Obama '08?

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

And where are you on all of this?

Our esteemed President appears to imagine he can occupy the "good" part of all sides on these issues. Gitmo is still open and the covert surveillance of potential terrorist communications continues even after all his pious campaign rhetoric to the contrary - same goes for political assasinations (using drones) in Pakistan and other areas. Now he is making rather fine and meaningless distinctions in his rather transparent rationalizations for what we are (almost) doing in Libya.

The Gitmo thing is in large part because his own party did not support him on this issue. Conservatives have been able to demonize Gitmo relocation VERY successfully and the support just isn't there within the party to do what the pres wants. He pushed it for a whole year and senior Dems in the Senate made it clear that they would not agree. What was he supposed to do?

Re: the drones and Libya, we are in perfect agreement regarding the failures of the administration in this area. Try and remember me saying this next time you're tempted to refer to me as an Obama loyalist Smile

Re: Parados, he's just toying with Okie's complete inability to reconcile inconsistencies with his position. But I believe Okie was merely being sarcastic.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Re: Parados, he's just toying with Okie's complete inability to reconcile inconsistencies with his position. But I believe Okie was merely being sarcastic.
Cycloptichorn

I was being sarcastic in a measure, because parados is oviously hypocritical and will defend Obama without regard to any underlying principle.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You haven't answered my question okie.

Are you on the side of the terrorists?

Of course I am not on the side of terrorists.

Quote:

The invasion of Iraq had the potential to create more terrorists. Were you against that for that reason? No, you clearly weren't. But suddenly you have that concern? I doubt you believe it. It is a political expediency on your part because you want to blame Obama for something.

Obama was given the power to use military forces against anyone involved in terrorism by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

So... answer the question okie. Are you on the side of the terrorists?

There are obviously differences between Libya and Iraq. Hussein had already shown his willingness to invade a neighboring country, as well as killing tens of thousands of his own people. He had also supported terrorists, and the intelligence community had told us he was working on WMD. At least he had the tools in place to develop them. Although Libya has supported terrorism, I don't think up to this time they had murdered tens of thousands of their own people, nor does Qaddafi have a WMD program, thanks to Bush. I also think that Obama should have at least consulted Congress and have gotten their approval, as Bush did to take action in Iraq.

Who knows what the outcome of Libya will be, but suffice it to say that liberals and Obama are not being consistent with their past pronouncements, and they do not gender much confidence among Americans with what they are doing. Compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, this action appears to be much more spur of the moment and potentially more ill advised in the long run. Is there a coherent plan to successfully finish what we have started? I doubt it. Instead of a plan, it appears to me to be more of an impulsive action.

3 Replies

@okie,

.... and Bush's plan for Iraq is still going on and going on and ...

1 Reply

@okie,

Hey, okie, you're talking about something that happened some 20-years ago that the Sr Bush started, and it is still on-going with our involvement, and you want to talk about Libya? Your examples are not only foolish, but simple minded as well.

Jr Bush really didn't need to attack Iraq again on false information, and the fact that he chased out the UN weapons inspectors to start his war.

0 Replies

Hey guys, Obama said we should have never gone to Iraq and that it was a waste of time and a diversion from the more important mission in Afghanistan. If he actually believed that, or believes that, he could easily order all of the troops out of there immediately. What is he waiting for?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

And where are you on all of this?

Our esteemed President appears to imagine he can occupy the "good" part of all sides on these issues. Gitmo is still open and the covert surveillance of potential terrorist communications continues even after all his pious campaign rhetoric to the contrary - same goes for political assasinations (using drones) in Pakistan and other areas. Now he is making rather fine and meaningless distinctions in his rather transparent rationalizations for what we are (almost) doing in Libya.

Gitmo is open because he is President, not dictator.

Frankly, I don't recall Obama stating he wouldn't conduct surveillance on potential terrorist communications. The way that surveillance is being been done has changed because the law changed in 2008. The FISA court has jurisdiction. Obama stated he would follow the law and the FISA court in conducting surveillance. If you have information he isn't following the law, let us know.

When have the drones been used for political assassinations? Al Qaeda and the Taliban are military targets the last time I checked.

As for Libya, the stated reason is protection of civilians which more closely mirrors Kosovo than Iraq.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

There are obviously differences between Libya and Iraq. Hussein had already shown his willingness to invade a neighboring country, as well as killing tens of thousands of his own people. He had also supported terrorists, and the intelligence community had told us he was working on WMD.

So... let's see...
Libya - Ghadaffi has killed tens of thousands of his own people. Ghadaffi is actually mobilizing military to do that now.
Libya has already shown willingness to invade a neighboring country when it invaded Chad and tried to annex the norther part of that country.
Libya has supported terrorists.
Libya has been working on chemical weapons and had an active nuclear program until they just recently stated they would give them up.

Quote:

nor does Qaddafi have a WMD program, thanks to Bush

You do realize that Iraq didn't have a WMD program, don't you?

It's you that isn't being consistent okie. I have not stated my position.

2 Replies

@parados,

This dated yesterday.

Quote:

WASHINGTON – Western reconnaissance satellites are closely monitoring a small garage at a remote site in the Libyan desert after the US and European strikes, The Washington Post reported late Saturday.

The newspaper said the Libyan government keeps about 10 tons of mustard gas in about a half-dozen large canisters in the garage, south of the city of Sirte.

So much for Libya not having WMD thanks to Bush.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You do realize that Iraq didn't have a WMD program, don't you?

No I do not realize that, nor do I believe it with any degree of certainty. I believe it is yet too early to write the history books about this. There are still people that believe WMD or some of the machinery were transported into Syria, and there is some evidence to support that theory.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

There are still people that believe WMD or some of the machinery were transported into Syria, and there is some evidence to support that theory.

There are also people that believe in Santa Claus.

But why don't you meet your standard of "evidence" okie and provide some about the WMD heading into Syria. Or does this constitute a case of you said it so no real evidence is required.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
You do realize that Iraq didn't have a WMD program, don't you?
No I do not realize that, nor do I believe it with any degree of certainty. I believe it is yet too early to write the history books about this.

It will ALWAYS be too early in your mind, because the answer wasn't what you wanted it to be.

Quote:

There are still people that believe WMD or some of the machinery were transported into Syria, and there is some evidence to support that theory.

There are people who believe all sorts of stupid ****. We can make judgments about the modern world without resorting to listening to their opinions.

Outside of far-right wing websites, nobody gives any credibility at all to the idea you've written here. It's just a way for Bushies to pretend that they didn't **** up colossally.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You are so hellbent upon blaming Bush that you are simply unwilling to consider any other narrative to the story, are you cyclops? Admit it. I admit that I don't honestly know, but there is enough information out there to make it seem plausible or at least possible in my opinion.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

You are so hellbent upon blaming Bush that you are simply unwilling to consider any other narrative to the story, are you cyclops?

Unlike you, I do believe that the Buck Stops at the Top. Bush was at the top and he bears responsibility for things that went wrong on his watch - same as Obama does.

When his administration chose to use the WMD threat to scare the country into going to war, he gambled with his reputation and his word. When they turned out not to be there, he lost that gamble. He should own that and so should you.

Quote:

Admit it. I admit that I don't honestly know, but there is enough information out there to make it seem plausible or at least possible in my opinion.

No, there's not enough info to make it 'plausible.' There's just bitter tears in right-wing beers, and reaching for something to quiet the dissonance inside.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I admit that I don't honestly know, but there is enough information out there to make it seem plausible or at least possible in my opinion.

Sure okie and there is enough evidence out there that you called POM a lesbian if this is your standard for evidence.

0 Replies

@okie,

Yes, there is enough information out there that are factual; the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq looking for WMDs when GW Bush chased them out to start his war.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

GWBush started the war in Iraq for 2 reasons among others:
1.Reduce Saddam Hussein's chances of developing WMD;
2.Reduce Saddam Hussein's mass murder of Iraqis

He succeeded at both!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Those two reasons are bogus, but it's not surprising that some of you still believe in these fairy tales.

BTW, our mass murder of innocent Iraqis with our "shock and awe" was a crime against humanity, and the illegal war that GW Bush lied to get congress' approval. You still believe in that fairy tale about WMDs in Iraq?

Why did GW Bush chase out the UN inspectors who were there to look for WMDs? That makes sense to corrupted brain like yours, but that just doesn't compute; kill tens of thousands of Iraqis on "they might have WMDs" They didn't.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

The federal government manages their budgets and revenues no where near as well as do private companies.

The grammatical disagreement between "government" and "their" is enough to sink this statement. Yep, Enron managed its revenues well. So did Countrywide Financial and AMeriquest. Oh, and Lehman Brothers and that insurance company . . . somehow the initials IGA stick in my mind but that was a supermarket chain.

If you were any more naive, you would still be a fetus. No one who lives and breathes can be so unknowing.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

From wiki:
Paul Krugman, laureate of the Nobel Prize in Economics, described the run on the shadow banking system as the "core of what happened" to cause the crisis. He referred to this lack of controls as "malign neglect" and argued that regulation should have been imposed on all banking-like activity.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know