okie
 
  -1  
Thu 9 Apr, 2009 03:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The title doesn't agree with what Obama actually said:
Quote:
I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated -- by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters. It has gone very well,” Obama conceded. But, he added, it still hasn’t been a total success.


How does that translate into "suceeded beyond our wildest dream?"

Actually, when Obama said it succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated is revealing. Obviously he did not anticipate it, but he does not include everybody, and in fact as McCain pointed out during the campaign, he anticipated it, Bush anticipated, many other people anticipated it, and the military certainly anticipated it or they would not have proposed it.

This issue really reveals how arrogant and dumb Obama is. He thinks that he and he alone speaks for everyone.

And now he is acting as if he honors the troops, honors the war, and thinks it has accomplished much. He can be aptly described as a political opportunist.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 9 Apr, 2009 03:40 pm
@okie,
okie, Your ignorance is never ending. If Bush had followed General Shinseki's advise to have several hundred thousand troops on the ground after we destroyed Saddam's military, that was the time for the surge. Not four years later.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Thu 9 Apr, 2009 06:17 pm
@okie,
I don't think it is necessary to fault Obama for all that Okie. His words to the armed forces can be more readily interpreted as those of one who knows he is Commander in Chief and has a responsibility toward them.

I think most serious people concede that the Iraq intervention has been a success in that it has achieved most of the objectives for which it was launched (if they will last). However the issue there is the cost and suffering attendant to the effort, relative to the benefit achieved. I believe that the verdict of history will be that it was a mistake - one that started with the 1991 Gulf war. However that is another subject.

I find it highly ironic that the Obama Administration is now touting a continued war in Afghanistan using much the same logic as was used to rationalize the earlier intervention in Iraq. I find that amazing in that the challenge of building a modern state in Afghanistan transcends by orders of magnitude that attendant to the problem in Iraq -- as certainly will also the attendant difficulty, suffering and cost.

Our logistic pipeline to Afghanistan goes through Karachi and up to the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan - hostile territory much of the way. The only alternatives are through Russia or Iran. This one will almost certainly involve far greater cost and effort with much less in the way of prospects for success . Our initial, limited special operations effort was successful in overthrowing the Taliban - and in doing so at a very modest cost. We should have stopped then and certainly should stop now. We will get no help, but lots of criticism, from our European allies who, once they see us dealing with a common problem are all too willing to give themselves a pass. It is long past time to let them worry for themselves.

There is no shortage of contradictions that will confront any President - from the Middle East, to North Asia, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean region, Latin American and even our "good friends" in Europe. President Obama has no choice but to deal with often contradictory issues as well as he can hoping that, in the midst of all the sound and fury. he is acting with enough wisdom to prevail in the long term. So far I believe the signs are mixed.
okie
 
  0  
Thu 9 Apr, 2009 07:39 pm
@georgeob1,
Fair enough, George, your points accepted, and I agree on a couple, that Afghanistan could ultimately be much tougher than Iraq for more than a couple reasons, and that Obama has to behave differently as Commander in Chief. However, my beef with Obama and virtually all Democrats is that they attempted to spin Iraq to their political advantage for the entire Bush administration, and make no mistake, Obama rode his opposition into the Whitehouse based upon his Iraq position. I think he can now behave differently as Commander In Chief, however I think it is high time he acknowledge the fallacy of his many statements and positions, and give Bush credit, full credit, instead of running around the world and continuing to dump on Bush, as if he and only he had been right on all the issues. And he is absolutely wrong when he said nobody anticipated the surge would work. He didn't anticipate it, but it only shows that he was wrong, not everyone.

I also find his Afghanistan policy puzzling and inconsistent with everything else he is doing, and I look for him to begin winding down the expectations there and changing his plans. I don't think he has the guts to persist with his policy there, not unless being president has a profound effect upon his mindset and beliefs. And so far, that hasn't happened, he has instead been running around the world apologizing for America and what America has been at every turn and making concessions to Iran, Russia, and anybody else that does not have our best interests at heart. Its as if the Reverend Wright was telling him what to do and say, but he says it nicer than Wright would have in his sermons, so I think Obama is every bit the extremist that he didn't tell us he was. Whether he moderates his beliefs, time will only tell.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Thu 9 Apr, 2009 08:17 pm
@okie,
I don't think he has been so much apologizing as acknowledging the existence of problems in mutual trust and communications. At least in his rhetoric he has also added that we and other friendly nations still face some collective challenges around the world that we will somehow have to deal with. So far he has been very successful in breaking down the perception that America was uninterested in the views of the rest of the world and, at the same time, reminding his audiences that we and they have some work to do.

He has done more or less the same with respect to domestic issues. He's all for green energy and "responsible" development of our petroleum and gas reserves and even nuclear power as well. Similarly he talks about economic revitalization, reinvestment, jobs creation and more effective regulation of financial markets.

In all of this the "what" is generally much simpler and easier to talk about than the "how".

We are a bit farther down the road on economic matters, and there Obama has had more opportunity to confront the difficult contradictions involved in actually getting things done. So far he has been willing to bash the management of companies, including dismissing CEOs and limiting executive compensation, however, he hasn't shown the same courage and firmness with respect to labor unions that , in the case of the automobile industry, are clearly a fundamental cause of the problem (the non-union auto manufacturers in this country are doing a lot better than those infested with the UAW).

Soon enough he will discover that even if he speaks nicely to Europe, they will still perceive their interests as different from ours and they will still try to undermine our relative power in the world. It will be interesting to observe how all that unfolds.

None of these things are easy for Obama or any President. However, in the long run the test of this presidency will not be in how well Obama serves the self-interests 0f the various constituencies that most vocally supported him, but rather in how well he serves the national interest.

So far the signs are mixed.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Thu 9 Apr, 2009 11:06 pm
@georgeob1,
I was watching an exchange on the news tonight that Obama is getting some mild criticism from the left because he has not only kept the wiretap mechanisms in place via the Patriot Act but has actually stepped these up. The theory is that Panetta is providing a steadier hand at the CIA than some thought he might and has advised the President to not mess with that system and the President has taken the advice. This gives me a lot more hope that we are less likely to be blown to kingdom come than we otherwise might be. I agree that the President is giving mixed signals, but I will be a happier camper knowing that he is giving top status to national security.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 02:26 am
@georgeob1,
You give Obama more credit than I do, obviously. One point, that America had this terrible reputation, that was way overblown, not accurate in my opinion, and secondly that somehow this will all change by talking nice, apologizing, bowing to the king, having official talks with Iran, telling the Muslims we are not at war with them (as if Bush was, another insult), it is another total myth I believe. In fact, what has Obama and Clinton accomplished so far by apologizing and begging various things, like Iran give up on nukes? Nothing, I would submit to you, George, and in fact I think our credibility has declined significantly in only 3 months. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and others like Castro and Hugo Chavez are yukking it up in the back rooms and can hardly withhold their enthusiasm for their opportunities to marginalize the U.S. I think they believe Obama is a pushover, Clinton is a patsy, and they see this administration as a huge opportunity to further their own agendas. And the Europeans are hardly that impressed so far with Obama's economic philosophy. Its not as if the Europeans are without monumental problems of their own, and if they are honest, I have a hard time believing they can hardly be comforted by a weakened U.S., both economically and militarily.

As an asterisk comment to all of the above, with a situation as I have described it in the above, there could arise a danger from somebody like Obama, given the ego that is involved here, that if he perceives after a year or two of failed policies, and if the press begins to recognize and report this, that the potential always exists for an extreme or unusual attempt to prove he is somebody, so that should always be considered.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 06:24 am
@cicerone imposter,
And how many of those years has your wife been happily married?
If we ask her will she say that the best year of her life was 46 years ago?

(its just a joke, so dont get all pissy)

But in all seriousness, would you also support the rights of unmarried couples to have all of the same benefits of married couples?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 06:37 am
@Advocate,
Quote:
The Rep view is that gays are not entitled to the equal rights guaranteed under the constitution. Disgusting!


Would you be so kind as to prove this statement?
After all, both CI and cyclo have said on various occasions that its up to the person amking the calim to back up their claims.

So, please show all of us exactly where in the repub party platform anything that even remotely supports your claim.
OR, if you cant do that, show us quotes, IN CONTEXT, by leading repubs that back up your claim.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 09:29 am
@okie,
Quote:
You give Obama more credit than I do, obviously. One point, that America had this terrible reputation, that was way overblown, not accurate in my opinion


Polling and objective data disagree with you. And how would you know, anyway? You don't know **** about how folks in other countries feel about us.

