2012 Presidential Election

[Ax]

Good enough for a full-scale invasion? You gotta throw the threat of WMDS into the mix.

Shouldn't happen here, since removing the threat from Iraq had the residual effect of removing them from Libya, as well.

Thank you President Bush.

 

[Ax]

Ax, yes there were lots of reasons for getting rid of Hussein. He was a bad bad man.

But we are talking about justification for taking military action. Bush's official justification for invading Iraq was very different than Obama's airstrikes over Libya.

Well, I had jumped in stating how the WMD issue is talked about, by many, as being the SOLE justification for going in. And since we didn't find much, then there was no justification. Which I totally, and emphatically disagree with. I didn't limit my reasoning to a single speech on the eve of going in. But rather the weeks, months, and years leading up to it.

I could have been clearer.

 

[Henry]

so you were ok with all the stuff he was doing to his own people? the rape rooms, the torturing and killing of the soccer team for performing badly? because a no fly zone didnt stop that..

Mike. C'mon man. Don't take this out on me.

Fact is, we don't make a habit of invading countries because they do evil things to their own people. We don't LIKE it, but we don't declare war over it either. There's a whole list of nations we could invade if we just wanted to enforce basic human rights around the world. There's gotta be something else, and in Iraq's case it was the threat of WMDs.

In Lybia's case, in my humble and often incorrect opinion, we are trying to keep the momentum going in the middle east of popular uprisings, so that when all is said and done we are seen as being on the right side of history. Governments are falling in the ME. We can either aid these uprisings, help suppress them or stand on the sidelines. There are decent arguments to be made for each choice, but Obama has, after much deliberation, chosen the first. That's what I think is going on here. Whether or not it's the correct decision we'll find out eventually, but I don't think any of this compares to Iraq in '03 in any way.

Regarding Obama, I'll say the same thing I said about Bush: I sure hope he knows what he's doing.

look, i said the WMDs were false but that he was going under what he was told and thats the truth. congress backed him up (like you said) and we went to war.

if the war was so bad then why didnt Obama pull out sooner than he did? whats his reasons for going in to Afghanistan? he's running the same war campaign as Bush did but the difference is he was one of Dubya's biggest critics when he did it.

hypocrisy at its finest...you criticize me for doing it but turn around and do the exact same thing.

Obama realized things aren't as simple as campaign slogans. He's not the first President to find this out. Not by a long shot.

Getting into a war is easy. Getting out of one ... that's the tough part.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Bottom line: if genocide was enough to mobilize the US military into a full-fledged war effort, we'd have been in many more wars by now. Japan had to attack Pear Harbor before we decided to take on Hitler and stop his genocide.

 

[Elephant]

I get the feeling Newt Gingrich could end up as the GOP nominee! During the campaign he will give a detailed account of how Obama has pushed this country down a dangerous path using the debates as a means to shred Obama's defense of his policies, and Newt Gingrich will be out next President.

You guys can claim the holier than thou attitude about Newt's character, but if you do you better not had been a Bill Clinton supporter when he was cheating on his wife and committing felonies to cover it up.

I do not like Newt Gingrich personally, but he would be an ideal President with the experience and ideas to get this country back on track. He has done it once before as Speaker of the House. Of course it was he and Clinton working together, but together they took us from a deficit to a surplus.

Newt for President 2012!

 

[Elephant]

dunno bro, Newt was pretty high up on his horse when he was cheating himself. i think i would vote for Trump over him.

and thats the problem..we have no real stand out GOP guy we can go "him..i want him as my President" and not know that he can have holes shot in his character or policies.

here is an outside question. whats up with Jeb Bush? wasnt he supposed to originally run instead or Dubya because he was better suited? did his brother ruin it for him?

Trump? Yeah, I am not a fan.

As for the Newt issue, I highlighted the operative term, was. He owns his mistakes and has expressed remorse. Is that enough? I don't know. Throughout my life I have made mistakes and have asked and received forgiveness.

When it comes to the most qualified applicant, there is no one more qualified emerging from the crop of current candidates, including Obama, than Newt Gingrich. Like I have said, he has a proven track record of tough decisions that changed our country for the better. Some have already expressed their dislike of Newt because of his personal issues, could I overlook them knowing he could be a great President? I think so. Call me a hypocrite if you like, because I supported Clinton's impeachment, but Newt did not lie under oath, a felony called perjury!

As for Jeb Bush...

I read an interesting article about this a few years back. He was the Bush son being groomed to become the President. He was better equipped to become President than GW, well spoken, much more grounded and seemingly smarter overall. The problem was, GW won his election for Governor in Texas. A game, old school, southern Governor named Lawton Chiles was the reason GW ended up as the President not Jeb. Chiles ran a fantastic campaign in 1994 and beat Jeb. It was believed Jeb would win that election, but Chiles proved them wrong so the GOP threw their support behind GW since Jeb lost in 1994.

 

[Elephant]

...

and i read that article too..im just wondering why he isnt being spoke about NOW.

GW is still to fresh in everyone's minds. If Obama wins a 2nd term, which I believe he stands a good chance, I strongly believe Jeb will run in 2016. It's just too early in light of his brother's 2 terms.

 

[redskins26]

Mike. C'mon man. Don't take this out on me.

Fact is, we don't make a habit of invading countries because they do evil things to their own people. We don't LIKE it, but we don't declare war over it either. There's a whole list of nations we could invade if we just wanted to enforce basic human rights around the world. There's gotta be something else, and in Iraq's case it was the threat of WMDs.

In Lybia's case, in my humble and often incorrect opinion, we are trying to keep the momentum going in the middle east of popular uprisings, so that when all is said and done we are seen as being on the right side of history. Governments are falling in the ME. We can either aid these uprisings, help suppress them or stand on the sidelines. There are decent arguments to be made for each choice, but Obama has, after much deliberation, chosen the first. That's what I think is going on here. Whether or not it's the correct decision we'll find out eventually, but I don't think any of this compares to Iraq in '03 in any way.

Regarding Obama, I'll say the same thing I said about Bush: I sure hope he knows what he's doing.



Obama realized things aren't as simple as campaign slogans. He's not the first President to find this out. Not by a long shot.

Getting into a war is easy. Getting out of one ... that's the tough part.

Hopefully its the right thing because those opposition guys have ties to al-quada who we are currently dealing with in afghanistan would kind of defeat the purpose of putting them into power wouldnt it be?

 

[Henry]

I think Gingrich is a smart smart guy who's full of crap. I don't trust him further than I can throw him. He's a conservative Clinton. Vote him in at your own peril.

I think Trump is an entertaining guy and I hope he keeps talking, but I can't take him seriously enough to vote for him.

I think Jeb Bush won't get past his name. Even in 2016 the thought of a Bush in the White House every other Presidency is a little creepy. His son is a charismatic guy too. Watch for him to show up on the radar around 2024.

No, I'd like to see someone new. Someone I hadn't thought of. I'd like to see some fresh blood out there. Surprise me.

 

[Elephant]

I think Gingrich is a smart smart guy who's full of crap. I don't trust him further than I can throw him. He's a conservative Clinton. Vote him in at your own peril.

Unfortunately, he is the most qualified, at this point, whether you like him or not.

I think Jeb Bush won't get past his name. Even in 2016 the thought of a Bush in the White House every other Presidency is a little creepy. His son is a charismatic guy too. Watch for him to show up on the radar around 2024.

I think Jeb stands a chance if Obama is re-elected and if things continue to worsen.

No, I'd like to see someone new. Someone I hadn't thought of. I'd like to see some fresh blood out there. Surprise me.

Mitch Daniels has decided not to run.

 

[Henry]

Unfortunately, he is the most qualified, at this point, whether you like him or not.

He's spent the last 12 years out of office complaining about liberals. (I was quite impressed with how he was for bombing Libya before he was against it.) I'm not sure how qualified that makes him anymore.

And sorry, but I can't get past 50 year-old Newt having an affair with a 27 year-old staffer during the time when the GOP was absolutely blasting Clinton for his infidelity and lack of moral fiber.

I think Jeb stands a chance if Obama is re-elected and if things continue to worsen.

Maybe. We'll see.

 

[Elephant]

Here's a name that could be one to watch out for, maybe not in 2012, but perhaps 2016. Rand Paul. Will his rogue ways be silenced by the power structure in DC? It hasn't been able to silence his dad, but his dad has been rather ineffective for the change he seeks. I see his son as an extension who could prove to garner support going forward his father was unable to gain.

 

[Goaldeje]

I like some of the Pauls' ideas,, but i think they are too extreme for Washington. I am not sure they will be able to get en ough traction with the average American to get elected. Strategically, it will be too easy to discredit them as financial extemeists.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

it doesn't really matter. if Obama is reelected this country is totally and permanently screwed.

 

[fansince62]

I think Gingrich is a smart smart guy who's full of crap. I don't trust him further than I can throw him. He's a conservative Clinton. Vote him in at your own peril.

how's that any different from Obama? At least with Gingrich we know when he is lying. with Obama...one just just has to take it on faith that he is lying every time he opens his mouth.

 

[fansince62]

dunno bro, Newt was pretty high up on his horse when he was cheating himself. i think i would vote for Trump over him.

and thats the problem..we have no real stand out GOP guy we can go "him..i want him as my President" and not know that he can have holes shot in his character or policies.

here is an outside question. whats up with Jeb Bush? wasnt he supposed to originally run instead or Dubya because he was better suited? did his brother ruin it for him?

it is a dilemma: no clear leader in the Republican party...almost certain knowledge that four more years of the guy currently in power will send the country into a permanent tailspin.

 

[Henry]

how's that any different from Obama? At least with Gingrich we know when he is lying. with Obama...one just just has to take it on faith that he is lying every time he opens his mouth.

I think Obama is a naive idealist. I think he genuinely believes in the stuff he pushes, but half of it's not realistic and he doesn't know how to implement the other half.

But I don't think he's full of crap.

 

[Dreamingwolf]

I think Obama is a naive idealist. I think he genuinely believes in the stuff he pushes, but half of it's not realistic and he doesn't know how to implement the other half.

But I don't think he's full of crap.

you sound like an abused girlfriend. Of course he knows exactly what hes doing, people like him do not achieve what they do not knowing. He seduces people with dreams, and uses there support to make a living for himself.

 

[Goaldeje]

Nah, I think Henry nailed it. He's in over his head, and doesn't know how to fix things. It's a shame, because he really does speak well and a lot of his goals are noble, but I don't think he has the tools to be able to reach his ideals.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Sarge]

it is a dilemma: no clear leader in the Republican party...almost certain knowledge that four more years of the guy currently in power will send the country into a permanent tailspin.

My own theory is that the Repubs that are thikning about running are keeping their powder dry. Why start now and take a year and a half beating from the media that will turn around and cheer for Obama.

I think Obama is a naive idealist. I think he genuinely believes in the stuff he pushes, but half of it's not realistic and he doesn't know how to implement the other half.

But I don't think he's full of crap.

THis is the problem with liberalism. It does not take into account reality