THEY SWORE THAT WHEN PEOPLE GOT TO KNOW OBAMACARE, THEY'D LOVE IT.
THE LOVE'S STILL NOT THERE.
In April of 2010, soon after the law passed, 50 percent of Americans said they were opposed to it, while 39 percent were in favor. Ten percent were on the fence.
Now, just 26 percent say they are in favor, a drop of 13 percentage points. Forty-three percent say they are opposed, a drop of 7 percentage points since that poll four years ago. But the number who neither support nor oppose the law has tripled, to 30 percent.
FOUR YEARS LATER AND AMERICANS DON'T LOVE IT. HELL, THEY DON'T EVEN LIKE IT.
THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR IT, THEY DIDN'T WANT IT.
IT DOES NOTHING BUT TAKE YOUR ABILITY TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE AND MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU DO.
LIKE THE MAN IT'S NAMED FOR, IT'S USELESS AND UNLOVED.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Yesterday, US President Barack Obama made a fool out of himself as he attempted to justify and re-sell the Iraq War. William Rivers Pitt (Truthout) explains, "Truthout does not forget. We were at the forefront of the struggle
against that disastrous war, and we will not stand idly by as an alleged
"good guy" slaps a coat of paint over it to cover up the blood on the
walls. President Obama sounds for all the world like a used car salesman
trying to peddle a lemon, and that will not happen on our watch." DS Wright (Firedoglake) notes:
Yesterday President Barack Obama tried to claim that the United States government’s actions in the 2003 Iraq War were legal and different than Russia’s actions in Crimea because the US had “sought to work within the international system.” Apparently merely seeking to work within the international system is some kind of get out of jail free card. If one follows Obama’s logic then Russia need only to have “sought” a doomed UN resolution justifying the annexation of Crimea before doing so, this would have made their actions legitimate under Obama’s standard.
Pravda points out the curious nature of the speech itself, "The key event of Obama's European tour was his speech in the Brussels Palace of Fine Arts in front of 2,000 people. His lengthy discourse on the history and common values with Europeans was very quickly replaced with anti-Russian rhetoric.The speech turned out to be a dispute with Russian authorities, entirely devoted to the situation in Ukraine." Yes, it was a strange speech, both for topic and for tone. In fact, it was more of a spew than a speech. Greg Mitchell (The Nation) notes Barack's foolish remarks. The Voice of Russia notes:
Matt Howard and Ross Caputi, members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, spoke with Common Dreams by phone and said that the president's narrative on the events that led up to the Iraq invasion, inside or outside the context of Ukraine, was simply "not grounded in reality." "We went from one lie, which was weapons of mass destruction, to another lie which was liberation and freedom," said Howard. "This idea that Iraq is somehow better off or that the US waged a so-called 'Good War' is ridiculous."
Yesterday President Barack Obama tried to claim that the United States government’s actions in the 2003 Iraq War were legal and different than Russia’s actions in Crimea because the US had “sought to work within the international system.” Apparently merely seeking to work within the international system is some kind of get out of jail free card. If one follows Obama’s logic then Russia need only to have “sought” a doomed UN resolution justifying the annexation of Crimea before doing so, this would have made their actions legitimate under Obama’s standard.
Pravda points out the curious nature of the speech itself, "The key event of Obama's European tour was his speech in the Brussels Palace of Fine Arts in front of 2,000 people. His lengthy discourse on the history and common values with Europeans was very quickly replaced with anti-Russian rhetoric.The speech turned out to be a dispute with Russian authorities, entirely devoted to the situation in Ukraine." Yes, it was a strange speech, both for topic and for tone. In fact, it was more of a spew than a speech. Greg Mitchell (The Nation) notes Barack's foolish remarks. The Voice of Russia notes:
Matt Howard and Ross Caputi, members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, spoke with Common Dreams by phone and said that the president's narrative on the events that led up to the Iraq invasion, inside or outside the context of Ukraine, was simply "not grounded in reality." "We went from one lie, which was weapons of mass destruction, to another lie which was liberation and freedom," said Howard. "This idea that Iraq is somehow better off or that the US waged a so-called 'Good War' is ridiculous."
Let's note some Twitter reactions:
Mr. President, I checked. It turns out Iraq was worse than Crimea: http://warisacrime.org/iraq http://fb.me/CBjjnhIE
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama now seeks to kosher the US invasion and occupation of Iraq: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22739-selling-a-lemon …
Busy man! Within 12 hours, Obama defends the Iraq invasion http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/03/26/why_did_obama_just_defend_the_iraq_war.html … and whitewashes World War I: http://www.progressive.org/content/obama-whitewashes-world-war-i …
http://rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/ … hey @BarackObama depleted uranium used in Iraq from US causing birth defects+cancer.F U CRIMEA IS WORSE THEN IRAQ
What a "journey": Obama now defends Iraq War. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/26/obama-defends-iraq-invasion-a-little/ … Musical reminder of what we got and paid: https://soundcloud.com/lelink/trillion-dollar-bargain …
Meanwhile, Justyn Dillingham (Salon) writes:
It is disingenuous to say that we “sought to work within the international system” without noting that we subsequently went to war in flagrant violation of international law. Even one of the war’s chief architects admitted that the invasion was not strictly legal. Richard Perle, one of the Pentagon’s most eager advocates of war on Iraq, said in November 2003 that international law “would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone” and that “in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.” Even if the Bush administration would have preferred to go to war with the support of the United Nations, the fact remains that they went to war without it. Saying that the United States “sought to work within the international system” before invading Iraq is like praising a burglar because he checked to see if your door was unlocked before breaking a window.
The consequences of this reckless act go far beyond the awful human cost of the Iraq War. Our invasion of Iraq undermined the authority of the United Nations and created a dangerous precedent for other preemptive wars. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Bush’s war a “fundamental challenge” to the core principles of the United Nations and warned that it “could set precedents that [result] in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification.” Putin himself, in defending his actions in Crimea, cited the record of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
While most focus on the Iraq aspect, Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) chooses to call out Barack's speech for the WWI remarks. John Glaser (Antiwar.com) focuses on Barack's defense of the illegal Iraq War and observes, "This is perhaps the most asinine thing the president has said in the entirety of his presidency. The invasion of Iraq was an illegal, preventive war based on lies. It got hundreds of thousands of people killed and cost trillions of dollars. The U.S.-backed dictator of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, is ruling the nation with an iron fist, as the country slips back into civil war. Nothing but chaos, ruin, and rivers of blood resulted from the criminal invasion. For Obama to even dare to compare Crimea to Iraq is a sick joke." And Patrick Martin (WSWS) points out:
The truth is that the war in Iraq was the greatest crime—up to now—committed in the 21st century. More than a million Iraqis lost their lives as a result of the US invasion and occupation, and Iraq was destroyed as a functioning society. The Bush administration openly declared that the Geneva Conventions and international law did not apply either to the war in Iraq or the previous conquest and occupation of Afghanistan, a position that the Obama administration continues to uphold.
Obama seeks to rally the world against the supposed crimes of Russia in Crimea, in which, as of this writing, two people have been killed (one Ukrainian soldier and one Russian), while opposing any prosecution of the American war criminals responsible for the immense bloodbath visited upon the people of Iraq.
Instead, the US president excused the monumental crimes of his own government with the statement, “Of course, neither the United States nor Europe are perfect in adherence to our ideals. Nor do we claim to be the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong in the world.”
Actually, the US government does claim that role. Administration after administration has declared the United States to be “the indispensable nation,” the sole superpower, the country whose military-intelligence apparatus must be the world’s policeman, and whose leaders are immune from any accountability for their actions.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Reactions to Barack's Iraq revisionary history con..."
"What Do World's Two Biggest Dangers Have in Common..."
"A New Economic Paradigm (David DeGraw)"
"Jane Fonda on her new book"
"The ones who need coverage"
"Rural veterans (Wally)"
"When stupid talks to stupid (Congressional hearing)"
"About that PATRIOT Act?"
"Arrow underwhelms"
"Hiding Behind The Leg Of Her Pantsuit"
"Good for Jimmy Fallon"
"Barack's illegal spying 'reform'"
"Another show bites the dust"
"Barry the b.s.-er"
"THIS JUST IN! MEAN GIRL GOES TO THE VATICAN!"