by Jack
If you ask your average knuckle dragger on the street in Kabul what was his greatest thrill and/or life achievement, he’ll probably tell you about some act of violence. These guys live to kill anyone for any reason. It might be a small unpaid debt, a social slight, maybe their wife used lipstick or their daughter didn’t feel like being raped…it’s killin time. But, give them any little reason to become a hysterical mob and they are right there before you can say Allah-U-akbar,.ready to kill, especially if the target is American.
Take the case of a couple of UN soldiers. They were told to clean out an empty cell block full of trash. These lowly privates innocently burned some tattered old Koran’s left among the trash. Ironically, we originally issued them to military prisoners, it was US property. We did this as a good deed, now lets see how this good deed worked out.
Somehow the word got out we’re burning Koran’s and that’s all it took… the knuckle dragging mob turns on us… again. They want us dead and in the process a number of them wind up being shot in self defense. Hey, we rescued these troglodytes from the ruthless Taliban and we’ve been pouring billions of dollars into their rotten economy ever since… and this is how they show their gratitude? With friends like this who… well, you know.
Yesterday an Afghan soldier turned his AK47 loose on American troops and he killed two of our young men before he was stopped. Same thing happened last month. And the month before that. I think it was last summer when this Afghan pilot upset over a delayed paycheck started shooting our soldiers…that made a lot of sense. Just about as much sense as when someone in Holland made a cartoon of Allah and they riot in Kabul…trying to kill Americans. Or when someone burns a torn up Koran by accident – it’s kill Americans time. Anyone seeing a pattern here?
This country sucks and every scumbag radical in it sucks too. We have no military or strategic interest in this place, they hate us and the government sells us out continuously when they are not stealing from us. Nothing we’ve done to date has made us more respected or enhanced freedom, and to be bluntly honest I’ve flat run out of reasons for us to remain in this rock pile. How about you?
Did anyone even confirm this really happened? Or did they just believe Korans were burned because someone said so? Personally, I don’t really care if bibles or korans are burned. There are bigger problems out there.
Did anyone watch the debate last night? Ron Paul decimated everyone else. I have teenagers who just loved what he had to say about war. Pretty sad that we let the national party turn us all onto a race for the bottom. Also, it turns out the only fiscal policy that won’t add trillions to our national debt is Ron Paul. Have we heard our excellent media report this? No.
http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/primary_numbers.pdf
The committee for a responsible federal budget is actually a pretty good organization
http://crfb.org/about-us
A woman caller to a talk show today claims that prisoners had written extremist messages in the Korans. Since the Korans were defaced they had to be destroyed by fire according to Muslim law in order to “purify” them.
Now our president is apologizing profusely for this considerate act.
You’re right Jack, nobody wins when extremists are allowed to take over and rule as a mob. There is no strong authority to keep order.
He also abandoned the people of Iraq at the worst possible time and for a stupid self-interested reason based on unpopularity of the war rather than what was in the best interest of the US and our troops.
In the first election in Iraq 76% of the people voted. In the second it was down a bit at 68%. By contrast in America in a high participation year (2008) only 64% of eligable voters turned out. That’s a fair indication that the people of Iraq wanted it to work. But they needed the stability that our presence helped to maintain over time.
Whatever progress that might have been made has been squandered by the feckless leader in the WH…and yes, I hold him largly responsible. He does not inspire confidence or offer any sense of strong commitment.
Presidents get to stand on the shoulders of those who came before them (Whether they like it or not). They should be prepared to follow through on commitments. Obama has not been engaged.
if war is hell how much worse is a wasted war.
Well said Tina, could not agree more.
Tina, I disagree.
“Presidents get to stand on the shoulders of those who came before them (Whether they like it or not). They should be prepared to follow through on commitments.”
In this case Obama followed through on George Bush’s commitment. Obama has gotten all kinds of credit for pulling us out of Iraq on the timeline George Bush established. This was George Bush’s exit strategy and Obama gets all the credit. Personally, I don’t really care about Iraq and I feel we should not have been there in the first place. I’m with Ron Paul when it comes to war. Let those guys figure it out. I’m sick of watching our people get killed when they’re over there building bridges and roads when we can’t afford to build bridges, roads and schools in the United States.
The media is trying to hype us into another war, and the defense contractors love it. Did you watch the debate last night? Gingrich said we have over 20,000 employes in DC that work for the Department of Homeland Security. That is insane! They have done nothing to make us more secure. They have been a huge giveaway to private security contractors who sell scanners and xray machines that are set up everywhere these days. Obama just signed a law that makes it legal for the president to authorize the killing of an American citizen. What about our civil liberties? What about the right to a fair trial? What about the right to not suffer unlawful search and seizure?
Obama has honored George Bush’s commitment to shredding the constitution and taking away our civil liberties. Why was the Tea Party born? They were screaming they wanted their country back. We wanted it back from the George Bush Republican Party who turned their back on conservatives and we wanted it back from Obama who has just increased the loss of our liberties and kept the Patriot Act going strong. And we knew he would do that because he voted for FISA when he was still a senator.
We let them spy on us, search us, and take our freedom and the GOP wants us to talk about birth control and going to war with Iran (because the last two wars have been awesome for us)
Tina: “He also abandoned the people of Iraq at the worst possible time and for a stupid self-interested reason based on unpopularity of the war rather than what was in the best interest of the US and our troops.”
Tina, do you have evidence for this claim? It seems to run counter to the reasons Jack presented in an article a while back for our withdrawal from Iraq.
As I understand it, the withdrawal was required by an agreement George W. Bush signed with Iraq several years ago. The Obama administration actually tried to convince the Iraqis to let us stay beyond that agreement, but on the condition that soldiers continued to be granted immunity for pesky little things like killing Iraqi civilians. Iraq refused to continue granting immunity, so the administration decided we couldn’t stay there any longer.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/
So it seems like, to put it mildly, quite a stretch for you to say that Obama “abandoned” the people of Iraq because of the war’s “unpopularity.” If anything, Obama wanted to stay in Iraq even longer, and would have done so if troops continued getting immunity.
Princess: ” I’m with Ron Paul when it comes to war. Let those guys figure it out.”
I have a libertarian streak myself and so I have lot of sympathy for the feelings behind your opinion. I agree it would be great if we could just sit back and let the rest of the world take care of itself.
The problem is the world will not let us be. Iran has been waging war on America and it’s neighbors for decades. Iran is run by a bunch of religious fanatics that believe waging war in the world will bring a savior.
Saddam Hussein would have waited until the inspectors left and then gone right back to developing WMD which he already had used and would use again. The fanaticism of these regimes makes it impossible for us to ignore if we value our safety and freedom.
The one thing our federal government is bound to do by our Constitution is defend and protect the people.
“…when we can’t afford to build bridges, roads and schools in the United States.”
This, of course, isn’t true at all. the problem is not a money problem. the problem is the federal government and many state governments spend too much on things that people should be doing for themselves and even worse on a big bloated bureaucracy. We have multiple agencies that adress the exact same problems. all of them have employees and most of them sit around doing the busy work to keep the bureaucracy running. Americans produce! We generate more than enough wealth to take care of roads and bridges and certainly schools. Spending and wasteful spending and spending as political favors is the problem. this president has the worst record of any president from Washington forward.
“Gingrich said we have over 20,000 employes in DC that work for the Department of Homeland Security. That is insane!”
Yes it is. What was put in place directly following 911 when most of us thought that we were going to be hit again (and indeed some plots were foiled) has turned into another be business as usual big bureaucracy.
My husband and I watched the movie Flight 93 last weekend and the intensity and emotion of the day came flooding back. I relived the sense of confusion, agony, and uncertainty about the future all over again. Time heals our wounds and we forget. I think it behooves us to remind ourselves now and then about the true nature of this enemy. They are not reasonable people. Their mission is driven by religious fanaticism and killing is part of the solution.
“They have done nothing to make us more secure.”
I’d put it another way. Much of what has been done has been ineffective (and bothersome,) especially airport security. I think you’re wrong about what has been done to protect us. A lot of what has been done we never hear about for security reasons.
“They have been a huge giveaway to private security contractors who sell scanners and xray machines that are set up everywhere these days.”
I can’t blame the companies for making them but they are a waste of tax dollars. We should have implemented the Israeli security method. It’s effective and a lot less of a problem for the public. See here:
http://israel21c.org/technology/sraels-top-10-airport-security-technologies
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former-israeli-airline-security-chief-us-needs-profile-air-passengers
“Obama just signed a law that makes it legal for the president to authorize the killing of an American citizen.”
Princess the President cannot just arbitrarily decide to kill anybody. He has to have evidence that cannot be refuted before he ever makes such an order. It would only apply to someone who is carrying a bomb or engaging in a situation that poses a definite immediate threat.
“What about our civil liberties?”
Your civil liberties remain intact. A US citizen that has joined the terrorist against our nation has given up his civil liberties and rights. He has joined the enemies of the US, given them his allegience, and enterred the world of terrorism and war. Different rules apply in war. Soldiers have permission to kill in war for instance withoutnfacing prosecution.
What about the right to a fair trial? What about the right to not suffer unlawful search and seizure?”
Your rights, as I said, remain intact. But any citizen that joins the enemy, gives his allegience to them and in so doing reliquishes his constitutional rights.
Since we do have these civil rights it makes it very difficult for the President to order a killing or detain a US citizen. He would have to be 100% certain he could defend his order in a court of law.
“Obama has honored George Bush’s commitment to shredding the constitution and taking away our civil liberties.”
This is one area where Obama has done the right thing. His doing this signals to me that the intel that comes across his desk each morning is much more frightening and compelling than he believed when he bragged he would end the war.
“Why was the Tea Party born?”
Well the TP seems to be made up of people with all kinds of gripes but the main gripe I heard about was about tax and spend policies. People may want to end the war (who wouldn’t except those fanatics) but what we want and what is possible are often two very different things.
“We let them spy on us, search us, and take our freedom…”
Princess your fears do not match reality. Your civil liberties remain intact and you can bet if abuses were happening the folks around America with guns would be making plans for revolution.
“…and the GOP wants us to talk about birth control…”
The GOP didn’t bring this subject up. George Stphanopolis brought it up with an out of context question to Mitt Romney in one of the first debates. Kathlene Sebelius then chose this time to announce the contraception regulation to create more controversy and give the media more reasons to question the GOP candidates on these issues. ALL of the candidates would be more than happy to talk about the economy and other ways to make America strong and healthy again.
“…and going to war with Iran”
Iran is threatening the world. Nobody relishes the thought of going to war in Iran…but neither will we run and hide if it becomes necessary to go to war.
I’m really offended and angry that the GOP is always framed as being thoughtless and frivilous when it comes to these types of decisions. GWB did not ask to be a war president. Unlike his predisessor he did not run from the realities following 911. Saddam Hussein was told by the UN, by George H W Bush and the coalition that backed him in Kuwait, and by Clinton that we would not hesitate to remove him if he continued to threaten the world. He was in definace of numerous UN resolutions. Those are threats in case you wondered.(You do this or we will do that)After 911 and given what the world believed was Saddams capability and mindset, GW Bush felt he could no longer draw meaningless lines in the sand. I think he was right. I hate that there are evil people in nthe world. I hate that it seems to eb up to us to defend ourselves. I also hate that we do not give our allies more credit for joining us.
How will you feel if a nuclear bomb goes off in LA or New York, Princess? How would you feel if that happened after we had adopted Pauls policy? Would you be asking why didn’t the government do something to prevent it? why didn’t they know it was coming? Tht is exactly what we asked after 911.
We live in a dangerous world. We are not to bklame for the fanaticism of those who hate us. Our allies are not to blame either. We would prefer to live in peace if only they would let us.
