The Third Year of the Obama Administration: Facts, Opinions and Discussions

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by kingthlayer, Dec 7, 2010.

  1. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 6
    Wait - didn't Clinton try this exact same thing in like 1995, but with missiles? Labeling it the Bush business model might be a bit revisionist.
  2. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Perfect. And with that, Watto, we've come full circle. I think 44 just won every argument he ever made about the Bush doctrine: "It's nothing special. It's nothing new. It's the standard model. Bush was just a bit better and more up front about it than most."
  3. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    So I've gotten over my initial shock at how poor your argument is and how unabashedly you proposed it, wannasee.

    First, in re: your personal cojones. You never answered my question about having made a decision that produced death. That's meaningful for a number of reasons. Most relevant to your position is the idea that having cojones means doing things that most people wouldn't do. Most people attempt to duck responsibility for causing a death, directly or indirectly, when pressed to make a decision. Hence, most people are not willing to make decisions that directly cause the deaths of others. If you have never been called upon to make this type of decision, you have no ground to blather about what you would do, since you have never actually been put in a position to make that decision or be held accountable for it, and therefore you cannot make any judgment about the cojones of others who have. When one has no testicles, one cannot question testicular fortitude.

    Second, Bush *thought* with his testicles. His decisions have been suspect (e.g., the reasoning behind the Iraq war), and his swagger has encouraged others to attack us (e.g., his "Bring it on" comments when *other* people would be in the crosshairs, his casual dismissal of bin Laden in 2002 when he had his eye on a *COMPLETELY UNRELATED IRAQ* (which I quoted in context in the YJCC thread), etc.). That's not having cojones, that's being reckless. There is a difference between being brave by action or taking responsibility, and swaggering and engaging in simplistic reasoning ("You're either with us or against us."). That's not courage, that's bravado. That's declaring yourself to be a winner when all evidence points the other way. Obama continued unpopular policies, getting flack from his base *and* his opponents, which is *way* more High Noon than taking military action after being attacked. Most Americans endorsed the Afghanistan military action consistently, but support for Iraq fell off dramatically. The question is whether the President would have started the Iraq War *without* Republican control of Congress. If "having cojones" is doing something other people wouldn't do, then Dubya didn't have cojones for starting a war in Iraq when his buddies had his back.
  4. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    I am glad to see that others recognize Obama simply followed the course that was laid in front of him by Bush. Giving the go-ahead for the mission is one that any reasonable President should have made regardless of political affiliation. I do give him credit for following through with it, but I am tired of hearing "Obama did in two years what Bush couldn't do in seven." Bush loaded the gun and aimed, Obama pulled the trigger. Bush gets the W and Obama gets the save.

    Many who are championing Obama as the hero are the same who loved the fact that he campaigned on giving up over there. Obama can do no wrong, however, so of course he gets the credit.

    The real credit goes to the military and that group of SEALS.
  5. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 6
    I suppose Bush sees this as vindication. After all, wasn't this the prime objective of the war in Afghanistan?
  6. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    The big problem, ousley, is that Dubya had the aim on the wrong country. He pointed the bulk of the military at Iraq, not Afghanistan (let alone Pakistan) - Pakistan was a much more recent focus.

    Dubya put us in the region, then drew us away to the opposite side of Iran to go after Saddam, and said that he wasn't really concerned about OBL because he knew he was on the run and he was thinking about bigger things.
  7. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    While he is certainly thrilled that we finally found bin Laden, I don't think he can feel vindication regarding the war until something much more positive comes out of Iraq. His main criticisms deal with Iraq, not Afghanistan.

    However, I think the recent uprisings in the Middle East give some legitimacy to things that Bush believed in, namely that all people around the world desire freedom but that some just had not been afforded the knowledge or opportunity to go about seeking it. People "over there" are no different on a basic human level but until this year the time was not right for them to revolt. Arguments against Bush were that we need to "leave them alone" and "that's how they want to live." The recent revolutions seem to be proving otherwise.

    Edit for Q-S - You make a valid point, and I understand that Bush began to refocus our military efforts in a different direction. Bin Laden was still on the agenda, however, and had the intelligence surfaced while Bush was in office it is likely he would have acted on it in the same manner as Obama. Lack of knowledge about Bin Laden's whereabouts was not a direct effect of Bush's redirection.
  8. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    That isn't really a belief localized to GWB, though. Has there been a President in recent memory who hasn't been concerned about promoting democracy abroad?
  9. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 6
    Fact is, the reason anybody went into Afghanistan in the first place was to go get Bin Laden. He had to run, and now he's been caught.

    I checked him out but Bush doesn't seem to have changed - he swiftly responded to the news with a good old Bush-ism, conjuring up imagery of grammar lessons attended intoxicated and holy crusaders on sand dunes.

    Will Be Done?!?
  10. wannasee Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    Happily for me, I have never caused anyone's death, directly or indirectly, at least as far as I know.

    I'm not saying that Obama doesn't have cojones. I'm saying this particular decision didn't require tremendous ones.

    And while one can never know what one would do in a situation one has never been in before, I'm pretty sure I would have had the cojones to order a surgical-type strike against Osama bin Laden, if for no reason than I would want to do my job.

    Having cojones does not mean one is perfect. It just means that one is bold.

  11. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    You are correct. Every President has (rightfully) desired worldwide Democracy. Bush was criticized heavily for interfering with the affairs of other nations. Some held opinions (I am not claiming it was a large number of people) that "that's just how those people are" and demanded we stop trying to "force freedom and Western ideas on them." Whether or not one agrees with our presence there (that is for an entirely different debate), it is becoming more evident than ever that the desire for freedom is not exclusive to Western minds. Bush's policies, whether one believes it was directly or indirectly, attempted to expedite the process and end the suffering of human beings who lived in constant fear of their leaders.

    Point being, on an individual level, it would be reasonable for Bush to feel some vindication regarding his personal beliefs after seeing so many in the region fighting for their freedom. Whether or not anyone agrees with that assessment is a different discussion.
  12. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Wait - didn't Clinton try this exact same thing in like 1995, but with missiles? Labeling it the Bush business model might be a bit revisionist.

    Sure, I'd give you that. But that's my point is that there has always been continuity between administrations. But if that's true, you could call it the Clinton Doctrine, or the Reagan Doctrine, or the Johnson Doctrine, or the Kennedy Doctrine, or the Truman Doctrine... I personally don't care what it's called. I used the phrase above, simply because a couple of years ago, people were criticizing this aspect of the Bush Presidency, when in fact, my point, oh going back 8 years or so now, was that it never was anything remotely out of the ordinary. I can't begin to say how much I agree with Jabba's recent post. Not to say Yeah! Bush rules, or anything of the sort- but only to point out, that more than anything, the context that I have sought in the forum for so long has finally been gained.

    To bring back a bit of the political aspect, I also can't say how stupid the entire "treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue" was back then. Well, maybe I shouldn't say "stupid." But the reality is that it only looked good on paper, because no one seemed to know precisely how to bring it about, much like the famous quote regarding communism. All of us had many long discussions regarding the issue over the years, and it's ironic to me that it came down to the fact that the purest way to solve the issue came down to unapologetically shooting someone in the head.


    ---And Quix, I know your exchange is between you and wannase, but your reply to him seems rather, eh interesting, considering 2 nights ago, you were celebrating over on the YJCC how tickled you were over an "Obama- I've been too busy killing bin Laden" picture, and how you featured it on your facebook page.

  13. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    I posted that picture because I'm very much anti-birther, 44. :)
  14. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 6
    Spreading democracy.
    Remember spreading democracy in the occupied territories? What was it... 2000 I think.
    The people voted for HAMAS. What a surprise, if you hold elections in occupied land! That has a proxy government. It's like asking the French to vote in 1942. It was a silly idea, with a silly result and a typical reaction. We don't want to deal with HAMAS! So no democracy.
    Two years later, BAM! This is America! We're going to show you Taliban mothers what democracy is!
    Four years later, BAM BAM! Saddam! We'll show you -
    - it's just all so hypocritical. You may be able to sell this noble idea to the Americans (and one or two presidents), but those beardies aren't impressed. It's kind of tragic, because the ideas are noble, but in the end maybe not very realistic.
  15. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Sure, I understand the focus. But I was referencing more the "bravado" aspect of that JC post, as well as the timing...way to stick it to Trump on a messageboard by celebrating this aspect on the very night that the news broke. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but I think it demonstrates that everyone has a "cowboy reaction" to something from time to time, which is what your post was.
  16. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    I've never made a cowboy post, 44, but I have a healthy appreciation for butthead come-uppance. :)
  17. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    Anyway, by election time, who to blame for the economy and $4+/gal gas should be more important to voters than who killed bin Laden.
  18. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Well, it doesn't really matter, but that was a cowboy post. Typically, "trash talking," "competitive ribbing" and such bravado in general represents the definition of what it means. I just wanted to point out that you elevated the killing of one person just so you could stick it to someone else. The point you're missing is that the 2 issues aren't remotely the same. You could substitute anything for bin Laden's death, and it would work if it was important to the person making the post.

    Clinton-"Sorry I can't testify at Monica Lewisky's trial, I'm busy preventing genocide..."

    Nixon-"Sorry, I can't explain the 181/2 minute gap, I'm forcing the Vietcong to negotiate..."

    Warren G. Harding-"Sorry I can't explain Teapot Dome, I'm busy building the interstate system.."

    Well, ok, with that last example I'll stop, but they're all examples of cowboy posts.


  19. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 6
    ... which makes me wonder what y'all are doing in that cesspool anyway...
  20. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    Wow, 44, you aren't even on the same planet, let alone the same ballpark for the reasoning why I posted. I strongly suggest that you not make assumptions about my motivations behind posts - I'm actually pretty straightforward on these boards. I think birthers are idiots and loved the image, so I reposted it. The rest of your analysis and comparison is meaningless, since it has nothing to do with why I posted what I posted.

    EDIT:

    If you want to see real cowboy posts, you don't have to look very far in the YJCC thread, and you'll see people posting with genuine swagger and bravado, and you'll see that none of them are me.

    :)
  21. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 10
    For a nation that makes symbolism a pillar of everyday life, no.

    The former High Commissioner to London from Pakistan (now chair of Islamic studies at the American University in Washington) made some very interesting points about how this is being treated in Pakistan itself (apologies I caught the name on radio when driving to work). Chiefly, he noted that it was highly unlikely Mr bin Laden could have lived in Abbottabad without drawing suspicion or the authorities being aware of who he was.

    He suggested the reasons for Pakistan's apparent lack of involvemnt and consultation would more likely be related to a fear of public perception and domestic unrest than a concern they were helping UBL out. He noted that the President did not attend the funeral of the slain governor of Punjab last year, despite being from similar parties, on the grounds of security concerns.

    Given Pakistan's importance in both the region and as a strategic partner of the US, (regardless of what the buffoons of both hues have been howling in Washington, Pakistan is a willing partner that has to manage very real domestic concerns about unrest and instability) the blowback from UBL's death will have repercussions. I'll be interested to see how Mr Obama will handle it.

    ES
  22. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    .. which makes me wonder what y'all are doing in that cesspool anyway...

    Personal competition. The JCC is like drinking 180 proof moonshine. If you can view a couple of posts and it doesn't kill you outright, make you blind, or bring upon sudden onset insanity, you're a stronger person for it.

    Or at the very least, you wake up the next morning and don't remember what happened...
  23. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    E_S, that's why it is going to be important to follow the money.

    Already, reports are coming out that the location was gleaned through "enhanced interrogation," they just needed to be verified. If That's the case, then it's more of an issue for the US to explain, and the Pakistani government has a bit of plausible deniability.

    If some Pakistani official took the 27 million dollar payout to sell out bin Laden, and that person has any ties to the the government, then Pakistan is going to have different internal problems.
  24. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 6
    Okay, forget I said that - I'm reading the JCC thread now and I'm laughing my stupid head off
  25. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    ?Bin Laden and his family were found on the second and third floor of the building. There was concern that Bin Laden would oppose the capture operation, and indeed he resisted.?

    ?In the room with Bin Laden, a woman ? Bin Laden?s wife ? rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed,? the brief statement said. ?Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.?

    ?resistance does not require a firearm.?

    It's like 2002 all over again.