GOP candidates and talking heads are claiming that the timing of the Iraqi pullout is politically motivated and condemning Obama for it. Perry, Bachman, McCain et al are all asserting that it’s rushed and wrongheaded…even though it’s being done on the schedule established by Bush.
So when Obama kills bin Laden, they give props to Bush, declaring that W.’s policies made it possible even though W. stated on record that he didn’t give bin Laden much thought anymore…
…but when Obama adheres to Bush’s policy and deals that Bush made for a withdrawal schedule, it’s Obama just being a politically motivated dìçk?
You know what? Good luck to the GOP making this one fly. Selling the notion of “How dare that bášŧárd Obama get our young men and women out of a warzone that we never should have been in in the first place” is going to be an uphill battle at best. If anything, it’s the GOP talking heads who are going to look as if THEY are playing politics, trying to put a negative spin on something that I have to think most Americans have wanted to see happen.
PAD
• 
I think Dana Milbank from The Washington Post put it best when he called it ‘reflexive criticism’ by the GOP. Personally I could care less if we’ll leaving on our own steam, or if Iraq has had enough of us; if tens of thousands of US troops are safely home with their families for the holidays, that’s just fine with me. Let the GOP ask those families how they feel about it.
Do you think the military families who have sweated and toiled and sacrificed and in some case made the ultimate sacrifice will be happy if this is indeed a premature pullout and Iraq is, say, infiltrated by Iran and/or descends back into hëll.
.
I think it’s quite important if this is what Iraq actually wants, if we’re abandoning people to horrible fates for political expediency. If so much of what we have worked for goes for naught.
.
I personally don’t want to see a repeat of the helicopters leaving Saigon.
Do you think the military families who have sweated and toiled and sacrificed and in some case made the ultimate sacrifice will be happy if this is indeed a premature pullout and Iraq is, say, infiltrated by Iran and/or descends back into hëll.
You know what, Jerome? I’ve seen any number of filmed reunions of soldiers coming back and oftentimes surprising loved ones. Ecstatic children, overjoyed spouses. My instinct is that, once the cameras stopped rolling, they didn’t take a step back and say, “But…is it really okay that you’ve come back? What if your return was premature and, if all of you come back, Iraq slides into hëll?” I think all they cared about is that their loved ones were back in one piece. So yeah, I’m calling bûllšhìŧ on this one, too.
.
PAD
Do you think the military families who have sweated and toiled and sacrificed and in some case made the ultimate sacrifice will be happy if this is indeed a premature pullout and Iraq is, say, infiltrated by Iran and/or descends back into hëll.
.
Speaking as a member of one of those families – yes, we’ll still be happy. Having our men in there, getting killed or dismembered or just losing parts of their minds on those fields, doesn’t seem to be making a dámņ bit of difference on how quickly Iraq slides into Hëll. The ONLY thing that can save that country at this point is for the Iraqis themselves to stand up en masse, announce that they’ve had enough, and refuse to listen to the religious demagogues from the two major divisions of Islam represented there. They have to realize for themselves that it doesn’t really matter that much whether Mohammed’s proper successor was his uncle or his nephew, and that arguing over it takes away from the words of the Prophet himself. (Similar to how most of us in Christian-dominated regions have finally come to realize that it isn’t really that important whether or not the current Pope is truly the spiritual successor to Paul the Fisherman – sure, it might matter to us on a personal level, but it doesn’t make any sense to use that to dictate national policy.)
.
The sad part is that if our example is anything to go by, Sunni and Shia have another three or four hundred years to go before reaching that point – it hasn’t been as long for us as it should have been…
Jerome Maida: Do you think the military families who have sweated and toiled and sacrificed and in some case made the ultimate sacrifice will be happy if this is indeed a premature pullout and Iraq is, say, infiltrated by Iran and/or descends back into hëll?
Luigi Novi: I think they don’t give two šhìŧš about what happens to Iraq, because it’s not their country. My sense is that American military families (and Americans in general) care about what happens to Americans. While we certainly are sympathetic and compassionate towards others in the world who don’t have what we have, it’s preposterous to think that military families are so invested in the sociopolitical situation of a country on the other side of the planet that they know little or nothing about they would rather their loved ones not finally come home. That’s simply absurd, and has about as much truth to it as Bigfoot, the Tooth Fairy and Paris Hilton’s skill as a novelist.
Speaking as a Viet Nam veteran – i could give two šhìŧš about that.
.
This is not analogous to the Viet Nam pullout – in Viet Nam, we pulled out when the South was clearly going to lose without us. (Not that that bothered me, either.)
.
Despite what the right wing and the chicken hawks said when we pulled out of Viet Nam, the pullout itself was not shameful.
.
Creating a puppet regime in the South to use as proxies so JFK and McNamara could have a big dìçk contest with the Soviets, that was shameful.
.
Abandoning the Montagnards who had fought loyally beside us and were definitely on The List after we withdrew … That was an immortal blot on our honour as a nation. (I can’t decide if it was a bigger or smaller blot than the Bay of Pigs or encouraging the Hungarians to revolt against the Soviets and saying we would support them … and then not.
.
(Aw hëll – i am deeply ashamed of all three, and that my nation could have done any of them.)
.
Right now, the Iraq regime that we created looks to have at least even odds of surviving.
.
That’s what we were there for … well, aside from the fact that the main reason we went in is that Bush Minor was determined to get Saddam for dissing his daddy.
.
Soldiers – and, usually, their families – understand that we can go in. We can achieve (or not) our stated objective. (Or even our implicit one.)
.
But we cannot prop up the Iraqi regime forever. Sooner or later they gotta fly on their own.
.
And your “argument” could be posed at any time we decide to pull out. (Unless we nuke Iran into a pool of radioactive glass, anyway.)
.
You wanna see what real soldiers think about “victory conditions”? Read Davis Drake’s Rolling Hot.
And read Drake’s fellow Baen author Michael Z. Williamson’s review of the book on Amazon.
Bless you, Mr weber–both for your service and for remembering the Montagnards. the second largest population of Montagnards is right down the street from me in Greensboro.
Yep, remember killing Osama, Ghadaffi, Iraq pullout=Bush’s doing. Economic problems are all on Obama. Don’t you get the memos? And the problems were originally Clinton’s fault, although Obama shouldn’t look back and blame what’s going on in the country on anything in the past. Oh, OWS is just a bunch of dirty hippies because we’re refighting culture wars from the late 1960s.
Uh, many conservatives would not look kindly upon Bush if it was clear the Iraqis were not ready to take over and he knew that and that would cost us another war.
.
Do you actually do any research or thought into anything or just reflexively spew out phrases and talking points.
.
And no one can give a consistent answer as to what the OWS áššhølëš are fighting FOR. It’s a smorgasbord of “causes” ranging from ignorant, ill-informed and naive to outright hostile to America.
Jerome,
Sorry that “talking points” only count when they come from FOX.
Uh, many conservatives would not look kindly upon Bush if it was clear the Iraqis were not ready to take over and he knew that and that would cost us another war.
.
I call bûllšhìŧ on that one, Jerome. They’d be singing his praises. And furthermore, if any Democrats happened to point out that the timing of the withdrawal seemed to coincide with political self-interest, Fox and the GOP would be denouncing such critics as being unpatriotic and thirsting to see more American blood spilled. Yet now they’re lining up to declare that Obama’s following the timetable that Bush set up is politically motivated. Yeah, definite bûllšhìŧ on that one.
.
PAD
Neil C,
The obsession with Fox is yet another knee-jerk, I’m-gonna-keep-saying-their-name-no matter-what-the-topic-is way for you to avoid an actual discussion.
.
Again, please tell me what the OWS people are fighting FOR.
Again, please tell me what the OWS people are fighting FOR.
.
Kind of an irrelevant response, but I’ll say the exact same thing I’ve said when I’ve been asked this question before: I have no idea. Indeed, the trouble I have with the OWS is precisely that THEY don’t seem to have any idea. I firmly believe that if Obama and the heads of the banks showed up in Wall Street on Monday and said, “What practical steps can we take, right now, to solve all this?” there would be no coherent answer.
.
To me, the difference between the Tea Party and the OWS is the difference between the GOP and Democrats. The Tea Party knows what it wants: Obama out of office and the government out of their lives, except of course for Medicaid and Social Security and making sure that gays can’t marry. Because they’re hypocrites, but they’re laser-focused hypocrites. As opposed to the Wall Street people who are the epitome of the old Will Rogers line: “I do not belong to any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”
.
None of which has anything to do with the fact that Obama’s following a timeline that was instituted by Bush and the GOP talking heads are crying foul.
.
PAD
And where were these “conservatives” of whom you speak when Dubya was pulling his “Mission Accomplished” stunt while thousands of American troops were STILL fighting in Iraq?
.
Save your Faux talking points for an audience that will appreciate them.
Indeed, the trouble I have with the OWS is precisely that THEY don’t seem to have any idea.
.
Actually, I think the OWS folks do have a good idea of what they want. But the message is being muddled by the media.
.
One of the biggest things the OWS wants is corporations out of politics. Obviously, that’s not something that the corporations – Comcast & General Electric own NBC; News Corp owns FOX – want to see happen.
.
There was a political cartoon the other day that showed a crowd of people in front of Wall Street. They all had different signs, repeating the same things. Meanwhile, the 1% guy was shouting from a window, “They don’t know why they’re protesting.” Which was then regurgitated by the media member standing in front of the crowd and camera.
.
It’s plainly obviously that people are completely pìššëd øff, and rightfully so. America is by the people, for the people, not by the corporations, for the corporations. And as much as the SCOTUS wants you to think otherwise, corporations are NOT people.
.
“Again, please tell me what the OWS people are fighting FOR.”
.
Well, just a few fora start…
.
Big money out of politics.
.
Regulations that once existed in this country pertaining to banks, Wall Street dealings and just how many/how much businesses can be bought and owned in any given area by just one parent company.
.
A capitalist system that is not being designed to funnel money up to the degree it’s beginning to be rigged to do so.
.
Adjustments in the tax system so that all those poor millionaires and billionaires and businesses crying about their terrible tax burden might actually pay something more than 0% to 5% once they’ve played their tax games. Oh, and certainly getting rid of the ability for businesses making billions in profit already to then make even more money after taxes than before taxes.
.
Hope that helps.
Heck, I’m still trying to figure out what the Tea Party cry of “I want my country back” is supposed to mean.
.
My Country 96.1 FM. http://www.licountry.com/
.
She thought they were going to an easy listening format and was really upset about it.
It was the Bush Administration’s position not to establish a date for withdrawal for most of the two terms. When the idea of a withdrawal date became one actively pursued by said administration, it was done so due to pressure from the American left. Conservatives didn’t agree with it then or now.
Correction. Neo-Con’s didn’t support it then and don’t support it now … conservatives in the dictionary definition of the word never wanted to go into Iraq in the first place because it’s nation building which unless you are a self-righteous Neo-Con is antithetic to everything you believe. We should never have gone down this path of nation building and trying to police the world. It’s brought nothing but trouble and it always will.
You’re voicing the opinion that I hear from quite a few conservatives: that the direction Bush took the country, and the decisions he made, were antithetical to what the GOP is supposed to stand for. The feeling is that Bush’s big government, high spending, nation building administration…and the subsequent rise of the Tea Party…has completely hijacked the GOP. To some degree, I feel badly for them.
.
Feel free to come over to the Democratic side. We don’t know what the hëll we’re doing, but we have cookies.
.
PAD
Isn’t “neo-con” code for “jew?” Since the term “neo-con” is so undefined and used by so many people to describe so many different people, I refrain from using it. Conservatives like myself were very critical of the Bush-era Republicans. That seems to be conveniently forgotten by the Left, who seem to think that Republican/GOP is synonymous with “conservative.” And yeah, PAD, that makes a lot of sense… tea party people coming over to the Democrat side. People who don’t like the size and growth of government should join the party of big government rather than take the other party back to its conservative roots. Yeah.
Seriously, guys? Don’t you, on ANY level, admit that we had no business going in there in the first place and after a decade there we have no business staying? Or is the sum and substance of your entire being nothing but Fox talking points?
.
PAD
Seriously, no. I don’t.
I love the conceit here, btw. If my local Fox affiliate weatherman says it’s going to get up to 47 degrees today and I mention that in this kind of online environment, I’d be accused of knowing nothing but “Fox talking points.” As if the liberal media doesn’t have the real, original “talking points.”
BS, Darin. Your local Fox AFFILIATE isn’t getting his weather information from FoxNoise–presumably, he (like the thousands of other weather reporters) gets it from the National Weather Service.
.
Of course, you knew your comment was a straw man, yet you posted it all the same.
And what is the sum and substance of your entire being? You act like you’re the only one speaking with “facts” or conviction and everyone who disagrees is regurgitating pablum.
.
I don’t want America to lose tet another war unnecessarily; I don’t want to see people especially possible allies refuse to trust us in the future because we abandoned them. I don’t want EIGHT YEARS (not quite a decade, which I wouldn’t point out except that you always nitpicked Bush on his “exactitude”) of work to give people hope and a new way of living gone because we political considerations trumped what the Iraqi and U.S. militaries feel is the wise thing to do.
.
And if this withdrawal does turn out to be irresponsible and reckless and Iraq does descend into hëll, will it make you sleep better at night knowing that “Bush started it” but Obama let it happen so he could get cheers while running in 2012?
Well, it’s a good thing that we haven’t lost (as far as I know, Saddam and his regime are still dead, and that was the mission objective; the rest has been cleaning up the mess we made doing it), and that we’re not abandoning the Iraqis. Their government is up and running, and their peacekeeping forces have been handling the lion’s share of the work for a while now. I think they’re ready for the training wheels to come off.
.
Heck, this isn’t even a sudden mass pullout like Vietnam. We and our allies have been reducing troop levels for a year, and we haven’t run any combat missions in that time either.
.
The country isn’t going to magically become a paradise overnight once we leave, but it isn’t going to explode into chaos or the dread spectre of “Islamofascism” (whatever that is) either.
And what is the sum and substance of your entire being? You act like you’re the only one speaking with “facts” or conviction and everyone who disagrees is regurgitating pablum.
.
Thank you, Jerome, for admitting that Fox News is pablum. I’ll be sure to remind you of that next time you regurgitate it.
.
As for me, I’ll sleep better knowing that Obama kept one of his campaign promises, and that he did it on Bush’s schedule, which leaves his conservative critics no leg to stand on with this issue. Yet guys like you are still whirling themselves into a frenzy trying to spin this. It’s actually entertaining.
.
PAD
And what is the sum and substance of your entire being? You act like you’re the only one speaking with “facts” or conviction and everyone who disagrees is regurgitating pablum.
.
And of course this is the kneejerk reaction many of you seem to have to people who demonstrate confidence in something opposing what you believe, isn’t it? I’m not sure anyone can answer a question like “what is the sum and substance of your entire being?” to your satisfaction anyway. It’s the kind of question one throws out there in the hope of shutting someone up, typically.
“I don’t want America to lose yet another war unnecessarily.”
You’re kidding, right? Do you really think of Iraq as a win or lose situation? I’d love to hear your definition of victory and defeat for this specific war.
(Oh, and you’re welcome for correcting your spelling.)
You haven’t figured out that Obama can’t win no matter what he does? There is absolutely nothing he can do that is right in the GOP’s eyes. (Also, why are they the GOP? The Democratic party is older… /random thought.)
Michelle Obama has the same problem. I’ve never seen a first lady get as much scrutiny as her, though I admit I was in high school during the Clinton years, so maybe I wasn’t paying as much attention. She goes to Target, she’s pandering. She goes out to dinner at a nice restaurant, she’s spending the taxpayers money on frivolous things. (And gaining weight against her message on childhood obesity on both things. Because obviously, eating counters the message at all.) And how DARE she fight childhood obesity! That’s parents’ business and their business alone! Or something.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
People disagree with Obama? How dare they? You would think this was a democratic republic or something.
.
And no one has gotten as much scrutiny as Michelle? Please. They were making every outfit she wore noteworthy news of the positive kind – “Oh, wow! Look at those arms! Wow! Look at that dress! It’s cheap chic! She can relate to people!”
.
Hillary received FAR more scathing coverage. Barbara and Laura were simple and stayed out of the spotlight. But how about all the crap Nancy Reagan took for her “Just Say No” campaign? How dare she tell children to use their own minds and be strong enough to say no to drugs? And she was also criticized for everything from fawning over Ron to telling him what to do to…what she wore.
.
Quit making the Obamas victims. They are arguably the most powerful couple on Earth (Bill and Melinda Gates come close).
I did say I’ve never seen… do the math, if I was in high school during the Clintons, then do you really think I’d remember Nancy Reagan? I don’t, for the record.
.
And who’s ‘they’ with Michelle? I really didn’t see the news go out of their way with her any more than with Laura. I DO see the right wing go after her far more than the left did with Laura.
.
I’m not saying not to criticize. I’m not saying all criticism is bad. I do think that when everything one does is put under a microscope and scoffed at just BECAUSE one does it, it stops being effective criticism.
.
I’ll put it this way. I was a music major in college. Part of what we had to do as music majors was something called Juries. One of the people on the Juries HATED me. She didn’t care about my singing. If I got an A from the rest of the panel, she would give me a C or a D. Nothing I ever did was good enough. I ignored everything she said. She may have had some good points for me in her notes. I might have been flat or sharp in some spots. I may have formed my vowels incorrectly. But any important evaluation and criticism I could have received was buried under the rest of the garbage she spewed.
.
Jerome, when Laura Bush did things like read to students or promote the idea that reading and literacy were good things, even MSNBC covered that as a positive. When Michelle Obama says that children should be eating healthier foods and exercising more to combat the growing epidemic of childhood obesity, Fox News and the Professional Right compare her to a Nazi and discuss how it’s just more of the Obama Regimes attempts to control the people and take away their right to live freely and choose whatever they want to eat for themselves and/or an attempt to take over the schools and brainwash children.
.
The supposed Bush Derangement Syndrome that conservatives loved to bring up when he was in office has nothing, nothing, on the Obama Derangement Syndrome that we’ve seen from Fox News, the Professional Right and even the more mainstream-like bloggers on the Right.
I don’t know, Jerry, during the Bush years we saw more than a few assassination fantasies that would bring howls of protest (justifiably) if they were targeted at Obama. In fact, it’s hard to criticize the man without being told by some partisan that this is code of racism. Even the mildest disapproval is met with “Yeah, he wouldn’t get all this criticism if he weren’t black!”.
.
If Obama were struck by lightning on the golf course I guarantee that Biden will get exactly the same, plus more. Considering the state of the nation he has been handled gently.
.
“I don’t know, Jerry, during the Bush years we saw more than a few assassination fantasies that would bring howls of protest (justifiably) if they were targeted at Obama.”
.
Yeah, and they were denounced by most of what could be called the mainstream of the Left. Even such Right described “hate mongers” as Olbermann made a point of denouncing threats of violence and the peddling of assassination fantasies as entertainment and their attempted mainstreaming (such as the film about killing Bush.)
.
