Where is Obama? More like WHERE IS JOE BIDEN!!??

[8537]

The only reason we heard about Cheney was becuase he shot a friend in the face.

Ya know you're in a powerless position when the only way you can get some press is to shoot a friend in the face

LMAO...

Gotta admit one thing....that was classic.
If it didnt include someone getting hurt, it would have been down right funny.


And actually?

(it was hysterical....)

It certainly gave Letterman etal a month's worth of material.

 

[8537]

Obama did what you preferred Bush would have done. Sit back and let a dictator kill innocent people in his own country.

Well to be fair that's exactly what Bush did in Sudan, what Clinton did in Rwanda and what Reagan did in Central America.

..Nixon in Cambodia.

Johnson in Laos...

True...and Bush Clinton and Regan were criticized for it.

I think it's because we want our foreign affairs to be black and white - we want our solutions and answers to be cut and dry responses to single events.

In the real world, unfolding events are mired in the complexity of competing desires, competing interests and competing visions of how our response will alter the situation. It's just not as simple as "we should do x because y"

 

[Jarhead]

Well to be fair that's exactly what Bush did in Sudan, what Clinton did in Rwanda and what Reagan did in Central America.

..Nixon in Cambodia.

Johnson in Laos...

True...and Bush Clinton and Regan were criticized for it.

I think it's because we want our foreign affairs to be black and white - we want our solutions and answers to be cut and dry responses to single events.

In the real world, unfolding events are mired in the complexity of competing desires, competing interests and competing visions of how our response will alter the situation. It's just not as simple as "we should do x because y"

True...

and then there is the obvious...

The right will complain about anything a left president does (or doesnt do) and the left will complain about anything a right president does (or doesnt do).

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean the issue of the current president seemingly being oblivious to global chaos?

Or of the current president being sympathetic to Ghaddafi as a friend-of-a-friend(s) and delaying action until the rebels have been surely defeated?

I'd say the one man respsonsible for creating these "non issues" is................Barack Hussein Obama. Right?

Blame the actor, not the reactors.

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

Obama did what you preferred Bush would have done. Sit back and let a dictator kill innocent people in his own country.

That doesn't answer the question. I'll repeat it:

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean the issue of the current president seemingly being oblivious to global chaos?

Or of the current president being sympathetic to Ghaddafi as a friend-of-a-friend(s) and delaying action until the rebels have been surely defeated?

I'd say the one man respsonsible for creating these "non issues" is................Barack Hussein Obama. Right?

Blame the actor, not the reactors.

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

Obama did what you preferred Bush would have done. Sit back and let a dictator kill innocent people in his own country.

You object to dictators killing their own people, but you don't object to Bush having killed innocent Americans in an unnecessary war.

That's rather disgraceful.

 

[Jarhead]

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

Obama did what you preferred Bush would have done. Sit back and let a dictator kill innocent people in his own country.

That doesn't answer the question. I'll repeat it:

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

I, personally, would have liked him to initiate the no fly zone weeks ago...Khadaffi has proven to be one who knows his limitations and backs down. It would have saved lives and would have allowed the citizens to maintain their momentum of knocking him out of power.

Now...lives hjave been lost, the no fly zone is beiung enacted anyway....and the momentum of the people has been lost...as has their determination.

Now, sure...you can refute this with reasons why he should NOT have done so.

But that is what debate is all about.

But he refused to even initiate and engage in such a debate. COngress WITH the President should have concentrated on this weeks ago.

 

[Jarhead]

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

Obama did what you preferred Bush would have done. Sit back and let a dictator kill innocent people in his own country.

You object to dictators killing their own people, but you don't object to Bush having killed innocent Americans in an unnecessary war.

That's rather disgraceful.

Thats rather presumptuous of you.

I most certainly would have objected to Bush engaging iin an unecessary war if I had believed he had done so.

But you see....I applied logic...

It was not just Bush that said an invasion was necessary.

It was the intel of MANY countries around the world that said such was necessary.

SO with all of the "Bush lied" and "Bush cherry picked" rhetoric out there....NO ONE will answer the question that I have asked no less than a dozen times on this board...and likely neither will you...

Exactly how did Bush get all of those other countries to lie about the intel THEY got so that he could "play army"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama did what you preferred Bush would have done. Sit back and let a dictator kill innocent people in his own country.

You object to dictators killing their own people, but you don't object to Bush having killed innocent Americans in an unnecessary war.

That's rather disgraceful.

Thats rather presumptuous of you.

I most certainly would have objected to Bush engaging iin an unecessary war if I had believed he had done so.

But you see....I applied logic...

It was not just Bush that said an invasion was necessary.

It was the intel of MANY countries around the world that said such was necessary.

SO with all of the "Bush lied" and "Bush cherry picked" rhetoric out there....NO ONE will answer the question that I have asked no less than a dozen times on this board...and likely neither will you...

Exactly how did Bush get all of those other countries to lie about the intel THEY got so that he could "play army"?

They heard the same lies we did. The ones Colin Powell told to the UN. Remember? The fake photos of non-existent WMD's, etc.?

It doesn't make a war more necessary just because more people are fooled into believing it was necessary.

 

[Jarhead]

You object to dictators killing their own people, but you don't object to Bush having killed innocent Americans in an unnecessary war.

That's rather disgraceful.

Thats rather presumptuous of you.

I most certainly would have objected to Bush engaging iin an unecessary war if I had believed he had done so.

But you see....I applied logic...

It was not just Bush that said an invasion was necessary.

It was the intel of MANY countries around the world that said such was necessary.

SO with all of the "Bush lied" and "Bush cherry picked" rhetoric out there....NO ONE will answer the question that I have asked no less than a dozen times on this board...and likely neither will you...

Exactly how did Bush get all of those other countries to lie about the intel THEY got so that he could "play army"?

They heard the same lies we did. The ones Colin Powell told to the UN. Remember? The fake photos of non-existent WMD's, etc.?

It doesn't make a war more necessary just because more people are fooled into believing it was necessary.

You did not answer my question:

Exactly how did Bush get all of those other countries to lie about the intel THEY got so that he could "play army"?[/QUOTE]

You are aware that GB, Australia, Germany and other countries ALSO had their own intel that implied the same thing that ours did.

How did Bush get THEM to lie about it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama did what you preferred Bush would have done. Sit back and let a dictator kill innocent people in his own country.

That doesn't answer the question. I'll repeat it:

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

I, personally, would have liked him to initiate the no fly zone weeks ago...Khadaffi has proven to be one who knows his limitations and backs down. It would have saved lives and would have allowed the citizens to maintain their momentum of knocking him out of power.

Now...lives hjave been lost, the no fly zone is beiung enacted anyway....and the momentum of the people has been lost...as has their determination.

Now, sure...you can refute this with reasons why he should NOT have done so.

But that is what debate is all about.

But he refused to even initiate and engage in such a debate. COngress WITH the President should have concentrated on this weeks ago.

And what is our mandate for unilaterally imposing a no-fly zone over a sovereign nation, which is effectively an act of war, because we have decided to take sides in an internal, domestic struggle going on inside that nation?

AND why is any of our business?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who invented this fake issue? I'm curious? Somebody on the radio? Limbaugh?

You mean the issue of the current president seemingly being oblivious to global chaos?

Or of the current president being sympathetic to Ghaddafi as a friend-of-a-friend(s) and delaying action until the rebels have been surely defeated?

I'd say the one man respsonsible for creating these "non issues" is................Barack Hussein Obama. Right?

Blame the actor, not the reactors.

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

As you see, the troll has no desire to attempt to intelligently discuss the issue.

Nice Face of USMB Conservatism you rightwingers have chosen here. A moron.

 

[Jarhead]

That doesn't answer the question. I'll repeat it:

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

I, personally, would have liked him to initiate the no fly zone weeks ago...Khadaffi has proven to be one who knows his limitations and backs down. It would have saved lives and would have allowed the citizens to maintain their momentum of knocking him out of power.

Now...lives hjave been lost, the no fly zone is beiung enacted anyway....and the momentum of the people has been lost...as has their determination.

Now, sure...you can refute this with reasons why he should NOT have done so.

But that is what debate is all about.

But he refused to even initiate and engage in such a debate. COngress WITH the President should have concentrated on this weeks ago.

And what is our mandate for unilaterally imposing a no-fly zone over a sovereign nation, which is effectively an act of war, because we have decided to take sides in an internal, domestic struggle going on inside that nation?

AND why is any of our business?

Valid questions.

I bleieve it is our business as it pertains to human rights....just as I would HOPE that a country would help US if for some reason we had a dictator doing it to us.

The fact that you and I see this from a different perspective is why the US is a great country. We have a mulkitude of thoughts...and no two people are alike.

I do not hold your sentiments against you...and I admire your passion for what you believe in.

I hope you do as well for me.

But the difference between us and how we see our representatives?

I do not think that Obama has some evil agenda...I do not agree with his vision...but he is my president...and I will speak out...but not say he is an evil man with evil "plans" and "motives"

You, however, are convinced that Bush had an evil agenda.

That is where you and I will never see eye to eye.

 

[Jarhead]

You mean the issue of the current president seemingly being oblivious to global chaos?

Or of the current president being sympathetic to Ghaddafi as a friend-of-a-friend(s) and delaying action until the rebels have been surely defeated?

I'd say the one man respsonsible for creating these "non issues" is................Barack Hussein Obama. Right?

Blame the actor, not the reactors.

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

As you see, the troll has no desire to attempt to intelligently discuss the issue.

Nice Face of USMB Conservatism you rightwingers have chosen here. A moron.

really?

I have not tried to discuss this with you?

Fine.

Have a great day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And what should he have done, EXACTLY, over the last couple weeks, regarding Khadaffi?

As you see, the troll has no desire to attempt to intelligently discuss the issue.

Nice Face of USMB Conservatism you rightwingers have chosen here. A moron.

really?

I have not tried to discuss this with you?

Fine.

Have a great day.

I was referring to the troll who originated this thread. Read carefully.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I, personally, would have liked him to initiate the no fly zone weeks ago...Khadaffi has proven to be one who knows his limitations and backs down. It would have saved lives and would have allowed the citizens to maintain their momentum of knocking him out of power.

Now...lives hjave been lost, the no fly zone is beiung enacted anyway....and the momentum of the people has been lost...as has their determination.

Now, sure...you can refute this with reasons why he should NOT have done so.

But that is what debate is all about.

But he refused to even initiate and engage in such a debate. COngress WITH the President should have concentrated on this weeks ago.

And what is our mandate for unilaterally imposing a no-fly zone over a sovereign nation, which is effectively an act of war, because we have decided to take sides in an internal, domestic struggle going on inside that nation?

AND why is any of our business?

Valid questions.

I bleieve it is our business as it pertains to human rights....just as I would HOPE that a country would help US if for some reason we had a dictator doing it to us.

The fact that you and I see this from a different perspective is why the US is a great country. We have a mulkitude of thoughts...and no two people are alike.

I do not hold your sentiments against you...and I admire your passion for what you believe in.

I hope you do as well for me.

But the difference between us and how we see our representatives?

I do not think that Obama has some evil agenda...I do not agree with his vision...but he is my president...and I will speak out...but not say he is an evil man with evil "plans" and "motives"

You, however, are convinced that Bush had an evil agenda.

That is where you and I will never see eye to eye.

That doesn't really address the legalities/international law issues of the situation. You wanted to unilaterally launch what would amount to a military attack, or, you might say euphemistically, a provocation, against Libya because you don't like the manner in which Khadaffi was responding to what amounts to an insurrection/rebellion in his country.

I don't see defensible legal grounds for that. We can't even claim a vital national interest;

seems that some people have forgotten that we reconciled with Libya a few years ago over matters such a nuclear weapons, terrorist sponsorship, etc.

In fact, as I recall, Bush supporters were citing that 'success' as a by-product of the Iraq war.

 

[signelect]

I know this is a novel idea but how about taking a stand on what to do and not following the lead of that wonderful organization the UN. We should cancel their lease and kick all of them out of the country. The only thing they like about us is our money. Obama wouldn't know how to lead if he read the book.