A.P. Fact check -Speech

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Who bit?


FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts
(AP) ? 11 hours ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...8l2Rtw?docId=f1839ff6dd0e4265b2952651c972f4a5

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

History shows that those of us who thought inading Iraq was insane were correct. I also happen to be pissed that we are still in Iraq and Afghan. But make no mistake about it the toll those two wars have taken on this country have driven us to the brink of bancruptcy. Dogs and his like are siimple republican puppets who will cheer anything a republican does and trash anything a Dem does all to the detriment of the United States.

Who bit?


FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts
(AP) ? 11 hours ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...8l2Rtw?docId=f1839ff6dd0e4265b2952651c972f4a5

:facepalm:

 

[ssd]

I found this to be pretty significant...from the link...

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so ? by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

:shrug: :facepalm: :nono:

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

kurby

 

[UGA12]

I found this to be pretty significant...from the link...

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so ? by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

:shrug: :facepalm: :nono:

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

kurby

Amazing how different theory and application are huh?

 

[Chadman]

It's starting to annoy me (a great deal) how so many conservatives are now holding Obama's feet to the fire for clarity of mission - when they have been backpedalling for years on Iraq and the false reasoning the public and legislators were given by an administration that fabricated an issue that STILL is costing us a tremendous amount of money.

Is it TRULY worse that someone has a difficult time coming up with a correct response to an issue (that most of the critics stood by and said nothing about UNTIL Obama took action) than someone who has a self-serving knee-jerk reaction based on fabrications and unverifiable "information?"

It is really starting to bother me how those that spent so much time defending action along the very same lines in Iraq are now so aggressively just taking pot shots with essentially hypothetical scenarios and concerns in Libya.

It's almost as simple to me as saying, if Libya goes on as long as Iraq has - "get back to me." Selective indignity by political opportunists, is how I would look at this.

That being said, I'm concerned about an escalating role for our country in Libya. I thought I understood the first part - hesitantly - but I'm not sure I like what I'm hearing now.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

It is really starting to bother me how those that spent so much time defending action along the very same lines in Iraq are now so aggressively just taking pot shots with essentially hypothetical scenarios and concerns in Libya.

The games some people play. :mj23:

 

[UGA12]

It's starting to annoy me (a great deal) how so many conservatives are now holding Obama's feet to the fire for clarity of mission - when they have been backpedalling for years on Iraq and the false reasoning the public and legislators were given by an administration that fabricated an issue that STILL is costing us a tremendous amount of money.

Is it TRULY worse that someone has a difficult time coming up with a correct response to an issue (that most of the critics stood by and said nothing about UNTIL Obama took action) than someone who has a self-serving knee-jerk reaction based on fabrications and unverifiable "information?"

It is really starting to bother me how those that spent so much time defending action along the very same lines in Iraq are now so aggressively just taking pot shots with essentially hypothetical scenarios and concerns in Libya.

It's almost as simple to me as saying, if Libya goes on as long as Iraq has - "get back to me." Selective indignity by political opportunists, is how I would look at this.

That being said, I'm concerned about an escalating role for our country in Libya. I thought I understood the first part - hesitantly - but I'm not sure I like what I'm hearing now.

I agree with a lot of the above posted, but what does that have to do with what he(Obama) said(Theory) pre-election, and what he has done(application) post-election. I am not sure if I fit into your "pot shots" category but believe it or not I appreciate the enormous challenges that sitting presidents face and do not question their decisions just because I may or may not agree with them politically(not saying you do). I no more believe that bush acted slowly in N.O. because the majority affected were black than I do Obama acted slowly in the gulf because the majority affected were white. The point at least I was trying to make is that regardless of political affiliation, in times of crisis, theory and past pandering?s to your base are worth less than a Ryan Leaf rookie card. Real world decisions based on the dynamics of the situations should/will always win out. Obama is simply the latest to be forced to realize it.

 

[Chadman]

UGA, you do not fall into the pot shots category as I was referring to it here, FYI. I would agree in principle with your assessment that there can be a real difference between theory and application, especially in writing a book/essay and politicking for office then assuming the role of dealing with real issues.

I would agree in some, if not many cases, Obama has acted differently than his base thinking might suggest, for a variety of reasons. Some fair, some questionable.

My point is a new one that has come about recently, listening and reading the criticism being leveled at him on the Libya situation.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Interesting points from Ben Stein and Krauthammer--

Ben Steins have been my concern all along.

Ben Stein-Foolish ThoughtS

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/01/foolish-thoughts

It is now cruelly apparent that the Egyptian Revolution has not gone as well as we might have hoped. Islamic law, enforced by the military, is taking hold in Egypt. The poor beleaguered Copts, who made a show of solidarity with the demonstrators, are an endangered species. Businessmen are put on trial just for being successful.
Protest itself is now illegal. Women who protest are raped or hauled off for involuntary virginity testing. (I am not making this up. It was in Nick Kristof's column in the New York Times. He has a wicked sense of humor, but this does not sound like a gag.) Professors who do not endorse the Moslem Brotherhood are threatened with summary killing. (By the way, this does not bother Mr. Kristof much, if I read him right. It's "messy" and no more----
========================

Krauthammer
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=noad

Most Read
Last 24 Hours
Why Is WH Nice to Our Enemies?
- Charles Krauthammer,
Syria?s ?reformer?


Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he?s a reformer-- Hillary Clinton on Bashar al-Assad, March 27

Few things said by this administration in its two years can match this one for moral bankruptcy and strategic incomprehensibility----

 

[Chadman]

I can't remember, but I can assume - were Stein and Krauthammer a part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove promotion team in Iraq? Or were they as critical then? I suppose just supporting and promoting the lies were enough for them then, since they make their living supporting all things conservative? Somehow, I can't imagine ANY logic coming from Obama would satisfy Krauthammer - his "objectivity" is surely questionable, considering who butters his bread.

 

[Trench]

Somehow, I can't imagine ANY logic coming from Obama would satisfy Krauthammer - his "objectivity" is surely questionable, considering who butters his bread.

Exactly.

Dawgs can't help himself though... he gets all tingly in his naughty bulbous parts while he's reading Krauty, Malkin or anything on Drudge.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

CNN now climbing on after 2nd HUGE FLOP in days from from the "Present"dent

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...Feed2Fcnn_politicalticker+3A+Political+Ticker)

Gitmo commission move the latest in a long line of Obama shifts
<TABLE class="cnn_avtr cnn_pt_tmar4 cnn_pt_avtr" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>

</TD><TD vAlign=top>By: CNN Political Producer Alexander Mooney
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Washington (CNN) - Those who have followed President Obama's stance on which court is appropriate to try accused terrorists can be forgiven for getting a severe case of whiplash.--


video included in link--if you prefer to watch

Amazing what happens when you have to leave Land of Oz and enter reality.

 

[ssd]

DTB:
Yeah - this was a big issue for me - moving these terrorists to civilian courts. I am personally glad that they have made the change to put them back into military tribunals, etc.

He will never admit it but I think O's inexperience was showing on this call - or maybe it was what he thought was a populist call. I think he is realizing that there is a hell of a lot more to the job than making statements on the campaign trail. Perhaps Bush wasn't ALL wrong with what he was doing and this move shows that.

I'm not going to blast him for it - I think experience and maybe some wisdom have come into play and I think now, they have changed it for the better.

 

[StevieD]

DTB:
Yeah - this was a big issue for me - moving these terrorists to civilian courts. I am personally glad that they have made the change to put them back into military tribunals, etc.

He will never admit it but I think O's inexperience was showing on this call - or maybe it was what he thought was a populist call. I think he is realizing that there is a hell of a lot more to the job than making statements on the campaign trail. Perhaps Bush wasn't ALL wrong with what he was doing and this move shows that.

I'm not going to blast him for it - I think experience and maybe some wisdom have come into play and I think now, they have changed it for the better.

What was the great experience that Bush brought to the job? Other than being a failure as a business man? Obama has kept most of the Bush Team in placeas far as this fiasco of a war goes.

 

[ssd]

I never said Bush brought experience to the job. I said - or what I meant to say - was that, it is easy to make promises on the campaign trial prior to experiencing what the actual job entails - closing Gitmo and holding civilian trials for terrorists being the example. Since becoming President, he has backed off on closing Gitmo and will now have military tribunals for the terrorists - perhaps he has changed his point of view after being in the job and realizing all of what is at stake, etc

 

[StevieD]

I never said Bush brought experience to the job. I said - or what I meant to say - was that, it is easy to make promises on the campaign trial prior to experiencing what the actual job entails - closing Gitmo and holding civilian trials for terrorists being the example. Since becoming President, he has backed off on closing Gitmo and will now have military tribunals for the terrorists - perhaps he has changed his point of view after being in the job and realizing all of what is at stake, etc

Or he is a lying sack Neocon like his predecessor.

 

[Trench]

I said - or what I meant to say - was that, it is easy to make promises on the campaign trial prior to experiencing what the actual job entails - closing Gitmo and holding civilian trials for terrorists being the example.

I think that's true with most incoming Presidents but I think in the case of Gitmo, Obama misjudged the American people. I don't think he fully realized what alarmist NIMBY's we Americans tend to be. Maybe that's true everywhere... I dunno.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

DTB:
Yeah - this was a big issue for me - moving these terrorists to civilian courts. I am personally glad that they have made the change to put them back into military tribunals, etc.

He will never admit it but I think O's inexperience was showing on this call - or maybe it was what he thought was a populist call. I think he is realizing that there is a hell of a lot more to the job than making statements on the campaign trail. Perhaps Bush wasn't ALL wrong with what he was doing and this move shows that.

I'm not going to blast him for it - I think experience and maybe some wisdom have come into play and I think now, they have changed it for the better.

I like the recent changes also-
-of course, I never saw how the pre flop rhetoric could possibly float in real world to begin with --you had your basic no qualification/experience speaking. He's had 2 tough years of OJT and beginning to see the light.

Will be interesting to see what pledges/promises he comes up with in 2012--after track record on those of 2008.

 

[StevieD]

I like the recent changes also-
-of course, I never saw how the pre flop rhetoric could possibly float in real world to begin with --you had your basic no qualification/experience speaking. He's had 2 tough years of OJT and beginning to see the light.

Will be interesting to see what pledges/promises he comes up with in 2012--after track record on those of 2008.

So then you must think "Gumby" is a doing a good job? :mj07: :mj07: Why don't you get on the side of America!