On the flipside, you have guys like Hannity and others on Fox News who would have conniption fits when anyone said things that he actively had to pull out of context to make them threats of violence against Bush or members of the right then turn around and bring people on his show to defend them and their very clearly worded comments about violence towards Obama/Hillary/Whoever as okay and just “joking around” by the person in question.
.
“In fact, it’s hard to criticize the man without being told by some partisan that this is code of racism. Even the mildest disapproval is met with “Yeah, he wouldn’t get all this criticism if he weren’t black!”
.
Yeah, and I’ve said as much myself. That however is the act of an Obama supporter and not his detractors. “Bush Derangement Syndrome” was a charge leveled at his detractors, not his supporters.
.
With Obama, we’ve seen what would have been fringe ideas at best under Bush be embraced by the mainstream of the Right (and often propelled there by Fox News) and paraded around as the gospel truth. When Bush was in office, as I pointed out above, Laura could do some things that promoted the idea of doing something that our society sees as a positive and get positive coverage for that even on places like MSNBC’s primetime lineup. Michelle Obama can’t show her face in public without the conservative media having snit fits.
.
Yeah, there’s a fringe on each side that comes up with dumb garbage about the other side, but the Right’s fringe is a hëll of a lot closer to its mainstream these days in a lot of cases than the Left’s is.
Bill, during Bush’s entire tenure, I cannot recall anything on the Left being remotely equal to the institutional mainstream derangement that birtherism has been on the Right. Hëll, even now Perry is still playing footsie with birtherism. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20124604-503544/is-rick-perry-a-birther/)
Could something like “That’s My Bush” be even contemplated about Obama? How many conservative mainstream pundit types have openly stated “I hate Obama.”? My memory dims but I really think if I bothered to go back and collect every “wish he’d choked to death on a pretzel”, “Must be doing cocaine again.” etc, comment it would dwarf what Obama has gone through. I could be wrong.
.
And if we play the “If this happened during a ________ administration” game imagine the howls if Fast And Furious had occurred on Bush’s watch. We’d have hourly updates on when the attorney general would resign. The strangely conceived loans to companies whose greatest attributes seem to be their connection to donors would be evidence, nay, proof, of crony corruption. Every time the president went to play golf or enjoyed some kobe beef it would get a shaking of the head and tut tutting from the news anchors–“how CAN the man be so insensitive to the suffering of others?” And so forth…
.
Hey, kind of off the subject but one thing missing from the current economic woes…the homeless. There was a time when the homeless were a major thing, a big news story. Now…almost nothing. It would seem to me that with high unemployment, record foreclosures, etc etc, there should be a massive explosion of homeless people. Is it not being reported or, like crime rates, just not rising as you would expect them to?
“That’s My Bush” is a poor example to cite. It was intended as a parody of sitcoms rather than a satire of Bush, and Parker and Stone were readying the show for whomever became President — Bush or Gore. (One Gore-specific gag that obviously wasn’t used was that an android assassin who looked like Gore was on the loose and had to be stopped. Of course, since the joke at the time was how wooden and unemotive Gore was, everyone keeps confusing the killer android with the real thing.) As for the second part, I suspect you’re quite wrong, especially if you compare the volume of vitriol to Obama’s 1st two-plus years in office to Bush’s own. Regardless, you never saw anything with Dems and the Left resembling the widespread mainstream acceptance and tacit approval of something as ridiculous as birtherism displayed by the GOP and the Right.
.
I can imagine what would happen if Operation Wide Receiver (the essentially identical Bush-era gun-walking operation that preceded Fast & Furious) broke during Bush’s administration … absolutely nothing. When (IIRC) the story of the controversial firing of the US attorneys — apparently for not being partisan enough – broke, Slate put up an Alberto Gonzalez Resignation Meter to gauge how soon it would be before the heat of the scandal obligated Gonzalez to step down. After about a month, Slate retired the meter because, no matter how bad things looked, the pure shamelessness of the administration, as well as the helpfully uninterested media, made it clear that Gonzales would leave only when he was good and ready. Frankly, what would probably have happened is that whomever reported on such a story would be labeled un-American for exposing a confidential operation, revealing to America’s enemies our secret security procedures (see illegal monitoring of phone calls & financial transactions and “enhanced interrogation techniques”).
.
Concerning homeless rates, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it simply wasn’t being reported on to the extent that it ought to be. Unless there’s a juicy angle to it that would drive ratings, news organizations are more likely to report on Lindsey Lohan’s latest shenanigans.
Bill Mulligan: “Could something like “That’s My Bush” be even contemplated about Obama? How many conservative mainstream pundit types have openly stated “I hate Obama.”? My memory dims but I really think if I bothered to go back and collect every “wish he’d choked to death on a pretzel”, “Must be doing cocaine again.” etc, comment it would dwarf what Obama has gone through. I could be wrong.”
.
Look, every president has had to deal with ridicule, lampooning and hate-mongering from their political, media, and ideological opponents. And this day and age of high-tech/high speed communications (YouTube/web videos, podcasts, hit-and-run Twitter comments, interactive blogs, etc.) allows for such denigrations to exacerbate to the extent that it could be difficult to argue whether or not Millard Fillmore would have been hit as hard if the technologies had existed during his time.
.
But let’s not gloss over the fact that the tenor of the criticisms that Obama has had to deal with on a sustained basis, before and since his inauguration, is disturbingly unique given his race and origins. To hate him because of his policies, his party and what he stands for is one thing; but to insanely and continuously try to manufacture “truth” that he’s “foreign”, that he’s “not one of us”, that he’s not an American, is disgustingly beyond the pale of what any fairly elected official should have to deal with regardless of their sex, religion or skin color. Yes, I’m guilty of having made statements that boiled down to “I hate Bush” during his term, and I’ve even questioned the legitimacy of the 2000 election given how it was ultimately decided, but I never once questioned whether or not there was anything that legally disqualified Bush for office or, even with my intense feelings on the wrong-headedness of his policies, that he didn’t actually love this country.
.
This is what makes Obama Derangement Syndrome starkly different from any analogous to any other president, and how it reflects on its perpetrators can’t be blithely compared to opposition sentiments.
“That’s My Bush” was before 9/11. Afterwards, Bush understandably had a period of grace during which almost no one criticized him. That lasted about 2 years. And the Neo-Con strategy during that time, explicitely delineated by evil-but-brilliant Karl Rove? Antagonize the opposition as much as possible. Paint them as anti-american. The same opposition that bent over for them at many opportunities. And now you complain that Liberals were mean to Bush?
.
So, to hëll with the GOP.
“Obama Derangement Syndrome.” I like that… but, I’m not sure he’s deranged. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing.
.
A coworker of mine said something last night (who likely heard it elsewhere since he’s not this clever) that summed it up perfectly.
.
If Obama stepped outside tomorrow and walked on water, the professional Right would criticize him for not knowing how to swim at his age.
Right and if Dubya cured cancer, the headline would be “Bush Puts All Oncologists Out Of Work”
Christ. Really?
.
I am considered by most fairly Left thinking… but I praised 43 for his work with AIDS, going into Afghanistan, and quite a few other things.
.
Here’s the thing: I can be objective.
.
I may have been disgusted with the Republican leaders of my lifetime, but I can give them credit where credit is due.
.
Apparently that’s something missing from most people in the world. They drink the Kool-Aid, and nothing anyone says contrary to their political stance can be seen as anything but absolutely wrong.
.
I give up. Can’t even have a polite discussion about politics anymore.
.
Which is a shame. I love talking about it. Even the Left irritates me.
.
Polarization blows.
.
TAC
And a third bûllšhìŧ called on you, Jerome. Practically the entire country, including me, lined up behind Bush and supported him and the war into Afghanistan. The fact that he overreached and shattered the support people had for him was entirely his doing. As opposed to the right which will steadfastly refuse to support Obama on anything. I
.
PAD
Oh no! Peter’s been eaten by a grue!
If Dubya cured cancer, I’d be very happy and grateful. When Reagan helped end the Cold War, I was very happy and grateful. Even Sarah Palin has done good things. She blocked anti-gay legislation when she was in Alaska. When Mission Acomplished happened, I was mildly optimistic. How could I feel otherwise?
.
I also feel very free to criticize Obama. In fact, I always thought he should grow more of a spine.
Saying that the right which will steadfastly refuse to support Obama on anything is demonstrably false. There are people on the right who clearly support some of the things Obama has done. For example he has proven to be an excellent killer of terrorists and dictators. Full kudos on that one. Keep it up, sir.
For example he has proven to be an excellent killer of terrorists and dictators.
.
Yes. He killed bin Laden, for which the right wing talking heads were quick to give credit…to Bush. And K’Daffy was killed, for which the right wing talking heads were quick to give credit…to anyone but Obama.
.
PAD
.
Yeah, but I believe Bill is speaking for himself and the average Joe who think of himself as right of center. A lot of the regular people out there will give Obama credit for such things. It’s just the Professional Right (politicians, pundits, Fox News) and the ones who let themselves by guided in their thought process by nothing but the Professional Right who try their dámņëdëšŧ not to.
.
There is a difference there.
It’s just the Professional Right (politicians, pundits, Fox News) and the ones who let themselves by guided in their thought process by nothing but the Professional Right who try their dámņëdëšŧ not to.
.
There is a difference there.
.
I don’t disagree, Jerry. In fact, that’s pretty much what I’ve been saying, including in the message that kicked off this threat. When I say “the talking heads,” that’s who I mean. Well…them and their parrots.
.
PAD
.
Yup, you specified that. My screw up. When I read what you said to Bill the first time, my brain just blanked the words “talking heads” right as I read them.
Mission accomplished… better late than never? Gag.
.
We should have never gone to Iraq in the first place, so the sooner we get out of there, the better. And really, like anybody here actually gives a crap of whether Iraq descends back into chaos. Chaos was exactly what the country was dealing with after Bush decided to secure his legacy.
.
Losing another war? Sorry, but we just won the ‘war’ in Libya, and Obama is being çráppëd on for it. So of course the spin will be that we haven’t spilled enough American blood and wasted enough American dollars in Iraq.
.
We could be there another 50 years – like we will be in Afghanistan, apparently – and we won’t win the dámņ war.
.
So, to hëll with the Republicans on this. If they want to keep fighting in Iraq, they’re more than welcome to over there and put themselves in harm’s way for this wasted cause.
I’m a bit confused by all of this. Isn’t this just a repeat of what Obama said some time ago?
.
The only news out of this weekend, which nobody on either side has mentioned, unless I skimmed by too fast, is that we are leaving on the already agreed to timetable but WITHOUT the US bases that we had hoped to have.
.
Check out http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases
.
Obama attempted to make the most of it by presenting the withdrawal as the fulfilment of one of his election promises.
.
“Today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” he told reporters.
.
But he had already announced this earlier this year, and the real significance today was in the failure of Obama, in spite of the cost to the US in dollars and deaths, to persuade the Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki to allow one or more American bases to be kept in the country.
.
Obama was formally told of Maliki’s final decision on Friday morning in a video conference.
.
It’s dishonest of most conservatives to pretend that they would be JUST as angered if a republican president has announced this and it;s also dishonest for liberals to pretend that this is exactly what Bush had wanted. It’s not even what Obama wanted.
.
Interestingly, while I can’t say for sure what Obama may have fully wanted here, this bit of news makes it somewhat closer to what many on the Left wanted. What a number of the Left wanted was the troops out and to not have to continue to spend money on a war that has cost us close to a trillion dollars and that also has additional hidden costs in such forms as the medical care that many soldiers have received and will continue to receive. What a number of the Left also wanted was to not be left with the additional costs of running the giant base(s) that would be close to that of a large city that the Bush Administration had plans for placing in Iraq.
.
For a number of the Left, this bit of news is a major bonus. For me? Well, this is my “I told you so” moment to a lot of the Right.
.
I have said from day one that the government that has been installed in Iraq will be friendlier to countries like Iran than they are to us. A major hint to that fact for the Right should have been how many of the people in the new Iraqi government were people who were given shelter in Iran when they had to leave Iraq under Saddam. Hëll, you had the President of Iraq make public statements back when Bush was still in office about how Iran was a great friend to them and that anyone claiming Iran was doing dirty deals against Iraq (which is what Bush Admin people their supporters were saying at the time) were full of it. And, gee, Bush, his administration and their cheerleaders couldn’t figure out that maybe stuff like that wasn’t a good sign.
.
And, based on comments and actions like that that could be seen from day one of post-Saddam Iraq, I said way back near the beginning of this overly expensive folly that the Iraqi government was not going to let us keep a small army of US troops in their borders once they were on their own feet enough to feel like they could give us our walking papers.
And now they’ve basically given us our walking papers.
.
And the next thing we’ll see in the coming years is a stronger Iran. The one thing Saddam was doing for us right up until the day we went in there (and that we had long supported him in doing over the decades) was being a thorn in Iran’s side. Even when Saddam was on our šhìŧ list, he was still not someone Iran liked and he had the effect of being a bit of a counterbalance to Iran in that region. Now, what we have is an Iran that not only doesn’t have to worry about Saddam, but has an Iraq for a neighbor that’s friendly to them. And, of course, Conservative and Republicans will ignore the last ten years of facts and giant, flashing clues in neon blaze-orange that they should have been paying attention to and claim that what was already taking shape when Bush was in office, the strengthening of Iran and Iraq’s ties with one another, was 100% just because of Obama taking office and blowing the chance at having Iraq that Bush promised us we would have.
.
Well done, W. Bush. Well done , Iraq war cheerleaders. Mission accomplished.
But he had already announced this earlier this year, and the real significance today was in the failure of Obama, in spite of the cost to the US in dollars and deaths, to persuade the Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki to allow one or more American bases to be kept in the country.
.
Jesus Christ, Bill. I’m used to the GOP taking a “glass is half empty” angle with everything Obama does, but this is like, “the glass is completely empty and if we try to fill it and drink it, it’ll turn out to be a dribble glass.”
.
Bush slaps a big “Mission Accomplished” banner when the mission’s just getting under way, and THIS is what the right is focusing on now to complain about?
.
I mean, really, what would the right prefer? That Obama refuse to leave until American bases are established? I can just see it: “Obama departed both the timetable established by Bush and his own campaign promise to leave Iraq unless he’s allowed to continue risking American lives by installing troops in there permanently. Let’s check the Fox polling numbers on the question of the day: Obama–bad president, or the worst president ever?”
.
PAD
Look, I’m personally not upset much by this. We’ve done what we could, for better or worse and they don’t want us there. Personally, I like the Obama strategy of dropping bombs and drones on our enemies, ignoring the bleats from the left about being a “war criminal” and “cowboy diplomacy” et al, killing the head bad guy and letting whoever takes over take over, with the understanding that we can keep doing this as often as we please.
.
It takes a lot fewer lives, especially of our people, costs a lot less, takes less time…yeah, it may not have the potential for The Big Victory that a full invasion has but it does not have the potential for The Big Quagmire either.
.
Maybe it’s the comic book fan in me but show up, beat up the bad guys, leave before the cops get there, don;t care about what happens next attitude appeals to me.
.
ALL THAT SAID…when the premise is that Obama got exactly what Bush had set up and the reality is that he did NOT…forgive me if I do not hang my head in partisan shame for pointing that out, even if it rains on the parade of pointing out supposed conservative hypocrisy.
.
But maybe Obama is plying us all–maybe the Iraqis will come crawling back begging for a permanent USA pretense when they see the Iranians licking their chops.
Obama, and his supporters, have been dealing with Obama getting less than he wanted for more than two years now, about everything. Usually it’s the GOP, and sometimes his own party, who prevents him from doing so. So this time it was a foreign government. That still doesn’t change the fact that he stuck with Bush’s timetable, and if he refused to leave on a timely basis because he wasn’t getting a permanent military base there, his opponents and the talking heads would crucify him for it. I think we all know that.
.
PAD
Bill, you’re saying Obama is a superhero. That is very nice of you. 🙂
Hey, he teamed up with Spiderman.
.
Obama would be crucified if he went back on a promise? To hear my friends on the left speak, you’d think they would have run out of nails by now.
As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I personally don’t care if we’re leaving Iraq on our own volition or if we’re being shown the door; we never should have been there in the first place and it’s high time we left. As far as I’m concerned, the only weapons of mass destruction were George, Ðìçk, Donald, Paul and Condy and the proof of that particular pudding is the thousands of American lives that were lost.
.
As for the Occupy Wall Street crowd (and Jerome, you already tipped your hand by referring to them as ‘OWS áššhølëš,’ which somewhat weakens your positions, I do agree that these people need to start figuring out a way to turn their rightous indignation into political action of some kind; otherwise it’s just sound and fury signnifying nothing. That’s where the Tea Party succeeded admirably: they backed the political candidates they needed in office to create change and whether you agree or disagree with their aims, you can’t argue with the fact that it’s worked beautifully. Mind you, it didn’t hurt that the Tea Party and their candidates were bankrolled by the Koch Brothers under various shell organizations to make it look like a populist uprising. That’s what the OWS protesters lack: a specific political agenda, backed by candidates that can try to enact that agenda.
Oh, and this is probably going to be a terriby unpopular view, but if we want to keep several thousand troops battle-ready and employed, why don’t we station some of them on the US/Mexico border for a while?
Station American troops in a position to protect American lives, land and property from a horribly violent drug war we could put a huge dent in by legalizing and taxing marijuana? That makes too much sense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039937/Mexican-drug-lords-dump-35-dead-bodies-road-wave-guns-passing-drivers.html
Perhaps this will be a silly question but…is communication actually supposed to happen on this blog? Because far too often all that happens is finger-pointing and name-calling (as often begun by our host as not). Weren’t we supposed to have outgrown that in our very early school years?
The way I was taught to communicate, particularly with people who disagreed with me was to A) state what I think, B) why I think it and then C) *listen* to the person who disagrees and think about what they’re saying rather than sit there waiting for him or her to shut up so I can talk again.
I’d be willing to bet that the same could work here, too. Granted, it’s not the fashionable way of doing things these days but I do think good things could happen.
.
The hazards of blogging –
.
– Sometimes you write a lengthy post that goes up after several other people have posted. Coming in after the fact and reading looks like people talking at each other more than they really are.
.
– Lots of people here have covered this ground here lots of times over the years. Barring a world shaking revelation about some of these issues, we’re all more or less where we’re at on the issue. Maybe there are finer points that we may be moved on, but I doubt that anyone here is going to suddenly do a full flip on their stand on Iraq or its fallout.
I think the thing you’re overlooking, Jan, is that my purpose here isn’t to pick fights. My blog is where, on occasion, I choose to vent my frustrations about the world. The extent that I feel any obligation toward “listening” is that I permit others to comment to the contrary…which is, I should point out, more than quite a few blogs do. There are any number of sites where either comments are not enabled, or else are deleted if they’re contrary to the host’s opinion.
.
What I don’t do is go to blogs that are hosted by people who I know have contrary opinions and spout off. I don’t feel the need to show up at blogs with the specific purpose of disagreeing over and over and over again. Which people do here, regularly. Incessantly. For years now. Nor do I feel the need to show up as a troll solely to stir up trouble. There are people here who do that as well, and that’s not simply my biased characterization; they boast that that’s why they’re here.
.
So while you’re welcome your silly question, I feel no inclination to do anything other than say specifically how I feel because, hey…my blog. And people can come here and say what they want, and if I really wanted them to shut up, I’d shut them up. But I don’t, which I’d like to think counts for something. Meanwhile others can vent on their blogs however they feel, secure in the knowledge that if they’re so inclined, they won’t have to worry about me showing up and telling them they don’t know what they’re talking about.
.
PAD
Fair point, sir, and thank you for your response. I think one could be forgiven having mistaking your purpose of venting frustration rather than inviting conversation because you do converse and exchange barbs rather than state your opinion or frustration and then leaving the conversation to fall where it may. As a pro, it has to be assumed that you realize that the way you phrase things is often inflammatory which is why I asked the question.
.
FWIW, there are often interesting thing said here. It’s just hard to distinguish sometimes.
As a pro, it has to be assumed that you realize that the way you phrase things is often inflammatory which is why I asked the question.
.
Fair enough, except to my perception, I’m not trying to pìšš øff anyone in particular. To me it’s very simple: people of opposing viewpoints always have the option of simply not reading my posts. It’s not as if I go to Rush Limbaugh’s blog, wherever that is, and tell everyone there that they’re all idiots. If I’m pìššëd øff about something, then I use my pìššëd-off voice. The only thing that makes it inflammatory is other people getting hot under the collar about it. And since they make the choice to show up here, knowing my views in advance, I just see that as more their problem than mine.
.
PAD
I have to ask, because this kind of took me by surprise–do you see it as a hostile or unfriendly act when I or anyone else here disagrees with you on your political posts? Because that is in no way my intention and if you would rather we not do it I, for one, would absolutely respect your wishes–chime in when I agree and/or have something positive to add, keep my yap shut otherwise.
.
I mean, I know you would prefer not to hear from the trollish ones who are just in it to annoy their betters, but if political disagreements on the blog is just something you endure rather than find worthwhile just give the word. It will not be censorship if you do so. I was raised in a home where politics was dinner table discussion and while passions were high, feeling were not hurt. I keep having to be reminded that this is not everyone’s reality. This is your house and I do not want to be the rude guest.
.
I enjoy the give and take, I know others do as well but there’s only one opinion on that which really matters.
I have to ask, because this kind of took me by surprise–do you see it as a hostile or unfriendly act when I or anyone else here disagrees with you on your political posts?
.
No, not especially. I was responding to Jan who seemed to feel that *I* was being hostile or unfriendly (“fingerpointing” and “name calling” were the words used). My attitude is that I’m simply putting my thoughts out there, and I don’t especially care if people get worked up about it. And if they DO take umbrage, well, no one’s putting a gun to their heads to make them show up.
.
PAD
Jan: The way I was taught to communicate, particularly with people who disagreed with me was to A) state what I think, B) why I think it and then C) *listen* to the person who disagrees and think about what they’re saying rather than sit there waiting for him or her to shut up so I can talk again.
Luigi Novi: Well, up yours.
.
Just kidding. 🙂
.
Seriously, I think if you look around here, you’ll see there are quite a few people who do so. I usually try to adhere to those principles you mention Jan, though I admit I don’t always succeed in doing so.
.
Jan: As a pro, it has to be assumed that you realize that the way you phrase things is often inflammatory which is why I asked the question.
Luigi Novi: What I wonder is if Peter’s position as a write causes the fans of his who come here to view his blog posts through the prism of the things he writes specifically to entertain. When writing characters in comics or novels, Peter, like any other writer, has to make sure he doesn’t give any one character that such a biased viewpoint that he or she comes across a thinly-veiled mouthpiece used to simply voice his opinions on current events. I wonder if people come to this blog operating within that same context, and feel stung when Peter well, voices his own opinions. I think blogs should be viewed as what they are: A log, or diary, that the writer simply allows others to read. In that context, the writer is going to express their thoughts and feelings, and give less thought to considering those he knows don’t share those viewoints. Given that, I think charges that his statements are inflammatory are less applicable.
he could single handedly cue cancer, while donating a kidney to an orphan and painting the mexican boarder fence and they’d still hate him.
he could pull of a mask and reveal he was reagan and they still would call him anti american
In all fairness, not even the current crop of Republicans would accept the Ronald Reagan who ACTUALLY was President. They mythologized the man in such a short time span that puts the mythologizing of Lincoln to shame (much of the Lincoln myth is due to his being assassinated).
.
Several progressive sites have written full articles showing the REAL Reagan in action in comparison to the Reagan myth that the Repub “leadership” (both in Congress and outside) have invoked while trying to pass their extremist economic proposals. Yet the right-wing simply ignores these because it doesn’t fit with their narrative.
I somehow suspect Reagan wouldn’t recognize a lot of what passes for the GOP these days, at least at the national level.
.
PAD
Hëll, Reagan would be bum-rushed out of the GOP big tent for being a RINO.
Actually, Reagan would be bum-rushed out of the GOP big tent today BY the RINOs. He would be undefended by them as the mainstream media went after him as a “far right winger” and would be marginalized. We know this because the RINOs in Reagan’s day did it back then as well.
You might remember a pledge that the GOP, invoking the name of Reagan, wanted all its would-be candidates to agree to which outlines (IIRC) 10 principles, of which no more than 2 could be compromised on pain of not receive party funding.
.
The joke of course was that Reagan himself would fail said test.
.
Every Republican president from Eisenhower to Bush41 inclusive would be bum-rushed out for being insufficiently pure. (Teddy Roosevelt would also be on that list if not for the fact that he would utterly kick the šhìŧ out of any person who tried.)
“he could single handedly cue cancer, while donating a kidney to an orphan and painting the mexican boarder fence and they’d still hate him.
he could pull of a mask and reveal he was reagan and they still would call him anti american”
.
Ya know what’s funny? I made an almost identical post about 6 years ago on this very site. I’ll have to hunt back and see if I can find it. The difference? I was talking about Bush and Democrats.
.
The more things change…
What I don’t get is why the US only has two Political Parties to begin with ? Maybe it’s me, but that seemed to be very limiting. It feels to me that it limits the debate and the voter’s options. (Maybe I am wrong, but is that not why the Tea Party has managed to grow ? By scraping away unhappy voters from both sides.)
Technically we don’t. There are many independent parties. They just never accrue enough votes or attention to make the slightest bit of difference.
.
PAD
So…why don’t they form an alliance to level the playing field a bit ?
.
Because half of them don’t stand for things that the other half do.
I wonder how people in the U.S. would react to a third, viable party which could cause minority governments which would then need to make concessions to or otherwise compromise with the Opposition Parties to get anything done. Or is that the Democrats all over?
.
“(Maybe I am wrong, but is that not why the Tea Party has managed to grow ? By scraping away unhappy voters from both sides.)”
.
Yeah, you’d be wrong. The vast majority of the Tea Party consists of people who were regularly voting Republican just a few years ago and, surprise, support republican candidates and opposes Democrats now.
.
They’re nothing new and they’re not a third party. They’re the same-old-same old with a new brand name.
.
Here, check out this poll. There are others, but I’m on my meal break and don’t have time to dig them all up.
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141098/tea-party-supporters-overlap-republican-base.aspx
.
“Conservative Republicans outnumber moderate/liberal Republicans in the general population by about a 2-to-1 margin; among Tea Party supporters, the ratio is well more than 3 to 1. More generally, almost 8 out of 10 Tea Party supporters are Republicans, compared with 44% of all national adults.
.
These findings are based on three surveys Gallup conducted in March, May, and June of this year. Thirty percent of Americans, on average, identify as Tea Party supporters — a percentage remarkably consistent across the three surveys.”
.
That’s from July of 2010, but some recent polling data shows pretty much the same thing.
.
And, of course, you can simply look at the votes of the Tea Party elected Republicans since 2010 and the actions of the Republicans as a whole since the 2010 “Tea Party Sweep” election. What’s been their top priorities? Stopping Obama, banning abortion, tax cuts for the rich, attacking social security, etc, etc, etc.
.
Republicans with a different brand name for themselves and nothing more.
Aha…two sides of the same coin, TY Jerry
Let’s take this up a notch,
Tea Party=Radical Republicans
See, as a conservative, I agree with your sentiment. However, I disagree that it’s suprising, or new. During a campaign cycle, the leading candidates of the apposing party, knee jerk responding to anything accomplished by the Person they’re going to run against over the next year?
.
Go figure.
I never said it was surprising. If anything, it was entirely predictable. As for a campaign cycle, the GOP has been in campaign cycle from the day that Obama has won. Every decision they’ve made has been with one goal: prevent Obama from gaining a second term. Which is why the government has, to some degree, fallen apart.
.
The fundamental concept of governance is that, once the elections are done, those elected respect the poll choices of the people and work together for the benefit of the American public. That doesn’t happen anymore. Instead Washington is concerned with two things: getting reelected while simultaneously making sure their opponents don’t. It’s not about serving the people; it’s about serving themselves, and power for the sake of power.
.
That’s where Obama’s naivite hurt him. He genuinely thought he could form a coalition. But he could no more do that than Bush could. The only difference is that when Bush said, “I’m a uniter,” we KNEW he was fulla šhìŧ from the get-go. With Obama, we believed it. Perhaps even he believed it. The question is, now that he knows that aspect is hopeless, and that he can’t count on either the GOP to be anything other than obstructionist, nor his own party to have his back, how he’s going to handle it.
.
PAD
Speaking of “serving themselves and power for the sake of power,” The Tea Party Nation sent out an email to its members urging all small business owners not to hire any new employees, so the economy doesn’t improve and Obama doesn’t get re-elected: “I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.”
So they don’t just think Obama’s poliocies are hurting the economy (which is certainly a fair opinion and worth debate), but they’re encouraging their members to avoid hiring anyone (which would be tremnedously helpful to anyone looking for work) to deliberately damage the U.S. economy — all to further their own goals. And these aren’t some ultra-radical nuts sitting in a dark room mailing out their manifesto, but the leaders of the movement so many Republicans are utterly afraid of offending.
Deliberately keeping Americans out of work to advance a political agenda — I find that contemptible.
Deliberately keeping Americans out of work to advance a political agenda
.
Back during the budget battle, it seemed pretty evident that some people out there would be more than happy to bring this country crashing down if they thought it would hurt Obama and the Democrats.
.
It seems that those people haven’t given up that nightmare.
I think we’re well past the notion of elections happening on a cycle now.
Ruben, I don’t know what country you’re from, but I think you would be wrong in considering the Tea Party a third political party when in fact all evidence from the last two years would demonstrate that they’re a more conservative offshoot of the Rupublican Party. Unless somebody knows of some Tea Party Democrats of which I’m unaware? But while our political system seems to be rigged to prevent a third party from becoming a threat, I can’t help thinking about the way the Liberal Democrats in the UK ended up creating a coalition government with the Tories while giving up most of the political convictions that made them a viable party in the first place. Or to paraphrase Pogo, we have met the enemy and they are us.
Yep. Any potential the Tea Party had for attracting Leftists interested in minimal government interference has evaporated the moment they started bringing Jesus into it, and crying out for illegal immigrants’ blood, and countless other subjects where they betray their own alleged pledge to support small government.
I told Sasha I was not impressed with Obama so far, mostly for the reasons PAD said. Either out of naivete or weakness, he tried to be an “uniter” when any realistic assessment of the situation would demonstrate that to be impossible. What part of “you’re the Anti-Christ and we hate your guts” he didn’t understand?
.
But I have to say I’m more and more pleased with his handling of the so-called War on Terror and related matters. The GOP narrative, endlessly used for their own advantage, was that of existential threat, of apocalyptic clash of cultures, that would haunt the West for the next century, etc.
.
Bin Laden is dead. k-Daffy is dead. The Arab Spring has sprung. The US is out of Iraq on schedule. Can we all release a little of our collective breaths now? Hey, even the Rapture (that I believe was mixed-up in the zeitgeist somehow) failed to happen yet again this last Friday.
.
I think this is the one area where, the more the GOP whines, the more like fools they appear. So let them whine.
.
(Still not happy with the other areas of Obama’s administration)
Just replied to your most recent reply on that thread if you’re interested, Rene.
I told Sasha I was not impressed with Obama so far, mostly for the reasons PAD said. Either out of naivete or weakness, he tried to be an “uniter” when any realistic assessment of the situation would demonstrate that to be impossible. What part of “you’re the Anti-Christ and we hate your guts” he didn’t understand?
.
But I have to say I’m more and more pleased with his handling of the so-called War on Terror and related matters. The GOP narrative, endlessly used for their own advantage, was that of existential threat, of apocalyptic clash of cultures, that would haunt the West for the next century, etc.
.
Bin Laden is dead. k-Daffy is dead. The Arab Spring has sprung. The US is out of Iraq on schedule. Can we all release a little of our collective breaths now? Hey, even the Rapture (that I believe was mixed-up in the zeitgeist somehow) failed to happen yet again this last Friday.
.
I think this is the one area where, the more the GOP whines, the more like fools they appear. So let them whine.
.
(Still not happy with the other areas of Obama’s administration)
I was just wondering, how are you a hypocrite if you are a conservative, member of the tea party, and against gay marriage? I don’t see the correlation.
Because either government should be staying out of people’s lives or it shouldn’t. Even more, the regulation of marriage is a right of the states and one of the Tea Party’s big things is that the Fed should stay out of state business. Yet at the same time they want the Fed to step in and pass everything from individual acts to Constitutional amendments abridging the right of the states to oversee marriage by declaring that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, period, full stop. So the citizens and decisions of New York, Massachusetts and other states should be tossed aside by the Fed because the Tea Party is laboring under the delusion that two men or two women getting married is somehow going to undermine and/or destroy “traditional” marriage.
.
Conservatives from another state shouldn’t get to decide how marriage is handled in this one, and they shouldn’t be pushing the Federal government to intervene.
.
PAD
If Obama cured Cancer the GOP would say it’s Un-American and should not be.
Only if the poor got free and rich paid double
Black Panther, it’s like this. A conservative generally say “Get government out of my way and out of my life.” Do I believe that’s overly simplistic? Yes. Do I think that’s going to solve all of America’s problems, or even a significant percentage of them? No. Still, I realize that there really are times government needs to get out of the way, and I do give them points for consistancy.
On the other hand, a social conservative says “Get government out of my way and out of my life, but government should let me and like minded people decide how others should be allowed to live their lives.”
Social conservatives are not against big government as long as that big goverment is doing what they want. In that regard, a social conservative is exactly the same as the worst red tape loving breaucrat. The only difference between the two is in what each believes big goverment should be used for. If you tell me you are for limited government and then tell me that government needs to regulate which consenting, non-related adults should be allowed to marry, I’m going to call you a hyprocrite.
As far as the thread topic, I really got a kick out of Perry saying that giving a withdrawl date endangers our troops. I just don’t see the reasoning here:
Insurgent one: “The Americans will be leaving our country soon. We have to be sure to kill as many of them as we can before that happens!”
Insurgent two: “But won’t the Americans then become conviced that Iraq isn’t yet stable and that they must stay longer?”
Insurgent one: “Maybe, but that’s a risk we’re going to have to take!”
I said once that conservatives really want small government: a government so small that it can creep under your door and get into your bedroom.
.
And, of course, gay marriage is only the biggest example. The War on Drugs, their stance on prostitution, their support of government-driven faith-based initiatives, their support of strong military, there is any number of topics where Conservatives hypocritically go against their stated beliefs in small government.
.
They’re like that cheating player that wants the rules of the game relaxed, but only those rules that allow for his own team to dominate the game.
.
And that is why I lost respect for many of the “Libertarian” conservatives. But at least one of them gave a pretty good explanation as to why he aligns himself with the GOP. He said he agreed with the GOP on economic matters. As for cultural and social matters, he trusted in the Supreme Court to stop any abuses the GOP and the Tea Party wanted to inflict to the country.
.
I don’t agree with the guy, but at least there is some rationality there.
Sadly, the war on drugs is not just a conservative issue. In fact, more than a few conservatives would like to ditch the whole thing (WF Buckley was way ahead of that curve) and the Obama administration has shown that liberals can be just as pig headed when it comes to this war.
Agreed. Many conservatives – myself included – feel the “War on Drugs” is not only a waste of time and money with horrific ripples in our society, but unwise and in many cases unjust.
.
But if Dems really wanted to send a message, they would be crossing over to support Gary Johnson. Instead he is barly a blip on the radar.
.
Any talk of legalizing drugs has soccer moms on both sides coming up with inane arguments like “crack will be sold next to Cocoa Puffs”! Right. Just like Jack Daniels is sold next to Lucky Charms.
.
But it’s a conversation it does not seem our leaders or we as a nation are ready for.
My feeling when it comes to the War On Drugs is that it’s the losing battle that we still need to fight. I don’t think our society can withstand the repercussions of declaring Schedule One drugs “okay.” The argument that we will ne’er win such a war is irrelevant. We have laws against people robbing banks. Do people still rob banks?
But when you combine the unwinnability with the fact that more lives are being destroyed by the war on drug than would be by the drugs themselves…doesn’t seem like a war worth fighting.
.
“Hey kids, smoke dope and it will ruin your life!” “How?” We’ll put you in jail and destroy your future!”
.
We saw hope foolish and counterproductive prohibition was, I don’t know why the lesson hasn’t been learned.
I believe that a big reason why a nation has laws is to declare what behavior said nation finds acceptable. That being the case, I simply do not agree that the War On Drugs has been a failure. Lots of people have turned away from drugs as a result of it.
I always thought people should have the right to destroy themselves without the government stepping in to save them.
.
(And I admit that drugs are a thorny problem, because addicts take their family and friends with them. You could argue that it’s not really a victimless crime)
.
But what criminalizing drugs has done, except adding a forbidden fruit appeal to drugs, costing a buttload of money, and making it harder for people to discuss the issues like adults?
I think a good argument can be made that the war on drugs has ruined more lives than the drugs would have by themselves. The users will use. I don’t think the abuse would go much higher once legalized and certainly the incarceration rate would go down.
.
Sticking with failure because of a stubborn desire not to admit having been wrong is no way to rule. When a law causes more harm than good a wise man changes the law.
You’re right that a moral nation wouldn’t need to make such drugs illegal. People can already destroy themselves legally in so many ways. Thing I wonder is: if we can’t stop the illegal drug industry today, how do libertarians and liberals think we’re going to be able to tax and regulate it tomorrow, should it be legalized?
The same way we tax alcohol. people will rather buy quality booze than take a chance with what ever swill comes out of Cletus’ still. Better quality, attractive packaging, now with 20% less rat poison…and then there will be the ad campaigns. “I don’t always smoke dope but when I do I prefer Acapulco Golds. Stay mellow my friends.”
.
I have no dog in this fight, I am way too busy to waste time staring at my salt shaker or laughing at the test pattern on my TV but it is no skin off my behind if people too dull to have interesting hobbies turn to recreational drugs. I certainly don’t want to waste my money sending them to jail for it.
