• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama vs. Nixon

Who is the more sinister liar?

  • Total voters
    56
OldWorldOrder said:
What specifically? Because I'll tell you right now that an al Qaeda ad OBL branch was already created in at least the CIA and NSA, and while I don't know about the CHOU (FBI's piece of that) or the DIA or anything, I will assume they had one, too. So what was Bush supposed to do? Concretely. Keeping in mind that you're speaking to someone with 10+ years of military intelligence experience.

Remember the TSA wasn't even created yet- through no fault of Bush's- even had he taken that memo extra super serious- it wouldn't have been off the ground by then. So what was he to do? Concretely, not just "be better at presidenting".
Click to expand...
Had fighter jets at the ready, for one. Another proactive plan would have had all nineteen hijackers arrested for immigration violations long before 911, just like they did the twentieth hijacker.
 
calamity said:
Had fighter jets at the ready, for one.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Where? Everywhere? For how many days in a row before liberal groups would be decrying the extra expenditures that could've been used elsewhere, with nothing to show for it (because he wouldn't have shown that report or the intel leading to it)?

Another proactive plan would have had all nineteen hijackers arrested for immigration violations long before 911, just like they did the twentieth hijacker.
Click to expand...

So he should've cracked down on tens of thousands of people who had legit papers to come into the country for...how long? How long until, honestly, people like you wouldn't been upset with him for it? How long would you have let it go? Fine, you would've until it was 'safe', I'm sure. How long do you think liberal opponents would've been cool with it?

Again, consider that lots of attacks that are "imminent" never even happen. So will you be cool with that type of crackdown happening whenever a threat comes through? For how long? We get several serious threats a day, by the way...
 
Chiefgator said:
Because there is no reason to implicate him.


In the world of AT/FP (Anti terrorism /Force Protection, something I know a bit about... I would not call myself an expert, even though I have held the title) there is one thing that is certain. If someone wants you, they will get you. You have to make yourself a Hard Target to deter them, but in the end, a very determined enemy will find a way. Like the old adage, A lock is to keep an honest man, honest.

We were not on High Alert then. Can you imagine the outrage of the people if the Patriot Act would have been proposed in July 2001? Hell, I flipped out after it was proposed and passed, even after the events of 9/11!!! The bad guys found a vulnerability and they exploited it. Even if we HAD been on a High Alert, your article even admits that they only "MIGHT" have seen it coming.
Click to expand...
I think they focused too much on Iraq while ignoring activity coming out of Afghanistan. This is especially true after the assassination on 9-9-2001 of Shah Masood, which was clearly a power grab by OBL and the Taliban.

That by itself should have put ears to the ground. That such a big bold move by enemies of the US in Afghanistan did not put us on high alert still baffles me. We were asleep at the switch.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Perhaps. Where? Everywhere? For how many days in a row before liberal groups would be decrying the extra expenditures that could've been used elsewhere, with nothing to show for it (because he wouldn't have shown that report or the intel leading to it)?



So he should've cracked down on tens of thousands of people who had legit papers to come into the country for...how long? How long until, honestly, people like you wouldn't been upset with him for it? How long would you have let it go? Fine, you would've until it was 'safe', I'm sure. How long do you think liberal opponents would've been cool with it?

Again, consider that lots of attacks that are "imminent" never even happen. So will you be cool with that type of crackdown happening whenever a threat comes through? For how long? We get several serious threats a day, by the way...
Click to expand...

THey knew the 19 dudes were the hijackers within hours of the Towers being hit. This tells me they had enough information on them to hold them and thus could have proactively stopped 911, if only the defenders of liberty had been on the ball.
 
calamity said:
THey knew the 19 dudes were the hijackers within hours of the Towers being hit. This tells me they had enough information on them to hold them and thus could have proactively stopped 911, if only the defenders of liberty had been on the ball.
Click to expand...

That's a huge assumption. How long does it take to ID most murders and such? I think you're talking about more procedural stuff, and people connecting dots after the fact. (Obviously, let's ignore eye-witness accounts).

Honestly, I feel very, very strongly (and again, I'm a person that has worked in this field for awhile now, and I have twice voted for Obama) that you're reaching to an absurd amount. There's gonna be many murders committed tonight, between you reading this and tomorrow morning, and like a third of them will be, for all intents and purposes, solved by the time we finish out coffee. They'll have a primary suspect and that primary suspect will be arraigned and probably convicted.

That doesn't mean the police could've just prevented it, though. Not without people rightfully being up in arms about all the superfluous people and things that were also restricted in the pursuit of preventing that crime.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
That's a huge assumption. How long does it take to ID most murders and such? I think you're talking about more procedural stuff, and people connecting dots after the fact. (Obviously, let's ignore eye-witness accounts).

