American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Moveon;415748]"Who cares?" Well, if you listened to Cheney and Rumsfeld, there was indeed a connection. Therefore, by invading iraq we were fighting Al Qaeda.[/quote]My 'who cares' was directed at your liberal baloney. Everyone, except you of course, knows two things: 1) terrorism (terrorists, state sponsorship, etc) existed in Iraq prior to the war and 2) Bush et al never stated that Iraq had anything to do with 911 (the usual red herring flung about by lefties). Clearly, the Bush administration pushed the idea that we'd be fighting terrorism in Iraq. Please cite line and verse where either Cheney or Rummy, prior to our invasion of Iraq, made erroneous statements about Iraq and its terrorist connections. Not that you would know a fact from a fart.

Ever heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Any idea where he moved in 2001 (hint: it used to be called Mesopotamia)? Among other things he is believed to have been behind the Millenium bombing attempts in the US and UK (1999) as well as the assasination of American diplomat, Laurence Foley (2002) , in Jordan. You may call him a freedom fighter, I call him a terrorist and believe that we should do all in our power to assist him and his ilk in meeting their god. His version of the Hole in the wall gang was called "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" which later was changed to al Qaeda-in-Iraq.

[quote=]Don't beleive me, look it up, clueless.[/quote]Why don't you try providing a fact or two for a change?

[quote=]"Kill all the bad guys?" You are so naive to think that we as a country can invade or ¨put boots on the ground¨whenever, wherever, we please.[/quote]Yep. However, I don't suggest we do it without a good reason. By the way, if we need a new place to go, I pick Libya, its got loads of oil and not that many inhabitants.

[quote=]And your obsession with the Muslim Brotherhood is typical of some so many neocons that led us to a disastrous war in Iraq.[/quote]Again with this 'obsession' language.

[quote=]What thappened in Indonesia way back when with this organization? When the dictator Suharto at the time got overthrown, how did that party do in the election?[/quote]Are you holding up Indonesia as shining example? Why, because it is Obama's birthplace?

[quote=]It's a secular country just like Egypt or Turkey.[/quote]Egypt now? Or a month ago? How about Egypt in 12 months? Turkey is a far better example. Hows that working out in terms of US interests? Better or worse?

[quote=]So put your John Wayne costume back in the closet, jerk.[/QUOTE]Again with your intolerance. I thought liberals were against forcing people back into the closet? What's next? Are you going to make women go to back alleys for abortions?

[quote=wild walleye; 415750]my 'who cares' was directed at your liberal baloney. Everyone, except you of course, knows two things: 1) terrorism (terrorists, state sponsorship, etc) existed in iraq prior to the war and 2) bush et al never stated that iraq had anything to do with 911 (the usual red herring flung about by lefties). Clearly, the bush administration pushed the idea that we'd be fighting terrorism in iraq. Please cite line and verse where either cheney or rummy, prior to our invasion of iraq, made erroneous statements about iraq and its terrorist connections. Not that you would know a fact from a fartC

@ Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq, before we invaded it. What part of this do you not understand? Plus it was Cheney who, still to this day states Al Qaeda was flourishing in Iraq when Hussein was in power. Again, Saddam Hussein did not trust Al Qaeda-both did not trust each other.

Ever heard of abu musab al-zarqawi? Any idea where he moved in 2001 (hint: It used to be called mesopotamia)? Among other things he is believed to have been behind the millenium bombing attempts in the us and uk (1999) as well as the assasination of american diplomat, laurence foley (2002) , in jordan. You may call him a freedom fighter, i call him a terrorist and believe that we should do all in our power to assist him and his ilk in meeting their god. His version of the hole in the wall gang was called "jama'at al-tawhid wal-jihad" which later was changed to al qaeda-in-iraq.

@ Sure, he had the opportunity in that country only after we invaded it.

Why don't you try providing a fact or two for a change?

Yep. However, i don't suggest we do it without a good reason. By the way, if we need a new place to go, i pick libya, its got loads of oil and not that many inhabitants.

@ Do go, please. Come to think of it, you would probably like the atmoshere there as well.

Again with this 'obsession' language.

@ Heck it was you that kept throwing it out there in your previous posts. I am just replying to it.

Are you holding up indonesia as shining example? Why, because it is obama's birthplace?

@ Because you know what i said is true. You can call it a shining example, if you like.

Egypt now? Or a month ago? How about egypt in 12 months? Turkey is a far better example. Hows that working out in terms of us interests? Better or worse?

@ What on earth is wrong with our relations with Turkey? Oh my God, you are really tripping.
It's disturbed neocons like yourself that feel that every country out there is of strategic importance to our freedom and existence and therefore we have a right to ¨put boots on the ground."

[QUOTE=Jackson;415659]Liberals know that if you take the firearms away from the citizens, you can then do whatever you want to them, and the NRA interferes with that objective.[/QUOTE]If you allow citizens to own firearms, some of them rob, shoot and kill people. Happens every day. Violent crime also tends to increase with greater inequality. The destructive synergy of (largely) conservative ideologies is remarkable.

[QUOTE]"[i]An armed citizenry is the best defence against a tyrannical government. [/i]"[/QUOTE]

Another one liner! And one which once again makes no sense. Most crimes involving guns are not aimed at the government. Unless you believe guns served a useful purpose in the shootings of Kennedy, Reagan, Giffords and other elected politicians.

[QUOTE]ROTFLMAO! Esten, the only "[i]epically disastrous presidency[/i]" is the one we are witnessing now.[/QUOTE]Jackson,

It was the Bush presidency that led us into the Great Recession.
It is the Obama presidency that has led us out of it.
That's what happened and how it will be recorded in history.

Now, Bush would have been just a mere failure based on the underperformance of real income and poverty metrics, after tax cuts which were supposed to bring prosperity to everyone.

Of course, his presidency became a disaster as the financial crisis unfolded. It has been determined that de-regulation and lax regulatory oversight were major contributers to the crisis.

But it became an epic disaster when the crisis led to a deep recession with near 10% unemployment, with the legacy of Bush policies (wars, tax cuts) and the economic downturn driving huge federal deficits.

It is truly astounding, the damage conservative ideology has caused to the country.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 415743]Maybe, who knows?

But in retrospect, let's be completely candid:

If IRAQ did not contain an ounce of oil reserves but held just squabbling tribesman would Bush have invaded Iraq? Remember, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. There was no terrorist link what-so-ever.

Yeah, Saddam ws a ruthless dictator. But there were a lot of other ruthless dictators around the world as well, why not go after them?

So George W. 's real agenda was oil and the use of Halbitron thanks to Cheney. (no bid contracts, etc)

Democracy. One could say, was just a cover. [/QUOTE]Oil had very little to do with it, and anyone intelligent, like you, who says it did is saying so purely for political reasons. For the Neocons, Democracy wasn't the cover, it was the primary underlying reason. Weapons of mass destruction were their cover. And I'm not sure the American intelligence and the military, let alone Bush or Blair, knew WMD were the cover. They thought WMD were a legitimate threat. It was like a lot of scientific research -- you're looking for a particular result that you believe is true, so you fabricate the evidence, without really knowing you're doing it.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;415760]Oil had very little to do with it, and anyone intelligent, like you, who says it did is saying so purely for political reasons. For the Neocons, Democracy wasn't the cover, it was the primary underlying reason. Weapons of mass destruction were their cover. And I'm not sure the American intelligence and the military, let alone Bush or Blair, knew WMD were the cover. They thought WMD were a legitimate threat. It was like a lot of scientific research -- you're looking for a particular result that you believe is true, so you fabricate the evidence, without really knowing you're doing it.[/QUOTE]The UN had declared Iraq had no WMD's. Some elite member's of the previous administration insisted they did and used a unreliable informant,"Curveball." His supposed eyewitness testimony was the main reason used to justify the invasion.

In addition, Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Neocon himself, promoted Bush's "Freedom Agenda" in the hope that free and democratic elections would spread in the MIddle East once Iraq had been "liberated."

However, there is no way that we have gone to war if Iraq had no oil reserves. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq at the time. Eliminating a ruthless dictator? Their were plenty of those around the world. It now appears it was all a ruse and oil was the Number 1 reason.

[QUOTE=Moveon;415762]It now appears it was all a ruse and oil was the Number 1 reason.[/QUOTE]This has been the liberal's mantra ever since we liberated Iraq, but as usual with liberal logic, it doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.

If all we wanted was the oil, then Saddam Hussein would have gladly sold us all the oil we wanted, and at a cost that would have been much less than the cost of liberating the country.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Moreon:

I realize the likelihood of someone mistakenly attributing any of my brilliant analysis to you is extremely remote, however, if you wouldn't mind, please set off the material that you wish to quote with the proper syntax. Open a quote with '[ quote= ]' and end the quote with '[ /quote ]' (both without the quotation marks or spaces).

[QUOTE=Moveon;415754]Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq, before we invaded it. What part of this do you not understand?[/quote]I don't understand why you are so obtuse and unwilling to accept the facts :

"Everyone, except you of course, knows two things: 1) terrorism (terrorists, state sponsorship, etc) existed in iraq prior to the war and 2) Bush et al never stated that iraq had anything to do with 911 (the usual red herring flung about by lefties)."

[quote=]Plus it was Cheney who, still to this day states Al Qaeda was flourishing in Iraq when Hussein was in power.[/quote]Clearly, there were elements in Iraq, prior to the initiation of rapid dominance in March 2003 (aka Shock and Awe) , that were sympathetic and / or related to al Qaeda. There is absolutely no question that terror elements existed in Iraq prior to Operation Desert Storm (1990) , let alone Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003).

[quote=]Again, Saddam Hussein did not trust Al Qaeda-both did not trust each other.[/quote]Well, that settles it then. I guess, since they both rely so heavily on the "honor system" that they couldn't do business together due to a lack of trust.

[quote=]Sure, he had the opportunity in that country only after we invaded it.[/quote]Please reread, in light of the historical refresher above (I. E. Op Iraqi Freedom started in March 2003) :

"Ever heard of abu musab al-zarqawi? Any idea where he moved in 2001 (hint: It used to be called mesopotamia)? Among other things he is believed to have been behind the millenium bombing attempts in the us and uk (1999) as well as the assasination of american diplomat, laurence foley (2002) , in jordan. You may call him a freedom fighter, I call him a terrorist and believe that we should do all in our power to assist him and his ilk in meeting their god. His version of the hole in the wall gang was called "jama'at al-tawhid wal-jihad" which later was changed to al qaeda-in-iraq."

[quote=]Do go, please. Come to think of it, you would probably like the atmoshere there as well.[/quote]Despite false scientific claims to the contrary, the composition of the atmosphere (don't forget the 'p') is generally the same, all over the world. It is just a little dryer in Tripoli. Our boots have been on that soil before. I seem to recall a song.

[quote=]Heck it was you that kept throwing it out there in your previous posts. I am just replying to it.[/quote]I think not. That is an example of transference.

[quote=]Because you know what i said is true. You can call it a shining example, if you like.[/quote]You said nothing. Therefore, I must conclude that nothing you say is true.

[quote=]What on earth is wrong with our relations with Turkey?[/quote]Simple question, are our relations, measured in terms of serving our best interests, better or worse, now?

[quote=]Oh my God,[/quote]Given your position on the lunatic left, I doubt you have one. If you do, good for you. I would venture to guess your deities are liberal fabrications.

[quote=]you are really tripping.[/quote]Not since I volunteered for the govt study.

[quote=]It's disturbed neocons like yourself[/quote]I am not a neocon, I am an old school conservative.

[quote=]that feel that every country out there is of strategic importance to our freedom and existence and therefore we have a right to ¨put boots on the ground."[/QUOTE]I don't think that every country is of direct strategic importance. If I did, I'd be supporting Monroe (some doctrine thingy he was fond of) and playing dominoes (theory, that is). It is pretty clear which countries are strategically important to us and which are of significant strategic import that if necessary, we should be willing to occupy or at least invade and secure our interests.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415765]sold us all the oil we wanted.

Jackson[/QUOTE]Now you have it for free. No need to "buy".

Then why the fuck are we paying market prices for Iraqi oil?

I said back then (2003) and I'll say it now. Regardless of why we went in, we should have immediately started garnishing Iraqi oil revenues until we were paid back 100% of the expense of the war plus interest (average US treasury 10 year note) plus inflation adjustments and compensation for each American casualty (wounded, KIA and MIA) or his / her estate. We are doing none of that. We are footing the entire bill, excluding the de minimis financial contributions from our allies (in no way meant to belittle our allies' wounded and KIAs) and have borne the highest casualties.

Further, regardless of which Bush camp one was in (Powell / Rice or Rummy) all knew that invading Iraq would drive up oil prices and would likely result in a prolonged interruption to Iraq's oil production capability. It was no secret that Saddam intended to practice scorched earth once in retreat.

So we went in knowing that we would reduce oil supply and increase oil prices which in turn would drive up the cost of all most everything we use or consume on a daily basis (inflationary) which in turn reduces the value of each dollar held by the individual, all of which typically cause economic harm.

So tell me again, how was it just about oil?

[QUOTE=Esten;415758]If you allow citizens to own firearms, some of them rob, shoot and kill people. Happens every day.[/quote]Please don't let ignorance prevent you from 'contributing' your poorly developed positions.

Rarely do the rightful owners of legally-possessed fire arms commit crimes with them. Anything to the contrary is more liberal gibberish. However, please feel free to provide statistical evidence stating the contrary. Maybe Gini did a study on gun ownership.

During the 80s and 90s homicide rates increased (most via GSWs) at the same time overall gun ownership in America was experiencing a significant decrease (from close to 50% in the 70s and early 80s to approximately 36% in 2004). The increased homicide rates were mostly due to young (18-24yrs old) black and Hispanic inner-city males involved in the drug trade and gangs. Please don't waste your breath on saying the preceding is racist, it is not an opinion it is fact. It is also a fact that most gang bangers and drug traffickers do not feel compelled to legally acquire or register their firearms or use them in a manner consistent with the law.

Criminologist Gary Kleck compared various survey and proxy measures and found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence.

How about this from Wikipedia citing various studies:

'People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims. Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime."

So it also seems to be true that bad guys have a much higher incidence of being shot than good guys. Works for me.

[quote=]Violent crime also tends to increase with greater inequality.[/quote]Bull shit! Violent crime is closely correlated with employment and economic growth, not income inequality. The fact that more crime is committed by poor individuals is not unique to America or countries with liberal gun ownership policies.

[quote=]The destructive synergy of (largely) conservative ideologies is remarkable.[/quote]The ignorance and arrogance of the Left is even more remarkable.

[quote=]Another one liner! And one which once again makes no sense.[/quote]It certainly does. The fact that you don't get it speaks volumes.

[quote=]Most crimes involving guns are not aimed at the government.[/quote]Careful, I think you might have stumbled into stating something that is factual.

[quote=]Unless you believe guns served a useful purpose in the shootings of Kennedy, Reagan, Giffords and other elected politicians.[/quote]Stupid comment, standard ad hominem liberal BS.

[quote=]It was the Bush presidency that led us into the Great Recession.[/quote]We all know that Bush was president going in. His policies did not led us in to the GR.

[quote=]It is the Obama presidency that has led us out of it.[/quote]Other than you, I don't know anyone who thinks we are out of it. However, I agree that wherever we are, Obama led us here.

[quote=]That's what happened and how it will be recorded in history.[/quote]The main stream media records it like you see it on a daily basis. Why doesn't America believe it? 'cause it ain't true.

[quote=]Now, Bush would have been just a mere failure based on the underperformance of real income and poverty metrics, after tax cuts which were supposed to bring prosperity to everyone.[/quote]I am afraid that is unintelligible.

[quote=]Of course, his presidency became a disaster as the financial crisis unfolded. It has been determined that de-regulation and lax regulatory oversight were major contributers to the crisis.[/quote]Determined by the same people who 'proved' anthropogenic global warming is turning the planet into a fiery ball of death and that the 'science' is settled and no further debate should be allowed?

[quote=]But it became an epic disaster when the crisis led to a deep recession with near 10% unemployment, with the legacy of Bush policies (wars, tax cuts) and the economic downturn driving huge federal deficits.[/quote]How is it that Obama triples that national debt and you have a bone to pick with Bush?

[quote=]It is truly astounding, the damage conservative ideology has caused to the country.[/QUOTE]It is truly astounding that you can get yourself around town, given this discontinuity of your cognitive functions.

[QUOTE=Captain;415767]Now you have it for free. No need to "buy".[/QUOTE]Captain,

Do you really believe that the United States is stealing oil from Iraq? I mean, do you believe that USA oil tankers are docking at Iraqi oil terminals, filling up on Iraqi oil and just sailing off without paying the Iraqi government for a single drop?

I know there are many ignorant people in the world who believe this, but I always thought you were more educated than that.

So, are you?

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, how are all those illegal Bangladeshis in Assam working out for the Indian people? Did the border fence the Indians built eventually work?

[QUOTE=Moveon;415748]Are you stating all Defense Contracts of that magnitude are "no bid?" [/QUOTE]Why put the qualifier "all" into your response? You are without a doubt completely void of intellectual honesty.

[QUOTE=Moveon;415664]Wow, what a selective memory from our friends on the right![/quote]Blah, blah, blah.

[quote=]No one on the right talks about Qaddafi and Libya.[/quote]Don't forget Obama, 'leader' of the free world who has been silent on the subject of Libya for 9 days. What leadership. I wonder what he will do with the revelations that Muammar personally ordered the Lockerbie attack or that he allowed al Qaeda to set up an emirate in Libya.

If I worked in an aspirin factory, I would have some serious pucker factor right now.

Under-bama is here!

Awesome. Now that he has been AWOL for 9 days on the Libya thing, he's on it. Man, am I relieved. I can rest assured that someone with Esten's hatred for America and Moreon's understanding of geo-political realities is on the scene. Once again, I must say that Obama is the least qualified person in the room, no matter what room in which he finds himself. Now let's see this genius community organize the muslim world, that he helped set a blaze.

We can all take comfort in knowing that he will bring that same laser beam focus to the Libya situation that he has brought to the jobs-issue here at home. Boy, will I sleep tight tonight.

I have proven myself to be a pretty decent barometer on certain subjects. I admit that I was off on the Republicans gaining control of the senate, that one was pretty close. I will tell you without a doubt, there are no polls that are currently, accurately tracking Obama's negatives amongst likely 2012 voters. If there were, they would be predicting something that would make Jimmy Carter blush. Despite the fact that in political terms there is still an eternity until November 2012, America hates this piker and it has nothing to do with his race.

America rejects liberalism, socialism and Obamaism. The election results of 2010 were a mere prelude. Thank God (I have one, thank you) they overstepped on healthcare (feel free to review WW's take on Obama overreaching circa summer 2009) and woke up the American public.

The political *****-slapping of 2010-2012 and beyond is like the culmination of 86 years or want by Bosox fans. The Yankees series is analogous to 2010 and hopefully 2012's electoral outcome will reflect the series win trouncing of St Louis.