Go Obama!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
These people are total nutbags. Even arch-conservative nutbag Michael Medved has had enough apparently, so that's all you need to know.

Michael Medved referred to the Birthers as "crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters" who are "the worst enemy of the conservative movement." He added, "It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company."

Never thought I'd read something rational from him.
 
Rahm Emmanuel said that the administration "rescued the economy". Now that's a "Mission Accomlished" moment if ever there was one, but I doubt we'll hear too much criticism of it in the media. It's really a shame.
 
Rahm Emmanuel said that the administration "rescued the economy". Now that's a "Mission Accomlished" moment if ever there was one, but I doubt we'll hear too much criticism of it in the media. It's really a shame.

Link please?

Rescued doesn't = cured, so it's not quite a Mission Accomplished banner.
 
I am sure the Sunnis and Al-Queda had a big laugh at the "Mission Accomplished" statement



No reason we should deny Boehner, Rush and Hannity their big laugh at the 'Rescued Economy' statement.
 
I am sure the Sunnis and Al-Queda had a big laugh at the "Mission Accomplished" statement


Not as big of a laugh as the Dems, but I think that mission was removing Saddam from power, and yeah it was accomplished at the time. Rather quickly.
 
Not as big of a laugh as the Dems, but I think that mission was removing Saddam from power, and yeah it was accomplished at the time. Rather quickly.

It's not as if defeating a woefully outmanned/gunned/supplied/prepared army and removing it's head from power was a particularly difficult task.
 
Senator: Half our opposition to health care is just plain politics

Half the Republicans' opposition to a public health care option comes not from policy differences with the Democrats, or fundamental philosophical differences about the role of government, but purely from a desire to score political points against President Barack Obama, a senior Republican senator has admitted.

George Voinovich (R-OH) said on CNBC Wednesday that a desire to prevent the Democratic president from scoring a historical victory with a public health plan accounts for at least 50 percent of the GOP opposition to the plan.

Squawk Box host Carl Quintanilla asked the senator: "How much of this disagreement with the administration is about the policy of health care and how to fix it, and how much of it is Republicans' ... desire to declaw the president politically?"

To which Voinovich responded: "I think it's probably 50-50."
.
 
It's not as if defeating a woefully outmanned/gunned/supplied/prepared army and removing it's head from power was a particularly difficult task.


Well they used to be the 4th largest in the world, we didn't seem to struggle then either.
 
It's not as if defeating a woefully outmanned/gunned/supplied/prepared army and removing it's head from power was a particularly difficult task.


Just a reminder of what Saddam had prior to the invasion:

Active Military: 420,000
Tanks: 2,800+
Armored Personal Carriers: 2,000+
Artillery: 2,000+
Combat Aircraft: 300+

One of the 10 largest military forces on the planet in March 2003.

The coalition invasion force was outnumbered in troops, tanks, armored vehicles, and artillery.

Invading a country the size of Iraq is an incredibly difficult task. As defenders, Saddams military had the huge advantage of fighting on their own territory. Dislodging defenders from positions within cities can be very difficult.

Iran tried to remove Saddam for 8 years and failed.

Success was do to the quality of US, UK, and Australian military forces, NOT to the misperception that Saddam's military was "woefully outmanned/gunned/supplied/prepared army" .
 
Success was do to the quality of US, UK, and Canadian military forces, NOT to the misperception that Saddam's military was "woefully outmanned/gunned/supplied/prepared army" .

The Canadian military did not participate in this illegal and illegitimate war, for the record.


Success was do to the quality of US, UK, and Australian military forces, NOT to the misperception that Saddam's military was "woefully outmanned/gunned/supplied/prepared army" .


That's better.
 
The Canadian military did not participate in this illegal and illegitimate war, for the record.

Sorry for mistaking the Australians as Canadians. :wink:

It was a small number of Australians, less than a brigade, that helped the main invasion force of the United States and United Kingdom consisting of 14 combat brigades legally invade and occupy Iraq in a war that was a necessity and was fought, both in the invasion and occupation phases, under the authorization of the United Nations Security Council.
 
Either the 'live birth' certificate exist
or we have a President that 'officially' has not met the Constitutional requirements.


The best thing to do would be to get this to the Supreme Court and have it decided once and forever.











right?

 
Fox Host Glenn Beck: Obama Is A "Racist" (VIDEO)

This morning on Fox and Friends, Fox host Glenn Beck accused President Obama of being "a racist."

The group was discussing the recent Gates controversy, and Beck exclaimed that Obama has "over and over again" exposed himself as "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don't know what it is..."

When Fox's Brian Kilmeade pointed out that many people in Obama's administration are white, so "you can't say he doesn't like white people," Beck pressed on. "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem," Beck said. "This guy is, I believe, a racist."
 
besides an oxy-moron ?

mullet11.jpg
 
Why Won’t Obama Talk to Israelis?

by Aluf Benn
New York Times, July 27



In his global tours and TV appearances, President Obama has spoken to Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Russians and Africans. His words have stirred emotions and been well received everywhere. But he hasn’t bothered to speak directly to Israelis.

And the effect? Six months into his presidency, Israelis find themselves increasingly suspicious of Mr. Obama. All they see is American pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements, a request that’s been interpreted here as political arm-twisting meant to please the Arab street at Israel’s expense—or simply to express the president’s dislike for Mr. Netanyahu. This would seem counterproductive, given the importance the president has placed on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Israel is part of the problem, it’s also part of the solution. Yet so far, neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience, beyond brief statements made at diplomatic photo ops.

...As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze. Moreover, he has succeeded in portraying Mr. Obama as a shaky ally. In Mr. Netanyahu’s narrative, the president has fallen under the influence of top aides—in this case Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod—whom the prime minister has called “self-hating Jews.” Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure, someone who sticks to the first commandment of Israeli culture: thou shalt never be the freier (that is, the dupe).

So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month indicated that only 6% of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50% said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. Less scientifically: Israeli rightists have—in columns, articles and public statements—taken to calling the president by his middle name, Hussein, as proof of his pro-Arab tendencies.

What went wrong? Several explanations come to mind.

First, in the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention. Memories of State Department “Arabists” leading American policy in the Middle East were erased. The White House coordinated its policy with Jerusalem, and stayed out of the way when Israel embarked on controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. This approach infuriated America’s Arab and European allies, which blamed Washington for one-sidedness—something they were willing to forgive of Bill Clinton but not of George W. Bush. Mr. Obama came to office determined to repair America’s broken alliances in Europe and the Middle East. One way to do this—to prove that he was the opposite of his predecessor—was to place some distance between Israel and himself.

Second, Mr. Obama’s quest for diplomacy has appeared to Israelis as dangerous American naïveté. The president offered a hand to the Iranians, and got nothing, merely giving them more time to advance their nuclear program. In Israeli eyes, he was humiliated by North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests. And he failed to move Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel. Conclusion: Mr. Obama is a softie, eager to please his listeners and avoid confrontation with anyone who is not Mr. Netanyahu.

Third, Mr. Obama seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis. We are close emotionally and politically, but we are different. We speak Hebrew and not English, we live in the Middle East and have separate historical narratives. Mr. Obama’s stop at Buchenwald and his strong rejection of Holocaust denial, immediately after his Cairo speech, appealed to American Jews but fell flat in Israel. Here we are taught that Zionist determination and struggle—not guilt over the Holocaust—brought Jews a homeland. Mr. Obama’s speech, which linked Israel’s existence to the Jewish tragedy, infuriated many Israelis who sensed its closeness to the narrative of enemies like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Fourth, as far as most Israelis are concerned, Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze. For starters, mainstream Israelis rarely have anything to do with the settlements; many have no idea where they are, even when they’re a half-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv.
More important: in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the “settlement blocs”) will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force—as the administration did—the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility—and strengthened Mr. Netanyahu’s position.

Perhaps there are good reasons behind Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy. Perhaps the settlement freeze is in Israel’s best interest. Perhaps the president is truly committed to Israel’s long-term security and well-being. Perhaps his popularity in the Arab street is the missing ingredient of peacemaking. But until the president talks to us, we won’t know. Next time you’re in the neighborhood, Mr. President, speak to us directly. We will surely listen.


Aluf Benn is the editor at large of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom