| Author | Post |
|---|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 03:41 pm |
|
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 01:12 am |
|
You're not in Chicago anymore!
Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 02:22 am by BigSurprize
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 03:57 pm |
|
FORE!
President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months, but he's already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years.
CBS' Mark Knoller — an unofficial documentarian and statistician of all things White House-related — wrote on his Twitter feed that, "Today - Obama ties Pres. Bush in the number of rounds of golf played in office: 24.
Took Bush 2 yrs & 10 months."
This news comes on the heels of today's news that Obama played golf with a woman — chief domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes — for the first time since taking office.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
Deja vu on dictators, double standards
Kim R. Holmes
OPINION/ANALYSIS:
Thirty years ago, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick charged the Carter administration with hypocrisy and doublethink. Why, she asked in "Dictatorships and Double Standards," did President Carter always seem to find fault with the human rights records of friendly powers while letting unfriendly states off the hook? Why, she wondered, was the triumph of unfriendly states considered beneficial to America's "true interests?"
Mr. Carter had no good answers. Neither does President Obama, who appears to be heading down a similar path of hypocrisy. His siding with a leftist authoritarian, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, against pro-American groups in Honduras is an approach right from the pages of Mr. Carter's policy playbook.
It's a book of double standards. Like Mr. Carter, Mr. Obama applies one hyper-critical standard of behavior to those who ousted former Honduran President ManuelZelaya, and a lower standard to those far more guilty of abuses - like Mr. Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Zelaya was relieved of office because he was working, with help from Mr. Chavez, to subvert Honduras' constitutional and democratic order. Mr. Chavez was financing Mr. Zelaya's illegal referendum to overturn a constitutional provision so he could remain in power. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution explicitly says that "no citizen who has already served as head of the executive branch can be president or vice president."
Moreover, the constitution also clearly states that anyone who tries to alter the term limits on the office of the president is guilty of treason.
Whatever you say about the Hondurans' ouster of Mr. Zelaya, this was not a standard Latin American military coup. The elected leaders of the Honduran Congress and the guardians of the constitution -- the Supreme Court -- acted to preserve the constitutional order, not subvert it. Perhaps the constitution should provide for an impeachment trial; it does not. Perhaps the military should not have been involved. But at least in Honduras the armed forces acted under the orders of the Supreme Court in defense of the constitution. And they promised to allow the fall elections to proceed instead of postponing them in a grab for power.
Contrast this with how Mr. Chavez consolidated power in Venezuela. After successfully stacking the courts and legislature, he has used them to push through a series of referendums not only to change the country's constitution, but also to engineer a power grab, all in the name of "democracy." Many think Mr. Zelaya was trying to copy Mr. Chavez in Honduras.
Yet what does the Obama administration do? Instead of siding with those who uphold the Honduran Constitution, it joined Mr. Chavez in sponsoring a United Nations resolution denouncing the actions of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress! Not only are all of Mr. Chavez's past transgressions apparently forgiven, from now on any bloodshed he provokes inside Honduras will be blamed on someone else.
This double standard is at play with respect to Iran, as well. There was no rush to the United Nations, or any other body, by the Obama administration to denounce the violence against protesters in Iran. Instead of the swift, outraged, and decisive action we saw against Honduras, the president's reaction to the Iranian crisis was slow, conflicted and confused. And while Mr. Obama reportedly is lobbying the Group of Eight to hold off on sanctions against a bloody-minded Iranian regime, he tries to turn Honduras into an international pariah.
The reason for this double standard is ideology. For some in the Obama administration, leftist authoritarians like Mr. Chavez and "anti-imperialist" radical regimes like Iran's are assumed to enjoy some kind of legitimacy inside their own countries. Their illiberal abuses of the ballot box and degradations of their constitutions are downplayed because it is assumed that they are at least partly justifiably aggrieved in their hatred of the United States.
This is a serious misjudgment. There is a direct link between the internal political ideologies of regimes and their foreign policies. Illiberal regimes like Venezuela and Iran that manipulate elections and constitutions to retain power are anti-American. This is no accident; their ideologies are predicated on hostility not only to American power, but to American principles of freedom and democracy, which mean free and fair elections, not manipulated ones.
This fact alone should have given the Obama administration pause in choosing sides in the Honduran crisis. Instead, as Mrs. Kirkpatrick would recognize, they fell back on a tired ideological hypocrisy that, as she said about Mr. Carter, "involves the administration in wholesale contradiction of its own principles."
The Obama administration fails to distinguish friend from foe. Worse, it tarnishes American principles of freedom by associating the United States with the world's worst abusers of them.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 03:11 pm |
|
 Last edited on Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 06:22 pm by designman124
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 04:45 pm |
|
A message to our president...from Military Moms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hoslLoEvZE&feature=player_embedded#
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 06:21 am |
|
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel claimed that the Obama administration had to form an Afghan war strategy from scratch because the Bush administration hadn't asked any key questions about the war and left it "adrift."
Actually, the Bush administration handed Obama's transition team a policy review of the Afghan war conducted last fall to meet the new challenges posed by the Taliban. The transition team asked that the findings not be made public (so that Emanuel could make the above claim?). The Bush administration agreed giving the Obama transition teams the benefit of the work they had done.
The fact of the matter is that Bush administration had developed a new strategy on the war in Afghanistan before leaving office -- a strategy that bears a striking resemblance to the one announced by President Obama in March.
Now Obama has called for another assessment of the Afghan war strategy a mere six months after receiving the August 30th assessment he requested from General McChrystal, his hand-picked commander.
Obama is currently debating whether to ramp up war at the request of his military advisers or scale back the effort and focus on going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan, as some of his political advisers are urging.
Meantime, it looks like Defense Secretary Gates is distancing himself from the president’s position.
So where are we? Obama has not decided when a decision on a possible troop surge for Afghanistan would be reached. In fact, Obama announced this week to remain undecided on new troops in Afghanistan for weeks, or even months.
Commander-in-Chief? A little harder than attending fundraisers. Speaking of fund raising, Bush appears to be the fundraiser-in-chief. After nine months in office, Bush raised $48 million in six fundraisers, while Obama raised $21 million in his first 20.
Last edited on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 06:31 am by goldrush
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:21 pm |
|
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 04:03 pm |
|
designman124 wrote: Also, Obama today agreed to commit an additional 40,000 troops to help fight Fox News.
LOL Now that's funny...in a sad-scary-ironic kinda way. 
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:46 pm |
|
Also, Obama today agreed to commit an additional 40,000 troops to help fight Fox News.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:31 pm |
|
Approval Tanking
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13. That’s just a point above the lowest level ever recorded for this President. It’s also the sixth straight day in negative double digits, matching the longest such streak (see trends).
Just 31% of voters believe that Congress has a good understanding of the health care proposal.
|
deuce
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 337 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 11:40 pm |
|
Conservatives are being to hard on Obama. For Pete's sake
GIVE HIM A CHANCE !
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 11:21 pm |
|
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 11:17 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: Razenkn wrote: designman124 wrote: Nero fiddles while Rome burns
WOW. When I look at this "my cup runeth over".....with tears. It's not the fact that Barry is playing but it's the stupid moronic look on his Press Secretary's face. Would anyone guess we are fighting two wars and our soldiers are being killed while this Prez tries to find the time to make a decision? Would anyone guess we are on the verge of a great depression because there is nothing in the StimuLESS to create real jobs and unemployment is reaching 10%. Now the AP is saying this is going to be our "new norm" really? Is that acceptable to all of you out there in juice land?? He's quickly turning us into a welfare State, is that okay with you too?? Because standing by and doing nothing about nothing except for pushing welfare and socialism, that is where we will end up.
Well, who knows, maybe he does his best "thinking....mulling.....waffling...." while playing. And the worst Press Secretary on the face of the earth is playing "show and tell" instead of addressing the issues. 
That "stupid moronic look" as you describe it, is what civilized, rational people call a "smile". I'm happy to educate you, bigrants.
Nah, I looked at it again, definitely a big dufus moronic look. Not a care in the world, just worshiping his hero. He'll probably hang that on his bedroom wall. LOL He''s the biggest joke in the WH, his nose is chocolate brown.
Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 12:25 am by Razenkn
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 08:24 pm |
|
clarz007 wrote: Why should Obama or any other president plunge into sending more young men and women to their deaths?? Until he has a strategy and assurances from the Afghans that they are willing to take charge of their own government Obama should SIT ON THIS....and that is exactly what he is doing. AND WHY is Congress so anxious to march our young people to the front lines? So they can say "See how strong we are?" "See how great we are?" Stupidity--plain and simple.
Gates: U.S. Cannot Wait for Afghan Election to Make Troop Decision
Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells reporters aboard his plane to Tokyo that the administration cannot "sit on our hands" with regard to troop levels in Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today that the Obama administration cannot wait for the Afghan election to be resolved before making a decision on troop levels, appearing to be at odds with White House officials who have tied a decision on U.S. strategy to the resolution of the election and political stability. Gates suggested the election would not have an immediate impact on the overall situation in the country.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress said a runoff is important, but that U.S. military strategy is not dependent on who's leading the country.
ttsogotp, Obama.
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 08:24 pm by goldrush
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 07:23 pm |
|
Razenkn wrote: designman124 wrote: Nero fiddles while Rome burns
WOW. When I look at this "my cup runeth over".....with tears. It's not the fact that Barry is playing but it's the stupid moronic look on his Press Secretary's face. Would anyone guess we are fighting two wars and our soldiers are being killed while this Prez tries to find the time to make a decision? Would anyone guess we are on the verge of a great depression because there is nothing in the StimuLESS to create real jobs and unemployment is reaching 10%. Now the AP is saying this is going to be our "new norm" really? Is that acceptable to all of you out there in juice land?? He's quickly turning us into a welfare State, is that okay with you too?? Because standing by and doing nothing about nothing except for pushing welfare and socialism, that is where we will end up.
Well, who knows, maybe he does his best "thinking....mulling.....waffling...." while playing. And the worst Press Secretary on the face of the earth is playing "show and tell" instead of addressing the issues.
That "stupid moronic look" as you describe it, is what civilized, rational people call a "smile". I'm happy to educate you, bigrants.Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 07:24 pm by callmelou
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 07:02 pm |
|
designman124 wrote: Nero fiddles while Rome burns
WOW. When I look at this "my cup runeth over".....with tears. It's not the fact that Barry is playing but it's the stupid moronic look on his Press Secretary's face. Would anyone guess we are fighting two wars and our soldiers are being killed while this Prez tries to find the time to make a decision? Would anyone guess we are on the verge of a great depression because there is nothing in the StimuLESS to create real jobs and unemployment is reaching 10%. Now the AP is saying this is going to be our "new norm" really? Is that acceptable to all of you out there in juice land?? He's quickly turning us into a welfare State, is that okay with you too?? Because standing by and doing nothing about nothing except for pushing welfare and socialism, that is where we will end up.
Well, who knows, maybe he does his best "thinking....mulling.....waffling...." while playing. And the worst Press Secretary on the face of the earth is playing "show and tell" instead of addressing the issues.
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 07:05 pm by Razenkn
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 05:55 pm |
|
Nero fiddles while Rome burns
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:45 pm |
|
|
Brian Lameira
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:26 pm |
|
'They Tried to Steal an Election,' N.Y. Voter Fraud Case Heats Up
Thirty-eight forged or fraudulent ballots have been thrown out, according to records at the Rensselaer County Board of Elections in Troy, N.Y. Enough votes, an election official admits, to likely have tipped the November election to the Democrats.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/20/tried-steal-election-ny-voter-fraud-case-heats/
How often does this happen to the Republicans when you get these left wing idiots involved in elctions. All you get is election fraud!!!
Finally more proof but the lefties will deny, deny, deny!
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 06:01 am |
|
clarz007 wrote: Why should Obama or any other president plunge into sending more young men and women to their deaths?? Until he has a strategy and assurances from the Afghans that they are willing to take charge of their own government Obama should SIT ON THIS....and that is exactly what he is doing. AND WHY is Congress so anxious to march our young people to the front lines? So they can say "See how strong we are?" "See how great we are?" Stupidity--plain and simple.
Well let's see. During his campaign he constantly referred to the war in Afghanistan as the "WAR OF NECESSITY". He shook his fist and said if elected he would fight a SMART war. Only he knew how to do that. Immedately upon taking his oath of office he fired the General and hand selected a new one which was a good one, General McChrystal and said of him in March of this year, he has my complete confidence and trust. We have a strategy of insurgence and General McCrystal is going to give me a plan to implement this strategy. Yahoo.
Then in August General McCrystal did just that and asked for an additional 40,000 troops to get the requested strategy achieved but the Prez didn't call for a meeting until an entire month passed by, he met with General McChrystal one time in 70 days. That is about the most disrespectful and inexperienced thing anyone has seen from a Commander in Chief. Now, he is SITTING on it not because he's concerned about the young men and women in harms way but because his left base and boss, George Soros doesn't want him to send anymore troops and when Georgie speaks, Barry listens as does Nancy Fancy Pants.
Now this is the dilemma. Our brave men and women are being left out to dry over there in harms way and they are asking for BACK UP so they can finish their mission and they need these troops to keep them from getting killed. Every day this Prez can't make a decision, we have more and more dead soldiers and their blood is on his hands.
The idea that Barack Hussein Obama is delaying the decision due to the instability of the Afghanistan government is ludicrous. When has it ever been stable? When was Iraq's government ever stable until went in to win?? That is all they know is strength, we have that, we need to use it so we can bring these kids home. Don't leave them hanging Mr Prez, you're killing them.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:45 am |
|
clarz007 wrote: Why should Obama or any other president plunge into sending more young men and women to their deaths?? Until he has a strategy and assurances from the Afghans that they are willing to take charge of their own government Obama should SIT ON THIS....and that is exactly what he is doing. AND WHY is Congress so anxious to march our young people to the front lines? So they can say "See how strong we are?" "See how great we are?" Stupidity--plain and simple.
Bush is gone but not his political philosophy...when the draft is reinstated, let's see how many of these fake patriots are willing to have their kids killed in Afganistan for no valid reason.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:21 am |
|
|
clarz007
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 01:47 am |
|
| Why should Obama or any other president plunge into sending more young men and women to their deaths?? Until he has a strategy and assurances from the Afghans that they are willing to take charge of their own government Obama should SIT ON THIS....and that is exactly what he is doing. AND WHY is Congress so anxious to march our young people to the front lines? So they can say "See how strong we are?" "See how great we are?" Stupidity--plain and simple.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 01:34 am |
|
U.S. Should Not Wait on Afghan Election to Make Troop Decision, Lawmakers Say
Members of Congress from both parties say President Obama shouldn't delay moving forward with a new strategy until there's a credible government in place in Afghanistan.
If the Obama administration waits until Afghanistan settles its presidential election before deciding whether to send in more troops, it will be making a big mistake, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle said Monday.
Like I said he's btwn a rock and a hard place. Decision time, Mr. President. Time to step up even if you alienate the far left.
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 01:36 am by goldrush
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 12:38 am |
|
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 12:30 am |
|
WH COS said on CNN’s “State of the Union”, the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bring stability to the region. It would be irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan until a legitimate and credible government is in place, he said. The runoff election is a factor.
Off course, this begs the question of what you do if it’s determined that Afghanistan can’t be an effective partner and/or is unable to establish a legitimate and credible government.
Does anyone think a complete withdrawal is an option? Pulling out would create a vacuum in the region that would be disastrous to the balance of power and embolden warring factions. The only option Obama has is to increase the number of boots on the ground after tinkering with the strategy.
Meantime, Obama is trying to figure out how to placate the party’s left who do not want to commit more troops although, they haven’t revealed their “Plan B”. Their happy that the ball is in Obama's court. Also, what do you tell our allies who have committed troops to the war and suffered their fair share of casualties?
It’s increasingly looking like Obama is between a rock and a hard place. Will a decision be made before the first of the year? Will it be a "no decision" decision?
Last edited on Mon Oct 19th, 2009 12:33 am by goldrush
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18th, 2009 06:09 pm |
|
Debacle in Moscow
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 16, 2009
About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award "premature," as if the brilliance of Obama's foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.
To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president's various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration -- excuse me, outreach and understanding -- is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come.
Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better. Well, at nine months, let's review.
What's come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program.
What's come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama's shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postponement, we are told)? China hasn't moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed, it's pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
What's come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? "The settlement push backfired," reports The Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have "arguably regressed."
And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.
But maybe not gratuitous. Surely we got something in return for selling out our friends. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it's too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal.
The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get?
"Russia Not Budging on Iran Sanctions; Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart." Such was The Post headline's succinct summary of the debacle.
Note how thoroughly Clinton was rebuffed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" are "counterproductive." Note: It's not just sanctions that are worse than useless, but even the threat of mere pressure.
It gets worse. Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached . . . it is our preference that Iran work with the international community."
But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?
Gone with the wind. It's the United States that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.
Henry Kissinger once said that the main job of Anatoly Dobrynin, the perennial Soviet ambassador to Washington, was to tell the Kremlin leadership that whenever they received a proposal from the United States that appeared disadvantageous to the United States, not to assume it was a trick.
No need for a Dobrynin today. The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and "reset" buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 10:41 pm |
|
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:18 pm |
|
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 10:44 pm |
|
A growing plurality of Americans now disapproves of the job Barack Obama is doing on Afghanistan -- and far more trust Gen. Stanley McChrystal to make the next steps than trust the president.
Regarding next steps in Afghanistan, Americans are much more likely to trust the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal (62 percent) over President Obama (22 percent).
(OPD)
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 04:57 pm |
|
How The Left Sees It:
Last edited on Fri Oct 16th, 2009 11:24 pm by designman124
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 03:18 pm |
|
| When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest. - Abraham Lincoln
|
Schoolmarm
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 233 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 04:57 am |
|
The Audacity of Unawareness
April 15th, 2009 5:03 pm Barack Obama, through his spokesman, claimed that he was unaware of the tax day tea parties. Granted, the MSM has done a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best). but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?
This much we know:
- He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America .
- He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist (Bill Ayers).
- He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
- He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.
- He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya .
- He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.
He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.
He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.
He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.
- He was unaware that the man he appointed as a car-czar was an avowed communist and conspiracy theorist.
He was unaware that ACORN (his former employer) was receiving any government stimulus money ($8 BILLION)!
PLEASE,,, there are people in comas that are more aware of world affairs than this guy.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 09:38 pm |
|
Obama, Liberals Split On Security
Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:25 AM
New cracks are opening in the relationship between President Barack Obama and his liberal allies in Congress over his desire to continue Bush-era tactics against terrorism and his opposition to protecting reporters from revealing their sources in national security cases.
Some supporters are grousing that Obama, just like President George W. Bush, is too willing to cite national security as a reason for invading Americans' privacy and restricting their right to know what the government is doing.
In recent weeks, the administration has asked Congress to extend key provisions of the USA Patriot Act that expire at year's end, sections that allow roving wiretaps on multiple phones, seizing of business records and a never-used authority to spy on non-Americans suspected of being terrorists even though they have no known connection to a recognized terrorist group.
Liberals have expressed a willingness to continue those practices, but they also are demanding restrictions on government surveillance and seizures and an increase in congressional scrutiny of government operations.
Justice Department witnesses, in two public hearings, repeatedly refused to answer questions from exasperated lawmakers on what Patriot Act changes the administration would support.
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said he feared "the president would be surrounded with a series of presidential lawyers and advisers who would say, 'You must preserve prerogatives of the presidency.'
"Well, this is precisely what happened," Feingold said.
He's not alone.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., compared a witness the Obama administration sent to Capitol Hill to the witnesses dispatched by the Bush administration, which fought battles with liberals over enemy combatants, secret overseas prisons, warrantless wiretaps and the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"You know, you sound like a lot of people from DOJ (Department of Justice) who have come here before," Conyers told the recent witness.
Last week, the administration finally did tell lawmakers what changes it would accept in the Patriot Act, but Americans learned little: The briefing for lawmakers was in closed session because classified information was discussed.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said prior to the classified briefing on the Patriot Act that he was willing to move ahead with changes with or without the blessings of the administration.
"If I don't have their views, I'm just going to pass it the way I want it," he said. "I try to work with them. If they're not interested in that, I'll pass it the way I want to pass it."
On a bill to shield reporters from having to disclose their anonymous sources in federal court, the administration infuriated a chief Senate Democratic sponsor by eliminating a proposed judicial balancing test between national security secrets and the public's right to information.
"The administration's opposition to the core of this bill came as a complete surprise and doesn't show much concern for compromise," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "This turns the bill's near-certain passage into an uphill fight."
Schumer's bill, in part, is a response to a judge's decision in 2005 to jail New York Times reporter Judith Miller for 85 days for refusing to identify the Bush administration officials who spoke with her about CIA employee Valerie Plame.
The complaints are not all one way.
Administration officials have also expressed unhappiness with the actions of some of Obama's supporters in Congress, particularly language in spending bills prohibiting the relocation of the U.S. terrorism detainees held at the Guantanamo prison, which Obama has vowed to close.
"The restrictions that we've had to deal with on the Hill give me great concern," said Attorney General Eric Holder, disputing the claim that Guantanamo detainees are too dangerous to be brought to U.S. soil.
Lawmakers acknowledge that Obama's perspective looking out from the White House, where he gets daily intelligence briefings, is different from the one he had when, as the junior senator from Illinois, he was on the opposite side of some issues.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 03:25 pm |
|
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 05:06 am |
|
Craig wrote: Wow, can it be true ? The banks and wall street are set to pay them selves 10 billon more in pay and bonuses then they did in 2007. Thats showing them whos boss O.
You're making an argument for more gov't regulation, which I support...left to their own conscious, big business will NOT do the right thing...Reagan was was nuts when he pushed deregulation....we need to throw some CEO's in jail because that's the only thing that they understand.
|
clarz007
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 02:46 am |
|
goldrush wrote: Obama is in over his head on Afghanistan. To him it’s a distraction. McChrystal’s assessment that more troops are needed has spooked the Administration.
This is the war that our CIC pledged to properly resource as a “war of necessity”. During the campaign he called it “the central front on terror”. ‘bama asked McChrystal to perform an assessment of the forces required to execute his strategy. The confidential assessment was presented in August and leaked to the press but, not by McChrystal.
Now, ‘bama doesn’t like the outcome and met with McChrystal on the tarmac in Copenhagen and chewed his a$$ out for the leak. ‘bama is about to hang McChrystal out to dry. Escalating the war in Afghanistan is pretty unpopular among Dems. What will ‘bama do? Does he have the guts to approve McChrystal’s request. Wait ‘til you see the outcome of ‘bama’s reassessment and ultimate decision. It will be a classic “no decision” decision. Like I had no choice. Remember ‘bama said it’s a “war of necessity”. That was just 6 months ago.
WE are ALL IN over our heads in Afghanistan and of course the war is a distraction. The president has just a couple of other things going on. The decision to send more young men and women to the front is never an easy one. Historically the U.S. has never won a classic civil war or a fight against an insurgency in which it bore the brunt of battle and became the local villain. Vietnam is the obvious example. For the sake of friendly Afghans and for our own security, our goal now should be to make this their war, not our war. Bottom line: this is a rock and hard place situation and we are not going to win this one. There is a middle ground--bring in enough troops to train the Afghans, support our current troops and leave enough troops to stabilize the situation. Americans have lost patience with this war....it's time to wrap it up.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 01:51 am |
|
Wow, can it be true ? The banks and wall street are set to pay them selves 10 billon more in pay and bonuses then they did in 2007. Thats showing them whos boss O.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 01:29 am |
|
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11th, 2009 06:40 pm |
|
WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama on Saturday pledged to end a 16-year-old Clinton-era policy banning gay people from serving openly in the nation's military, in a gesture to a group that provided a major source of support during his campaign.
But the president didn't set out a timetable for reversing the policy. As a result, his pledge might not be enough to appease some in the gay community who feel that Mr. Obama hasn't moved quickly enough to address their issues -- even as his message could spark criticism from some conservatives and members of the military. (wsj 10.11.2009)
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 04:03 pm |
|
http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/has-conan-obriens-feud-with-newarks-mayor-finally-come-to-an-end--675
So she cant do her job overseas where she is suppose to be working, but your tax dollars at work to resolve feud between conan and the mayor of newark. Does that mean she has been sent down to the minors for more practice before she gets another shot at real world problems?
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 01:52 am |
|
| The deadline for nominations for the prize was Feb. 1 -- two weeks after Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Committee was obviously swayed by his campaign rehtoric 'cuz he hasn't done a d**n thing as Prez except talk a not so good game.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
It Looks Like GIs Are on Their Own
WASHINGTON -- President Obama appears unlikely to accept his top Afghanistan commander's recommendation for a surge of 40,000 troops, and is inclined to send only as many more forces as needed to keep al Qaeda at bay, a senior administration official said yesterday.The sharpened focus by Obama's team on fighting al Qaeda above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year war.Though aides stress that the president's final decision on any changes is still at least two weeks away, the emerging thinking suggests that he would be very unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 04:25 pm |
|
Hmmm, this article (dated 10/2/09) makes much more sense now that BHO won the Nobel Peace Prize..and to think that Brown and Sarkozy could have blown it for him!
Brown and Sarkozy rowed with Obama over Iranian nuclear announcement
Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy had a behind-the-scenes row with Barack Obama over last week's announcement about a secret uranium enrichment plant in Iran.
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 7:05PM BST 02 Oct 2009
Barack Obama argued with Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy over last week's announcement about a secret uranium enrichment plant in Iran Photo: Reuters
The President is believed to have angered the European leaders by insisting on delaying a joint press conference until after he had chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council.
Mr Obama is said to have been worried the announcement would undermine the impact of his session on nuclear non-proliferation.
Details of the disagreement appeared to explain why Mr Brown and Mr Sarkozy, the French president, took a harder line on Iran than the American leader at the meeting
The Prime Minister said it was time "to draw a line in the sand" on Tehran's nuclear programme while the Frenchman mocked Mr Obama for the naivety of his "dreams" of eliminating nuclear weapons.
According to French officials, Mr Brown and particularly Mr Sarkozy wanted to make a declaration on Sep 24, either at the Security Council meeting chaired by the US president or just afterwards.
The Europeans considered that there was no better stage from which to tell the world that the three countries' intelligence services had worked together to uncover an underground uranium enrichment facility under construction at Qom.
But Mr Obama did not want to "spoil the image of success" of his disarmament session, which passed a resolution to work towards a nuclear-free world and a host of measures designed to control the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce existing stocks.
After much arm-twisting, Mr Brown and Mr Sarkozy were persuaded to delay the announcement until the opening of the G20 summit the next day in Pittsburgh.
Their joint appearance on Sep 25 overshadowed declarations about shifting the balance of power from the G8 to the G20 and launching a framework to rebalance economic growth.
News of the disagreement came as Mohammed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was due to arrive in Tehran today [Sat].
He was expected to finalise a visit by inspectors to the enrichment facility within a fortnight, the allies have made progress in the prolonged impasse over Iran's nuclear programme.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 03:54 pm |
|
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 03:33 am |
|
| http://stevencrowder.ning.com/
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 01:11 am |
|
Have you noticed that the president's confused ideological identity has become an impediment to passing his agenda.
For example, he says his health-care bill is not a Trojan horse for a Canadian-style single-payer system, but then feels forced to appear on five Sunday talk shows to prove otherwise; or he plants white-coated docs like plastic flamingos on the White House lawn.
Another. On the first September anniversary of the end of Wall Street as we know it, Mr. Obama stood in the Federal Hall on Wall Street to say, "I've always been a strong believer in the power of the free market." What? Not so you'd notice.
The Olympic Committee's rejection of Chicago is yet another Obama story. The real, less entertaining message, is that from where the well-traveled committee members sit, Chicago is a has-been. Rio is the future. Obama constantly belittles America and the world is beginning to take him seriously.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 05:28 am |
|
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 02:07 am |
|
Obama is in over his head on Afghanistan. To him it’s a distraction. McChrystal’s assessment that more troops are needed has spooked the Administration.
This is the war that our CIC pledged to properly resource as a “war of necessity”. During the campaign he called it “the central front on terror”. ‘bama asked McChrystal to perform an assessment of the forces required to execute his strategy. The confidential assessment was presented in August and leaked to the press but, not by McChrystal.
Now, ‘bama doesn’t like the outcome and met with McChrystal on the tarmac in Copenhagen and chewed his a$$ out for the leak. ‘bama is about to hang McChrystal out to dry. Escalating the war in Afghanistan is pretty unpopular among Dems. What will ‘bama do? Does he have the guts to approve McChrystal’s request. Wait ‘til you see the outcome of ‘bama’s reassessment and ultimate decision. It will be a classic “no decision” decision. Like I had no choice. Remember ‘bama said it’s a “war of necessity”. That was just 6 months ago.
|
Current time is 08:34 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|