E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Just minutes before President Obama was to address the American Legion convention in Minnesota, and one day after Texas Gov. Rick Perry addressed the same room here at the national VFW convention, Mitt Romney took the podium this morning to assail the president on foreign policy.
"Have we ever had a president who was so eager to address the world with an apology on his lips and doubt in his heart?" Romney asked the crowd rhetorically. "He seems truly confused not only about America’s past but our future."
The speech was darker in tone than when he talks of foreign policy at his smaller campaign stops. The former governor spared no ammunition in criticizing the president Obama for his foreign-policy approach.
On two of America's three ongoing military engagements, Romney was even more direct.
"First, President Obama acted as if it were a great surprise that a rebellion erupted, even though The Arab Spring was already in full swing in Tunisia and Egypt," Romney said of the president's leadership on Libya. "Our involvement in Libya was marked by inadequate clarity of purpose before we began the mission, mission muddle during the operation, and ongoing confusion as to our role in the future."
On President Obama’s withdrawal plans from Afghanistan, Romney said, “[T]he President has chosen to disregard the counsel of the generals on the ground. I don’t know of a single military advisor to President Obama who recommended the withdrawal plan the president chose, and that puts the success of our soldiers and our mission at greater risk."
Further, Romney called the U.S. response to the Iranian elections of 2009 and the subsequent protests that were crushed by the Iranian government "a disgrace."
Though, he didn’t say exactly what his response would have been.
This came within the context of a larger critique of the administration's views on foreign policy, and efforts to cut defense spending, which Romney said must be founded upon either one of two mistaken beliefs: that the world was becoming a safer place or that America was becoming a lesser power.
The former governor said that any belief in America as a lesser power "flows from the conviction that if we are weak, tyrants will choose to be weak as well; that if we could just talk more, engage more, pass more U.N. resolutions, that peace will break out." He continued, "That may be what they think in that Harvard faculty lounge, but it’s not what they know on the battlefield!"
Romney graduated from Harvard in 1975 with a combined J.D./M.B.A.
Romney also looked to present himself not as yet another government official, but as a private-sector outsider.
"I am a conservative businessman," Romney told several hundred veterans assembled in a cavernous ballroom. "I have spent most of my life outside of politics, dealing with real problems in the real economy. Career politicians got us into this mess and they simply don't know how to get us out!"
Highlighting his private-sector experience has long been a hallmark of Romney's stump speech, but some observers see a renewed focus on the former CEO's time in the private sector as an effort to draw contrast with the surging Perry, who has served continuously in public office since 1985.
But Romney has run for public office four times, including this year, since 1994. And while he has highlighted his private-sector experience to differentiate himself from Perry, he has also highlighted his government experience to separate himself from Herman Cain, for example, the only other candidate to have served as a CEO.
“I respect Herman Cain,” Romney said two weeks ago, “but I also think it’s helpful to have had that government experience that I’ve had.”
Romney also referenced his managerial experience in the private sector when it came to defense policy, telling the crowd he could not wait for a chance to turn wasted defense dollars into newer ships and planes.
"Let me tell you, as a conservative businessman who has spent most of his life in the private sector,” he said, “I look at that kind of inefficiency and bloat and say, ‘Let me at it.’”
Romney mentioned his background in business explicitly twice, and made mention of his governorship three times.
Video edited by NBC's Natalie Cucchiara.
Leave a Comment:
GOOD LORD!
For all appearances the 2012 election is shaping up to be a rerun of 2008 with all this BS!
So far this week, they've trotted out the Mumbai Trip, chain e-mails from President Obama's books & now we're back to the apology!
Guess this is what happens when the Tealiban doesn't have a horse in the race that has a snowballs chance in hell of winning in 2012! ;o)
Meanwhile another contributor other then Darth Vaders daughter the Lizard has weighed in on the Dicks memoir! lol
Romney, stuff it.
In late April, a month after the United States lobbied the U.N. Security Council to support a NATO operation shielding anti-Qaddafi rebels in Libya from slaughter, Ryan Lizza published a detailed report in these pages called “The Consequentialist.” Lizza set out to describe the evolution of the President’s foreign-policy thinking and the way it applied to the regional phenomenon known as the Arab Spring. Political actors and think-tank grandees struggled to situate Obama somewhere on the idealist-realist scale, and White House aides hastened to define his priorities: the measured withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, continued vigilance against terrorism, restoration of American prestige abroad, and a deeper engagement with issues ranging from ascendant China to nuclear proliferation.
The article, which ran to more than nine thousand words, did not exactly follow the inverted-pyramid schema once taught in newsrooms and journalism schools across the land. In fact, it was the very last paragraph that captured the imagination of many readers—not least that of conservative pundits and Presidential candidates. “Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine,” Lizza wrote. “One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as ‘leading from behind.’ ” He concluded:
That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength.
Leading from behind. You could almost hear the speed-dials revving at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee. The phrase ricocheted from one Murdoch-owned editorial page and television studio to the next; Obama was daily pilloried as a timorous pretender who, out of a misbegotten sense of liberal guilt, unearned self-regard, and downright unpatriotic acceptance of fading national glory, had handed over the steering wheel of global leadership to the Élysée Palace. We were, as Mitt Romney put it, “following the French into Libya.” The President was “dithering,” Sarah Palin declared. John McCain wanted boots on the ground. Michele Bachmann, the G.O.P.’s arch-isolationist, said, “I would not have gone in,” while Newt Gingrich declared, “This is about as badly run as any foreign operation we’ve seen in our lifetime.” John Bolton, George W. Bush’s U.N. Ambassador, was sure that Obama had “set himself up for massive strategic disaster.” Rick Perry, for his part, shot an elephant in his pajamas.
Six months later, as Libyans rejoice at the prospect of a world without an unhinged despot, many of Obama’s critics still view a President who rid the world of Osama bin Laden (something that George Bush failed to do) and helped bring down Muammar Qaddafi (something that Ronald Reagan failed to do) as supinely selling out American power. Yet the Administration’s policies—a more apt description, admittedly, would have been “leading from behind the scenes”—were tailored to limiting circumstances. To review the facts: When the Tunis- and Cairo-inspired uprising in Libya began, last February, the United States was still at war in two Muslim countries and was regarded with deep mistrust throughout the region. Moreover, the U.S. military was overextended, which is why Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposed any involvement.
Obama, engulfed by crises domestic and foreign, did not initiate the idea for a no-fly zone in Libya—the Europeans did—but, once he saw that Qaddafi was on the brink of slaughtering thousands of rebels in Benghazi and other eastern cities, he pushed for an even broader mandate for NATO forces. Victory for Qaddafi threatened the most promising development of the Arab Spring—an end to fear. Not only did the resolution supporting NATO pass the U.N. Security Council 10–0 (with five abstainers, among them Russia and China); the mission itself had the political backing of the Arab League and material support from the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Qatar. The operation could not easily be defined as a Western crusade.
One of the wearying aspects of the Libyan conflict was that it far exceeded the hundred-hour attention-span limit set after the first Gulf War. But an unintended consequence of the prolonged conflict was that the “ragtag” Libyan fighters improved their skills on the battlefield and enabled civil institutions to arise from the rubble of a reign of terror. Sometimes, Qaddafi’s comic qualities—the Sgt. Pepper Goes to Carthage getups, the “voluptuous” Ukrainian nurses and “virgin” bodyguards—obscured the depths of his cruelty: the basement torture chambers, the terror operations, the support lent to criminal dictators from Idi Amin to Charles Taylor. Under Qaddafi, the creation of an unsanctioned N.G.O., for instance, was a capital offense; in liberated Benghazi, dozens of such N.G.O.s sprang up, even before Tripoli was freed. Opposition newspapers and television stations appeared. Nothing guarantees that Libya’s path will be straight and pacific, even with the advantages of a small population and a large oil industry. But these emergent institutions were developed above all by Libyans, not by Ahmed Chalabi or the Central Intelligence Agency. They are indigenous; they have legitimacy.
What the Libyan example portends for the nearby killing floor of Syria is unclear. Part of Obama’s anti-doctrinal doctrine is that it insists on the recognition of differences in a way that Bush’s fixed ideas did not. Complex as Libya was, and remains, Syria is infinitely more so. Qaddafi had been despised in the Arab world for decades; support in the region for his removal was hardly impossible to conjure. Bashar al-Assad is proving himself no less a despot, but Syria, because of its relationship with Iran, has ties to countries on the Security Council (Russia, for one) that Libya did not. Obama has tried to embolden the opposition; he has urged countries like Turkey to cut off trade, and pushed for tougher sanctions, to make it clear that displays of tyranny will not be without cost.
With what results? There are no sure outcomes in foreign policy, only a calculation of consequences, guided by an appraisal of national interests and values. The trouble with so much of the conservative critique of Obama’s foreign policy is that it cares less about outcomes than about the assertion of America’s power and the affirmation of its glory. In the case of Libya, Obama led from a place of no glory, and, in the eyes of his critics, no results could ever vindicate such a strategy. Yet a calculated modesty can augment a nation’s true influence. Obama would not be the first statesman to realize that it can be easier to win if you don’t need to trumpet your victory.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/09/05/110905taco_talk_remnick?printable=true#ixzz1WX6DjXSG
______________________________________
That's the thing about Republicans and the media. They hate change. Hate it. Our foreign policy has been a disaster for generations. In case no one has noticed btw.
We need to try different tactics is what President Obama saw.
And he's right. 100% right.
We have a gracious dignified smart President. Finally.
And the GOP hate him for it.
If only Obama could run against Bush and Cheney.
Oh wait, that's what he is doing.
Well at least he's got the jobs issue all figured out. Gonna bless us with his big knowledge and fix this right on up. Any day now.
Question - dude is in charge of upholding all the laws of the land, and yet his own family members are illegal aliens.
Too Funny. Oh and looks like Obama no like-y whistle blowers. Melson was sent packing.
Wonder why. Most transparent president EVAH!
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
GOOD LORD!
I guess it is the same as Obama and his minions STILL talking about Bush.
Yo Pat - you conclude he is smart.
I don't suppose you can back that up?
What has he done [results] that evidence that he is smart, competent, or even aware of what needs to be done?
Health care when the issue was jobs.
Stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8.5%
Having no clue that the credit rating was about to be downgraded.
Adding $5 trillion in new debt in just 2 and 1/2 years.
Yeah Pat, that's brilliant.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Why should today be any different than any other day?
Apathy and complacency are major characteristics of the liberal-left's constituency.
The TeaPublican Party really does not know what to do about Libya. The complained, simultaneously, that we were getting into a war and that we were not leading the charge and that we should not be getting into a war and that we should be doing more and that we were doing too much. Since the actions appear to have been successful, i.e. Gadaffy is no longer in charge in Libya, the TeaPublicans now want to complain because we are not occupying yet another country where we are not wanted.
As to Mr. Romney's other claims, IMHO, he does not have a clue. While it might be adequate for him to armchair quarterback, he does not have the priviledge of being advised by the generals involved.
Mr. Romney can talk a lot about how he ran the companies he ran, into the ground. Its easy to create profits when you outsource all the jobs to China and lay off hundreds of thousands of American workers.
Spanky I hope the President does pull out all the stops and goes big. Full bore on regulation elimination, direct job stimulous, all paid for by tax increases. Let the Republicans refuse to implement the jobs programs. They don't want America to succeed anyway, give them the rope they want to hang themselves.
Speaking of reruns & up pops the SOB!
Honey, you don't have to drag the same trash from thread to thread...
The first time you posted it was MORE then sufficient! ;o)
"For all appearances the 2012 election is shaping up to be a rerun of 2008 ..."
Let me fix that post for you, no charge.
"For all appearances the 2012 election is shaping up to be a rerun of 2010 ..."
Democrats, be afraid...very afraid.
I love the fact that 54% of the American People still blame W. Bush for the bad economy.
"For all appearances the 2012 election is shaping up to be a rerun of 2010 ..."
Only 37% of the voters voted in 2010 and that won't happen in 2012.
Feisty - Romney forgets one inconvenient truth in his whole diatribe....President Obama hunted down and killed Osama Bin Laden during his administration w/o the okay or the awareness of Congress (and certainly not Republicans in Congress). Additionally, when Romney sees bloat and inefficiency and wants to "have at it" you can clearly interpret that to mean he wants to have at the working people associated with all that "bloat and inefficiency". Romney is personally a job killer not a job creator. His history is one of firing thousands of people in an effort to wring as much money out of a business for himself and his investors. Oh but he just forgets that tender little fact hiding in his background..........
What's the matter Feisty? That hit a little too close to home?
The truth hurts doesn't it? The only reason your boy got in last time was because a bunch of gullible people, willing to grasp at any straw bought his cr@p hook-line-and-sinker.
That will not happen again. Hope is gone. But CHANGE WILL COME!
Too bad they can't actually vote against Bush, since he's not running and all, right job1?
dirp101 - nobody has been as inconsistent as Obama, but not even Obama is going to call for tax increases now.
He just signed HIS new "lower" rates into law, just 8 months ago.
Face it fellas - the only reason he has to go big now is cause the last time he did it he failed.
You truly are a legend in your OWN mind sweetie!
My BOY?
Is that racist Pat Buchanon your grand-pappy?
Nice dog whistle... for the pit bulls in lipstick (like yourself) to come scurrying!
There is a black MAN in the White House & he's going to be there for the next 5 years!
Get over it!
"Too bad they can't actually vote against Bush, since he's not running and all, right job1?"
The heck he's not! I've been watching him on TV ever since.......Oh, wait- Rick WHO?
LOL! And there it is... the RACIST card. Kind of sensative about cliche's aren't you old girl?
Hello?! Is this boob talking about the same guy who whacked those Somali pirates, killed Osama bin Laden, dropped drones all over Pakistan, taking out numerous other members of Al Qaeda's leadership, and held the course in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes to the great chagrin of the more dovish among us?
The same guy who figured out how to handle Libya without putting any US combat troops on the ground? The same guy who held firm and presided over the overthrow of Mubarak?
In my lifetime, I don't think I've ever seen a President with more foreign policy resolve. Compare to Reagan's cut and run when it got rough in Beirut, George H.W. Bush's failure to follow Saddam Hussein back to Baghdad, and George W. Bush's "war on the cheap" strategy in Iraq, empty saber-rattling at North Korea and Iran, neglect of Afghanistan, and complete failure to understand the true situation in Pakistan, just to name a few.
And Mitt's own foreign policy accomplishments are ....
"The only reason your boy got in last time was because a bunch of gullible people"
You got it Feisty, SOB is as big a racist/bigot as Buchanan!
....your boy?....real intelligent...thought provoking....nah, just plain racist!
More interested in hearing what Romneys foreign policy is FR......specifics please.
Hey Spanky, Couldn't help but notice you and Anna Molly showed up on First Thoughts this morning within minutes of each other. Something you two would like to share with the rest of us or just a coincidence? Politics and bedfellows and all that, you know!
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Meanwhile another contributor other then Darth Vaders daughter the Lizard has weighed in on the Dicks memoir! lol
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Publishing circles were abuzz today with the news that the new memoir by former Vice President Dick Cheney features a foreword by an unusual contributor: Satan.
That was hilarious
Yup, the old tin man doesn't have a heart other that the one in pocket has to employ Beelzebub
I sure wouldn't want to get in that fire (pardon the pun).
I'm sick of these low lives calling a sitting President 'BOY' Bev!
They know exactly what they're doing & the connotations that goes along with it!
You never see a ONE of them call out their side when somone says' they should ship the monkey in the WH back to Kenya' or something equally offensive!
Romney is out of his mind.
Let's start with Libya. Here's an article written by a professor who was born in the Middle East. I seeded this on the 'Vi8ne when it was published.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/22/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war/?hpt=hp_t1
Top ten myths about the Libya war
Editor's Note: Juan Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He writes the blog Informed Comment.
By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
The Libyan Revolution has largely succeeded, and this is a moment of celebration, not only for Libyans but for a youth generation in the Arab world that has pursued a political opening across the region.
The secret of the uprising’s final days of success lay in a popular revolt in the working-class districts of the capital, which did most of the hard work of throwing off the rule of secret police and military cliques. It succeeded so well that when revolutionary brigades entered the city from the west, many encountered little or no resistance, and they walked right into the center of the capital.
Moammar Gadhafi was in hiding as I went to press, and three of his sons were in custody. Saif al-Islam Gadhafi had apparently been the de facto ruler of the country in recent years, so his capture signaled a checkmate. (Checkmate is a corruption of the Persian “shah maat,” the “king is confounded,” since chess came west from India via Iran). [Editor's Note: This is no longer the case as of Tuesday, August 23. It turns out Saif Gadhafi had not been captured by the rebels.]
The end game, wherein the people of Tripoli overthrew the Gadhafis and joined the opposition Transitional National Council, is the best case scenario that I had suggested was the most likely denouement for the revolution. I have been making this argument for some time, and it evoked a certain amount of incredulity when I said it in a lecture in the Netherlands in mid-June, but it has all along been my best guess that things would end the way they have. I got it right where others did not because my premises turned out to be sounder, i.e., that Gadhafi had lost popular support across the board and was in power only through main force.
Once enough of his heavy weapons capability was disrupted, and his fuel and ammunition supplies blocked, the underlying hostility of the common people to the regime could again manifest itself, as it had in February. I was moreover convinced that the generality of Libyans were attracted by the revolution and by the idea of a political opening, and that there was no great danger to national unity here.
I do not mean to underestimate the challenges that still lie ahead– mopping up operations against regime loyalists, reestablishing law and order in cities that have seen popular revolutions, reconstituting police and the national army, moving the Transitional National Council to Tripoli, founding political parties, and building a new, parliamentary regime. Even in much more institutionalized and less clan-based societies such as Tunisia and Egypt, these tasks have proved anything but easy. But it would be wrong, in this moment of triumph for the Libyan Second Republic, to dwell on the difficulties to come. Libyans deserve a moment of exultation.
Read: The great Tripoli uprising.
I have taken a lot of heat for my support of the revolution and of the United Nations-authorized intervention by the Arab League and NATO that kept it from being crushed. I haven’t taken nearly as much heat as the youth of Misrata who fought off Gadhafi's tank barrages, though, so it is OK.
I hate war, having actually lived through one in Lebanon, and I hate the idea of people being killed. My critics who imagined me thrilling at NATO bombing raids were just being cruel. But here I agree with President Obama and his citation of Reinhold Niebuhr. You can’t protect all victims of mass murder everywhere all the time. But where you can do some good, you should do it, even if you cannot do all good. I mourn the deaths of all the people who died in this revolution, especially since many of the Gadhafi brigades were clearly coerced (they deserted in large numbers as soon as they felt it safe). But it was clear to me that Gadhafi was not a man to compromise, and that his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to.
Moreover, those who question whether there were U.S. interests in Libya seem to me a little blind. The U.S. has an interest in there not being massacres of people for merely exercising their right to free assembly. The U.S. has an interest in a lawful world order, and therefore in the United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Libyans be protected from their murderous government. The U.S. has an interest in its NATO alliance, and NATO allies France and Britain felt strongly about this intervention. The U.S. has a deep interest in the fate of Egypt, and what happened in Libya would have affected Egypt (Gadhafi allegedly had high Egyptian officials on his payroll).
Given the controversies about the revolution, it is worthwhile reviewing the myths about the Libyan Revolution that led so many observers to make so many fantastic or just mistaken assertions about it.
Myth #1. Gadhafi was a progressive in his domestic policies.
While back in the 1970s, Gadhafi was probably more generous in sharing around the oil wealth with the population, buying tractors for farmers, etc., in the past couple of decades that policy changed. He became vindictive against tribes in the east and in the southwest that had crossed him politically, depriving them of their fair share in the country’s resources. And in the past decade and a half, extreme corruption and the rise of post-Soviet-style oligarchs, including Gadhafi and his sons, have discouraged investment and blighted the economy. Workers were strictly controlled and unable to collectively bargain for improvements in their conditions. There was much more poverty and poor infrastructure in Libya than there should have been in an oil state.
Myth #2. Gadhafi was a progressive in his foreign policy.
Again, he traded for decades on positions, or postures, he took in the 1970s. In contrast, in recent years he played a sinister role in Africa, bankrolling brutal dictators and helping foment ruinous wars. In 1996 the supposed champion of the Palestinian cause expelled 30,000 stateless Palestinians from the country. After he came in from the cold, ending European and U.S. sanctions, he began buddying around with George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi and other right wing figures. Berlusconi has even said that he considered resigning as Italian prime minister once NATO began its intervention, given his close personal relationship to Gadhafi. Such a progressive.
Myth #3. It was only natural that Gadhafi sent his military against the protesters and revolutionaries; any country would have done the same.
No, it wouldn’t, and this is the argument of a moral cretin. In fact, the Tunisian officer corps refused to fire on Tunisian crowds for dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and the Egyptian officer corps refused to fire on Egyptian crowds for Hosni Mubarak.
The willingness of the Libyan officer corps to visit macabre violence on protesting crowds derived from the centrality of the Gadhafi sons and cronies at the top of the military hierarchy and from the lack of connection between the people and the professional soldiers and mercenaries. Deploying the military against non-combatants was a war crime, and doing so in a widespread and systematic way was a crime against humanity. Gadhafi and his sons will be tried for this crime, which is not “perfectly natural.”
Myth #4. There was a long stalemate in the fighting between the revolutionaries and the Gadhafi military.
There was not. This idea was fostered by the vantage point of many Western observers, in Benghazi. It is true that there was a long stalemate at Brega, which ended yesterday when the pro-Gadhafi troops there surrendered. But the two most active fronts in the war were Misrata and its environs, and the Western Mountain region.
Misrata fought an epic, Stalingrad-style, struggle of self-defense against attacking Gadhafi armor and troops, finally proving victorious with NATO help, and then they gradually fought to the west toward Tripoli. The most dramatic battles and advances were in the largely Berber Western Mountain region, where, again, Gadhafi armored units relentlessly shelled small towns and villages but were fought off (with less help from NATO initially, which I think did not recognize the importance of this theater).
Read: Obama demands regime change in Syria.
It was the revolutionary volunteers from this region who eventually took Zawiya, with the help of the people of Zawiya, last Friday and who thereby cut Tripoli off from fuel and ammunition coming from Tunisia and made the fall of the capital possible. Any close observer of the war since April has seen constant movement, first at Misrata and then in the Western Mountains, and there was never an over-all stalemate.
Myth #5. The Libyan Revolution was a civil war.
It was not, if by that is meant a fight between two big groups within the body politic. There was nothing like the vicious sectarian civilian-on-civilian fighting in Baghdad in 2006. The revolution began as peaceful public protests, and only when the urban crowds were subjected to artillery, tank, mortar and cluster bomb barrages did the revolutionaries begin arming themselves.
When fighting began, it was volunteer combatants representing their city quarters taking on trained regular army troops and mercenaries. That is a revolution, not a civil war. Only in a few small pockets of territory, such as Sirte and its environs, did pro-Gadhafi civilians oppose the revolutionaries, but it would be wrong to magnify a handful of skirmishes of that sort into a civil war. Gadhafi's support was too limited, too thin, and too centered in the professional military, to allow us to speak of a civil war.
Myth #6. Libya is not a real country and could have been partitioned between east and west.
Alexander Cockburn wrote,
I don’t understand the propensity of Western analysts to keep pronouncing nations in the global south “artificial” and on the verge of splitting up. It is a kind of Orientalism. All nations are artificial.
Benedict Anderson dates the nation-state to the late 1700s, and even if it were a bit earlier, it is a new thing in history.
Moreover, most nation-states are multi-ethnic, and many long-established ones have sub-nationalisms that threaten their unity. Thus, the Catalans and Basque are uneasy inside Spain, the Scottish may bolt Britain any moment, etc., etc. In contrast, Libya does not have any well-organized, popular separatist movements.
It does have tribal divisions, but these are not the basis for nationalist separatism, and tribal alliances and fissures are more fluid than ethnicity (which is itself less fixed than people assume). Everyone speaks Arabic, though for Berbers it is the public language; Berbers were among the central Libyan heroes of the revolution, and will be rewarded with a more pluralist Libya.
This generation of young Libyans, who waged the revolution, have mostly been through state schools and have a strong allegiance to the idea of Libya. Throughout the revolution, the people of Benghazi insisted that Tripoli was and would remain the capital. Westerners looking for break-ups after dictatorships are fixated on the Balkan events after 1989, but there most often isn’t an exact analogue to those in the contemporary Arab world.
Myth #7. There had to be NATO infantry brigades on the ground for the revolution to succeed.
Everyone from Cockburn to Max Boot put forward this idea. But there are not any foreign infantry brigades in Libya, and there are unlikely to be any. Libyans are very nationalistic and they made this clear from the beginning. Likewise the Arab League. NATO had some intelligence assets on the ground, but they were small in number, were requested behind the scenes for liaison and spotting by the revolutionaries and did not amount to an invasion force. The Libyan people never needed foreign ground brigades to succeed in their revolution.
Myth #8. The United States led the charge to war.
There is no evidence for this allegation whatsoever. When I asked Glenn Greenwald whether a U.S. refusal to join France and Britain in a NATO united front might not have destroyed NATO, he replied that NATO would never have gone forward unless the U.S. had plumped for the intervention in the first place.
I fear that answer was less fact-based and more doctrinaire than we are accustomed to hearing from Mr. Greenwald, whose research and analysis on domestic issues is generally first-rate. As someone not a stranger to diplomatic history, and who has actually heard briefings in Europe from foreign ministries and officers of NATO members, I’m offended at the glibness of an answer given with no more substantiation than an idee fixe.
The excellent McClatchy wire service reported on the reasons for which then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Pentagon, and Obama himself were extremely reluctant to become involved in yet another war in the Muslim world. It is obvious that the French and the British led the charge on this intervention, likely because they believed that a protracted struggle over years between the opposition and Gadhafi in Libya would radicalize it and give an opening to al-Qaeda and so pose various threats to Europe.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy had been politically mauled, as well, by the offer of his defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, to send French troops to assist Ben Ali in Tunisia (Alliot-Marie had been Ben Ali’s guest on fancy vacations), and may have wanted to restore traditional French cachet in the Arab world as well as to look decisive to his electorate. Whatever Western Europe’s motivations, they were the decisive ones, and the Obama administration clearly came along as a junior partner (something Sen. John McCain is complaining bitterly about).
Myth #9. Gadhafi would not have killed or imprisoned large numbers of dissidents in Benghazi, Derna, al-Bayda and Tobruk if he had been allowed to pursue his March Blitzkrieg toward the eastern cities that had defied him.
But we have real-world examples of how he would have behaved, in Zawiya, Tawargha, Misrata and elsewhere. His indiscriminate shelling of Misrata had already killed between 1000 and 2000 by last April,, and it continued all summer. At least one Gadhaf mass grave with 150 bodies in it has been discovered. And the full story of the horrors in Zawiya and elsewhere in the west has yet to emerge, but it will not be pretty. The opposition claims Gadhafi's forces killed tens of thousands. Public health studies may eventually settle this issue, but we know definitively what Gadhafi was capable of.
Myth #10. This was a war for Libya’s oil.
That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA and Repsol.
Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Gadhafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.
Rather than all of you making up trash about Obama - this not working - that not working- etc., why don't you address the REAL problem:
republicans stalling all legislation, sabotaging bills, obstructing anything getting done - just to make Obama look bad so they can have a better chance of getting another disaster like Bush/Cheney in the Whitehouse
It is apalling to me that they think so little of the US, that they resort to harming it for political purposes!
Feisty.........and apparently MSNBC did nothing about Buchanan....but he's been on this roll for several years with his racist rants.....and Buchanan will continue on!......
Complicit..I say!
Chilled:
I suspect you are black. You know damn well we throw that term around freely. "Yo, me and my BOY is going to roll out to ......" "Man is that your boy over there?" "Thats my BOY..."
I guess now we are going to make that the new "N" word? I bet a lot of these so-called concerned liberal caucasions in here use both words quite frequently when they are around like audiences.
The ones that cry racist and bigot all of the time are more than likely one themselves. They are just feeling guilty these days therefore they feel the need to keep the blackman in the whitehouse. You see it it it it it ahh...soothes their conscience.
Then we have the respected Fareed Zakaria of CNN about the president's actions and foreign policy:
Below is an excerpt. The full text is at http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/23/a-new-era-in-u-s-foreign-policy/?hpt=hp_c1
For days, the flip-flopping GOP/TP right wing has been criticizing the President's handling of Libya. The critics are literally full of manure.
CNN's Fareed Zakaria writes:
All of you that dislike Obama, give him some credit, he has had some foreign policy successes and a few missteps. His missteps are no graver nor worse than previous presidents. The 2012 election is not going to be decided based on his foreign policy record or Romney's brilliant (tongue in cheek) observations. Its going to come down to the economy and Obama's record versus the vision/plan/campaign promises for the economy of the GOP candidate. It doesnt matter Jobs1 that only 37% of the people voted in 2010, it does matter than Obama's approval rating for the economy is in the 20% range. It does matter that the 8 states that will decide the election are states in which Obama is running 10 points behind Perry/Romney at the moment. It does matter that the states that Obama can point to as guinea pigs of the high tax, high government regulation, high deficit spending are Illinois, CA, NY all doing dismally. His bright side is that he has 12 months in which he can hope that his economic fortunes turn around and that temporary tax cuts, temporary government stimulus will support longer term employment and GDP growth. Otherwise, if he continues to be proven wrong, no matter how much you hate, scream or demagogue all the GOP candidates, he doesnt stand a chance.
The only difference between oBama and oSama is the BS coming from the former and his minions.
Yeah! LOL
I'm sure that's exactly how Joe Biden talks to him...
SWEET! Your crystal ball is in for repairs! lol
So let me get this str8: You have to be business minded to run government, but only if you have some government experience, so Cane is out? Then you can be Harvard educated, but it's not good, if you are the current President, right? Talk about flip flopping.
Anyway, I think the problem the Republican candidates are having with the President, is that it's hard to pin him down on one issue and hammer him. They say that he is always apologising, but yet still he is bombing the crap out of other countries like our former (even more so) Republican President. Like it or not Osama died on his watch.
As far as Romney is concerned, I think his team is waiting too long to take on the other Republican candidates. At the end of the day you are trying to get the nod to really challenge the sitting president and not focusing on your rivals for that nod is a huge mistake. Romney should know that his is not only Mormon (yes, that is a strike against him in American politics), but he is from a liberal eastern state, so he is going to have to turn up the heat on the other Republicans to keep them from chipping away and exposing his "flaws" to the core Republican/TP voters.
No matter the outcome, this is going to be a great season to be a political junkie. Popcorn ready and now I am just waiting for the real fireworks to start.
I's called freedom of speech, guaranteed by the 1st amendment, chilled; if you don't like it, it's just too damned bad!
As for the U.S. military budget, it has been blown up beyond sustainability by an arms-buying spree started during the Bush Regime - and often with weapons and systems that are either unnecessary, unsuited to the evolving character of principal threats, or frankly just expensive boondoggles for favored contractors - and products that don't work.
The F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II are examples. It was a shock to the country recently when we learned that our very, very costly "stealth" fighter first, is not stealthy; second, won't fly. And third, it (like the Lightning) is so short-ranged it isn't suitable for deployment. The F-35 was at first a double boondoggle, because an entirely unneeded second engine design was created and funded. Now we larn that plane doesn't fly either.
Oh, and by the way - Dick Cheney's wife Lynn - is the heriess to the Martin side of Lockheed-Martin. Conflict of interest, anyone?
The military needed better-protected vehicles, body armor, some advanced small arms and light field artillery in the war zones. But Bush-Cheney didn't want to give them that - uh, uh - the money had to go for a whacky artillery piece that eventually got cancelled after costing billions, and things like the F-22 and F-35 boondoggles.
The President is requiring DoD to get sane and clean up its act, and none too soon, either.
Mitt Romney is a jackass.
Oh, and a PS - forgot to bring up the Navy's experiment with a "stealth" catamaran type vessel, originally intended for littoral (shallow water) deployment. Just scrapped it.
ITM you really are 'special'!....
.....tell ya what, how about you and all your CONservative friends just go ahead and use the n word...get it out of your system....since in your world, the President of the United States is your 'homeboy'!
You people are really upset over someone saying "Your Boy"? Everything isn't about race and slander. I have a lot of friends who are "My Boys", regardless of color. Get out from behind your computer and get out into he real woirld where people actually speak to each other. You all are just lame.
Speaking of this VFW conference: every year since it's inception, the VFW has invited the sitting president to speak. Every year since then, the president either did speak, or sent a "high level member" of the executive office to speak - usually the vice president. Not this year; Obama declined to either attend or even send his rep. Makes it kind of obvious how he regards us veterans doesn't it!
John A - Good information from Mr. Cole. Have noticed the hypocrisy that Mr. Zakaria speaks about as well. See my post #2.2.
Unlike the GOP, I can accept that Obama's policy worked....... this time.
Alligator Bait, Ape, Brownie, Buffie, Coon, Crow, Darky, Eight Ball, Gable, Groid, House @!$%#, Jigaboo, Jungle Bunny, Monday, Monkey, Moulie, Munt, Niglet, Nig-nog, @!$%#, Pickaninny, Porch Monkey, Quashie, Sambo, Schvartse, Shine, Sooty, Spade, Spearchucker, Spook, Tar Baby, Teapot, Thicklips, Touch of the tar brush.
Are any of those better than "boy"?
Well that didn't take long, chilled!
At least Chris has the balls to say what the others are thinking...
Seriously?! Then he was wrong. Can't understand what he was thinking about, even if only symbolically. Sigh.
Spider - if I remember correctly it is also the GNOPers who are quick to cut the benefits of those who served in all the interventions the rethugs so valiantly get us involved in and then don't offer the proper care for those who are returning injured.
Excellent comment Mr. Romney. Perhaps you have a backbone after all.
Obviously Fiesty is afraid of you and your competitor primus, Governor Perry. Otherwise, she would not spend so much time sliming you with her pathetic diatribes of rehashed Libbie talking points.
Psalm 109:8, Pray for Obama.
Fiesty, I still think you are smokin' hot for an unshaven liberal woman. Or is that too offensive for you, the modern liberal woman who spends her time bashing on Bachmann and Palin. If so, I apologize and hope you call me at 1-202-456-1414. God you are smokin'!
Chris- We used to use 'stovepipe' and 'ditty-bopper', too. I'm sure there are many more.
SO- whatever your tally is, It seems pretty well short of whatever they called us. Let's see....Honkie, Crakcer, Whitey- that's 3. SO, which race has more derogatory names for the other race? Who 'wins' the contest for being 'racist'?
Any takers?? Any guesses??
I was born into the segregated south and I am white. I have watched the boy game before. It is a way to humilate a black man. The white bigots call him boy and dare, just dare him to stand up for himself because he could end up dead or in jail after they beat him.
You just continue to think it is no big deal, because you have not seen the real intent and harm meant by the racist slur.
Spider, and Anna Molly: Here's what I put up in my first post today on a different thread. Spider, once again you spin stuff with misleading references.
On another note from FR:
The VFW refused our UN Ambassador, the Air Force secretary and director of the National Guard - on grounds they were not important enough? That is pure arrogance and intentional political posturing.
Afro-Saxon, Ann, Boche, Bog Irish, Bounty Bar, Bule, Charlie, Coonass, Cracker, Dogan, Fenian, Fritz, Frog, Gin Jockey, Gringo, Gubba, Gweilo, Haole, Honky, Hun, Jock, Mangia Cake, Ofay, Peckerwood, Roundeye, Wigger, Zog Lover
That's all I could find unless you go into specific ethnic groups. I could do that if you want.
The headline of a seed on Newsvine:
Limbaugh: Colin Powell Will Vote For Obama Again Because 'Melanin Is Thicker Than Water'
The open racism of the extreme right, confirmed once again, sadly.
Spider:
Stuff it! I know exactly how the President feels about veterans. By every objective measure his concern outstrips anything shown during the previous Presidency. The fact that he isn't going to go to a VFW shindig is irrelevant. That kind of nonsense is right there with the BS complaint about the flag pin.
It was Republicans who denigrated John Kerry - a veteran. It was Republicans who shamelessly denigrated Max Cleland - a horribly wounded veteran. It was Republicans who denigrated B.T. Collins, a veteran who lost a leg in Viet Nam.
What is it the VFW wants? Do they want a real-life hero like President George W. Bush who never quite made it to Viet Nam or to many of his mandatory formations for that matter. Perhaps they yearn for the presence of five-time draft dodger Dick Cheney - the coward's coward.
White-Hot GOP Race Down To Two Mentally Ill People, Person Who Lost Nomination Last Time
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/21/21196/SB_White_Hot_GOP_R_jpg_630x1200_upscale_q85.jpg
John A.-400474
The headline of a seed on Newsvine:
Limbaugh: Colin Powell Will Vote For Obama Again Because 'Melanin Is Thicker Than Water'
The open racism of the extreme right, confirmed once again, sadly.
And then they will deny it. They better check with In the Middle of Texas. I'm sure ITM would object.
Wow, didn't know Obama was a Navy Seal and participated in the killing of Bin Laden. All he did was continue what Bush started. Your retarded parents could have made that decision.
Didn't he speak at an Amercian Legion convention around the same time? As a veteran myself, I have no problem whatsoever with President Obama's regard for me. Seems like the leadership of the VFW is more worried about their image than they are about how President Obama supports veterans.
JFK
Yea, Obama's trying to finished and/or fix what the Bushs started, everything, BIN LADEN, LIBYA, UNEMPLOYMENT, DEBT, DEFICIT, LOWER TAXES ON THE RICH, ETC.ETC..
Oh, Oh, I have an answer to this one!!!!1!11!!
So yeah, the correct answer to the question "who's the racist" is <drum roll>
NOBODY! EVERYBODY! SOME PEOPLE MORE THAN OTHERS!
A very interesting young man in Canada blogging under the name "Crommunist" (go ahead righties, get your kicks and whack-a-loon conspiracy theories revved up) wrote a very interesting piece on racism. He pointed out that we ALL have "racist" tendencies. Some of it has actually been shown to be genetic. Experiments with babies have shown that during development, at some point when we gain more of our own identity, we begin to prefer the company of those who look like ourselves: white kids hang out with white kids, black kids hang out with black kids, brown kids w/ brown kids, etc. etc. Much of it, of course, is ingrained, whether by parents, family, friends, society, etc. Many times, we don't even realize it's there, because there is a whole system built up around it, and since we grew up in the system (for those of us privileged not to be OUTSIDE the system), it's familiar, and it seems fair. Those who grew up on the other side of the system have a different point of view. Sometimes, that point of view is reinforced by parents, family, friends, society, etc. Sometimes it's mitigated. But we weren't discussing privilege here, except in a roundabout way.
Anyway, the answer is that we are ALL racist to an extent. The key is not merely saying "the other side is ludicrous and will never realize their mistakes," or "he is a racist, whereas I'm nice to [insert race here]," or "I have [insert race here] friends, so that makes me not racist," or whatever. The point is to try to SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF THINGS! If somebody points out that what you did or said was racist, we retreat to our emotional preference of defensiveness and immediately try to placate ourselves by saying to ourselves "of course I'm not racist, that's just how things are," or "I'm not a racist, it's just THOSE [insert race here] people in particular are pissing me off."
The idea is to become anti-racist, thoughtful about how things look from different points of view, of how you treat other people based on skin color, features, ethnicity, etc. To ask yourself not only "do I treat all people equally?" but "how could my 'regular' actions that seem perfectly okay in this system be perceived by someone who isn't me or my race (particularly if my race is the dominant one in society)?" By doing so, you can think through your own racist tendencies and realize your errors, even if you don't decide to do anything about it.
Or, you know, continue being a total dick.
Romney did not say where Obamas foreign policy has failed ... nor did he say what he would have done ... its hard to arm chair quarterback when there are no mistakes on the field ..and you have no other play to suppose ..
Spider ,,, I to am a veteran ..that said Obama has done more to improve veterans lives than any other president .. it was under G W Bush that benefits for veterans was slashed and under Obama that those benefits were restored ...now the tea party wants those benefits slashed again .. if your a veteran you cant support a tea party hack over Obama and call your self american
Can you not see the difference between what you and your friends call each other familiarly, and what words you use to refer to the President of the United States, who you do NOT know? Particularly in the midst of the type of rhetoric that is posted here?
This is one thing the Teapublicans can do often and that is to criticize everything the President does, and WITHOUT offering any suggestions on how they plan on doing it better. Romney criticizes Libya without the fact that it was the UN who implemented this advance and that the US was just going along with all the other countries in the World. That didn't happen with Iraq, where the US had no Global support what so ever. So, Romney how would YOU have done things differently? You can only criticize BUT not offer any alternatives, can you?
The Teapublican criticize without offering any alternatives or suggestions on actually fixing ANY problems at all. This is all diversion tactics for getting the people to focus on anything but actually fixing the problems. Diversion, and Criticism without facts or actions to actually make a difference. Funny, how they weren't even talking about jobs and still aren't, except to criticize President Obama for not focusing on said jobs, that most of the Teapublicans are happy to throw away for their precious cuts, to save their rich supporters.
Doesn't everybody feel better now that we've gotten all of those silly words out of the way?
Now, on to a more serious topic: Hostess Ding Dongs or Drake's Ring Dings, which is the better hockey-puck-shaped snack cake?
My vote is for Sarah Lee strawberry mini cheesecakes......
So sorry to disappoint you, WCA -- prior commitments on both sides. Surely you have heard Spanky refer lovingly to his soulmate, Ms. Spanky. Besides, as much as I like the guy, I sincerely doubt that Spanky and I are compatible.
You see, Spanky owns gold and I don't, except as it may appear in the occasional piece of jewelry. My spellchecker works and his doesn't. He has a really big boat which he likes to take out on boys' weekends; and if I were Ms. Spanky, I wouldn't let him get within 100 miles of Lake Havasu without me.
I assure you -- and a certain geek who may be looking in -- that anything else you think you observe is pure coincidence.
Thanks for the clarification, John. I wondered if it might be something like that.
It's worse than that -- Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, the Plame affair and Scooter Libby convicted to name just a few more things wrong with Republican foreign policy. It just proves Republicans suck at pretty much everything.
As for virtual personalities, don't believe the hype they type, especially the narcissistic trolls sent by Rupert Murdoch or whoever they answer to. I'll bet at least one is on disability, another is a peon in the basement of a tax attorney's office who, along with another, is supported largely by a spouse, and another lives with his parents, and, well you get the drift.
"The only difference between oBama and oSama is the BS coming from the former and his minions"
Look everyone...some stupid person posted the above comment...lol
Talk about desperate.
Dont stop now lots of sheep still need to hear your BS.
Obama's first budget year started on October 1, 2009. The expenditures which were incurred during the first 8 months of his presidency were already budgeted before he took office. The debt on September 30, 2009, was 11.909 trillion. The majority of the increase in debt was due to interest on loans incurred during the Bush administration and the stimulus which, contrary to your talking head heroes, did help the economy.
Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.
from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.
From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.
In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.
From the numbers above 1.2 trillion dollars is what Obama has added to the debt. Most economist even ones that served under Bush, have stated that the Obama stimulus bill helped us recover faster from the rescission.
I have a link for you if you want to check the numbers for yourself?
Speaking at a retreat for House Republicans in Baltimore on Jan. 29, 2010, Obama was particularly critical of a question from Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. Hensarling asked Obama, "You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?"
"The fact of the matter is," Obama replied, "is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion -- $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade."
"Romney mentioned his background in business explicitly twice, and made mention of his governorship three times. "
And what was Obama's experience?
Oh yes, now I remember - he was a 'Community Organizer", meaning he helped people register to vote, when he wasn't suing lenders for not making loans to unqualified poor people.
I guess it shows, considering his dismal results so far on just about everything of importance, like the economy, jobs, foreign policy, job, jobs, jobs.
So how many terms has Romney served in Congress? Oh wait, none.. His foreign policy is based on things in Mass? Didn't know they even had a foreign policy, for what out of state gophers?
Obama has had a hard time with some things, all because of RepukliCONS stalling everything. If you cannot see that you are either dumb, ignorant or just plain stupid. Real Americans do not want more of the part of NO.
And Romney, is just that, CRAP in a suit.
Per Mitt:
I guess the GOP just doesn't truly know what "leadership" means. Bush always drove us crazy with his completely flip comments like" well, I don't know... I'll leave it to the experts on the ground"... what an asinine approach. If we left all decisions to generals, would wars EVER end? Sounds like MITT is just "Dude Bush" in disguise. As a corporate leader, do you think he EVER just did what one of his executives presented? Nope. Never. He took all advice then formed the best plan based on operations, marketing, financial, and political considerations... JUST LIKE OBAMA DID.
The air head knows Obama made the decision the right way, he's just too chicken sh!t to admit it in front of his Tea Party "hate Obama" machine.
Perry - "We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are, before they strike at home. I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism.” More: "We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened." “We must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multi-lateral debating societies"
Perry says everything that could mean anything to anyone and therefore nothing to everyone.
Romney - “[T]he President has chosen to disregard the counsel of the generals on the ground. I don’t know of a single military advisor to President Obama who recommended the withdrawal plan the president chose, and that puts the success of our soldiers and our mission at greater risk."
Further, Romney called the U.S. response to the Iranian elections of 2009 and the subsequent protests that were crushed by the Iranian government "a disgrace." Though, he didn’t say exactly what his response would have been.
Romney - Doesn't say anything about his plans on foreign policy or when intervention is required, which is worse?
greetings yellowdog, hope you and yours enjoyed the last of summer before school starts..
I have always found it interesting that office seeking politicians pretty much have free reign on giving ambiguous plans on how they want to address the policies of the office they are seeking and its incumbent. That is a luxury however that an incumbent doesn't have. It will be interesting to see what happens after labor day.
It's been hot with no rain in sight. Still in the 100's and Labor day is around the corner.
Agree american about the ambiguous plans. I would agree that candidates, even these republican ones, often say what they feel is wrong but don't offer solutions.
Other than the normal - boot on the neck of business, regulation asphyxiation meme and outrage at having HCR rammed down ones throat, I'm not seeing many solutions. Ok so as not to be unfair, I ommitted that there answer is to enact spending cuts in a weakened economy.
Regarding foreign policy and some of the hypocrisy I notice, I watched O Reily and Karl Rove discussing the Libya conflict. Far from one who fully understood why we would invovle ourselves in a civil war, being a R. Paul/D. Kucinich type, I thought Obama's course of action was something the GOP could cheer for. However even despite Obama doing practically everything that Romney or Rove or Gingrich said to do they couldn't say a good word about the results. He didn't do it fast enough or cheap enough for them.
For me fortunately it seems to have been a success. Now it is time to pull the plug on our operations there. Let the Europeans clean it up diplomatically, politically and monetarily. No more nation building in the Middle east. I warily congratulate the President on this one, but remind him that a majority of us don't wish to see him repeat this exercise elsewhere.
Barack Obama, "The Audacity of Hope," Crown, 2006
I serve as a blank screen...
Maybe that is why I was expecting a feel good blockbuster movie instead of a depressing real life made for TV movie.
JK :P
LMAO! fiesty even responds to herself. Not always a bad thing, though.
So back to the real issue at hand - if the stimulus worked, how come we need another stimulus?
Isn't the fact that Obama is trotting out a new plan an admission that his old plan failed, or is this just the libbies not understanding what the word "success" means.
Pivoting to jobs. We need to hook him up to a generator. All these pivots would produce so energy.
Navy, what's ThinkProgress got on this topic?
"So back to the real issue at hand - if the stimulus worked, how come we need another stimulus?"
Why, Spanks- it's just like your income: If 'some' is good, 'some more' is better.
"Isn't the fact that Obama is trotting out a new plan an admission that his old plan failed,..."
Well, hey, yeah- if something didn't work as well as you'd like, give up.
Yep- neat post....Keep 'em coming.
Cool deal Drive By - yu get it. It didn't work, i.e. it failed.
See that wasn't so hard to do. So how come Navy just can't figure it out?
And rest assured my man, the posts will keep coming.
Say, I don't suppose you got another $787 billion laying around? You know "If 'some' is good, 'some more' is better."
Life must be so simple when there are no consequences, eh Drive By?
It wasn't big enough. However, 17 Billion for Texas saved them.
"And rest assured my man, the posts will keep coming."
And that is good news for us all. It's been getting WAY to serrious on here lately.
Good golly job1 - if it wasn't big enough it can only be Obama's fault - it was his plan.
Just another excuse. Time to stop?
Naa. I'm sure he'll totally get it right this time. right?
Let's double it next time with large revenue increases.
Spanky-
Good golly job1 - if it wasn't big enough it can only be Obama's fault - it was his plan.
Actually, Spanky -- his original plan was 80% infrastructure, 20% tax breaks for middle and lower class only. Your wonderful TP/GOP forced it to become 50% tax breaks, with the usual top 2% getting the best of it. Had the Stimulus been as originally intended, the employment rate would be lower. And add in the repaired infrastructure and it was a win-win idea. But, lowering unemployment, fixing infrastructure, healing the country would be bad for the greedy TP/GOP -- would allow the President to win 2012, and they -- and you -- certainly don't want that.
Spanky-
So back to the real issue at hand - if the stimulus worked, how come we need another stimulus?
Spanky- I thought you knew it was not large enough; but it worked. You might want to fact check that.
In a report released March 18, 2011, the president’s Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 2.5 and 3.6 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2010.
Separately, the council’s report cited four independent analyses by the Congressional budget office and three private economic analysis companies. Here’s what the groups found:
*CBO: Between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs saved or created.
*IHS/Global Insight: 2.45 million jobs saved or created.
*Macroeconomic Advisers: 2.3 million jobs saved or created.
*Moody’s Economy.com: 2.5 million jobs saved or created.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/jun/03/eric-cantor/cantor-says-stimulus-failed-get-people-back-work/
http://motherjones.com/files/images/blog_holtz_eakin_stimulus.jpg
Conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin re did his calculations. So now you can throw your numbers out the window.
Cantor said the stimulus "failed to get people back to work." but, he can't prove it
@Job1
OK. I asked this in the last thread but how big is required? Are you saying we need a $2T stimulus? If so, what are you going to spend it on? "Shovel Ready" jobs? Give the money to the states? Tax Cuts?
I don't understand. The President stated that there was no way they could spend the money on infrastructure quickly enough. His economic adviser, Christina Romer, made the case for tax cuts and giving money to the states because there was no way to spend that amount of money (only $860B) quickly enough on infrastructure. So why will doubling the amount of money as you suggest make a difference?
As I said yesterday Cathy this is a complete lie, but keep spouting it. From Romer proposed stimulus document.
A person is to throw out his numbers because "1" individual re did calculations???? Ignorant to the Nth degree.
One can prove that the stimulus didn't work by looking at the numbers. The only things that can't be proved are jobs saved/created. Those are bogus claims.
Sure Job 1 Let's double it, hell let's triple it. Why not? Where you gonna get the money from? See we just had a big debate over raising the debt ceiling. Your side lost, so I am told. There is no more money, unless you want to have that debate again.
Problem is, word on the street is that Obama came out looking pretty bad in the last one.
Increase taxes is a pretty easy way out for someone still in High School, isn't it Job1?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm
It seems the economists, who know a little more than you do about such things, don't agree with you.
But don't let facts distract you.
"Increase taxes is a pretty easy way out for someone still in High School, isn't it Job1?"
Looks like to me, someone in high school is smarter than the entire republican party. I know the republicans have signed a pledge with Norquist to kill American, but is a dead America really what you want?
Increasing taxes is the only proven way out. It seems more and more that the republicans don't want a way out or to improve the economy or get people back to work.
If tax cuts created jobs we would be rolling in them after 11 years of tax cuts. The donations from the rich from their tax cuts much be huge for the republicans to be stuck on stupid and keep repeating, until their eyes glaze over like Bachmanns, tax cuts create jobs.
Raise Revenue.
Spanky you are discussing the pros and cons of another stimulus. Good for you. Finally discussing something of value. So unlike your earlier posts on Uncle Oyango and speaking fast and furious about other shiny objects.
Go!
The only chance Romney has is currently the corporate republicans like him because he is of course one of them, but you can bet Perry is kissing every wealthy corporate republican a$$ he can get near and if he can get some of them and their money to ditch Romney then Romney is done. Perry with his "shoot’in coyotes and “prais’in Jesus” shtick is more attractive to the inbred beer guzzling republican base than slop is to hogs, which would guarantees his nomination, but in the general election Perry will have a tough go of it, my prediction is you will see Romney fade away because even the illiterate republican base has a hard time “takin a likin” to a “high falootin rich easterner” like Romney, really I can’t think of a reason why anyone would like Romney, maybe his mother loved him.
Gee, I watered my plants last week, how come they need watering again?
Playbook Tactics #2, #14
[And rest assured my man, the posts will keep coming.]
Ummm...uhhhh...at least YOU think so...
...tick tock, Spanky...tick...tock...
And, Feisty, they (the righties) holler and cry whenever any of the rest of us ridicule this curent crop of candidates . What next, Teleprompter? Bill Ayres?? Rev. Wright??? and the latest- uncle whats-his-ass and the DWI.
Oh, wait.......
You mean the uncle the President hasn't seen since he was a child?
What part of it DIDN'T work in 2008 is so difficult to understand? lol
How about we try this instead of tearing the President down, why don't they prop their 'crop' up?
The Teapublicans recycle the same batch of lies and slurs just like they recycle the same batch of loser candidates!
Next......They think Slick Rick will save the day........Superick!
One fact worth repeating, is the rest of the World now respects the United States again with President Obama in charge. However, under W. Bush they laughed at W. Bush as President.
I'm thinking more along the lines of SuperPrick! ;o)
Classy!
Job1.....I always flash back to the 'shoe throwing incident' aimed at Dubya!.......
Now, that was funny....No respect! lol
Job1, not sure what foreign countries you have been travelling to but thats 100% wrong. When Bush was president, the europeans hated him and would always say, we love americans but hate Bush. However, in many middle eastern countries like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, they loved Bush and I have no idea why. In Asia, I would say for the most part in my travels they were ambivalent. But its not true that they love Obama and respect us now he is in charge. I would think the universal feeling is that he is naive and he is a novice on the world stage. They would say he has gotten his shirt handed to him by Putin and Med and the Israeli PM Net. Certainly many europeans like his laid back anti Bush style as he is the opposite of the Bush cowboy image they had but respect is way too strong. They like Obama but certainly dont respect him like you are indicating. I havent been to Asia since he took over so I cant tell you what they think but my guess is that they are ambivalent and dont care as much as the europeans and middle easterners. I would say they have a better view of America with Obama overall but certainly not a very big change and the improvement is more the likability factor rather than the respect factor. Its like the american national polls and his approval ratings. Many americans continue to like him in the face of the fact that he is doing a poor job as president on economic matters. The two arent mutually exclusive.
Must agree with Kirk on this point, I have observed much the same in my travels.
I travel a lot for business as well and concur with Kirk. I have observed the same in my conversations with business people in other countries.
Feisty,
Why do you call her lizard?
She thinks she is cute, totas. Kinda like when she was back in the 3rd grade... right before she dropped-out of school.
Because that is what ignorant people do. Make up and call others names. It stems from having a very low opinion/self esteem of oneself and the only way to elevate oneself is to try to bring others down to their level.
Ben says....."Because that is what ignorant people do. Make up and call others names"
as for Liz Cheney.......her tongue mimics that of a Lizard catching flies......she regurgitates everything Darth Vader says!
Yeah Ben.......now you got it.....think back just a few months ago......teaparty rallies.......the President called Hitler signs, Nazi, monkey.........
Teapublicans=ignorant people!
Ben-636050
"Because that is what ignorant people do..."
...Ben said, as he called someone 'ignorant'.
@Chilled -- I call any and all ignorant if they use such vile terms -- I don't care which party. The extreme left -- which appear more on here because they can hide behind the computer screen -- did the same name calling of President Bush, VP Cheney, et. al. I don't judge an entire section for the actions of a few -- only ignorant people do that.
I refer to her as Lizard because she is cold blooded, void of a soul and likes to hang out in the dark preferrably under rocks just like her own man...
Lizard Cheney = Spawn of Satan himself!
Little Bennie is very very confused & still trying like hell to be relevant! lol
So Ben, tell me, what do people who learned psychology from Charlie Brown comics do?
Oh, oh, wait. I'm so sorry...
so why, where, and when are you feisty, Feisty? Please provide some examples.
Like Barry, Odumbo, lefty loons, moonbat lefties...
Playbook Tactics #1, #3, #4, #15
And you should know Ben! Cause you know ignorance.
You might be a Republican...
if you believe that honesty is the worst foreign policy
if you are more concerned about firecrackers in the suburbs than hand guns in the inner city.
if you believe that Jesus said, "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's (taxes), as long as it is spent for war, not health education and welfare, especially for the poor, unemployed, and disabled."
if you maintain that it is wrong to cause the death of a fetus, but after birth it is open season on Moslem men, women, children, and babies, with occasional abortions by explosion.
if you believe the world started over when Obama was sworn in and that the national debt, two wars and the worst recession in post-WWII history are all his fault.
if candidates for president are best if silly and uninformed, to coincide with partisan ideology
if you believe that tax cuts make money, not debt and 9% unemployment under the 'job creators' for 10 years
if you believe that President Obama is the first foreign born, communist dictator elected under the Constitution and that he hates the American government more than you do
Affinity1
You might be a Republican...
If you think....no, are CONVINCED, that God is on your 'side'.
If you think "ME First' is what Jesus had in mind when he said "for so whatever you do unto the least of these...."
If you think each and every American Citizen is on unemployment by choice.
If you think...no, If you DON'T think, period.
Yep - we are mighty stupid.
But since you all say we control the world, and are responsible for everything, just what does that say about you?
Do you all really have that low opinions of yourselves?
Affinity and Drive,
VERY GOOD.
Spanky
"Yep - we are mighty stupid."
What do you mean, "WE"? What- you got a turd in your pocket??
"But since you all say we control the world, and are responsible for everything, just what does that say about you?"
Neat post. Reminds me of that thing Pee Wee Herman used to say....What was it again?? "I know you are.....but something......something.....am I?".
Yep. Real Neat.
Spanky... it really says nothin you fool. One can assume they control the world, but that doesn't mean the individuals fall right in step. That's what the 'believers' do... Damn man, I know your trying to be a smart ass and condescending, but really... you are a f'ing moron. Just my observation.
What it really says if liberals lump all conservative people into the categories above, they are very short sighted. Spanky just gets your goat because he tries to make you think outside the liberal box.
nah Spanky..You're not stupid. You like most conservatives are sociopaths and poltroons like Mr. Cheney. Which pretty much says it all. Speaking of Turds BTW..Most of the effort has been devoted to cleaning up republican turds from the last 7 years. Still blaming Clinton?
Yeah Spanky wants us to think the republican toilet plan for America is better than taxing the rich.
That is definitely thinking outside of the liberal box. More like padded room thinking.
really a conservative trying to get a liberal to think outside the box...?...name one new conservative idea or mantra that isn't 30 years old!...please try to think of a real new conservative idea...and please no limbaugh or fox talking points!
Sorry libbies and particularly you AF - Obama agrees with me, not you.
He chose to keep taxes on the rich [god bless his heart] low. See, he could have raised them, which would have required nothing. The old rates ended by operation of law.
Obama had to act, which he did, to keep them low.
So you all were saying what again? Keeping taxes low is conservative and all conservatives are stupid, yet it is the law signed by the president YOU choose.
YOu all get the delicious irony in all of this, right?
Poo, sad little libbies - even you own leader think your ideas are stupid.
[Sorry libbies and particularly you AF - Obama agrees with me, not you.]
Strive for Mediocrity! You've sunk to a new low, Little Dude...
...tick tock...tick...tock...
Spanky is that all you got? A lie that has been disproved so many times that even you know you are repeating lies.
Once again for the mentally challenged.
The republicans held unemployment for the poor as hostage for the tax cuts for the rich. Being that President Obama and the Democratic party are not the heartless SOB that the republican party is, they agreed to keep the tax cuts seeing that they hurt America less than 14 million families being thrown out in the streets.
I know you are so proud of being heartless that you wanted me to tell the story again.
Another line from the Romney "Though, he didn’t say exactly what his response would have been."
Well, whatta you know?? (in Gomer Pyle's voice) " Surprise.... surprise.... surprise..."
drive-by-observer - LOL!!! I can just hear ole Gomer right now!! LOL!!
Go after Perry, Mitt - this ain't gonna get you no wheres!!!
Mitt is finding his groove; well stated and accurate.
Both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are formidable candidates. Either will be able to beat Obama , handily, in 2012.
Certainly articulate, but factually lying.
Mitt found his groove, stuck on stupid.
tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich
Will someone please tap the tone arm?
Well, except that it contradicts what he said last week...
Compared to the Republicans of late and in Bush's administration Obama is Patton. Nothing negative they try to paint him with regarding foreign policy will work. We have the respect and loyalty of many nations once again. The respect had fallen away to ridicule all the while we had that Texan "W" in the office. In a recent trip abroad, they were asking me how I liked Obama. I would answer he is a large improvement over W. And they would always laugh and say; "anything would be a large improvement for W. What a joke you people voted for not once but twice. What was wrong with you?" "Yah! I don't know! I didn't vote for him," I would answer but I can't understand why someone wants a leader they can share a beer with when we have terrorist who hate us lurking in our midst. Yes I am very glad Obama is our President. He has gotten things done, turned the economy around, created jobs, killed our enemies, without fanfare, but by showing humility. Killing people should never be something to beat your chest over. No one in the Republican field has those strengths. We cannot go backwards again.
"...He has gotten things done, turned the economy around, created jobs, killed our enemies, without fanfare, but by showing humility."
Killed our enemies, by showing humility? Ana you are bananas, no question.
Realize "humility" is not in the Republican vocabulary. Sorry for confusing you.
Ana..Ignore these conservative pusses. They like to listen to physical and moral cowards like Limbaugh, Cheney, Hannity, Bolton, and the bulk of republicans who have never served their country in any capacity.
The biggest coward is good ol Mitt..What a bunch of suckers!!!
Romney's foreign policy - probably does not have one yet but once he does he is sure to flip flop and say he was against it before he was for it but now against it then for it...
Though, he didn’t say exactly what his response would have been.
================
I can't imagine. Someone please stop putting a microphone in this man's face. I know he's got some extra time on his hands waiting for the wrecking ball to move him from 3000+ to 50000+ square feet in one of his many homes and all, but sitting around and coming up with these stupid phrases is well beyond old.
Break your arm doing something else than patting yourself on the back Mr. Romney. Thank you.
Have there ever been any bigger, grade-A, king-sized A-Holes wandering around the country than Spiro Agnew, Edwin Meese, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney or Rick Perry? Speaking of Cheney:
Anyone notice him in that snippet where he’s sitting in a chair with his dog by his side? Ever see such a rapid respiration rate in an old guy? I’m betting by this time next year, he’s gone. When it happens, I wonder if there will be any controversy about ‘how the pump missed getting plugged into the wall outlet last night”? Yeah, Yeah- I know. It’s politically incorrect to say that. So, sue me.
Mitt talking foreign policy reminds me of Michael Dukakis riding around in the tank in 1988...it just doesn't fit.
Did it occur to anyone else that the generals working with the President aren't consulting with Romney? The view's pretty good from the cheap seats, eh, Mitt?
Shocker...of course Mitt doesn't present an alternative...it would interfere with his narrative. It's been 2 years and apparently the GOP still can't remember...US interference in Iran's government is what got us into the great big mess in the Middle East in the first damn place!
Ha Romney is the perfect guy to talk about doubt in a mans heart! I am a politician, no I'm a businessman, I like my health care plan, but my health care plan sucks, I live in the district I run from, well no I live in the basement of one of my kids in that district, I know how to create jobs, but my business dealings caused a lot of of people to lose jobs. I'm an insider, no I'm an outsider. Romney knows plenty about doubt in a mans heart.
A tiny central government? How about NO central government? What could POSSIBLY go wrong. It worked QUITE well in Somalia and Afghanistan!
Mitt does know Republican foreign policy alright. Look at Bain Capital and all of the American jobs sent to foreign countries.
I would ask anyone to cite specifically where Obama apologized to a foreign leader.
I know it's a common refrain but I don't know that it's not just spin. Any help?
Don't confuse the teabaggers with the facts. They are confused enough already.
Romney was in charge of saving the 2008 SLC Olympics - until charges of corruption started floating around. Then he was outta there like Moroni the Angel with a stack of copper plates.
I thought this post was going to answer Mark's but it did more than that!!!! Follow it closely and you will see then Sen. Obama brush off a female reporter by calling her "sweetie." Unfricking real and he gets a pass on being sexist?????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t02cpYYBc4U
Sure meets my definition of apology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwvIKGsipMQ&feature=related
Ben, The parts I could hear over the music just sounded like he was telling the truth. I am well aware the truth to a republican is like water to a witch.
Just another censored news propaganda ploy brought to you by the only television station to ever go to court to get the right to lie to the public.
Is this the same Barack Obama who killed Osama Bin Laden?
Is this the same Barack Obama who orchestrated the removal of Qaddafi in six months and without a single American life being lost and at a cost about 100x less than the cost to remove Saddam Hussein?
You'll pardon me if I pass on Mitt Romney's self-serving criticism.
Obama got the job done. Bush and the republicans didn't.
I thought Qaddafi was removed by NATO, I thought we were NOT taking the lead on this one.
Now if you really thought that, then why were you yelling about WPA violations so loudly?
Which was it? Can't have it both ways anymore....
President Obama never apologized to a foreign leader.
Another flat-out republican lie.
I think it is semantics. He did not apologize but he did criticize. He did go on in his statement to also criticize Europe but it still appears as he is being apologetic. Splitting hairs....
"At a town hall meeting in France, for example, Obama encouraged Europe to work with the United States, and admitted that the United States "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
Job1
President Obama never apologized to a foreign leader.
Job
Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't hear any apology. Neither did I find any in the transcript
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?pagewanted=all
Looks like the OBS (Obama Derangement Syndrome)has lasped into another mental illness. Denial and it is not a river in Egypt.
Rightie heads explode at the mention of President Obama
Oh, I know Bev. They hated the President before he was President, and I think we all know why.
Job1
Oh, I know Bev. They hated the President before he was President, and I think we all know why.
Job1 apart from him not being one of them, which they vehemently deny, it's because they are stupid.
WE CERTAINLY DO....
[WE CERTAINLY DO....]
...and just on what grounds do YOU "hate" the president?
Romney will not be nominated. There is not a southern redneck alive that will vote for a guy named "Mit".
Your name must be bush to make such a statement. It fits with your moniker.
Or a guy who talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Hey, are you guys as dumb as you look? Well of coruse you are. Why would anyone think of googling my name?
You see, this is part of the problem with American politics.... Romney is addressing a VFW Crowd. He should have never been given a chance to speak. How does a man who hid in France and then in College to avoid the draft have the nerve to preach to a crowd of Vets?
Not that he is any worse than Obama, but he should have been ridden out on a rail.
It figures Romney would attack Obama's strongest suit; he'd be much better served politically by attacking Perry's foreign policy inexperience and interventionist bent.
Oh, right. I forgot. Romney's ignoring Perry in the hope that he might just go away.
I think Romney is playing the V.P. card. I predict he will continue to tell every lie the republicans can think of about President Obama and give the Scarry Perry the new leader to the rapture a free run.
Rubio is done after a speech a couple years ago was telling his personal story and highly praising Medicare and how it helped his family with his grandparents and fast forward to a more recent speech where he says Medicare is for the weak and bloodsucking poor.
Thank God we are not all christians like the republicans that hate our American people.
I'm sick and tired of Republicans wanting to spend trillions destroying and then rebuilding countries in the middle east.
It's time Republicans support rebuilding Americans homes, businesses, and the American dream.
Instead of demanding support for Americans who lost everything because of Hurricane Irene, Republicans continue to show they are out of touch with average Americans. It's time Republicans stop playing politics and agree to rebuild the East Coast of America.