Obama and change?

[pete]

Why do you cons keep grasping at straws to bash Obama before he even takes office? What would you expect him to do, hire completely inexperienced people to run our government?

Change comes from the way our President will do business in Washington and if you think that Obama will be just like Dubyah, well I can't help you.

why not he is !!!

 

[pete]

I'm pretty sure he means change from the last 8 years not reinventing the wheel but ya'll keep bitching and complaining...it's fun to watch.

Personally I like the idea of the Clinton staff being used. They were in office when this country was but economically and internationally very strong.

and it still would be if everyone wasn't so damn greedy!!
Lets make billions off of poor suckers!! and then bail

 

[user_name_guest]

Bush has done little against terorrism. He has started a war in Irag that is now killing terrorist fighters, but that is not a war on terrorism.

Now killing terrorists fights but that is not a war on terrorism. Now we know why rayboyusmc doesn't have a job.

It's like saying he now plays for the Los Angeles Lakers, but that is not playing on the Lakers. Oh well, i found Bush's apprentice = rayboy.

 

[Caligirl]

A Non-Answer.. just what i expected.

No, you accuse me of being a pacifist, and I reply that you can take out an enemy in more than one way.

It's not a non-answer.

 

[WillowTree]

No, you accuse me of being a pacifist, and I reply that you can take out an enemy in more than one way.

It's not a non-answer.

yes we saw that when they took out the twin towers,, very creative.

 

[Caligirl]

The real question is are YOU able to connect them? Prove that Bush's administration is the direct cause of increased terrorist attacks. I dare you.

You dare me? Uhhh, OK - Here are three different and independent, reputable sources gathered in about 8 minutes. Pretty sure there's plenty more....

The U.S. foreign policy has increased the level of terrorism in Asia, said a terrorism expert here Thursday.

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism very significantly." Rohan Gunaratna, head of International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, was quoted by Channel NewsAsia as saying.

U.S. policy post 9/11 has increased terrorism: Syria
The "war on terror" declared by U.S. President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks has caused more terrorism than it prevented, Syria's foreign minister said on Thursday.

The report, the annual Military Balance by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, does not dwell on the causes of the war.

But it does consider its effects and has some highly critical comments.

It says that the risks of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries "appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003".


"It is probable that recruitment generally has accelerated on account of Iraq," the report concludes.

I double dog dare you to prove that Bush's policy decreased global terror.

 

[Jon]

I never claimed he decreased, but I wouldn't be so audacious as to claim he increased it, either. He responded to 9/11, and if that increased terrorism, I'm okay with that. Would you rather we turned our cheek and smiled?

 

[Caligirl]

What is it with the right and pacifisim?

Can you not see there are more options besides "run away" and "bomb the shit out of them"?

 

[NOBama]

Any POTUS who went after those cowards would have caused a net increase in their numbers. Because Clinton didn't go after them, they probably didn't think we had the balls too. But, what the hell were we going to do, let them kill almost 3000 US citizens and get away with it?

Give me a break.

 

[Red Dawn]

I never claimed he decreased, but I wouldn't be so audacious as to claim he increased it, either.

He responded to 9/11, and if that increased terrorism, I'm okay with that.

Her links say the Iraq War increased terrorism. Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and the secular socialist Saddam considered al qaeda and other islamic jihaddists to be his enemy.

Would you rather we turned our cheek and smiled?

Yeah, because there were only two options.

Bush's way: Invade Iraq.

Or do nothing and smile.

 

[Caligirl]

Any POTUS who went after those cowards would have caused a net increase in their numbers. Because Clinton didn't go after them, they probably didn't think we had the balls too. But, what the hell were we going to do, let them kill almost 3000 US citizens and get away with it?

Give me a break.

Again, there are more options than bomb the shit out of them and turn the other cheek.

What part of this is so hard to understand?

 

[NOBama]

Again, there are more options than bomb the shit out of them and turn the other cheek.

What part of this is so hard to understand?

No, I don't understand. Neither did the overwhelming majority of the country after almost 3000 US citizens were slaughtered. Furthermore, if those suckers come over here and do it again, I will support ANY President who has the balls to go after them and/or annihilate any country that provides them safe harbor.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[Red Dawn]

Obama is busy selecting old insiders for all his cabinet positions, all his staff positions and every other position he has to staff.

Remind me when he will actually get to that "change" part of his promises?

Based on what I was hearing from Sarah Palin and her wingnut fan base, I'm frankly surprised he isn't picking marxists, socialists, and radical muslims for his administration.

 

[bk1983]

Obama is busy selecting old insiders for all his cabinet positions, all his staff positions and every other position he has to staff.

Remind me when he will actually get to that "change" part of his promises?

Well since the postions were all formely held by R's and are now held by D's

wouldn't that be by definition "change"?

 

[Caligirl]

No, I don't understand. Neither did the overwhelming majority of the country after almost 3000 US citizens were slaughtered. Furthermore, if those suckers come over here and do it again, I will support ANY President who has the balls to go after them and/or annihilate any country that provides them safe harbor.

Is that clear enough for you?

The problem is we have sent 5000 US citizens and soldiers to death in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. I know they signed up for this, but to this american the loss is every bit as tragic.

Balls is great, honesty and a thorough and clear understanding of a threat, and an exit strategy, is even better.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep,’ and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." -George Herbert Walker Bush, ‘A World Transformed, 1998’

 

[NOBama]

The problem is we have sent 5000 US citizens and soldiers to death in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. I know they signed up for this, but to this american the loss is every bit as tragic.

Balls is great, honesty and a thorough and clear understanding of a threat, and an exit strategy, is even better.

Cali, as you know, the cost of freedom is ALWAYS tragic and to this day it is my belief that Iraq should have been handled differently. The problem is, in my opinion, once that can of worms was opened closing it wasn't going to be as easy as the Bush Administration anticipated.