Chris: “The Obama administration actually tried to convince the Iraqis to let us stay beyond that agreement, but on the condition that soldiers continued to be granted immunity for pesky little things like killing Iraqi civilians. Iraq refused to continue granting immunity, so the administration decided we couldn’t stay there any longer.”
The Iraqi’s negotiated several times with Bush and he always managed to convince them to go along with what he and our generals thought was needed. GWB developed a relationship with the leadership in Iraq. They had respect for each other and both realized they had disgruntled citizens and politicians to contend with in addition to the war. Bush made the agreement to leave but I think it was on condition that certain goals had been achieved and he would have done what he could to extend our stay in some form if it turned out that it was warranted.
Bush did a very good job of partnering with Prime Minister al Maliki and other leaders in th ME. He never took a superior stance and he treated the leadership of all nations with great respect. He didn’t get nearly the credit he deserved for his handling of this war IMO.
As your article states Obama did his best (did he?) to “persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq”.
Yet while he was running for office he stated quite clearly for the world to hear that Iraq was a mistake (a major diplomatic faux pas for anyone aspiring to the presidency and who would then take over as Commander-in-Chief in the Iraq war). He certainly didn’t do much to develop a good relationship with the PM once elected either so I doubt there was much chance of his convincing them that he suddenly cared about Iraq. One paper put it this way:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/594133–obama-announces-iraq-withdrawal-plan
The Bush agreement was a convenient out for Obama. Obama’s problem is that he lacks humility. Were he humble he would have taken the time to develop a relationship and assess our Iraqi presence based on what was needed to secure the country we, and the Iraqi’s, had faught so hard to see created. But Obama is a know it all. He is arrogant and unfortunately he has little experience to back up all the bluster he exhibits.
(If you recall I said he was unprepared for the job. He was smart but very young and lacked experience. His skills as an orator would not suffice. His record is proving I was accurate in my assessment)
Jack … they were never our “dear friends”. Ever.
I honestly don’t know what Obama was thinking of … back during the campaign … when he made all those fanciful pronouncements about possibilities in Afghanistan. (And didn’t you lap it up?)
There are no possibilities. The Afghans are, and will be for some time to come, freakin’ feudal morons. Conntainment … is what we’re looking for … and can probably, to some degree, manage.
And I think he sees it now.
Libby has it right this time. The Afghans are feudal morons.
The United States put Sadam Hussein in charge of Iraq. Then we went to war with him because he was a corrupt, cruel, horrible leader. We put him there. We have put people in charge of Iraq again and Afghanistan. The Taliban used to be our allies. Why do we think anything different would happen if we went to war with Iran?
We keep arming these guys, training them and teaching them how to be a “Democracy” and they use our resources, attack us and then we go back and start all over again.
I am so sick and tired of having fundraisers at our schools so we can have a sports program for American kids just so we can ship them off to Afghanistan to die for Afghanistan freedom. Iran is a country run by a religious dictator. Khameini is in charge over there not Amidinijad or however you spell his name.
We need to start focussing on America and let the rest of the world sort themselves out. Do you see Canada getting into these kinds of messes? Probably because they don’t feel like Israel is a colony like the US does.
Feudal morons…that is an appropriate description! lol It’s hard to make progress when you are dealing with feudal morons stuck in the 10th century, and why should we – it’s not our job. It’s too bad if the world passes them by and they languish in a world of their own creation. Those who see their way and then compare it to the rest of the world will eventually leave or make changes.. I think this has something to do with Darwinism.
Tina, your original claim was that President Obama “abandoned” the people of Iraq due to the war’s “unpopularity.” After it was shown that you were just making this claim up out of thin air, did you have the class to admit you were wrong? No. Instead you hitched your rhetorical wagon to the very next anti-Obama meme that popped into your head, while at the same time creating a completely mythical version of George W. Bush, the Great Unifier, whose handling of the Iraq War was a model of respect for other cultures and international teamwork. Such a depiction, which completely glosses over the lengthy evidence of failures, misunderstandings, and shocking ignorance toward the region displayed by the Bush administration in its handling of the Iraq War, is so far removed from reality it’s enough to make one’s head spin. I am astounded.
Tina: “I have a libertarian streak myself”
Clearly, it’s much smaller than and easily buried by your massive authoritarian streak.
“A lot of what has been done we never hear about for security reasons.”
For instance, this. Yeah, Princess, why can’t you just TRUST the government when it tells you that these obscene civil rights violations are for your own good? What are you, some kind of paranoid anti-government nut?
“Princess the President cannot just arbitrarily decide to kill anybody. He has to have evidence that cannot be refuted before he ever makes such an order.”
Who is in a position to refute this evidence, Tina? Certainly not a jury of citizens.
“It would only apply to someone who is carrying a bomb or engaging in a situation that poses a definite immediate threat.”
I can’t believe a person who claims to be suspicious of Big Government can type such a thing with a straight face.
“A US citizen that has joined the terrorist against our nation has given up his civil liberties and rights.”
Please, show me where in the Constitution it says this. I’m dying to know how it’s even possible to give up natural rights, rights you claim are given by God Himself.
“Your rights, as I said, remain intact.”
Tina, do you know who Khalid El-Masri is? If you don’t, you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
Short version: El-Masri is an innocent man who was kidnapped, interrogated, and tortured by our own government over a MISSPELLING OF HIS NAME. He was mistaken for a terrorist and due to the government’s incompetence and their willingness to violate civil liberties, his life was essentially ruined. And he’s hardly the only innocent person ever held in indefinite detention by our government since 9/11.
You don’t seem to understand the purpose of our constitutional right to a fair trial or the concept of innocent until proven guilty. This right has to apply to everyone, no matter what they are accused of, otherwise there will be more victims like El-Masri. He is living proof that your naive justifications are a total sham. Innocent people have had their rights violated due to war on terror policies and you can not keep pretending these people don’t exist.
“Your civil liberties remain intact and you can bet if abuses were happening the folks around America with guns would be making plans for revolution.”
No, they’re too busy talking armed rebellion over being required to buy friggin’ health insurance! That, according to you and the Tea Party, is an egregious violation of liberty, but assassinating citizens is not. Disgusting.
“Khameini is in charge over there not Amidinijad or however you spell his name.”
I always just call him AJ. And you have been listening to alternative media … mind it don’t corrupt your soul.
NPR did a longish thing on Khameini, yesterday, I think, which was depressing. You get the idea that the leadership of Iran is not real sure what it’s trying to accomplish … except for one thing … they REALLY loath us, and will cut off their own noses, just to bother us.
I think we should just back off, and see if, a generation or two down the line, they don’t calm down some.
Unhappily, we are not doing that. We have made it very, very, very difficult for Iran to sell it’s oil (one third of global consumption, Jack, if you are interested in a possible factor in future pump prices). Oil’s all they got … they don’t sell it … they don’t eat, and will be moved to do something desparately stupid … if we’re not careful.
Chris Obama did abandon Iraq diplomatically (psycologically, emotionally…ethically) when he announced Iraq was a “mistake”, called it a dumb war, said he wanted to bring the troops home and turned his attention to the right war in Afghanistan. His intent was to promote himself politically but it was an amateurish move in terms of setting the stage for diplomatic relations. He later hosted al Maliki at the White House and bragged about moving forward as an economic partner with Iraq. Have we heard anything in three years about that? In fact what does the President say about the war he is waging? He says very little about it. It’s as if the war was not his, like it’s happening under someone else’s authority and he’s obliged to make comments occassionally. We’ve heard more about golf games, lavish parties at the WH and family vacations than we have heard about his direction iof the war. The media accomodates him in this.
You are entitled to your opinion about Bush’s handling of the war. I disagree. I have acknowledged that mistakes were made but please, do us all a favor and name a war in which zero mistakes were made. (Obama has had his share in Afghanistan…but what a difference having a D after your name makes)
Civilian casualties are way up in Afghanistan and things are not really going well. Has he been called disparaging names? Has the public been fed daily bad news about the Afghanistan war and the miserable job Obama has done? Hell no.
There is a lot of evidence that Bush developed good relationships with leaders in the ME and negotiated through some very rough times. There were a number of successes that should have been good news and should have garnered more suppoort and acknowledgement for our troops. The surge was a big success and the country was stable when Bush left the presidency. But destroying Bush was more important than support for nthe troops and their mission. The “failures, misunderstandings, and shocking ignorance toward the region” that you seem to have bought, hook line and sinker, was in part a fabrication or exageration of the political and media left doing their usual Alinsky rule #12 thing to destroy the president.
I don’t mind criticism, I just think it should be doled out in equal measure for the failures of all presidents.
Princess: “The United States put Sadam Hussein in charge of Iraq.”
How? He moved into power by his own maneuverings within the Baath Party and finally took over in a bloodless coup. Iraq was more closely aligned with Russia and France than the US. In fact he created the perfect progressive utopia on the way to becoming a murdering maniac.
“Probably because they don’t feel like Israel is a colony like the US does.”
A colony? That’s an assessment filled with either ignorance or bigotry. (Or maybe you’re just tired…don’t blame you, not much that is positive is happening these days)
Here’s a radio transcript (two shows) in which an historian explains the partnership that the US has enjoyed with Israel. Here’s an excerpt:
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=12828
Tina, that was all then. What do you got to say about now:
We have made it very, very, very difficult for Iran to sell it’s oil (one third of global consumption, Jack, if you are interested in a possible factor in future pump prices). Oil’s all they got … they don’t sell it … they don’t eat, and will be moved to do something desparately stupid … if we’re not careful.
So far all friendly gestures made by President Obama have been rebuffed. He’s even praised Muslims and shunned the Israeli’s to no avail. I’m not sure that backing off would make any difference but I’m not sure it wouldn’t wither. What I have observed is that the religious fanaticism that also drives the anti-west sentiment would only think it a win in the battle to rule the world. This regime shows zero willingness to engage in anything positive.
AJ’s speech at the UN showed a lot of contempt for free countries and a rabid need to deny the truth about Hitlers final solution. As long as these nutbags are in power I don’t give any solution much hope. (Which is why defanging them takes on importance)
“Chris Obama did abandon Iraq diplomatically (psycologically, emotionally…ethically) when he announced Iraq was a “mistake”, called it a dumb war…”
Tina, do you honestly expect me to believe that this is what you meant when you wrote this:
“He also abandoned the people of Iraq at the worst possible time and for a stupid self-interested reason based on unpopularity of the war rather than what was in the best interest of the US and our troops.”
Because I don’t believe that’s what you were talking about. It is clear that you were talking about Obama’s reasons for pulling out of Iraq. Either you were uninformed about the real reasons (hard to believe, since your co-blogger wrote an entire article about the real reasons and posted it on this blog only two months ago) or you chose to ignore them in order to put forth a bogus interpretation that Obama pulled out of Iraq because of the war’s unpopularity. Either way, you were wrong, and instead of admitting it you chose to move the goalposts and act as if what you said was actually true all along, just for a different reason. You do this all the time and it makes debate very frustrating.
“He’s even praised Muslims and shunned the Israeli’s to no avail.”
This idea that Obama has been somehow hostile to Israel is just a right-wing myth. In fact, Obama enjoys a fair bit of popularity among the Israeli people:
http://isearch.avg.com/search?q=obama+israel+popularity&sap=dsp&lang=en&mid=54c48550089a68a77decf6a77a24dca8-9504d4f6316a04c01dd9b54e4f80dada89febd89&cid={EED63543-D41F-4C1E-A006-66E99050C5A9}&v=10.0.0.7&ds=ins10&d=12%2F12%2F2011+8%3A14%3A31+AM&pr=sa&snd=hdr
Chris: “Either way, you were wrong, and instead of admitting it you chose to move the goalposts…”
Only if it’s impossible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. Obama did make an amateurish blunder as a candidate when he said Iraq was a mistake and when he pandered to voters by promising he would bring the troops home (And close Gitmo). Since his election things have deteriorated and although he makes announcements about partnering with Iraq and the threat Iran poses to Iraq it’s clear his intent is to “move on” and away from any involvement.
I think a different leader would have made a greater effort, or at least provided a stronger leadership image of strength, that could have given the Iraqi’s a better chance. That is my opinion and I stick with it. You are welcome to yours as is Jack to his.
His treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu and other positions he took were an affront to the Israelis:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-did-to-israel/2011/05/26/AGJfYJCH_story.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Netanyahu-McCain-Graham/2012/02/26/id/430567
Tina: “Only if it’s impossible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time.”
Oy vey, now you’ve entered the realm of the complete non-sequiter. This doesn’t make sense at all as a reply to the portion of my comment you quoted.
You made a claim. It was false. Then you tried to turn around and pretend that you had actually intended to make a completely different claim, without acknowledging that the first claim was false. You do this all the time.
Your goal is to make Obama look bad. So when someone says “Obama didn’t do that,” instead of admitting you were wrong, you just move on to “But look at this totally unrelated bad thing Obama did! That PROVES that I was right all along!” This is exceptionally poor debating and it makes you look stupid.
It’s like the death panels lie. Originally conservatives used that term to describe voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions between a patient and doctor. Conservatives falsely claimed that these sessions were mandatory, and that the government would force doctors to try and convince old people to accept euthanasia. When this turned out to be complete nonsense, instead of admitting they were wrong, your movement pointed to a board centered on cutting costs and essentially said, “See! Death panels! We were right all along!” Of course, this board is not anything close to a death panel, but even if it were, that still wouldn’t retroactively justify the original death panels claim.
It’s an obvious pattern of deceit, and it has to stop.
“Obama did make an amateurish blunder as a candidate when he said Iraq was a mistake”
It isn’t a “blunder” to tell the truth! Iraq WAS a mistake. I don’t see how you can still refuse to acknowledge that. But then again, I think I’ve also seen you claim that Vietnam wasn’t a mistake, so perhaps hoping that you will some day come to your senses on this issue is hoping for too much.
From the Washington Post article you cited:
“Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.
This is identical to the positions of the last four U.S. presidential administrations.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0520/What-s-so-shocking-about-Obama-mentioning-1967-borders
The decision by certain members of the Israeli government and U.S. Republicans to ignore recent history and precedent in order to pretend that Obama’s statement was in any way shocking or anti-Israel is shameless in its dishonesty.
Chris: “So when someone says “Obama didn’t do that,” instead of admitting you were wrong…”
Your goal is to make me admit to being wrong.
You say Obama didn’t do that…didn’t do what?
Didn’t say that Iraq was a “mistake” or a “dumb war”? He did.
Didn’t abandon the Iraqi people (he did in my opinion) at a critical moment through lousy leadership? as far as I’m concerned he did.
“This is exceptionally poor debating and it makes you look stupid.”
Okay.
Death panels? Two seperate arguments…both correct! the legislation does push end of life counceling and it does set up a panel to determine what procedures will and will not be covered.
Consider the recent statements and mandates from Sebelius as a result of this horrible piece of garbage legislation it’s easy to see that those concerns were valid.
“It’s an obvious pattern of deceit, and it has to stop.”
Go mother somebody else.
But as long as we’re talking deceit…you support the President, a man that has flip flopped like a fish since being elected. You support the healthcare legislation that was written behind closed doors without the full input of the Congress through intimidation and bribery. Your party is KNOWN for using deceitful tactics to win elections. Don’t preach to me about deceit.
It isn’t a “blunder” to tell the truth! Iraq WAS a mistake. I don’t see how you can still refuse to acknowledge that.
That is one opinion. It isn’t the only opinion and it isn’t mine. If you’re going to present an argument then argue your opinion and allow me mine instead of continuing to presume, arrogantly, to have the truth on your side.
“This is identical to the positions of the last four U.S. presidential administrations.”
And? I didn’t say that he was consistant. He tries to be on every side of every issue. He’s a crowd pleaser. He wants to be popular. That’s another reason he is a poor leader.
“The decision by certain members of the Israeli government and U.S. Republicans to ignore recent history and precedent in order to pretend that Obama’s statement was in any way shocking or anti-Israel is shameless in its dishonesty.”
Yes he just keep changing what he says depending on the feedback he gets. Where is the grounding that forms his thinking?
Chris, you dismiss opinion that doesn’t agree with yours as invalid, stupid or wrong. To what end? it’s opinion!You also conveniently deny or ignore things that don’t support your position…like the way that Obama treated Netanyahu when he came to Washington. I suppose you hope no one will notice.
Tina: “Your goal is to make me admit to being wrong.
You say Obama didn’t do that…didn’t do what?”
Didn’t pull out of Iraq because of the unpopularity of the war, which is what you were obviously implying. Are you denying that this is what you meant earlier?
“Didn’t say that Iraq was a “mistake” or a “dumb war”? He did.”
You know that’s not what I meant; why are you playing dumb?
“Okay.
Death panels? Two seperate arguments…both correct!”
Oh, this should be interesting.
“the legislation does push end of life counceling”
This is yet another example of you changing the argument in the middle and moving the goalposts, while pretending to be right all along. The claim was not simply that the PPACA “pushes” end of life counseling (I’m not even clear how it does that; it simply requires that Medicare cover the cost if a patient chooses to use it.) The claim was that it would make end of life counseling MANDATORY, and that these sessions would be used to pressure seniors into ending their lives early.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel
This lie seems to have started with Betsy McCaughey, and as shown by the links above, was repeated by conservative luminaries such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, writers at World Net Daily and the American Thinker, several other conservative bloggers, pundits on FOX News, Michele Bachman, and dozens of Republican members of Congress. It was probably the most dangerous, hysterical and disgusting part of the massive misinformation campaign your party has launched against the PPACA. And you’re going to sit there and type that this blatant lie was “correct,” while at the same time changing it into something as innocuous as “it pushes end of life care,” without acknowledging what you know these people actually said?
How dare you?
“and it does set up a panel to determine what procedures will and will not be covered.”
You’re trying to soften up what conservatives have actually said about this panel, again. They, and you, have claimed that the IPAB will RATION care–even though anyone who read the law can see that it expressly prohibits them from rationing. Conservatives also claimed (and continue to claim) that such a panel would evaluate citizens individually to determine their “worth” to society before deciding whether or not they would receive life-saving health care. Sarah Palin originated that lovely little lie, shamelessly trotting out her disabled son in order to manipulate people’s emotions based on a fabrication, and has never taken it back–in fact, she’s defended it every time she’s been asked about it, even though there’s not a shred of truth to it at all.
Your claim here that the IPAB will determine “what procedures will and will not be covered” is at least not as egregiously terrible as these previous claims, some of which you have repeated on this very blog–but it’s still wrong. The IPAB is prohibited from cutting benefits to seniors. That means they cannot refuse to cover anything that’s already covered. They have to cut costs another way.
Give it up already. “Death panels” do not exist, except in the fevered imaginations of people with Obama Derangement Syndrome.
“And? I didn’t say that he was consistant. He tries to be on every side of every issue. He’s a crowd pleaser. He wants to be popular. That’s another reason he is a poor leader…Yes he just keep changing what he says depending on the feedback he gets. Where is the grounding that forms his thinking?”
More non-sequiter. I pointed out that Obama’s position on the 1967 borders is exactly identical to the positions of the last four presidents, to counter the Washington Post’s claim that he was “trashing” Israel in his statements. How did you manage to read that as having anything to do with Obama’s consistency with himself, or with the idea that he “just keeps changing what he says?”