THIS.........is why elections matter

[fansince62]

By "his policies in Afghanistan," you mean trying to fix the enormous cluster-f that Bush left him there? Because, that would be more accurate. I'm not sure an Eisenhower-Patton presidency would be able to fix the mess we have over there.

roger that. I'll pass the word to family friends of dead soldiers/marines what a wonderful job the CiC has done the last two years in crafting and supporting a coherent strategy that saves lives. Semper Fi!

 

[Lanky Livingston]

roger that. I'll pass the word to family friends of dead soldiers/marines what a wonderful job the CiC has done the last two years in crafting and supporting a coherent strategy that saves lives. Semper Fi!

Huh? What word would that be?

 

[Alaskan]

By "his policies in Afghanistan," you mean trying to fix the enormous cluster-f that Bush left him there? Because, that would be more accurate. I'm not sure an Eisenhower-Patton presidency would be able to fix the mess we have over there.

Ike would fly over the battle field in a small plane, come to the conclusion that this sucker is unwinable and end it in the best way possible.

 

[Goaldeje]

Really? Really? Obama got left a disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please do not even try to dispute that. Saying that he should have everything cleaned up after two years if laughable at best. It's OK guys, you can admit that Bush effed up about as badly as anyone could over there.

Having said that, Obama should not have made promises that he couldn't keep, such as telling us we will be out of Iraq and Afghanistan by a certain timeline. He seems to excel at saying what he thinks people want to hear when he is saying whatever it is he is saying (makes sense in my head), and then not following through with as much vigor. Not a great presidential quality.

More than enough blame to go around on both sides. The Right effed things up while Bush was in office, and the Left seems bound and determined to make things better at the speed of slow.

 

[fansince62]

Goaldie...It's not clear to me how your thoughts connect up to a strategy for...

1) responding to 9/11

2) Obama assuming responsibility in 2009

 

[Goaldeje]

Well Fannie, I have to confess i don't really understand your second question, but will be more than happy to address your first.

Had W not gone on a wild goose chase for WMDs in Iraq, and subsequently over committed there, perhaps we could have actually had Bin Laden killed by now? Possible, no? If memory serves, he was the one actually responsible for 9-11.

Please understand before I get stoned for not supporting the war in Iraq, I thought then and think now that regime change in Iraq was a good thing. I am not sorry we did what we did. I wish W had given and implemented a better exit strategy, but i am not sorry we deposed Sadaam. I just wish we would have been able to claim the same for Bin Laden before committing to two wars at once.

That was an unfavorable situation for Obama to inherit.

And if you clarify your second question, i would be happy to address it.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Elephant]

That was an unfavorable situation for Obama to inherit.

Posted via BGO Mobile Device

After years of mishandling the war in Iraq, Bush got it right when he fired Rumsfeld (Two months too late) and pushed for a surge. The subsequent surge, which Obama voted against, proved to be the success we had been seeking for years. Rumsfeld was the main buffoon in that mess, Bush is only to blame because he trusted Rumsfeld too much. Even Rumsfeld, in his book, admits he went in with insufficient troop levels from the start.

Then Obama touted success in Iraq even though he was unable to fulfill his Campaign promises.

As for your assertion that Bin Laden would have been caught had we concentrated on Afghanistan alone. The major blunder of the US in the hunt for Obama occurred in December of 2001, nearly 2 years prior to going into Iraq. Then it was another 2 years before we went into Iraq. Let me ask you what you would have proposed to get him? A troop surge? That would have been a complete disaster in Afghanistan. We needed to refrain from the appearance of occupation in Afghanistan. They were still reeling from a Russian occupation that ended nearly 12 years prior. It was wise to send in covert ops to set the stage for limited troop levels to come in and destroy the Taliban. The problems in Afghanistan came when the troop levels there began to rise.

Obama campaigns on the idea that Osama Bin Laden should have been the only focus. Bull****! The Taliban had the same blood on their hands Bin Laden did. It wasn't just about Bin Laden. And exactly what is Obama planning to do in Afghanistan now? What is his policy going forward?

 

[Goaldeje]

Wait a minute. You're telling me Bush can blame one of his lackeys for something they did wrong, but you guys never cut Obama any slack if his flunkies do something wrong. Something doesn't compute there.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, my point was simply that fighting two wars at once without getting some sort of resolution in the one we started first left W's successor with a difficult situation. Bush didn't seem to have an exit strategy for either war, and Obama doesn't either now. The difference is that Obama campaigned on it? OK then. Yes, as I stated above, Obama has screwed this up too, no question about it. But I am fairly sure that a quick search would yield a couple of examples of Bush (and every other tricking president EVER) going back on their campaign promises.

Sometimes, promises are made knowing they will be broken, and sometimes situations change. I'm not sure I would want a president slavishly devoted to campaign promises given the changing nature of the world.

But whatever. My point was that both sides share engh blame to go around. I guess that was a silly point to try to defend.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Alaskan]

Wait a minute. You're telling me Bush can blame one of his lackeys for something they did wrong, but you guys never cut Obama any slack if his flunkies do something wrong. Something doesn't compute there.

Of course it does. Over and over and over again we were told that Bush was a complete idiot while Obama was the greatest man the world had ever produced. So naturally the expectations were different.

 

[fansince62]

But whatever. My point was that both sides share engh blame to go around. I guess that was a silly point to try to defend.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

with all due respect....not silly...just not terribly useful when it comes to analysis and decision-making.

Obama is in control. He's in the barrel. It's his job to fix things and make them better. he can't do either.

worse....his MO is clear: he is a dissembler (being polite here) whose words and actions almost never square. this man is a disaster.

if you must know...I'm personally no more enthused about the Republicans and see their manifest failures in many areas. I side with them more often than not only because I view them as the lesser threat to my family, my community and my future.

these people in power now are scary - ideologues with no grasp on reality. completely incompetent. and worst...they don't care. they have "a vision".

WE NEED TERM LIMITS.

 

[Goaldeje]

If by people in power now, you mean everyone in power, Repubs included, I couldn't agree more. As i stated above, Obama is doing his best to make the situation worse, and counteracting his campaign promises every step of the way. It is distressing to watch.

Its funny Al. (OK, not funny, wrong word choice). I probably would have agreed completely with you and just about everyone else on this board as little as two years ago regarding Dems. And then for whatever reason, the financial crisis grabbed me. I became obsessed with figuring out what caused it, and read voraciously on the subject. I can not say I understand completely now, because it is very complex and over my pay grade as they say. But I can say with a great deal of certainty that neither side gives a damn outside of lip service about you and me. There were opportunities on both sides of the aisle to stop things before they ruined our economy, and both sides were content to get their kickbacks and let e lobbiests dictate policy.

I guess I'm more cynical in that regard about both policies.

And yet, I counsel patience at the same time? It's weird. Obama inherited a cluster **** from W. Sadly, my patience with his administration is wearing out because he has made things worse, not better. My wife is a public school teacher and hasn't had a raise in three years, and there is a chance her positiowill be eliminated at the end of the school year, yet in his latest budget proposal, how many millions are earmarked for the arts in DC? (this coming from an art history and English major, i love the arts).

When you and I argue, it usually isn't because I disagree about the Dems, it is usually because your tone indicates you disagree about the Repubs. Both equally useless, incompetent and crooked, in my opinion.

Hmmm... must be cranky this morning.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

Goaldie....nice response.

and I agree on your core point - none of these folks (Dems or Repubs) are fixing things or thinking about us. They are all captive of that insidious, inside the Beltway culture. ironically, I had a similar conversation with a friend of mine yesterday and we arrived at the same conclusion. it's a widely held frustration.

here's why I react to the "everyone does it response" and not because you used it....or employ that response for these purposes.

1) "everyone does it" is very often used to mask differences in magnitude, fequency and severity.

2) "everyone does it"...in my mind...is symptomatic of the general relativism that is sinking our culture/society like a rock.

3) "everyne does it" distracts from the moral dimensions of specific acts. it's irrelevant...or better put.....a rationalization. not a justification.

 

[fansince62]

btw...I don't buy the Obama inherited it argument. A huge portion of the current problems we suffer go back decades. a cross section of those problems were created and sustained by the Dems......the housing debacle...for example....isn't exclusively a product of Ponzi scheming, corrupt, frat boy Wall Streeters. the incessant larding of mandatory entitlements onto the "you owe me list" - if one is to believe that the Dems are the champions of everythng that is righteous and Republicans evil abettors of the rich - is a product of Liberal/Democrat largess. It's his party...their values acted out legislatively, executively and judicially.

more directly..."fixes" Obama has put in have only exacerbated things.......wildly.

everyone is entitled to their own view of things. I have come to the conclusion that Obama has his vision...is a brilliant politician and will use his considerable political and oratorical skills to execute that vision....and is completely in over his head when it comes to leadership and real decision-making. It hurts to say this...cuz well.....I do hate the Clintons for the immoral goons they are....but faced with the lesser of two incompetencies....I believe Hillary would have been a better President.

 

[Goaldeje]

Wow. Did your therapist give you the OK to write that?



I agree it goes back generations, but puzzled that seem to place the majority of the blame on one party over another. I thought we both agreed they are all self interested thieves?

I dunno. I find myself believing more and more that helping the poor is something we should do. But I also find myself believing that they should be required to contribute something as well. Otherwise it does turn into an entitlement which is what I think we have now, unfortunately. The attitude of some of my more conservative friends seems to be that the poor should help themselves, and we shouldn't give them anything. That doesn't jive with me at all. I think we do have a moral responsibility to help them out, but not to the point where they become dependent on us. There's a line there somewhere, and i don't think either party has it right, personally.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

Wow. Did your therapist give you the OK to write that?



I agree it goes back generations, but puzzled that seem to place the majority of the blame on one party over another. I thought we both agreed they are all self interested thieves?

I dunno. I find myself believing more and more that helping the poor is something we should do. But I also find myself believing that they should be required to contribute something as well. Otherwise it does turn into an entitlement which is what I think we have now, unfortunately. The attitude of some of my more conservative friends seems to be that the poor should help themselves, and we shouldn't give them anything. That doesn't jive with me at all. I think we do have a moral responsibility to help them out, but not to the point where they become dependent on us. There's a line there somewhere, and i don't think either party has it right, personally.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

helping the poor sounds grand!

1) it gets done now. the issue is how much "help"

2) many folks like me are no longer willing to play along with "help" that makes the problem worse, costs more and more, and creates dependancies. there is also the line of thought that most help should be local...and not a transfer from one part of the country to another. government needs to fix the collossal mess first..then reach into my back pocket for yet more give-away money. safety net sounds like an acceptable baseline to me. it's the above the line stuff that becomes debatable. until that time...many people like me will do everything they can to muster politcal support and direct (but legal) action to destroy the system.

you are free to discuss above with your padre/therapist/drug dealer.... ......

 

[Goaldeje]

They're all the same person (for me anyway).



I think we pretty much agree on all this. As I have stated before in other threads, I feel assisting the poor should be a local concern, and not a federal concern, unless the local efforts are failing. I also think we can both agree on a smaller government being a very good thing.

What is distressing is both parties insistence on being "right" and being so dogmatic about it. There doesn't seem to be any room for compromise, nor our other options even explored. Seems to me the answer usually lies in the middle somewhere, but we're too dogmatically attached to party core ideals to see it.

 

[fansince62]

They're all the same person (for me anyway).



I think we pretty much agree on all this. As I have stated before in other threads, I feel assisting the poor should be a local concern, and not a federal concern, unless the local efforts are failing. I also think we can both agree on a smaller government being a very good thing.

What is distressing is both parties insistence on being "right" and being so dogmatic about it. There doesn't seem to be any room for compromise, nor our other options even explored. Seems to me the answer usually lies in the middle somewhere, but we're too dogmatically attached to party core ideals to see it.

not so sure on your last thought. we are facing extreme conditions presently. the maneuvering room for posturing has been severely reduced. look at what's going on in Wisconsin......the public Unions marshall the resources (millions $$$$) to support favored politicians who in turn cook up sweetheart deals/pension plans that factor as a major line item in bankrupting the state. those people are there at the pleasure of the people...IMO. the relationship is not the same as private employee/employer. the Governor was elected in that State (as were a Republican majority in the State assembly). they're being asked to contribute a greater percentage to their pension and healthcare funding - but still less than the private sector levies. the State is going bankrupt. that the governor is seeking to reduce collective bargaining powers as well is fine by me - again..they serve at the pleasure of the people. were I in charge...I'd fire their rear quarters and find new teachers who actually want a job.

States and the Federal Government are going broke. We have a leadership that is living in this play pretend Universe where they do not acknowledge the real risks. the real battle being fought...IMO......is a desire to roll this up to the crisis edge and then force large tax increases that increase the power of the Federal Government even further. A federal Government that consistently lies about almost everything. Recall Obama's insistence that Federal healthcare moneys won't be spent on abortion? well...what is the heat over Planned Parenthood funding about? The storyline about stimulus spending creating jobs? well..yea....Government jobs in a very big way.

These folks need to address the fiscal threats now. there is going to be pain all around. I can tell you first hand that the bloodletting has already started in DoD. There's been a slow roll going on for 6-9 mos now and large cuts are looming on the horizon. other sacred cows are gonna have to give - especially entitlements. the game of chicken Obama/Reid and the Republicans are playing isn't fixing things - and it's just making large swathes of people angrier.

but most of all....start by stopping the lying. Sarge has alluded to no COLA increases for military pensions over the last two years. as one on the other end of that I am ok if that is one small measure of the overall plan. but don't lie to me by cooking the basket stats and claiming there have been no rate increases due to flat inflation. any moron who buys food and gas, pays heating bills, phone bills, etc., knows that Fed inspired inflation isn't a theoretical possibility - it's here now.

 

[Sarge]

I believe Hillary would have been a better President.

God save my eternal soul from damnation....................but I agree with this

 

[Ax]

I believe Hillary would have been a better President.

Yeah, she'd of been a better man to.

 

[fansince62]

Yeah, she'd of been a better man to.

now that's below the belt!!!!