Do you agree with President Obama or Candidate Obama

Obama can't even agree with himself.

He's a pathological liar.

 

Wow! There's a first; a candidate who changes his view when elected.

Remind any one of 'Read my lips..?'

Yet another 'pathological liar' perchance?

 

Yep , just as soon as you identify at least 20 more lies he told either while running for office or after he was elected.

But then your argument is specious and I think you know it. Obama would rather lie than tell the truth and we have multiple examples to prove it.

 

Politicians lie. It is what they do to get elected. Did anyone really believe that this particular candidate would be any different.

He is just another in a long line of political pragmatists.

 

Your post indicates lying by politicians is acceptable to you.

Some lie a lot more than others. I didn't think anyone could top Clinton, but Obama does,

It's good to know that lying by a politician is excusable if it appears to be pragmatic.

That's enlightening.

 

Political lying is no more right than my lying.

With politicians though it is just a fact of life. No thinking American really thought this president would keep his promises any more than the rest of them.

 

Is stating that you know what the law is and then deliberately breaking it simply pragmatic to you?

Do you mean that violating the Constitution when you know what it says and means is just pragmatic?

Excusing a liar for his lies never makes one look good, no matter who they are.

 

The point is not to excuse, but the note the universality of political lying. Of course President Obama lied when he said he would not take action but did. It was to be expected. Campaign promises have one purpose; to get the candidate elected. Other than that they are meaningless. That is the dirty reality behind politics.

 

I am always opposed to world policing, no matter who the candidate or president. That is why I wish President Obama had stuck to his guns last week and let France, the UK, and others deal with this and not caved in.

What is interesting is that a week okay many on the right were slamming the president for letting Europe lead in this action, and now condemn him for acting.

 

Riding the fence is not leadership.

Leadership is being engaged, not on vacation. If he wanted to back military action, he should have stayed home and made his case to congress.

Leadership is not violating our laws to give in to foreign pressure.

Saying no, when necessary, is leadership.

Turns out the French and the British, don't want to lead this mission, either, but they duped an inexperienced and indecisive president into doing so. The Arab League was all in favor of it until it came time to deploy their own forces. Now they're running backwards.

So who's in charge?
Who's killing the most Libyans?
Who's running up the biggest tab?
Who'll get the blame for everything that goes wrong?

The USA.

All of it in violation of U.S. law.

 

I agree with all that - what mystifies me is why so many on the right were so critical last week when the president was not acting?

 

You know, it's funny. Just about three days ago, I had a conversation with somebody about Dennis Kucinich's (sp?) statement that Obama should be impeached. The person I was talking to, knowing my contempt for Obama, was shocked that I did not believe he should be impeached.

"Imnpeachment should be only for egregious offenses", I said. "Otherwise, it just becomes a political tool to hurt your opponent. The Bill Clinton impeachment was a fiasco and the constant calls for Bush's impeachment were absurd".

But I have to be honest and say that the more I think about this, especially with Obama's deployment of troops to Libya, I see a strong and growing case for considering impeachment.