O's War

[DOGS THAT BARK]

--Anyone listen to the speech? Thought I'd see some reporting by now.

Didn't watch it myself-but read transcript --and went as I expected after reading reviews.

Unlike GW's on surge where speech was entirely about winning--
O's was straddling the fence political diatribe--having to defend- his this is the good war --while appeasing his base that its intent was to get out sooner.

Lets see if we can find any predictible rhetoric

--Our resolve unwavering--we'll be out in 18 months

--denial on dithering--yep
--bush bashing- yep
--let me be clear-yep 9 times
one example-our resolve is unwavering/we'll be out in 18 months

Speech would have been fine had he not dropped in the 18 month time line-
-it will assure things are not completed in 18 months as enemy can sit back--afgan population won't stick their necks knowing our goal is to get out of dodge--troop attitude will suffer as O has turned war from goal of fighting terrorism- into political posturing.

--Something O failed to touch on when patting himself on back from everything to even being responsible for victory in Iraq was--his track record and progress in afgan since taking over-
--no mention of highest troop casuatlies since war started in 2001.

 

[RAYMOND]

obama is a greenhorne and it shows big time! this is what a america ask for! a black jimmy carter :142smilie

 

[hedgehog]

He is nothing but an actor from Hollywood, he is just reading his lines prepared for him. thats all

 

[Chadman]

Of course, there was no way Obama was going to win with conservatives, no matter what. The general says we need more troops, the neocons say we need to stay there and fight for the cause, Obama sends more troops, and commits completely to the cause, within reason.

Considering our economic situation here, I think it's a prudent, sensible course of action. Aggressive action, fighting terrorists and the taliban with more troops - more to carry out more aggressive action against the enemy, and help protect troops already fighting there. And a timeline to make judgments, work with Afghan troops to make them stronger, help them make gains to take over the cause of their own country. Make the leader accountable, monitor the money and the efforts, then get out. A good plan, militarily, for our country and theirs, combat the enemy where they apparently are according to our intelligence, and give soldiers a commitment of firepower, more troops, a country commitment, and an end in sight, so they can focus and know that they probably can come home at some point.

Makes sense to me. I'm happy there's no unending war scenario there, and from what I've read, if we're going to be there at all, the military leaders said this was the thing to do.

Conservatives will pick apart every part of the plan, and look for arguables. It seems to make sense to me, although I'm not sure us being there makes any sense at all. But if we are there, let's do it right, with a plan to get out.

 

[THE KOD]

I thought it was a wonderful emotional speech that set a clear outline of what will happen.

Unlike when George W used to just say, not sure how long we will be there, 5 , 10 , maybe 20 yrs
oh boy we will probably win then.

He is the first President in a long long time that knows what the fawk he is doing.

Remember he is taking information from the top GEnerals, staff, adm, war people in the country.

Liked looking at all the cadets. They really are the best of the best .

what a great speech

PS - When O says to let me be clear , thats when you should listen intently

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

I'm not sure us being there makes any sense at all.

Exactly. WTF are we still doing there?

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

--Anyone listen to the speech? Thought I'd see some reporting by now.

Didn't watch it myself-but read transcript --and went as I expected after reading reviews.

Unlike GW's on surge where speech was entirely about winning--
O's was straddling the fence political diatribe--having to defend- his this is the good war --while appeasing his base that its intent was to get out sooner.

Lets see if we can find any predictible rhetoric

--Our resolve unwavering--we'll be out in 18 months

--denial on dithering--yep
--bush bashing- yep
--let me be clear-yep 9 times
one example-our resolve is unwavering/we'll be out in 18 months

Speech would have been fine had he not dropped in the 18 month time line-
-it will assure things are not completed in 18 months as enemy can sit back--afgan population won't stick their necks knowing our goal is to get out of dodge--troop attitude will suffer as O has turned war from goal of fighting terrorism- into political posturing.

--Something O failed to touch on when patting himself on back from everything to even being responsible for victory in Iraq was--his track record and progress in afgan since taking over-
--no mention of highest troop casuatlies since war started in 2001.

DTB,
I'm having trouble getting an answer from neocons in another thread so I thought I would direct the question to you. What did GW do that was good for this country? He had to do something right. Help me out here.
Thanks

 

[JOSHNAUDI]

I'll take a shot TU

In all seriousness, I like the question and found a decent website analysis. Below is the link and I'll post a few of my favorites that I think he did well on.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/What-Bush-Has-Done-Right.htm

Transformed the immigration reform debate.
In 2006, there was a debate within the Republican-dominated Congress over the future of America's 12 million undocumented immigrants. The response of the House was mass deportation; the response of the Senate was comprehensive reform with a citizenship path. President Bush strongly and openly favored the latter approach, to the point of essentially ending the debate within his party over deportation. It cost him dearly among his base, but it moved the immigration reform debate to the center and provided political cover for other Republicans willing to entertain humane immigration reform proposals. Thanks in part to President Bush's position on this issue, real bipartisan immigration reform may be possible in 2009.

Declared the first federal ban on racial profiling.
During his first State of the Union address in early 2001, President Bush vowed to end racial profiling. In 2003, he acted on his promise by issuing an order to 70 federal law enforcement agencies calling for an end to most forms of racial and ethnic profiling. The ban was not airtight, but it was the first ban of its kind.

Accepted record numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers.
During the second term of the Clinton administration, the United States accepted an average of 60,000 refugees per year and 7,000 asylum-seekers per year. From 2001 to 2006, under the leadership of President Bush, the United States accepted more than four times as many asylum-seekers--some 32,000 per year--and an average of 87,000 refugees per year.

Used the bully pulpit to protect American Muslims.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment was on the rise. Almost every other president in the history of the United States who had faced terrorist attacks from abroad ultimately gave in to xenophobia--President Woodrow Wilson being the most egregious example. President Bush did not, infuriating elements of his base by meeting with pro-Arab and pro-Muslim civil rights groups and holding Muslim events at the White House. When Democrats relied on anti-Arab sentiment while criticizing the transfer of several U.S. ports from British to UAE ownership, it became clear just how far this xenophobia had spread--and just how important it might have been that the president had made an effort to reject it.

Integrated the executive branch.
The top four positions in the executive branch are those of the president, the vice-president, the secretary of state, and the attorney general. Until President Bush came to power, none of these four offices had ever been occupied by a person of color. President Bush has appointed the first non-white attorney general (Alberto Gonzales), as well as both the first (Colin Powell) and second (Condoleezza Rice) non-white secretaries of state. There have been non-white legislators and two non-white Supreme Court justices, but prior to the Bush administration, the upper echelon of the executive branch had always been all-white. President Bush changed that.

Extended federal pension benefits to include same-sex couples.
Although President Bush's rhetoric has often been troubling, he has yet to change a single federal policy in a way that detrimentally affects LGBT Americans. Couple this with a 2006 bill he signed that gave non-spousal couples the same federal pension standards as married couples, his decision to appoint an openly gay man as U.S. ambassador to Romania, his refusal to turn lesbian and gay families away from the White House Easter egg hunt, his decision not to overturn President Clinton's executive order banning federal employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and his warm words about the vice-president's daughter and her family, and you have an administration that is not as homophobic as many had feared it would be.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

DTB,
I'm having trouble getting an answer from neocons in another thread so I thought I would direct the question to you. What did GW do that was good for this country? He had to do something right. Help me out here.
Thanks

well i'll tryand be as concise as I can if you'd like me to expand in any area let me know--

Believe he took office in recession and immediately it was compounded by worldcom/enron and other collapses--9 months later 911 caused a trillion dollar hit on economy to boot --he came of it without ONCE blaming hand he was dealt by by prior admin. Not only came out but set record for continuous months of growth with dow hitting all time high-

-all this prior to Pelosi and crew getting control and changing - as they called it -Worst economy since great depression into-
--The worst economy since great :0corn
depression.

Now on the issue of war and Iraq in particular-
Lets put it into todays terms.
Iran continues to thumb its nose at Us Un and all others--who continue to do nothing but b kumbaya -time is running out blah blah blah.

Same as Iraq--while everyone let Hussein (saddam) do same and thumb his nose at resolutions--someone stepped up to the plate and did something.

Hussein (saddam) got his dues and the kurds/US and rest of world have nothing to fear from him along with iraqi's.

So now we have another evil person that Hussein (Barack) and rest of world has to again confront.
Who is again telling the world to kiss their ass.

Who will step up to the plate and have a sack--my bet is it will be Isreal. Question is -will the liberals tag whoever confronts them as a cowboy/GW because they ridded the world of an evil tyrant?
Your thoughts?

 

[JOSHNAUDI]

Maybe I haven't said it DTB but I'm glad that we got Saddam Hussein. He was a horrible person.

Problem is the timing was terrible.

Al Qaeda/Taliban/UBL hit us square in the jaw and we go and kick the shit out of Iraq.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

well i'll tryand be as concise as I can if you'd like me to expand in any area let me know--

Believe he took office in recession and immediately it was compounded by worldcom/enron and other collapses--9 months later 911 caused a trillion dollar hit on economy to boot --he came of it without ONCE blaming hand he was dealt by by prior admin. Not only came out but set record for continuous months of growth with dow hitting all time high-

-all this prior to Pelosi and crew getting control and changing - as they called it -Worst economy since great depression into-
--The worst economy since great :0corn
depression.

Now on the issue of war and Iraq in particular-
Lets put it into todays terms.
Iran continues to thumb its nose at Us Un and all others--who continue to do nothing but b kumbaya -time is running out blah blah blah.

Same as Iraq--while everyone let Hussein (saddam) do same and thumb his nose at resolutions--someone stepped up to the plate and did something.

Hussein (saddam) got his dues and the kurds/US and rest of world have nothing to fear from him along with iraqi's.

So now we have another evil person that Hussein (Barack) and rest of world has to again confront.
Who is again telling the world to kiss their ass.

Who will step up to the plate and have a sack--my bet is it will be Isreal. Question is -will the liberals tag whoever confronts them as a cowboy/GW because they ridded the world of an evil tyrant?
Your thoughts?

So in your opinion he inherited a shit economy. I think we can all agree he left with one too. How is that a plus for ol' GW?

Don't get me started on the Iraq war that was/is a nightmare. So is that all you got? Economy and the war?

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Used the bully pulpit to protect American Muslims.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment was on the rise. Almost every other president in the history of the United States who had faced terrorist attacks from abroad ultimately gave in to xenophobia--President Woodrow Wilson being the most egregious example. President Bush did not, infuriating elements of his base by meeting with pro-Arab and pro-Muslim civil rights groups and holding Muslim events at the White House. When Democrats relied on anti-Arab sentiment while criticizing the transfer of several U.S. ports from British to UAE ownership, it became clear just how far this xenophobia had spread--and just how important it might have been that the president had made an effort to reject it.

We have evolved quite a bit since WWII. What the hell was Bush going to say? Lets round up all the Muslims in the US?

I'll have to look into a few more of these. I'm just not that impressed with this one.

 

[THE KOD]

Al Qaeda/Taliban/UBL hit us square in the jaw and we go and kick the shit out of Iraq.

...................................................................

I am glad Saddam is dead also.

But how fawked up is that decision they made.

Looking back now it seems ludicrous. We could have spent that money and lives in much better ways.

 

[THE KOD]

well i'll tryand be as concise as I can if you'd like me to expand in any area let me know--

Believe he took office in recession and immediately it was compounded by worldcom/enron and other collapses--9 months later 911 caused a trillion dollar hit on economy to boot --he came of it without ONCE blaming hand he was dealt by by prior admin. Not only came out but set record for continuous months of growth with dow hitting all time high-

-all this prior to Pelosi and crew getting control and changing - as they called it -Worst economy since great depression into-
--The worst economy since great :0corn
depression.

Now on the issue of war and Iraq in particular-
Lets put it into todays terms.
Iran continues to thumb its nose at Us Un and all others--who continue to do nothing but b kumbaya -time is running out blah blah blah.

Same as Iraq--while everyone let Hussein (saddam) do same and thumb his nose at resolutions--someone stepped up to the plate and did something.

Hussein (saddam) got his dues and the kurds/US and rest of world have nothing to fear from him along with iraqi's.

So now we have another evil person that Hussein (Barack) and rest of world has to again confront.
Who is again telling the world to kiss their ass.

Who will step up to the plate and have a sack--my bet is it will be Isreal. Question is -will the liberals tag whoever confronts them as a cowboy/GW because they ridded the world of an evil tyrant?
Your thoughts?

................................................................

economy and war

Geez Build George W a library and spend 259 million on it.

and put what in it >?:142smilie

Economy and war chocked full to the brim.

neocons - they amuse me

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

................................................................

economy and war

Geez Build George W a library and spend 259 million on it.

and put what in it >?:142smilie

Economy and war chocked full to the brim.

neocons - they amuse me

Amazing. Isn't it?

...and this is from the guy who thinks we should miss him. Fuck me.

 

[THE KOD]

Amazing. Isn't it?

...and this is from the guy who thinks we should miss him. Fuck me.

.........................................................

damn thats funny

:142smilie

 

[JOSHNAUDI]

We have evolved quite a bit since WWII. What the hell was Bush going to say? Lets round up all the Muslims in the US?

I'll have to look into a few more of these. I'm just not that impressed with this one.

What the hell was Bush going to say:

Mission Accomplished.

...................................You want to attack us on our homeland... Bring it on.

It's like an old sayin down in Texas... Fool me once shame on... uh... We're not going to get fooled again.

...................................Nucular

They have Weapons of Mass destruction

...................................Unwarranted phone taps

I wish Maxwell Smart was here so I could make a phone call. Anyone... Anyone..

...................................I wonder how many pieces of popcorn I can put in my mouth before I choke

Go Fuck Yourself... Ok that was Cheney

Round up all of the Muslims doesn't sound so far off and in case you haven't noticed around "these" parts, there are some that post this kind of shit on a weekly basis.

There are people in this forum chomping at the bit to go down to a Mosque, grab a cleric by the collar and say "Outside Now!"

Bush, who might not bow down to an Emperor of the Orient, was not afraid to walk hand in hand with a Muslim Prince

You might not be impressed when you have to pick the best looking corn kernels out of the big steaming pile of shit he left. But to me. This is a pretty big gem.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

So in your opinion he inherited a shit economy. I think we can all agree he left with one too. How is that a plus for ol' GW?

Don't get me started on the Iraq war that was/is a nightmare. So is that all you got? Economy and the war?

You asked what he accomplished and I told you TU.

GW had as many adversities as O--but never blamed anyone and did his best to do what he thought was right and took responsibilty for success and failure.

O on the other hand has yet in his 100 plus speeches never failed to try and put blame on someone else--its a character issue-plain and simple.

Every pres/admin will have adversity--can't say in my almost 60 years I have ever saw any admin use the "its not my fault" approach after being elected.

When you run for office you point out what you deem to be failures of party in power and how you will fix them.

When you win to proceed to fullfill those promises made during campaign.

This grifter has continued the campaign mode to cover up his failures.

He never should have left his job as Acorn Organizer--He could preach "its not our fault" 24/7 to a welcome ear

--don't think that will float this envirinment.

 

[THE KOD]

GW had as many adversities as O--but never blamed anyone and did his best to do what he thought was right and took responsibilty for success and failure.

................................................................

your totally misinterpreting this as usual

The reason George W didnt blame anyone was that he really didnt give two chits about what anyone thought of him.

Him and Dicky either.

Geez George W you just made what is considereed the biggest blunder of all time in the anals of USA goverment.

George W - So

Dicky - Yeh So fawk you

He took responsibility for what :142smilie

Go ahead and contribute with your taxes to 260 Million for his library in Texas.

You need to go to that Library when its built and try to find out one thing he did for the USA besides make himself a billionaiire.

20% approval ratings at the end of 8 yrs happen for a reason.

 

[Chadman]

Oh, you mean the George Bush who said when asked if he'd made any mistakes since 9/11 - years after - explained that he couldn't think of any? THAT George Bush?