Obama

[JDoors]

Heh, don't forget Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer. I think he can handle himself with the law:-)

Heh-heh, I don't want to get into a nit-picking contest, everybody makes mistakes (you may recall Bush has made one or two in the last eight years ), but the "Harvard lawyer" claims he is going to go through the budget line-by-line to eliminate waste. Um, the President doesn't have the authority to initiate a line-item-veto, so ... maybe he plans on changing the Constitution first? Wait ... the President doesn't have that authority either! You'd think a Harvard trained lawyer would know that.

We've HAD a President who was, by all accounts, a good lawyer. He used his legal training to lie to anyone who'd listen. His wife, a jury, the American people, it didn't matter. He couched his words such that he didn't believe he was lying, but by any reasonable standards, he was lying. Let's just say that being a lawyer doesn't make me feel better, it's what they do with that training that matters -- and so far Mr. President has told a few whoppers already.

[Matt]

and so far Mr. President has told a few whoppers already.

Such as?

[sultan_emerr]

and so far Mr. President has told a few whoppers already.

Such as?

If I can list at least 85, do I win a prize?

[jcl]

Heh-heh, I don't want to get into a nit-picking contest, everybody makes mistakes (you may recall Bush has made one or two in the last eight years ), but the "Harvard lawyer" claims he is going to go through the budget line-by-line to eliminate waste. Um, the President doesn't have the authority to initiate a line-item-veto, so ... maybe he plans on changing the Constitution first? Wait ... the President doesn't have that authority either! You'd think a Harvard trained lawyer would know that.

He doesn't need a line-item veto: he can threaten to veto the entire budget if it isn't amended to his liking.

[JDoors]

He doesn't need a line-item veto: he can threaten to veto the entire budget if it isn't amended to his liking.

I hadn't thought of that, could be what he meant. I wouldn't consider vetoing the budget in its entirety "working together" (another one of his promises), that would be more like dictating, but anything that stops Congress from continuing their over-spending reign of terror is fine by me. Have they EVER seen a spending bill they didn't love? Man, I wish I could run MY budget that way!

[hitest]

I hadn't thought of that, could be what he meant. I wouldn't consider vetoing the budget in its entirety "working together" (another one of his promises), that would be more like dictating, but anything that stops Congress from continuing their over-spending reign of terror is fine by me. Have they EVER seen a spending bill they didn't love? Man, I wish I could run MY budget that way!

A minor point. The Bush administration did not hold true to the conservative maxim, that is, to be fiscally responsible. The Bush administration spending policies made Congress seem like a light-weight. I mean come on,man:-)

[Bubba Bob]

I hadn't thought of that, could be what he meant. I wouldn't consider vetoing the budget in its entirety "working together" (another one of his promises), that would be more like dictating, but anything that stops Congress from continuing their over-spending reign of terror is fine by me. Have they EVER seen a spending bill they didn't love? Man, I wish I could run MY budget that way!

A minor point. The Bush administration did not hold true to the conservative maxim, that is, to be fiscally responsible. The Bush administration spending policies made Congress seem like a light-weight. I mean come on,man:-)

Note - That's a MAJOR point.

The repubs are now going after Obama's spending, saying it's too much. WHAT? Now you want to be fiscally conservative? Where was this for the last 8 years?!?!

[sultan_emerr]

[jcl]

The repubs are now going after Obama's spending, saying it's too much. WHAT? Now you want to be fiscally conservative? Where was this for the last 8 years?!?!

It was exactly where it is now. Conservatives have been extremely critical of Bush and the congressional Republicans.

[TymeKyller]

Howdy Everyone

I really think Obama is going to do great, I think he is a very very intelligent man, specially when compared to bush...lol.

I have high hopes for President Obama, I think he just might do pretty good. He had a massive impact already on people and everyone had high expectations for him. He has a lot of weight on his shoulders and a bunch of crap to fix after bush's 8 years running/ruining the country.

Hope he does well.

Tyme

Edited January 24, 2009 by TymeKyller

[JDoors]

A minor point. The Bush administration did not hold true to the conservative maxim, that is, to be fiscally responsible. The Bush administration spending policies made Congress seem like a light-weight. I mean come on,man:-)

Bush certainly was no champion of "smaller government," which I thought was a Republican/Conservative ideal, and he ticked off plenty of Republicans/Conservatives because of that lack of restraint. He too rarely saw a spending bill he didn't love, he didn't veto ANYTHING until well into his second term (many of the vetoed bills would expand government far too much -- Suddenly he's a Conservative?). He holds a 200 year record for the least Presidential vetoes in history!

But the President doesn't spend money, Congress does, and the shopping spree didn't start until the Democrats became a majority in Congress (except for defense, which Bush was kinda forced to expand immediately after he took office by circumstances out of his control).

[JSKY]

I myself feel sorry for Obama.

We (the USA) and the whole world have placed him up on one large pedistal.

And our problems are much more then we or the rest could possibly think they are.

Obama walked into one BIG F**King Mess.

We have placed him in a position that he has to either preform a miracle of godly proportions or to fail miserably.

No man should be placed in a position we have him in at the moment.

[Matt]

(except for defense, which Bush was kinda forced to expand immediately after he took office by circumstances out of his control).

Except the Iraq War falls under Defense... and that was most certainly in his control.

[hitest]

Obama walked into one BIG F**King Mess.

Agreed. I wish him well as he takes on the s**t-load of problems on his plate. I don't envy him one bit.

[hitest]

Except the Iraq War falls under Defense... and that was most certainly in his control.

Yep. All of the spending on the Iraq war did not need to happen. As commander in chief the buck stopped with Bush. Bush could have waited a bit longer to let Hans Blix look for WMDs. Eight billion+ per month continues to be spent in Iraq. I hope Obama is able to end the war in a timely manner.

[jcl]

Yep. All of the spending on the Iraq war did not need to happen. As commander in chief the buck stopped with Bush. Bush could have waited a bit longer to let Hans Blix look for WMDs.

You're assuming that WMDs were the reason for the war and that the US takes the UN seriously.

I hope Obama is able to end the war in a timely manner.

I expect that the war will end according to the schedule announced last year and whoever is president at the time will get the credit.

[hitest]

You're assuming that WMDs were the reason for the war and that the US takes the UN seriously.

Yes. I think it is possible that Bush had another motive to go to war (oil, revenge). That is difficult to know. Agreed. Bush did not feel bound by the UN ( it will be interesting to see how Obama handles himself on the International stage).

My main previous point though was that Bush bears some of the blame for the present financial crisis. He gave the executive order that started Shock and Awe which resulted in billions being spent on a needless war and America going deeper into debt.

His actions completely de-stabilized the mid-east allowing Iran to become a powerhouse. Prior to the invasion Iraq kept Iran in check.

[JDoors]

(except for defense, which Bush was kinda forced to expand immediately after he took office by circumstances out of his control).

Except the Iraq War falls under Defense... and that was most certainly in his control.

Well, yes, if by "control" you mean he could have chosen to go against public opinion (the majority supported it at the time), Democrats (the majority supported it at the time), world opinion (the majority supported it at the time), intelligence (several country's intelligence supported the reasons for war at the time ), ignored the gigantic change in what it meant and was required to secure the safety of the nation (a previously unthinkable attack on our soil had occurred at the time), and ignored the decades of U.N. intervention that accomplished absolutely nothing (except for allowing Saddam to continue murdering his own countrymen, which by most accounts totaled in the millions , if you can call that an accomplishment).

Despite the untenable situation at the time, Monday morning quarterbacks have been wagging their fingers at Bush ever since. History is littered with failures during wartime; George Washington nearly lost the revolution for us before it even began, Napoleon has his Waterloo, millions died in WWI and WWII during campaigns that didn't go as planned, to this day the debate continues over whether or not dropping "the bomb" in Japan was the right thing to do. Thank God we go to war so rarely the public has time to forget what a horrific thing it is no matter how it's done. We SHOULD be outraged during wartime, and this one is no different in that regard. It's horrible by definition, and we need to finish it as quickly as possible.

Now if I may play Monday morning quarterback, Bush's mistake was trying to be "nice" about war. Against the military's advice he committed far, far, FAR too few troops. He did not want the appearance of an "invasion," that wasn't the intent of going to Iraq, rather he wanted people to see it as a "liberation." I get that, but from the safety and comfort of my armchair it's easy to point out the error of that decision. It took YEARS for him to be convinced to send enough troops, but by that time the situation, and public opinion, had changed for the worse. The "surge" worked, duh, but when we originally committed to the war we should have been willing to WAGE war. Where and when, in the history of civilization, has a "police action" worked without disasterous consequences?

Once your enemy has shown that NO amount of diplomacy will make a difference, you can either sit on your hands and hope the inevitable attack on your soil will be slight (ask the survivors of Pearl Harbor or of 9/11 how that works) or you wage war and end the threat.

-----

Edited January 25, 2009 by JDoors

[Matt]

Well, yes, if by "control" you mean he could have chosen to go against public opinion (the majority supported it at the time), Democrats (the majority supported it at the time), world opinion (the majority supported it at the time), intelligence (several country's intelligence supported the reasons for war at the time ), ignored the gigantic change in what it meant and was required to secure the safety of the nation (a previously unthinkable attack on our soil had occurred at the time), and ignored the decades of U.N. intervention that accomplished absolutely nothing (except for allowing Saddam to continue murdering his own countrymen, which by most accounts totaled in the millions , if you can call that an accomplishment).

You and I seem to have different memories of the public opinion. I recall many many many people very much against the invasion of a country that had never killed a US citizen, nor had threatened the United States in any way. I also recall Colin Powell openly saying that he tried to convince Bush for hours not to invade Iraq because there was no intelligence suggesting that they had WMDs.

How was it our responsibilty to stop Saddam? America should have been worrying about it's own people--worrying about bin Ladin, not what Saddam was doing. If we're the ones who are supposed to be interveining with every other country's affairs, why aren't we in Darfur, or dozens of other countries that "need our help"? No, there was another motive for going into Iraq.

Once your enemy has shown that NO amount of diplomacy will make a difference, you can either sit on your hands and hope the inevitable attack on your soil will be slight (ask the survivors of Pearl Harbor or of 9/11 how that works) or you wage war and end the threat.

Again, Saddam != bin Ladin. I recall that there was a time when we were actually supplying weapons to Iraq. I don't know why people thought there was an "inevitable attack" from Iraq.

Obama has refocussed our efforts on real threats--Osama bin Ladin.

[Bubba Bob]

Just because we sold Iraq weapons doesn't mean Huessein wasn't a threat. It just means that in the 80s (when we sold arms to Huessein) Iran was the bigger threat. Iraq was our pawn in the chess game called the middle east. Of course, then Iraq started to be a supporter for global terror. I guess that's not a threat to America huh?

Also, Colin Powell has tried to distance himself from Bush ever since Bush's apporval ratings started going down. Im not saying he did or did not warn Bush not to go to Iraq, but Id take anything he says with a grain of salt. It's all politics.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Bubba Bob

[JDoors]

You and I seem to have different memories of the public opinion. I recall many many many people very much against [going to war with Iraq] ... How was it our responsibilty to stop Saddam? ... I don't know why people thought there was an "inevitable attack" from Iraq. ...

I'm sure it'd be easy to find actual public opinion poll numbers from that time, and I'm sure they'll show support by the majority. There was enough support from Congress and multinational forces to get things moving. There were naysayers (I was among them!) but that doesn't mean "most" people were against it.

Intelligence from multiple sources showed an immediate and extreme threat, how is it NOT our responsibility to respond? Again I refer you to the survivors of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 -- what if we had begun a pre-emptive action in either case? There were people who recommended it. Intelligence at the time stated the possibility of attacks on the U.S.. We sat on it, people died, and we wound up going to war anyway, in spite of being "cautious." Bush did not want to be caught in the situation of having sat on similar intelligence. He would have been vilified if something had happened in spite of having been forewarned (he's already vilified by some who claim he could have done something about 9/11 because there was intelligence warning of an impending attack "on U.S. soil" -- there wasn't anything specific enough to act upon, but hey, Bush is evil, so it's his fault anyway).

Regarding my being against the war before I was for the war (well, not "for it," but once committed to it by the Commander In Chief and Congress, I support every effort to finish it). When I first heard the decision to go to war with Iraq I thought, "Pre-emptive!?! Bull! That's not what this country is about! We don't START wars!" I now admit I was naive, and wrong. Once I started researching "pre-emptive war" I discovered our history is filled with pre-emptive actions. I was not happy discovering this part of our history (nearly every pre-emptive action was fraught with controversy). It didn't change my mind about pre-emptive wars, I still think it's inherently wrong, and in the case of Iraq I have to believe there were things we could have done once we decided decades of U.N. inaction could be a threat to our security (something like, covert action maybe?), anything short of "liberation," leading to all-out war.

We'll see how the current administration reacts to threats to U.S. security. For all our sakes, I hope he does well.

[jcl]

I recall many many many people very much against the invasion of a country that had never killed a US citizen, nor had threatened the United States in any way.

Erm, Iraq killed US citizens in the Gulf War.

No, there was another motive for going into Iraq.

The government has provided probably a dozen explanations for the war and there's likely some truth to all of them.

The explanation I favor is that the long term goal -- "long term" meaning decades -- was to create a less hostile political environment in the Middle East by (forcibly) 'westernizing' the entire region. Iraq was targeted because it had no military capabilities to speak of, no real allies in the region, relatively strong internal opposition to the government (e.g., the Kurds and Shiites), no significant Western interests that would be damaged when the country collapsed, a history of conflict with the West, and so on.

Obama has refocussed our efforts on real threats--Osama bin Ladin.

AFAICT Obama is maintaining the status quo on bin Ladin. For example:

"I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function. My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America. "

[sultan_emerr]

Just because we sold Iraq weapons doesn't mean Huessein wasn't a threat. It just means that in the 80s (when we sold arms to Huessein) Iran was the bigger threat. Iraq was our pawn in the chess game called the middle east. Of course, then Iraq started to be a supporter for global terror. I guess that's not a threat to America huh?

Also, Colin Powell has tried to distance himself from Bush ever since Bush's apporval ratings started going down. Im not saying he did or did not warn Bush not to go to Iraq, but Id take anything he says with a grain of salt. It's all politics.

That sounds like hate speach to me.

Isn't talk like that now against the law,

according the the Obama administration's

new interpertation of the hate crime laws?

[Bubba Bob]

Just because we sold Iraq weapons doesn't mean Huessein wasn't a threat. It just means that in the 80s (when we sold arms to Huessein) Iran was the bigger threat. Iraq was our pawn in the chess game called the middle east. Of course, then Iraq started to be a supporter for global terror. I guess that's not a threat to America huh?

Also, Colin Powell has tried to distance himself from Bush ever since Bush's apporval ratings started going down. Im not saying he did or did not warn Bush not to go to Iraq, but Id take anything he says with a grain of salt. It's all politics.

That sounds like hate speach to me.

Isn't talk like that now against the law,

according the the Obama administration's

new interpertation of the hate crime laws?

Yes. You are correct.

[Matt]

"I made a mistake... I screwed up" - I don't recall the last president making such admissions.