Quantcast

Washington Post Liberal Bob Woodward blasts President Obama ‘madness’. Is Obama a danger to America ?

CAPISCE 2013/02/27 14:18:34
Yes
no
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward attacked President Barack Obama on Wednesday, saying the commander-in-chief’s decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier because of budget cuts is “a kind of madness.”
The Pentagon announced earlier this month the U.S.S. Harry Truman, which was supposed to leave for the Persian Gulf, will
remain stateside due to budget concerns. The sequester, which will cut billions in defense spending, is scheduled to hit on Friday.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • deidara.trueart 2013/03/02 19:32:37
  • ☆stillthe12c☆ 2013/03/02 19:30:04
    Yes
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    But everything he is doing is according to his plan to weaken the GOP.
  • libertybelle 2013/03/02 02:01:20
    Yes
    libertybelle
    +1
    He is a narcissistic Nazi.
  • Sav 2013/03/01 19:55:10
    Yes
    Sav
    +1
    he also have memory loss problem too
    in 2008 he said..............
    no tax increase.......but more taxes
    will get our troops back............but not ready to leave Mid-East
    can go on&on;, on&on;
    cant decide it was lie or memory loss,
    Bottom line is he is danger to the sovereignty of America
  • Maj. C. D. Hardy 2013/03/01 18:37:39
    Yes
    Maj. C. D. Hardy
    +1
    Obama is the worst foe we have ever faced! He is slowly dismantling America a piece at a time from within our own government.
  • Andrew 2013/02/28 21:38:03
    Yes
    Andrew
    +1
    Always was and always will be.
  • EvilMonkey 2013/02/28 11:28:12
    Yes
    EvilMonkey
    +1
    He's a danger. We are tough though and can survive whatever he tries to do.
  • Woof 2013/02/28 10:30:01
    Yes
    Woof
    +1
    That's because D'rats are no better. Progressives are all the same. Cannibalism looks perfectly normal to a cannibal.
  • JonDeniro 2013/02/28 08:33:02
    Yes
    JonDeniro
    +1
    More than "a danger." He has already done great harm. He is an enemy to the U.S.A.
  • MapoTofu 2013/02/28 07:07:03
    Yes
    MapoTofu
    +2
    Yes. But because he is INeffective and UNproductive. And a divider, blamer, apologized, excuse maker, INcommunicative, closed minded, ideological, irrational, arrogant, spiteful, childish, unprofessional, a lifelong politician, doesn't comprehend economics, weak, sympathetic toward extremist enemies and for some strange reason has garnered the loyalty if the media, Hollywood, blacks and Latinos. I don't get the appeal.
  • Cat 2013/02/28 05:58:28
    Yes
    Cat
    +1
    Of course, so is progressive socialism.
  • Fannie 2013/02/28 03:52:14 (edited)
    no
    Fannie
    it's Bob and the Klan danger
  • CAPISCE Fannie 2013/02/28 13:34:19
    CAPISCE
    Wow....clueless
  • Fannie CAPISCE 2013/03/01 02:41:19
    Fannie
    +1
    Hey, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and who else outted Valerie Plame.........and who was in court...........I'll give you a clue..........B
  • liberty... Fannie 2013/03/02 02:06:20
    libertybelle
    Poor Scooter..that's who.
  • Fannie liberty... 2013/03/02 03:43:50
    Fannie
    Woodwork too.............that's who.
  • RJeffreySavlov 2013/02/28 02:03:32
    Yes
    RJeffreySavlov
    +1
    If Woodward, a liberal can't trust him who can. yes he is dangerous but the democrats in congress are too stupid to take the bull by the horns and get rid of him.
  • nicesteve 2013/02/28 02:00:45
    Yes
    nicesteve
    +1
    If Obama and most of the other members of the Democratic party aren't
    dangerous for our country, then at the very least, they're pitifully shy of
    being beneficial for the same. They're only beneficial towards their own
    agenda. now, that's beginning to sound dangerous.
  • plowboy 2013/02/28 01:09:11
    Yes
    plowboy
    +2
    Barack Hussein Obama is destined to destroy America.

    obama wants to destroy america

    obama destined to destroy america
  • Donna 2013/02/28 01:03:44
    Yes
    Donna
    +1
    Obama is having another tantrum. At least he finally decided to attend a sequester meeting ...the day before the cuts are set to kick in. They also want to cut White House travel... ( What? No more vacations? ) Once again he slacks when budget time comes around.
  • Thane36425 2013/02/28 00:48:12
    Yes
    Thane36425
    +1
    We still have troops in Iraq and they might need that support. Then again, it is kind of silly having a carrier group or two in that bathtub while Obama is picking a fight with Iran. It's a long run down the Gulf and through the Straits of Hormuz. Two articles here well worth reading.

    http://rense.com/general64/fo...

    http://nation.time.com/2012/1...
  • Marc m 2013/02/28 00:28:09
    Yes
    Marc m
    +1
    YES ! but no one seems to care
  • olylift 2013/02/27 23:00:33
    Yes
    olylift
    +3
    He's releasing criminals into our streets.
  • Donna olylift 2013/02/28 00:58:36 (edited)
    Donna
    +1
    All while checking innocent Americans for guns. Isnt it madness???
  • olylift Donna 2013/02/28 01:11:54
    olylift
    +2
    Apparently so. Any other president would be impeached.
  • Donna olylift 2013/02/28 01:22:13
    Donna
    +1
    Yes they would, but we are now living under corruption. Eventually something will have to give here. I dont see how this can go on much longer .
  • olylift Donna 2013/02/28 01:45:14
    olylift
    +1
    I don't think it will!
  • Mark P. 2013/02/27 22:43:51
    Yes
    Mark P.
    +2
    Obama is doing the only thing he knows how to do and that is community style organizing demegog. No leadership, just his lips flapping in the wind.
  • BrightShadow 2013/02/27 22:25:33
    Yes
    BrightShadow
    +2
    It seems every decision Obama makes is political and not with the care of the people or the country in mind.
  • boneman1 2013/02/27 21:30:14
    Yes
    boneman1
    +3
    Obama's the biggest danger to this country that I've seen in my lifetime. He seems to have a real disdain for the constitution or anything that promotes the foundation this country was founded on.
  • Tic-Toc 2013/02/27 21:29:06
    Yes
    Tic-Toc
    +3
    Have been saying this since Day One!
  • Hawk 2013/02/27 21:16:43
    Yes
    Hawk
    +5
    He is nothing more than a smooth talking con artist who is trying to destroy our country. obama con artist obama con artist
  • Todd The Libertarian 2013/02/27 21:04:46
    no
    Todd The Libertarian
    +2
    America will survive.Woodward hunts presidents looking for his Nixon rush.He went after Clinton,Reagan Dubya.He sees crooked presidents like Ted Cruz sees commies.I heard Boeners words in 2011 as hen Cantor bragged they got 98% of what they wanted.Hatch,Paul n Cruz own it.They have guts even though this is insane.
  • Mark P. Todd Th... 2013/02/27 22:46:15
    Mark P.
    +2
    So you did hear Obama say he would veto any attempt to change the recommendations of the panel?
  • Magus BN-0 Mark P. 2013/02/28 01:06:01
    Magus BN-0
    +1
    No, and neither did you. Because that's not even close to what Obama actually said.
  • Mark P. Magus BN-0 2013/02/28 01:35:05
  • olylift Mark P. 2013/02/28 01:46:27
    olylift
    Epic response. Loved it.
  • Magus BN-0 olylift 2013/02/28 02:16:35
    Magus BN-0
    +1
    The fact that he had to post an image instead of a link to an actual news article shows how fake his "epic" response is.
  • olylift Magus BN-0 2013/02/28 02:36:34
    olylift
    Why are you denying me my rights as an immigrant? Why can't Irish immigrants get the dream act?
  • Mark P. Magus BN-0 2013/02/28 02:53:10
    Mark P.
    +1
    The one and only.
    About This BlogArchiveE-MailRSSSend
    Print | Text
    President Obama in 2011: ‘No Easy Off-Ramps’ on Sequester
    By Pete Hegseth
    February 22, 2013 10:57 A.M. Comments17
    Print Text


    As the video clip above shows, President Obama was crystal clear in November 2011 that he would veto any congressional efforts to avert automatic spending cuts under sequestration. Here’s what he said then:

    “Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts – domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.”

    What are we to make, then, of the president’s sudden, full-throated assault on sequestration in the last few weeks, as he takes Congress to task for not averting the cuts, now scheduled to take effect March 1?

    If we were being generous, we could say that the president has “seen the light” and realized that the sequestration cuts which his own defense secretary memorably likened to a “meat ax” chopping away at military capabilities — are hardly an ideal strategy for reducing spending. In fact, as some have pointed out on the Corner, the reductions represent a small portion of the budget.

    The less generous, and perhaps more likely, expla...












    The one and only.
    About This BlogArchiveE-MailRSSSend
    Print | Text
    President Obama in 2011: ‘No Easy Off-Ramps’ on Sequester
    By Pete Hegseth
    February 22, 2013 10:57 A.M. Comments17
    Print Text


    As the video clip above shows, President Obama was crystal clear in November 2011 that he would veto any congressional efforts to avert automatic spending cuts under sequestration. Here’s what he said then:

    “Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts – domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.”

    What are we to make, then, of the president’s sudden, full-throated assault on sequestration in the last few weeks, as he takes Congress to task for not averting the cuts, now scheduled to take effect March 1?

    If we were being generous, we could say that the president has “seen the light” and realized that the sequestration cuts which his own defense secretary memorably likened to a “meat ax” chopping away at military capabilities — are hardly an ideal strategy for reducing spending. In fact, as some have pointed out on the Corner, the reductions represent a small portion of the budget.

    The less generous, and perhaps more likely, explanation is that the sequester is both ineffectual policy and highly unpopular, so President Obama is determined that anyone but himself should bear the blame. Moreover, with gas prices climbing and the payroll tax rising, Americans are already feeling the pinch, and he’s worried a specter of sequestration adds to that anxiety. His last-minute, and self-interested, conversion is hardly the mark of a true leader.

    The politically convenient turnabout is bad enough, but his stance against the sequester is doubly hypocritical, since, as we now know, the idea for the sequestration process originated with the president and his aides, according to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

    With just a week to go until the sequester cuts go into effect, it’s flat-out disappointing (if not surprising) that President Obama is just now engaging on the issue. Rather than spending the last 18 months working closely with congressional Republicans to avert an outcome nobody wants and replace it with sensible spending reforms, he has elected to wait until the eleventh hour and then turn the process into a partisan political blame-game.

    It’s not like we’re lacking for alternatives — and known alternatives. The politics is the difficult part, not the policy. On the defense-spending side, Senate members such as Tom Coburn (I wrote about his approach yesterday) and defense thinkers such as Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon have laid out sensible defense-spending reforms and reductions that would preserve core capabilities. Defense is the largest part of the sequester; and if sensible reductions can be found in the Pentagon, we can certainly do the same elsewhere. Of course all of this hand-wringing on discretionary spending could be solved if the president was willing to propose even modest reforms to entitlement programs, the largest drivers of our unsustainable budget.

    Perhaps if we could get President Obama to spend a few minutes talking to Senator Coburn or Michael O’Hanlon, he might find some common ground that would allow for a reasonable compromise. But he’s not likely to find that common ground when he’s too busy using his bully pulpit to blast Congress for policies that he proposed and then signed into law . . . 18 months ago.

    by Taboola
    From Around the Web
    Controversial Video Spreads Virally After Being Banned
    Moneynews
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/31 12:57:36

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals