Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
WE all know Bush was, so at what point does Obama become one?
Just curious....still waiting for the massive anti-war protests......
Clinton: US regrets loss of life in Afghanistan
WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration "deeply, deeply" regrets the loss of innocent life apparently as the result of a U.S. bombing in Afghanistan and will undertake a full review of the incident.
Opening a meeting with the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan at the State Department, Clinton said Wednesday that any loss of innocent life is "particularly painful."
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai thanked Clinton for "showing concern and regret" and added that "we hope we can work together to completely reduce civilian casualties in the struggle against terrorism."
The international Red Cross confirmed "dozens of bodies" on Wednesday in graves and rubble where Afghan officials alleged that U.S. bombs killed civilians.
You are not a warmonger if you, "say you are sorry" right after it happens. That will be Hilary's primary job. If Obama tires after throwing 120= "sorrys" then she is called in as the relief apologizer.
The first has unfortunately been harped on many times. Obama adopted the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation from Bush. If resources stayed in those two countries instead of fighting a second war in Iraq at the same time, the Taliban would never have advanced so far into Pakistan. Our intelligence resources have been split between the two countries as opposed to being able to focus on one target.
Second, and this had two parts. First part: The Taliban create the civilian casualties. A report that came out yesterday estimated the Taliban utilizing up to 40,000 people as human shields - living amongst them, in civilian homes. Civilian casualties are going to happen. Second part: It has always been my opinion that the "civilian casualty" reports have been skewed. We bomb a house of a known leader, confirm his dead, yet the news focuses on the fact we killed his kid and wife. Sorry, but family living with Taliban leaders are fair game as well.
Killer: Maybe. He's the final say when it comes to calling in the drones. He also gave authorization to shoot those pirates. I think this is good. Contradicts the critics that still try and say he doesn't have any balls. If he has *credible* evidence of Taliban in a location, then bombs away.
War Criminal: Not a chance. He has done the exact opposite of ordering torture on prisoners.
Warmonger: Let's wait and see if he invades a couple of countries before making a final decision on this one.
You are not a warmonger if you, "say you are sorry" right after it happens. That will be Hilary's primary job. If Obama tires after throwing 120= "sorrys" then she is called in as the relief apologizer.
You aren't a warmonger if innocent people die either. Campaigning for and invading countries based on fabricated information makes you a warmonger.
Johnny he killed innocent civilains in a country which never invaded us.
***Im all for it, just trying to think like a lib, it seems like you have successfully rationalized it, but will the rest of the world?
Bush apparently ruined out image worldwide, will this put Obama in the same camp?
[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;686808]***Im all for it, just trying to think like a lib QUOTE]
You'll need a lobotomy to accomplish that.
Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
***Im all for it, just trying to think like a lib QUOTE]
You'll need a lobotomy to accomplish that.
He could also just take some 'shrooms, save the surgery, and view the world through a lense where the frames break free from the chains of the absolute.
Obama is following through on a campaign pledge to "follow them into the caves of Pakastan". That's a good thing. I just hope he understands that this is not going to be over for a long, long time. It's going to cost the billions he promised to save by ending the Iraq war. ......Reality time!.
Haven't you learned anything in this past 3+ months? Obama can do no wrong period other than on one cable news channel and AM talk radio. The entire rest of the media from newspapers, radio, and television news programs have far too much invested in him to report anything negative. If Bush was still the Pres. with the goings on of the past 3 months you would have riots taking place in DC and 24 hour coverage.
Haven't you learned anything in this past 3+ months? Obama can do no wrong period other than on one cable news channel and AM talk radio. The entire rest of the media from newspapers, radio, and television news programs have far too much invested in him to report anything negative. If Bush was still the Pres. with the goings on of the past 3 months you would have riots taking place in DC and 24 hour coverage.
How do you think the media would have covered this story if G.W.B was the one that authorized it?
"U.S. Navy snipers opened fire and killed three pirates holding an American captain at gunpoint"
I can see it already. News Flash! George Bush just authorized the assassination of 3 innocent Kenyan Pirates who had no choice other than to take hostages in order to feed their families because of oppression of Kenya due to United States policies. The President authorized the use of unnecessary force resulting in the deaths leaving the children of these men fatherless. Sound about right to you?
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
How do you think the media would have covered this story if G.W.B was the one that authorized it?
due to United States policies. The President authorized the use of unnecessary force resulting in the deaths leaving the children of these men fatherless. Sound about right to you?
Christ...
Nebe is a far left moon-bat as you can get (I say that w/ love of course)
and he thinks the right outcome prevailed..
bad example 179...
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
Gee how soon we all forget the media coverage GW received for the past 8 years. If you assume the possible example I posted above would not have been expressed that way in liberal land you obviously are not watching the media too closely.
How about the soldier who killed 5 of his fellow mates a few days ago. How long would it have taken the media to blame Bush for this?
How do you think the media would have covered this story if G.W.B was the one that authorized it?
"U.S. Navy snipers opened fire and killed three pirates holding an American captain at gunpoint"
I can see it already. News Flash! George Bush just authorized the assassination of 3 innocent Kenyan Pirates who had no choice other than to take hostages in order to feed their families because of oppression of Kenya due to United States policies. The President authorized the use of unnecessary force resulting in the deaths leaving the children of these men fatherless. Sound about right to you?
Actually, I think this post is pretty telling. You see the counter-opinion to simply be a matter of ideology rather than policy. This unfortunately ignores...um...all the facts.
As was said, your example is moot. The assertion that the Obama's authorization of force is in some way the same as Bush's in Iraq is laughable. I guess context doesn't matter when you're trying to make a point.
Maybe under Bush, he would have trusted his Commander on scene to make the call and not have to be asked on this. Even if it has to be officially authorized by the president, I know from experience that it would have been done on the regional commander's authority and Bush would be back filled on the details. Every little military action does not need the president or the press involved in them, especially in the fluid environment we work in, where these decisions often need to be made on the spot.
Also if you can't see an extreme bias in the way the media covers political events, you must be blind and deaf.
I know many Conservatives who would agree that Bush was a terrible President. Should the media have not covered the bad stuff?
-spence
Spence,
I know many so called Liberals and Moderates who are not very happy in the way that the Obama administration is handling the economy and digging a deficit hole that this country will have a very hard time getting out of. Are their voices being heard in the media? Or are they being portrayed as racist or bible bearing rednecks if they are reported on at all?
Spence,
I know many so called Liberals and Moderates who are not very happy in the way that the Obama administration is handling the economy and digging a deficit hole that this country will have a very hard time getting out of. Are their voices being heard in the media? Or are they being portrayed as racist or bible bearing rednecks if they are reported on at all?
I've seen plenty of negative reporting on Obama's economic policy from moderate voices in the mainstream media.
Or, have you watched MSNBC at night lately? They've been taking Obama to task over not releasing interrogation photos. I had thought they weren't allowed to do this by their cheer leading instructor.
This isn't rocket science.
The same media who people whined were unfair to Bush also hammered President Clinton relentlessly.
The media wasn't after Bush at the beginning of his term or during the 9/11 fallout.
Hell, it was the New York Times, flag bearer of the Liberal Media who did the most to publicize the false WMD accusations that led us to IRAQ!
It was after the Administration started making dumb mistakes, tried to cover them up, used the war to win elections and generally speaking placed ideology ahead of mainstream interests - - that the media really went nuts.
Of course it was all about the man, they hated Bush right? Bull%$%$%$%$...it was all about policy.
Obama isn't being given any free pass, and everyone who voted for him is looking very closely to see if he does what he says he would do. Of course, the Punditry who makes money by tearing him down might have a different opinion.
Or, have you watched MSNBC at night lately? They've been taking Obama to task over not releasing interrogation photos. I had thought they weren't allowed to do this by their cheer leading instructor.
-spence
I have a thought on that, perhaps by the media "calling him out" on them, will allow him to do what he would like and release them. I am sure he is taking the stand to "protect" our reputation, and not risk our military men in possible escalations to due their reactions to the photos, all to appear as if he gives a damn about the troops.
I know you'll say I'm giving Obama too much credit in what is said on MSNBC, but they are sticking to defending liberal views and condeming conservative views. The fact that he is talking about them and how bad they are, and how he doesn't want our reputation brought down further by these, is making it just as bad as releasing them. Obama is pretending to care about a conservative issue (military strength) while MSNBC and others get on him about him, then eventually he will "give in" to the "desires of the nation" as put forth by MSNBC, allowing him to have his cake and eat it too.
white house lawn
"Texas is full of bible carrying, gun toting radicals."
Linear Mode
