Our TOTALLY out of touch President

[syrenn]

Great OP liability. Thanks

 

[Modbert]

On SOME days the lefties here (like Modbutt) are all aghast that President Bush said that Osama bin Laden was wanted dead or alive. {He's such a cowboy. Such a joke! What an unporesidential thing to say!" Tsk tsk!}

But on other days, W instead gets criticizd for not promptly wading into Afghanistan to find and assassinate old Osama.

Unpresidential is an insult when it was W doing the talking.

But unpresidential is perfectly fine when it's the Obamessiah spewing the nonsense.

These liberoidals are a contrary lot.

Actually, he gets criticizing for completely fucking up the War in Afghanistan, which was ignored until President Obama came into office. Thanks to W's "leadership", our troops did not even get into the area where Bin Laden was until December 2001.

Meanwhile, saying "Bring 'em on" to people who are more than willing to be use that as their reason to kill as many troops as possible. Bush was never in danger, which is why Mr. Magoo over there said it. It was our troops he put in danger just a little more with those dumbass comments.

 

[WillowTree]

Should of figured this would of been about Islam.

"would have"

Please, learn English.

he's supposedly a school boy too, it should be fresh donchyathink?

 

[boedicca]

Yeah, He Should OF learnt it by nows.

 

[sangha]

Should of figured this would of been about Islam.

"would have"

Please, learn English.

he's supposedly a school boy too, it should be fresh donchyathink?

No capitalization
Run on sentence
made up words

 

[Modbert]

Yeah, He Should OF learnt it by nows.

You know, it must be a sad day for you when all you can focus on is a typo from time to time. Then again, neocons have no real arguments. So I can see why you would want to focus on such.

 

[WillowTree]

"would have"

Please, learn English.

he's supposedly a school boy too, it should be fresh donchyathink?

No capitalization
Run on sentence
made up words

I disremember.

 

[boedicca]

Yeah, He Should OF learnt it by nows.

You know, it must be a sad day for you when all you can focus on is a typo from time to time. Then again, neocons have no real arguments. So I can see why you would want to focus on such.

There is no point in making a point with you. You read for neither comprehension nor retention.

 

[WillowTree]

Yeah, He Should OF learnt it by nows.

You know, it must be a sad day for you when all you can focus on is a typo from time to time. Then again, neocons have no real arguments. So I can see why you would want to focus on such.

There is no point in making a point with you. You read for neither comprehension nor retention.

doesn't anal retention count?

 

[boedicca]

I'm not touching that!

 

[Modbert]

There is no point in making a point with you. You read for neither comprehension nor retention.

You should probably look in the mirror when you make such comments Boe. Your entire time here has just been one neocon comment after another. Goodness knows several people can tell you I'm here to actually debate and learn. All you're here to do is further your right wing talking points and spend your time in echo chambers.

 

[WillowTree]

There is no point in making a point with you. You read for neither comprehension nor retention.

You should probably look in the mirror when you make such comments Boe. Your entire time here has just been one neocon comment after another. Goodness knows several people can tell you I'm here to actually debate and learn. All you're here to do is further your right wing talking points and spend your time in echo chambers.

List them..

 

[Liability]

On SOME days the lefties here (like Modbutt) are all aghast that President Bush said that Osama bin Laden was wanted dead or alive. {He's such a cowboy. Such a joke! What an unporesidential thing to say!" Tsk tsk!}

But on other days, W instead gets criticizd for not promptly wading into Afghanistan to find and assassinate old Osama.

Unpresidential is an insult when it was W doing the talking.

But unpresidential is perfectly fine when it's the Obamessiah spewing the nonsense.

These liberoidals are a contrary lot.

Actually, he gets criticizing for completely fucking up the War in Afghanistan, which was ignored until President Obama came into office. Thanks to W's "leadership", our troops did not even get into the area where Bin Laden was until December 2001.

Meanwhile, saying "Bring 'em on" to people who are more than willing to be use that as their reason to kill as many troops as possible. Bush was never in danger, which is why Mr. Magoo over there said it. It was our troops he put in danger just a little more with those dumbass comments.

But of course, objectively (a construct with which you are utterly unfamiliar), the claim that President Bush "fucked up" the War in Afghanistan is simply so much dishonest liberal propaganda devoid of truth value.

The attack on America took place in September and the troops were in Afghanistan by December and you deem that a fuck up?

You are patently ridiculous in your partisan hack criticisms.

The "bring 'em on" comment may have been ill-advised. But everyone in the world realizes that it was just putting word to bravado which leaders sometimes do. I don't believe, for example, that Sir Winston Churchill had any burning desire to "fight them in the streets . . . " etc.,* when speaking of the fucking Nazis in WWII. But he SAID it all the same. According to the phony logic you and your ilk rely on, his words would have been the focus of outraged criticism from you guys.


______________________
*

* * * * We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender * * * *

-- excerpt of famous speech delivered by Sir Winston Churchill to the British House of Commons, June 4, 1940.

 

[Gatekeeper]

You know, it must be a sad day for you when all you can focus on is a typo from time to time. Then again, neocons have no real arguments. So I can see why you would want to focus on such.

There is no point in making a point with you. You read for neither comprehension nor retention.

doesn't anal retention count?

Only if you prefer having your ass explode in bed like those live pics of the Gulf Oil 'leak' at 2 in the morning. Anal retention does have it's limits.

I am trying to be serious, but sometimes it's almost impossible, sorry.

 

[HUGGY]

There is a very good piece in today's Wall Street Journal entitled, "The Alien in the White House" that merits some attention:

Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Alien in the White House - WSJ.com

Some interesting observations from that piece:

* * * *

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.

Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."

And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."

He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."

Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.

* * * *

Id.

* * * Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' * * * *

Id.

* * * *

It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.

It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.

It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.

So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative. * * * *

Id.

And so forth.

It seems to me that Rabinowitz hit the nail squarely on the head.

Who owns the Wall Street Journal again? Let me speculate...The piece was used on Fox...which is owned by Rupert Murdoch...who also owns The Wall Street Journal...

What won't those fereners think of next?

 

[Modbert]

But of course, objectively (a construct with which you are utterly unfamiliar), the claim that President Bush "fucked up" the War in Afghanistan is simply so much dishonest liberal porpaganda devoid of truth value.

The attack on America took place in September and the troops were in Afghanistan by December and you deem that a fuck up?

You are patently ridiculous in your partisan hack criticisms.

The "bring 'em on" comment may have been ill-advised. But everyone in the world realizes that it was just putting word to bravado which leaders sometimes do. I don't believe, for example, that Sir Winston Churchill had any burning desire to "fight them in the streets . . . " etc.,* when speaking of the fucking Nazis in WWII. But he SAID it all the same. According to the phony logic you and your ilk rely on, his words would have been the focus of outraged criticism from you guys.


______________________
*

* * * * We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender * * * *

-- excerpt of famous speech delivered by Sir Winston Churchill to the British House of Commons, June 4, 1940.

Objectively? You couldn't be objective if you were paid to.

You call his "Bring 'em on" comments "ill-advised" but have a hissy fit over Obama's comments about kicking ass?

President Bush even admitted he royally fucked up by making such comments.

As for Churchill, that is NOTHING compared to the "Bring 'Em on" comment. Your dishonesty in trying to compare the two is noted.

 

[boedicca]

Doggie the Bubble Mod lacks historical perspective, although he is quite adept at the hysterical one.

The incident with Churchill's bust is emblematic of Obama's disrespect for our allies. Trying to deflect attention by yet more BOOOOSSSSHHHHHH critique doesn't absolve Obama for his decision.

So far, he's played the Racist and BOOOOSSSSHHHH cards. The only one left is for him to blame the Jews.

 

[Liability]

There is a very good piece in today's Wall Street Journal entitled, "The Alien in the White House" that merits some attention:

Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Alien in the White House - WSJ.com

Some interesting observations from that piece:

* * * *

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.

Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."

And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."

He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."

Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.

* * * *

Id.

Id.

* * * *

It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.

It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.

It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.

So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative. * * * *

Id.

And so forth.

It seems to me that Rabinowitz hit the nail squarely on the head.

Who owns the Wall Street Journal again? Let me speculate...The piece was used on Fox...which is owned by Rupert Murdoch...who also owns The Wall Street Journal...

What won't those fereners think of next?

Typically low-brow critique. Next, one of you schmucks will note that the name "Rabinowitz" is suspiciously Jewish sounding.

 

[Modbert]

Doggie the Bubble Mod lacks historical perspective, although he is quite adept at the hysterical one.

The incident with Churchill's bust is emblematic of Obama's disrespect for our allies. Trying to deflect attention by yet more BOOOOSSSSHHHHHH critique doesn't absolve Obama for his decision.

So far, he's played the Racist and BOOOOSSSSHHHH cards. The only one left is for him to blame the Jews.

Yeah, because we all know Britain hates us.

Also, typical neocon response at the end.

 

[Modbert]

Typically low-brow critique. Next, one of you schmucks will note that the name "Rabinowitz" is suspiciously Jewish sounding.

Another typical neocon response.