- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Cry all you want, but what you basically told me was that GW didn't do a damn thing for this country. I really expected you to dig up more than this. This was really too easy.
O's War
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
Cry all you want, but what you basically told me was that GW didn't do a damn thing for this country. I really expected you to dig up more than this. This was really too easy.
Wayne, you mean not blaming others, and taking responsibility for economic woes, like this:
"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession."?Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
Staying true to conservative principles like this:
"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."?Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2008
Not spending citizens money and engaging in stimulus issues:
"One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis."?Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
And this gem, showing no loyalty to high level financial executives that helped him out:
"Anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions will be caught and persecuted."?Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2008
His disdain for entitlement programs:
"I want to thank the dozens of welfare to work stories, the actual examples of people who made the firm and solemn commitment to work hard to embetter themselves."?Washington, D.C., April 18, 2002
Speaking of Iran thumbing their noses at Obama, and us:
"Should the Iranian regime?do they have the sovereign right to have civilian nuclear power? So, like, if I were you, that's what I'd ask me. And the answer is, yes, they do."?Speaking to reporters in Washington, D.C., July 2, 2008
And, probably his one clear, visionary statement of personal responsibility:
"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."?as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002
But, for the purposes of this discussion, the first comment should suffice. I just threw in the others as a little bonus...
"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession."?Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
Staying true to conservative principles like this:
"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."?Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2008
Not spending citizens money and engaging in stimulus issues:
"One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis."?Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
And this gem, showing no loyalty to high level financial executives that helped him out:
"Anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions will be caught and persecuted."?Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2008
His disdain for entitlement programs:
"I want to thank the dozens of welfare to work stories, the actual examples of people who made the firm and solemn commitment to work hard to embetter themselves."?Washington, D.C., April 18, 2002
Speaking of Iran thumbing their noses at Obama, and us:
"Should the Iranian regime?do they have the sovereign right to have civilian nuclear power? So, like, if I were you, that's what I'd ask me. And the answer is, yes, they do."?Speaking to reporters in Washington, D.C., July 2, 2008
And, probably his one clear, visionary statement of personal responsibility:
"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."?as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002
But, for the purposes of this discussion, the first comment should suffice. I just threw in the others as a little bonus...
"His disdain for entitlement programs:"
Sheeez
Must have made that Acorn organizer job a real bitch for him:142smilie
1/3 of his "Stimulus:" went to entitlement programs--only bill he passed prior was schips escalation to 400% above poverty.
Do you understand what redistibuting the wealth means.?
This Grifter is not only the biggest promoter of entitlement programs --he's a product of them.
Was reading this article and found this comment by Pn citizen that fits right in here.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/12/03/who-creates-jobs/
Who Creats Jobs
BOB
The stimulus package enacted last year gave $4 BILLION to Pennsylvania for HEALTHCARE. EVERY DIME WENT TO MEDICAID. NOT ONE PENNY FOR HOSPITALS, etc. How many jobs did that $4 billion create? We have been trying to reopen a badly needed hospital in Brownsville, Fayette County Pennsylvania and restore 150 badly need jobs. The project is shovel ready...it closed in Feb. 2009. Excellent one story building and we can't get a penny of help from the feds. Come see our hospital, John.
December 3, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Sheeez
Must have made that Acorn organizer job a real bitch for him:142smilie
1/3 of his "Stimulus:" went to entitlement programs--only bill he passed prior was schips escalation to 400% above poverty.
Do you understand what redistibuting the wealth means.?
This Grifter is not only the biggest promoter of entitlement programs --he's a product of them.
Was reading this article and found this comment by Pn citizen that fits right in here.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/12/03/who-creates-jobs/
Who Creats Jobs
BOB
The stimulus package enacted last year gave $4 BILLION to Pennsylvania for HEALTHCARE. EVERY DIME WENT TO MEDICAID. NOT ONE PENNY FOR HOSPITALS, etc. How many jobs did that $4 billion create? We have been trying to reopen a badly needed hospital in Brownsville, Fayette County Pennsylvania and restore 150 badly need jobs. The project is shovel ready...it closed in Feb. 2009. Excellent one story building and we can't get a penny of help from the feds. Come see our hospital, John.
December 3, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I am tired of all the bitching about lives lost, that is the risk you take by enlisting in the Armed Forces, you can die.
December 4, 2009
Uncertain Trumpet
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills -- for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.
We shall never surrender -- unless the war gets too expensive, in which case, we shall quote Eisenhower on "the need to maintain balance in and among national programs" and then insist that "we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars."
The quotes are from President Obama's West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was -- a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive.
Which made his last-minute assertion of "resolve unwavering" so hollow. It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan "a war of necessity." On Tuesday night, he defined "what's at stake" as "the common security of the world." The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?
Does he think that such ambivalence is not heard by the Taliban, by Afghan peasants deciding which side to choose, by Pakistani generals hedging their bets, by NATO allies already with one foot out of Afghanistan?
Nonetheless, most supporters of the Afghanistan War were satisfied. They got the policy, the liberals got the speech. The hawks got three-quarters of what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted -- 30,000 additional U.S. troops -- and the doves got a few soothing words. Big deal, say the hawks.
But it is a big deal. Words matter because will matters. Success in war depends on three things: a brave and highly skilled soldiery, such as the U.S. military 2009, the finest counterinsurgency force in history; brilliant, battle-tested commanders such as Gens. David Petraeus and McChrystal, fresh from the success of the surge in Iraq; and the will to prevail as personified by the commander in chief.
There's the rub. And that is why at such crucial moments, presidents don't issue a policy paper. They give a speech. It gives tone and texture. It allows their policy to be imbued with purpose and feeling. This one was festooned with hedges, caveats and one giant exit ramp.
No one expected Obama to do a Henry V or a Churchill. But Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who, at an infinitely lower ebb in power and popularity, opposed by the political and foreign policy establishments and dealing with a war effort in far more dire straits, announced his surge -- Iraq 2007 -- with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat. His implacability was widely decried at home as stubbornness, but heard loudly in Iraq by those fighting for and against us as unflinching -- and salutary -- determination.
Obama's surge speech wasn't a commander in chief's, but a politician's, perfectly splitting the difference. Two messages for two audiences. Placate the right -- you get the troops; placate the left -- we are on our way out.
And apart from Obama's own personal commitment is the question of his ability as a wartime leader. If he feels compelled to placate his left with an exit date today -- while he is still personally popular, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, and even before the surge begins -- how will he stand up to the left when the going gets tough and the casualties mount, and he really has to choose between support from his party and success on the battlefield?
Despite my personal misgivings about the possibility of lasting success against Taliban insurgencies in both Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan, I have deep confidence that Petraeus and McChrystal would not recommend a strategy that will be costly in lives, without their having a firm belief in the possibility of success.
I would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy. But the fate of this war depends not just on them. It depends on the president. We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success. And this commander in chief defended his exit date (versus the straw man alternative of "open-ended" nation-building) thusly: "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."
Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.
Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> checkTextResizerCookie('article_body'); </SCRIPT>
Uncertain Trumpet
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills -- for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.
We shall never surrender -- unless the war gets too expensive, in which case, we shall quote Eisenhower on "the need to maintain balance in and among national programs" and then insist that "we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars."
The quotes are from President Obama's West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was -- a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive.
Which made his last-minute assertion of "resolve unwavering" so hollow. It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan "a war of necessity." On Tuesday night, he defined "what's at stake" as "the common security of the world." The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?
Does he think that such ambivalence is not heard by the Taliban, by Afghan peasants deciding which side to choose, by Pakistani generals hedging their bets, by NATO allies already with one foot out of Afghanistan?
Nonetheless, most supporters of the Afghanistan War were satisfied. They got the policy, the liberals got the speech. The hawks got three-quarters of what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted -- 30,000 additional U.S. troops -- and the doves got a few soothing words. Big deal, say the hawks.
But it is a big deal. Words matter because will matters. Success in war depends on three things: a brave and highly skilled soldiery, such as the U.S. military 2009, the finest counterinsurgency force in history; brilliant, battle-tested commanders such as Gens. David Petraeus and McChrystal, fresh from the success of the surge in Iraq; and the will to prevail as personified by the commander in chief.
There's the rub. And that is why at such crucial moments, presidents don't issue a policy paper. They give a speech. It gives tone and texture. It allows their policy to be imbued with purpose and feeling. This one was festooned with hedges, caveats and one giant exit ramp.
No one expected Obama to do a Henry V or a Churchill. But Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who, at an infinitely lower ebb in power and popularity, opposed by the political and foreign policy establishments and dealing with a war effort in far more dire straits, announced his surge -- Iraq 2007 -- with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat. His implacability was widely decried at home as stubbornness, but heard loudly in Iraq by those fighting for and against us as unflinching -- and salutary -- determination.
Obama's surge speech wasn't a commander in chief's, but a politician's, perfectly splitting the difference. Two messages for two audiences. Placate the right -- you get the troops; placate the left -- we are on our way out.
And apart from Obama's own personal commitment is the question of his ability as a wartime leader. If he feels compelled to placate his left with an exit date today -- while he is still personally popular, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, and even before the surge begins -- how will he stand up to the left when the going gets tough and the casualties mount, and he really has to choose between support from his party and success on the battlefield?
Despite my personal misgivings about the possibility of lasting success against Taliban insurgencies in both Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan, I have deep confidence that Petraeus and McChrystal would not recommend a strategy that will be costly in lives, without their having a firm belief in the possibility of success.
I would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy. But the fate of this war depends not just on them. It depends on the president. We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success. And this commander in chief defended his exit date (versus the straw man alternative of "open-ended" nation-building) thusly: "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."
Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.
Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> checkTextResizerCookie('article_body'); </SCRIPT>
You chickenhawk pussy.
They enlist to protect our country, they are all heroes.
They did not enlist to die in a lie of a war.
I know you just see all the lives lost as just numbers, but these are all great Americans who are sons and daughters and mothers and fathers.
You are beyond a fucking creep with this comment.
So just sit your fatass into your suv and bitch about the president and the country and not even grasp that you are everything that is wrong with this world.
Fat stupid and thinking your entitled to everything is no way to live.
I can not believe your comments about the troops you fucking coward.
Led by a conflicted president of a divided party and nation, America is deepening her involvement in a war in its ninth year with no end in sight.
Only one parallel to Barack Obama's troop decision comes to mind: the 2007 decision by George W. Bush to ignore the Baker Commission and put Gen. David Petraeus in command of a "surge" of 30,000 troops into Iraq.
That surge succeeded. Baghdad was largely pacified. The Sunni of Anbar, heart of the resistance, accepted Petraeus' offer of cash and a role in the new Iraq. Together, Americans and Sunni began to eradicate al-Qaida. In July, the surge ended and U.S. troops withdrew from the cities.
In August and October, however, the Finance, Justice and Foreign ministries were bombed. The Sons of Iraq now say the Shia government reneged on its pledge to pay their wages and bring them into the army.
Jockeying in parliament for the inside track to power in January's elections may force a postponement of the elections, and of the U.S. timetable for withdrawal. Kurds and Arabs are battling over Kirkuk. Iraqis seem to be going back to fighting one another.
What hope can there be then for a U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan, a larger, wilder, less accessible, more backward country, whose regime is less competent and more corrupt than that in Iraq?
Conservative columnist Tony Blankley, who supported the Iraq war and surge, has come out against more troops in Afghanistan. His reasoning: Obama will be sending many hundreds of young Americans to their deaths and thousands to be wounded in a war about which he himself has doubts.
While it may speak well of Obama as a man that he has reflected, agonized, debated within himself and conducted nine war counsels with scores of advisers before acceding to Gen. McChrystal's request, what does this say of him as commander in chief?
Whatever one may say against George W. Bush, he was decisive. As was James K. Polk when he sent Winfield Scott to take Mexico City. As was Abraham Lincoln when he congratulated Gen. Sherman on his barbarous March to the Sea. As was Harry Truman, who ordered the dropping of an atom bomb to jolt Tokyo into accepting unconditional surrender.
One may condemn the wars these president fought. One may deplore their tactics. But they and the most successful American generals -- Stonewall Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton -- were not Hamlets. They did not agonize over why they were fighting or whether it was worth it.
How does a president lead a nation into a war where he is not wholly and heartily committed to victory and from which, say his aides, he is even now planning the earliest possible exit?
When Dwight Eisenhower took office, he concluded that the price of uniting Korea under a pro-U.S. government meant years more of war and scores of thousands more U.S. dead. He decided on an armistice. In six months, the war was over.
Ike was as decisive as Obama is diffident.
From tapes of his conversations with Sen. Richard Russell, LBJ agonized over Vietnam as early as 1964. He worried about the U.S. casualties and whether we could prevail in a country of little interest to him and of no vital strategic interest to the United States.
Out of fear that Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater would call him the first president to lose a war, Johnson plunged in. And rather than win swiftly and brutally as we had with a mighty Japanese Empire, LBJ fought Vietnam as the conflicted war president he was, babbling on about building "a Great Society on the Mekong."
One senses Obama is escalating for the same reason: He is not so much exhilarated by the prospect of victory and what it will mean as he is fearful of what a Taliban triumph and U.S. defeat would mean for America -- and him.
And he is right to be. A U.S. withdrawal leading to a Taliban triumph would electrify jihadists from Marrakech to Mindanao and mark a milestone in the long retreat of American power. Pakistan, having cast its lot with us, would be in mortal peril. NATO, humiliated in its first war, would become more of a hollow shell than it already is.
To prevent this, Obama plans to send tens of thousands more U.S. troops to hold off a resurgent Taliban, even as he plans for their eventual withdrawal.
The United States is today led by a commander in chief who does not believe military victory is possible, who is not sure this war should be fought and who has a timetable in his own mind as to when to draw down our troops. And we face a Taliban that, after eight years of pounding, is stronger than ever, and believes God is on its side and its victory is assured.
Who do we think is ultimately going to prevail?
Only one parallel to Barack Obama's troop decision comes to mind: the 2007 decision by George W. Bush to ignore the Baker Commission and put Gen. David Petraeus in command of a "surge" of 30,000 troops into Iraq.
That surge succeeded. Baghdad was largely pacified. The Sunni of Anbar, heart of the resistance, accepted Petraeus' offer of cash and a role in the new Iraq. Together, Americans and Sunni began to eradicate al-Qaida. In July, the surge ended and U.S. troops withdrew from the cities.
In August and October, however, the Finance, Justice and Foreign ministries were bombed. The Sons of Iraq now say the Shia government reneged on its pledge to pay their wages and bring them into the army.
Jockeying in parliament for the inside track to power in January's elections may force a postponement of the elections, and of the U.S. timetable for withdrawal. Kurds and Arabs are battling over Kirkuk. Iraqis seem to be going back to fighting one another.
What hope can there be then for a U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan, a larger, wilder, less accessible, more backward country, whose regime is less competent and more corrupt than that in Iraq?
Conservative columnist Tony Blankley, who supported the Iraq war and surge, has come out against more troops in Afghanistan. His reasoning: Obama will be sending many hundreds of young Americans to their deaths and thousands to be wounded in a war about which he himself has doubts.
While it may speak well of Obama as a man that he has reflected, agonized, debated within himself and conducted nine war counsels with scores of advisers before acceding to Gen. McChrystal's request, what does this say of him as commander in chief?
Whatever one may say against George W. Bush, he was decisive. As was James K. Polk when he sent Winfield Scott to take Mexico City. As was Abraham Lincoln when he congratulated Gen. Sherman on his barbarous March to the Sea. As was Harry Truman, who ordered the dropping of an atom bomb to jolt Tokyo into accepting unconditional surrender.
One may condemn the wars these president fought. One may deplore their tactics. But they and the most successful American generals -- Stonewall Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton -- were not Hamlets. They did not agonize over why they were fighting or whether it was worth it.
How does a president lead a nation into a war where he is not wholly and heartily committed to victory and from which, say his aides, he is even now planning the earliest possible exit?
When Dwight Eisenhower took office, he concluded that the price of uniting Korea under a pro-U.S. government meant years more of war and scores of thousands more U.S. dead. He decided on an armistice. In six months, the war was over.
Ike was as decisive as Obama is diffident.
From tapes of his conversations with Sen. Richard Russell, LBJ agonized over Vietnam as early as 1964. He worried about the U.S. casualties and whether we could prevail in a country of little interest to him and of no vital strategic interest to the United States.
Out of fear that Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater would call him the first president to lose a war, Johnson plunged in. And rather than win swiftly and brutally as we had with a mighty Japanese Empire, LBJ fought Vietnam as the conflicted war president he was, babbling on about building "a Great Society on the Mekong."
One senses Obama is escalating for the same reason: He is not so much exhilarated by the prospect of victory and what it will mean as he is fearful of what a Taliban triumph and U.S. defeat would mean for America -- and him.
And he is right to be. A U.S. withdrawal leading to a Taliban triumph would electrify jihadists from Marrakech to Mindanao and mark a milestone in the long retreat of American power. Pakistan, having cast its lot with us, would be in mortal peril. NATO, humiliated in its first war, would become more of a hollow shell than it already is.
To prevent this, Obama plans to send tens of thousands more U.S. troops to hold off a resurgent Taliban, even as he plans for their eventual withdrawal.
The United States is today led by a commander in chief who does not believe military victory is possible, who is not sure this war should be fought and who has a timetable in his own mind as to when to draw down our troops. And we face a Taliban that, after eight years of pounding, is stronger than ever, and believes God is on its side and its victory is assured.
Who do we think is ultimately going to prevail?
Hey Ray nice copy job could you please link the article or at least let us know who wrote it?
And eight years of fucking around in Iraq has lead the taliban to be stronger than ever.
And eight years of fucking around in Iraq has lead the taliban to be stronger than ever.
Wayne, I'm not sure, but I think you missed the complete point of my post. Those quotes are attributed to George Bush, not Obama. So, perhaps that helps you understand why I posted them - or am I missing your point?
I am entitled to my opinion Shawn.
the wars were signed off by congress and when you go into the armed forces you could be called to war, I understand families have lost loved ones and its sad to me too, but you know the risks when you sign up.
your homeboy Obama will make Alqaeda stronger than ever by putting a withdrawal date on the war in Afghanistan. Did I just call him homeboy, LOL...
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
You are entitled to your opinion, no doubt.
Its just a sick one.
Congress are to blame too.
The decision to go to war should always be the last possible way to resolve things.
I guess I just value human life more than you do.
The fact that its mainly poor people makes no difference to me.
Not my "homeboy" first of all, but your use of that term shows that no matter what he does at the end of the day he is black and your pea sized brain can not let go of that.
His decision to send more troops to Afghanistan is a giant mistake.
It seems the right wanted more troops, however the left did not want to send anymore troops. So Obama meets them in the middle with sending troops but setting a date and of course you assume it is going to make them stronger.
No matter what he did you will find fault.
And I also thought that Obama was some muslim who was destroying the country? You think Al Qaeda would be all for that.
You really need to get your Rush Hannity talking points straight, or even better fucking try to think for yourself.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
That's fine.
Then no complaining when the attacks on our country grow and someone nukes us.
