The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-24-2014, 10:08 AM   #651
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,912

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Bingo, except the whole Obama being 'captive' to other people's mistakes.

Libya should have completely exploded that myth.
In other words, you didn't read the piece...

The outcome of President Barack Obama's "splendid little war" in Libya continues to unravel.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 10:19 AM   #652
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,594
Default

this will help

A leading Republican candidate for a House seat in Georgia, running on a platform of religious freedom doesn’t think Islam should be protected by the First Amendment, according to a report in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Jody Hice, the Baptist minister and radio show host who polled the best in a crowded May primary, faces a Republican runoff next month. He narrowly won then, but whoever wins in July is all but guaranteed to win the congressional seat in the conservative district’s November general election.

In his 2012 book, he argued that Islam shouldn’t receive legal protections that other religions receive in America, according to the Constitution.

“Although Islam has a religious component, it is much more than a simple religious ideology,” Hice wrote. ”It is a complete geo-political structure and, as such, does not deserve First Amendment protection.”



In 2011 at a tea party event, Hice made similar arguments.

“Most people think Islam is a religion, it’s not. It’s a totalitarian way of life with a religious component,” he said then. “But it’s much larger. It’s a geo-political system that has governmental, financial, military, legal and religious components. And it’s a totalitarian system that encompasses every aspect of life and it should not be protected [under the law.]”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-jody-...nt-protections
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 10:20 AM   #653
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
In other words, you didn't read the piece...

The outcome of President Barack Obama's "splendid little war" in Libya continues to unravel.
he's a parrot. nothing more
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 10:27 AM   #654
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,472

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Bingo, except the whole Obama being 'captive' to other people's mistakes.

Libya should have completely exploded that myth.
In the case of Iraq, the timetable was set by the Bush administration.

Without a mutual agreement to stay longer that included immunity for US troops, Obama had no choice but to honor the 'Status of Force' agreement already in place.

It's interesting that the right wing bloggers and talking heads gave Obama flak for 'taking credit' for the Bush troop withdrawal timeline when he took over, and now he gets slammed for following that same Bush timeline.

It's partisan hypocrisy gold.

Quote:
Iraq and U.S. agree that all U.S. forces will withdraw "no later than December 31, 2011." On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009." [U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, 11/17/08]
Quote:
Bush praised agreement as "another sign of progress." Calling the SOFA "another sign of progress," President Bush said in a November 27, 2008, statement, "The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq." [whitehouse.gov, 11/27/08]
Quote:
Petraeus: I agree "with the July 2011 date described by the president." During a June 16 House Armed Services Committee hearing (accessed via the Nexis database), Gen. David Petraeus, recently appointed as Commander of American and international forces in Afghanistan, commented:

PETRAEUS: I did support and agree at the end of the president's decision-making process last fall with the July 2011 date described by the president as the point at which a process begins to transition security tasks to Afghan forces at a rate to be determined by conditions at that time.

I also agreed with July 2011 as the date at which a responsible drawdown of the surge forces is scheduled to begin at a rate to be determined by conditions at the time. And I did believe there was value in sending a message of urgency, which is how I interpreted July 2011 as -- announced at West Point -- as well as the message of substantial commitment, the considerable additional forces that the president ordered as well as additional civilians' authorization for extra ANSF and additional NATO forces as well.

Mullen: "This strategy ... is still the right decision." During a June 24 Pentagon press conference, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen agreed that "the military was deeply involved in the development of the president's strategy and signed on to the president's strategy" and commented, "And getting there using this strategy, with everything we understand right now, is still the right decision." [Department of Defense, 6/24/10]

Gates: "[W]e are all on board for ... this gradual process of drawdown in July of 2011." In the same press conference, Defense Secretary Gates commented: "General Petraeus absolutely agrees with the president's strategy. He agrees with the December review, and he agrees with the timeline to begin a drawdown in July of 2011 that is conditions-based." Gates continued: "I would tell you, as a going-in proposition, we are all on board for beginning this process of -- this gradual process of drawdown in July of 2011. That is the president's decision, and that decision stands as far as all of us are concerned." [Department of Defense, 6/24/10]
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 10:52 AM   #655
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,912

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

And, as the John Stewart piece points out, Cheney was very proud of "his" accomplishments in Iraq, including the withdrawal timetable.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 10:57 AM   #656
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,166

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
In the case of Iraq, the timetable was set by the Bush administration.

Without a mutual agreement to stay longer that included immunity for US troops, Obama had no choice but to honor the 'Status of Force' agreement already in place.

It's interesting that the right wing bloggers and talking heads gave Obama flak for 'taking credit' for the Bush troop withdrawal timeline when he took over, and now he gets slammed for following that same Bush timeline.

It's partisan hypocrisy gold.
As is

Romney: "Barack, I'm sure we both agree that it would've been great to negotiate a SOFA an Iraq"

President: "Crazy talk. Dumbest idea I've ever heard. Even Veep-Joe is dumber for having heard it."

Press in June 2014: "Mr President, do you think it was a mistake to not negotiate a SOFA in Iraq"

President: "Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ing-different/

The problem with teflon is eventually it wears thin.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 11:06 AM   #657
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
As is

Romney: "Barack, I'm sure we both agree that it would've been great to negotiate a SOFA an Iraq"

President: "Crazy talk. Dumbest idea I've ever heard. Even Veep-Joe is dumber for having heard it."

Press in June 2014: "Mr President, do you think it was a mistake to not negotiate a SOFA in Iraq"

President: "Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ing-different/

The problem with teflon is eventually it wears thin.
so he offered an opinion and yet still went through and followed the agreement set by Bush. What's your point? No matter how hard you try, all you repubs look like idiots trying to blame the chaos in Iraq on Obama. even the cronies at fox news get it.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 11:37 AM   #658
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,472

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
As is

Romney: "Barack, I'm sure we both agree that it would've been great to negotiate a SOFA an Iraq"

President: "Crazy talk. Dumbest idea I've ever heard. Even Veep-Joe is dumber for having heard it."

Press in June 2014: "Mr President, do you think it was a mistake to not negotiate a SOFA in Iraq"

President: "Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ing-different/

The problem with teflon is eventually it wears thin.
Bush made the agreement and Obama honored it. He gets flak no matter what he does.

We wouldn't be having this discussion, nor be in this mess, if Bush & co hadn't made the unconscionably stupid decision to invade Iraq.
Then proceed to make one stupid decision after another.

There was never going to be smooth ending once Pandora's box had been opened.

Do any of these clowns read regional history....ever??
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:07 PM   #659
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
He gets flak no matter what he does.
This is the most important point in all of this. There is no "win" in Iraq, no matter what. Fertile soil for the Obama haters.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:09 PM   #660
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,166

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Bush made the agreement and Obama honored it. He gets flak no matter what he does.

We wouldn't be having this discussion, nor be in this mess, if Bush & co hadn't made the unconscionably stupid decision to invade Iraq.
Then proceed to make one stupid decision after another.

There was never going to be smooth ending once Pandora's box had been opened.

Do any of these clowns read regional history....ever??
Yep. Bush was totally on his own when he decided to invade Iraq. A decision which of course was totally out of left field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

and had no support from anyone but the President's inner circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

But Obama had no choice but to go against his obviously better judgement to just follow whatever Bush signed right after Obama was elected. Oh even though he was in fact renegotiating that point, but it fell through.

And then he of course had no choice but to repeatedly heckle Romney for saying we should've maintained a presence. Only to now go back and say if it was up to him that he probably would've maintained the same presence he heckled Romney for supporting.

Work it Brit! Woooork it.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:14 PM   #661
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,166

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
This is the most important point in all of this. There is no "win" in Iraq, no matter what. Fertile soil for the Obama haters.
I already said Bush screwed the pooch with the SOFA he signed. But for the guy who lived and breathed being the anti-Bush for years, "I was just following W's lead" 5 1/2 years later rings as a pretty hollow excuse.

Especially when you're on tape soaking up the sunshine and heckling objectors when the withdrawal didn't look so bad.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:53 PM   #662
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,472

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yep. Bush was totally on his own when he decided to invade Iraq. A decision which of course was totally out of left field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

and had no support from anyone but the President's inner circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

But Obama had no choice but to go against his obviously better judgement to just follow whatever Bush signed right after Obama was elected. Oh even though he was in fact renegotiating that point, but it fell through.

And then he of course had no choice but to repeatedly heckle Romney for saying we should've maintained a presence. Only to now go back and say if it was up to him that he probably would've maintained the same presence he heckled Romney for supporting.

Work it Brit! Woooork it.
The agreement made by Bush was honored by Obama.

Political rhetoric counts for nothing, the agreements in place count for everything.

But keep 'working it', the facts won't change. It was a clusterfucck from the beginning.

And you still use way too much....actually, you use it when you're on thin ice. Play poker at all?
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:59 PM   #663
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,912

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yep. Bush was totally on his own when he decided to invade Iraq. A decision which of course was totally out of left field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

and had no support from anyone but the President's inner circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

But Obama had no choice but to go against his obviously better judgement to just follow whatever Bush signed right after Obama was elected. Oh even though he was in fact renegotiating that point, but it fell through.

And then he of course had no choice but to repeatedly heckle Romney for saying we should've maintained a presence. Only to now go back and say if it was up to him that he probably would've maintained the same presence he heckled Romney for supporting.

Work it Brit! Woooork it.
You left out the part where the Bush propaganda team sold America on the idea that Saddam has something to do with 911, a fundamentally critical part of the charade. Included in that little charade was the outing of a CIA agent.

The American people were tricked into invading Iraq. Don't blame them for their votes now.

Isn't it pretty much the pinnacle of dishonesty to trick somebody into believing something and then, after the fact, blame them for falling for it?

Last edited by Rohirrim; 06-24-2014 at 01:01 PM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 01:11 PM   #664
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,166

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
You left out the part where the Bush propaganda team sold America on the idea that Saddam has something to do with 911, a fundamentally critical part of the charade. Included in that little charade was the outing of a CIA agent.
The history you want to totally rewrite though is that Bush was in a bit of a no-win situation himself.

Go back to some of those quotes Clinton was tossing out at the end of his Presidency (in one of the wiki articles I posted)

Clinton was 100% convinced of the WMD's. And apparently convinced Saddam would use them sooner or later. Now, post 9/11, passive reaction was no longer an option, and had Clinton and Bush been right about the WMDs, and had Saddam done something with them, you'd be the first one here quoting 1998 Clinton with things like...

Quote:
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....
And you'd hang that around Bush's neck just like you do 9/11. But it's easy to forget where we were as a country at the time. Bush decided to err on the side of trying to preempt another 9/11. It was to all of our misfortune that he turned out to be as misinformed as many of his advisers, predecessors, and members of Congress.

But if he and Clinton had been right, you'd be shouting from the rooftops about his inaction if the reality of it went the other way.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 01:24 PM   #665
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,912

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The history you want to totally rewrite though is that Bush was in a bit of a no-win situation himself.

Go back to some of those quotes Clinton was tossing out at the end of his Presidency (in one of the wiki articles I posted)

Clinton was 100% convinced of the WMD's. And apparently convinced Saddam would use them sooner or later. Now, post 9/11, passive reaction was no longer an option, and had Clinton and Bush been right about the WMDs, and had Saddam done something with them, you'd be the first one here quoting 1998 Clinton with things like...



And you'd hang that around Bush's neck just like you do 9/11. But it's easy to forget where we were as a country at the time. Bush decided to err on the side of trying to preempt another 9/11. It was to all of our misfortune that he turned out to be as misinformed as many of his advisers, predecessors, and members of Congress.

But if he and Clinton had been right, you'd be shouting from the rooftops about his inaction if the reality of it went the other way.
More views from the bubble, eh?

Great fantasy, except that Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith etal had started planning the Iraq invasion in 1993, as Clinton was barely starting his first term.

It was Bush's team of neocons who were pounding the war drums at Clinton, who they considered weak.

A group of neo-conservatives, who have formed The Project for a New American Century, argue for a much stronger U.S. global leadership exercised through "military strength and moral clarity."

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

The letter's signatories include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and other current members of George W. Bush's administration, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html

In 1997 they formed the Project for a New American Century which advocated for the neocon foreign policy agenda:

They have sought the establishment of a much stronger U.S. presence throughout the Mideast and Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been their number one target for regime change. Members of this group drafted and successfully passed through Congress the Iraqi Liberation Act, giving legal sanctions for an invasion of the country, and funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to Hussein opposition groups called the Iraqi National Congress and The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

The PNAC philosophy was formed in response to the ending of Cold War hostilities with Russia and the emergence of America as the world's only preeminent superpower. Claiming that this is a "strategic moment" that should not be squandered, members of PNAC say that America should use its position to advance its power and interests into all areas of the globe. They believe the time is ripe for establishing democracies in regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests and are not hesitant to advise the use of military means to achieve those ends.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3249.htm

Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush's term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein. Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the attacks.

It had nothing to do with Clinton. In fact, he was an obstacle.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 01:25 PM   #666
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,166

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
The agreement made by Bush was honored by Obama.
Epic. The guy campaigned on nearly immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Now you want him off the hook for that terrible judgement because he followed an existing policy that was only slightly less misguided.

Plus, I guess what you're saying is that Obama was negotiating in bad faith when he was working to modify the very agreement you now suddenly hold sacrosanct.

Because uh, like we all know. Progressives really struggle when it comes to modifying prior agreements made by Republicans.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 01:30 PM   #667
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,166

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
More views from the bubble, eh?

Great fantasy, except that Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith etal had started planning the Iraq invasion in 1993, as Clinton was barely starting his first term.

It was Bush's team of neocons who were pounding the war drums at Clinton, who they considered weak.

A group of neo-conservatives, who have formed The Project for a New American Century, argue for a much stronger U.S. global leadership exercised through "military strength and moral clarity."

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

The letter's signatories include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and other current members of George W. Bush's administration, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html

In 1997 they formed the Project for a New American Century which advocated for the neocon foreign policy agenda:

They have sought the establishment of a much stronger U.S. presence throughout the Mideast and Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been their number one target for regime change. Members of this group drafted and successfully passed through Congress the Iraqi Liberation Act, giving legal sanctions for an invasion of the country, and funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to Hussein opposition groups called the Iraqi National Congress and The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

The PNAC philosophy was formed in response to the ending of Cold War hostilities with Russia and the emergence of America as the world's only preeminent superpower. Claiming that this is a "strategic moment" that should not be squandered, members of PNAC say that America should use its position to advance its power and interests into all areas of the globe. They believe the time is ripe for establishing democracies in regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests and are not hesitant to advise the use of military means to achieve those ends.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3249.htm

Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush's term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein. Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the attacks.

It had nothing to do with Clinton. In fact, he was an obstacle.
Informationclearinghouse? Isn't that bookmarked as one of Gaff's favorites?

Look, you can blame whatever advisors you like with whatever conspiracy you want to come up with. At the end of the day the guy who made the call is accountable. But Bush was in a tough spot. There's no arguing out of that. His predecessor waived the big stick. Even launched air strikes in '98.

In any case, Post-9/11, doing nothing was much less tenable than it seems today. Hindsight, etc etc.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 01:42 PM   #668
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,912

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Informationclearinghouse? Isn't that bookmarked as one of Gaff's favorites?

Look, you can blame whatever advisors you like with whatever conspiracy you want to come up with. At the end of the day the guy who made the call is accountable. But Bush was in a tough spot. There's no arguing out of that. His predecessor waived the big stick. Even launched air strikes in '98.

In any case, Post-9/11, doing nothing was much less tenable than it seems today. Hindsight, etc etc.
You're so full of **** it's mind boggling that you can figure out how to type.

This part was from PBS. It was quotes from a letter sent to Clinton by the neocons who were to make up Bush's entire cabinet and staff:

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

We have the letter. It is fact.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 06-24-2014 at 01:44 PM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:09 PM   #669
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,594
Default

Does anyone know what our debt would be right now if we had kept troops in Iraq? righties?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:14 PM   #670
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,166

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
You're so full of **** it's mind boggling that you can figure out how to type.

This part was from PBS. It was quotes from a letter sent to Clinton by the neocons who were to make up Bush's entire cabinet and staff:

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

We have the letter. It is fact.
Did they put a gun to Clinton's head when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act as well?

Or are we still playing the "Find nearest Republican. Advisor. Janitor. Whoever... point finger" game?

Wolfy got his start on Iraq as a "Finish the Job'er" from Bush SR's first gulf war. If I can find Democrats who criticized Bush Sr. on the same grounds, are you going to hold them similarly responsible for everything that's happened since?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:16 PM   #671
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,472

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Epic. The guy campaigned on nearly immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Now you want him off the hook for that terrible judgement because he followed an existing policy that was only slightly less misguided.

Plus, I guess what you're saying is that Obama was negotiating in bad faith when he was working to modify the very agreement you now suddenly hold sacrosanct.

Because uh, like we all know. Progressives really struggle when it comes to modifying prior agreements made by Republicans.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Once more. Obama honored the agreement in place.
Maliki (actually the Iraqi parliament) would not provide the necessary guarantees that US troops would have immunity.
That is the standard OP for all US forces based in other countries and without such agreement, there was no way for US troops to remain stationed in Iraq.

There was no choice but to stick with the original Bush agreement.

Those are the facts, but go ahead and turn it into a childish partisan pissing contest, it's what you do.
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:21 PM   #672
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,594
Default

too funny,the rightwads are going apeshet and are demanding that the Obama admin be held accountable on the IRS 'scandal'. poor poor widdle teabbagers. meanwhile they can't even admit that Bushie lied to congress and made the worst foreign policy blunder by invading Iraq.better yet they can't even admit to themselves that the troop withdrawal was put in place by bushie and that his military advisers agreed to it.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:40 PM   #673
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,594
Default

On Iraq, Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t

Two new polls out today, one from the New York Times and one from the Washington Post, show that as far as public opinion is concerned, Barack Obama is pretty much damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t in Iraq. It isn’t that the public disagrees with him about what has come before or about what to do now. In fact, majorities seem to feel just the way he does. It’s more likely because Americans find the whole situation so disheartening that they’re bound to express disapproval even of a president who shares their views.

Other than a national bubonic plague outbreak or an invasion by an army of vampiric arctic wolves from Canada, it’s safe to say that there’s almost nothing Barack Obama wanted to have to deal with less during his presidency than another crisis in Iraq. Getting us the hell out of there was one of the central planks of his 2008 campaign, and one month before he took office, George W. Bush helpfully signed an agreement with the Iraqi government stating that all American troops would be gone by the end of 2011, which they were. As the current mess has unfolded, Obama has repeated many times that though we’ll do what we can to help, the problem presented by ISIS is ultimately going to be the Iraqi government’s to solve. The practical steps he’s contemplating are restrained and limited.

In all this, Obama is exactly where the majority of the American people is. Yet they still express dissatisfaction with him over the issue. Only 37 percent of the public approve of his handling of the Iraq situation in the Times poll, and 42 percent approve in the Post poll. His own ambivalence is mirrored in a public that knows we should do something, but doesn’t want to do much. They certainly don’t want to add to the already tremendous cost Americans have paid for the original disastrous decision to invade in 2003. The Times poll asks, “Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the cost of American lives and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?” When they asked this question just before American troops left in at the end of 2011, 24 percent say yes and 67 percent said no. In this latest poll, 18 percent said yes and 75 percent said no.
And what do Americans want to do now? They don’t want to send ground troops (30 percent say yes in the Post poll, 19 percent in the Times poll). They’re split on air strikes (46-45 opposed in the Post, 51-43 opposed in the Times). If you give them the option of drone strikes, approval is higher, with 56 percent approving and 38 percent opposed.


The Times also asked whether the situation in Iraq is something the United States can do something about or whether it’s beyond our control. Thirty-eight percent said we can do something about it, while 57 percent said it’s beyond our control. While you can quibble about the wording of a question here or there, the overall picture is one of a public that would like to help, so long as it doesn’t involve much direct risk to our personnel, but still doesn’t think what we do is going to make much of a difference. That certainly sounds like a description of where the President himself is at the moment.

So why doesn’t he get more credit for being on their side? We can stipulate that there is literally nothing Obama could do that would satisfy most Republicans; when he says he intends to do exactly what they want, they simply change what they want, since agreeing with him on anything is psychologically intolerable for so many of them. But what upsets most Americans, I suspect, is that we’re being forced to think about Iraq at all. To the American public, the place is a black hole, sucking all our good intentions and sacrifice and money and attention into its miasma of chaos. They hear that there’s an army of Sunni extremists rampaging through the country, then see that Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite followers are mobilizing in response (remember when they were the bad guys?), and they can’t figure out how anything we could do would possibly stop this nightmare.

There are some Republicans who believe as ever that with the proper steely-eyed will and delivery of ordnance that everything could turn out just peachy. But their numbers are small. Most of the public sees nothing good coming from Iraq, and even if President Obama agrees with them, they aren’t going to say that anyone’s doing a good job on this situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-if-he-doesnt/
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:44 PM   #674
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,912

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Did they put a gun to Clinton's head when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act as well?

Or are we still playing the "Find nearest Republican. Advisor. Janitor. Whoever... point finger" game?

Wolfy got his start on Iraq as a "Finish the Job'er" from Bush SR's first gulf war. If I can find Democrats who criticized Bush Sr. on the same grounds, are you going to hold them similarly responsible for everything that's happened since?
You are absolutely hopeless.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:56 PM   #675
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,166

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Once more. Obama honored the agreement in place.
Maliki (actually the Iraqi parliament) would not provide the necessary guarantees that US troops would have immunity.
That is the standard OP for all US forces based in other countries and without such agreement, there was no way for US troops to remain stationed in Iraq.
Schweet. "Bush followed the Glass/Steagle repeal already in place."

Housing crisis? Clinton's fault!

Oh wait. Bush campaigned on letting investment banks run sports books on top of Glass/Steagle repeal? No biggie. Just campaign chatter.

By your standard nobody's ever responsible for anything because there was always already some policy in place before they got there.

Quote:
There was no choice but to stick with the original Bush agreement..
Bull****.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/wo....html?_r=3&hp&

Quote:
At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.
Bush's 11th-hour agreement was never the reason we couldn't stay. Our inability to hammer out a useful agreement (across both administrations) was the real reason.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

Quote:
President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” Jeffrey told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said.
The current POTUS has some share of responsibility here. The buck has to stop someday. Whether your partisan feelers like to admit it or not.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Denver Broncos