Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

  1. #1
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,517
    Blog Entries
    12

    Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    FOXNews.com - TRANSCRIPT: President Obama's Oval Office Speech on Iraq

    A vapid, droning speech... from a guy that was lock step against everything in Iraq, like his treasonous party.

    There were moments he praised the troops, but I question whether it was from the heart. He opposed everything, accused our troops of air raiding villages and killing civilians... and had to be smacked upside the head to put his hand over his heart, and to wear an American Flag lapel pin.

    I wonder how many watched this and could see through the charade.

    He is unbelievable.

    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  2. #2
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    Do you have anyting of substance? I get it that you don't like the guy, so what? Who cares what YOU think.


  3. #3
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,080

    Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    FOXNews.com - TRANSCRIPT: President Obama's Oval Office Speech on Iraq

    A vapid, droning speech... from a guy that was lock step against everything in Iraq, like his treasonous party.

    There were moments he praised the troops, but I question whether it was from the heart. He opposed everything, accused our troops of air raiding villages and killing civilians... and had to be smacked upside the head to put his hand over his heart, and to wear an American Flag lapel pin.

    I wonder how many watched this and could see through the charade.

    He is unbelievable.

    .
    Americans Oppose Renewing U.S. Combat Operations in Iraq

    You mean that he agree's with the majority of americans that the Iraq war hasn't made us any safer and hasn't made the middle east any more stable?

    I wonder why someone would be against a war that hasn't made us any safer, hasn't provided stability to the region and cost us a buttload of money...

  4. #4
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,517
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Do you have anyting of substance? I get it that you don't like the guy, so what? Who cares what YOU think.
    ROTFLOL... then I suggest you leave now. It is an arena of clashing ideas.
    Sorry to break it to ya, and btw, your thin skin is showing.

    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  5. #5
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,517
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    Americans Oppose Renewing U.S. Combat Operations in Iraq

    You mean that he agree's with the majority of americans that the Iraq war hasn't made us any safer and hasn't made the middle east any more stable?

    I wonder why someone would be against a war that hasn't made us any safer, hasn't provided stability to the region and cost us a buttload of money...
    As for not making us safer... you really have to be kidding. You're not!

    Not safer? Seems you disagree with Obama. After all, he wouldn't be ending this if we weren't safe... would he?

    I wonder why his party didn't vote against the war, the principle'd lot (ROTFLMAO), instead of voting for the war, and then turning on our troops when they needed their help most?

    No, instead the Dems sought our defeat in Iraq, and the Journolists piled on. And for what? Political power... not national security... political power.

    Talk about a sick lot.

    Tell me, what did we do to deserve 911?
    Tell me, do you recall Gulf War 1?
    16 UN resolutions? Connect-the-dots?
    Dems wanting and getting a second vote to go to war.
    Hillary schooling Code Pink about what she knew from The Impeached One's years at the helm?

    BTW, you forgot a couple Dem talking points for Zombies... Halliburton, Cheney, Neocon, Rumsfeld.

    Perhaps next time.

    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  6. #6
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    Pres. Obama did speak out against the War in Iraq, and he was correct in doing so. There was no clear evidence that Saddam ever had WMD's as was the pretext for going to war against Iraq, nor was their any evidence whatsoever that linked Saddam or the Iraqi gov't with the 9/11 terror plot. The only reasons U.S. forces stayed in Iraq after the mission was "accomplished" was:

    - because of the constant insurgeant attacks on U.S. & coalition forces; and,
    - because we (Bush-Cheney administration) tried to put permanent military bases in Iraq.

    Those who were concerned about our continued presence was correct. Had we left when the mission was declared "over", the insurgeancy would never have happened. The surge was necessary to counter those Islamic extremist guerrilla strikes. I'm glad it worked because until then our forces were getting their butts handed to them.

    We pulled up stakes because of an agreement GW Bush made with the Iraqi government to have ALL U.S. & coalition forces out of Iraq by December, 2011. Therefore, this is one an area where I won't give President Obama credit. In this case, he simply monitored the "clean-up effort" in Iraq and pulled our combat troops out by his deadline effectively living up to the Bush/Iraq accord. Since troops would still need to be out of Iraq by December 2011 anyway, I don't see this as "victory" for him as much as I see it an end to an un-necesary war. As such, the victory goes to those who survived and their families.

    "Welcome home, comrades!"
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-01-10 at 03:43 PM.

  7. #7
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,080

    Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    As for not making us safer... you really have to be kidding. You're not!

    Not safer? Seems you disagree with Obama. After all, he wouldn't be ending this if we weren't safe... would he?
    I said that the majority of americans thought that the iraq war didn't make us any safer, not that we are unsafe. Read what I wrote and then I wouldn't have to waste time typing something twice.
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    I wonder why his party didn't vote against the war, the principle'd lot (ROTFLMAO), instead of voting for the war, and then turning on our troops when they needed their help most?
    When people are running around screaming about being hours away from having a giant mushroom cloud in the sky on the horizon sometimes people don't make the best judgement. It doesn't excuse their poor choices and bad decisions but it certainly helps me understand why they could come to those conclusions. The dems didn't turn on the soldiers. All of this bull**** about being antiwar or for pulling out of Iraq is the exact same as being against the troops is just that... bull****.
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    No, instead the Dems sought our defeat in Iraq, and the Journolists piled on. And for what? Political power... not national security... political power.

    Talk about a sick lot.

    Tell me, what did we do to deserve 911?
    Tell me, do you recall Gulf War 1?
    16 UN resolutions? Connect-the-dots?
    Dems wanting and getting a second vote to go to war.
    Hillary schooling Code Pink about what she knew from The Impeached One's years at the helm?

    BTW, you forgot a couple Dem talking points for Zombies... Halliburton, Cheney, Neocon, Rumsfeld.

    Perhaps next time.

    .
    You're really gonna talk about talking points after that post? I didn't mention any of those talking points because they are just that. Perhaps next time you reply you can stick to the issue rather than build up these strawmen about stuff I didn't even bring up.

    We'd be much better off today if we had never gone in in the first place. You may know continue you're tripe about the dem's hating the troops and whatnot. I'll be in another thread with a little less hyperbole.

  8. #8
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,709

    Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    Aside from the speech largely sounding self-congratulating for he and his base, it was a mediocre speech that failed to give strategic credit to his predecessors and failed to deliver a message with how a War on Terrorism will continue to be unleashed.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  9. #9
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,517
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    I said that the majority of americans thought that the iraq war didn't make us any safer, not that we are unsafe. Read what I wrote and then I wouldn't have to waste time typing something twice.
    You mean that he agree's with the majority of americans that the Iraq war hasn't made us any safer and hasn't made the middle east any more stable?
    That tells me we are not safer, which can mean we are unsafe, especially when you state the mid-east isn't any more stable. And, hasn't made us any safer than when?

    If you seek to make a claim, make it clear.


    When people are running around screaming about being hours away from having a giant mushroom cloud in the sky on the horizon sometimes people don't make the best judgement.
    Blair's statement isn't the sole reason we went to Iraq. Read Hans Blix's report to the UN... HE makes the case.

    It doesn't excuse their poor choices and bad decisions but it certainly helps me understand why they could come to those conclusions.
    Perhaps these were the right decisions given the facts. Saddam used, and had WMD, played games, threw out inspecteurs de la UN, and hated America. Dems ALONE made the case ... for years... from Clinton, Gore, Dead Kennedy, Daschle, just pick a Dem leader and you'll find them warning about Saddam and the solution. Of course, we know Dems words are posturing... meaningless... unless of course it has to do with taxes and Republicans... (the real enemy of Democrats).

    The dems didn't turn on the soldiers. All of this bull**** about being antiwar or for pulling out of Iraq is the exact same as being against the troops is just that... bull****.
    The War is lost, air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians, Nazi's... an endless assault on our efforts. No bull... it's your party, your history, your treason.

    We'd be much better off today if we had never gone in in the first place.
    You do not know that. We stopped a nuke black market, got rid of a despot in the ME, helped create a democracy, and freed a nation from a despot... we also managed to bring the fight to the terrorists in one location... and kicked their asses... though Dems were vehemently against the surge... and Obama was at the fore.

    Saddam could have hooked up with terrorists and assisted them, and David Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee we might have dodged the bullet, or not.

    You may know continue you're tripe about the dem's hating the troops and whatnot. I'll be in another thread with a little less hyperbole.
    The Dems record is their record. You going to tell me you folks were big time supporters?... ROTFLMFAO... delusion must be grand.

    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  10. #10
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,517
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Pres. Obama did speak out against the War in Iraq, and he was correct in doing so. There was no clear evidence that Saddam ever had WMD's as was the pretext for going to war against Iraq...
    OV:That's all we need to quote. Saddam had and used WMD, and from here I'll let Hans Blix blow your ass out of the water on your error fueled claim.


    CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's remarks - Jan. 27, 2003
    Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly.

    Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

    As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek. Rather than just verify in declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.

    As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected.

    While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.

    One of three important questions before us today is, How much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter? The second question is, What, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998 when the inspectors left. And the third question is, How it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future?

    I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence character.

    Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

    On 7th of December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441, and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward.

    Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number.

    I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

    The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

    Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

    Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

    UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

    There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

    Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

    During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Haji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor.

    I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

    Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

    There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

    As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.

    In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.


    In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure.

    Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined.

    What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

    Presumptions do not solve the problem; evidence and full transparency may help.

    Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production.

    However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.

    The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.

    On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

    Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious.
    Blix reveals uncertainties, asks questions that should have been answered a decade earlier. It was 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. How many does a despot get after losing a war and agreeing to disarm? 3 decades and 30 resolutions? Perhaps not enough for the Libs... I don't know... I'm asking.

    Blix specifically mentioned: VX, weaponized VX, ANTHRAX, all unaccounted for according to Hans. Of course... Saddam would never, ever use WMD... nor would he pass it off to a terrorist, especially in the euphoria after 911. No... he'd never do that...

    ...Disney music... it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all... it's a small, small world...

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 09-01-10 at 06:14 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •