(as to a child)...Exactly! ...You see? You win because I'm on the internet! ...(turns and walks away, muttering under breath)...Oy! This one's got issues!
I agree. To paraphrase Bentsen...I voted for President Clinton. President Obama is no Bill Clinton. I hear this but...Were they really 'off the books' as far as the national debt attributed to Bush is concerned? Or were they just different appropriation bill from the regular budget spending bill but still counted in the overall national debt? I can see it as an argument when comparing budget legislation. I am just much less sure that it is a factor when comparing the actual national debt racked up over the 2 President's terms. In fact, I am quite dubious. Not to mention the fact that the current President has really done nothing except continue the folly in Afghanistan and follow Bush's plan on Iraq. But, yet, this President has continued those tax cuts and, in fact, added to them. And, if he had his way, he would have cut less than 20% of those tax cuts in his proposals...and that percentage is before he added his extra stimuli, etc. Six one way, half a dozen the other, over the last decade, in my opinion. And that explains a lot about the situation we are in.
I too don't like having to be in Iraq* and Afghanistan*, but simply pulling out immediately upon becoming President wasn't an option Obama had. Like it or not, our government has a commitment to fulfill in those countries. We took on that commitment under Jr.'s Presidency. The moment we chose to invade and occupy first Afghanistan, then Iraq, we were obligated to keep the peace in those countries, or do the best we could to keep them from collapsing entirely into chaos. It was up to us since we invaded, we occupied. That was one reason I approved of how Obama handled the Libyan uprising. As a country, we worked with the UN and fought strictly from the air*, with none of our armies laying feet on Libyan soil*. It was a bad situation, but it ended well...from my point of view, anyway. *asterisk
That is where our philosophies are quite different. In my opinion, our only commitment in Afghanistan was to take cripple Al Qaeda after they attacked us because the country in question would not do it themselves. After that, I don't believe there was a commitment to anything. We could have left during Bush and we could have left since. Obama also tried to keep troops in Iraq even after Iraq felt the need for 'commitment' was over. He had to abandon the plan only because Iraq wasn't having any part of it. I guess they didn't want to be a Korea or Afghanistan or Germany or Japan or Kuwait or or or...with an endless US 'commitment' to their well being. And we should not have touched Libya. Just more excuse for endless military 'commitments'. Doesn't matter whether there is a D or an R in office, the Presidents love their military 'commitments'.
Stu, you just made my day. Your comments reflect EXACTLY how I feel about Afghanistan, Iraq and (especially) Libya. AFGHANISTAN: Without a doubt, we had to go in. Take out Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Get out. IRAQ: The president made the right decision to go in though he didn't know his decision was based on inaccurate information supplied to him by our Intelligence Community. No WMDs found. Get out. LIBYA: What the hell? We should never have gone in.
Let me ask both Stu and Coin a question. Do either of you know where the Phrase "Cut and run" came from in relation to all these wars? If you both will remember, Obama did not vote for these wars while all Republicans did and of course the Bush Administration lied in order to take us to war in the first place. I wish it were possible to look up the old comments from Coin and his ilk about Obama cutting and running from these wars. Oh how their positions have changed. Just hilarious. Here is a blast from the past from good old Fox News: Bush Goes On Offensive Against 'Cut and Run' Democrats Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216417,00.html#ixzz25WLM7EO6
Yeah, we'll listen to the commanders on the ground: Republicans Savage Iraq War Commander General 'Cut and Run' Casey. by Kamal El-Din Unconfirmed sources report that Republican law makers and others have called General George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, a 'cut and run coward' after he proposed a program of phased troop withdrawals from the Iraq theater of operations. Members of both the house and Senate are calling for Casey to step down as 'any coward who doesn't have the guts to stay and fight doesn't deserve to called an American soldier'. Democratic lawmakers and his fellow soldiers have vowed to fight for the General. "Withdrawal is not an option, surrender is not a solution," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said. "This senator does not want to be complicit in that decision that could reverse the success we have achieved since 9/11 in keeping terrorism off our shores. George Casey's cut and run plan is a non-starter and he should be fired for even proposing it. Doesn't he know we have a mid-term election coming up? We need this war. " Even the Vice President Dick Cheney could not stay silent about the possibility of such a troop withdrawal proposal "This plan would validate the terrorist strategy. It would play right into the hands of the Democrats who are trying to discredit the President for starting such a useless and misguided war." Popular media figure Rush Limbaugh even likened Gen. Casey to Osama bin-Laden. "I can't believe it. I just can't believe it. It looks like Osama's number two man is running the war in Iraq right now, FOR US! This cut and run coward of a general wants to give Iraq to the terrorists. I just can't believe it. I might just have to join up and go over there myself if this is the best guy we can get. What a mess!" The General still has many supporters including Retired Army Gen. John H. Tilelli Jr., who commanded the 1st Cavalry Division. He said of Casey , his chief of staff from 1991 to 1993 , " he has a very good touch. He is a quality soldier, a caring leader, an intellect who understands both the political and military issues of situations." The White House has remained silent on the issue of Gen. George Casey, but has vowed to stay the course' no matter the cost'.
I couldn't care less if Obama voted "for", "against" or "present". Once he became president, Iraq and Afghanistan became his responsibilities. Period. The war in Iraq was based on inaccurate information from the Intel Community. Not because of any "lie" from the Bush Administration. What the hell are you talking about? I've never said anything about Obama "cutting and running". Within the last four, long years Obama should have ordered a pull-out from Afghanistan. Wouldn't you agree? Do you think that's "cutting and running"? The pull-out from Iraq was already planned before Obama took office. Additionally, Obama never should have invaded Libya.
When this exact same thing was said a few years ago it was the dimocracks who took issue with it. Remember?
You and the entire crazy Right-wing simply are stuck with the problem of deriding success. Not an easy task. Please feel free to ignore each point you can't refute. I'm used to it.
It's funny (well, maybe sad) that lil joe moen thinks he can probably recall something and tries to pass it off as gospel yet when his post his exact words are clearly re-posted he tries to accuse us of mischaracterizing. Funny? Sad? How about pathetic?
I should know better: Since denial would require knowing what information is contained in the article, far better to simply dismiss it while hiding behind the ad hominem fallacy blinders. Further excerpts: Rolling Stone Politics | "Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital"
How interesting. Not a single example and not a single whiff of proof. Typical left wing propaganda. He did not. Really! He did not say there were any soldier in Libya. You did. BTW, you had this discussion previously with him.
I guess you would not care to divulge just when Ampad went bankrupt, would you. After it went public, Bain is no longer responsible for its operation. BTW, bankruptcy does not mean they went out of business, but the the investors (i.e. Bain capital, et al) lost money. The company continued to operate and was bought out by Esselte in 2003.
It's funny, well sad really, that Coin's lapdogs will chime in and pick one point to spew all over yet Coin remains silent. He must be waiting for them to change the converastion to something he CAN address rather than the points I made. Same old, same old.
Sorry Recus, you're not going to change minds here or behaviors. You can however make them feel defensive about their verbal nonsense and hopefully keep them awake at night seething in anger. That's enough for me.
Of course you should. When you cut & paste a hit/opinion piece from a known far left columnist, in an entertainment rag you should expect to have your feathers clipped. But as long as you've learned a lesson from this it should be okay.
