PDA

View Full Version : Obama The cost of Obamas little Libyan escapade,,


HonestChieffan
06-09-2011, 04:14 PM
I suppose this is worth it, right? We have the money I guess....



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11d5624c-920f-11e0-b8c1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OnT9bMM6


(FT) — US military operations in Libya are on course to cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Pentagon estimated, according to figures obtained by the Financial Times.

Robert Gates, the outgoing secretary of defence, said last month that the Pentagon expected to spend “somewhere in the ball park of $750m” in the 2011 fiscal year as part of efforts to protect the Libyan people.

But according to a Pentagon memo which includes a detailed update on the progress and pace of operations, by mid-May US operations in Libya had cost $664m, a figure confirmed by the Department of Defence.

The document, entitled the “United States Contribution to Operation Unified Protector’’, adds that US costs are running at a rate of about $2m a day or $60m a month. The memo has been circulating on Capitol Hill since last week. The DoD declined to comment on the increased costs of the operation.

Ugly Duck
06-10-2011, 12:16 AM
I suppose this is worth it, right? We have the money I guess....



The cost of Obamas little Libyan escapade: $634,000,000 (millions)
.....The cost of Bush's little Iraqi escapade: $3,000,000,000,000 (trillions)

The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Der Flöprer
06-10-2011, 12:17 AM
The cost of Obamas little Libyan escapade: $634,000,000 (millions)
.....The cost of Bush's little Iraqi escapade: $3,000,000,000,000 (trillions)

Semantics.

Bowser
06-10-2011, 12:20 AM
Donger is going to help out by lowering gas prices. He promised.

Chocolate Hog
06-10-2011, 12:22 AM
We are safer today than we were 3 months ago/ Patteau

whoman69
06-10-2011, 12:00 PM
If those carriers weren't spending money in Libya, they would be spending it elsewhere.

alpha_omega
06-10-2011, 12:18 PM
The cost of Obamas little Libyan escapade: $634,000,000 (millions)
.....The cost of Bush's little Iraqi escapade: $3,000,000,000,000 (trillions)



Saw that response coming before i even finished reading the thread title. Thanks for not disappointing Duck.

vailpass
06-10-2011, 12:33 PM
The cost of Obamas little Libyan escapade: $634,000,000 (millions)
.....The cost of Bush's little Iraqi escapade: $3,000,000,000,000 (trillions)

The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

3 years into it and it and obama apologists still cling to President Bush. Pathetic.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2011, 12:52 PM
It is an interesting comparison the UD brings up. He unwittingly demonstrates that logic like his shows he and others like him lack principles.

One can object to the Iraq war. But it was voted on and authorized by Congress. Thus if we want to establish "blame" it is more appropriate on Congress, or congress and Bush. But lets for now blame Bush, not congress.

If you oppose the Iraq war and assuming you have some standards that you use and some principle on which you base your objection, then it seems logical that those same standards and principles would apply and you would object to the Libya adventure and probably to a greater degree since Congress was not asked. In this case would your standards that drive a blame Bush not be more in play and would cast Obama in a worse light?


Is the standard that we hold Obama or any public official to the worst case example we can find? If you have this huge level of disrespect for Bush and see him as the worst of the worst, then does that mean to Obama supporters that they will stand by him if he is equal to Bush?

At what point is Obama held to his own standards? Where his promises are used to measure his actions? Or are we going to see Obama defended for lying and misleading if we can compare him to Nixon? Or Andrew Johnson?

Are democrats incapable of holding other democrats behavior up to a standard? Or does Anthony Weiner now establish a new low that democrats can compare to? Did he move the bar lower than Clinton? Or since he didn't kill any girlfriends, its ok case Kennedy was worse?

I dont give Republicans a bye on this either. But it seems more consistent with democrats who violate the public trust that they seem to avoid dismissal time and time again.

Bewbies
06-10-2011, 05:32 PM
3 years into it and it and obama apologists still cling to President Bush. Pathetic.

Come on, you know Obama is going to run his campaign against Bush and a little bit of the current nominee sprinkled on the side.

Barak Obuttocks
06-18-2011, 08:53 PM
I prevented a massacre. Can you put a price on that?

kstater
06-18-2011, 09:04 PM
I suppose this is worth it, right? We have the money I guess....



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11d5624c-920f-11e0-b8c1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OnT9bMM6


(FT) — US military operations in Libya are on course to cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Pentagon estimated, according to figures obtained by the Financial Times.

Robert Gates, the outgoing secretary of defence, said last month that the Pentagon expected to spend “somewhere in the ball park of $750m” in the 2011 fiscal year as part of efforts to protect the Libyan people.

But according to a Pentagon memo which includes a detailed update on the progress and pace of operations, by mid-May US operations in Libya had cost $664m, a figure confirmed by the Department of Defence.

The document, entitled the “United States Contribution to Operation Unified Protector’’, adds that US costs are running at a rate of about $2m a day or $60m a month. The memo has been circulating on Capitol Hill since last week. The DoD declined to comment on the increased costs of the operation.

I'm no math wizard, but wouldn't 2M/day equal 750m?

Mr. Kotter
06-18-2011, 09:57 PM
Republican or conservative ideologues who post crap like this or jump on the retard bandwagon, and who were either supportive or silent about W's escapes in Afghanistan or Iraq...are complete douche-bag hypocrites.

Just sayin' :shake:

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 06:22 AM
Republican or conservative ideologues who post crap like this or jump on the retard bandwagon, and who were either supportive or silent about W's escapes in Afghanistan or Iraq...are complete douche-bag hypocrites.

Just sayin' :shake:

More fail from Horschack.

FAX
06-19-2011, 07:36 AM
Bombing the living hell out of a crazy dictator? $600 Million
Bombing the living hell out of everybody else? $3 Trillion
Making a whole bunch of big time Jewish campaign contributors happy? Priceless.

FAX

mlyonsd
06-19-2011, 08:33 AM
Republican or conservative ideologues who post crap like this or jump on the retard bandwagon, and who were either supportive or silent about W's escapes in Afghanistan or Iraq...are complete douche-bag hypocrites.

Just sayin' :shake:

So are the liberals that were on the retard bandwagon bitching about W's policies and are now silent.

banyon
06-19-2011, 08:35 AM
So are the liberals that were on the retard bandwagon bitching about W's policies and are now silent.

I think the point is that crying foul over a few million after people supported building up the debt of trillions that we are now sitting on rings a little hollow.

(and I do not support this mission)

mlyonsd
06-19-2011, 08:44 AM
I think the point is that crying foul over a few million after people supported building up the debt of trillions that we are now sitting on rings a little hollow.

(and I do not support this mission)No I get Kotter's point and can't disagree with it.

But that doesn't mean I won't point out hypocrisy from the other side.

Frankie
06-19-2011, 04:23 PM
......
But according to a Pentagon memo which includes a detailed update on the progress and pace of operations, by mid-May US operations in Libya had cost $664m, a figure confirmed by the Department of Defence.

......

Have they found the missing $17 Billion in Iraq yet? :hmmm:

Can I suggest a good place to start looking? It starts with H and ends in alliburton.

When we recover that money we will have more than paid for the Lybian involvement.

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 04:26 PM
It starts with H and ends in alliburton.



LMAO


When we recover that money we will have more than paid for the Lybian involvement.

The labia? What?

Saul Good
06-19-2011, 04:27 PM
Republican or conservative ideologues who post crap like this or jump on the retard bandwagon, and who were either supportive or silent about W's escapes in Afghanistan or Iraq...are complete douche-bag hypocrites.

Just sayin' :shake:

The difference is that Bush got authorization from congress. Oh yeah, and Obama hasn't removed us from Iraq and Afghanistan, either.

Frankie
06-19-2011, 04:39 PM
The difference is that Bush got authorization from congress. Oh yeah, and Obama hasn't removed us from Iraq and Afghanistan, either.

If you think anyone would have pulled out of Afghanistan by now you are being naive. I hate it that we are there. But Pakistan has the bomb and a very real radical Islamic problem boiling below the surface. I think Obama found out that we need to stay next door to Pakistan as long as we can. Again I hate it but I see why it may be necessary until a better solution becomes available.

orange
06-19-2011, 04:41 PM
Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation

Question about money to repay American contribution prompts reaction
Posted: June 18, 2011
12:40 am Eastern

By F. Michael Maloof
© 2011 WND

WASHINGTON – A Congressional delegation was kicked out of Iraq after the leader of the group, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., asked Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki if a portion of future oil revenues could be used to pay back money spent over the course of eight years by the United States following the 2003 invasion to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The ouster came amid efforts by U.S. officials to get al-Maliki to request an extension of U.S. troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31 deadline when all U.S. troops are supposed to be out of the country.

"We called the U.S. embassy…and we told them to ask the congressmen to leave Iraq," according to Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. "We don't want them here. What they said was inappropriate."

Rohrabacher said that he posed the question in the form of request to the prime minister. Al-Dabbagh, however, disputes that the California congressman raised it with al-Maliki.

Rohrabacher, who is a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was adamant that he took up the issue with al-Maliki.

"Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country, we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the U.S. some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years," Rohrabacker said.

Indeed, such a request is not unprecedented. During Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990-1991, also known as the First Gulf War, the U.S. received payment from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for U.S. intervention in Kuwait to remove the invading Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein.

Since the March 2003 U.S. invasion, the U.S. has spent an estimated $1 trillion during the occupation and reconstruction, with some 4,462 service members killed and an estimated 100,000 wounded, many seriously.

At present, some 45,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq performing training and equipping of Iraqi soldiers.

The Rohrabacher-led, six-person bi-partisan delegation was in Iraq to investigate a camp that housed Iranian dissidents, 34 of whom were allegedly massacred by Iraqi security forces.

Al-Maliki also barred the U.S. congressional delegation from visiting the camp where the clash took place, citing Iraqi sovereignty as the basis for the denial.

Despite the denial of access, Rohrabacher said that he would seek a criminal probe of whether the Iraqis had mistreated the dissidents.

Sources say that there is some question whether the U.S. Congress has the authority to investigate potential criminal conduct in Iraq.

"We are investigating to see if criminal behavior caused the death of these non-combatants," Rohrabacher said. "The killing of unarmed people, a mass killing, is a criminal act and a crime against humanity."

The dissidents are from the MEK, or Mujahidin-e Khalq, and are opposed to the Shi'ite Iranian regime which has considerable influence over al-Maliki, who also is Shi'ite.

Saddam Hussein had used the MEK, which the U.S. at one point had declared to be a terrorist group. In backing Hussein, the MEK was used by the Hussein regime to perform internal security. At one point during the Hussein period, there were a considerable number of MEK camps spread throughout Iraq.

Following the U.S. invasion, the MEK began to work with U.S. Special Forces and ultimately the organization was removed from the U.S. terrorist list.

Because of Iran's influence, al-Maliki is under considerable pressure from the Islamic regime to decide against requesting an extension of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline when they are due to leave.

In requesting that a portion of oil revenues be used to pay back money the U.S. has spent in Iraq over the past eight years, however, Rohrabacher was expressing a viewpoint made by policymakers during the Bush administration to make U.S. intervention more palatable.

In testimony given on March 27, 2003 – a week following the U.S. invasion of Iraq – then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee that oil revenue from Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war.

At the time, Wolfowitz said that oil revenues from Iraq could bring up to $100 billion over the course of the "next two or three years."

Back then, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of the occupation was up to some $48 billion a year. At the time, it was estimated that the U.S. occupation could last 18 months or more.

"Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon," Wolfowitz told the committee at the time.

At the Pentagon back then, Andrew Marshall, the influential director of the Net Assessment Office, also had recommended that oil revenues be used to defray the cost of the military occupation in Iraq.

A source involved in writing the Net Assessment Office report said that the conclusion reflected many senior Bush administration officials.

"They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq," the source said at the time. "I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation."

Indeed, there were proposals for the U.S. to seize revenues to pay for the occupation and tap Iraq's oil to help pay for the cost of the U.S. military occupation.

Other senior administration officials at the time similarly felt that oil revenues could help defray the cost of the U.S. Iraqi occupation.

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves," said Richard Perle who then was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, a key advisory group to the Secretary of Defense. "They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."

Kenneth Pollack, then director for Persian Gulf Affairs at the National Security Council, said in September 2002 that "it is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."

And there was Glenn Hubbard, then White House economic advisor, who said: "The costs of any intervention would be very small."


From that bastion of commie-loving Obama-koolaid drinkers, World Net Daily (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=312317#ixzz1PlCmEgwE).

orange
06-19-2011, 04:44 PM
There is SO MUCH FAIL in that article, I had to post the whole thing. A timely reminder of good ol' Georgie boy for those of you who have chosen to forget.

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 05:16 PM
If you think anyone would have pulled out of Afghanistan by now you are being naive.

Exactly. Obama lied to millions of naive people just to get elected.

Frankie
06-19-2011, 06:32 PM
Exactly. Obama lied to millions of naive people just to get elected.

I think Obama was naive himself before he got into the WH. The time to quickly go in and out of Afghanistan was 8 years ago, but your hero Bush fumbled with his hard on for Sadam.

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 06:38 PM
I think Obama was naive himself before he got into the WH. The time to quickly go in and out of Afghanistan was 8 years ago, but your hero Bush fumbled with his hard on for Sadam.

That's right, useful idiot, keep blaming bush, so I can get re-elected and finish the job. :thumb:

mlyonsd
06-19-2011, 06:42 PM
I think Obama was naive himself before he got into the WH. The time to quickly go in and out of Afghanistan was 8 years ago, but your hero Bush fumbled with his hard on for Sadam.Ok, that made me laugh. On so many levels.

CoMoChief
06-19-2011, 06:45 PM
Hahaha, we literally have the nerve to ask Iraq if they can re-pay US for the destruction we caused to their country and to their people.

Hey Iraq.....we came in full throttle, invaded and bombed the shit out of your capital, as well as killing millions of Iraqi's (some even being innocent civilian casualties), but yeah we definitely need for you to repay us for that. ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-19-2011, 09:25 PM
The difference is that Bush got authorization from congress. Oh yeah, and Obama hasn't removed us from Iraq and Afghanistan, either.

That's a half-truth but I guess half is better than none as Obama is doing.

Bush delayed in getting that authorization because he didn't believe he needed it. Cheney and other advisors to Bush didn't think he needed it. Bush felt the agreement after PGWI was good enough. Rumsfeld met with some senators and they felt they didn't have enough to go on. The authorization ultimately given by that Congress was written in a way that transfers Congressional authority "to decide" over to the president which is unConstitutional too. They shirked their duty here. It was all just show.

Jaric
06-20-2011, 08:25 AM
Democrat or liberal ideologues who bitched about W's escapes in Afghanistan or Iraq, and who are now either supportive or silent about Libya ...are complete douche-bag hypocrites.

Just sayin' :shake:

Fixed. Partisan hackery goes both ways.

patteeu
06-20-2011, 08:29 AM
The cost of Obamas little Libyan escapade: $634,000,000 (millions)
.....The cost of Bush's little Iraqi escapade: $3,000,000,000,000 (trillions)

The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

I'd tell you to divide those numbers by the vital national interests at stake, but since we've been told that we don't have any national interests at stake in Libya, your calculator would explode.

Jaric
06-20-2011, 08:31 AM
I'd tell you do divide those numbers by the vital national interests at stake, but since we've been told that we don't have any national interests at stake in Libya, your calculator would explode.

False. Due to the power of Obama, Liberals can now divide by zero.

patteeu
06-20-2011, 08:32 AM
Republican or conservative ideologues who post crap like this or jump on the retard bandwagon, and who were either supportive or silent about W's escapes in Afghanistan or Iraq...are complete douche-bag hypocrites.

Just sayin' :shake:

Why?

patteeu
06-20-2011, 08:32 AM
False. Due to the power of Obama, Liberals can now divide by zero.

Oh yeah, I forgot.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 10:19 AM
I'd tell you to divide those numbers by the vital national interests at stake, but since we've been told that we don't have any national interests at stake in Libya, your calculator would explode.

What exactly were our "national interests" regarding Iraq?

patteeu
06-20-2011, 10:37 AM
What exactly were our "national interests" regarding Iraq?

Saddam's military repeatedly targeted our aircraft in the no fly zone, he had a history of supporting islamist terrorists and a history of trying to develop WMD capability. He also had historical ties with elements of al Qaeda. There are numerous others, but you can look up some old Bush administration speeches to learn about them if you've really managed to keep your head buried for the past decade.

Libya, by contrast, was advertised by the current administration as not being a situation where any vital national interests were at stake.

Pants
06-20-2011, 10:42 AM
Hahaha, we literally have the nerve to ask Iraq if they can re-pay US for the destruction we caused to their country and to their people.

Hey Iraq.....we came in full throttle, invaded and bombed the shit out of your capital, as well as killing millions of Iraqi's (some even being innocent civilian casualties), but yeah we definitely need for you to repay us for that. ROFL

LMAO

Chocolate Hog
06-20-2011, 12:00 PM
Patteeu is fringe.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 12:05 PM
Saddam's military repeatedly targeted our aircraft in the no fly zone, he had a history of supporting islamist terrorists and a history of trying to develop WMD capability. He also had historical ties with elements of al Qaeda. There are numerous others, but you can look up some old Bush administration speeches to learn about them if you've really managed to keep your head buried for the past decade.

Libya, by contrast, was advertised by the current administration as not being a situation where any vital national interests were at stake.

Only Pat can still hold on to debunked material like dear life.

patteeu
06-20-2011, 12:13 PM
Only Pat can still hold on to debunked material like dear life.

None of it has been debunked, but in any event, like a horse that has been led to water but chooses not to drink, I can't make you face reality.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 12:17 PM
None of it has been debunked, but in any event, like a horse that has been led to water but chooses not to drink, I can't make you face reality.

:bong:

orange
06-20-2011, 12:28 PM
Saddam's military repeatedly targeted our aircraft in the no fly zone

You mean our aircraft participating in Operation Southern Focus - the air offensive Bush launched secretly four months prior to gaining Congressional authorization for action against Iraq, which destroyed Iraq's air defenses. The Operation Southern Focus whose existence was denied until a year later?

Frankie
06-20-2011, 01:01 PM
You mean our aircraft participating in Operation Southern Focus - the air offensive Bush launched secretly four months prior to gaining Congressional authorization for action against Iraq, which destroyed Iraq's air defenses. The Operation Southern Focus whose existence was denied until a year later?

None of that ever happened. Pat told me so.

mlyonsd
06-20-2011, 01:06 PM
You mean our aircraft participating in Operation Southern Focus - the air offensive Bush launched secretly four months prior to gaining Congressional authorization for action against Iraq, which destroyed Iraq's air defenses. The Operation Southern Focus whose existence was denied until a year later?So you're predicting Obama is going to invade Libya?

Chief Faithful
06-20-2011, 01:14 PM
I really don't understand the connection between what Obama is doing with Lybia and what Bush did in Iraq. If we really want to make a connection of failed ME policies that affect us today I suggest we talk about Jimmy Carter's handling of Iran.

mlyonsd
06-20-2011, 01:20 PM
I really don't understand the connection between what Obama is doing with Lybia and what Bush did in Iraq. If we really want to make a connection of failed ME policies that affect us today I suggest we talk about Jimmy Carter's handling of Iran.

It appears to be an attempt to salvage Obama's reputation by making him look just like Bush instead of much worse when it comes to using the military for nation building.

Which is pretty ironic if you think about it....using Bush as a life preserver to save your reputation when it comes to attacking a country that poses no threat.;)

orange
06-20-2011, 01:38 PM
It appears to be an attempt to salvage Obama's reputation by making him look just like Bush instead of much worse when it comes to using the military for nation building.

You're completely wrong, of course. But you seem to be making a habit of that in this thread:

So you're predicting Obama is going to invade Libya?

No, nothing of the sort. How you can spin a direct contrast into a semblance of similarity is, dare-I-say, patteeu-esque.

...

What this is is an attempt by anti-Obama zealots to make much, much more out of this Libya campaign than is actually there, in order to somehow wash away some of Bush's stain.


Which is pretty ironic if you think about it....using Bush as a life preserver to save your reputation when it comes to attacking a country that poses no threat.;)

What's "pretty ironic" is that they're jumping in bed with anti-war one-noters to do it. As John McCain said, “I would say to my Republican friends, if this were a Republican president, would you be trying to impose these same conditions? ... “[Reagan] would be saying ‘That’s not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world.’””

And as for quoting Chief Faithful - I know you didn't respond to him directly, but why not? Specifically, should we have sent troops to Iran to prop up the Shah? Maybe you agree that that's just a fruitloop-stupid idea - but that your unwillingness to be seen not trashing Carter prevents you from saying so. Much like the anti-Obama zealots I mentioned above.

mlyonsd
06-20-2011, 05:18 PM
You're completely wrong, of course. But you seem to be making a habit of that in this thread:



No, nothing of the sort. How you can spin a direct contrast into a semblance of similarity is, dare-I-say, patteeu-esque.

...

What this is is an attempt by anti-Obama zealots to make much, much more out of this Libya campaign than is actually there, in order to somehow wash away some of Bush's stain.



What's "pretty ironic" is that they're jumping in bed with anti-war one-noters to do it. As John McCain said, “I would say to my Republican friends, if this were a Republican president, would you be trying to impose these same conditions? ... “[Reagan] would be saying ‘That’s not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world.’””

And as for quoting Chief Faithful - I know you didn't respond to him directly, but why not? Specifically, should we have sent troops to Iran to prop up the Shah? Maybe you agree that that's just a fruitloop-stupid idea - but that your unwillingness to be seen not trashing Carter prevents you from saying so. Much like the anti-Obama zealots I mentioned above.
Heh, any mention of Bush in this thread is nothing more than an excuse to justify Obama's Libya adventure and you know it.

And if you want to play what if's, what if Bush had done this same thing to Libya? Where would orange, the media, and a democratic congress stand?

Glass houses buddy, glass houses.

If you think Bush made a stain and don't use the same criteria when judging Obama we have nothing more to talk about.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 05:28 PM
Heh, any mention of Bush in this thread is nothing more than an excuse to justify Obama's Libya adventure and you know it.

Sorry dude. You guys can't set that rule. Any denial of what Bush and his cronies did to this country is nothing more than an excuse to makes us think 2001-2009 never existed.

Is Obama doing a great job pulling us out of the deep slippery abbys of a shitter that Bush pushed us into? Not IMO. Is he to blame for it? Only according to those in Bush denial.

mlyonsd
06-20-2011, 05:50 PM
Sorry dude. You guys can't set that rule. Any denial of what Bush and his cronies did to this country is nothing more than an excuse to makes us think 2001-2009 never existed.

Is Obama doing a great job pulling us out of the deep slippery abbys of a shitter that Bush pushed us into? Not IMO. Is he to blame for it? Only according to those in Bush denial.If you're walking around the house in your Chief helmet you can take it off. My point was so far above your head there's no chance it will clip your noggin.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 05:57 PM
If you're walking around the house in your Chief helmet you can take it off. My point was so far above your head there's no chance it will clip your noggin.

Say what you want. But your statement clearly disallowed holding Bush responsible for the mess we are in and left blaming Obama as the only allowable option.

patteeu
06-20-2011, 06:02 PM
You mean our aircraft participating in Operation Southern Focus - the air offensive Bush launched secretly four months prior to gaining Congressional authorization for action against Iraq, which destroyed Iraq's air defenses. The Operation Southern Focus whose existence was denied until a year later?

I mean the aircraft patrolling the no fly zone for YEARS prior to gaining Congressional authorization for our invasion.

If you're trying to draw a comparison between what happened during that 4 month period and what is happening in Libya, I think the distinctions are more important than the similarities. The most obvious distinction is that in Iraq, US forces were reacting to acts of war against our aircraft whereas we initiated the attacks in Libya despite a lack of provocation. Another distinction is that we were in a Congressionally authorized state of hostilities with Iraq dating back to the first Gulf War and in Libya there is no such Congressional authorization.

patteeu
06-20-2011, 06:04 PM
Sorry dude. You guys can't set that rule. Any denial of what Bush and his cronies did to this country is nothing more than an excuse to makes us think 2001-2009 never existed.

Is Obama doing a great job pulling us out of the deep slippery abbys of a shitter that Bush pushed us into? Not IMO. Is he to blame for it? Only according to those in Bush denial.

Is Obama to blame for Libya or is his handling of the Libya situation Bush's fault?

Jaric
06-20-2011, 06:10 PM
Sorry dude. You guys can't set that rule. Any denial of what Bush and his cronies did to this country is nothing more than an excuse to makes us think 2001-2009 never existed.

Is Obama doing a great job pulling us out of the deep slippery abbys of a shitter that Bush pushed us into? Not IMO. Is he to blame for it? Only according to those in Bush denial.

Bull.

I hated Bush as a president and I'm hating Obama just as much.

He's the President. He is supposed to offer LEADERSHIP not excuses. Leadership is not pointing fingers and saying "it's this guy's fault!" Leadership is fixing the fucking problems. If it was too tough, he shouldn't have ran.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 06:54 PM
Is Obama to blame for Libya or is his handling of the Libya situation Bush's fault?

There is no "blame" yet. The uprising in Libya asked for help and NATO is giving it. At least that's what's on the surface. Last I checked we were not even leaders in this escapade.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 06:56 PM
Bull.

I hated Bush as a president and I'm hating Obama just as much.

He's the President. He is supposed to offer LEADERSHIP not excuses. Leadership is not pointing fingers and saying "it's this guy's fault!" Leadership is fixing the ****ing problems. If it was too tough, he shouldn't have ran.

"Excuses" would not be necessary if the RWNJs wouldn't stir the shit from day one of his presidency. And leadership is a matter of personal definition.

mlyonsd
06-20-2011, 07:12 PM
There is no "blame" yet. The uprising in Libya asked for help and NATO is giving it. At least that's what's on the surface. Last I checked we were not even leaders in this escapade.

We led the campaign at the start.

So nation building is ok with you if it succeeds?

Jaric
06-20-2011, 07:20 PM
"Excuses" would not be necessary if the RWNJs wouldn't stir the shit from day one of his presidency. And leadership is a matter of personal definition.

:spock:

So the plan is to point fingers at other people until the problem solves itself?

boogblaster
06-20-2011, 07:27 PM
its all a plan its been in place for years .. obama is just the goat .. now carry on folks nothing will change here till we take this country back .. dont make too much money they want 25% of it for taxes ....

Frankie
06-20-2011, 08:20 PM
We led the campaign at the start.

So nation building is ok with you if it succeeds?

You do remember that Ghadafi's forces had surrounded a town about to commit genocide don't you?

Frankie
06-20-2011, 08:22 PM
:spock:

So the plan is to point fingers at other people until the problem solves itself?

No, but it would be nice to allow the person that people overwhelmingly voted for to do what he is here to do without all the bullshit he had to deal with from your side from hour one of his presidency.

HonestChieffan
06-20-2011, 08:24 PM
Stopping about to commit genocide is the same as jobs saved.

Oh, and on the latest example of Islamic love......Pakistani Taliban Strap Suicide Vest To Nine-Year-Old Girl, Sent To Blow Up Police Checkpoint…

(VOA News) — In the Lower Dir tribal area, police Monday said they have detained a 9-year-old girl who was wearing a suicide vest and told to blow up a security checkpoint.

The young girl told reporters at a news conference that she was abducted from the northwestern city of Peshawar on Saturday. She said her captors strapped the bomb on her and dropped her off at the checkpoint near Timergarah, the main town in Lower Dir. Police say the girl was wearing eight kilograms of explosives when she was taken into custody.

Authorities are trying to confirm the girl’s story and search for her captors.

Suicide bombings carried out by young girls or women are extremely rare in Pakistan.

Jaric
06-20-2011, 08:24 PM
You do remember that Ghadafi's forces had surrounded a town about to commit genocide don't you?

You do remember Bush fans using this exact same argument that "Well Saddam was a bad guy!" Remember all those stories about him gassing his own citizens and doing god knows what else to the ones he didn't gas? Yeah, that's you right now. Next we'll be hearing how the Libyans will greet us as liberators.

Mass slaughter in this part of the world isn't new. Hell Africans have been getting slaughtered for centuries and still no one gives a shit.

Probably because they don't have major sources of oil.

Jaric
06-20-2011, 08:26 PM
No, but it would be nice to allow the person that people overwhelmingly voted for to do what he is here to do without all the bullshit he had to deal with from your side from hour one of his presidency.

Well he still managed to force a terrible bankrupting health care bill and start a another completely unnecessary war in the Middle East

Frankie
06-20-2011, 08:30 PM
You do remember Bush fans using this exact same argument that "Well Saddam was a bad guy!" Remember all those stories about him gassing his own citizens and doing god knows what else to the ones he didn't gas? Yeah, that's you right now. Next we'll be hearing how the Libyans will greet us as liberators.

Mass slaughter in this part of the world isn't new. Hell Africans have been getting slaughtered for centuries and still no one gives a shit.

Probably because they don't have major sources of oil.

Apples and oranges. Saddam was a ruthless nut, that's for sure. We conveniently watched when he was committing his genocides, but attacked when he was not. The Libyan case was happening in front of our eyes.

Jaric
06-20-2011, 08:32 PM
Apples and oranges. Saddam was a ruthless nut, that's for sure. We conveniently watched when he was committing his genocides, but attacked when he was not. The Libyan case was happening in front of our eyes.

If you say so Frankie. If you say so.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 08:36 PM
Well he still managed to force a terrible bankrupting health care bill and start a another completely unnecessary war in the Middle East

Costly (in $s) health care for people vs. costly (in lives and $s) Iraq war.

Costly (in $s) health care for people vs. costly (in lives and $s) Iraq war.

:hmmm:

wait,.... give me a minute,.... I'm deciding.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 08:43 PM
Costly (in $s) health care for people vs. costly (in lives and $s) Iraq war.

Costly (in $s) health care for people vs. costly (in lives and $s) Iraq war.

:hmmm:

wait,.... give me a minute,.... I'm deciding.

And BTW, hasn't Iraq cost us about twice the cost of healthcare? Never mind the costs in people's lives and usefulness.

patteeu
06-20-2011, 09:45 PM
There is no "blame" yet. The uprising in Libya asked for help and NATO is giving it. At least that's what's on the surface. Last I checked we were not even leaders in this escapade.

In other words, no, Obama is blameless. He's just following others.

patteeu
06-20-2011, 09:46 PM
You do remember that Ghadafi's forces had surrounded a town about to commit genocide don't you?

I don't remember that.

patteeu
06-20-2011, 09:46 PM
No, but it would be nice to allow the person that people overwhelmingly voted for to do what he is here to do without all the bullshit he had to deal with from your side from hour one of his presidency.

Speaking of Bush (as we always seem to end up doing when we talk about Obama), is that the same approach you took with the Bush administration?

Frankie
06-20-2011, 10:35 PM
I don't remember that.

There has been many things that you have proudly declared you don't remember. And I have noticed as long as you don't remember something it never existed. The name of the city was Ben Ghazi.

Frankie
06-20-2011, 10:43 PM
Speaking of Bush (as we always seem to end up doing when we talk about Obama), is that the same approach you took with the Bush administration?

Did people overwhelmingly vote for Bush? It seems there were controversies over both elections. remember Hanging chads in the state that Jeb had promised to deliver for W and Diebold machines belonging to Bush and Cheney's friend in Wisconsin?

I'm saying that with characters like Karl Rove and other dubious cast involved there were at least some doubt about the legitimacy of both elections, whereas a landslide stands little chance to be phony.

Whether or not those elections were legit they were barely overwhelming referendums for Bush.

Bewbies
06-20-2011, 11:29 PM
Did people overwhelmingly vote for Bush? It seems there were controversies over both elections. remember Hanging chads in the state that Jeb had promised to deliver for W and Diebold machines belonging to Bush and Cheney's friend in Wisconsin?

I'm saying that with characters like Karl Rove and other dubious cast involved there were at least some doubt about the legitimacy of both elections, whereas a landslide stands little chance to be phony.

Whether or not those elections were legit they were barely overwhelming referendums for Bush.

I was wrong about Ugly Duck.

orange
06-20-2011, 11:46 PM
Heh, any mention of Bush in this thread is nothing more than an excuse to justify Obama's Libya adventure and you know it.

Ooooops.

Speaking of Bush (as we always seem to end up doing when we talk about Obama), is that the same approach you took with the Bush administration?

Another theory shot to hell. :harumph:

...

This one, on the other hand, is looking pretty damn good:

What this is is an attempt by anti-Obama zealots to make much, much more out of this Libya campaign than is actually there, in order to somehow wash away some of Bush's stain.

patteeu
06-21-2011, 06:55 AM
There has been many things that you have proudly declared you don't remember. And I have noticed as long as you don't remember something it never existed. The name of the city was Ben Ghazi.

Where did you get "genocide"?

patteeu
06-21-2011, 06:57 AM
Did people overwhelmingly vote for Bush? It seems there were controversies over both elections. remember Hanging chads in the state that Jeb had promised to deliver for W and Diebold machines belonging to Bush and Cheney's friend in Wisconsin?

I'm saying that with characters like Karl Rove and other dubious cast involved there were at least some doubt about the legitimacy of both elections, whereas a landslide stands little chance to be phony.

Whether or not those elections were legit they were barely overwhelming referendums for Bush.

The doubts about Bush's elections are equivalent to the doubts about Obama's birth place.

patteeu
06-21-2011, 06:59 AM
I was wrong about Ugly Duck.

:LOL:

Barak Obuttocks
06-21-2011, 07:23 AM
What this is is an attempt by anti-Obama zealots

What does that make you, Obama's ball-washer?

mlyonsd
06-21-2011, 08:08 AM
Ooooops.



Another theory shot to hell. :harumph:

...

This one, on the other hand, is looking pretty damn good:

Not really, but if you want to take your ball and go home that's fine with me.

Jaric
06-21-2011, 08:44 AM
This one, on the other hand, is looking pretty damn good:
My objection to the war in Libya has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with wanting to make George Bush look better by comparison.

It has everything to do with looking at the mistakes George Bush made, AND NOT FUCKING REPEATING THEM.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 08:46 AM
Apples and oranges. Saddam was a ruthless nut, that's for sure. We conveniently watched when he was committing his genocides, but attacked when he was not. The Libyan case was happening in front of our eyes.

Do you actually think the new people in power are that much different?
They're killing the former Sunnis that were in power and have used their torture chambers on them too. That's what they do over there.

Calcountry
06-21-2011, 01:57 PM
That fat bastard MM was on KO's bullshit show last night saying, that Libya, is wAAAAAY WAYYY different than Iraq.

Wow, I didn't know a fatbody like that could bend over that far.

Frankie
06-21-2011, 05:39 PM
That fat bastard MM was on KO's bullshit show last night saying, that Libya, is wAAAAAY WAYYY different than Iraq.

Wow, I didn't know a fatbody like that could bend over that far.

Way to report things out of context "FOX News!" He was AGAINST the Libyan involvement and critical of Obama.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-23-2011, 12:55 AM
Top 10 New Orwellian Euphemisms for the War in Libya

A patriotic attempt to support the commander in chief

Rather than call the conflict in Libya a war, the Obama administration has introduced a new phrase into the popular lexicon. "The way I like to put it is, from our standpoint at the Pentagon, we're involved in a limited kinetic operation," says Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. President Obama has consistently used the same locution. As critics ridicule it, Obama and his loyalists may find themselves in need of new Orwellian euphemisms for waging this war. I humbly offer a few suggestions for how they can describe our efforts in Libya going forward.

10) A multilateral hazing rite to initiate Libya into the fraternity of free nations.

9) Operations abroad characterized more by their energy than any animus toward what I'll refrain from calling the enemy.

8) The U.S. military's unconventional audition for the upcoming season of Robot Wars.

7) A live ammunition training exercise meant to ensure the preparedness of American troops should they ever need to drive a North African dictator from power.

6) Stimulus spending to create or preserve jobs for hard-working Americans who happen to work in munitions factories.

5) A variation on the successful beer summit held with Professor Gates that shows deference to Libyan cultural taboos surrounding alcohol by substituting Predator drones.

4) A non-hostile military engagement to which the Pottery Barn rule is obviously inapplicable -- the French wouldn't even stoop to breaking things in such a store.

3) A support mission where America is a mere pit crew to the NASCAR drivers of NATO.

2) A determination to lend France and Britain sufficient munitions and refueling capability to give their efforts a new lease on life.

1) An overture to the Libyan people of hope and regime change.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/top-10-new-orwellian-euphemisms-for-the-war-in-libya/240734/

The Mad Crapper
06-23-2011, 07:35 AM
4) A non-hostile military engagement to which the Pottery Barn rule is obviously inapplicable -- the French wouldn't even stoop to breaking things in such a store.

LMAO