Barack Obama is President Elect of the United States of America.
34 thoughts on “Obama elected President”
Congrats! Now the hard part begins January 20, 2009. Is he up for it? Some issues to ponder:
(1) The economy is sick. If Pres-elect Obama does not back off his pledge to raise the capital gains tax and allow Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, tens of thousands more layoffs are inevitable, and the increased cost of doing business in this country will push more and more jobs overseas (if you think it’s bad now, just wait). Will he back off, and support a capital gains tax cut and make the Bush tax cut permanent – an action which will likely stimulate the economy and ease an otherwise severe recession (and prevent his party from losing seats, and possible control, of Congress in 2010)?
(2) Israel may deal with Iran’s nuclear weapons program while they can still get air rights over Iraq. Will Pres-elect Obama support our only true friend (and free, stable democracy) in the Middle East, as he should? If Israel does not attack Iran, Will Obama continue his naive assumption that talking to them will change their behavior? If not, then an Obama administration will have to deal with crazy mullahs with nukes.
(3) Already a declared nucelar power, Pakistan’s stability is most important. Invading Pakistan (as Obama, in an “Aaron Shock moment,” suggested about a year ago), to capture or kill Osama bin laden will likely cause this powder keg of a nation to implode, thus endangering the entire region.
(4) Iraq wants American combat forces out of their country by 2011. The surge worked. Will Pres-elect Obama admit it and listen to the military brass, and not make a hasty withdrawal to please the radical left? No one wants to have to return if the job isn’t finished the first time, especially Obama.
There are other issues, but I’ll leave it at that. Even though I did not vote for Obama, I will respect him as my president. I hope he governs with the entire nation in mind and separates himself from the radicalism of William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
All I know is that I am unspeakably happy! Also, I know that God is still in control–and would have been no matter who became President in this election.
A black man has been elected by a majority of voters in the United States! This is a night to feel good and to appreciate the progress that has been made in the U.S.. It is NOT a night to get self-satisfied or for those of us who voted for Senator Obama to get complacent. We must move forward with a skeptical eye. This is the best way to approach issues of governance.
One issue near and dear to my heart: President-elect Obama, please re-evaluate the U.S. drug war. It is not accomplishing its supposed goals. It is doing more harm than good, especially in poor communities of color. It is doing great damage to the relationship between citizens and the police. Get the feds out of this issue so the states can formulate their own drug policies.
I am breathing a big sigh of relief tonight! God Bless America.
Make Dubya walk back to Texas!
I find it frightening that the “deep south” (which still favors candidates like David Duke) were able to delver 100 electoral votes to a Presidential candidate. What does that say about the Republican party base?
Good luck getting a national newspaper this morning… Trib, NYT, WSJ etc…
oh kc, I think we all know what it says!!!
David P. Jordan,
The 3rd rate college that presented you with your degree in political science wants it back!
New Voice,
Resorting to insults rather than challenging my points? The next four years should be fun.
*points up* Agreed. Anyone who sees the “Left” in this country as radical needs a reality check.
Yea, David, because the last 8 years have been great.
Message to David P Jordan. President Bush has already started invading Pakistan going after bin Laden. Right after President-Elect Obama said that in his “Schock moment” he was ridiculed by those on the right, then they did exactly the same thing.
David,
Insults? Please.
The ‘points’ you are making sound ridiculously familiar. John McCain LOST the election. No need to continue on with Republican Party dribble.
“The surge worked?” You know this because……….?
I do not have time to go into an indepth analysis of the economy. If you believe that Bush and his ‘economic stimulus’ package were well on the way to reviving the U.S. economy, I would love to know just HOW LONG we as a nation were going to have to wait to see an economic upswing.
“If Pres-elect Obama does not back off his pledge to raise the capital gains tax and allow Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, tens of thousands more layoffs are inevitable, and the increased cost of doing business in this country will push more and more jobs overseas (if you think it’s bad now, just wait).”
David, here is my question to all you gloom and doomers fixating on the capital gains tax: don’t you think that the Obama people are smart enough to figure out if you are correct. If this election has proved anything its that the electorate only cares about one thing, and it isn’t Iraq, torture, abortion, race, its the economy. If Obama increases capital gains taxes a few percents and raises the top tax rate from 35.5% to 39%, it will be because they are sure that you and your type are wrong. What kind of self-diluded moron would intentionally wreck the economy and then expect to get re-elected. The only presidents that can intentionally wreck the national economy to prove some ideological point are the ones in their second term
Josh wrote: Yea, David, because the last 8 years have been great.