Quote:
and secondly that somehow this will all change by talking nice, apologizing, bowing to the king, having official talks with Iran, telling the Muslims we are not at war with them (as if Bush was, another insult), it is another total myth I believe. In fact, what has Obama and Clinton accomplished so far by apologizing and begging various things, like Iran give up on nukes? Nothing, I would submit to you, George, and in fact I think our credibility has declined significantly in only 3 months. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and others like Castro and Hugo Chavez are yukking it up in the back rooms and can hardly withhold their enthusiasm for their opportunities to marginalize the U.S. I think they believe Obama is a pushover, Clinton is a patsy, and they see this administration as a huge opportunity to further their own agendas. And the Europeans are hardly that impressed so far with Obama's economic philosophy. Its not as if the Europeans are without monumental problems of their own, and if they are honest, I have a hard time believing they can hardly be comforted by a weakened U.S., both economically and militarily.

As an asterisk comment to all of the above, with a situation as I have described it in the above, there could arise a danger from somebody like Obama, given the ego that is involved here, that if he perceives after a year or two of failed policies, and if the press begins to recognize and report this, that the potential always exists for an extreme or unusual attempt to prove he is somebody, so that should always be considered.


Okie, where do you get this stuff? You're just making things up. You have no evidence to support any of your suppositions here.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 09:37 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You don't know **** about how folks in other countries feel about us.


And what makes you the expert on what other people think?
I would be willing to bet that you are no more an expert than any other person on this site.
The difference is, you wont admit that.

And I do think Obama was wrong when he bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia.
He seems to have forgotten that this country does not bow nor do we dip our flag to anyone.
His bowing was to me an insult to every person in the country.
And yes, I realize that most people probably dont care, but I do.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 09:42 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
You don't know **** about how folks in other countries feel about us.


And what makes you the expert on what other people think?
I would be willing to bet that you are no more an expert than any other person on this site.
The difference is, you wont admit that.


Well, I would wager I talk to more people in different countries on a weekly basis than Okie does in a year. But, that's anecdotal; so I rely on polling evidence to get a good picture of how the world feels about us, and that evidence conclusively shows that the last 8 years have been disastrous for the US when it comes to world opinion of us. This is exactly what I said to Okie in the first place.

Quote:
And I do think Obama was wrong when he bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia.
He seems to have forgotten that this country does not bow nor do we dip our flag to anyone.
His bowing was to me an insult to every person in the country.
And yes, I realize that most people probably dont care, but I do.


I could care less. Why do you guys get so caught up on stupid ****?

Where is it written that this country 'does not bow?' What's wrong with showing respect to another foreign leader? It costs us nothing and gains us much to do things like this. Don't you understand the power of humility?

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  0  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 10:02 am
Quote:
Obama has short memory

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:18 AM EDT

Hardly a day goes by that we don't hear President Obama saying, "When I got here" or "I inherited this from Bush" when talking about some of the problems of the country.

What I don't understand about those comments are, where did he come from, or what was he doing during the time Bush was president?

Well, as we all know for the last four years he was six blocks away in the U.S. Senate and he voted for most of the monetary policies that he is now complaining about.

The constant complaint about Bush spending or the deficit is rather astounding as he voted to increase every budget that the Bush administration submitted.

It should also be noted that the U.S. Constitution requires that before any president can spend, or invest, as the Democrats say, that expenditure must be approved by the legislature.

(Note: Article 9: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.)

For the last two years of the Bush administration the Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress and they increased spending every year and blocked all attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that most people agree is the genesis for the current economic problems.

So for the last four years President Obama has known, or should have known, what he was voting on, and if he was opposed, should have expressed that.

The only thing that I remember him being opposed to was the Iraq war and he commented the other day that he was surprised how that appears to be "the least of the problems."

Those of us who can remember farther back than Jan. 20, 2009, can also recall that when President Bush came to Washington from Texas there were a number of economic problems.

As I remember, unemployment was about 7 percent and we were still in the midst of the dot-com bubble burst, Enron, etc.

He also inherited 19 terrorists that were in the country courtesy of a Clinton administration policy known as "visa express." We all know what they caused!

(It's my understanding that now 9/11 is to be known in the Obama administration as a "mancaused disaster.")

I don't remember President Bush ever complaining about his predecessor. He never mentioned the vandalism and wanton destruction done to the White House by the Clinton staffers, or the fact that the Clintons had to return an entire tractor-trailer load of White House property that "mistakenly" was sent to New York.

I also can remember Senator Obama in the White House with President Bush, Senator McCain, and a Federal Reserve official, Mr. Geithner working on the TARP legislation.

It seems he has forgotten that he took credit for that legislation, then, but now doesn't seem to know what was in the bill.

The same thing is true for that official who is now Secretary of the Treasury and is credited as the architect of TARP, but is unaware of bonuses included in the bill.

When President Obama came into office the deficit for this year was about $500 billion, and when we finish it will be over 2 trillion.

In eight years Bush added about $2.1 trillion to the national debt and Obama and Congress has done that in 40 days.

Could someone explain to me how quadrupling the debt could be laid on either Bush or the Republicans when the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress?

Recently, the Congress passed a bill for extra spending (investments) for the rest of fiscal year (FY) 2009.

According to President Obama, this was left over from the Bush administration, but in fact the bill had been proposed in September 2009.

When President Bush threatened to veto it over the excessive spending, the Democrats withdrew it to wait for Obama. It worked. Over $8 billion in earmarks passed!

In sum, our great-grandchildren and those that haven't been born will be saddled with immense debt from just the first 40 days of this administration.

I can't imagine what the next four years will add to that.

By the way I get the "change" that the campaign was about, as that's all I have left in my pocket.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 10:06 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, It just shows another part of their ignorance about respect and knowing other cultures. They only see the US - with blinders on. That's the reason they thought Bush was such a good leader, because he never "bowed" to other leaders. He just earned their scorn.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 10:08 am
@McGentrix,
How do you hunt down these useless, bitchy articles from no-name people writing opinion columns for unknown newspapers?

The national debt coming into this year was not 500 bil, it was a trillion (thanks TARP!). The outgoing Clinton admin did not vandalize the WH.

Quote:


According to President Obama, this was left over from the Bush administration, but in fact the bill had been proposed in September 2009.


Another super-accurate gem from our time-traveling author.

Why can't you guys just accept that Obama won, and give it a rest?

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  0  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 10:12 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

How do you hunt down these useless, bitchy articles from no-name people writing opinion columns for unknown newspapers?

The national debt coming into this year was not 500 bil, it was a trillion (thanks TARP!). The outgoing Clinton admin did not vandalize the WH.

Quote:


According to President Obama, this was left over from the Bush administration, but in fact the bill had been proposed in September 2009.


Another super-accurate gem from our time-traveling author.


Prove otherwise then.

Quote:
Why can't you guys just accept that Obama won, and give it a rest?

Cycloptichorn


Probably for the same reasons people like you didn't when Bush was elected... twice.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 10:13 am
@Cycloptichorn,
They don't want to admit that they not only lost the last election, but their "party" is in such shambles, they don't even know who their leaders are.

It was telling when the GOP presented their "budget" last week, and more republicans voted against their own budget than they voted against the democratic budget.

They are not only lost, but a lost cause. Eight years of Bush killed their party.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 10:17 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How do you hunt down these useless, bitchy articles from no-name people writing opinion columns for unknown newspapers?

The national debt coming into this year was not 500 bil, it was a trillion (thanks TARP!). The outgoing Clinton admin did not vandalize the WH.

Quote:


According to President Obama, this was left over from the Bush administration, but in fact the bill had been proposed in September 2009.


Another super-accurate gem from our time-traveling author.


Prove otherwise then.


Prove to who? You? Hahaha

Quote:
Quote:
Why can't you guys just accept that Obama won, and give it a rest?

Cycloptichorn


Probably for the same reasons people like you didn't when Bush was elected... twice.


Well, as I voted for Bush in 2000, and supported him then, I'm going to have to go with the response: You're completely out to lunch, again, McG.

Cycloptichorn
Advocate
 
  1  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 10:23 am
@McGentrix,
The article you present is really a letter to the editor that is full of holes. For instance, it fails to mention that Bush and the Reps had total control of the govt. for eight years (the Dem majority for two years had no power since the Reps controlled the senate and the Dems could not override a veto.)

Bush also inherited from Clinton a detailed plan to fight al-Qaida, which he promptly trashed. Bush ignored urgent warnings before 9/11 about an imminent attack.

It is untrue that Obama voted for Bush's monetary policies.

O inherited an incredible mess that is ruining our country, and all you can do is ceaselessly attack O.

He has brought some excellent minds to address our problems, and he should be give a reasonable chance to work his magic.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Fri 10 Apr, 2009 10:24 am
@Cycloptichorn,
McG wrote:
Quote:
Probably for the same reasons people like you didn't when Bush was elected... twice.


It seems most Americans who voted for Bush twice learned their lesson, and changed their voting to elect a democratic president and congress.

What's more telling is the the republican party is now in shambles with no real leadership to speak of.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1215
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 06/29/2025 at 02:48:23