of Dems. Like I said, if the republicans can get their Senate back, then a removal from office could be successful.
Who knows, maybe the Dems will one day turn their back on Obama whenever too much truth gets out there, I doubt it, though. I think the Dems will always have a hard on for him no matter how much gets proven out there.
Kev
A nice article showing you how Obama’s recess appointments could put him at risk of impeachment:
http://www.livetradingnews.com/us-supreme-court-recess-ruling-puts-obama-at-risk-of-impeachment-56797.htm#.U68fcVX1EtA
He has finally been caught with his lawlessness. The Supreme Court just proved that. Can’t be hard to understand, right?
Kev