How many people grow their own tobacco because they don’t want to pay cigarette taxes? How many are still making bathtub gin because the liquor tax is too high?
.
The reason people sell illegal drugs is because the demand exceeds the legal supply, and people will pay ridiculous amounts for it because they have no choice. If R J Reynolds or Philip Morris were able to legally put out packs of joints for $4 each, do you really think the people who want to get high are going to cry about the taxes?
.
Another reason for regulation is quality. Right now, with no oversight, the dealers are mixing the drugs with all sorts of toxins so that their volume can go further, and let the buyer beware. It also leads to people not knowing what they are buying, which has caused more than a few accidental overdoses. Legalization and regulation mean that whatever the label says is in the package is in there, and if it isn’t the manufacturer is liable.
.
Finally, many people start doing drugs in the first place simply *because* they’re illegal. It’s the thrill of doing something “THEY” don’t want you to do. I caught a few minutes of “Prohibition” on PBS recently and one line really stuck with me, though I can’t name the source: You can make sure that everybody in this country has perfect dental health; just outlaw toothpaste.
.
Legalizing pot will not make everybody run out and start using, any more than cigarettes and alcohol being legal makes everyone a chain-smoking alcoholic. People who have an addictive gene or mindset will *always* have it. It doesn’t go away just because you make their addiction illegal. But legalization does make it easier to track who is using what and how much. Even if it only takes in $1/yr nationwide in tax revenue, it more than makes up for it in savings on enforcement, prosecution and imprisonment.
Right now, with no oversight, the dealers are mixing the drugs with all sorts of toxins so that their volume can go further, and let the buyer beware
.
Right now, with lots of oversight, cigarette makers put dozens if not hundreds of toxins into their cigarettes.
I just don’t see us being able to make our currently illegal drug industry pay taxes or be regulated… and I don’t think you understand what I’m talking about if you compare this situation to alcohol’s. You’ll still have criminals buying and selling the stuff and instead of being locked up for violating drug laws, they’ll be locked up for violating tax codes, if they are caught at all.
Right now, with lots of oversight, cigarette makers put dozens if not hundreds of toxins into their cigarettes.
.
Exactly. Thing is, anti-smoking legislation targets tobacco and not the chemicals that Lucky Strike and others put into their cigs. Why anti-tobacco nazis aren’t suing the tribal peoples for giving smoking to us in the first place is what I’d like to know… all those casinos out there… it’s not like they don’t have money, right? ;)~
Why would it be at all hard to tax Pot? Farmer grows it, sells it to RJ reynolds, they process and package it, sell it to consumer. You could tax every step of the process. Simplicity itself.
.
Finally, many people start doing drugs in the first place simply *because* they’re illegal.
.
You know, Wulff, I hear that from a lot of people but I’m dubious. I think at least as many people DON’T take drugs because they are illegal. I would expect drug use to go up if legalized and that’s not good but the benefits of not having all those people in jail makes up for it.
Why would it be at all hard to tax Pot? Farmer grows it, sells it to RJ reynolds, they process and package it, sell it to consumer. You could tax every step of the process. Simplicity itself.
.
So only farmers grow pot now? That’s news to me. The reason it would be hard to tax any Schedule One drug is because those “industries” are hidden and have to be found first. Making them legal isn’t going to bring them out of the shadows, particularly when these former criminals know that they will be taxed and regulated. The same king of outlaw mentality will persist even after the product and use has been made legal.
.
I’m going to completely shock Bill here (since we discussed this about two years ago) and come out and agree with him. Legalize pot. The benefits far outweigh the downsides at this point.
.
It’ll be a nice, thriving industry that might actually have a few years of growth in it before leveling out, both the business and point of sale tax revenue would be beneficial and the issues we now have with it as an illegal industry would evaporate almost overnight.
.
Industrialized production of pot for commercial sale as cigarettes would end up with a product that’s cheaper to purchase for one thing. Being able to have large fields in the open, being able to use machines for much of the labor as we see with other modern crops, being able to use out in the open factories for production of the cigs, being able to use the same mode of transporting the product to the stores and, most importantly, cutting out the risks associated with the illegality of production, transport and sale of the product will end up dropping the price like a rock through tissue paper.
.
You’d likely be able to get a pack of these cigs for barely more than it costs to get a pack of regular smokes and with about the same number of cigarettes in them. There would be no profitability in the American market for the illegal trade anymore. Not only would the now nonexistent profitability hurt the illegal growers themselves, but they would have no revenue stream worth talking about to have the money to make the risk worth the while for the people that they’ve been employing to transport and sell the stuff.
.
The impact on illegal sales would be additionally compounded by the fact that few people would be interested in buying expensive illegal pot when they could go and get more bang for their buck at their local 7-11 without risking jail time. It would be much like the impact seen on illegal brewers and drinking establishments once prohibition went away. There was no profit in it for them anymore once everyone could get their booze risk free again.
.
You also wouldn’t see something I’ve seen several times in the last decade and that some of the Richmond cops I train with have seen a lot of. You won’t see kids who convinced the local dealer to sell them some pot that ended up being cut with something that made them sick. You might still see kids get busted for underage use just as you see kids now who get older siblings to buy them some beer or steal some of mom and dads booze and smokes, but you won’t see dealers selling crap that’s cut with chemicals to kids and then see those kids go to the hospital.
It’s a no-brainer. The experience with alcohol proves that people would rather buy a decent product than have to go through the bother of making it themselves.
.
What Darin misses, either deliberately or not, is that we won;t be taxing the current criminals. They will be out of jobs. The cigarette companies will be on this like a fly on dung. Oh, you have a secret growing field in the canyons of Colorado, impossible to see from the air? Well good luck with that, Sundance, RJ Reynolds has a couple of million acres of primo farmland right next to the highway and a packaging and distribution system that will make yours look like a guy stuffing contraband in the hollowed out cushions of his Nissan Sentra. Tax them? Hëll, the only downside is that we will be throwing so many drug workers out of work that the welfare roles may swell…hopefully offset by the need for more third shift workers at the Acapulco Golds factory.
What Darin misses, either deliberately or not, is that we won;t be taxing the current criminals. They will be out of jobs.
.
And what you are missing, either deliberately or not, is that criminals are never out of a job. The criminals who are currently producing and distributing and selling their wares illegally will still be competing with those who will choose to do so legally. It will be, for the most part, business as usual for them. They will then offer their drugs at different prices (due to the cost of regulation and taxation on the legal selling of said products) and you’ll still have crime taking place around the product. Legalizing Schedule One drugs just isn’t going to make the problem go away… and when you include all the new problems it would create (rooted in the notion of a society that now says it’s “okay” to use them) it all adds up to a very bad idea.
In fact, more than a few conservatives would like to ditch the whole thing (WF Buckley was way ahead of that curve) and the Obama administration has shown that liberals can be just as pig headed when it comes to this war.
.
Right, because if the Obama administration suggested legalizing pot, every single GOP candidate, plus Fox News, would jump on it and declare that Obama is soft on crime and soft on drugs. Suddenly the news cycle is all-Obama, all-soft-on-drugs, all the time.
.
PAD
.
Yeah, but that’s not much of an issue to stop him from doing it. For one thing, he’s killed more terrorists more effectively and more efficiently in the last three years than Bush did in eight years. The attack on him is still that he’s soft on terrorism, he’s soft on the war on terror, he’s soft on defending us from terrorists, he’s giving the world the impression that we suffer a new found vulnerabilities to terrorism, etc, etc, etc…
.
This is the POTUS who gets his ášš chewed out by Republicans for not saying something about Egypt and then gets the same Republicans condemning him 24 hours later for saying something since he should stay quiet on the matter. This is the POTUS who gets his ášš chewed out by Republicans for not making it clear that we would go in Libya and support the rebels with force of arms if need be and is then condemned by the exact same Republicans 24 hours later for committing troops to a UN action to support those rebels. This is the POTUS who gets his ášš chewed out by Republicans for not calling terrorism “terrorism” and not using the words “terrorists” and “act of terror” even though he does.
.
So what if they’re going to howl? They do it anyhow all of the time about anything and everything he does even when it’s the same dámņëd thing they themselves said he should be doing and that they would be doing if they were in charge.
.
Besides, who else but a Democrat will do it? You dámņëd sure won’t see a Republican do it in my lifetime.
Right, because if the Obama administration suggested legalizing pot, every single GOP candidate, plus Fox News, would jump on it and declare that Obama is soft on crime and soft on drugs. Suddenly the news cycle is all-Obama, all-soft-on-drugs, all the time. – PAD
.
You’re forgetting about all the other major news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, PMSNBC, CNN, etc). They would all be hailing Obama for his wisdom and for making “the hard choice” on the War On Drugs. Every single leftwing hack (in both parties) who is in favor of it would be brought front-and-center and given all most of the air time. The news cycle doesn’t change without the cooperation of the mainstream media and right now the mainstream media is still acting as the media wing of the Democrat Party.
Man, when you need a laugh, you know you can count on Darin to provide it.
Right, because if the Obama administration suggested legalizing pot, every single GOP candidate, plus Fox News, would jump on it and declare that Obama is soft on crime and soft on drugs. Suddenly the news cycle is all-Obama, all-soft-on-drugs, all the time.
.
If the suggestion is that Obama would LIKE to do what he thinks is right but doesn’t because Republicans and Fox news will say hurtful things about him, you have just given us all a great reason not to vote for him. If true, democrats should be begging Hillary or some other non filet-o-human to take his place.
.
darin, if you can explain why legalizing alcohol after prohibition did NOT result in the scenario you describe, please do so. Otherwise your hypothesis looks like one that has already been proven unlikely by historical reality. When a drug was legalized the money from its illegal manufacture and distribution dried up. The criminal underground was no match for the market, which should surprise nobody with an understanding of economics and psychology. For that matter, it is possible for anyone here in the south to grow tobacco in their own backyard and make their own cigarettes…yet nobody does so. Despite high taxes and legal limitations on the distribution and marketing of cigarettes, they still buy them legally.
.
Well, looking at the poll numbers on this, I suspect it will not be long before a more courageous president makes this happen and then we will see who is right. (Editor’s note: I personally do not subscribe to the premise PAD laid out. I think Obama genuinely thinks his crackdown is correct, not that he is pathetically trying to avoid looking weak. Putting people in jail, ruining lives, wasting resources…all to stave off a critique from Fox and Friends? I have issues with the man but I can’t go that far.)
Man, when you need a laugh, you know you can count on Darin to provide it.
.
Yep, I entertain as well as educate.
If the suggestion is that Obama would LIKE to do what he thinks is right but doesn’t because Republicans and Fox news will say hurtful things about him, you have just given us all a great reason not to vote for him.
.
Actually I was just pointing out that conservatives saying that Obama should take a particular course of action that conservatives will then turn around and make him eat 24/7 is a bit…what’s the best word…convenient, insofar as conservative goals are concerned.
.
That said, you’re talking to the guy who’s already excoriated Obama because I’m convinced he has no intrinsic objection to gay marriage and yet he has consistently declined to say so because of the GOP then riding that particular hobby horse for all it’s worth.
.
The thing that you’re forgetting is that it is in fact those attitude that represent exactly why people DID vote for him. Remember the nickname for him? “No Drama Obama.” After the sturm and drang of Bush seeking out wars and his yeeha cowboy “I’m doing this and I don’t give a šhìŧ what you think” schtick, he seemed a welcome relief.
.
The problem is that the No Drama, I think, stems from the idea that Obama tries to avoid what he perceives as needless conflict because he wants to focus on governance. He was still operating under the delusion that the rest of Washington was interested IN governing. Which they’re not. They’re interested in power: in maintaining it if they have it (which they think means proceeding cautiously lest they piss the voters off); in acquiring it if they don’t (which means preventing the other guys from accomplishing anything so that they can then hold the opposition up as the reason that nothing ever gets done).
.
Meantime the positives that ARE accomplished remain invisible to the public, because news coverage focuses mostly on bad news: gridlocks, things going wrong, people suffering. The administration remains stymied in its endeavors to get news coverage of anything good it does because the news doesn’t consider that red meat; they want sensationalistic stories that can be summarized in sound bites and give talking heads plenty to talk about.
.
And I don’t see any of that changing anytime soon. Which is why, as much as I despise Bush, there’s something to be said for a “I don’t give a dámņ what you people think and what you say, I’m the gøddámņ president and I’m going to say and do what I think is right” attitude.
.
PAD
Obama is not interested in governing. If he were interested in governing, he would not have established the unprecedented number of unelected czars which he uses to delegate the power of the Presidency to. Obama is interested in power and in fundamentally changing the US. It is Obama who has the “I’m going to do what I want” attitude that you speak of. It is Obama who has committed forces to conflicts without Congress’s consent, not Bush. It is Obama who is now threatening the use of executive orders for reasons of faux benevolence and thus violating the Constitution. You’ve got it all backwards, Peter.
Well, I’ll defer to Jerry Chandler’s last comment directly above.
Darin’s gotta Darin, y’know.
And Sasha is as Sasha does, I guess.
And that’s a copliment to Sasha.
As for Darin, my cat made a lump of him in his litterbox today.
Let’s see which one of you apes can come up with the most creative and biting insult directed at yours truly. Don’t worry, I can take it. 🙂
If Obama cured cancer, Fox News would take him to task for putting thousands of oncologists and research scientists out of work and contributing to the general unemployment numbers. They would also point out that Obama was just following up on an anti-cancer cure that the Bush administration had originally put into motion. And Tea Party Republicans would insist that Obama had no right to cure people of cancel, thus cheating them out of an opportunity to meet the Lord that much sooner.
.
And then Glenn Beck would take to the air and explain that Obama only cured cancer because of his growing God Complex. And, of course, while stating that he’s not really comparing them, he would then ask his ever shrinking audience who else had a God Complex, reveal that the answer was Hitler and spend the next hour explaining how curing cancer was just, when combined with his healthcare death panels, Obama’s big government first step towards his eugenics campaign and the creation of the camps with “showers” for his enemies.
The OWS would insist that greedy pharmaceuticals had the cure all along but kept it secret because, quote, how could they make money curing cancer?” My neurologist ex-wife is taken to the hospital when a blood vessel in her head explodes upon hearing that. She recovers and the transition from radical working for the Black Panther Party in the 1960s to “I’ll vote for anyone who isn’t a liberal idiot” is complete.
.
Jenny McCarthy insists that the cure causes diabetes based on “something she read on the internet”. Oprah’s channel gives her a two hour special on the subject. Only 4 people see it, cutting Keith Olbermann’s audience in half.
.
The European Union outlaws the cure because it was created through the genetic modification of cancer genes. A “No Genetically Modified Cures” movement gains traction. In a regrettable case of coincidental intersection, the “Let’s Go Back To Asbestos” and “Tobacco–It Can’t be Bad, It’s From Nature” movements also gain traction at the same time. Millions die, insisting to the end that hey, at least they have free health care.
.
A class action suit against Obama by trial lawyers claims that thanks to the fear of cancer now gone, American bran farmers can’t give the stuff away.
.
A heated debate among progressives breaks out on how best to deal with the environmental disaster of even more people living longer, with some urging forced sterilizations and others urging the funding of Project Z, a secret plan to introduce a new secret element that will, through a process we can only guess at, reduce the population to more sustainable levels.
Ok, ok, you beat it out of me. Project Z involves zombies. Lots of ’em. In a twist nobody saw coming, all the tree hugging progressives are eaten by zombies, leaving only the Amish, horror movie fans, rednecks and high government officials alive. Obama is re-elected in a landslide with 50,000 votes out of a total of 60,000 cast because most of the people left have never had it so good.
Oh God, you reminded me of one of the things I mostly hate about the left. “OMG, it’s genetically modified, so it’s eeeevil.” Me: “Er, okay, but why, why is it evil?” “Because… because it is! OMG, they modify genes, they modify nature, it’s eeeevil, didn’t you hear?” Me: “Okay, I heard, but why is it evil to modify genes?” “It’s bad for you! You eat that, it makes you ill!” Me: “You know, millions eat them, no one ever managed to prove it makes people ill.” “But it MUST, it MUST make people ill, because it changes naaaature, OMG!” Me: “So, you’re one of the villagers that want to burned down Mr. Frankenstein or something?”
.
God, I do hate some of the people “on my side.” Scratch that, actually. I am not on that side, I just happen to agree with them in several issues, while thinking they’re totally bonkers on other issues. And Bill, I’d thank you for not reminding me of genetically modified food ever again. I tend to get angry.
.
But modified food is how the Z Plague starts.
The thing is, we have been altering genes for thousands of years. Try eating some of the original corn and see how much you like it. Weiner dogs were not one of God’s ideas. If we had to survive on weeds, organically grown…well, there would have to be a lot less of us.
Hey, Fred from the B-52’s has been broadcasting from there for years. What ELSE would Channel Z mean? Getting nothing but static, indeed!
(Of course, now I have to capture the Walking Dead first season finale and set clips the Channel Z. I need to stop doing this to myself.)
Thanks for remembering the Nazis, Jerry. I can’t believe I forgot the Nazis.
Well, you know what they say – “Those who do not remember history, are condemned to repeat the course next semester.”
Don’t try to get it straight, PAD. Even the Joker would throw up his hands and say “This makes no dámņ sense”, surrendering to the fact that no amount of illogical logic can make these arguments remotely understandable or reasonable.
I dunno, the Joker secretly being in control of all politics and political parties would eplain A LOT about the current state of affairs in America…
Sasha –
I answered to you in the other thread.
Read and responded to. 🙂
Saying that Obama is doing this on Bush’s schedule is giving credit to Bush and I don’t think Obama wants it framed that way.
I would rather think he is just doing the right thing and keeping one of his campaign promises.
Is some of this politically motivated? Probably, sometimes there is nothing wrong with that.
Obama still as some promises to keep and he’ll need a second term to do it in.
Of course, the GOP will disagree with this decision especially in an upcoming election year.
But so far they haven’t made a compelling argument as to why we should stay in Iraq, and they won’t.
This one is a loser for the GOP.
As a military vet myself I was surprised to learn how many military personal we have stationed all over the world.
I would say bring back half of our military around the world home, to fill up the almost all of our decaying bases (Like Fort Totten in Queens, NY).
Let our military men and woman spend their hard earn money here in the USA not in the UK, Italy and Japan etc…
Saying that Obama is doing this on Bush’s schedule is giving credit to Bush and I don’t think Obama wants it framed that way.
I would rather think he is just doing the right thing and keeping one of his campaign promises.
Is some of this politically motivated? Probably, sometimes there is nothing wrong with that.
Obama still as some promises to keep and he’ll need a second term to do it in.
Of course, the GOP will disagree with this decision especially in an upcoming election year.
But so far they haven’t made a compelling argument as to why we should stay in Iraq, and they won’t.
This one is a loser for the GOP.
As a military vet myself I was surprised to learn how many military personal we have stationed all over the world.
I would say bring back half of our military around the world home, to fill up the almost all of our decaying bases (Like Fort Totten in Queens, NY).
Let our military men and woman spend their hard earn money here in the USA not in the UK, Italy and Japan etc…