Honestly, I feel very, very strongly (and again, I'm a person that has worked in this field for awhile now, and I have twice voted for Obama) that you're reaching to an absurd amount. There's gonna be many murders committed tonight, between you reading this and tomorrow morning, and like a third of them will be, for all intents and purposes, solved by the time we finish out coffee. They'll have a primary suspect and that primary suspect will be arraigned and probably convicted.

That doesn't mean the police could've just prevented it, though. Not without people rightfully being up in arms about all the superfluous people and things that were also restricted in the pursuit of preventing that crime.
Click to expand...
Sometimes that happens. The case where the ex husband who has an order of protection against him, with repeated instances of the ex-wife calling 911 for him violating it, comes over late at night and finally kills her. We'll never know just how strong the warnings were that Bush ignored, but we do have it on good account that he did ignore many warnings.
 
calamity said:
Sometimes that happens. The case where the ex husband who has an order of protection against him, with repeated instances of the ex-wife calling 911 for him violating it, comes over late at night and finally kills her. We'll never know just how strong the warnings were that Bush ignored, but we do have it on good account that he did ignore many warnings.
Click to expand...

No, we do know. Some of us see these warnings basically daily. Some of us can go back and see the warnings from then.

But now your entire argument is boiling down to "We can never know, but maybe it was a horrible and easily resolved error that led to this." That's just speculation. Speculation that I don't, at all, agree with. And I'm no real expert, but I do have a lot of experience, and compared to the vast majority of people in the US- to say nothing of the world- I'm basically an "expert".
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No, we do know. Some of us see these warnings basically daily. Some of us can go back and see the warnings from then.

But now your entire argument is boiling down to "We can never know, but maybe it was a horrible and easily resolved error that led to this." That's just speculation. Speculation that I don't, at all, agree with. And I'm no real expert, but I do have a lot of experience, and compared to the vast majority of people in the US- to say nothing of the world- I'm basically an "expert".
Click to expand...
My whole point is that those critical of Obama for Benghazi are ignoring Bush's failures for 911. If you blame Obama, you gotta blame Bush. Can't have it any other way.
 
calamity said:
My whole point is that those critical of Obama for Benghazi are ignoring Bush's failures for 911. If you blame Obama, you gotta blame Bush. Can't have it any other way.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is that before 9/11 there were a handful of serious al Qaeda attacks on US forces. Afterward, there were multitudes more, and they were much more conventional in scale. To compare them- and I'm a defender of Obama and Benghazi- is simply not genuine.
 
zimmer said:
Who is the more sinister liar?

OBAMA
Obama has been caught in multiple lies about ObamaKare. He lied about keeping your plan, and he lied about lying about keeping your plan. He lied about cost reduction, he lied and lied and lied. He's sorry. Awwwwwwwwwwww...

Obama lied about Benghazi. Americans died, Obama/Clinton lied.

NIXON
Nixon lied about a 3rd-rate break-in he did not orchestrate. He lied, and left office.

Nobody died from Nixon's lies.
Nixon didn't lie in order to thieve 6% of the economy for his party's political purposes.
Nixon also did not run guns to Mexico in an attempt to slash the 2nd Amendment... but let's stick to the two Whoppers Obama lied about and even Demokrats have heard about.

Who is the more sinister liar?
Obama wins hands down.
To associate Obama with Nixon is an insult to Nixon. Obama is a liar in a league of his own. He even out does Felonious Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

Yesssss, Nixon's acts in office were almost Obamian.

I wonder who you think is worse? Only Obama Derangement Syndrome can make one think highly of Nixon by comparison.
 
calamity said:
Had fighter jets at the ready, for one. Another proactive plan would have had all nineteen hijackers arrested for immigration violations long before 911, just like they did the twentieth hijacker.
Click to expand...

We can't even catch the tens of thousands that stream into our country every year. And you want them to crack down on a random 19?

Get real. I suppose you also scream about the PATRIOT Act and want Amnesty as well, right?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Perhaps. Where? Everywhere? For how many days in a row before liberal groups would be decrying the extra expenditures that could've been used elsewhere, with nothing to show for it (because he wouldn't have shown that report or the intel leading to it)?
Click to expand...

Besides, you can only be on "High Alert" for so long. Then you actually become less effective due to burnout.

Trust me there, I remember being on "High Alert" for over a month, from mid-July to early September 1984. It was an absolute nightmare, but it had to be done. And we only had the random alerts and notifications that we always had, nothing really particular that stood out.

Other then Munich 1972.

calamity said:
THey knew the 19 dudes were the hijackers within hours of the Towers being hit. This tells me they had enough information on them to hold them and thus could have proactively stopped 911, if only the defenders of liberty had been on the ball.
Click to expand...

No, look up Betty Ong.

Bees_pic.jpg


She was the flight attendant who called on the phone and identified to American Airlines what seats the hijackers had been sitting in. Then it was a simple matter to trace them all backwards.

Nydia Gonzalez: Hey, Betty, do you know any information as far as the gents, the men that are in the cockpit with the pilots, were they from first class?

Betty Ong: They were sitting in 2A and B.

Nydia Gonzalez: They were sitting in 2A and B.

A.A. Em. Line: Okay.
Click to expand...
Betty Ong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, I am going to get really sick of telling you this. But here it is again:

Research, research, research. These are all well known facts, it is not really hard to do a little checking yourself you know.
 
'sin·is·ter (sn-str)
adj.
1. Suggesting or threatening evil'

sinister - definition of sinister by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


So which Prez, Obie's or Tricky's, lies are/were more threatening?

This is a 'well duh' answer, imo...obviously it's Nixon.

They both are/were horrible POTUS's, but ALL recent POTUS's are liars, imo.

Obama lies to (ignorantly and wrongly) mold the country in his image.

Nixon lied during Watergate strictly to further his career.

The latter is a hundred times more 'sinister'.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Obama lies to (ignorantly and wrongly) mold the country in his image.

Nixon lied during Watergate strictly to further his career.

The latter is a hundred times more 'sinister'.
Click to expand...

Actually, maybe you need to learn the history of Watergate before you make such a charge.

Now this incident did not happen at the bequest of President Nixon, it was done by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, a PAC no different in structure then any other PAC. He did not know of this beforehand, and when notified of the foiled break-in, he was skeptical and thought it was the Democrats trying a trick. Then when he found out it was indeed people in a PAC he ordered his Chief of Staff to quietly find out "Who was the asshole who ordered it".

What got Nixon in trouble was not the break-in, he had nothing to do with that. What he got in trouble for was the attempt to cover up what happened after the fact.

Kinda like Benghazi, where the spin is trying to make it out to be something totally different then what it was and cover the President's backside.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Actually, maybe you need to learn the history of Watergate before you make such a charge.

Now this incident did not happen at the bequest of President Nixon, it was done by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, a PAC no different in structure then any other PAC. He did not know of this beforehand, and when notified of the foiled break-in, he was skeptical and thought it was the Democrats trying a trick. Then when he found out it was indeed people in a PAC he ordered his Chief of Staff to quietly find out "Who was the asshole who ordered it".

What got Nixon in trouble was not the break-in, he had nothing to do with that. What he got in trouble for was the attempt to cover up what happened after the fact.

Kinda like Benghazi, where the spin is trying to make it out to be something totally different then what it was and cover the President's backside.
Click to expand...

You speak an awful lot of what Nixon knew.

Where is your unbiased, FACTUAL proof that he knew NOTHING of what you say.

The answer - there is none.

There is no possible way for you to know what he really thought.


I am well aware of the Watergate timeline.

Nixon was apparently a paranoid individual about politics..many close to him have admitted as much.

He was obsessed about re-election and obviously instilled that fear/anxiety into those around him that he must be re-elected at any cost.


I doubt he ordered the operations.

But I guarantee you he made it clear to Haldeman that he wanted to be re-elected at almost any cost and he left it to his No. 2 to carry out his wishes at his discretion.

Listen to the Watergate tapes, no where did he freakout at Haldeman for instigating these operations...all they basically discussed was how stupid/badly managed some of them were and damage control.

Haldeman ran the covert operations...that has been confirmed.

Do you honestly believe that Nixon knew nothing of these massive ploys that his closest confidant was doing for years?

Come on now...you surely cannot be that naive.
 
DA60 said:
You speak an awful lot of what Nixon knew.

Where is your unbiased, FACTUAL proof that he knew NOTHING of what you say.
Click to expand...

Even Woodward and Bernstein admit he did not know about the burglary until after the fact.

It is not up to me to prove he did not know, double-negative and all of that. It is up to you to prove that he did.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Even Woodward and Bernstein admit he did not know about the burglary until after the fact.

It is not up to me to prove he did not know, double-negative and all of that. It is up to you to prove that he did.
Click to expand...

You first claimed you knew what he thought.

So it is up to you to back up your initial claim.

Since you refuse, then your claim will be judged by the unbiased, fact-based evidence you have provided to back it up...which is nothing.

So noted.

I am done with you on this.


Have a nice day.
 
DA60 said:
You first claimed you knew what he thought.

So it is up to you to back up your initial claim.
Click to expand...

Watergate scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
About Watergate scandal - Portal TOL On-Line Technology

I also refer you to "All The Presidents Men", by Bernstein and Woodward. You might try reading that, it is considered the definitive book about the scandal. And in it they clearly said that there is absolutely no evidence that the President knew about the break-in beforehand, all evidence points to him only finding out about it afterwards.
 
A Nixon / Returning POW video well worth watching on Veteran's Day:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=LemllfcAY8A&sns=em[/video]

An Obama article well worth reading on Veteran's Day:
Top generals: Obama is ‘purging the military’

Precisely who is the real "scum" here?
 
"Why Obama, of course. Nixon was white!" [/sarcasm]
 
Oozlefinch said:
Watergate scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
About Watergate scandal - Portal TOL On-Line Technology

I also refer you to "All The Presidents Men", by Bernstein and Woodward. You might try reading that, it is considered the definitive book about the scandal. And in it they clearly said that there is absolutely no evidence that the President knew about the break-in beforehand, all evidence points to him only finding out about it afterwards.
Click to expand...
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

You are destroying their werld. Watergate was the political Crime of the Century for the Leftists, and that Nixon covered up a 3rd rate burglary he didn't plan or know about... well.. can't have that... can we now?

No, no, no...

Can't have that because it makes Nixon's Crime of the Century look pretty lame when compared to Obama's years of lying about ObamaKare, and then his attempted lie about the years of lying.

Watergate didn't hurt anyone except Nixon and those involved with the break-in. ObamaKare has had a tremendous negative effect on millions upon millions, and the cost for the website alone has been 600 million... and rising.

Demokrats have made an enormous deal out of Watergate for decades... and now the Demokrats have a major league Con man who makes Nixon look like a petty shoplifter.
 
im to young for Nixon so im just saying Obama. but i heard Watergate was an impressive bit for nixon
 
JJB3333 said:
im to young for Nixon so im just saying Obama. but i heard Watergate was an impressive bit for nixon
Click to expand...

I remember Watergate, and it was actually a great example of what America was like in the 1970's.

Back then, even covering up something after the fact was enough to bring down a President. Today, even a president lying about sexual assault and sex in the Oral Office is not enough, even with DNA evidence.

Well, as long as that President is a Democrat. If you are a Republican and look at an intern, it ends your career. If you are a democrat you can do whatever you want and nobody even screams "improper relations between employee and boss".
 
Oozlefinch said:
I remember Watergate, and it was actually a great example of what America was like in the 1970's.

Back then, even covering up something after the fact was enough to bring down a President. Today, even a president lying about sexual assault and sex in the Oral Office is not enough, even with DNA evidence.

Well, as long as that President is a Democrat. If you are a Republican and look at an intern, it ends your career. If you are a democrat you can do whatever you want and nobody even screams "improper relations between employee and boss".
Click to expand...

It wasn't just they lying... it was the lying under oath in an attempt to deny someone their day in court (Paula Jones)... and denying them their day in court upon law pushed vigorously by Demokrats to protect women from sexual predators like Felonious Bill Clinton.

The lib defense was... Felonious Bill Clinton is a King, and Kings get to lie under oath about sex because everyone lies about sex.

Nixon lied about a 3rd rate burglary... Obama lied for years in order to pass legislation and win an election; and not just any legislation. Had the public know the truth dare we say things may have turned out differently?

Had we know the truth about Benghazi, had the press been relentless in their pursuit of the truth...

Nixon's misdeed is almost laughable in comparison to Obama's serial prevarications. Nobody died during Watergate.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
It wasn't just they lying... it was the lying under oat in an attempt to deny someone their day in court (Paula Jones)... and denying them their day in court upon law pushed vigorously by Demokrats to protect women from sexual predators like Felonious Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

^5 for that.

Most people have forgotten that that entire thing started after Miss Jones files a Sexual Harassment lawsuit against the President, and it started an investigation into if he had ever made sexual advances against any other women who had worked for him.

Of course then several other women came forward and said he had, including groping their bottom and making passes at them, and they were labeled by the press as sluts. Then one came forward with DNA of semen stains on her clothing, and suddenly it becomes "consensual sex" and "not really sex at all".

Funny how the standards slide, depending on the party in question. Personally, if I tried to tell my wife "Honest honey, it was not sex, she only gave me a hummer", I doubt I would have said body parts in question attached to my body any longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom