Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 134

Thread: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

  1. #101
    Educator sam_w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    09-24-09 @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    724

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Huh? I never PM'ed you. I only asked for some supporting docs. Doesn't make ignorant, unless the information actually exists, which isn't looking highly likely at this point.
    I was not refering to you at all, I should make myself clear now. It is another moron that has PM'd me about this, why I have no idea.

    But back to the point, the group of what we call "Neo-Cons" lobbying for years about taking out Saddam is not a secret, nor is it even a little reported story. It has been covered extensively on TV, newspapers, written about in numerous books, told and re-told in numerous documentaries (mainstream ones). Go watch some of the PBS Frontline episodes, you can view them online.

  2. #102
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    I was not refering to you at all, I should make myself clear now. It is another moron that has PM'd me about this, why I have no idea.

    But back to the point, the group of what we call "Neo-Cons" lobbying for years about taking out Saddam is not a secret, nor is it even a little reported story. It has been covered extensively on TV, newspapers, written about in numerous books, told and re-told in numerous documentaries (mainstream ones). Go watch some of the PBS Frontline episodes, you can view them online.
    Care to post some info on that group of Neo-Cons? Tell ya what, you post your list of Neo-Cons and I'll post a list of Dems that swore up-n-down that Saddam had WMD's. You game?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #103
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,022

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I might agree with you except for one HUGE thing. GWB surrounded himself with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield, both of which had tried (unsuccessfully) to convince at least 3 prior Presidents of the advantages of invading Iraq.
    Dude...NO! This is completely wrong. First off, can we both agree that Rumsfeld was a complete douche? That being said, we have to remain in reality with partisan shots shelved if we are to learn and analyze our past and how we got where we are today. It matters because we have a future to detemrine out of it. Now....

    One of the reasons I can't stand Rumsfeld is that he is a fickle dumbass. Rumsfeld was one of the morons lobbying to spare the dictator because he was still embracing that good old Cold War prescription of "stability" first, thereby turning his back on any "NeoCon" perspective. He was wrong. Ironically, another goal for Clinton on the campaign trail was to bring the "NeoCon" back to the Democratic fold where they began. In Clinton's second term, Rumsfeld began to recognize that containing the dictator was more trouble than it was worth and this is where some Republicans began to criticize Clinton for continuing the status quo, thereby assuming to be "NeoCons." Clinton agreed, but did not have the benefit of a 9/11 type scenario to kick down doors. Instread he could merely squeek on the dangers of Bin Laden while the Republican Party wanted Monika Lewinski to take all focus from government and the Democratic Party criticizing Clinton's ideas of a terrorist being any where near a threat as what the Cold War defined. However, it didn't matter. By this time, our allies had dropped one by one from the containment mission leaving America and Britian to deal with the burden alone.

    According to President Clinton, the two greatest problems in the Middle East he passed off to President Bush was Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. One had nothing to do with the other, but both were problems that would have to be dealt with sooner or later.

    Here are two very good books that speak on this period between the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Twin Towers. There's no partisan garbage in them. I have gained a certain respect for President Clinton for what he was trying to do and for what he had to go through due to partisan BS.....

    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/America-Between-Wars-11/dp/1586484966"]America Between the Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Peace-Frontline-Americas-Purpose/dp/1403971749"]The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America's Power and Purpose [/ame]
    Last edited by MSgt; 08-07-09 at 08:55 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #104
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,022

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    But back to the point, the group of what we call "Neo-Cons" lobbying for years about taking out Saddam is not a secret, nor is it even a little reported story. It has been covered extensively on TV, newspapers, written about in numerous books, told and re-told in numerous documentaries (mainstream ones). Go watch some of the PBS Frontline episodes, you can view them online.
    A lot of what people read from commentators are slaves to their parties and have passed on BS in regards to the NeoCon. Rumsfeld was and is no NeoCon. Legitimate NeoCon's criticized Bush (Dad) for leaving the dictator large and in charge in Iraq, criticized Clinton for criticizing Bush for leaving the dictator but doing nothing about it, and were going to criticize Bush (son) for the very same thing.

    From what I have learned, the NeoCon encompasses the liberal idea of democracy and freedom for all. Funny how liberals are always so quick to drag the NeoCon's ideals through the mud because they couldn't understand what Iraq was really about. And tragic that all supporters of Iraq were labeled "NeoCons" by those who criticized it.
    Last edited by MSgt; 08-07-09 at 09:01 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Its been documented historically. Here's a good basic rundown dating back to Nixon. This is a good place to start your research:


    frontline: rumsfeld's war: paths to power: nixon administration | PBS
    WOW!!! Rumsfeld, Chenney and Wolferwitz...what a trio. The genesis of an Iraqi invasion started with Wolferwitz back in 1978, but it was Chenney and Rumsfeld who orchestrated plans to eventually invade Iraq some 15 years later. They schemed, plotted and manipulated whomever or whatever "false" evidence they could in order to get their war. What a hot mess they put this country in. Yet so many support these guys and their "war-mongering" idealism.

    WOW!!!

  6. #106
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    No links, boys? Should I be surprised?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #107
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    I really wanted to vote for Ron Paul, the two things that stopped me was his Iraq view of immediate pullout, since I don't want a middle east power vacuum in the region, and the fact that he couldn't win, McCain sucked as a candidate, but I think he would have been slightly better than Obama, the only thing that got him my vote, that isn't saying much though. Next election, I'm voting my conscience.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #108
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld the connections have been playing out since Cheney and Rumsfeld marginalized the entire Ford administration in their own coup. They were able to singlehandedly change our policies and convince presidents that the russian threat was bigger than it was. The CIA had concluded as far back as Nixon that the soviet union was on the verge of collapse in the next decade under the stress of their own weight. It was Rummy and Cheney who helped form Team B which was a counterintelligence operation that was against the CIA. They were able to convince the president that the soviet union had secret weapons that they didn't have. In the end this would play out again as the same players worked within the Bush Jr administration to go against what the CIA had originally determined.

    They had wanted to invade Iraq for years its all in their manifesto, the Project for the New American Century. They wrote a letter to Clinton even trying to get him to invade during the 90s.

    Letter to President Clinton on Iraq














    January 26, 1998

    The Honorable William J. Clinton
    President of the United States
    Washington, DC

    Dear Mr. President:

    We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

    The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

    Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

    Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

    We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

    We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

    Sincerely,

    Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

    Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

    Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

    William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

    Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

    Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
    Look at the list of characters several of them should look pretty familiar to you.

    The following document calls for total global military dominance
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

    They also called for invasions of multiple countries in the middle east.

  9. #109
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,022

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    They wrote a letter to Clinton even trying to get him to invade during the 90s.
    "1997 ~ 1998" to be exact. "During the 90s" suggests a falsehood. For the majority of the 90's, Rumsfeld supported containment to taking the dictator out. He was not a NeoCon until it was politically convenient to be one. The true NeoCon never supported containment after the Gulf War (for which Clinton criticized as well on the campaign trail) and continually criticized Clinton for keeping to the UN status quo.

    Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries
    Such a definition should hardly invoke hatred amongst liberals unless they honestly don't care beyond their BS.
    Last edited by MSgt; 08-08-09 at 12:54 AM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #110
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    "1997 ~ 1998" to be exact. "During the 90s" suggests a falsehood. For the majority of the 90's, Rumsfeld supported containment to taking the dictator out. He was not a NeoCon until it was politically convenient to be one. The true NeoCon never supported containment after the Gulf War (for which Clinton criticized as well on the campaign trail) and continually criticized Clinton for keeping to the UN status quo.
    There's no falsehood about it 97-98 is in the decade of the 90s so what I said was a true statement. So Dick Cheney also felt the same way and suddenly reversed course. The question is why what was the motivation for the change?

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •