It’s Republicans like Lindsey Graham that caused the Tea Party to perform. Not even conservatives like the “spend and bomb” mentality.

I don’t often agree with Gramnesty, but I will here.

Yep, I’m no Grahamnesty fan at all, but that is a great quote “Obama Acts As If ‘Leading The Free World Is An Inconvenience’”

He really does act that way, it’s like he let’s out a big “sigh” everytime something happens.

“Leading the free world” doesn’t mean “drop 112 Tomahawk missiles on your country”.

Even some Dems are of the opinion that Obama is forwarding all those ’3:00 AM’ calls to Hillary. LOL.

It don’t seem like Mr. O is cut out to be no trail boss .

ModerateMan said:
“Leading the free world” doesn’t mean “drop 112 Tomahawk missiles on your country”.

Guess Chicago Jesus figured the apology tour didn’t cut it, better shoot some brown people out of the sky.

Being president is tough to embrace when there’s butter-soaked lobster to eat, 5-star hotels and golf courses to call your own, and 747s to fly around willy-nilly.

Liberal Tormentor said:
I don’t often agree with Gramnesty, but I will here.

Agreed.

I think Lindsey is sensing a Tea Party challenge. :)

ChrisNH said:
Being president is tough to embrace when there’s butter-soaked lobster to eat, 5-star hotels and golf courses to call your own, and 747s to fly around willy-nilly.

Wonder how the weather is in Rio today? heh heh heh…This leading/governiong thing just sux sometimes! *SIGH*

Can’t I just eat my waffle?

The part of the job Pres**ent Obama really loves is being the Master of Ceremonies.

WCinWI said:
Agreed. I think Lindsey is sensing a Tea Party challenge. :)

Oh, there’ll be a challenge, he knows it.

My question is two-fold.

I’m a mixture of libertarian/neocon regarding military issues. I try to be pragmatic, with what little knowledge I have. I’m young…haha.

That said, why are we in Libya? Is it to defeat Gaddafi? If so, why isn’t the rhetoric matching up? The administration officials are all over the board with their statements. I can understand that strategy doesn’t always need to be made public, but if our goal is to stop Gaddafi, there will need to be boots on the ground. What’s the end game?

Where is Code Pink , MoveOn ?!?!

Warmonger !!!!!!!

Gitmo still open , Afghanistan– still there , Iraq –still there , now Libya ?!?!!!

I bet George W Bush is on a couch , drinking a cold one , laughing his ass off .

timzank said:
Wonder how the weather is in Rio today? heh heh heh…This leading/governiong thing just sux sometimes! *SIGH*

Can’t I just eat my waffle?

Why the heck is the grandmother on the trip? I struggle with him needing to be over there but ok, let’s give him that he can be there. And I even approve of the family if this is supposed to be a friendly meeting. But why is the grandmother there? That stinks of wasting taxpayer money. Or at least provides a REALLY bad visual.

Obimbo’s in Brazil. Must be a festival or concert! Don’t want to miss any free entertainment. A chance for him and his wife to practice their dance moves. Wonder what this useless trip is going to cost us? Is anyone as sick of this inept clown president as I am? Just when you start thinking, they can’t come anymore useless than Carter, along comes Obimbo to blow that theory all to hell.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”. ~ then Senator Barack Obama, December 20th, 2007.

Thanks for the hope and change, hypocrite.

It is not our job to replace Gaddafi.

Don’t you idiots ever learn?

More Liberty5 said:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”. ~ then Senator Barack Obama, December 20th, 2007.

Thanks for the hope and change, hypocrite.

… and here I was thinking diplomacy solves everything..

murf said:
Warmonger !!!!!!!

Yeah, the silence if deafening from the anti-war crowd. Fact is, they don’t give a crap one way or the other, war is simply a political tool to them, which is despicable.

Even a blind RINO gets a nut once and a while.

The Bush admin. befriended Gaddafi, absolved him of his sins and accepted payment for restitution of the Pan Am 130 bombing. Bush’s foray into Iraq is what made Obama’s involvement so tenuous. Lindsie Grahm should just come out of the closet like the rest of the rethug crybabies. Give me the thumbs, because I’m giving you the finger.

Nacho said:
It is not our job to replace Gaddafi.

Don’t you idiots ever learn?

So bombing the country and leaving it leaderless is the plan? You make no sense. Try thinking for yourself instead of blindly chearleading Obama.

More Liberty5 said:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”. ~ then Senator Barack Obama, December 20th, 2007.

Thanks for the hope and change, hypocrite.

Don’t you understand that is not what he did? That is actually what Graham and McCain are now saying they wanted him to do. Obama waited for the Arab League to ask the UN for help. He is handling this properly with other leaders of the world.

It is not the job of the US to fight everyone.

I guess this too, is above his pay grade…

Nacho said:
It is not our job to replace Gaddafi.

Don’t you idiots ever learn?

From my understanding, that’ll be Al Qaeda’s job.

ModerateMan said:
So bombing the country and leaving it leaderless is the plan? You make no sense. Try thinking for yourself instead of blindly chearleading Obama.

You’re a clueless fool.

Nacho said:
Don’t you understand that is not what he did? That is actually what Graham and McCain are now saying they wanted him to do. Obama waited for the Arab League to ask the UN for help. He is handling this properly with other leaders of the world.

It is not the job of the US to fight everyone.

So then why the hell do we want to fight Gaddafi? What’s the end game?

WCinWI said:
From my understanding, that’ll be Al Qaeda’s job.

Of course, that’s all you’ve been taught to understand about foreign policy.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Yeah, the silence if deafening from the anti-war crowd. Fact is, they don’t give a crap one way or the other, war is simply a political tool to them, which is despicable.

You got that right . What’s more disgusting is they never gave a damn about our troops . Political pawns .

Nacho said:
You’re a clueless fool.

No, he’s not. He’s just being pragmatic. Everyone knows and is secretly or publicly saying that the goal is to get rid of Gaddafi, which means you disrupt his ground troops. Either, we engage on the ground game or we get extremely lucky with the air/sub game. However, either Gaddafi beats the nations and stays in power or he gets killed or captured. Who then takes the helm? The administration message is not meshing with the actual message.

This is a “we want him out” and not a “we’re helping the people” strategy.

murf said:
You got that right . What’s more disgusting is they never gave a damn about our troops . Political pawns .

murf there was some protests yesterday, but of course nobody heard about it………..gee………..I wonder why.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WAR_PROTEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-19-18-32-15

Nacho said:
Of course, that’s all you’ve been taught to understand about foreign policy.

No, it’s what I’ve seen from media reports about the Libyan region. From my understanding, Libyans have been the most or at least a stronghold recruitment country for Al Qaeda. That’s either true or it’s not. I’ll wait for your assessment. :)

WCinWI said:
Why the heck is the grandmother on the trip?

WELL STUPID CHEESE HEAD ITS CALLED TAKING CARE OF HER GRANDCHILDREN INSTEAD OF WASTING TAXPAYERS MONEY ON A SITTER OR NANNY! YOU DO REALIZE THE PRESIDENT IS WORKING! BUT I GUESS ITS NOT WORK UNLESS YOUR CLEARING BRUSH OR CHOPPING WOOD!

Obama is in Brazil today, meeting with the newly elected President there along with the heads of several American corporations. He’s hoping to expand American business interests in the country of more than 200 million with the rapidly growing “middle class” there. In short he’s trying to put AMERICANS back to work, something the redumblicans were elected to do but don’t seem interested in doing.

BlueBunny said:
WELL STUPID CHEESE HEAD ITS CALLED TAKING CARE OF HER GRANDCHILDREN INSTEAD OF WASTING TAXPAYERS MONEY ON A SITTER OR NANNY! YOU DO REALIZE THE PRESIDENT IS WORKING! BUT I GUESS ITS NOT WORK UNLESS YOUR CLEARING BRUSH OR CHOPPING WOOD!

Taxpayer money wouldn’t fun a sitter or a nanny. His paycheck would.

And it’s you’re not your. :) Also, its should be it’s. There is a difference.

Nacho said:
It is not our job to replace Gaddafi. Don’t you idiots ever learn?

then why did the president say it

WHY DON’T YOU PEOPLE HERE BITCHING ABOUT THE U.S. NOT JUMPING IN WITH GUNS BLAZING JOIN UP AND FIGHT! WE ALREADY ARE BROKE FROM THE FAKE COWBOY OF 8 YEARS! WHY DO YOU REPUBLICAN/TEAPUBLICANS LIKE TO KILL SO MUCH!HAVE YOU NEVER BEEN TAUGHT TO USE YOUR BRAIN INSTEAD OF YOUR ASS TO THINK WITH!

WCinWI said:
fun

STFU CHEESE HEAD! ITS NOT FUN ITS FUND!

The other day, @sarainitaly linked to an article in Murdoch’s “The Daily” that drew a somewhat exasperated picture of Sec. Clinton pulling a reluctant administration into acting, while I’d characterize pieces from the same timeline that appeared in the NYTimes and CNN as being more muted and they appear to paint the decision as more consensus.

Obviously, since I haven’t been in the room, I don’t which is closer to being true and all three do have the two women coming to a conclusion and then having to at least advise, if not lobby to overcome objections from other parts of the administration, but the thing from “The Daily” does strike a different tone and that particular narrative seems to have taken root because I hear hints of it in Graham’s comments.

You’re giving me thumbs down for entering facts to this discussion? Wow, you’ve really gone rabid Fox crazy here!

Tedderman said:
Obama is in Brazil today, meeting with the newly elected President there along with the heads of several American corporations. He’s hoping to expand American business interests in the country of more than 200 million with the rapidly growing “middle class” there. In short he’s trying to put AMERICANS back to work, something the redumblicans were elected to do but don’t seem interested in doing.

Such a task used to be considered beneath a sitting President, which is why trade envoys and members of the State department usually go groveling before foreign leaders.

I agree with Sen. Graham that the President is annoyed by the tough decisions, but I disagree that decisive military action is the best course – although, now, we don’t have much of a choice. This could have been avoided. Smart diplomacy would have encouraged Ghadaffi to take his millions of dollars, go into exile and live out the rest of his days in peace. Instead, President Obama insisted he be brought to justice as an international criminal. With this comment, Ghadaffi’s choices were truncated – fight and retain power or go out like Mussolini. If we do manage to capture him – which we can’t do without putting boots on the ground (does Obama know anything at all?) – it will be after thousands of needless and completely avoidable deaths.

Tedderman said:
In short he’s trying to put AMERICANS back to work, something the redumblicans were elected to do but don’t seem interested in doing.

AGREE! THEY SURE HAVE A BUNCH OF IDEAS OF HOW TO TAKE JOBS AWAY THO DON’T THEY!

BlueBunny said:
WHY DON’T YOU PEOPLE HERE BITCHING ABOUT THE U.S. NOT JUMPING IN WITH GUNS BLAZING JOIN UP AND FIGHT! WE ALREADY ARE BROKE FROM THE FAKE COWBOY OF 8 YEARS! WHY DO YOU REPUBLICAN/TEAPUBLICANS LIKE TO KILL SO MUCH!HAVE YOU NEVER BEEN TAUGHT TO USE YOUR BRAIN INSTEAD OF YOUR ASS TO THINK WITH!

I was in the Marines from 2003 to 2008 . Served two tours in Iraq , and all we heard from you liberals ( Keith Olbermann to be specific ) was doubt , hatred , and anti-American, jail Bush bullshit . So you and your pansy double standard friends can fuck off .

OxyCon said:
Such a task used to be considered beneath a sitting President, which is why trade envoys and members of the State department usually go groveling before foreign leaders.

Unless the trip is really about oil , Brazilian oil .

Wingo said:
I agree with Sen. Graham that the President is annoyed by the tough decisions, but I disagree that decisive military action is the best course – although, now, we don’t have much of a choice. This could have been avoided. Smart diplomacy would have encouraged Ghadaffi to take his millions of dollars, go into exile and live out the rest of his days in peace. Instead, President Obama insisted he be brought to justice as an international criminal. With this comment, Ghadaffi’s choices were truncated – fight and retain power or go out like Mussolini. If we do manage to capture him – which we can’t do without putting boots on the ground (does Obama know anything at all?) – it will be after thousands of needless and completely avoidable deaths.

Good assessment.

BlueBunny said:
WHY DON’T YOU PEOPLE HERE BITCHING ABOUT THE U.S. NOT JUMPING IN WITH GUNS BLAZING JOIN UP AND FIGHT! WE ALREADY ARE BROKE FROM THE FAKE COWBOY OF 8 YEARS! WHY DO YOU REPUBLICAN/TEAPUBLICANS LIKE TO KILL SO MUCH!HAVE YOU NEVER BEEN TAUGHT TO USE YOUR BRAIN INSTEAD OF YOUR ASS TO THINK WITH!

I think it’s nice that people like you can be taught how to type at a keyboard and perform some other basic tasks, what with that extra chromosome and all.

BO waited too long to get involved in Libya and now we are in a “no win” situation”. If Gaddafi stays we will be responsible for the deaths of 10′s of thousands of Libyans and we will be an enemy of an empowered and bold Libyan leader. If Gaddafi goes we will be responsible for the deaths of 10′s of thousands of Libyans, as well as, radical Muslims like Al Quiada and the Islamic Brotherhood taking over and and setting up a base of operations that will threaten US lives and the rest of western civilization.

BO couldn’t have played into the anti-American zealot’s hands better if he had tried (notice I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is just incompetent and didn’t plan or conspire with our enemies to screw us like he has).  BO thinks it’s an inconvenience to be the President of the United States.  Why did we give him the job?  Ultimately, we are to blame for this fool and the unprecedented miss he has put us in both at home and abroad.

More 2nd guessing partisan crap from one more talking head who cares more about talking points than the reality of leading.

So,…is he proposing we should have had a mission right away to depose the leader of a sovereign nation, and gone it alone because we are supposed to lead? WTF people , didn’t we learn anything from Iraq? We are not the world police, cannot be, and it’s absolutely right to do this as part of a coalition.

Remember the coalition of the bribed and coerced Bush wanted to present to justify Iraq. Remember Condi Rice and Bush declaring that Gadaffi was no longer a bad guy. Wasn’t that a big diplomatic victory at the time.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1194766,00.html
On Monday, Gaddafi accomplished one of history’s great diplomatic turnarounds when Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as “a model” for others to follow. Rice attributed the ending of the U.S.’s long break in diplomatic relations to Gaddafi’s historic decision in 2003 to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism as well as Libya’s “excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001.”

The Bush Administration has been quick to stress Libya’s comeback as a model that Iran and North Korea should now follow.”
What do you suppose Graham was saying back then?”Strangle and depose” It’s nothing but superficial partisan BS.
I just heard Sec Clinton on C-Span talking about the goals and importance of the Latin America trip. She said she knew people were questioning the trip with everything that’s going on on the world, but she said , Leadership, means looking further and deeper than the crisis of today.

We sure seem to have ADD when it comes to politics.

tws258 said:
Unless the trip is really about oil , Brazilian oil .

AHA

Brazil finds massive oil field
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11659582
Brazil has discovered billions of barrels of oil in the last few years, mostly in deep, pre salt fields off its south-eastern coast.
The discoveries should make Brazil one of the world’s top 10 oil producers.

US wants to be Brazil’s best oil customer—Obama
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20110320-326483/US-wants-to-be-Brazils-best-oil-customerObama

Obama says US to be major purchaser of Brazilian oil
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8393292/Obama-says-US-to-be-major-purchaser-of-Brazilian-oil.html

‘Stead of presidentin’ , Mr. O. acts like he’s visitin’ a dude ranch and wants the whole world to entertain him . He was e-lected to serve the people and he ain’t doin’ it . I don’t want to call him a sidewinder …but …he’s a sidewinder .

Utah Johnny Montana said:
It don’t seem like Mr. O is cut out to be no trail boss .

He’s not even fit to pull up the rear.

Magister said:
The other day, @sarainitaly linked to an article in Murdoch’s “The Daily” that drew a somewhat exasperated picture of Sec. Clinton pulling a reluctant administration into acting, while I’d characterize pieces from the same timeline that appeared in the NYTimes and CNN as being more muted and they appear to paint the decision as more consensus.

Obviously, since I haven’t been in the room, I don’t which is closer to being true and all three do have the two women coming to a conclusion and then having to at least advise, if not lobby to overcome objections from other parts of the administration, but the thing from “The Daily” does strike a different tone and that particular narrative seems to have taken root because I hear hints of it in Graham’s comments.

Thanks Magister , those are good articles. It’s easy for partisans to 2nd guess from the cheap seats about what ought to be done. Easy to mention “people killed” as if it’s supposed to be up to us no matter where in the world it happens. The president is right to be cautious about getting us involved militarily with a rebellion in a sovereign nation, and right to make sure we do it in a limited way with the approval and support of other nations.

Newt Limbaugh said:
Brazil finds massive oil field

Maybe we wouldn’t have to be at war in the ME to guard our economic interests if we had another source, and can still work toward drastically reducing our dependency on any nation for our energy needs.

Well, no matter what the President does, the haters are going to hate. At one time, foreign policy was unified. Not any more. So what is the President suppose to do Senator Graham, fly over to Japan and stop the meltdown and then fly to Libya and lead the charge. The Republicans pulled the same crap on Clinton in Bosnia. It simply shows how extreme they are because no one has the guts to stand up to Rusty “The Chickenhawk” Limbaugh.

CosmosDan said:
Maybe we wouldn’t have to be at war in the ME to guard our economic interests if we had another source, and can still work toward drastically reducing our dependency on any nation for our energy needs.

This is the silliest thing that I ever heard.

Yeah, leading the free world is a pain if you spend your time at the Trocadero Brazilian Wax emporium in Rio de Janeiro having your man-toy polished and waxed so you can stroll Ipanema beach strutting and waving to the crowds shooting you the finger.

WCinWI said:
This is the silliest thing that I ever heard.

I’ll take that as a compliment.

Newt Limbaugh said:
AHA

Brazil finds massive oil field
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11659582
Brazil has discovered billions of barrels of oil in the last few years, mostly in deep, pre salt fields off its south-eastern coast.
The discoveries should make Brazil one of the world’s top 10 oil producers.

and this is bad why?
US wants to be Brazil’s best oil customer—Obama
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20110320-326483/US-wants-to-be-Brazils-best-oil-customerObama

Obama says US to be major purchaser of Brazilian oil
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8393292/Obama-says-US-to-be-major-purchaser-of-Brazilian-oil.html

Some think, Clinton would have made a better President.

Most intelligent people think that leading by consensus is one thing, but being in the background so much, smacks of being inconsequential, as if you’re being bothered to even be involved with the events going on around you….

I mean, WOW…. I’d hate to see what this President would do if a disaster struck us here in the US… Oh wait, one did, last year, and it took him forever to engage.

You know what, a lot of people are starting to turn on this man, including me. Some Republicans don’t like Graham, but I agree with him on this one.

We TParty’rs love to rag on BHO all the time but I do it about his political aspirations rather than who he is.

Sorry Graham, you looked silly knocking the Prez this time. Heard he launched 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles up Gaddafi’s ass, WTF do you want? We’re balls deep in 2 other wars, this is a decent first move.

After all when President Reagan did the same back in the day Gaddafi was, at least on a global scale, pretty quiet and even more so when GWB showed the SOB what-fer’.

Sure would love it if our fearless leaders would quit their cults and become normal again. Is that too much to ask?

CosmosDan said:
I’ll take that as a compliment.

You see that as a negative. I see that as a positive. :)

CosmosDan said:
I’ll take that as a compliment.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/19/some-obama-milestones/

“Sen. Lindsey Graham: Obama Acts As If ‘Leading The Free World Is An Inconvenience’”

Well, he did say he’d rather be running communist CHINA, now didn’t he !

Testify George Testify!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c

“Libyans have been the most or at least a stronghold recruitment country for Al Qaeda.”

No, WE are Al Qaeda’s best recruiting tool – thanks to Bush and “President Cheney” and their illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. They needlessly inflamed anti-Americanism throughout the world and extinguished international goodwill toward the U. S. after 9/11 with their arrogance, belligerence and craven lust for “black gold.” We see how well that worked out; they should both be in the slammer.

Tehran held a candlelight vigil the night after 9/11 – a fact virtually ignored by the allegedly “liberal” media.

“Such a task used to be considered beneath a sitting President, which is why trade envoys and members of the State department usually go groveling before foreign leaders.”

Yeah, he should use the “Bush method” and STEAL Brazil’s oil . . . or try to.

Obama has had to deal with the catastrophic results of Bush’s Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and is understandably reluctant to repeat them in Libya. He is also apparently not anxious to flout international law, as Bush so eagerly was.

Anti-war groups aren’t happy about our involvement in Libya, but they realize we are part of a legitimate international effort – unlike the bogus, misbegotten Bush/Cheney invasions.

The same right-wingers who cheered on Bush’s costly, illegal warmongering now excoriate Obama for refusing to do the same. How screwed up can you get?

WCinWI said:
You see that as a negative. I see that as a positive. :)

????

Lindsay Graham can go suck a big **** like we all know he wants to. We’re at war now, support the president when he has to make hard decisions like watch people die or help. Graham is just a petulant little ugly man that no one likes, he’s a joke in the Republican party.

Japanese people and Libyans are dying, but oh wait, little Lindsay has something to say, everyone gather round for the next round of unhelpful Obama-bashing.

Anti-American and disrespectful, Lindsay Graham is a pathetic piece of ****.

Snowspot said:
Lindsay Graham can go suck a big **** like we all know he wants to. We’re at war now, support the president when he has to make hard decisions like watch people die or help. Graham is just a petulant little ugly man that no one likes, he’s a joke in the Republican party.

Japanese people and Libyans are dying, but oh wait, little Lindsay has something to say, everyone gather round for the next round of unhelpful Obama-bashing.

Anti-American and disrespectful, Lindsay Graham is a pathetic piece of ****.

Ha
http://menwholooklikeoldlesbians.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

jooce81 said:
Testify George Testify!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c

Gotta Love GEORGE.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Yeah, the silence if deafening from the anti-war crowd. Fact is, they don’t give a crap one way or the other, war is simply a political tool to them, which is despicable.

In 1939, when World War II started, the American Left were opposed to war! They were the peace party and nothing was important enough to make the country go to war. Then Germany invaded the USSR and the American Left demanded a swift entry into the war and that it be waged as aggressively as possible, especially in Europe. Not much has changed for the anti-war left.

Has Graham come out of the closet yet?

ClearThinker said:
Has Graham come out of the closet yet?

No she has not.

CosmosDan said:
Maybe we wouldn’t have to be at war in the ME to guard our economic interests if we had another source, and can still work toward drastically reducing our dependency on any nation for our energy needs.

We get very little oil from the Middle East.

Nice work in the Cosmos Dan and thanks BlueBunny Too. Keep up the cause even though you’re hitting a piece of granite(their heads) with a noodle(the truth and facts).

Every war that the United States has been involved in since WW2 has been illegal. Not once did the U.S. declair war on a foreign country since WW2. Over 100,000 American men and woman have died needlessly NOT to protect America, but to protect foreign countries and big business. It seems like we are in a constant state of war somewhere in the world just to keep the weapons suppliers in business. Our infrastructure is crumbling and outdated but, the government keeps spending money on weapons to kill people we don’t even know. The Republican & Democratic parties have sold out to big business and no longer represent the American people. It’s time for a new political party that will represent all Americans.

.

Does anyone really care what Miss Lindsey Graham has to say? Ms.Graham and John McCain need to fade away.

President Obama proceed on this issue as a master chess master, check-mate…

I mean, there are lots of debatable issues, but hasn’t the neoconservative foreign policy of “America fvck yeah!!” been sufficiently disproven for the time being?

Hey there, I find an amazing web,please click the web ,you can find big pleasantly surprised
╭⌒╮WELCOME http://www.fullmalls.com/
—– ~ ¤ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╮
╭⌒╭⌒╮╭⌒╮～╭⌒╮ HANDBAG 35$
,））））,”）~~ ,”~）
╱◥█◣ ╱◥█◣ SHOES 35$
｜田｜田｜｜田｜田｜ CLOTH 15$
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬ 2011 NEW

Someone should send Miss Lisp to Youtube to let George Carlin explain war and America to her.

Fox has no shame. Honestly. They bring out their right wing hacks to go after Obama because he went into Libyia. If he wouldn’t have done anything they bring their hacks out for that. They have their hacks going after him cause he went in to fast, to slow. And then they have the gull to have some of the chickenhawks like Bolton speak on it yet to boot.

glenn113, you’ve said just what I’ve been thinking all evening, it dosen’t matter how Obama does something, they’ll find fault with him. And it does take a great deal of “gall.”

The flack he’s catching is for being a hypocrite. He got all you morons to vote for him by promising he was an anti-war kind of guy. Turns out not so much huh? Sucks when your hero’s lie to you doesn’t it?

timzank said:
Sucks when your hero’s lie to you doesn’t it?

You should know, Bush did it constantly.

Tedderman said:
glenn113, you’ve said just what I’ve been thinking all evening, it dosen’t matter how Obama does something, they’ll find fault with him. And it does take a great deal of “gall.”

Obama could bring home Bin-Laden’s head home on a platter and the neocons and plutocrats will still find something wrong. It’s a shame but it is what it is.

timzank said:
The flack he’s catching is for being a hypocrite. He got all you morons to vote for him by promising he was an anti-war kind of guy. Turns out not so much huh? Sucks when your hero’s lie to you doesn’t it?

Nothing wrong with sending in firepower with U.N. approval, Arab league approval and doing it for the right reasons.And hopefully not one US casuality. Not like a past President who did everything for the wrong reasons and got 5,000 of our kids killed in the process to boot.

And I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan after Bin-Laden.And quite frankly wish we would have stayed there until we got him. When he veered off into Iraq for “unknown” reasons without U.N approval like a cowboy and ended up as to the whole mess we are in today. It’s kinda hard to look at him as a hero.

glenn113 said:
Nothing wrong with sending in firepower with U.N. approval, Arab league approval and doing it for the right reasons.And hopefully not one US casuality.

But if there’s one US casualty the RWers will erase all the 5,000 under Bush and claim this is the worst disaster a President has ever caused.

RichS said:
We get very little oil from the Middle East.

You’re basing that on what? How much is very little, how crucial is that amount? If that’s true, why are gas prices going up? Not claiming you’re wrong, but looking for facts not memes.

RichS said:
In 1939, when World War II started, the American Left were opposed to war! They were the peace party and nothing was important enough to make the country go to war. Then Germany invaded the USSR and the American Left demanded a swift entry into the war and that it be waged as aggressively as possible, especially in Europe. Not much has changed for the anti-war left.

OH!!! So I guess the bombing of Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with us going to war?

WCinWI said:
My question is two-fold.

I’m a mixture of libertarian/neocon regarding military issues. I try to be pragmatic, with what little knowledge I have. I’m young…haha.

That said, why are we in Libya? Is it to defeat Gaddafi? If so, why isn’t the rhetoric matching up? The administration officials are all over the board with their statements. I can understand that strategy doesn’t always need to be made public, but if our goal is to stop Gaddafi, there will need to be boots on the ground. What’s the end game?

.
I wrestle with the same questions.

My take on it is that it became pretty obvious in the early days of this that the rest of the world was going to act and probably with a no fly zone. The leader of the most powerful nation in the world who is going to do the heavy lifting should have been proactive rather than reactive.

I think the non position by BHO et al that refused to even make public statements designed to encourage at least some restrain,t if not from Gadafi then at least from some of his underlings, was pitiful. A few well chosen reminders of the wrath that would come down upon them for barbarous acts may have helped engender some resistance from within his own camp. We have the evidence after the fall of the Soviet Union that Reagan’s Evil Empire rhetoric was inspirational to those suffering and resisting within the Soviet Bloc.
The delay, caused by our lack of involvement, has already IMO guaranteed more death and and a less successful outcome.

On the other hand, if BHO had taken the lead and proclaimed that this was not in our sphere of concern and that there would be no intervention from the US unless Gadafi committed an Act of War against us or an ally I could have respected that b/c I am ambivalent to a degree.

Once the decision was made by others he followed in his own footsteps with his immediate reassurance of what we WOULD NOT DO and a near TIME CERTAIN to stop even the current moves we’ve undertaken.

The major points of his speech was in effect:

The Brits, French, Arab League and UN have decided and now we will agree to act.

We will take the lead in operations for just a few days and then hand over CIC to those other folks.

Our objective is to solely to protect civilians.

We will NOT attempt any thing more.

The mission will be over in days, not weeks.

Juan Williams used the perfect word for BHO. He dithers and only acts when he can no longer avoid a decision and then caveats himself into semi paralysis.

Shakespeare said it perfectly:

“If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well
It were done quickly”

Grammie said:
The leader of the most powerful nation in the world who is going to do the heavy lifting should have been proactive rather than reactive.

Did he act right after the UN signed the resolution? What did you want him to do, rush in like cowboy Bush before the UN agreed.

Wingo said:
Smart diplomacy would have encouraged Ghadaffi to take his millions of dollars, go into exile and live out the rest of his days in peace. Instead, President Obama insisted he be brought to justice as an international criminal.

.
I must have missed that. I thought this was the extent of it other than the usual “must go” rhetoric:

“Radio Free Europe calls the UN decision “remarkable” for two reasons. First, RFE notes that both China and Russia “have thrown their full support behind” the sanctions, despite both nations having a history of being reluctant to support Security Council action against what they consider domestic affairs of sovereign states. Second, it is the first time that the US has supported a referral to the International Criminal Court, an organization of which it is not a member. Similarly, China and Russia, both non-members of the ICC, supported the referral.”

Grammie said:
First, RFE notes that both China and Russia “have thrown their full support behind” the sanctions,

And they both abstained from the vote on force. So what’s your point?

the real john t said:
OH!!! So I guess the bombing of Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with us going to war?

.
Pay attention.

Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the USSR, occurred on JUNE 21, 1941.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on………………………..DEC 7, 1941, or 5 months later.

The American left were the largest isolationist anti war voice in America up to the day the USSR was invaded. At that point they stopped on a dime and became very pro declare war on Germany right now.

Most Americans were very much against getting involved in WWII and there was much debate of which side to support if we did become involved. Many here admired Hitler and how he had turned Germany around economically. There were many prominent Americans, such as Joseph P Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh, who were actively pro German.

BTW, we declared war on Japan but it was Germany who declared war on us.

You do see the difference between political support from the American far left being based on what happened to Mother Russia rather than what happened to the US.

Grammie said:
There were many prominent Americans, such as Joseph P Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh, who were actively pro German.

Didn’t you forget to mention Prescott Bush, George W Bush’s grandfather that funded the Nazis?

the real john t said:
And they both abstained from the vote on force. So what’s your point?

.
You do need to try to understand what people are discussing if you are going to jump in with both feet and totally miss the target.

I asked Wingo about his assertion that “President Obama insisted he be brought to justice as an international criminal.”.

I used the quote to indicate my understanding of what had occurred. which was a referral for investigation to the ICC and that I didn’t remember BHO making any such strong statements. I could go further and state that BHO never makes strong statements especially not if he would be the only one doing so.

the real john t said:
Didn’t you forget to mention Prescott Bush, George W Bush’s grandfather that funded the Nazis?

.
Why should I when I know that you will for me.

I know about the allegations against Prescott Bush but I suspect that you might not be up on J P Kennedy’s history vis a vis the Nazis.

Grammie said:
I know about the allegations against Prescott Bush but I suspect that you might not be up on J P Kennedy’s history vis a vis the Nazis.

OH! So there just “allegations” but the charges against JP Kennedy is for sure a fact? Spoken like a true RWer. Here go learn some history of WWll.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1661.html

the real john t said:
there

they’re

yes….because ruling the “free world” should be convenient. Of course ultimately the neo cons gotta give props to trigger happy neo libs like hillary. There’s no “I” in team when it comes to Globalization.

Wonderful think of obama, and i am appreciating him, obama is going on right way..

http://bookmarksprintingsite.com/

Hey there, I find an amazing web,please click the web ,you can find big pleasantly surprised
╭⌒╮WELCOME http://www.fullmalls.com/

Grammie said:
.
Why should I when I know that you will for me.

I know about the allegations against Prescott Bush but I suspect that you might not be up on J P Kennedy’s history vis a vis the Nazis.

Why can’t you answer criticism without bringing up the other side? Do you prefer the concept of permanent 1 party rule to the 2 party system? Would you rather live in China? Why do you hate America?

Publius219 said:
Why can’t you answer criticism without bringing up the other side? Do you prefer the concept of permanent 1 party rule to the 2 party system? Would you rather live in China? Why do you hate America?

That wasn’t criticism. That was an inane attempt to score points by invoking the Bush talisman. Do you prefer crunchy peanut butter to creamy? Would you rather live in Zimbabwe? Why do you hate Americans?

CosmosDan said:
You’re basing that on what? How much is very little, how crucial is that amount? If that’s true, why are gas prices going up? Not claiming you’re wrong, but looking for facts not memes.

I’m basing it on the amount of oil we import from various countries around the world. It took me one minute to find it on the internet. Its an amount that is easily replacable by tapping into our own oil fields. Most of our oil imports are from Canada and Mexico.

As for gas prices going up this is mostly due to perception in the market place. Remember when President Bush announced that the USA would be drilling at home, the price of oil dropped immediately.

the real john t said:
OH!!! So I guess the bombing of Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with us going to war?

Try reading what I wrote before you comment. The event that caused the American Left to demonstrate for our entry into WWII was the attack on the USSR by the Germans. Its all laid out on numerous internet sites why not read about it between your rants.

By the way, Germany invaded the USSR on June 21, 1941. Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941.

Here is a quote from one of the sites:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0822034/bio

“Stander had a long history of supporting left-wing causes. He was an active member of the Popular Front from 1936-39, a broad grouping of left-wing organizations dedicated to fighting reactionaries at home and fascism abroad. Stander wrote of the time, “We fought on every front because we realized that the forces of reaction and Faciscm fight democracy on every front. We, too, have been forced, therefore, to organize in order to combat them on every front: politically through such organizations as the Motion Picture Democratic Committee; economically through our guilds and unions; socially, and culturally through such organizations as the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League.”

The Front disintegrated when the U.S.S.R. signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, which engendered World War II by giving the Nazis the get-go to invade Poland (with the Soviet Union invading from the East). The Communist Party-USA dropped out of the Front and from anti-Nazi activities, and during the early days of the War, before Germany invaded the U.S.S.R. in June 1941, it tried to hamper US support for the UK under the aegis of supporting “peace,” including calling strikes in defense plants. Many communists, such as Elia Kazan, dropped out of the Party after this development, but many others stayed. These were the Stalinists that the American non-communist left grew to despise, and eventually joined with the right to destroy, though much of their antipathy after 1947-48 was generated by a desire to save themselves from the tightening noose of reaction.”

Why the hell are we in Libya? America has no strategic concern there. This not about oil, so what is the objective? Has the “dumb-ass in charge”, been duped into committing the American military by France? Just how much power to kill people in foreign countries does Obimbo have under the War Powers Act? Obviously, the interloper thinks he doesn’t need Congressional approval to commit our military. Once again we see this worthless government commit troops where we shouldn’t be, and yet, fail to protect our borders from the hoards of illegal alien parasites. The hypocrisy is overwhelming!

RichS said:
I’m basing it on the amount of oil we import from various countries around the world. It took me one minute to find it on the internet. Its an amount that is easily replacable by tapping into our own oil fields. Most of our oil imports are from Canada and Mexico.

What we get from Mexico, and Saudi, are very very close and a pretty significant amount. And the ME still has by far the largest oil fields. A good reason to get away from fiossils fuels as much as we can.

RichS said:
As for gas prices going up this is mostly due to perception in the market place. Remember when President Bush announced that the USA would be drilling at home, the price of oil dropped immediately.

Speculators rather than supply and demand. Another good reason. I was just out of high school when Nixon created an oil shortage allowing Oil companies to jack up their prices.

CosmosDan said:
What we get from Mexico, and Saudi, are very very close and a pretty significant amount. And the ME still has by far the largest oil fields. A good reason to get away from fiossils fuels as much as we can. Speculators rather than supply and demand. Another good reason. I was just out of high school when Nixon created an oil shortage allowing Oil companies to jack up their prices.

Yes, a good reason to try to get away from fossil fuels but renewable energy sources are not financially attractive right now so we should be drilling at home. The amount of oil we could get at home could easily replace what we get from the ME.

Nixon created an oil shortaage? That’s news to me. I thought OPEC created an oil shortage because the USA stood by its ally, Isreal, who was brutally attacked on their highest holy day by overwhelming numbers. What would you have had the USA do in that circumstance?

0bama’s leading the free world IS an inconvenience…for me.