You are an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.
Over and over we have been told
We are not putting any ground forces into Libya.
Last night we learn
The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials.
There are American boots on the ground in Libya. Read this carefully:
While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said.
Which means Obama has been lying through his teeth to America all this time.
Despite the assurance
Broadening military mission in Libya to include regime change would be a mistake, U.S. President Barack Obama said in a nationally televised speech at the National Defense University.
~~~~
“If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air,” Obama argued.
Barack Obama seeks regime change in Libya.
Obama Signed Secret Libya Order Authorizing Support For Rebels
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Now we have American operatives working side by side with Al Qaida to overthrow a government.
Nothing Obama says can be trusted or believed.
Nothing.
You are an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.
What’s worse is that it is apparent he did not bother to inform anyone on the Legislative side as required until well after the time limit was exceeded to do so! Not a word from the MSM though! Now can someone please tell me why the moron in the White house is aiding what is almost assuredly a pack of jackels who were and are part of a faction that believes in the eradication of Israel and was responsible for the loss of over 3,000 American citizens? Anyone who believes that the so called rebels (I’ll grant the getting rid of the tyrant slant) there are not radical in nature are not just blind. They are ignorant to the point of idiocy. and that includes our so called leader!
Poor Obama, he is now a cornered rat fighting to survive just like Qaddafi. I’m guessing he never thought that the UN would squeeze out it’s resolution as quickly as it did. Another 48 hours and it would all have been over but he found himself facing a pending massacre after he had already spoken out against Qaddafi’s ruthlessness and also after saying Qaddafi had to go. He had no excuses left not to “do something”. Well, he did do something and now, no matter how ludicrously he and his spokesflacks twist and squirm rhetorically he’s on the hook. In it up to his neck.
Sort of like Reagan with Beirut and Bush 41 with Somalia, Obama has allowed himself to get sucked into a “humanitarian crisis” and wound up embracing a Tar Baby. He now has his very own war and must do whatever it takes to win it. Or else.
In good conscience, I cannot fault him for stating that we are not putting ground forces in Libya, while we put forward observers from the CIA in on the ground. That is essential action by the military when conducting modern bombing campaigns.
However, the point is well taken, especially when you consider the moronic host of Obama followers who have no idea how the military works. And those are the people he is speaking to. He should have clarified himself and stated “no occupying forces”, but he did not, so we are left with does he believe NO ground forces whatsoever are being used, or does he know of the forward observer types and is simply glossing over it because it is, in fact, inconsequential.
This doesn’t bother me near as much as his hypocrisies, in explaining the need for U.S. intervention in Libya, and the complete 180 he had to accomplish to do so, in light of the comments he made previously on Iraq. That isn’t a simple failing, as RW would have you believe. That is a severe lack of principles, and the ability to stand on them.
“Days, not weeks”
“Time-limited, Scope-limited Military Action”
@DrJohn:
Your right, we can believe nothing that comes out of his mouth. Even if it’s teleprompter driven.
Sinanju, what is winning? Al Qaeada in the past had to depend on handouts; now, they will have vast amount of “sweet crude” to finance their Jihad and terrorism, along with their own country, courtesy of our president.
We have those among us who say the rebels are just yesterday’s students, but if we examine the photos we see uniforms of similar style and color, we see theAK 47, an inexpensive but excellent rifle: people who live in poverty don’t just go out and spend a year’s income for a uniform and a rifle. These rebels are well supplied and backed by al Qaeeda, but they need heavier weapons to stand up against the loyalist troops. Fifty calibers are nice, M 60s are nice, rocket launchers are nice, they need those weapons and Mr Obama is probably already passing them out and instructing the rebels on how to use them at this very moment. By the time al Qaeda becomes competent with our weapons, they will be using them against Americans. Is that victory?
And explain to me what kind of MOron PUBLISHES a secret presidential finding. Does anyone believe that leaked without the White House OK? He just had to show how tough he was being.
And everyone knows if he was serious about taking down Ghadaffi he would have sent SEIU and OFA goons, not the Navy.
The Vanity War
Foreign Policy to this president is to be directed by domestic political advantage; he realizes he has been seen as a wimp at home and abroad, to change public opinion he felt it was necessary to conduct a sterile humanitarian war and be proclaimed an historical statesman. Unfortunately, the sly Gadaffy has proven himself to be a survivor once again; consequently, Obama has fallen down the outhouse hole and it looks and smells bad down there. He is willing to try anything and everything to save face and convince everyone that he smells like a rose when he crawls out, but hype and BS doesn’t float like like it did two years ago.
Wartime presidents are usually assured of reelection, but when they start stupid little vanity wars they can’t win and they smell like they just climbed out of the outhouse hole, election victory will be more difficult.
I’m surprised at the MSM’s shortsightedness here. Their lack of critical response now certainly will be used come 2012 as proof of their allegiance to the left, so in order to be seen as even passingly impartial during the presidential race they should at least be tossing out some token “hard-ball” critique. Where’s Code Pink (and every other anti-military intervention group) to cry out “No Blood For Oil!” at Obama and HIS war hawks? I guess principles don’t matter…
Jeff
The Fraud in the Oval Office continues his confusion: “U.S. officials revealed the CIA was on the ground in Libya. . . . . Although the administration has pledged that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed to Libya.”
Isn’t this putting the Wagon before the Horse? . . . Evidently not in this White House.
So NOW Obama is going to find out who the military is supporting.
Here’s a prediction: A new comic book series will be launched, based on the Obama Administration.
Hey Skookum if the terrorists get fifty calibers , M 60s and rocket launchers it would wind up like the gun running operation to mexico. Where the bad guys use our guns to kill our people. poorly thought out government intervention; I’m starting to see a pattern of behavior.
Did anybody really think he was telling the truth?….
Zac, Selling weapons to the drug runners has two purposes: the drug runners can operate with impunity across the border (not many border agents want to take on the AK and fifty calibers with bean bags) and the Obama administration will have reasons to promote gun control, because of the violence these weapons are creating. Our new alliance with al Qaeda will be much more deadly for our soldiers. The drug runners and people smiugglers just want to make money without government intervention, in that way they are said to be conservative, but the al Qaeda group that Obama wants to help only wants to kill our troops, the Israelis, us and everyone else in the world that doesn’t wipe their butt with rocks.
I think the biggest crime “O” makes is thinking we are all ignorant people who live in “fly over country”. Any one who reads any novel, or Field Manual understands there is always a need to have “boots on the ground”. At a minimum, SF/Rangers (SO) need to be on the ground to designate targets and to gather INTEL. The incompetence of this administration is incredable!
Joint Chief Mullen says the WEATHER is why the people we are not siding with are losing in Misrata to the leader we are not trying to overthrow.
See, we haven’t been able to do as many air strikes.
Well ………that makes sense…..not.
Hardright, AM i over imagining now, tell me:
COULD IT BE a plot, carefully ingeneerd to allowed AL QAIDA TO ENTER into thoses countrys,
victoriously, putting their men there, to grow a monster once they acquire all those countrys, then all together form a giant army to get EUROPE WHERE THEY HAVE some of their guys already.
BY THE WAY I recall the FRENCH PRESIDENT to be the first to accept the new leadership,of the revolutionair, and note how many MUSLIMS are inFRANCE too, and HE SAID we should not be afraid of those revolutionarys,from the beginning of the invasion. SO this monster army would not stop,
while they are creating violence in EUROPE, WE HERE WOULD START TO FEEL THE MOVEMENT OF THEIR FOLLOWERS HERE, OH WAIT are we already starting to smell the monster tentacules?
@JVerive: Indeed, Jeff. If this was Bush….
John Galt #3 Ididn’t suggest BHO being against Iraq intervention and for Libyan interventio(obviously on a different military scale) was a “simple failing.”
I ask again. How many here are for Both interventions. If not, are you automatically hypocrites? I think not.
Another Gulf of Tonkin pack of lies to justify intervention. I wonder how Andrea Mitchell, Chris tingles Mathews, and Jake Tapper are going to spin this. All three are huge kool aid carriers for the lieing loser. Gonna check the website ” Fire Andrea Mitchell”.
SKOOKUM, on your 12, when I think about our troops on the ground, they wont be able to turn their back either side, how can you walk like this, I guess it will be a challenge
@ilovebeeswarzone:
You never know Bees. All the turmoil is giving Al-Q and other terrorist groups the opportunity to slide into power now, or in the near future.
I know they would LOVE to achieve the same type of uprising in Saudi Arabia and have been trying to stir up dissent there.
@Randy, #13:
Actually the administration has dealt successfully with some of the most serious challenges the nation has faced since the Great Depression. At the end of 2008 unemployement was rising out of control, the bottom had dropped out of the investment markets, and we were on the brink of a total collapse of the national financial system. From that we’ve gone on to a slow but steady economic recovery. The Obama administration has successfully navigated through a sh-t storm of epic proportions, with nothing but resistance from an opposition that’s been totally focused on blocking him at every opportunity, regardless of the consequences.
Now they’re attacking him for a military intervention they would have instantly supported had it been undertaken by a republican president, trying to impose an ideologically-driven assortment of budget cuts that it’s predicted will cost the national economy 700,000 jobs by the end of next year, and are promoting more corporate and high-end tax cuts despite their supposed dedication to fiscal responsibilty, while simultaneously launching multi-pronged attacks on social programs keeping the poor afloat and against middle and working class Americans across the board.
I could sum up my attitude toward all that with two short words, the first being a verb of Anglo-Saxon derivation. As I generally favor politeness and courteous discourse I’ll leave it to the imagination.
Our overseas contingency plan is to rename this man made disaster as kinetic military action.
Thank God. And here I thought 10,5% (Admitted) unemployment, a double-dip housing collapse. 13% of American homes standing vacant and gas doubling in price were problems.
@richard mcenroe, #23:
Those things are problems, but they don’t come close to the scale of the all-encompassing calamity that was averted. “I’m still feeling a little sick” is generally considered preferable to being dead.
“You are an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.”
I must take exception to that statement, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed.
But, I wholeheartedly believe that he actually does want to spread Joe the plumber’s money around. . . now, as for anything else the POS says. . .
More of those “alternative universe” truths, eh Greg?
Take the neon hand for tarot readings out of your window, and keep your day job.
@MataHarley: Whenever someone says how much better off the country is with Obama in office, just remember back to something Ricardo Montablan used to say accent and all, “Welcome to Fantasy Island”. It’s very therapeutic and it’ll put a smile on your face.
@Greg:
After seeing your post Greg, all that can be said is:
Drugs are bad, mkay?
@JustAl, I have to agree. There are many things Obama says that I believe are true…. Such as that he wants single payer healthcare. That he wants gas to be high to force behavioral change. That he will force climate change legislation thru the EPA. Three that come to mind instantly.
But I pretty much get the gist of drj’s notion that he does “lie” alot. I might put it differently… that he redefines things – usually after approval polls are in – to reflect the same, but in a way he finds easier to debate as “did I say that???”, and more palatable for the o’faithful to swallow.
another vet…. LOL Da no fly plane! da no fly plane!
Dr J,
Are you of the opinion President Obama should have announced that CIA operatives were on the ground in Libya? Would it have been helpful of him to send maps of their locations to Libyan loyalists?
… the crisis that was averted.
I hereby nominate Greg as Head Lifeguard of Sendai Baywatch.
Gee, Tom… when was the CIA inducted into the US military? I musta missed that….
“boots on the ground”…. can you say military, occupying force, not intel?
duh. Is “anal” and word parsing a particularly liberal trait? Seems to be.
@MataHarley:
Exactly my point. “Boots on the ground” is an obvious reference to US Military personnel, who are not, to my knowledge, in Libya. Thank you for helping to clarify.
Tom, in that aspect, I don’t disagree one iota. Technically, I don’t consider our intel forces as “boots on the ground”. But I will also say that I don’t know know what the US military has on the ground. So frankly, I don’t know that Obama is being honest, or dishonest. And, in this case, I don’t consider myself.. .or the media… in a need to know basis for political points. We may, indeed, have US military there that we do not know of in order to facilitate the no fly “not a war” operation. In which case, the CiC is not being truthful.
Then again, to protect any member of the US military there for that purpose, I don’t want to know. And I especially don’t want any media to know. In that case, I would forgive a CiC’s less than honest answer.
Can’t comment to drj’s perspectives. He’s more than capable of speaking for himself. On one hand, it’s a perceived as a mistruth if we assume there is no American operative in sight to facilite the mission. On the other hand, if you want to consider whether they are “military”, it’s incorrect.
The more accurate question would be, how does the US population at large consider that statement, “no boots on the ground”?
@Tom: So how is that different from now?
@Tom: I think that kind of parsing is clutching desperation. I can get you more straws.
@MataHarley:
Interesting post. To the question of what the general population thinks, my guess is they consider “no boots” to mean “no deployments” for US military personnel. I personally don’t think that CIA intelligence qualifies, and to my knowledge the President doesn’t keep us informed of their specific whereabouts on an ongoing basis anyway. This isn’t to imply I am theoretically okay with the President lying to the American people, nor do I think we’re close to that in this particular case. This isn’t, to my view, just a case of slippery semantics. American military forces being openly deployed is completely different, and has a vastly different set of implications and potential commitments, to the deployment of several dozen professional spooks. If we end up openly deploying the US military, I will be just like anyone else, expecting an explanation from President Obama.
@DrJohn:
Please explain why you think I’m parsing.
@Tom: We have people active participants in the war- not simply intelligence gathering.
This reminds of the time the transport plane was shot down in Nicaragua and they tried to explain how the US was not really involved.
Give me a break.
SF, Seals, AF Combat Controllers or a Marine force smaller then a Battalion doesn’t count – never has…
another danger also is that the UN start to involve AMERICA in multiple MUSLIM COUNTRYS WARS,
which we can’t afford to begin with, and secondly let it drag like AFGHANISTAN’S WAR,
costing many lives of our own, now that the door is open, and leaving the USA weaken dangerously and open season forTHE WORLD ORGANISATION PARTY TO MOVE IN BEING WELCOME BY THEIR PEOPLE
ALREADY IN STRATEGIC POSITION TO MAKE IT EASY FOR THE TAKE OVER,
THIS is not to be underestimate at all, as a matter of fact, it might even have been orchestrate
from the very beginning of this war, that would be helping their 1/3rd to win the MUSLIM COUNTRYS ,
WHILE THE WORLD ORG. GAIN ENTRY IN THIS COUNTRY,
I suspect this because the arabs country uprising began allmost together in a unified force, some kind of togetherness, creating a power that grew very fast in unison, that surely had a head over to organise it,
so I thought, what if, what we look at , which is those countrys revolutions, are to hide the real agenda to ousted our own CONSTITUTION by replacing it with their own global CONSTITUTION, which is their goal , with the help of their people already in GOVERNMENT SRATEGIC POSITION OF POWER, ON EVERY STEPS OF THE LADDER, AND RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES, BEFORE THE 2012 ELECTION. THAT WOULD BECOME ALSO NULLIFIED, a scenario well prepare and swiftly DANGEROUSLY POSSIBLE.
@Greg: You said:
“It could have been worse, I tell you!!!!” – liberal talking point
Yeah, we might have 10% unemployment and near $4 a gallon gasoline..uh, nvm.
So you have gone from, “Its Bush’s fault!” to its the world’s/Republicans/Tea Party’s fault.
Interesting. Is Obama truly made of Teflon?
I mean you hold him accountable for nothing, Greggie.
@rich wheeler:
Well, truth be told, RW, we here have been waiting patiently for you to acknowledge that Obama is either a hypocrite, or a liar, about Libya. His past words have been quoted here quite frequently, along with his speeches about Libya. Hypocrite, or liar, which is it?
I remember when Reagan called on the 6th Fleet to do the retaliatory bombing raid on the Godaffy compound. One of Godaffy’s little daughters died that night and the now humbled Godaffy got religion. One errant bomb nailed a chicken coop(Libyans love chickens roaming around the yard,even in Godaffy’s palace) and the chicken tender was screaming that Reagan was a chicken killer. One Reagan loving midwesterner bought a few dozen chicken crates and had them delivered to the palace proving that Reagan loved chickens and was not a chicken killer.
@anticsrocks, #43:
That would probably seem to be the case to those who irrationally blame him for everything and credit him with nothing. It’s his opponents who seem to have the weird fixation.
@Greg:
Tax and spend. That is the limit of your knowledge of fiscal responsibility. Explain to us again how increasing federal spending by a TRILLION dollars a year, and crying about a few measely Billion in spending cuts is being fiscally responsible.
Remember the other day I noted that the SomaliLand Press was claiming that Libyan rebels were going door-to-door and murdering all the blacks they could find.
Most blacks in Libya are laborers.
SOME blacks in Libya serve Gaddafi as inner guard.
So, how would Obama deal with this?
Obama is talking about bombing the rebels too.
This is what happens when you give an aircraft carrier to a community organizer.
This is one way to guarantee that no matter which side wins, we lose.
Obama Admin quotes at NYTimes, but you can see them for free here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/31/natos-now-threatening-to-bomb-libyas-rebels/
@johngalt: May as well be pissing in the wind, john. Little dickie doesn’t have the cajones to answer direct questions about Obama, just look here and here.
@Johngalt
Hypocrite, or liar, which is it?
You left out the possibility of “Both”
@johngalt, #47:
The only workable way to balance the federal budget is to adjust both the money coming in and the money going out. Spending has to be reined in and more taxes must be collected. The approach to balancing the budget must also be balanced.
If nothing is done, there will be hell to pay. Most likely that would come in the form of accelerating monetization of debt followed by terminal hyperinflation. Monetary wealth would be wiped out as dollars become worthless. The economy as we know it would collapse, as it simply can’t function without a reliable medium of exchange. Doing nothing is not an option.
If you focused only on spending cuts, the poor, the working class, and the middle class would all see their standard of living and long-term security progressively erroded. The social safety net would become a thing of the past. Public education would become a joke and higher education would be affordable only for a very few. The long-ignored national infrastructure would continue its decline to the point where it could no longer meet the demands of an industrial society. At some point social unrest would set in and anger would likely be directed at those who seemed to have profited the most from the dysfunction. The turbulence that would follow wouldn’t likely resolve into changes that those who have done well would benefit from.
I presume I don’t need to explain to anyone why focusing on only raising taxes while ignoring out of control spending isn’t desirable.
So, everybody has to give something up. Nobody is going to get it all the way they want it. Those who imagine they can are a big part of the problem.
GREG , IT IS NOT ‘WOULD’ IT IS HAPPENING , it has happened,
and now It’s just not if or would,but when the dollard will loose his value,
and it’s been predicted before, and mentionned now as a CERTAINTY,
this by highly knowledgeble people,
and to make it clear about uprising by the poor, don’t think it would be accepted easy
by the more able to cope with it, you have to also mention that they are equipt to defend their own
family, and would do it, so let it be clear that the ones who would want to steal the RICHS,
WOULD BE KILLED ON SITE WITH GOOD REASON; the RICHS are people too, and help the poors more than it’s been told by those in power, they DEMONISE THE RICHS WHILE FILLING THEIR OWN POCKETS
OUT OF THEM. SO NO UPRISING WOULD BE A FREE AND EASY TASK TO CONSIDER by the poor.
@rich wheeler: Libya is a CIVIL WAR that we have NO vested interest in, except as a distraction, which is what Obama wants.
Imagine if England and France had been actively aiding the South in the War For State’s Rights- after all, Lincoln WAS actively killing our own rebels, the southerners. Hmmmm- perhaps history might have turned out different, do ya think?
Blake, hi, I think that is the best comparison, anyone can understand now.
thank you
I’ve tried to stay away from this debate, for selfish reasons. No matter what, I support our forces and I can’t fathom saying you support them and not their mission. I’m not saying you can’t call into question the reasoning behind the mission though.
Dr. J, I don’t think you can call CIA “boots on the ground.” You may say I’m parsing words but “boots on the ground” means combat operations. If we count SF and Spooks as “boots on the ground,” we have “boots on the ground” just about everywhere.
Rich, I reject your premise of anyone being a hypocrite for saying Iraq was justified and Libya is not. Bush made his case before Congress. Whether you believe that information was trumped up or not, Congress had an opportunity to look at the same intelligence. Obama did none of this. No modern Republican President would go into Libya that way because they would be crucified. The same democrats that are praising this action would be drafing impeachment resolutions if a republican had done this.
Greg, you are delusional.
Mata, I assure you we have military on the ground in Libya. At the very least AF Combat Controllers are in country and they rarely go in without support of other SF operators, be they Rangers, Seals, or Force Recon. I don’t count them as “boots on the ground” though, for the reasons I gave Dr. J.
I admit I have to swallow hard to say the part in emphasis, but…our Commander in Chief has called our military to action. They have my total support and my prayers.
Aqua, wow, please don’t stay away from us, as your opinion is so valuable.
yes we support the TROOPS OF COURSE, no matter where they go,
that is why talking for myself, I question the real reason, and under which real command are they taking orders from, and I suspect it is from the WORLD ORGANISATION UNDER THE UN COMMAND, and their goal are to take command of the world including AMERICA, take control of the money, the wealth of the world and redistribute it as they see fit, no matter how hard you work to acquire it, they will take it and by the same token profit immensly themself as our richs get poorer, they have their own CONSTITUTION BY NULLIFYING OUR OWN CONSTITUTION AND WILL INSTALL IT WITH THE HELP OF THEIR AGENTS IN POSITION ALREADY STRATEGICLY
TO GET THEM IN HARMONIOUSLY, WITHOUT A SHOUT FROM THE OPPOSITION, AS IT IS KEPT SO SECRET AND MOVING UNDERGROUND so to conseal their movement, they are in command of NATO NOW AND DICTATE THE WAR OR PEACE, UNDER THE HUMANITARIAN COVER THEY REFER TO,
BUT THIS WAR IS FOUGHT BY US, WHERE IS THE MUSLIMS COUNTRYS WHO ASK FOR THIS WAR TO BE FOUGHT ? WHICH ARE THE ONE TO FIGHT THIS WAR? AND SPILL THEIR BLOOD,
WHY ARE WE HELPING OUR ENNEMIES QUARREL ON WHO SHOULD LEAD THEIR OWN COUNTRY, THEIR OWN POLITIC RELIGION? ARENT WE SUPPOSE TO FIGHT ENNEMIES WHO HATE US?
INSTEAD OF HELPING THEM, BY PUTTING OUR OWN COUNTRY IN DEBT FOR GENERATIONS ?
WHY can’t we finish our own present WAR in AFGHANISTAN, where for years our soldier got blown up with their roadside bombs, EIDS LOOK PROPER AND MORE ACCEPTABLE BY MEDIA, BUT THEY ARE BOMBS THAT EXPLODE AND SHRED TO PIECES OUR OWN PEOPLE, THE BRAVES OF THIS COUNTRY,
WHO FOLLOW A STUPID RULE OF ENGAGEMENT ORDER BY A STUPID COMMANDER IN CHIEF,
AND NOW HAS AGREED TO SEND TROOPS UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE WORLD ORG. TO HELP THEIR 1/3 RD MUSLIMS PARTICIPANTS TO DEPOSE ONE WHO HATE US AND REPLACE IT BY ANOTHER WHO HATE US, THAT TO ME IS AN ENNEMIE TO FIGHT NOT TO HELP WITH THE BLOOD AND LIVES OF OUR BRAVEST
Aqua, yes I must say, I have selfish reason too for being agressive, toward this war.
bye
Dr J, I didn’t see this coming: you and John Stewart are on the same page. It must be the End of Days.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-31-2011/america-at-not-war—libyan-rebel-forces?xrs=share_copy
You make some good points Ms. Bees.
First, I am not now or will I ever be in favor of allowing our military to fall under the command of the UN. NATO is a little different. We have joint allied commands all during WWII and for the most part they worked rather well. Granted, the U.S. was in charge most of the time. However, we wield enough influence within NATO that no matter who is in command, the U.S. maintains primary control.
I think we can all challenge the wisdom of going into Libya, but the fact is that is water under the bridge now. We’re there. Elections have consequences
As for Afghanistan, I actaully like Obama’s call for increased drone attacks. I think it takes some pressure off the guys on the ground. I also believe Pakistan is a “paper ally” and not really worth the paper they are written on. Fact is, if we pull our aid from Pakistan, they will become part of India faster than Bill Clinton on an intern. I can’t hold a candle to OT and Randy’s input on Afghanistan, it’s just my observations. I don’t like the war there because it is so hard to prosecute with the terrain. I personally would like to see a C-130 with a Fuel Air Bomb fly over the mountains that border Afghanistan and Pakistan for a daily bomb run. Nothing cleans out caves like a good ole MOAB.
Well that ought to piss off the liberals for a while. I’ll get back to my day off.
@Greg:
You have one statement in your response that I agree with. “If nothing is done, there will be hell to pay.”
Other than that, your response is filled with BS
It is hilarious to now call for a “balanced approach” to balancing the budget, when the amount of spending has gone up so significantly under Obama.
-In 2008, Bush’s last full fiscal year, the budget was $2.9Trillion.
-In 2009, with a partial year for both, the budget was$3.2Trillion.
-In 2010, Obama’s first full fiscal year, the budget was $3.55Trillion.
-In 2011, another full year for Obama, the estimated budget will be $3.82Trillion.
In Bush’s first full fiscal year, 2002, spending was $2.3Trillion, with modest increases throughout his term, including a decrease in fed spending from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2007. Bush’s first partial year was $2.03Trillion. Bush took 8, that is EIGHT, years to increase federal spending the same amount it has taken Obama to do in 3. And what’s more, Bush’s increases happened under times of economic prosperity, where federal revenues increased from $2.4Trillion in his first full year to a max of $2.7Trillion in 2007, before falling slightly in 2008 to just under $2.7Trillion.
Tax cuts are not included in spending, but rather, come down on the side of federal revenues, either decreases or increases. Bush’s tax cuts helped increase federal revenue during his time in office. Obama, though, has already instituted several tax increases during his time in office, including taxes on those making less than $250,000, and none have increased federal revenues. The cigarette tax of 2009, for example, has ended up increasing the spending due to cigarette smuggling and the resultant increase in fed enforcement required to combat it. Add in several tax increases implemented thus far in Obamacare, including the 10% tax on indoor tanning.
Under Bush, revenues dropped, and he cut taxes to help spur the economy. Under Obama, revenues have dropped, and he increases spending by hundreds and hundreds of billions.
I have talked before about the Bush tax cuts, and the one point you, and others have had, about letting the highest marginal rates increase, but apparently that hasn’t sunk in yet. $60Billion a year. That is the amount that the liberals claim the high income earners tax cuts have cost the feds. $60Billion. How much has spending increased? About $300Billion a year during Obama’s tenure thus far? And how much in spending cuts are the liberals willing to go for? Somewhere south of $30Billion is all I’ve heard.
So, what were you saying about a “balanced approach” to balancing the budget? The Bush tax cuts have shown that when they were implemented, they increased federal revenues. Wouldn’t the opposite, then, be true as well. If the tax cuts were allowed to expire, as you liberals wished, wouldn’t that decrease federal revenues even more? Remember, the economy isn’t static, and any influence on it can and will be felt throughout.
To sum, what you would have us believe is that spending cuts and tax increases should be equal, in order to balance the budget, correct? Yet, the tax increases you, and your liberal pals, have wanted will in no way come close to making up for the spending hikes during Obama’s tenure thus far, and you all whine and cry about the smallest spending cuts. Example, your statements:
Explain to me how nearly $1Trillion in spending increases over Obama’s presidency has helped these people, and why cutting back on even part of that would hurt them. Granted, it goes well into state spending as well, with some states using Stimulus dollars to increase spending instead of paying debts, leading to the states themselves being in even further financial difficulty. Kinda like when you give a beggar $10, and he spends it on more booze, rather than take him to a restaurant to make sure he’s fed.
Your “balanced approach” will not work, considering:
-Increased taxes impact the economy negatively, with less dollars spent in the free market either through investment or purchases.
-Growth in spending has far outstripped the growth in GDP, and yes, I will admit it did during the Bush years as well(which is just one of the many reasons for the birth of the TEA Party).
-Even with federal spending being “targeted” to help the economy, it hasn’t, mainly due to federal spending through the Stimulus targeting businesses that need subsidies to stay alive, as opposed to spending within established markets.
-The tax increases Obama has put through, such as the cigarette tax and Obamacare taxes, have not increased federal revenues.
-Obama’s own policies, like that of limiting drilling for oil on public lands, have only hurt the economy, and the resultant federal revenues one could see from a true economic turnaround.
Leave taxation the way it is, remove government hindrances to improve the economy, and cut back big time on federal spending. That is what needs to happen.
@DrJohn:
I apologize for hijacking your posted article comment thread here, but Greg’s comments needed to be addressed.
Aqua, I would put you in command, because I like the way you would end the WAR,
how long she’s been 10 long years now, and the troops have many recalls, so they haven’t no relief,
we need to finish this one, so to give them some rest with their loved one,they deserve it, and what would we do without them, they are the best of this AMERICA, THEY ARE THE ONE WHO MADE IT BEAUTIFULL, while the citizens are trashing it in our days,with the most disrespect of the law,
bye
Aqua #55 Very well written.I said one is NOT necessarily a hypocrite if ( like MATA and others here) you believe in Iraq incursion but are against Libyan action.I believe the same holds true if like Obama and others you’re thumbs down Iraq thumbs up Libya. We could argue the merits of each but this is not the forum.Reasoned people can reach different decisions on these two different engagements.
Obama is neither a liar nor a hypocrite when it comes to his beliefs and actions re. Iraq and Libya.
I used to question those with BDS(Bush derangement syndrome).For some he was wrong all the time. Ridiculous and not even statistically possible. ” a broken clock—” We are now dealing with ODS syndrome.Equally absurd and irrational.Unfortunately,both syndromes appear incurable.
@rich wheeler:
Rich, it has nothing to do with having a thumbs up on one war and thumbs down on another. It also has nothing to do with “Obama Derangement Syndrome”. That is just you switching the topic. He stated one thing, earlier in his career, not necessarily about Iraq in particular, but about his beliefs and ideals on war specifically. Now, with Libya, he has disregarded all his previous statements, and we are left wondering if he’s a hypocrite or a liar. Mistakes are one thing. Backing off your stated principles is quite another.
It is all political posturing with him, and nothing of real substance at all. He doesn’t admit he was wrong back in 2002, or 2007 with his stated comments, and goes on to do the opposite of what he said back then. Are you that blind that you cannot see it?
As I said, it has nothing to do with his actions in Libya taken by themselves, but when coupled with his stated views on war, he proves himself a hypocrite, or a liar, depending on whether you believe in his previous statements, or support his actions in Libya.
Lest you have forgotten, a reminder:
And this:
And this:
Either way you look at it, regarding his past statements and his current actions and words, he is either a hypocrite, or a liar.
An interesting CRS report on the War Powers Act, and past Presidential compliance, that was published in Feb 2011… before Libya.
Reading thru historical use of the WPR (War Powers Resolution), and sundry Congressional actions following either consultation (a vague criteria in the Act), or reporting requirements, we walk away with a good handle on how often this has been used, and Congressional response. This is not a new beef with Congress, and their worry this is an infringment on the separation of powers.
Also what has been questioned is whether action under a UN resolution can be exempt. According to this report, it is not.
Also within this report is the revelation that the State Dept is also required to give 15 days notice toboth chambers Appropriation Committees. Ironically enough, this mandate was signed by the current SOS’s hubby, Teflon Bill.
oops…
But one thing is very notable… in all the circumstances noted, Congress has, indeed, been consulted, debated, and sometimes defied (by Clinton) and usually followed up with either an endorsement, or condemnation of the military action. Attempts, for example, to remove US troops fromYugoslavia went down to defeat, but at least was addressed by Congress.
The only one who actually sought, and obtained, escalating Iraq military action from the original WPR ongoing involvement in Iraq (from Bush the elder thru Clinton’s terms following… including not only Iraq, but Kosovo, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Haiti and Somalia), was Bush the younger. He obtained the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) in Iraq from Congress prior to beginning OIF.
Depending upon what Congress does in the aftermath of Libya, and whether Obama’s letter and meetings with Congressional members actually stands up to scrutiny of what is considered “consultation”, we’ll have to see whether Obama acted within the scope of the WPR… especially when compared to the attempts of prior Presidents to engage Congress.
From what we know now, Obama has set a new precedent of little to no consulation with Congress before acting. Legal? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Chutzpah? Absolutely.
MATA that is interesting to learn, and this is the first scrutiny you touch on
AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION VO THE UN WORLD ORGANISATION,
HOPE THAT YOU CONTINIUE THE DIGGING
@ Rich Wheeler
Don’t think we’re quite on the same page here Rich. I have seen, on this very forum, people rip GWB to shreds. I have been one of them. Some of his domestic policies were horrendous. For you guys, Obama has done nothing wrong. The man could walk up and slap the Pope and you guys would say the Pope deserved it. Obama bombs a country with no notice to Congress, most of you guys, with the exception of blast and maybe liberal1 are all for it. Bush would have been crucified and you very well know it.
Any final conclusions about what Bush did with regard to Iraq ultimately have to come down to an estimation of the dangers that were actually posed by Saddam Hussein. Similarly, any final conclusion about Obama’s actions has to come down to an estimation of the actual dangers posed by Muammar Gaddafi.
Does anybody think this guy doesn’t represent a serious long-term danger to America and its interests? I see very little about his past to suggest otherwise. There would be no end to the opportunities the political destabilization sweeping across the Islamic world would afford him.
I suppose we could just wait for 5 or 10 years to see what he’ll do.
@ Greg
And the sad thing about this is, you’re serious. You, most of all crucified Bush for going into Iraq. And he did it with Congressional Approval. Incredible.
@Greg
That sounds suspiciously similar to arguing for preemptive action. Isn’t that one of the points of contention that the anti-war crowd had with Bush and Iraq? Funny how I haven’t heard any of the anti-war crowd speaking out against Obama on this.
Apparently, Greg, the majority of bipartisans in Congress had a better handle on Saddam’s dangers than you… hence the AUMF. When they saw it wasnt going to be a Clinton quickie, however, they attempted to walk away from it, saying they didn’t really believe we’d use force.
uh… the name of the resolution in question was called “Authorization to Use Military Force”. Only the lib/prog faithful can be that gullible, swallowing political sidling.
I warned you about alternative universe truths and keeping your day job, Greg. But you step in your own excrement yet again.
Ponder this one, genius…. while Gaddafi was no good guy, he did yield his WMD program, and was cooperating with the US on intel and counter terrorism.
I’d say Obama has now put us in the pickle that if he he successfully stays, we’re in a world of sheeeeet for revenge (I do believe that Reagan figured that out with his bomb, followed by the Lockerbie and Berlin bombings…). And I’m pretty darned sure that any future counterintelligence will not be forthcoming.
If he’s ousted, who knows what replaces it. Not looking so good in Egypt, where we also had another cooperative Muslim nation for coutner intelligence.
Lastly, genius… one more thing to ponder. Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt and Libya were cooperating with “the great Satan”. In all instances, this POTUS has thrown them under the bus, or increased bombing in their territory.
Meanwhile, state sponsors of terror, Syria and Iran, get the thumbs up and a pass for US intervention.
So… if you’re a newly created Muslim nation, think you want to want to work with the US? Odds ain’t good….
MATA you can say that way better than me, I was going to say,
GREG, what about his replacement, you think they’r safe,
If we look at the spread of revolution in there all around, I dont think they are safe enough,
because once they are finish to replace the leaders with their own, they are coming further creating chaos
all over, and we will feel the HUMAN TSUMANI TOO.
To all here who believe that Quaddafi was a threat, I say no- just as a rattlesnake is no threat until you whack him with a stick- he CLAIMED to have given up his WMDs, but Moussa Koussa, one of the defectors of his regime, says that he still has mustard gaas, among other things, (which, i believe, is classified as a WMD). But Quaddafi was not threatening us, and while he defied UN resolutions, he has defied less that Hussein, who the UN claimed could have been kept in check by resolutions. What a laugh- that said, this is a CIVIL WAR, which, last time Ichecked, DID NOT POSE AN “IMMINENT DANGER”- whereas EVERY intel agency thought Hussein had WMDs,(probably because Hussein told them himself, in a “reverse psychology ploy that backfired on him).
This is a war of distraction, with NATO providing “political cover’ for Obama’s butt- nothing more or less.
If this “war” was for the reasons stated, we would be in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, AND we would have helped the Iranians after their rigged election.
@Greg: Greg, it is likely possible that even with Obama’s tepid response, Quaddafi will last another 5- 10 years, only NOW we have pissed him off.
Unless an “errant” cruise missle just “happens” to blast him into virgin territory, we have stirred up a hornet’s nest for political uses. (hint: WE don’t use Libya’s oil- Nato countries do).
Just in case there’s doubt as to who Obama’s new war is helping, . . . “Bahrain’s news agency says the Gulf bloc expressed its deep concern ‘over the continuing Iranian intervention in the internal matters of GCC countries by conspiring against their national security.’ “
It’s so gratifying to see the CiC make such “humanitarian” decisions. Bombing Gaddafi was evidently the fireworks his highness desired for the Launch of his 2012 Presidential campaign. . . . . His handlers are doing such a great job to protect America. Well done!
James Raider, can you tell me what the GCC stand for what name,
thank you
@ Bees, #75
They’re the illustrious Gulf Cooperation Council.
The term “cooperation” is rather misplaced when applied to these absurd dictators running their countries into the ground.
James Raider, thank you, are they the 1/3rd of the UN REPRESENTING 57 OF THEIR COUNTRYS?