A Prayer for Obama

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Roscoe

Can't we all just get along?.......

Roscoe

Actually it is the world problem in a nutshell. Here is a group united by a single, at least fairly consuming interest. But even with our Common Cause, we can and do get very heated with each other over other subjects. Extrapolate that into the world. Where there is no Common Cause. Each nation and each group within each nation pursuing their own, competing interests. Some, many, of those interests have NO basis in morals or conscience. Here in the USA TOO! Today we have a group of possibly millions that swear to KILL every one of us here and in Europe. Other places there are groups willing to kill all of their own dissenting citizens.

I know that "Can't we all just get along?" is a joke. But the historical and realistic answer is NO! Never have, NEVER WILL.
We can pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we WILL be fighting somewhere else. Very possibly Iran where we would rue that fact that we would't have them surrounded like we do now.
Bullies pick on and beat up the weaker countries or kids in a school yard.
Man IS an animal. Peace is fleeting and temporary, war is the common condition.

[Bill Bess]

That's right! Why can't we all just get along and be happy, not worry and drink more cool aid.
As Brit Hume put it, "His Wonderfulness" will pull us through with all his accomplishmesnts.
Peace Brothers! ...where's my dumb down pills?

[rollinggeorge]

Let's all sing Cumbaya.

[Fordzilla]

No, We all can't get along. Never will happen. There will always be differences of opinions. It's how we express these differences that make the difference on here. I love a good verbal altercation & beat down, but that just leads to threads being closed & work for the mods. I'm just saying a little more restraint & respect would go along way.

BTW, I'm not a Cumbaya kind of guy, there are a bunch on here I would like to hold their heads under the water until the bubbles stop.

[392cobra]

This SNL skit really sums up what Obama has done in the last 9 months...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG8ly8CPCNo

[392cobra]

Sept. 7, 2009 9:33AM
The Peter Principle and the Obama Administration

Most of us born in the fifties and early sixties will remember the book, "The Peter Principal" written by Laurence J. Peter. The basic premise of the book is that at some point in time you will be promoted to a position wherein you are no longer competent, and have therefore reached your level of incompetency.

President Obama has, clearly, given new meaning and life to the Peter Principle. As the clock ticks away on his administration he displays his inefficacy and inability to handle the job he has been given in a productive, cohesive, intelligent, partisan manner. He has obviously attained his level of incompetency.

As community organizer and political/racial/neigborhood rabble-rouser he was par excellence. Unfortunately, those who saw him as their ticket to the White House, did not realize that they were removing him from his niche. The very thing he was born to do. He was not born to lead. He was born to agitate. And agitate he has. Although not in a good sense.

http://open.salon.com/blog/reg131/20...administration

[Excaliber]

The SNL skit was entertaining, a good joke, but it was also miss leading as it concerns actual facts. A couple of examples: Guantanamo Bay closure, no easy solution there but we are making substantial progress in getting the job done. Health Care, the jury is still out on this one. Many before O have tried and failed. Obama is now closer to getting it done than anybody who has ever preceeded him.

Entertaining? Yes. News worthy? Not so much...

Juggernaut, one of the primary reasons Obama was elected was because of the collapse of the economy, when BUSH was at the helm. Citing those unemployment numbers and suggesting they are Obama's fault is like: Pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by excaliber

the snl skit was entertaining, a good joke, but it was also miss leading as it concerns actual facts. A couple of examples: Guantanamo bay closure, no easy solution there but we are making substantial progress in getting the job done. Health care, the jury is still out on this one. Many before o have tried and failed. Obama is now closer to getting it done than anybody who has ever preceeded him.

Entertaining? Yes. News worthy? Not so much...

Juggernaut, one of the primary reasons obama was elected was because of the collapse of the economy, when bush was at the helm. Citing those unemployment numbers and suggesting they are obama's fault is like: Pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.

its raining!

[rollinggeorge]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

The SNL skit was entertaining, a good joke, but it was also miss leading as it concerns actual facts. A couple of examples: Guantanamo Bay closure, no easy solution there but we are making substantial progress in getting the job done. Health Care, the jury is still out on this one. Many before O have tried and failed. Obama is now closer to getting it done than anybody who has ever preceeded him.

Entertaining? Yes. News worthy? Not so much...

Juggernaut, one of the primary reasons Obama was elected was because of the collapse of the economy, when BUSH was at the helm. Citing those unemployment numbers and suggesting they are Obama's fault is like: Pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.

As soon as BO got elected the stock market losses doubled.
Then we get a tax cheat for ruler of the IRS.
Barney Fags takes charge for the nationalization of banks & GM.
We now have Czars some devout Black Panther Communist.
Bo promised change and we are getting it.....3 yrs to go.

Man it's not raining it's Storming

[Jamo]

Obama didn't run against GW, who beat two very popular liberals for his terms. He ran against GW's perceived record, which McCain and the others didn't defend, but rather distanced themselves from.

We'll never know...GW would certainly have made it clear why the economy tanked (previous Democratic actions), and would've been able to score on the success on the surge.

[Excaliber]

...why do I feel all wet all of a sudden? Freakin' pee party around here.

[Sharroll Celby]

Bush's BIGGEST mistake was starting a war with Iraq that we really didnt need.
The terrorists' 9/11 deeds was their big act. There have been no more attacks in the USA, no matter WHO would have been in charge.

[Roscoe]

Sigh....You're kidding right?......Tell me you're kidding.......

Roscoe

[Excaliber]

Well I wouldn't dismiss Sharrol Celbys comments as completely out of line. It's not like Bush was exactly forth coming on why we needed to attack in the first place. Colin Powell sure felt like an idiot as the truth of the matter became more clear. He too was "duped" into believing we HAD to attack NOW! He put his reputation on the line and ended up with his foot in his mouth.

As far as an additional attack. Was it prevented by the aggressive security measures taken by the Administration? Possibly, maybe, we'll never know for sure. Darth Vader Cheney is 100% convinced they stopped another attack. Just like he was 100% convinced we would find WMD's. I don't believe a word the guy says myself, his credibility is shot.

[Ron61]

This isn't really following the original post but it does have to do with more attacks on American soil. Over the weekend they had a TV show on called Day After Disaster in which they showed the scenarios that would play out if a terrorist managed to explode a 10 KT Nuclear bomb in Washington DC. And the cold facts are that between Russia and the United States there is enough unaccounted for enriched weapons grade uranium to make several bombs of that size. They could be assembled in place in any city and hauled to their detonation point in a delivery van. A gun type detonator is not that hard to make and they showed a lot of the means that the Govt. has taken to make sure we still have some type of Govt. if this happens. It started long ago, Regan really upped it to a workable solution, and Clinton finished the polishing of the system. These are highly trained teams of people including military that spend months in secret bunkers well out of Washington DC and in case of such thing happening, all succession and other standard measures are suspended and whichever team is in the bunkers takes control of the Govt., no matter if some of the normal succession people do survive. It was an interesting show I thought.

Ron

[Joe Wicked]

I saw the previews to that Ron, but I missed the show. As far as terrorist attacks, the FBI arrested a 19 year old Jordanian man just outside of Dallas who was attempting to blow up a sky scraper here in the last couple of weeks. He was not part of a cell, but was trying to prove his worthiness to join a cell by committing the act. He was only a day away from the planned attack when he was caught. They caught him using measures that were put into place after 9/11 by Bush, so he did prevent future attacks. That is not to say that any other president would have done the same or not, but the fact is Bush's decisions, prevented attacks.

Edit: I also wanted to say that Bush's decisions were not necessarily the best decisions, but at least on some levels they were effective.

[rollinggeorge]

Hind sight clearly shows that Congress was inept not to have allowed GB Sr. to finish the task at hand back in 93. Hussein, sore loser, lite the desert on fire after he retreated with all the goods he could carry from Kuwait.

Hell I would have thought even Al Gore preaching from his Global Warming Pulpit would have been upset with the fires. The world is a better place without Hussein and his sons....they encouraged suicide bombings and rewarded families of those retards with a pile of cash. .

It has been a heavy price to pay and could have been avoided if we finished the job in 93. Idiot legislators in Congress prove to be the enemy of logic and our Nation's well being. Look what we allowed to happen with Korea...This threat could have been avoided way back when.

My conclusion is lawmakers delight in chaos that requires further legislation giving them a false hope of job security....Has anyone heard of term limits?

Of course I may be wrong as the Good Book states in prophesy that the end will come and it probably is out of man's hands. The insanity we see daily supports this notion.

For What it's Worth...(Buffalo Springfield)....this retort has been therapeutic

[Roscoe]

First: There have been no terrorist attacks on our soil because we have been diligent. We've uncovered dozens of attempts. AQ cells are here. There have been, in the last couple of weeks three cells broken up. They planned to bomb federal and public buildings in Dallas, New York and Springfield, IL. These are just the recent ones. In the New York one, feds are still trying to locate the explosives.

As far as Iraq, there were several reasons for the invasion. Iraq was known to harbor AQ operatives. Training at Salmon Pak (look it up). Both the liberals and conservatives were claiming WMD's were in Iraq. It was not isolated to the Bush Administration (look it up.) Iraq was connected to the first World Trade Center bombing (look it up.) Iraq was given years prior to the invasion to remove and WMD's which could have wound up in Syria or elsewhere. Small amounts of nerve gas and botulinus were found in Iraq. Iraq was working on a nuclear program.

To begin with, it's important to put the war in context. We must remember that we have been trying to remove Saddam Hussein from power since the Gulf War. Here's part of what David Frum had on that subject,

"In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991."

So the idea that we should go after Saddam Hussein was nothing new. But after 9/11, removing Saddam Hussein suddenly became an essential part of the global strategy in the war on terrorism. Why so?

Well, after September 11th, it became apparent that simply going after Al-Qaeda was not going to be enough to prevent future attacks. First off, if you simply target Al-Qaeda, what happens if the core of group simply changes its name or groups with other anti-American terrorists? Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, "you can't". In addition, the training, resources, & protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue states that support them.

George Bush made that clear in his Sept 20, 2001 speech to the nation when he said,

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

[Excaliber]

While a strong case can be made for the 2nd Iraq invasion it is the methodology of how that case was made to the world that is troubling. The administration gets a huge "fail" on that aspect for bending if not outright lieing about "why" we had to do this. We live with the impact of that today in terms of more distrust of the Government than ever before and loss of respect on the world stage. And for good reason.

[Roscoe]

It was also Democrats like Hillary and Big AL who were calling for invasion and claiming WMD's. Our CIA also confirmed. I don't think we can point the finger at any one party. If the intelligence was wrong then it was wrong but it's not the only reason we went in.

Roscoe