Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53

Thread: Flashback: Obama on Use of Military Force 12/20/2007

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400

    Flashback: Obama on Use of Military Force 12/20/2007

    Barack Obama's Q&A
    By Charlie Savage
    Globe Staff / December 20, 2007
    Email| Print| Single Page| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – +

    1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

    The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

    2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

    The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

    As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

    As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.


    3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?

    No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

    4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

    Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

    I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

    5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

    No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

    6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

    With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.

    7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?

    No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.

    8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

    It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.

    9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?

    Disagree strongly.

    10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

    First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.

    Some further points:

    The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

    Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

    The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

    The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

    I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.

    11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?

    Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University

    Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago

    Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998-2001)

    Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998-1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997-1998)

    12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?

    Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.
    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Fap fap fapping along.


  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    anyone who thought Iraq was a good idea doesn't get to have an opinion on Libya. You're in the penalty box.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    anyone who thought Iraq was a good idea doesn't get to have an opinion on Libya. You're in the penalty box.
    yup...and once again obama wipes his ass with the constitution by his own admission....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 03-21-2011 at 08:20 AM.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    anyone who thought Iraq was a good idea doesn't get to have an opinion on Libya. You're in the penalty box.
    Good to know that Obama supporters are on board with the US being at continous war regardless of the administration.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    I thought you neo cons would love this

    for the record I already said Libya is not a great use of our resources. I don't have to repeat it in every thread.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    No question Obama is on the horns of a dilemma here between his stance prior to election and the pressures from international partners. Welcome to the Presidency...

    P.S. Can CBNY share with us Sarah Palin's response to these questions? I'm looking for some good comedy material...

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    I feel for my liberal friends, they're truly in a no-win situation now.

    After 8 years of threads and posts, they now face a situation where the issue that pained them most under Bush (War, Millitary Policy, Terrorism Policy, Intelliegnce Policy, Nation Building, etc.) is now, under their greatest hope since FDR, being run very much as "King Obama, Bush the 3rd".

    Going to be very difficult for our resident Liberals to support Obama on Libya, although (as you can already see abaove) they'll try and change the subject, or simply not allow discussion, if they get the chance. Far easier that, than to face the truth here about their man, their hope for change, Obama.

    --Iraq, we're still there, still fighting, still dying.
    --Afghanistan, still there, still fighting, still dying, still losing. Doubled down.
    --Libya, we're now there, now fighting, now killing many, many, many civilians along with the installations we've hit.
    --Gitmo, still open, still has prisoners, still has millitary trials, still has interrogation.
    --US Prisoners on Foreign Soil to work around our Law, yup, still happeneing.
    --Patriot Act, reauthorized.
    --Warrentless Wiretaps, still going on.
    --Rampant Hypocricy in our Foreign Relations, (i.e. Iraq > Saudi Arabia then, Libya > Bahrain now) yup, hasn;t gone anywhere, we're still fighting Nation Building Regime changing Wars primarily for our Oil Interests sheathed in claims of "humanitarianism".
    --Arming "Rebels" we know almost nothign about, and who could choose to war against us later? Of course, thats almost the definition of US Millitary Foreign Policy, why would Obama change that?
    --International Leaders making claims that the US is liek a Crusade? Yep, the Ruskies played us perfectly on this one.

    About the only thing that changes in re: our war Machine, is the kind of coverage it's getting int he media in general. Close your eyes, read the above, and you'd swear Jeb Bush won the 2008 election.

    Yup, a very hard time right now for our resident "No blood for oil, no nation building, war crimes, impeachment, burn Bush in Effigy" Liberal posters.

    I feel for you all, it's a tough, tough time for you. So best of luck trying to say others have no right to opinions, or asking what Sarah Palin thinks. If you think that type of deflection isn't obvious, well....good luck with that.
    Last edited by Warfish; 03-21-2011 at 09:53 AM.

  9. #9
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I feel for my liberal friends, they're truly in a no-win situation now.

    After 8 years of threads and posts, they now face a situation where the issue that pained them most under Bush (War, Millitary Policy, Terrorism Policy, Intelliegnce Policy, Nation Building, etc.) is now, under their greatest hope since FDR, being run very much as "King Obama, Bush the 3rd".

    Going to be very difficult for our resident Liberals to support Obama on Libya, although (as you can already see abaove) they'll try and change the subject, or simply not allow discussion, if they get the chance. Far easier that, than to face the truth here about their man, their hope for change, Obama.

    --Iraq, we're still there, still fighting, still dying.
    --Afghanistan, still there, still fighting, still dying, still losing. Doubled down.
    --Libya, we're now there, now fighting, now killing many, many, many civilians along with the installations we've hit.
    --Gitmo, still open, still has prisoners, still has millitary trials, still has interrogation.
    --US Prisoners on Foreign Soil to work around our Law, yup, still happeneing.
    --Patriot Act, reauthorized.
    --Warrentless Wiretaps, still going on.
    --Rampant Hypocricy in our Foreign Relations, (i.e. Iraq > Saudi Arabia then, Libya > Bahrain now) yup, hasn;t gone anywhere, we're still fighting Nation Building Regime changing Wars primarily for our Oil Interests sheathed in claims of "humanitarianism".
    --Arming "Rebels" we know almost nothign about, and who could choose to war against us later? Of course, thats almost the definition of US Millitary Foreign Policy, why would Obama change that?
    --International Leaders making claims that the US is liek a Crusade? Yep, the Ruskies played us perfectly on this one.

    About the only thing that changes in re: our war Machine, is the kind of coverage it's getting int he media in general. Close your eyes, read the above, and you'd swear Jeb Bush won the 2008 election.

    Yup, a very hard time right now for our resident "No blood for oil, no nation building, war crimes, impeachment, burn Bush in Effigy" Liberal posters.

    I feel for you all, it's a tough, tough time for you. So best of luck trying to say others have no right to opinions, or asking what Sarah Palin thinks. If you think that type of deflection isn't obvious, well....good luck with that.
    But on the other hand, Obama's "destroy America from within" crusade here on the homefront is humming along nicely. So it's not all doom and gloom for them...

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I feel for my liberal friends, they're truly in a no-win situation now.

    After 8 years of threads and posts, they now face a situation where the issue that pained them most under Bush (War, Millitary Policy, Terrorism Policy, Intelliegnce Policy, Nation Building, etc.) is now, under their greatest hope since FDR, being run very much as "King Obama, Bush the 3rd".

    Going to be very difficult for our resident Liberals to support Obama on Libya, although (as you can already see abaove) they'll try and change the subject, or simply not allow discussion, if they get the chance. Far easier that, than to face the truth here about their man, their hope for change, Obama.

    --Iraq, we're still there, still fighting, still dying.
    --Afghanistan, still there, still fighting, still dying, still losing. Doubled down.
    --Libya, we're now there, now fighting, now killing many, many, many civilians along with the installations we've hit.
    --Gitmo, still open, still has prisoners, still has millitary trials, still has interrogation.
    --US Prisoners on Foreign Soil to work around our Law, yup, still happeneing.
    --Patriot Act, reauthorized.
    --Warrentless Wiretaps, still going on.
    --Rampant Hypocricy in our Foreign Relations, (i.e. Iraq > Saudi Arabia then, Libya > Bahrain now) yup, hasn;t gone anywhere, we're still fighting Nation Building Regime changing Wars primarily for our Oil Interests sheathed in claims of "humanitarianism".
    --Arming "Rebels" we know almost nothign about, and who could choose to war against us later? Of course, thats almost the definition of US Millitary Foreign Policy, why would Obama change that?
    --International Leaders making claims that the US is liek a Crusade? Yep, the Ruskies played us perfectly on this one.

    About the only thing that changes in re: our war Machine, is the kind of coverage it's getting int he media in general. Close your eyes, read the above, and you'd swear Jeb Bush won the 2008 election.

    Yup, a very hard time right now for our resident "No blood for oil, no nation building, war crimes, impeachment, burn Bush in Effigy" Liberal posters.

    I feel for you all, it's a tough, tough time for you. So best of luck trying to say others have no right to opinions, or asking what Sarah Palin thinks. If you think that type of deflection isn't obvious, well....good luck with that.
    Gitmo should of been closed and I am still wondering how the Presidential order was basically ignored.
    Afghanistan we all knew it would keep going.
    Iraq is coming to a close, doesn't happen over night.
    FISA is still being used and why wouldn't it be?
    Patriot Act, I have never had any issues with.

    Why do I have to be on one side or the other? I disagree with some and agree with others when it comes to the President. I did the same with GW.

    Libya could become a even uglier place if we are left holding the bag.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I feel for my liberal friends, they're truly in a no-win situation now.

    After 8 years of threads and posts, they now face a situation where the issue that pained them most under Bush (War, Millitary Policy, Terrorism Policy, Intelliegnce Policy, Nation Building, etc.) is now, under their greatest hope since FDR, being run very much as "King Obama, Bush the 3rd".

    Going to be very difficult for our resident Liberals to support Obama on Libya, although (as you can already see abaove) they'll try and change the subject, or simply not allow discussion, if they get the chance. Far easier that, than to face the truth here about their man, their hope for change, Obama.

    --Iraq, we're still there, still fighting, still dying.
    --Afghanistan, still there, still fighting, still dying, still losing. Doubled down.
    --Libya, we're now there, now fighting, now killing many, many, many civilians along with the installations we've hit.
    --Gitmo, still open, still has prisoners, still has millitary trials, still has interrogation.
    --US Prisoners on Foreign Soil to work around our Law, yup, still happeneing.
    --Patriot Act, reauthorized.
    --Warrentless Wiretaps, still going on.
    --Rampant Hypocricy in our Foreign Relations, (i.e. Iraq > Saudi Arabia then, Libya > Bahrain now) yup, hasn;t gone anywhere, we're still fighting Nation Building Regime changing Wars primarily for our Oil Interests sheathed in claims of "humanitarianism".
    --Arming "Rebels" we know almost nothign about, and who could choose to war against us later? Of course, thats almost the definition of US Millitary Foreign Policy, why would Obama change that?
    --International Leaders making claims that the US is liek a Crusade? Yep, the Ruskies played us perfectly on this one.

    About the only thing that changes in re: our war Machine, is the kind of coverage it's getting int he media in general. Close your eyes, read the above, and you'd swear Jeb Bush won the 2008 election.

    Yup, a very hard time right now for our resident "No blood for oil, no nation building, war crimes, impeachment, burn Bush in Effigy" Liberal posters.

    I feel for you all, it's a tough, tough time for you. So best of luck trying to say others have no right to opinions, or asking what Sarah Palin thinks. If you think that type of deflection isn't obvious, well....good luck with that.
    nice post, Fish, however, its not hard if you are able to seperate the politician from the politics.

    Obama is not living up to the promise. If the GOP puts up a candidate that offers a better solution (Ron Paul) then I will vote for him. Since it is unlikely that the republicans will offer a candidate that is different then the usual used car salesmen that is beholden to corporate America, we either hold our nose and pick the lesser of two evils or sit out the next election.

    Its not that complicated....
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-21-2011 at 10:15 AM.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I feel for my liberal friends, they're truly in a no-win situation now.
    Sure it is. Tomahawks missiles kill. More dead bodies in Middle East = Win (in my book).

    And why stop there? How about nuking everything from Morocco to the western border of India. Ev-ery-thing.


  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    nice post, Fish, however, its not hard if you are able to seperate the politician from the politics. Obama is not living up to the promise. If the GOP puts up a candidate that offers a better solution (Ron Paul) then I will vote for him. Since it is unlikely that the republicans will offer a candidate that is different then the usual used car salesmen that is beholden to corporate America, we either hold our nose and pick the lesser of two evils or sit out.

    Its not that complicated....
    No, it's not complicated at all, to be honest.

    You devote 8 words to the topic of the thread.

    The rest of your post is dedicated to attacking the Republicans.

    Like Bit (righties not allowed to speak) and LiL (Whats Palin think?) and even Plumber to a lesser degree (Kill um' all!), you too have chosen to effectively ignore the issue with a rote and weak denoucement of Obama, and instead try and change the subject, move the debate, to something other than the topic at hand.

    Because while discussing Libya, "used car salesmen that is beholden to corporate America" is a much more pleasant place for our resident Liberals minds to be right now. Never mind that Democrats are as much in bed with corporate America as Republicans (and teh donation figures prove that fact), it's great PR to change the debate from Obama's Wars, to something more comfortable at current, like those eveil Union Busting Corporate Facist Republicans.

    No my friend, it's not complicated at all tbh. Not at all.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,857
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    No question Obama is on the horns of a dilemma here between his stance prior to election and the pressures from international partners. Welcome to the Presidency...

    P.S. Can CBNY share with us Sarah Palin's response to these questions? I'm looking for some good comedy material...
    why? she's not the POTUS or even VP. Are you that desperate for someone to actually take a stand?

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    why? she's not the POTUS or even VP. Are you that desperate for someone to actually take a stand?
    He wasn't either, when he answered the question. What I was struck by is that he fully understood the issue and articulated very well his stance. He has not abided by that position now that he is in office. Warfish seems to think that we all have to write a ten page diatribe to express our disapproval. One line is sufficient. He should have gotten Congressional approval; he didn't. He violated his own stance. That requires a strong explanation at the least. It wasn't provided. That's a failure on two counts.

    I preferred Obama to McCain way back when, but I have not been terribly impressed with Obama's style of "leadership." It's frankly peculiar, as if it's digested from some secret opinion poll or a committee of alley cats. I think the Pubs in this forum have a legitimate point in challenging that aspect of Obama's presidency. What's the old saying? If you haven't got any enemies, you arent' doing your job? There's a mousy quality about Obama. As Charlie Sheen would say, "it is what it is."

    Re Palin, I mention that only because it immediately struck me that if Obama was merely a "commmunity organizer" at the time, Sarah Palin was the classroom dunce. Most posters here, including the NeoCons knew she was a cotton-candy pol. Just scary that she's still mentioned as a marginal possibility for 2012. I just hope we can find a president who's both intelligent, experienced, and has some Chad Pennington intangibles.
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 03-21-2011 at 10:46 AM.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    No question Obama is on the horns of a dilemma here between his stance prior to election and the pressures from international partners. Welcome to the Presidency...

    P.S. Can CBNY share with us Sarah Palin's response to these questions? I'm looking for some good comedy material...
    sarah palin- what does she have to do with this??

    oh right- nothing...just another obama shill needing to change the topic...face it- you and the rest of the hope & change gang have been had...

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    No, it's not complicated at all, to be honest.

    You devote 8 words to the topic of the thread.

    The rest of your post is dedicated to attacking the Republicans.

    Like Bit (righties not allowed to speak) and LiL (Whats Palin think?) and even Plumber to a lesser degree (Kill um' all!), you too have chosen to effectively ignore the issue with a rote and weak denoucement of Obama, and instead try and change the subject, move the debate, to something other than the topic at hand.

    Because while discussing Libya, "used car salesmen that is beholden to corporate America" is a much more pleasant place for our resident Liberals minds to be right now. Never mind that Democrats are as much in bed with corporate America as Republicans (and teh donation figures prove that fact), it's great PR to change the debate from Obama's Wars, to something more comfortable at current, like those eveil Union Busting Corporate Facist Republicans.

    No my friend, it's not complicated at all tbh. Not at all.


    Since the US became overtly involved in Libya I have dotted this forum with posts expressing disaproval about the way the administration got the country involved. In fact if you look at those posts I have been pretty consistent. My comment about the corporate puppet politicians was not just directed at the repubs.

    There was no attempt to change the topic; the theme of your post was that the liberals are in a conundrum because the president's actions do not match his rhetoric. I agree with that sentiment for the most part. My point is that its not complicated if you are able to seperate the politician from the politics.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Come Back to NY View Post
    sarah palin- what does she have to do with this??

    oh right- nothing...just another obama shill needing to change the topic...face it- you and the rest of the hope & change gang have been had...
    See above. We actually agree on this. But you can call me names if it makes you feel better.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,400
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    See above. We actually agree on this. But you can call me names if it makes you feel better.
    lol- yes, claiming obozo's hypocrisy is "in the horns" is really saying something...

    at best he's a clown who once again has proven to be a total hypocrite...in a worst case scenario this is grounds for impeachment...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 03-21-2011 at 11:07 AM.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Like Bit (righties not allowed to speak) and LiL (Whats Palin think?) and even Plumber to a lesser degree (Kill um' all!), you too have chosen to effectively ignore the issue with a rote and weak denoucement of Obama, and instead try and change the subject, move the debate, to something other than the topic at hand.
    Is that unique to us annoying posters?

    How about this. Last week, several posters were up in arms about Obama doing nothing. But now that he has, instead of acknowledging that...they change the subject into "why won't libs admit they're mad".


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker134 View Post
    Japan, Libya, etc..is a mere nuisance to him- his transformative agenda has been sidetracked. Let's party til this intl BS blows over...
    Quote Originally Posted by jetswin View Post
    Obama is too busy with his March Madness bracket to take a stand on the uprising in Libya




    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/..._uprising.html

    t's time for Obama pick a side. If he wants Khadafy out, like he claims he does, he should side with the rebels. He should stress that they are the greatest hope for overthrowing an enemy of the U.S. who has killed Americans through terrorism, most notoriously the Lockerbie bombing.
    He could say something like, "The United States of America will not allow Col. Khadafy to prevail against his own people," backing up his words by sending, with NATO's complete cooperation, aircraft carriers to the region. That should get the dictator packing his bags for, say, Venezuela.

    Or, if he truly does not want the U.S. involved in this conflict, then he needs to plainly - and loudly - articulate his reasoning to the public. He could reiterate that not one American soldier is going to die for Libya, that he's seen enough flag-draped coffins during his presidency.
    At the same time, he could assure the world that even if Khadafy wins this fight, over the long term we will contain and isolate him, call out his human rights record and prevent him from threatening his neighbors or supporting terrorism - but we are already in two wars and that he doesn't want a third.
    I am certain that the American people, who crave decisive leadership above all, would support either of the above options, but both stances require leadership, which is not a trait often found in the law school faculty lounge.
    For now, it appears that Obama does not know what to say and seems to suffer from leadership paralysis. He is not guided by U.S. interests or any discernible strategy - in Libya or the entire Middle East. The Obama doctrine is one part ambivalence, two parts inaction - a recipe for a world where a weakened United States is just an average seat at the table. He is, as in his beloved basketball, simply running out the clock.

    Andrea Tantaros sums it up nicely in the News this morning, the entire article is linked above
    Then...because peeps couldn't be angry at him for doing nothing with Libya, now it's "why is he doing something with Libya"...

    It's silly.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us