Obama - "I will not apologize for the Bergdahl swap"

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by bigrun

With respect also I offer this short comment.
Well we moved the aircraft carrier USS H. W. BUSH and two battle ships to the Persian Gulf..Iran has has offered help..Iran has majority of Shiites...same as Iraq...Those photos are sickening but stories like that are part of the list of reasons Bush2 used to invade a sovereign country - Iraq-..If Obama invades Iraq i will be first in line screaming impeach his asz...and don't forget WHO started this shiit...

My friend I am no hawk and am not suggesting boots on the ground. I am wondering, though, why our President seems to have a serious problem with leadership and decision making.

I am all for air strikes in this instance, for the record.

The brutality these monsters display is frightening and I find it outrageous that days pass by while the President ponders and we see pictures of living, breathing people in colorful shirts one minute and piles of dead bodies the next and still... he is thinking?

I mean come on, can he not make a decision ever?

Either help them or don't but for the love of God make a choice and if action needs to be taken do it and do it now.

It's only going to get worse and I'm feeling like we have no clue how bad worse actually is.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

My friend I am no hawk and am not suggesting boots on the ground. I am wondering, though, why our President seems to have a serious problem with leadership and decision making.

I am all for air strikes in this instance, for the record.

The brutality these monsters display is frightening and I find it outrageous that days pass by while the President ponders and we see pictures of living, breathing people in colorful shirts one minute and piles of dead bodies the next and still... he is thinking?

I mean come on, can he not make a decision ever?

Either help them or don't but for the love of God make a choice and if action needs to be taken do it and do it now.

It's only going to get worse and I'm feeling like we have no clue how bad worse actually is.

my oldest and i were discussing presidents yesterday.

when was the last good one? ike?

anyone who voted for obama has to be wondering if there's a return policy, he's been one disappointment after another.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world..._a_common.html


we invaded iraq years ago, and have pretty much caused the upheavals in that entire region, destabilizing much of the area.

now what?

after ww1, we didn't get involved in another conflict til ww2. we've pretty much been in one conflict after another since then. why? why did our foreign policy change after ww2, and become the huge mess it's been ever since?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world..._a_common.html


we invaded iraq years ago, and have pretty much caused the upheavals in that entire region, destabilizing much of the area.

now what?

after ww1, we didn't get involved in another conflict til ww2. we've pretty much been in one conflict after another since then. why? why did our foreign policy change after ww2, and become the huge mess it's been ever since?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

my oldest and i were discussing presidents yesterday.

when was the last good one? ike?

anyone who voted for obama has to be wondering if there's a return policy, he's been one disappointment after another.

I respectfully disagree; he's governed about how anyone who follows politics closely would have expected him to govern, and perhaps a bit more successfully, especially in light of how dysfunctional Congress has become. The big thing about Obama is he doesn't knee-jerk react very often; he usually takes time before making a decision. This is very UnAmerican, as we prefer our politicians to leap up and make snap decisions, preferably before all the facts are in, and if the facts don't match what they want to do, to make them up (see: Iraq, 2003).

I'm sorry some here are angry that I brought up Iraq, but those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or rather, the kids who signed up to serve their country are doomed because the rich and powerful are never held liable for anything. Charles Pierce has a very, very powerful op-ed in Esquire; I recommend it:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...At_The_Present

And it's just not correct to claim that people were ripping Bush and Iraq the way they now shred Obama over Syria and Iraq, Phase 2. Ashely Banleigh tried to tell the truth and her career took a nosedive that she wouldn't have recovered from had she not agreed to start playing the game. The NYTimes played the game. People who questioned the invasion were accused of being terrorist supporters. I remember. And now the attitude is, "Well, that's in the past, what is the President doing NOW" but the NOW is because of this past.

Worst f*cking decision ever made by a US President was Ford pardoning Nixon. From then on, it was very clear that Presidents were above the law (unless they lied about blow jobs, because SEX), and, 30 years later that decision bears fruit in the deaths of thousands of enlisted in service to a President's and Vice President's egos, who will die old men in their beds, with all their limbs still attached to their bodies.

As for Ike, I had a Big Book of Jokes and Riddles as a child and I still remember the one in it about the "Eisenhower Doll: Wind it up and it does nothing for eight years." How Presidents are remembered right after their Presidency and how they are remembered 50 years later often have no relation to each other.

I'm going to state, for the record, that history will look back on Obama's presidency with relatively approving eyes, and not because six years after he was out of office, a well-funded bunch of commentators and pundits will make a fervent effort to rewrite his legacy, as was done with Ronald Reagan (I am also old enough to remember Reagan, and Iran Contra shaped my view of government like nothing else). Obama is not perfect, and he has made some decisions I vehemently, vehemently disagree with (signing Congress's law that protesters are not permitted in areas where Secret Service have been assigned being a big one), but he's been the best in my lifetime. Low bar, to be sure, looking at who came before, but there it is.

Feel free to come back in 100 years and tell me I was wrong, but, as C Plus Augustus once said, when asked if he thought about how he'd be viewed in 100 years, in 100 years we'll all be dead, anyway.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I respectfully disagree; he's governed about how anyone who follows politics closely would have expected him to govern, and perhaps a bit more successfully, especially in light of how dysfunctional Congress has become. The big thing about Obama is he doesn't knee-jerk react very often; he usually takes time before making a decision. This is very UnAmerican, as we prefer our politicians to leap up and make snap decisions, preferably before all the facts are in, and if the facts don't match what they want to do, to make them up (see: Iraq, 2003).

I'm sorry some here are angry that I brought up Iraq, but those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or rather, the kids who signed up to serve their country are doomed because the rich and powerful are never held liable for anything. Charles Pierce has a very, very powerful op-ed in Esquire; I recommend it:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...At_The_Present

And it's just not correct to claim that people were ripping Bush and Iraq the way they now shred Obama over Syria and Iraq, Phase 2. Ashely Banleigh tried to tell the truth and her career took a nosedive that she wouldn't have recovered from had she not agreed to start playing the game. The NYTimes played the game. People who questioned the invasion were accused of being terrorist supporters. I remember. And now the attitude is, "Well, that's in the past, what is the President doing NOW" but the NOW is because of this past.

Worst f*cking decision ever made by a US President was Ford pardoning Nixon. From then on, it was very clear that Presidents were above the law (unless they lied about blow jobs, because SEX), and, 30 years later that decision bears fruit in the deaths of thousands of enlisted in service to a President's and Vice President's egos, who will die old men in their beds, with all their limbs still attached to their bodies.

As for Ike, I had a Big Book of Jokes and Riddles as a child and I still remember the one in it about the "Eisenhower Doll: Wind it up and it does nothing for eight years." How Presidents are remembered right after their Presidency and how they are remembered 50 years later often have no relation to each other.

I'm going to state, for the record, that history will look back on Obama's presidency with relatively approving eyes, and not because six years after he was out of office, a well-funded bunch of commentators and pundits will make a fervent effort to rewrite his legacy, as was done with Ronald Reagan (I am also old enough to remember Reagan, and Iran Contra shaped my view of government like nothing else). Obama is not perfect, and he has made some decisions I vehemently, vehemently disagree with (signing Congress's law that protesters are not permitted in areas where Secret Service have been assigned being a big one), but he's been the best in my lifetime. Low bar, to be sure, looking at who came before, but there it is.

Feel free to come back in 100 years and tell me I was wrong, but, as C Plus Augustus once said, when asked if he thought about how he'd be viewed in 100 years, in 100 years we'll all be dead, anyway.

i feel much of obamas presidency has just been a continuation of the inept previous president and his various and sundry blunders. our foreign policy is still akin to a blindfolded person trying to navigate a maze.
patriot act still in force, of course gitmo still open ( i never believed for one moment that obama would close it), the economy still a mess, with no one still held accountable in the finance world for the huge mess they created (thanks to clinton for signing that legislation removing the barrier between banking and investing) still in afganistan, no reset with russia and all they've pulled lately.
i don't think we've been any better off since the last president left and this one took over. of course none of us know how history will regard them-i can aver that he will be deemed a failure and be as right as you thinking he'll be deemed a success.

and yes, congress has also been a barrier to much at all getting done. can't argue with that one bit.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i feel much of obamas presidency has just been a continuation of the inept previous president and his various and sundry blunders. our foreign policy is still akin to a blindfolded person trying to navigate a maze.
patriot act still in force, of course gitmo still open ( i never believed for one moment that obama would close it), the economy still a mess, with no one still held accountable in the finance world for the huge mess they created (thanks to clinton for signing that legislation removing the barrier between banking and investing) still in afganistan, no reset with russia and all they've pulled lately.
i don't think we've been any better off since the last president left and this one took over. of course none of us know how history will regard them-i can aver that he will be deemed a failure and be as right as you thinking he'll be deemed a success.

and yes, congress has also been a barrier to much at all getting done. can't argue with that one bit.

He did nail the jobs program by hiring a Fox to guard the Hen-House.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/in...-overseas-pays

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

He did nail the jobs program by hiring a Fox to guard the Hen-House.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/in...-overseas-pays

a record high liquidity...no surprise at all.

but yeah, less regs, lower taxes. it's worked so far! with all the tax cuts, new jobs are being created like mad....

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I respectfully disagree; he's governed about how anyone who follows politics closely would have expected him to govern, and perhaps a bit more successfully, especially in light of how dysfunctional Congress has become. The big thing about Obama is he doesn't knee-jerk react very often; he usually takes time before making a decision. This is very UnAmerican, as we prefer our politicians to leap up and make snap decisions, preferably before all the facts are in, and if the facts don't match what they want to do, to make them up (see: Iraq, 2003).

I'm sorry some here are angry that I brought up Iraq, but those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or rather, the kids who signed up to serve their country are doomed because the rich and powerful are never held liable for anything. Charles Pierce has a very, very powerful op-ed in Esquire; I recommend it:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...At_The_Present

And it's just not correct to claim that people were ripping Bush and Iraq the way they now shred Obama over Syria and Iraq, Phase 2. Ashely Banleigh tried to tell the truth and her career took a nosedive that she wouldn't have recovered from had she not agreed to start playing the game. The NYTimes played the game. People who questioned the invasion were accused of being terrorist supporters. I remember. And now the attitude is, "Well, that's in the past, what is the President doing NOW" but the NOW is because of this past.

Worst f*cking decision ever made by a US President was Ford pardoning Nixon. From then on, it was very clear that Presidents were above the law (unless they lied about blow jobs, because SEX), and, 30 years later that decision bears fruit in the deaths of thousands of enlisted in service to a President's and Vice President's egos, who will die old men in their beds, with all their limbs still attached to their bodies.

As for Ike, I had a Big Book of Jokes and Riddles as a child and I still remember the one in it about the "Eisenhower Doll: Wind it up and it does nothing for eight years." How Presidents are remembered right after their Presidency and how they are remembered 50 years later often have no relation to each other.

I'm going to state, for the record, that history will look back on Obama's presidency with relatively approving eyes, and not because six years after he was out of office, a well-funded bunch of commentators and pundits will make a fervent effort to rewrite his legacy, as was done with Ronald Reagan (I am also old enough to remember Reagan, and Iran Contra shaped my view of government like nothing else). Obama is not perfect, and he has made some decisions I vehemently, vehemently disagree with (signing Congress's law that protesters are not permitted in areas where Secret Service have been assigned being a big one), but he's been the best in my lifetime. Low bar, to be sure, looking at who came before, but there it is.

Feel free to come back in 100 years and tell me I was wrong, but, as C Plus Augustus once said, when asked if he thought about how he'd be viewed in 100 years, in 100 years we'll all be dead, anyway.

Good post

People who questioned the invasion were accused of being terrorist supporters. I remember

So do I..'You don't support the troops!'..'You are a Bush hater'.'You are not a Patriot!'...mostly from the far right and Fox of course...Hannity and Ingraham..
My vote for best prez is JFK...I remember the Cuban missile crisis and JFK's tv speech..pointing his finger at the camera and telling the Russians to get the fk out of Cuba..and they did!...also remember that weekend crappin my pants waiting to rush the kids to the basement when the first bomb dropped..lotta good that would do...

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_neocons.html

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_neocons.html

I'm no fan of any of these clowns, and still want to know why Chaney and Rumsfeld were not held accountable for convincing a standing president that an invasion of a sovereign nation was required ensure our security when there was no basis in fact to support this nonsensical notion.

That said, was Paul Wolfowitz not the Under Secretary of Defense, serving under Rumsfeld during this period of time the author is purporting?

The DoD is in the business of making war for fun and profit. It would be fairly difficult to find a non-hawkish lackey in that position.

Again- I hate all of these douches, but to compare his knowledge of the region to that of Michael Brown's disaster preparedness knowledge, is absurd.

It's really another reason why these Slate "hit pieces" never garner the attention they should.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I'm no fan of any of these clowns, and still want to know why Chaney and Rumsfeld were not held accountable for convincing a standing president that an invasion of a sovereign nation was required ensure our security when there was no basis in fact to support this nonsensical notion.

That said, was Paul Wolfowitz not the Under Secretary of Defense, serving under Rumsfeld during this period of time the author is purporting?

The DoD is in the business of making war for fun and profit. It would be fairly difficult to find a non-hawkish lackey in that position.

Again- I hate all of these douches, but to compare his knowledge of the region to that of Michael Brown's disaster preparedness knowledge, is absurd.

It's really another reason why these Slate "hit pieces" never garner the attention they should.

i just really wish they'd quit with the constant war-mongering already. but, i guess the dod and all their corporate buddies have to keep beating the war drums to justify all their military spending.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I'm no fan of any of these clowns, and still want to know why Chaney and Rumsfeld were not held accountable for convincing a standing president that an invasion of a sovereign nation was required ensure our security when there was no basis in fact to support this nonsensical notion.

That said, was Paul Wolfowitz not the Under Secretary of Defense, serving under Rumsfeld during this period of time the author is purporting?

The DoD is in the business of making war for fun and profit. It would be fairly difficult to find a non-hawkish lackey in that position.

Again- I hate all of these douches, but to compare his knowledge of the region to that of Michael Brown's disaster preparedness knowledge, is absurd.

It's really another reason why these Slate "hit pieces" never garner the attention they should.

Wolfowitz,Kristol,Feith the architects of the plan to invade Iraq..with Darth Vader as Manager..
Their task was to develop reasons to invade Iraq.

Saddam gassed his own people.(so what!..anybody here shed tears or giva schit)

He's a threat to U.S. security..(Couldn't hit Israeal with scud missles in Gulf war)

Bought yellowcake from Niger...False..

Top reason..Had arsenal of WMD's...Couldn't find ONE!

Dumya should have his Dad's book on why he didn't advance to Baghdad in the Golf war after we expelled Iraq from Kuwait