PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Cheney almost wishing US was attacked, Panetta says


KILLER_CLOWN
06-15-2009, 09:40 AM
Cheney almost wishing US was attacked, Panetta says

Daniel Tencer
Raw Story
Monday, June 15, 2009

Dick Cheney’s attitude towards the Obama administration’s national security policies suggests the former vice president secretly wishes the US was attacked, says Leon Panetta, the U.S. director of central intelligence.

In an interview published in the latest issue of the New Yorker, the head of the CIA expresses frustration at Cheney’s speech last month, on the same day that President Obama outlined his national security strategy in a separate speech.

“Dangerous politics”

“It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics,” Panetta told the New Yorker. “When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”


Since Obama’s inauguration in January, Cheney has become a far more visible public figure than he was as vice president, repeatedly hammering Obama on national security and the torture controversy. Cheney has said repeatedly he believes Obama’s policies are making America less safe.

From the New Yorker:

Since January, the C.I.A. has become the focus of almost daily struggle, as Obama attempts to restore the rule of law in America’s fight against terrorism without sacrificing safety or losing the support of conservative Democratic and independent voters. So far, he has insisted on trying to recalibrate the agency’s policies without investigating past mistakes or holding anyone responsible for them. Caught in the middle is Panetta, who is seventy years old and has virtually no experience in the intelligence field.

The article goes on to say that an essay Panetta penned during the Bush administration decrying America’s descent “from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers” was instrumental in Obama’s decision to make him the head of the CIA.

On CNN’s State of the Union, Vice President Joe Biden was asked if he agreed with Panetta’s assessment of Cheney’s motives. The vice-president skirted the issue, saying it’s “dangerous” to question anyone’s personal motives.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/22/090622fa_fact_mayer

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/14/cheney-almost-wishing-us-was-attacked-panetta-says/

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 09:46 AM
Cheney is a sick man bu the is the hero of the NeoCons!

KILLER_CLOWN
06-15-2009, 10:17 AM
Darth Cheney and his bad heart needs a good retirement community, he really should take care of all that stress by retiring.

jjjayb
06-15-2009, 11:29 AM
Obama wants the U.S. to be taken over by aliens from another world.

Does me saying it make it true?

Just keep letting your hate for anything Bush/Chaney distort reality. It's pretty amusing.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-15-2009, 11:31 AM
Obama wants the U.S. to be taken over by aliens from another world.

Does me saying it make it true?

Just keep letting your hate for anything Bush/Chaney distort reality. It's pretty amusing.

Actually i don't hate the man, i feel sorry for him. Like I said I hope he finds a retirement community that will do him well.

jAZ
06-15-2009, 11:35 AM
Just add Cheney's comments to the NeoCon's other rather disgusting world views including prefering Ahadinejad win relelection and looking for a "new Pearl Harbor" to launch an invasion of Iraq.

blaise
06-15-2009, 12:03 PM
Just add Cheney's comments to the NeoCon's other rather disgusting world views including prefering Ahadinejad win relelection and looking for a "new Pearl Harbor" to launch an invasion of Iraq.


It's so crazy how the NeCon's do that while most of the left sits before news events with a clear, rational, objective mind and makes honest, virtuous opinions.
If only the world weren't so black and white it might someday be better. But it is, it's just that black and white.
I'm just glad we have jAZ to let us know.

RaiderH8r
06-15-2009, 12:05 PM
Just add Cheney's comments to the NeoCon's other rather disgusting world views including prefering Ahadinejad win relelection and looking for a "new Pearl Harbor" to launch an invasion of Iraq.

Just add Penetta's quote as another in a long line of lefty projections based on their own feelings and assigning those same thoughts and feelings to others in a vain attempt to justify their own villainous machinations.

Cue up Olbermann and the rest of the Leni Riefenstahlesque leftist media propoganda machine to spin Panetta's speculation into a full blown historical fact and thus summon up inordinate amounts of rage and righteous indignation. Never mind its the ****knobs at DailKos and HuffPo who have a long and distinguished (like my johnson) track record of pandering to muslim jihadists and selling out Israel's right to exist. Well played indeed ****os.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-15-2009, 12:08 PM
To be fair Zbigniew Brzezinski is the "left" version of Darth Cheney and isn't a lot different when it comes to foreign policy.

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

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 12:15 PM
So let me get this straight. A guy that got his job not because he has any experience but because he bitched about the prior administration in a way the current administration wanted to hear it, then bitches about not what was said but what he wants to believe is intended and some of you dipshits take that as gospel.
I guess that kind of fits for this portion of the board.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 12:22 PM
So let me get this straight. A guy that got his job not because he has any experience but because he bitched about the prior administration in a way the current administration wanted to hear it, then bitches about not what was said but what he wants to believe is intended and some of you dipshits take that as gospel.
I guess that kind of fits for this portion of the board.

Please. How many thousands of hours did we (liberals) have to sit through chants of "you don't support the troops" despite us never saying anything to that effect during the run-up to Iraq.

Glass houses, one way mirrors, etc etc etc...

RaiderH8r
06-15-2009, 12:26 PM
Please. How many thousands of hours did we (liberals) have to sit through chants of "you don't support the troops" despite us never saying anything to that effect during the run-up to Iraq.

Glass houses, one way mirrors, etc etc etc...

So are you conceding that Panetta is full of shit and this whole faux outrage should probably be stopped?

mlyonsd
06-15-2009, 12:26 PM
Cheney trying to create political pressure on the Obama administration, Panetta trying to do the same to Cheney to shut him up.

Washington politics at it's finest.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 12:31 PM
So are you conceding that Panetta is full of shit and this whole faux outrage should probably be stopped?

I think his language was incendiary, but I don't think he's full of shit.

Do I think Cheney wants innocent Americans to die to prove his point? No.

Does Cheney and the entire "movement conservatism" crowd want Obama's policies to fail, on matters that include defense? They've said as much.

RaiderH8r
06-15-2009, 12:34 PM
I think his language was incendiary, but I don't think he's full of shit.

Do I think Cheney wants innocent Americans to die to prove his point? No.

Does Cheney and the entire "movement conservatism" crowd want Obama's policies to fail, on matters that include defense? They've said as much.

Since when does Rush Limbaugh qualify as spokesman for the entire conservative movement? In fact, he passed the crown on to Powell.

Apparently you and Panetta disagree and perhaps Panetta needs to be broadly and loudly called out on his bullshit. I guarantee Olbermann runs a "worst person in the world" bit with Cheney and this patent lie stated by Panetta and perpetuated by Olbermann.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 12:36 PM
Cheney trying to create political pressure on the Obama administration, Panetta trying to do the same to Cheney to shut him up.

Washington politics at it's finest.

If the end around is working, keep running it until the defense stops it.
I don’t blame this guy for going with a play that works for him, I blame the people that keep buying his snake oil. ;)

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 12:38 PM
Since when does Rush Limbaugh qualify as spokesman for the entire conservative movement? In fact, he passed the crown on to Powell.

Dude, I listen to conservative radio several hours a day, and they're ALL saying the same thing. Including, by the way, several hosts who have shows on Fox News. I'll let you guess who. Plus you don't have to go far in this forum to hear conservatives echo the same sentiment. They are the base of your party right now, like it or not.

Rooting for Obama to fail on all matters, including defense.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 12:39 PM
Cheney trying to create political pressure on the Obama administration, Panetta trying to do the same to Cheney to shut him up.

Washington politics at it's finest.

For the record, this is exactly what's happening.

Baby Lee
06-15-2009, 01:25 PM
I think his language was incendiary, but I don't think he's full of shit.

Do I think Cheney wants innocent Americans to die to prove his point? No.

Does Cheney and the entire "movement conservatism" crowd want Obama's policies to fail, on matters that include defense? They've said as much.
I at first thought, based on second hand accounts, that Rush had said he 'wanted Obama to fail,' with the meaning that he's OK with his agenda getting though and then wants the agenda to fail.
But if you did a scintilla of follow up, you'd know that he wants, despite overwhelming odds, for Obama to fail to push his agenda through.
Totally different animal.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 01:50 PM
I at first thought, based on second hand accounts, that Rush had said he 'wanted Obama to fail,' with the meaning that he's OK with his agenda getting though and then wants the agenda to fail.
But if you did a scintilla of follow up, you'd know that he wants, despite overwhelming odds, for Obama to fail to push his agenda through.
Totally different animal.

"I want socialism to fail."

Even if Obama does get his agenda through, which does include matters of defense, Rush wishes them failure.

You're not going to explain away Limbaugh's logic in ways that seem palatable. He doesn't trade in that, and you shouldn't try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 01:59 PM
"I want socialism to fail."

Even if Obama does get his agenda through, which does include matters of defense, Rush wishes them failure.

You're not going to explain away Limbaugh's logic in ways that seem palatable. He doesn't trade in that, and you shouldn't try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

To you but lets face it, you’ve invested yourself in hating Rush so no amount of explaining will seem “palatable” to you.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 02:06 PM
To you but lets face it, you’ve invested yourself in hating Rush so no amount of explaining will seem “palatable” to you.

That's a joke. I have not a dime committed to the prospect of hating Rush, as he has a hundred million invested in hating Obama. So that "invested" nonsense is dumb.

I listen to his shit and the shit of his ilk all day. I see the internal logic of it, because it fits with his running monologue of what the world is. Wishing Obama to fail both before and after he implements his agenda makes sense in his world, in which there are admittedly tens of millions. To the rest of us, though, it is not sensible to wish the President to fail.

mlyonsd
06-15-2009, 02:12 PM
That's a joke. I have not a dime committed to the prospect of hating Rush, as he has a hundred million invested in hating Obama. So that "invested" nonsense is dumb.

I listen to his shit and the shit of his ilk all day. I see the internal logic of it, because it fits with his running monologue of what the world is. Wishing Obama to fail both before and after he implements his agenda makes sense in his world, in which there are admittedly tens of millions. To the rest of us, though, it is not sensible to wish the President to fail.

I despise Rush but have no problem making the statement I want socialism to fail.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 02:15 PM
I despise Rush but have no problem making the statement I want socialism to fail.

Absolutely, I don't think that's unreasonable.

He wants the Obama agenda in its entirety to fail. That includes part and parcel the economic matters, social matters, foreign policy matters, and yes, matters of defense.

Now that may not be actively rooting for Americans to die like Panetta claims Cheney might be doing, but it is essentially upholding that spirit of Obama Must Fail.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 02:25 PM
That's a joke. I have not a dime committed to the prospect of hating Rush, as he has a hundred million invested in hating Obama. So that "invested" nonsense is dumb.

I listen to his shit and the shit of his ilk all day. I see the internal logic of it, because it fits with his running monologue of what the world is. Wishing Obama to fail both before and after he implements his agenda makes sense in his world, in which there are admittedly tens of millions. To the rest of us, though, it is not sensible to wish the President to fail.

Really, then why are you so concerned with what a comedian on the radio has to say?

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 02:29 PM
Really, then why are you so concerned with what a comedian on the radio has to say?

Your party listens to him and follows him.

You saw him at CPAC. That wasn't stand-up comedy he was doing.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 02:31 PM
Your party listens to him and follows him.

You saw him at CPAC. That wasn't stand-up comedy he was doing.

Sure it was, that was playing to the crowd.

I guess I missed your outrage at Carlin claiming “we only bomb brown people”.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 02:34 PM
Sure it was, that was playing to the crowd.

I guess I missed your outrage at Carlin claiming “we only bomb brown people”.

Waaaaait wait wait wait wait wait wait. Wait.

Are you going on the record, RC, as saying that George Carlin, for decades, was the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh.

Yes or no, explanation invited.

Baby Lee
06-15-2009, 02:38 PM
That's a joke. I have not a dime committed to the prospect of hating Rush, as he has a hundred million invested in hating Obama. So that "invested" nonsense is dumb.

I listen to his shit and the shit of his ilk all day. I see the internal logic of it, because it fits with his running monologue of what the world is. Wishing Obama to fail both before and after he implements his agenda makes sense in his world, in which there are admittedly tens of millions. To the rest of us, though, it is not sensible to wish the President to fail.

Link?

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 02:38 PM
Waaaaait wait wait wait wait wait wait. Wait.

Are you going on the record, RC, as saying that George Carlin, for decades, was the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh.

Yes or no, explanation invited.

For “decades”? :spock: But certainly towards the end of his career he became very liberal. Just that Carlin was generally funnier than Rush is or has been.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 02:42 PM
So yes? Rush Limbaugh and George Carlin are ideological reflections of one another?

That's what you're saying?

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 02:47 PM
So yes? Rush Limbaugh and George Carlin are ideological reflections of one another?

That's what you're saying?

Why do they have to be political negatives of each other to use the same methods?

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 02:49 PM
Why do they have to be political negatives of each other to use the same methods?

They don't have to be.

You made the claim that I should be treating, ideally, Carlin's routine exactly the same as I should be treating Limbaugh's.

Are they two birds of the same feather or not?

mlyonsd
06-15-2009, 02:52 PM
Absolutely, I don't think that's unreasonable.

He wants the Obama agenda in its entirety to fail. That includes part and parcel the economic matters, social matters, foreign policy matters, and yes, matters of defense.

Now that may not be actively rooting for Americans to die like Panetta claims Cheney might be doing, but it is essentially upholding that spirit of Obama Must Fail.

I never listen to Limbaugh because he's a pompous ass but really doubt he wants Obama to fail when it comes to defense.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 02:54 PM
I never listen to Limbaugh because he's a pompous ass but really doubt he wants Obama to fail when it comes to defense.

Well hey, since you never listen to his show ever, I'll take your word for it, since *I* only listen to him a few hours every week.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 02:56 PM
They don't have to be.

You made the claim that I should be treating, ideally, Carlin's routine exactly the same as I should be treating Limbaugh's.

Are they two birds of the same feather or not?

In that they’re both comedians playing to a crowd, sure. That still doesn’t make them exact political opposites.
Now, how about that link BabyLee asked for?

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 02:59 PM
In that they’re both comedians playing to a crowd, sure. That still doesn’t make them exact political opposites.

Exactly. They are not exact political opposites.

That's why I (like most people) am more likely to give two shits about what Carlin says and actually care about what Limbaugh has to say.

Because their political impact is incredibly different.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 03:02 PM
Link?

Now, how about that link BabyLee asked for?

Again, I'll point to "I want socialism to fail."

That is NOT a statement of "boo hoo, we don't want this to be policy and we will fight it every step of the way, but AFTER it is implemented we will root for it to flourish."

That deftness escapes Rush.

The statement is... I want socialism to fail. Period.

A statement which, if you spend time ACTUALLY LISTENING TO HIS SHOW, is reflecting his sentiment regarding every ounce of Obama's agenda.

Say it with me: including defense.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-15-2009, 03:04 PM
Everyone loves a good bitch fight thread here on CP.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 03:07 PM
Everyone loves a good bitch fight thread here on CP.

Hey I ****ing love it as much as the next guy. This is where I eat.

If I'm going to be asked to choose between RC's interpretation of Rush Limbaugh or my lying ears, it's an easy choice.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 03:10 PM
Exactly. They are not exact political opposites.

:spock: Yet they use the same methods. Seeing as how that’s what I originally posted, whatever your point is about political opposites is lost.

That's why I (like most people) am more likely to give two shits about what Carlin says and actually care about what Limbaugh has to say.

Because their political impact is incredibly different.

You’re upset over something Rush said, yet “give two shits” about something Carlin said. They’re both statements made to evoke a response yet you only care about one, why? Your answer seems to be political expedience.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 03:12 PM
Again, I'll point to "I want socialism to fail."

That is NOT a statement of "boo hoo, we don't want this to be policy and we will fight it every step of the way, but AFTER it is implemented we will root for it to flourish."

That deftness escapes Rush.

The statement is... I want socialism to fail. Period.

A statement which, if you spend time ACTUALLY LISTENING TO HIS SHOW, is reflecting his sentiment regarding every ounce of Obama's agenda.

Say it with me: including defense.

Rush’s words. Why are you afraid of context here?
And seeing as how this topic was started over projecting intent on someone else your anti-Rush argument is incredibly ironic.

orange
06-15-2009, 03:17 PM
Rush’s words. Why are you afraid of context here?
And seeing as how this topic was started over projecting intent on someone else your anti-Rush argument is incredibly ironic.

"Rush's words" you say? You got it:

"So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

I'm happy to be the last man standing. I'm honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I'm the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn't, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I'm serious about this."

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

That site good enough for you?

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 03:19 PM
Yet they use the same methods.
Not really. Limbaugh doesn't use hammer as his point-making device hardly if at all. He used to, matter of fact that's how he built up a big following in the early years.

But Limbaugh makes his points now by making his points. There is no comedy veiling his presentation anymore. And his aims are vastly different from the aims of Carlin's.

I'm sorry but drawing equivolencies between the acts of Carlin and Limbaugh is assinine. I'm happy to continue engaging you on this, but you have to realize that not only will the non-Limbaugh enjoying populace disagrees with you, but Limbaugh's own audience will, for the most part, scoff at having their leader compared to a mere comedian.

You’re upset over something Rush said, yet “give two shits” about something Carlin said. They’re both statements made to evoke a response yet you only care about one, why? Your answer seems to be political expedience.

I've already answered this. Their political impact is completely different. Not only in the magnitude of their impact but in the nature of their impact.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 03:20 PM
Rush’s words. Why are you afraid of context here?
Context how?

The context of Rush's own show only solidifies my point.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 03:23 PM
"Rush's words" you say? You got it:

"So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

I'm happy to be the last man standing. I'm honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I'm the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn't, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I'm serious about this."

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

That site good enough for you?

Thank you. Now for the rest of the quote.

RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 03:26 PM
HAHAHAHAHA

*wipes tear*

Oh GOD, Radar Chief. You were right.

Like the EXACT same thing George Carlin did. Like the spitting image.

Man, my stomach hurts from all this laughter.

orange
06-15-2009, 03:26 PM
Thank you. Now for the rest of the quote.

RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

Anything in there about "I hope he doesn't get these things through?" No.

He expects them to get through. He hopes the policies that he knows are going to pass will fail. Because he wants to win. If they succeed, Obama wins. So does the country. Rush doesn't want that. It's all about winning the next election.

Thanks for quoting all that. You saved me the trouble. But you left out more good parts:

"Reasons number 249 and 50 why I'm not a Republican. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has been chosen to introduce Vice-President-elect Biden at a bipartisan dinner in Washington on the eve of the immaculation. Biden was one of Hagel's closest friends in the Senate. "Bipartisan dinners also held that night honoring McCain and Colin Powell. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina will introduce McCain at a dinner." So all these Republicans are being honored on the night before Obama is immaculately inaugurated, as though they're part of the Obama administration. Our presidential candidate is being honored. I can understand liberals honoring their losers, but I just -- (tearing up story)"

More:

BROWNSTEIN: Democrats have now won, Andrea, 18 states for at least the last five elections consecutively, plus the District of Columbia, 248 Electoral College votes. They haven't won that many states over that long a period since Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. They also now hold, if Franken maintains his lead, 33 of the 36 Senate seats in those 18 states, over two-thirds of the House seats, two-thirds of the governorships. They have built their strongest Electoral College base since the days of Roosevelt and Truman, and that is an important foundation for Obama. It's going to be very difficult for Republicans, I think, to systematically challenge Obama and the Democrats over time if this much of the country is virtually off-limits for them.

RUSH: The Democrats own the country. There's nothing anybody can do to stop it. We should just lay down and accept it.

It was ALL ABOUT WINNING THE NEXT ELECTION. His own words, not mine.

mlyonsd
06-15-2009, 03:31 PM
Hey I ****ing love it as much as the next guy. This is where I eat.

If I'm going to be asked to choose between RC's interpretation of Rush Limbaugh or my lying ears, it's an easy choice.

Did your lying ears come to the same crystal clear conclusion with the democrats and the surge in Iraq? You know, the part where they claimed it would fail at the same time they authorized money for it?

I don't remember you openly criticizing them anyway.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 03:33 PM
Anything in there about "I hope he doesn't get these things through?" No.

He expects them to get through. He hopes the policies that he knows are going to pass will fail. Because he wants to win. If they succeed, Obama wins. So does the country. Rush doesn't want that. It's all about winning the next election.

No, it doesn’t. Change isn’t automatically better, its just different.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 03:34 PM
HAHAHAHAHA

*wipes tear*

Oh GOD, Radar Chief. You were right.

Like the EXACT same thing George Carlin did. Like the spitting image.

Man, my stomach hurts from all this laughter.

Rush even spells it out for you in the second to last sentence I quoted and you still don’t get it.

And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 03:35 PM
Did your lying ears come to the same crystal clear conclusion with the democrats and the surge in Iraq? You know, the part where they claimed it would fail at the same time they authorized money for it?

I don't remember you openly criticizing them anyway.

What? What does that have to do with Limbaugh?

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 03:35 PM
Did your lying ears come to the same crystal clear conclusion with the democrats and the surge in Iraq? You know, the part where they claimed it would fail at the same time they authorized money for it?

I don't remember you openly criticizing them anyway.

What does Obama hope I succeed at?

:shrug:

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 03:37 PM
Rush even spells it out for you in the second to last sentence I quoted and you still don’t get it.

I don't know how that excuses the fact that nothing, NOTHING on his show collides remotely with the statement that he wants Obama to fail.

That one handy-dandy sentence, which YOU'VE actually plucked from its context (it's dangerous according to Rush because it's a statement that will make him enemies, not because it's wrong), doesn't pardon that.

Pluck any one hour of HIS SHOW in which he is discussing Obama in any way, and it will totally reconcile with the statement that he wants Obama to fail.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 03:38 PM
:shrug:

So now after drawing an equal sign between Limbaugh and Carlin, you want to draw one between Limbaugh and Obama.

Keep digging.

mlyonsd
06-15-2009, 03:46 PM
I don't know how that excuses the fact that nothing, NOTHING on his show collides remotely with the statement that he wants Obama to fail.

That one handy-dandy sentence, which YOU'VE actually plucked from its context (it's dangerous according to Rush because it's a statement that will make him enemies, not because it's wrong), doesn't pardon that.

Pluck any one hour of HIS SHOW in which he is discussing Obama in any way, and it will totally reconcile with the statement that he wants Obama to fail.

Why don't you pluck something from one of his shows that cleary states he wants Americans to die, which is what you are implying when you say he wants Obama's "defense" to fail. At least in my mind it does.

mlyonsd
06-15-2009, 03:49 PM
What? What does that have to do with Limbaugh?

Everything if you expect anyone to believe in what you are claiming Limbaugh is guilty of.

stevieray
06-15-2009, 03:51 PM
he wants Obama to fail.

and?

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 04:22 PM
Everyone loves a good bitch fight thread here on CP.

Actually, I hate them. This is why I use ignore liberally ( usually the nastiest more aggressive posters) lest I get caught up too much in that stuff.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 04:26 PM
To be fair Zbigniew Brzezinski is the "left" version of Darth Cheney and isn't a lot different when it comes to foreign policy.

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

That's right, Z is a "liberal hawk."

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 04:31 PM
So now after drawing an equal sign between Limbaugh and Carlin, you want to draw one between Limbaugh and Obama.
Keep digging.

This is literally like trying to discuss physics with my 4 y.o.
If you really have the inability to focus and remain on topic that you're displaying here, how do you ever get anything done?
Here, since you really do have to be handheld through this I'll do it once.

You: Rush wants Obama to fail, that means he wants us to be attacked again.
Me: Rush is a comedian playing to the crowd saying purposely provocative things to evoke a response, much like Carlin saying "we only bomb brown people"
You: Nuh uh, Rush and Carlin aren't exactly alike in every facet of life so there is nothing similar about it.
Me: I even point out to you in Rush's own words where he states he's being purposely provocative.
You: I've got a belly ache from laughing at my own ignorance. :rolleyes:

And I'll point it out again, you projecting the intent you want to hear, that Rush wants us to be attacked because he said "I hope Obama fails", is incredibly ironic in the topic started because Penetta projected similar intent to Cheney.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 04:34 PM
So now after drawing an equal sign between Limbaugh and Carlin, you want to draw one between Limbaugh and Obama.

Keep digging.

You're becoming a caricature.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 08:46 PM
Who give a f*** about what Panetta says on this subject? What would he know about what Cheney wishes and where was this guy when members of his own party were celebrating US soldier deaths in Iraq?

patteeu
06-15-2009, 08:47 PM
Cheney is a sick man bu the is the hero of the NeoCons!

He ought to be a hero to all of us. BTW, Cheney isn't a neocon himself, despite agreeing with some of their policy prescriptions.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 12:58 AM
Please. How many thousands of hours did we (liberals) have to sit through chants of "you don't support the troops" despite us never saying anything to that effect during the run-up to Iraq.
Don't forget the litany of "the left wants us to fail in Iraq" that we heard on a daily basis from our right-wing component.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 12:59 AM
He ought to be a hero to all of us. BTW, Cheney isn't a neocon himself, despite agreeing with some of their policy prescriptions.
He should be a hero to nobody. He's a corrupt POS. And in my book, anyone who worships him the way you do has some very serious mental and psychological issues.

RaiderH8r
06-16-2009, 08:05 AM
Don't forget the litany of "the left wants us to fail in Iraq" that we heard on a daily basis from our right-wing component.

What happened to, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?

HA HA HA!

patteeu
06-16-2009, 08:13 AM
He should be a hero to nobody. He's a corrupt POS. And in my book, anyone who worships him the way you do has some very serious mental and psychological issues.

Cheney couldn't hope for a better endorsement than this one from the CoMoChief of DC.

RaiderH8r
06-16-2009, 08:22 AM
It appears that Leon is pumping his brakes and itching for a reversal on the story.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/15/cia-panetta-doesnt-believe-cheney-rooting-for-terrorist-attack/

CNN) – A CIA spokesman is sharply downplaying Director Leon Panetta 's recent comments that appear to question whether former Vice President Dick Cheney is hoping for another terrorist attack against the United States.

"The Director does not believe the former Vice President wants an attack," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a statement to CNN. "He did not say that. He was simply expressing his profound disagreement with the assertion that President Obama's security policies have made our country less safe. Nor did he question anyone's motives."

The statement comes days after the New Yorker published an interview with Panetta during which he said Cheney's recent criticism of Obama – including the decision to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba – show the ex-vice president "smells some blood in the water on the national security issue."

"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics," said Panetta. "When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

Cheney's office released a terse statement from the vice president Monday responding to the comments, saying "I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted."

"The important thing is whether or not the Obama Administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the last 8 years," Cheney said.

Vice President Joe Biden also appeared to distance himself from Panetta's comments Sunday, telling NBC "I don't question [Cheney's] motive."

– CNN's Pam Benson contributed to this report

Chief Henry
06-16-2009, 08:39 AM
It appears that Leon is pumping his brakes and itching for a reversal on the story.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/15/cia-panetta-doesnt-believe-cheney-rooting-for-terrorist-attack/

CNN) – A CIA spokesman is sharply downplaying Director Leon Panetta 's recent comments that appear to question whether former Vice President Dick Cheney is hoping for another terrorist attack against the United States.

"The Director does not believe the former Vice President wants an attack," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a statement to CNN. "He did not say that. He was simply expressing his profound disagreement with the assertion that President Obama's security policies have made our country less safe. Nor did he question anyone's motives."

The statement comes days after the New Yorker published an interview with Panetta during which he said Cheney's recent criticism of Obama – including the decision to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba – show the ex-vice president "smells some blood in the water on the national security issue."

"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics," said Panetta. "When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

Cheney's office released a terse statement from the vice president Monday responding to the comments, saying "I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted."

"The important thing is whether or not the Obama Administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the last 8 years," Cheney said.

Vice President Joe Biden also appeared to distance himself from Panetta's comments Sunday, telling NBC "I don't question [Cheney's] motive."

– CNN's Pam Benson contributed to this report




The focus group results must have sent up a signal to Leon to change his
tune.

Baby Lee
06-16-2009, 09:09 AM
The focus group results must have sent up a signal to Leon to change his
tune.

See, if Rush had said he 'almost' wants Obama to fail, things would be much different on this thread.

Chief Henry
06-16-2009, 09:39 AM
See, if Rush had said he 'almost' wants Obama to fail, things would be much different on this thread.

:thumb:

ClevelandBronco
06-16-2009, 11:00 AM
"Rush's words" you say? You got it:

"So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

I'm happy to be the last man standing. I'm honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I'm the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn't, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I'm serious about this."

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

That site good enough for you?

I will repeat myself: Even as a Republican, I pray that Pres. Obama will be the most successful president ever. We need that badly right now.

However, I want all things Socialistic to fail in the U.S.

That may seem contradictory, but I hope it proves not to be so as time unfolds.

Baby Lee
06-16-2009, 11:48 AM
What Direckshun and Orange are missing, is that as an ideologue, Rush KNOWS that socialism will fail. So saying 'I hope he gets his agenda AND THEN he fails' is akin to saying 'I hope that pool of water you're about to jump into gets you wet.'

I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work.

. . .

He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that?
The first bolded could be construed as ambiguous as to fruition, but the rest are, to my eye, unambiguously speaking to not wanting his agenda to come to fruition. If he were taking the tact you espouse, what is the relevance of whether or not the Repubs 'lie down?' He wants them to stand up and oppose the fruition, not to stand up AFTER fruition and . . . what? Become unproductive? If he doesn't want the government in charge of these things, that's fairly counter to wanting fruition as well. The last could not be more clear, 'why would we want them saddled with this' is the polar opposite of 'I want them saddled with this, THEN for it to fail.'

ClevelandBronco
06-16-2009, 12:46 PM
[QUOTE=Baby Lee;5842835]If he were taking the tact you espouse...

tack

BucEyedPea
06-16-2009, 01:24 PM
He ought to be a hero to all of us. BTW, Cheney isn't a neocon himself, despite agreeing with some of their policy prescriptions.

He's evil. But Nightwish showed his low Cheneyesque character himself by attacking you personally as having psychological problems for disagreeing.
What a small person.

Baby Lee
06-16-2009, 02:01 PM
tack
tact - short for tactic, ie strategy

stevieray
06-16-2009, 02:14 PM
He should be a hero to nobody. He's a corrupt POS. And in my book, anyone who worships him the way you do has some very serious mental and psychological issues.

ROFL

GTFOY

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 02:37 PM
ROFL

GTFOY
Wow, admonishment from an Elvis wannabe, the saddest of pathetic people. I'll try not to lose any sleep over that.

stevieray
06-16-2009, 02:38 PM
Wow, admonishment from an Elvis wannabe, the saddest of pathetic people. I'll try not to lose any sleep over that.

Elvis smack?

ROFL

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 02:39 PM
He ought to be a hero to all of us. BTW, Cheney isn't a neocon himself, despite agreeing with some of their policy prescriptions.
Hey, dumbass, he's a signed member of the PNAC. They're the Neocon mothership! Did you somehow miss that? Or are you just desparately trying to exxonerate your fantasy boy now that the neocons are out of favor?

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 03:01 PM
Elvis smack?

ROFL
Hey, if dressing up and pretending to be a dead drug addict gives your life some sense of meaning, that's your prerogative.

ROFL

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 03:16 PM
It appears that Leon is pumping his brakes and itching for a reversal on the story.
Really? Where in any of that do you see Leon Panetta changing or denying any part of what he said. A reporter put a spin on his comments, and now a CIA spokesman is saying that the reporter was presumptuous, but he didn't anything about Panetta changing his story.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 03:18 PM
He's evil. But Nightwish showed his low Cheneyesque character himself by attacking you personally as having psychological problems for disagreeing.
What a small person.
Still smarting from getting called to task for constantly handwaving your sources, tossing conspiracy theories and generally fear-mongering, I see. I said it before, you really need to grow a thicker skin. If you can't take a little criticism, you're in the wrong place. It's no surprise that you're now trying to climb in bed with patteeu, CP's spineless fear-puppet extraordinaire.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2009, 03:22 PM
leon needs to stop being a melodramatic shill for obama.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 03:23 PM
leon needs to stop being a melodramatic shill for obama.
Cheney needs to stop shamelessly defending the failed policies of the Bush administration.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2009, 03:35 PM
I guess he doesnt see protecting our country as a failure.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 03:39 PM
I guess he doesnt see protecting our country as a failure.
His brand of "protection" has made it a bigger target than it ever was before. The fact that we weren't successfully attacked again since 9/11 is more a credit to the intelligence community than to Bush-era foreign policy. The number of plots discovered agains the US during the Bush years actually increased over past presidencies, which indicates that the number of plots formed against the US likewise increased. And as long as we keep propping up Bush-era foreign policy, that target will keep getting bigger, and eventually something is going to slip through the cracks.

stevieray
06-16-2009, 03:52 PM
Hey, if dressing up and pretending to be a dead drug addict gives your life some sense of meaning, that's your prerogative.

ROFL
..it appears it only gives meaning to your life.


...like Miss California.
...and Dick Cheney.

..keep thumping, Father Swishy.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 04:21 PM
..it appears it only gives meaning to your life.
ROFL


...like Miss California.
You must have me confused with Comanche.

...and Dick Cheney.
You must have me confused with patteeu.

..keep thumping, Father Swishy.
You're really not very good at this, are you? Heck, can't even come up with your own slur! Not surprising, I guess, as even those who like you on here have agreed you're not the brightest bulb in the chandalier. Keep trying, Airball, one day you'll get it right.

ROFL

HonestChieffan
06-16-2009, 04:24 PM
His brand of "protection" has made it a bigger target than it ever was before. The fact that we weren't successfully attacked again since 9/11 is more a credit to the intelligence community than to Bush-era foreign policy. The number of plots discovered agains the US during the Bush years actually increased over past presidencies, which indicates that the number of plots formed against the US likewise increased. And as long as we keep propping up Bush-era foreign policy, that target will keep getting bigger, and eventually something is going to slip through the cracks.

And isnt that what Obama is doing? I mean really...he is basically doing many of the Bush decisions and continues to go back on what he said he would so whern you nutjobs elected him.

Afirmation that Bush was right?

mlyonsd
06-16-2009, 04:29 PM
His brand of "protection" has made it a bigger target than it ever was before. The fact that we weren't successfully attacked again since 9/11 is more a credit to the intelligence community than to Bush-era foreign policy. The number of plots discovered agains the US during the Bush years actually increased over past presidencies, which indicates that the number of plots formed against the US likewise increased. And as long as we keep propping up Bush-era foreign policy, that target will keep getting bigger, and eventually something is going to slip through the cracks.

Let's be clear, if something slips through the cracks Obama is just as responsible, maybe more, depending on how it happens.

stevieray
06-16-2009, 04:44 PM
ROFL



You must have me confused with Comanche.


You must have me confused with patteeu.


You're really not very good at this, are you? Heck, can't even come up with your own slur! Not surprising, I guess, as even those who like you on here have agreed you're not the brightest bulb in the chandalier. Keep trying, Airball, one day you'll get it right.

ROFL
hardly, the only one running around the kali thread as much as commanche..was you..doling out your psuedo shame like Grandma fresh out of Sunday Service...that girl owned you for a week at best.

cheney..rinse and repeat..you seem to think that because you dislike cheney, others have psych problems.

I notice you avoided the elvis rebuttal...shocking!

Nightwish called me airball...:deevee: oh and elvis smack...what an arsenal!

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 04:46 PM
And isnt that what Obama is doing? I mean really...he is basically doing many of the Bush decisions and continues to go back on what he said he would so whern you nutjobs elected him.
Planning troop withdrawals, handing over Iraq to the Iraqis, drawing down an occupation that has proved a fertile breeding ground for terrorists, turning his attention back to Afghanistan where it should have stayed all along. Yeah, he's doing exactly what Bush was doing!

HonestChieffan
06-16-2009, 04:49 PM
Planning...

I used to know a guy who always said a "job well planned is half done"...problem was he never did the other half. You would have liked him a lot.

So when Obama does the same things Bush had planned to do, Obama gets the credit.

I like this.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 04:50 PM
hardly, the only one running around the kali thread as much as commanche..was you..doling out your psuedo shame like Grandma fresh out of Sunday Service...that girl owned you for a week at best.
I mostly couldn't have cared less about Miss Cali. I was there to make fun of Comanche, because he's an idiot, kind of like you.

cheney..rinse and repeat..you seem to think that because you dislike cheney, others have psych problems.
You're not good with degrees of separation are you? I said people who worship the man like patteeu have psych problems, not merely people agreed with him on some things.

I notice you avoided the elvis rebuttal...shocking!
My only response to a petulant "rebuttal" by a guy who is so pathetic in his own life that he has to dress up and pretend to be someone else was a smilie. What does that tell you about the worth of your "rebuttal?"

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 04:53 PM
So when Obama does the same things Bush had planned to do, Obama gets the credit.
Bush didn't plan a troop withdrawal. In fact, he condemned any suggestion of setting a timetable for such. At best, he gave extremely vague lip service, right at the end of his Presidency, to the possibility of eventually drawing down the troops, intended more to take the wind of the Dems' sails right before the election than to convey any true intention of getting us out of that quagmire. You know it. It's pretty stupid to say that Bush "planned" to bring the troops home. He had five years to do it. If he had "planned to" do it, he would have done it. Bush was leaving office after a double term, he couldn't get elected again even if he wanted to. The war was somebody else's problem, as far as he was concerned. Planned to, my ass.

stevieray
06-16-2009, 05:01 PM
I mostly couldn't have cared less about Miss Cali. I was there to make fun of Comanche, because he's an idiot, kind of like you.


You're not good with degrees of separation are you? I said people who worship the man like patteeu have psych problems, not merely people agreed with him on some things.


My only response to a petulant "rebuttal" by a guy who is so pathetic in his own life that he has to dress up and pretend to be someone else was a smilie. What does that tell you about the worth of your "rebuttal?"



you couldn't have cared less? ROFL proof is in the pudding...

playing semantics again? thrusting words like worship on patt as fact that have to be defended as the truth? it's manipulative and dishonest.

there you go again, labeling me as pathetic because I wear an outfit at games...and somehow wearing that outfit for a total of 48 hours out of the year really defines who I am.

I've met you before..I've been to enough games at home and on the road to spot you a mile away. you see, it's easy because nine out of ten people like it and don't care because they see it for what it is..Its guys like you with a stick up their ass so far it just kills them to see someone just having fun at their expense.

and you talk about pathetic?

HonestChieffan
06-16-2009, 05:06 PM
Bush didn't plan a troop withdrawal. In fact, he condemned any suggestion of setting a timetable for such. At best, he gave extremely vague lip service, right at the end of his Presidency, to the possibility of eventually drawing down the troops, intended more to take the wind of the Dems' sails right before the election than to convey any true intention of getting us out of that quagmire. You know it. It's pretty stupid to say that Bush "planned" to bring the troops home. He had five years to do it. If he had "planned to" do it, he would have done it. Bush was leaving office after a double term, he couldn't get elected again even if he wanted to. The war was somebody else's problem, as far as he was concerned. Planned to, my ass.

He didnt want a public timetable. That is not the same as not planning to come home. You Obot nutbags can read more into things than any group of people I think I have ever seen.

As to your ass, thats your head making it so uncomfortable

mlyonsd
06-16-2009, 05:13 PM
Bush didn't plan a troop withdrawal. In fact, he condemned any suggestion of setting a timetable for such. At best, he gave extremely vague lip service, right at the end of his Presidency, to the possibility of eventually drawing down the troops, intended more to take the wind of the Dems' sails right before the election than to convey any true intention of getting us out of that quagmire. You know it. It's pretty stupid to say that Bush "planned" to bring the troops home. He had five years to do it. If he had "planned to" do it, he would have done it. Bush was leaving office after a double term, he couldn't get elected again even if he wanted to. The war was somebody else's problem, as far as he was concerned. Planned to, my ass.

WTF? Bush made an agreement with the Iraqi administration on a troop withdrawl before he left office.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2009, 05:16 PM
WTF? Bush made an agreement with the Iraqi administration on a troop withdrawl before he left office.

It was only certain troops I thought. Like combat troops. It definitely wasn't all troops though. And that will be the same with Obama. Plus Obama's gonna have a surge too.

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 05:16 PM
WTF? Bush made an agreement with the Iraqi administration on a troop withdrawl before he left office.

No he didn't. That can't be true because otherwise Nightwish would look like a total idiot.

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 05:17 PM
It was only certain troops I thought. Like combat troops. It definitely wasn't all troops though. And that will be the same with Obama. Plus Obama's gonna have a surge too.

Of course it's only certain troops. It's never all of the troops. Hell, we haven't pulled out of Germany, Korea, or Bosnia completely.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 05:29 PM
WTF? Bush made an agreement with the Iraqi administration on a troop withdrawl before he left office.
It was a treaty agreement, and it was never ratified by Congress, so it was never official on our part (which Bush knew). In legal terms, it doesn't exist, meaning there is no legal responsibility on our part to uphold any aspect of the treaty agreement. And the Pentagon has interpreted it to exempt combat troops, which are permitted to remain indefinitely, unless the Obama Administration challenges their interpretation.

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 05:46 PM
It was a treaty agreement, and it was never ratified by Congress, so it was never official on our part (which Bush knew). In legal terms, it doesn't exist, meaning there is no legal responsibility on our part to uphold any aspect of the treaty agreement. And the Pentagon has interpreted it to exempt combat troops, which are permitted to remain indefinitely, unless the Obama Administration challenges their interpretation.

It wasn't ratified by the Democrat-controlled Congress which included Barack Obama, and that's Bush's fault?

orange
06-16-2009, 05:49 PM
It wasn't ratified by the Democrat-controlled Congress which included Barack Obama, and that's Bush's fault?

It wasn't ratified because it wasn't acceptable. Bush knew it would never be ratified. It was just one last song-and-dance for his fans.


Obama rejects Bush Iraq withdrawal plan
Says president's plan gives Iraq's leaders a blank check

...

updated 7:05 a.m. MT, Tues., Sept . 9, 2008
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama blasted George W. Bush's decision to keep Iraq war troop levels largely unchanged, linking rival John McCain to the unpopular president's war policies as he tried to regain momentum in the U.S presidential race.

...

The first-term Illinois senator has also campaigned on a pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president, and Bush's announcement allows him to refocus attention away from Palin and onto the two wars being fought by American troops, an issue that U.S. voters have turned away from in their anxiety over the shaky economy.

Bush said Tuesday that he would keep the U.S. force strength in Iraq largely intact until the next president takes over and outlined what he called a "quiet surge" of additional American forces in Afghanistan. Obama fired back that the announcement means taxpayers "will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus."

...

"In the absence of a timetable to remove our combat brigades, we will continue to give Iraq's leaders a blank check instead of pressing them to reconcile their differences," Obama said while campaigning in Ohio, a crucial swing state.

"Now, the choice for the American people could not be clearer. John McCain has been talking a lot about change, but he's running for four more years of the same foreign policy that we've had under George Bush. Senator McCain will continue the overwhelming focus on Iraq that has taken our eye off of the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11," Obama said.

...

Bush's announcement means that the U.S. will withdraw about 8,000 combat and support troops by February — a drawdown not as deep or swift as long anticipated — and what likely will be Bush's last major move on troop strategy in Iraq.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26621558/

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 05:52 PM
It wasn't ratified because it wasn't acceptable. Bush knew it would never be ratified. It was just one last song-and-dance for his fans.

I thought that his fans were war mongers and profiteers. Why would he throw them a bone by planning to pull out the troops?

I don't know why I even bother. You are so in the tank that you are literally crediting Obama for pulling out the troops (which hasn't happened) while lambasting Bush for putting forth a plan to withdraw the troops that was rejected by the Democrats.

While you're on a roll, you might as well tell me how Bush made the market drop another 100 points today.

orange
06-16-2009, 05:54 PM
I thought that his fans were war mongers and profiteers. Why would he throw them a bone by planning to pull out the troops?

I don't know why I even bother. You are so in the tank that you are literally crediting Obama for pulling out the troops (which hasn't happened) while lambasting Bush for putting forth a plan to withdraw the troops that was rejected by the Democrats.

While you're on a roll, you might as well tell me how Bush made the market drop another 100 points today.

Read above. Bush's plan didn't do nearly enough. Isn't that clear enough for you?

Bush's announcement means that the U.S. will withdraw about 8,000 combat and support troops by February — a drawdown not as deep or swift as long anticipated — and what likely will be Bush's last major move on troop strategy in Iraq.

"Why would Bush throw them a bone?" He threw a bone to McCain to help his campaign.

This huge withdrawal by Bush exists mainly in your own mind.

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 05:58 PM
Read above. Bush's plan didn't do nearly enough. Isn't that clear enough for you?

Bush's announcement means that the U.S. will withdraw about 8,000 combat and support troops by February — a drawdown not as deep or swift as long anticipated — and what likely will be Bush's last major move on troop strategy in Iraq.

"Why would Bush throw them a bone?" He threw a bone to McCain to help his campaign.

This huge withdrawal by Bush exists mainly in your own mind.

8,000 troops...Is that more or less than what Obama has withdrawn?

orange
06-16-2009, 06:07 PM
8,000 troops...Is that more or less than what Obama has withdrawn?

Can't give you an actual number, but here:


Leaders Begin Troop Withdrawal in Iraq, General Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 9, 2009 – Military leaders in Iraq have begun working toward achieving President Barack Obama’s goal of a complete troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2010, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman said during a briefing from Iraq yesterday.

“Between now and September … we’ll be reducing by two brigade combat teams here on the ground in Iraq,” Army Maj. Gen. David Perkins, the command’s director for strategic effects, said. “We’ll also be reducing the number of various enablers.”

Enablers are the units that make it possible for the brigade combat teams to carry out their missions, such as military police, and engineer, logistic and transportation units.

An Air Force F-16 squadron also won’t be replaced, Perkins said.

Additionally, “The British brigade down south will return back to the [United Kingdom] and not be replaced,” Perkins said. “What this gives you is the total of about 12,000 U.S. forces reduction, and 4,000 British forces reduced as far as total end strength.”

The changes will not compromise security, though, the general said. Assets will be repositioned throughout Iraq in coordination with the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces based on the threat level at various locations.

This is the model previously followed, he said. Between the height of the troop surge and now, forces have been reduced by more than 20 percent, he said.

By the end of March, nearly 74 facilities, operating bases and areas that the United States has been occupying will be turned over to the Iraqi government. To date, 30 have been turned over since January.

“All of this is made possible because of the dramatic reduction in attacks and the increase in the overall security here in Iraq,” Perkins noted.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/03/mil-090309-afps04.htm

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 06:18 PM
Can't give you an actual number, but here:


[INDENT]Leaders Begin Troop Withdrawal in Iraq, General Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 9, 2009 – Military leaders in Iraq have begun working toward achieving President Barack Obama’s goal of a complete troop withdrawal...

Between the height of the troop surge and now, forces have been reduced by more than 20 percent, he said.

That's quite an accomplishment that they have "begun working toward achieving" the goal and that the forces have been reduced by 20% since the absolute peak.

The stock market has increased 31% since it's absolute trough. I wouldn't qualify this a boom just yet though. Maybe it's a sign that we have begun working towards achieving Obama's goal of creating 3 million jobs.


Basically, the article is using BS numbers to make it look like Obama has done something. How many troops were over there when he took office, and how many are there now?

KCTitus
06-16-2009, 06:28 PM
TMaybe it's a sign that we have begun working towards achieving Obama's goal of creating 3 million jobs.

3 million...maybe you havent noticed but Washington DC is awash in money. It's got the lowest employment rate in the U.S.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 06:29 PM
It wasn't ratified by the Democrat-controlled Congress which included Barack Obama, and that's Bush's fault?
From what I read, it was never even presented for ratification - Congress was never consulted.

orange
06-16-2009, 06:30 PM
That's quite an accomplishment that they have "begun working toward achieving" the goal and that the forces have been reduced by 20% since the absolute peak.

The stock market has increased 31% since it's absolute trough. I wouldn't qualify this a boom just yet though. Maybe it's a sign that we have begun working towards achieving Obama's goal of creating 3 million jobs.


Basically, the article is using BS numbers to make it look like Obama has done something. How many troops were over there when he took office, and how many are there now?

December 145,000
January 142,000
February 140,000
March 135,000

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20090424.pdf (page 24)

No data for April-May-June yet. Most of the reduction from Dec. through Feb. was on Bush's timeline - didn't come close to his promised 8000. The 5000 actual reduction was matched in one month in March. And beyond?

Happy now?

KC Dan
06-16-2009, 06:35 PM
December 145,000
January 142,000
February 140,000

No data for April-May-June yet. Most of the reduction from Dec. through Feb. was on Bush's timeline - didn't come close to his promised 8000. The 5000 actual reduction was matched in one month in March. And beyond.

Happy now?
So, does that mean that Obama has reduced it from 137,000 to 135,000 since you posted "Bush's announcement means that the U.S. will withdraw about 8,000 combat and support troops by February"?

orange
06-16-2009, 06:36 PM
So, does that mean that Obama has reduced it from 137,000 to 135,000 since you posted "Bush's announcement means that the U.S. will withdraw about 8,000 combat and support troops by February"?

Except that he - Bush - DIDN'T MEET HIS ANNOUNCED TARGET as you can plainly see. 142,000 in January. 140,000 in February. Why are you touting some phantom number announced five months earlier instead of reality?

Obama took office Jan. 14. The January and most of February reductions were BEFORE HIS POLICIES WERE IMPLEMENTED.

KC Dan
06-16-2009, 06:38 PM
Except that he - Bush - DIDN'T MEET HIS ANNOUNCED TARGET as you can plainly see.
I can't disagree with that and I am really not siding with Bush other than he started the ball rolling and BO hasn't really pushed the ball any faster like he said he would.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 06:38 PM
you are literally crediting Obama for setting an official timeline for pulling out the troops (which has started) while lambasting Bush for putting forth a ploy to give the appearance that he would withdraw the troops that was never presented to the Democrats.
FYP

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 06:41 PM
FYP

In what way was Bush's plan to withdraw the troops a ploy? Hit me with some specifics.

orange
06-16-2009, 06:42 PM
I can't disagree with that and I am really not siding with Bush other than he started the ball rolling and BO hasn't really pushed the ball any faster like he said he would.

5000 reduction in one month - March - that's considerably faster. And of course we can't tell yet what has taken place since, but Bush's announcement didn't go beyond February so there is no benchmark to compare to - except Obama's stated plan to be out before 2011.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 06:43 PM
I've met you before..I've been to enough games at home and on the road to spot you a mile away. you see, it's easy because nine out of ten people like it and don't care because they see it for what it is..Its guys like you with a stick up their ass so far it just kills them to see someone just having fun at their expense.
At first I didn't think much of it, thought you were just another idiot in a costume. Then I heard other teams' announcers singling you out and making fun of you (in a way they rarely do to other teams' superfans). Then I almost felt sorry for you, until I realized you were the same stevieray that I knew to be one of the less, shall we say, intellectual posters on this board, and then I realized you were simply an embarassment.

orange
06-16-2009, 06:46 PM
5000 reduction in one month - March - that's considerably faster. And of course we can't tell yet what has taken place since, but Bush's announcement didn't go beyond February so there is no benchmark to compare to - except Obama's stated plan to be out before 2011.

I'll correct myself here - the Bush plan ended up (after negotiations without Iraq) having almost all combat troops out in three years, so there is another benchmark to compare to.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 06:51 PM
I'll correct myself here - the Bush plan ended up (after negotiations without Iraq) having almost all combat troops out in three years, so there is another benchmark to compare to.
Except that he did it in a way that he knew would not make anyone beholden to the plan.

mlyonsd
06-16-2009, 07:52 PM
Watching the libs argue when an agreement was reached with Iraq for us to pull out is comical.

stevieray
06-16-2009, 07:56 PM
At first I didn't think much of it, thought you were just another idiot in a costume. Then I heard other teams' announcers singling you out and making fun of you (in a way they rarely do to other teams' superfans). Then I almost felt sorry for you, until I realized you were the same stevieray that I knew to be one of the less, shall we say, intellectual posters on this board, and then I realized you were simply an embarassment.

to whom? you?

other teams announcers single me out? I'd love to see it..that'd be a hoot..have any proof?

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 07:58 PM
to whom? you?

other teams announcers single me out? I'd love to see it..that'd be a hoot..have any proof?

Why do you bother? It's like arguing with DarthCarlSatan. There's plenty of intelligent people on the board that are worth debating. Nightwish is not one of them.

stevieray
06-16-2009, 08:01 PM
Why do you bother? It's like arguing with DarthCarlSatan. There's plenty of intelligent people on the board that are worth debating. Nightwish is not one of them.

:doh!:

orange
06-16-2009, 08:05 PM
Watching the libs argue when an agreement was reached with Iraq for us to pull out is comical.

An "agreement" that was reached AFTER Obama was elected.
An "agreement" that called for withdrawal at HALF the speed the new president was going to implement.
An "agreement" that never had any chance to shape U.S. policy from the day of Obama's inauguration.
An "agreement" that might as well have been printed on toilet paper for easier disposal.


An "agreement" that wingers here are touting as Bush's great diplomatic breakthrough. That's pretty comical in its own right.

Not nearly as side-splitting as wingers now claiming they wanted us out of Iraq all the time. ROFL

Baby Lee
06-16-2009, 08:06 PM
I can only assume, based on the abrupt change in course of discussion, we've all dropped the silly 'Rush wants Obama to get everything thing on his agenda and THEN fail' canard.

Wise move.

orange
06-16-2009, 08:10 PM
No, I think we all agreed that his words meant what they said - "I WANT TO WIN." - in a show devoted exclusively to the aftermath of the election.

Until his cover-my-ass revisionism set in.

Whatever this forum thinks hardly matters in any case. People all have their own opinions, and Rush's negatives are MUCH higher than his positives - so much so that the Democrats are more than happy to spotlight every single thing he says.

It's the Republicans who have to keep trying to wash their hands of him.

"He's just an entertainer."

"Oh, sorry Mr. Limbaugh. I didn't mean it."

patteeu
06-16-2009, 09:14 PM
Hey, dumbass, he's a signed member of the PNAC. They're the Neocon mothership! Did you somehow miss that? Or are you just desparately trying to exxonerate your fantasy boy now that the neocons are out of favor?

There were several non-neocons who signed PNAC documents. For example, Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's loyal deputy who worked in support of Powell to moderate the Bush administration's approach to Iraq (i.e. in favor of "smart sanctions" as opposed to military action).

I don't think "neocon" is a bad thing to be so I'm clearly not trying to "exonerate" anyone by denying that they are neocons. Cheney shared many of the views of the neocons in the Bush administration and he frequently aligned himself with them in internal policy disputes. Armitage shared the neocon opinion that Saddam's Iraq was a threat to the US, but he was more often than not, on the opposite side of the bureaucratic infighting between the neocons, Rumsfeld, and Cheney on the one hand and Powell and the CIA on the other (to draw the battle lines crudely).

patteeu
06-16-2009, 09:22 PM
Bush didn't plan a troop withdrawal. In fact, he condemned any suggestion of setting a timetable for such. At best, he gave extremely vague lip service, right at the end of his Presidency, to the possibility of eventually drawing down the troops, intended more to take the wind of the Dems' sails right before the election than to convey any true intention of getting us out of that quagmire. You know it. It's pretty stupid to say that Bush "planned" to bring the troops home. He had five years to do it. If he had "planned to" do it, he would have done it. Bush was leaving office after a double term, he couldn't get elected again even if he wanted to. The war was somebody else's problem, as far as he was concerned. Planned to, my ass.

Bush negotiated a troop withdrawal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Framework_Agreement) with the Iraqis. The same one Obama says he's going to fulfill. Where have you been?

patteeu
06-16-2009, 09:36 PM
At first I didn't think much of it, thought you were just another idiot in a costume. Then I heard other teams' announcers singling you out and making fun of you (in a way they rarely do to other teams' superfans). Then I almost felt sorry for you, until I realized you were the same stevieray that I knew to be one of the less, shall we say, intellectual posters on this board, and then I realized you were simply an embarassment.

:stupid:

I don't believe you.

mlyonsd
06-17-2009, 07:15 AM
Bush negotiated a troop withdrawal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Framework_Agreement) with the Iraqis. The same one Obama says he's going to fulfill. Where have you been?

Facts don't matter.

Pretty soon Obama will be responsible for the surge.

RaiderH8r
06-17-2009, 07:48 AM
His brand of "protection" has made it a bigger target than it ever was before. The fact that we weren't successfully attacked again since 9/11 is more a credit to the intelligence community than to Bush-era foreign policy. The number of plots discovered agains the US during the Bush years actually increased over past presidencies, which indicates that the number of plots formed against the US likewise increased. And as long as we keep propping up Bush-era foreign policy, that target will keep getting bigger, and eventually something is going to slip through the cracks.

And despite all of that the US was never successfully attacked. So you've just supported Bush/Cheney's track record of success in defending the US. Well played sir, well played indeed.

patteeu
06-17-2009, 07:49 AM
Facts don't matter.

Pretty soon Obama will be responsible for the surge.

LMAO