Obama '08?

Here is an interesting article about Obama and his "secret war"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/04/obama_administrations_secret_war_grows_globally/

There are a couple of things that caught my attention in the article.

Quote:

Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed “things that the previous administration did not.’’

If Bush, the supposed "warmonger" didnt allow some things, and Obama is allowing those things, what does that make Obama?

Quote:

Special Operations commanders have also become a more regular presence at the White House than they were under the Bush administration, when most briefings were run through the Pentagon chain of command and were conducted by the defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

So Obama has bypassed the normal chain of command and has field commanders brief him personally.
That sounds like they answer only to him and to nobody else.

That sure doesnt sound like someone trying to be a peacemaker.
It sounds like he has created his own personal "hit squads" to take out the people he doesnt like overseas.
That sets a dangerous precedent.

What would the reaction have been if Bush had done this?

2 Replies

Here's some good news for Obama...
The economy added 431,000 new jobs in May.
The bad news is that 411,000 of them are US census temp jobs, that will all go away before the end of the year.

That means that the private sector only added 41,000 new jobs.
Where are all the jobs that Obama promised would happen with his recovery?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37507250

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Where are all the jobs that Obama promised would happen with his recovery?

Where indeed.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Not to mention that a lot of government jobs, particularly schools and police, that were temporarily subsidized by our kids via the stimulus spending are now going away. The Obama dream was that by the time the stimulus ran out states would be able to fully fund their budgets because the economy had recovered. This turned out not to happen, in large part because the collapse in home values was not arrested. I am of the opinion that trying to support home values artificially would have been a mistake, but once Obama decided not to go with WPA style job creation he was rolling the dice that home values would stabilize in time to avoid a double dip.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Jimmy Carter + Rod Blagojevich = Barack Obama

"Obama aides will testify at that trial, and the nation will see that Barack Obama has a long history of engaging in the sleaziest of Chicago-style political deal-making."

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Obviously Libs have a double standard when judging a Republican president vs who is a Democrat, but let's face it, so do conservatives.

We expect, however, some semblance of objectivity from the Media, but we're foolish to do so. They have the same double standards as Libs --- I wonder why? Isn't it surprising that a group with no political bias applies the same double standards as a group with an admitted bias?

Actually, I'm going to use a single standard in judging Obama: his free use of Predator drones is one of the few things he's done of which I strongly approve.

Yet it is interesting that the pretty tragic collateral damage resulting from snuffing al-Qaeda #3 (his grandchildren for goodness sakes) hasn't generated a firestorm of protests by the US Left, the European Left, OR the Arab Street.

My view is that if you are al-Qaeda 1-500 you shouldn't be driving around with innocents. Did he think they provide him with a shield? What sort of man would do that? He had to know he was a target for hellfire from the skies, and yet he traveled with virtually his entire family.

These guys are such mighty warriors of God, but they can't fight the heroic fight without their entire extended family in tow?

On Afghanistan, Obama dithered around to an extent that didn't please me, but he's essentially come through and done the right thing. No indication that he's hamstringing our fighting forces there.

We'll see what happens when his deadline comes, but based on his past performance with self-imposed deadlines, I'm not all that worried.

What the chattering crowd on the Left don't realize is that Obama is a hardcore Leftist in the vein of Ho Chi Minh or Leon Trotsky. This is not to suggest that he is in their league, but to point out he is not a George McGovern or Gene McCarthy either. If he thinks it's necessary to kick some ass, he'll do it and not waste time with handwringing.

The problem is that in his worldview, there are people whose asses deserve kicking, but which he chooses to give a pass. It's not because he's soft.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What the chattering crowd on the Left don't realize is that Obama is a hardcore Leftist in the vein of Ho Chi Minh or Leon Trotsky. This is not to suggest that he is in their league, but to point out he is not a George McGovern or Gene McCarthy either. If he thinks it's necessary to kick some ass, he'll do it and not waste time with handwringing.

The problem is that in his worldview, there are people whose asses deserve kicking, but which he chooses to give a pass. It's not because he's soft.

Interesting assessment of Obama, Finn. This reminds me of what various folks have said about Obama. For example, some supporters admire Obama for being calm, cool, and collected. But Rush Limbaugh is not the only one that has assessed this supposed positive trait of appearing to be cool and collected as instead being a very negative trait, that of being cold, calculating, and without feeling for the opposition. It strikes me, Finn, that the opposition can include the political opposition in this country, but it also includes al Qaeda figures that by successfully eliminating he can elevate his perceived success as president. So if I am interpreting what you wrote correctly, Finn, it may not be a matter of Obama wishing to defeat al Qaeda because they are really bad apples and are the enemies of the United States, but rather because defeating them will elevate his own personal ratings.

To be compared to Ho Chi Minh or Leon Trotsky is not a particularly flattering comparison. It is no secret here on this forum that I (okie) also think Obama at his core is a sort of dictator wannabe.

3 Replies

@okie,

I admire Obama for being calm, cool, and collected, AS WELL AS cold, calculating, and without feeling for the opposition. These are all qualities a good leader needs.

As for the domestic opposition, what warm feelings should he have for them? The Republicans in Congress are a bunch of Assholes, Okie, and that's no joke. Tell me, why should Obama 'feel' for them?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

But Rush Limbaugh ... has assessed this supposed positive trait of appearing to be cool and collected as instead being a very negative trait...

End of discussion, then.

3 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

okie wrote:

But Rush Limbaugh ... has assessed this supposed positive trait of appearing to be cool and collected as instead being a very negative trait...

End of discussion, then.

Yep, it sounds like Rush nailed it. Obama is cold, calculating, and without feeling for the opposition.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I admire Obama for being calm, cool, and collected, AS WELL AS cold, calculating, and without feeling for the opposition. These are all qualities a good leader needs.

As for the domestic opposition, what warm feelings should he have for them? The Republicans in Congress are a bunch of Assholes, Okie, and that's no joke. Tell me, why should Obama 'feel' for them?

Cycloptichorn

cyclops, what you write is troubling to say the least. People that are cold and calculating, and without the proper feeling for fellow human beings, those people can be extremely dangerous, as has been amply demonstrated in history. If you would go to the thread that I started, titled "What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?" http://able2know.org/topic/66117-1 , you would learn that the three common denominators that are found with some of history's worst bad apples were as follows:

1 - Dysfunctional family and troubled childhood that extends into adulthood. This includes troubled spousal relationships and other relationships as adults.
2 - Rejection and/or hate for religious belief, sometimes despite training as a child. As they grow into adulthood, they have a hatred or unresolved resentment toward certain groups, races, or religion.
3 - They perceive injustice from childhood and develop a burning desire to dominate, gain power, and right the wrongs toward society and to them as they view it. Typically there is a hate for business and private enterprise, as it is viewed as unfair and the cause of much injustice and suffering, and religion is also viewed as a failure, so government and they are the hope of righting the wrongs and creating their vision of utopia on earth.

So cyclops, you don't have to be a shrink to know or realize that criminals are cold and calculating and do not have proper feelings for fellow human beings, and sometimes even animals. We know that some of the most ruthless criminals have been found to have tortured animals before they went onto doing the same with humans. And I also think some of the most ruthless dictators in history have criminal personalities and merely directed their dysfunctional personalities into a criminal political career. One of the characteristics of these dictators was to be cold, calculating, and unfeeling toward fellow human beings.

Look, I am not saying Obama is that extreme, but the idea that being cold and calculating, and unable to have proper feelings for fellow human beings is a healthy thing, that is a very bizarre and mentally twisted thing to say, and it makes me even wonder about your sanity or common sense. And it is insulting for you to call the Republicans in Congress what you just did. Those people are more honorable and have more of a moral sense of right an wrong than most Democrats in Congress, and I resent your statement greatly. I could say the same as you did about Democrats, but I have not, because we are all human beings regardless of our political party registration. I think Democrats are very wrong, but to despise them, no, I do not. Not even Obama, I resent his politics and think he is unqualified and very misguided, but hate the man, no not at all.

It sounds like from what you said that you would have greatly admired Adolf Hitler if you had lived in Germany in the 30's, cyclops. After all, being cold, calculating, and without feeling for fellow human beings, those are good qualities for a leader, thats what a leader needs according to you. Any respect for you that I had has been reduced to almost nothing by your post. But of course what should I have expected from a man that thinks a human is no more valuable than a worm? How foolish could I be to get my hopes up for something better.

I am amazed at some of the opinions posted here by liberals from time to time, and if it wasn't frankly frightening, it would be humorous. I find some of this stuff beyond humor, and in fact conservatives have a big job ahead of us to defeat the evil around us, and some of that evil can be found incapsulated in what is known as liberalism.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Ah, limburger, the oracle of Delphi.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

okie wrote:

But Rush Limbaugh ... has assessed this supposed positive trait of appearing to be cool and collected as instead being a very negative trait...

End of discussion, then.

Rush has nailed it I think. I agree with Rush that Obama's personality is not very appealing, I remember noting that during the presidential debates when I noticed a couple of different times a look on his face, in response to a question or answer from a debate opponent, that I found very repulsive. I detected a look of a man that had a hatred to it or something, it was hard to describe, but it is something that we as human beings size up as we judge other people's personalities. It was not a look of a man that I would trust, I do remember that fairly well, and I think I commented on it on one of the threads here after one of the debates.

By the way, I know many of you despise Rush Limbaugh, but he is infinitely more informed and perceptive about most political issues than many of the posters here.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed “things that the previous administration did not.’’

If Bush, the supposed "warmonger" didnt allow some things, and Obama is allowing those things, what does that make Obama?

Considering how vague that statement is, I suppose allowing "things that the previous administration did not" could include anything from assassinations to diplomatic contact.

1 Reply

@okie,

I think sometimes a leader has to be cold and calculating in order to make the tough decisions that need to be made - especially when wars are going on. You think this as well and have said as much in the past. It has nothing to do with Hitler, though it's certainly unsurprising that you - as usual - go straight to your favorite comparison to make when Liberals are involved.

Quote:

And it is insulting for you to call the Republicans in Congress what you just did. Those people are more honorable and have more of a moral sense of right an wrong than most Democrats in Congress, and I resent your statement greatly.

I don't see anything particularly honorable about them. They lie with regularity, blatantly, and don't particularly seem to care much when they get caught. They moralize constantly, yet get caught in moral scandals regularly. They advocate economic policies designed primarily to benefit the rich and nobody else. They work to keep folks from enjoying equal rights. They are warmongers, for the most part.

Worst of all, though, is that they whine incessantly.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I don't see anything particularly honorable about them. They lie with regularity, blatantly, and don't particularly seem to care much when they get caught. They moralize constantly, yet get caught in moral scandals regularly. They advocate economic policies designed primarily to benefit the rich and nobody else. They work to keep folks from enjoying equal rights. They are warmongers, for the most part

And this separates them from the dems how?????
You pretty much described both parties.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Sounds like he's allowing both. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

0 Replies

It's long past time for all to address Obama's most serious failing. He is stupid! He has adopted the principles and is following the rotten advice of Saul Alinsky.

Three of Obama's mentors in Chicago were trained by Saul Alinsky. Obama was hired in 1986 by this Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side. The proposed solution to every problem on the South Side was distribution of government funds.

Saul Alinsky, in his books, Reveille for Radicals, and Rules for Radicals, wrote:

Radicals should be "political relativists." and should take an agnostic view of means and ends;
The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth"truth to him is relative and changing;
Radicals are not virtuous by not wanting power, because power is good and powerlessness is evil;
Life is a corrupting process;
He who fears corruption fears life;
The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;
The radical is building his own kingdom;
The radical’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots;
The stated cause is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause;
The real cause is accumulation of power to make the revolution;
The standard of the revolution is a democracy which upends all social hierarchies, including those based on merit.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I don't see anything particularly honorable about them. They lie with regularity, blatantly, and don't particularly seem to care much when they get caught. They moralize constantly, yet get caught in moral scandals regularly. They advocate economic policies designed primarily to benefit the rich and nobody else. They work to keep folks from enjoying equal rights. They are warmongers, for the most part

And this separates them from the dems how?????
You pretty much described both parties.

Purple - Applies to both parties often.
Red - Very Republican
Red-Purple - Both do it, but more on the right IMO.

I made the war monger part purple because I don't think the Dems do an adequate job resisting military action and deployment. The posture like they do, but certainly are not the champions they claim to be.

In the end it comes down to individuals, and certainly some are better than the average (in both parties). I feel however that the Dems having the big tent means that they have a little more ability to act on integrity, whereas a member of the GOP has a specific and very rigid platform. Certainly more rigid than the Dems.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@failures art,

I agree that the Dems fail to resist the lure of war. Vietnam demonstrated that war is outmoded and generally not well accepted by the public. Enthusiasm for armed conflict fades rather quickly.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know