PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obummer: anti-war Law Professor to War Monger in 100 days...


memyselfI
05-20-2009, 05:34 PM
Read it and weep. What the Democrats are refusing to acknowledge. Bait and switch, baby.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/47696,opinion,barack-obama-from-anti-war-law-professor-to-warmonger-in-100-days

patteeu
05-20-2009, 08:00 PM
It's one of the few positive changes I've seen since Obama's election, but he's still a pale comparison to the stalwart defender of America and American sovereignty who preceded him.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 12:06 AM
It's one of the few positive changes I've seen since Obama's election, but he's still a pale comparison to the stalwart defender of America and American sovereignty who preceded him.
Which "defender" would that be? The only one I can think of that fits the bill is Colin Powell. Or are you referring to the cadre of Chickenhawks that Bush surrounded himself with, guys who were more than willing to send young Americans to war but never had the guts to serve themselves? Or do you mean the guy who was too much of a coward to go to Vietnam and instead used his daddy's strings to secure a cushy stateside job that insured he would never have to go where the bullets were flying? Are any of those the "stalwart defenders" you're talking about?

As for Obama's ramping up of our military action in Afghanistan, I'm not bothered by this. I've said many times in these forums that while I opposed the war in Iraq, I supported the war in Afghanistan. In fact, I believe that if we hadn't taken our eyes off of that ball prematurely, thus allowing the Taliban a lot of breathing room to restructure themselves, we wouldn't be having half the problems we are having there now.

Something else that I've also observed several times in these forums is that using war as a tool to spread idealogy, progress or regime change has always been a Liberal pursuit, and I found it humorously ironic that the people who were most vocally shouting down the "libs" for opposing the war in Iraq were themselves cheering on a liberal agenda. They just never got the punchline.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 12:25 AM
Read it and weep. What the Democrats are refusing to acknowledge. Bait and switch, baby.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/47696,opinion,barack-obama-from-anti-war-law-professor-to-warmonger-in-100-days

What exact is the bait and what exactly is the switch?

Taco John
05-21-2009, 12:32 AM
What exact is the bait and what exactly is the switch?



Am I to understand that you have no criticisms of Obama's foriegn policy? I'm just curious, because you've been lambasting it the last 8 years when it was called "The Bush Foriegn Policy."

jAZ
05-21-2009, 12:40 AM
Am I to understand that you have no criticisms of Obama's foriegn policy? I'm just curious, because you've been lambasting it the last 8 years when it was called "The Bush Foriegn Policy."

If I am not missing something, this is an article criticizing Obama for expanding the wars against al Queda and the Taliban in Afganistan/Pakistan region. The very thing Obama campaigned on doing, and the very thing I criticized Bush for failing to do for the last 6 years.

But like I said, maybe I'm missing the bait and the switch in question.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 01:15 AM
Am I to understand that you have no criticisms of Obama's foriegn policy? I'm just curious, because you've been lambasting it the last 8 years when it was called "The Bush Foriegn Policy."
When exactly did Obama invade a sovereign nation on false pretenses? I must have missed that.

patteeu
05-21-2009, 02:10 AM
Which "defender" would that be? The only one I can think of that fits the bill is Colin Powell. Or are you referring to the cadre of Chickenhawks that Bush surrounded himself with, guys who were more than willing to send young Americans to war but never had the guts to serve themselves? Or do you mean the guy who was too much of a coward to go to Vietnam and instead used his daddy's strings to secure a cushy stateside job that insured he would never have to go where the bullets were flying? Are any of those the "stalwart defenders" you're talking about?

As for Obama's ramping up of our military action in Afghanistan, I'm not bothered by this. I've said many times in these forums that while I opposed the war in Iraq, I supported the war in Afghanistan. In fact, I believe that if we hadn't taken our eyes off of that ball prematurely, thus allowing the Taliban a lot of breathing room to restructure themselves, we wouldn't be having half the problems we are having there now.

Something else that I've also observed several times in these forums is that using war as a tool to spread idealogy, progress or regime change has always been a Liberal pursuit, and I found it humorously ironic that the people who were most vocally shouting down the "libs" for opposing the war in Iraq were themselves cheering on a liberal agenda. They just never got the punchline.

I'm going to hold your hand on this but don't get used to it. George W. Bush is the defender I'm talking about.

Silock
05-21-2009, 02:41 AM
I just wanted to say that the author's last name is Cockburn.

Awesome.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:12 AM
I'm going to hold your hand on this but don't get used to it. George W. Bush is the defender I'm talking about.
Ah, so the one who was too much of a coward to go to Vietnam. That's who I thought you meant. But where you ever got the idea that that spineless coward was a "stalwart defender of America and American sovereignty" is beyond me.

***SPRAYER
05-21-2009, 05:15 AM
I think it's high time Charlie Gibson asked B.O. if he's familiar with the Bush doctrine.

SCChief
05-21-2009, 06:05 AM
Ah, so the one who was too much of a coward to go to Vietnam. That's who I thought you meant. But where you ever got the idea that that spineless coward was a "stalwart defender of America and American sovereignty" is beyond me.

And how many wars have the last two Democratic Presidents gone off to fight? Let's be careful referring to people as cowards. You do not have to have fought in a war to defend the sovereignty of this country as President.

In defense of Obama on this issue, however... I remember him stating during his campaign that if Pakistan could not control the Taliban, then he would not be adverse to going in to take care of it himself. Thus, his stance on Pakistan is not news to me.

Silock
05-21-2009, 06:36 AM
Cockburn.

BigRedChief
05-21-2009, 07:09 AM
It's one of the few positive changes I've seen since Obama's election, but he's still a pale comparison to the stalwart defender of America and American sovereignty who preceded him.
OMG.

He lied us into a war that cost us more american lives than were lost on 9/11. Caused the injury of over 10,000 americans with those lies.

He created more terriosts than he ever killed.

Destroyed our image and fostered bad blood against the U.S.A. all over the world with his arrogant attitude.

And so on and so on..

patteeu
05-21-2009, 11:07 AM
Ah, so the one who was too much of a coward to go to Vietnam. That's who I thought you meant. But where you ever got the idea that that spineless coward was a "stalwart defender of America and American sovereignty" is beyond me.

So what's new?

patteeu
05-21-2009, 11:10 AM
OMG.

He lied us into a war that cost us more american lives than were lost on 9/11. Caused the injury of over 10,000 americans with those lies.

He created more terriosts than he ever killed.

Destroyed our image and fostered bad blood against the U.S.A. all over the world with his arrogant attitude.

And so on and so on..

Nobody lied us into a war. The only image he destroyed was that we were a paper tiger who could easily be taken advantage of, but don't worry because your guy is working at restoring it. It's like you go out of your way to get everything backward.

Garcia Bronco
05-21-2009, 12:17 PM
OMG.

He lied us into a war that cost us more american lives than were lost on 9/11. Caused the injury of over 10,000 americans with those lies.

He created more terriosts than he ever killed.

Destroyed our image and fostered bad blood against the U.S.A. all over the world with his arrogant attitude.

And so on and so on..

Do you realize 95 percent of that exists solely in your mind?

Garcia Bronco
05-21-2009, 12:17 PM
Nobody lied us into a war.

Exactly. Heck, Congress even voted for it and funded it.

Radar Chief
05-21-2009, 12:23 PM
Cockburn.

:LOL: Cockburn. ROFL

Radar Chief
05-21-2009, 12:26 PM
Nobody lied us into a war.

:shrug: I’m sure it’s easy to feel lied to when you’re not paying attention. See Pelosi. :Poke:

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 12:26 PM
Nobody lied us into a war. The only image he destroyed was that we were a paper tiger who could easily be taken advantage of, but don't worry because your guy is working at restoring it. It's like you go out of your way to get everything backward.
Whatever you've been smoking, you should probably put it away. It's killing more brain cells than you can probably afford to lose.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 12:29 PM
And how many wars have the last two Democratic Presidents gone off to fight?
Apples and oranges, since nobody has made the claim that Clinton or Obama are or were "stalwart defenders of America and American sovereignty." Truth be told, Clinton was as big a coward as Bush (though perhaps a tad more honorable, because at least he didn't pretend about it). Where Obama fits in that descriptor remains to be seen. So far, he's put our eye back on the ball that Bush dropped, so that's a good sign.

mlyonsd
05-21-2009, 12:57 PM
Apples and oranges, since nobody has made the claim that Clinton or Obama are or were "stalwart defenders of America and American sovereignty." Truth be told, Clinton was as big a coward as Bush (though perhaps a tad more honorable, because at least he didn't pretend about it). Where Obama fits in that descriptor remains to be seen. So far, he's put our eye back on the ball that Bush dropped, so that's a good sign.

How did Bush "pretend about it"?

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 01:01 PM
How did Bush "pretend about it"?
Both Clinton and Bush cowered out of the war. Clinton was up front about it and refused to even join the military. Bush didn't want to appear to be a coward, so instead of refusing the join, he used his daddy's political ties to secure himself a cushy stateside job that insured he would never have to go into combat.

mlyonsd
05-21-2009, 02:09 PM
Both Clinton and Bush cowered out of the war. Clinton was up front about it and refused to even join the military. Bush didn't want to appear to be a coward, so instead of refusing the join, he used his daddy's political ties to secure himself a cushy stateside job that insured he would never have to go into combat.

He was in the Air Guard.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 02:17 PM
He was in the Air Guard.
Serving in a position that by its descriptor was guaranteed to keep him stateside at all times. The waiting list for the job was out the door, and his political ties got him bumped ahead of many more qualified applicants. The reason the waiting list for the job was so long is because it was guaranteed to protect whoever got the job from combat overseas.

mlyonsd
05-21-2009, 02:51 PM
Serving in a position that by its descriptor was guaranteed to keep him stateside at all times. The waiting list for the job was out the door, and his political ties got him bumped ahead of many more qualified applicants. The reason the waiting list for the job was so long is because it was guaranteed to protect whoever got the job from combat overseas.

If he was in the Air Guard he was about the diameter of our universe closer to Vietnam then Clinton was.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:02 PM
If he was in the Air Guard he was about the diameter of our universe closer to Vietnam then Clinton was.
For some reason, the point keeps going right over your head. The position he was in, the unit he was in was ineligible for overseas combat. That's why he took it. The fact that Clinton was a coward in a different way does not diminish the cowardice that Bush demonstrated.

mlyonsd
05-21-2009, 07:54 PM
For some reason, the point keeps going right over your head. The position he was in, the unit he was in was ineligible for overseas combat. That's why he took it. The fact that Clinton was a coward in a different way does not diminish the cowardice that Bush demonstrated.

And for some reason you don't understand how the military works. Any can be called up that's in the guard. Any unit can be retrained, called up if needed.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 09:34 PM
And for some reason you don't understand how the military works. Any can be called up that's in the guard. Any unit can be retrained, called up if needed.
Not unless the governor of that state signs off on it. And since the governor may well have been involved in the dealings to get him into the job in the first place, there's pretty much no way he was going to sign off on sending the son of a close political ally and US Congressman into combat. Even if the governor wasn't directly involved, the fact that George was bumped straight to the head of a long waiting list, despite scoring well below average on aptitude tests (as well as below those who were already on the waiting list when he enlisted), indicates that there was a lot of political wheeling and dealing involved. Staying out of combat was a sure thing, and that's why he did it.

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 11:09 PM
Pat Buchanan is right on this.

Iran represents no threat to the United States to justify a war.

And as Korea finished Harry Truman, Vietnam finished LBJ, and Iraq finished the Bush Republicans, war with Iran would make Barack – with the situations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq all deteriorating – a one-term president.

Barack had best understand. The crowd manipulating him into war with Iran has in mind, first, obliterating Iran; second, getting rid of him.


I said the NeoCons returned to the Democratic party after they've left the rotting carcass of the GOP behind. Beware Obama!

What a old right conservative says about it.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/05/21/bibi-wins-barack-loses/

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:26 PM
I said the NeoCons returned to the Democratic party after they've left the rotting carcass of the GOP behind. Beware Obama!

Does that include Rush Limbaugh or are we back to one of your other definitions of "neocon" again? Slow down, you're making me dizzy.

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 11:31 PM
Does that include Rush Limbaugh or are we back to one of your other definitions of "neocon" again? Slow down, you're making me dizzy.

No I'm using definition #1 here and definition #2 with Rush. Remember?
A word can have several entries, even many. Follow the context.

Oh have you seen Krauthammer gushing about Obama on Fox even?

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:39 PM
No I'm using definition #1 here and definition #2 with Rush. Remember?
A word can have several entries, even many. Follow the context.

Oh have you seen Krauthammer gushing about Obama on Fox even?

Obama has numerous commendable traits. For example, he's a very effective speaker, particularly when his teleprompter is fully functional. Saying so, is quite different than becoming a democrat. Of course, I guess it depends on your definition of "becoming".

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:40 PM
The crowd manipulating him into war with Iran has in mind, first, obliterating Iran; second, getting rid of [Obama].

Sounds like a pretty decent one two punch to me.

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 11:41 PM
Obama has numerous commendable traits. For example, he's a very effective speaker, particularly when his teleprompter is fully functional. Saying so, is quite different than becoming a democrat. Of course, I guess it depends on your definition of "becoming".
I am not sure what you just said. But Krauthammer was gushing over Obama's policies. Kristol did it during the primaries too.

Oh and I am not referring to that article posted here that we argued over. I saw him on tv.

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 11:42 PM
Sounds like a pretty decent one two punch to me.

I'll bet.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:10 AM
I am not sure what you just said. But Krauthammer was gushing over Obama's policies. Kristol did it during the primaries too.

Oh and I am not referring to that article posted here that we argued over. I saw him on tv.

Sorry, I don't trust your judgment on this. I know that Krauthammer has openly admired Obama's political traits and it wouldn't surprise me if he's applauded a policy here or there (particularly in the GWoT where Obama has adopted Bush policy after Bush policy), but he hasn't become an Obama supporter and he hasn't returned to the democrat party by any stretch of the imagination. Nor has Kristol.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:17 AM
Kristol did it during the primaries too.
I don't know where you got that idea. I saw a couple interviews with him within a couple weeks of the Presidential election, and it was the same thing we've always heard from him - roundly bashing Obama on pretty much everything.

mlyonsd
05-23-2009, 01:12 PM
Not unless the governor of that state signs off on it. And since the governor may well have been involved in the dealings to get him into the job in the first place, there's pretty much no way he was going to sign off on sending the son of a close political ally and US Congressman into combat. Even if the governor wasn't directly involved, the fact that George was bumped straight to the head of a long waiting list, despite scoring well below average on aptitude tests (as well as below those who were already on the waiting list when he enlisted), indicates that there was a lot of political wheeling and dealing involved. Staying out of combat was a sure thing, and that's why he did it.

That's a lot of speculation there but I won't pretend Bush didn't get help because of who he was.

I just found it funny you'd think him more of a coward for being in the military when Clinton ran from the country. I failed to see, and still don't see the logic there.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 01:14 PM
That's a lot of speculation there but I won't pretend Bush didn't get help because of who he was.

I just found it funny you'd think him more of a coward for being in the military when Clinton ran from the country. I failed to see, and still don't see the logic there.

It's anti-Bush logic, which is unrelated to traditional logic.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 01:34 PM
That's a lot of speculation there but I won't pretend Bush didn't get help because of who he was.

I just found it funny you'd think him more of a coward for being in the military when Clinton ran from the country. I failed to see, and still don't see the logic there.
I didn't say he was "more of a coward." I said that at least Clinton was a tad more honest in his cowardice, because at least he didn't pretend. And Clinton didn't "run from the country," he actually informed the draft board that he would return from his studies in England if his number was drawn. When his number was drawn, the draft board put it back in the pile, as it were, no doubt after some wheeling and dealing with Clinton's political allies. But whether Clinton himself knew about those goings-on was never established. Bush, on the other hand, was not only privy to the dealings that kept him out of combat, but was party to them.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 01:35 PM
It's anti-Bush logic, which is unrelated to traditional logic.
Traditional logic has always escaped you, pat, so you're the last person that should be making such funny comments.

mlyonsd
05-23-2009, 01:47 PM
I didn't say he was "more of a coward." I said that at least Clinton was a tad more honest in his cowardice, because at least he didn't pretend. And Clinton didn't "run from the country," he actually informed the draft board that he would return from his studies in England if his number was drawn. When his number was drawn, the draft board put it back in the pile, as it were, no doubt after some wheeling and dealing with Clinton's political allies. But whether Clinton himself knew about those goings-on was never established. Bush, on the other hand, was not only privy to the dealings that kept him out of combat, but was party to them.

Oh, now Bush kept himself out of the war. That's pretty good.

Your logic on this subject can be chalked up to partisan bullshit.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 02:41 PM
Oh, now Bush kept himself out of the war. That's pretty good.
He wasn't an unwitting participant, if that's what you're thinking. He specifically applied for a position for which he knew there was a long list of applicants much more qualified than him, which he knew he had no chance of getting without the currying of political favor.

My unwillingness to accept your logic on this subject can be chalked up to partisan bullshit.
FYP