No terror attacks on US soil since 9-11
GDP grew from 10 trillion to 14 trillion
Caterpillar increased its local workforce from 14,000 to 19,000.
Yeah, they weren’t so great were they. And things would have been far better if Bush hadn’t given into the Dems on so many things. The solution to Republicans acting like Democrats isn’t to elect Democrats.
Another well thought out response by Mr. Jordan. Hats off to David!
Ben wrote: President Bush has already started invading Pakistan going after bin Laden. Right after President-Elect Obama said that in his “Schock moment” he was ridiculed by those on the right, then they did exactly the same thing.
The difference: Obama made his remark to the media, while limited US incursions (not an invasion) into Pakistan (and only the areas not controlled by Islamabad, mind you) were known only after the fact.
New Voice wrote:
“The surge worked?” You know this because……….?
Because Iraq went to the backburner as an election issue and US casualties are far lower now than in 2007.
I do not have time to go into an indepth analysis of the economy. If you believe that Bush and his ’economic stimulus’ package were well on the way to reviving the U.S. economy, I would love to know just HOW LONG we as a nation were going to have to wait to see an economic upswing.
I have mixed feelings about the economic stimulus package from earlier this year (if that’s what you are referring). I understand that we borrowed the money from China to send out stimulus checks. But until the recent mortgage crisis, it seems to have eased or prevented a recession.
The $700 Billion bailout was a terrible idea, but what can you do when both parties support it?
dd wrote: David, here is my question to all you gloom and doomers fixating on the capital gains tax: don’t you think that the Obama people are smart enough to figure out if you are correct.
No, I do not. The capital gains tax is a cost of doing business. If you increase it, you increase the cost of doing business, which threatens – depending on the industry – to make products manufactured here noncompetitive with those made overseas.
If this election has proved anything its that the electorate only cares about one thing, and it isn’t Iraq, torture, abortion, race, its the economy.
That’s why in my initial comment I listed the economy as the number one issue facing Obama.
If Obama increases capital gains taxes a few percents and raises the top tax rate from 35.5% to 39%, it will be because they are sure that you and your type are wrong.
When you raise taxes during a recession, you risk wrath from unemployed voters the next election. If Obama wants to risk it, then so be it.
What kind of self-diluded moron would intentionally wreck the economy and then expect to get re-elected. The only presidents that can intentionally wreck the national economy to prove some
ideological point are the ones in their second term
Wrong. One-term Bush 41 learned the hard way when he foolishly made a deal with the Dem-controlled Congress in 1990 to raise the top tax rate from 25% to 31% even though the economy had slipped into recession. Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase put it up to 39.6%. You’ll recall the term “corporate downsizing.” It lasted into the mid-1990’s for a reason. Clinton was saved from defeat in 1996 by a robust economy (NAFTA was essentially a corporate tax cut when it came into affect on 1-1-94), his ability to demonize the GOP-controlled congress, and the GOP nominating Bob Dole as its presidential candidate.
I never said Obama and his advisors would intentionally wreck the economy. But we have a history of inept politicians agreeing to policies which do so – Hoover and FDR administrations increased the top tax rate from 25% to 79% between 1932 and 1936 (a reason the Great Depression lasted so long), Nixon and his 1971 price controls, Jimmy Carter and his 1977 Social Security tax increase, price controls and higher taxes on oil companies, and the aforementioned Bush 41 (and the Dem Congress) tax increase.
“…Because Iraq went to the backburner as an election issue and US casualties are far lower now than in 2007.”
This is the proof you offer to support YOUR claim that the surge worked? Amazing. Would it also be safe to say that Afghanistan “went to the backburner?” That MUST mean we have captured Bin Laden!!!!!!!
Your economics seems sound to a degree – so long as you don’t fudge the data… Your military assessments……leave that to someone who knows what they are talking about. Like me!
P.S. Will discuss 9-11 – No terror attacks on U.S. sovereign soil…, etc.
PrecinctMan,
“Another well thought out response by Mr. Jordan. Hats off to David!”
– Wish we could say the same for you.
New Voice wrote: This is the proof you offer to support YOUR claim that the surge worked? Amazing. Would it also be safe to say that Afghanistan “went to the backburner?” That MUST mean we have captured Bin Laden!!!!!!!
You have a short memory don’t you? Regarding Afghanistan, it had become the “Forgotten War” (with apologies to Korean War veterans) until Iraq more or less stabilized following the success of the surge. When it was clear the Iraq War was no longer going as poorly as in 2006, the mainstream press needed another war to suggest was going badly. But it didn’t work, and the economy subsequently superceded any overseas military operations as the primary issue.
Your military assessments……leave that to someone who knows what they are talking about. Like me!
You and General David Petraeus. Oh, wait…
I hate to sound like Michael Moore, but Afghanistan is why we went to war… that is where the Taliban and Osama were… that was the origin of the 9/11 attacks… the reason it is still on the back burner is because Junior got distracted . He had to finish Daddy’s war first to save his Daddy’s reputation… (and of course all the investments of his Daddy’s friends)
Doesn’t it just make you a little curious how a little act of going after some terrorists could turn into the longest war in our country’s history? (I know you can point to Vietnam, but as of 1969, the war was being wound down and soldiers were being sent home… for all historical purposes the US stopped fighting a ground war in Vietnam in 1969.) Of course, this current “war” is long from over…
The defense budget for next year? 900 Billion.
David,
You indicated that the Iraq War “went to the backburner as an election issue and US casualties are far lower now than in 2007.” Proof you offered that the ‘surge’ worked.
I have posted several times in the past concerning the ‘war’ in Iraq. I ‘justified’ the war on two grounds: containment and homeland security. You mentioned the lack of successful terror attacks against U.S. since 9/11. I have argued this point since the ‘wars’ began. Since 1964 [further back if you wish], a major terror attack had been conducted against U.S. sovereign territory nearly every year [domestic, embassy, military bases, bombings, highjackings, kidnappings, etc]….. How many [successful] since 9/11? ZERO. Perhaps we agree on this point……?
Did the ‘surge’ work? Politicians and even military men will say yes and no. That is to be expected. The ‘surge’ was not nearly as decisive as the planners had hoped. It did, however effect a number of positive results [of which you listed a few]. Based on this many political/military leaders claimed ‘VICTORY!’
I agree with Obama’s plan of implementing a slow withdrawal from Iraq, and a greater focus on Afghan. If and how this happens remains to be seen.
kcdad wrote: I hate to sound like Michael Moore,
No you don’t.
…but Afghanistan is why we went to war… that is where the Taliban and Osama were… that was the origin of the 9/11 attacks…
Correct.
the reason it is still on the back burner is because Junior got distracted . He had to finish Daddy’s war first to save his Daddy’s reputation… (and of course all the investments of his Daddy’s friends)
Evidence?
Newspapers, the Federal Defense budget, 5000 dead American soldiers… what kind of evidence were you looking for?
kcdad wrote: Newspapers, the Federal Defense budget, 5000 dead American soldiers… what kind of evidence were you looking for?
You get an “F.” I asked you to offer evidence that GWB went to war against Saddam Hussein to finish what his father did not. Your assertion is typical looney-left conspiracy theory, support for which can only be found in DailyKos, Democratic Underground, The Huffington Post and other famously fair and balanced media 🙂
Check this out: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/ This February 18, 1998 town meeting has been forgotten. Rhetoric from Secy Cohen, Albright and NSA Berger in 1998 could be interchangeable with Rumsfield, Powell and Rice in 2002.
The fact of the matter is, if Bush refused to do anything about Saddam Hussein, his critics would have accused him of failing to deal with all terror threats.
Its a moot point for anyone to argue on way or another now. We’re in Iraq now, we’d damn well better finish the job so we don’t have to do it again and the same goes for Afghanistan. Its really pointless to argue about it unless you are promoting a completely reckless and irresponsible strategy like immediately pulling everyone out of there.
So why did GW invade Iraq? Because of UN inspectors? No. Because of WMDs? No. Because of terrorists? No. Because of the attack on the WTC and Pentagon? No. Because of the genocide of Iraqis by Hussein? No.
Hmmmmmm…. what other possible (oil) reason could GW have (oil) had to invade this country that his father (oil) had invaded but not finished a decade (oil) before? Why was it that GHW had invaded Iraq? Was it that Hussein had invaded Kuwait over… dare I say it????? OIl?
Because of WMDs?
I hate this statement. What denotes a WMD? A vehicle in the hands of a drunk driver can become a weapon of mass destruction, just as several planes did on one fateful day in American history. An idiot with bombs attached to him can become a weapon of mass destruction, just as a training camp for idiots to learn how to become suicide bombers. Mr. Bush did what he had to and let us hope that Mr. Obama will continue to protect us. Yes he is the first half white, half black American president. Now, for it to really mean something, he needs to make the next four years as productive as so many think he can. Otherwise his being of black heritage means very little. I don’t care if he’s purple with pink polkadots. I care only, if he can get the job done.M
N.B.C. Warfare
Nuclear
Biological and
Chemical weapons.
That is what the military means when they use that stupid euphemism.
(Love how you put that “half white” in there. Sure sounds about 50% better, doesn’t it?)
“stupid euphenism”, Really? Has the discourse degraded so much that we are resorting to attacking terms now? kcdad, since you’re an expert on the topic you left out the fact that conventional high explosives are also included in the category of WMD. The term does not require the weapon to be NBC in nature. It is used to denote the impact the weapon would have on the people and location it is employed.
Its a moot point for anyone to argue on way or another now. We’re in Iraq now, we’d damn well better finish the job so we don’t have to do it again and the same goes for Afghanistan. Its really pointless to argue about it unless you are promoting a completely reckless and irresponsible strategy like immediately pulling everyone out of there.
You’re quite right, 11Bravo … and Obama will not recklessly pull out of Iraq.
However, the original sin of the Iraq invasion IS an issue that should not be swept under the carpet. That’s why GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo and many others need to be indicted for war crimes and punished for their attempt to establish an imperial presidency and destroy the Constitution they swore to uphold.
However, given the state of our economy and other more pressing issues, that will have to wait. We’ll have to be satisfied with unraveling all the damage the Bush administration has done to our republic over the last 8 years of monstrous idiocy. We wouldn’t want to waste taxpayers time & money and fiddle with high-profile prosecutions while Rome burns. That sounds like something Republicans would do!
Actually the news media may include them, but the military doesn’t.
And yes, actually I am (or was) an expert in that area. I taught NBC defense and tactics in the US military in the 1980s…
When high explosive devices are included in the definition, EVERYTHING is included. (except knives and baseball bats)
An airplane is not a WMD… even if it is flown into the WTC.
Congrats! Now the hard part begins January 20, 2009. Is he up for it? Some issues to ponder:
(1) The economy is sick. If Pres-elect Obama does not back off his pledge to raise the capital gains tax and allow Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, tens of thousands more layoffs are inevitable, and the increased cost of doing business in this country will push more and more jobs overseas (if you think it’s bad now, just wait). Will he back off, and support a capital gains tax cut and make the Bush tax cut permanent – an action which will likely stimulate the economy and ease an otherwise severe recession (and prevent his party from losing seats, and possible control, of Congress in 2010)?
(2) Israel may deal with Iran’s nuclear weapons program while they can still get air rights over Iraq. Will Pres-elect Obama support our only true friend (and free, stable democracy) in the Middle East, as he should? If Israel does not attack Iran, Will Obama continue his naive assumption that talking to them will change their behavior? If not, then an Obama administration will have to deal with crazy mullahs with nukes.
(3) Already a declared nucelar power, Pakistan’s stability is most important. Invading Pakistan (as Obama, in an “Aaron Shock moment,” suggested about a year ago), to capture or kill Osama bin laden will likely cause this powder keg of a nation to implode, thus endangering the entire region.
(4) Iraq wants American combat forces out of their country by 2011. The surge worked. Will Pres-elect Obama admit it and listen to the military brass, and not make a hasty withdrawal to please the radical left? No one wants to have to return if the job isn’t finished the first time, especially Obama.
There are other issues, but I’ll leave it at that. Even though I did not vote for Obama, I will respect him as my president. I hope he governs with the entire nation in mind and separates himself from the radicalism of William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
All I know is that I am unspeakably happy! Also, I know that God is still in control–and would have been no matter who became President in this election.
A black man has been elected by a majority of voters in the United States! This is a night to feel good and to appreciate the progress that has been made in the U.S.. It is NOT a night to get self-satisfied or for those of us who voted for Senator Obama to get complacent. We must move forward with a skeptical eye. This is the best way to approach issues of governance.
One issue near and dear to my heart: President-elect Obama, please re-evaluate the U.S. drug war. It is not accomplishing its supposed goals. It is doing more harm than good, especially in poor communities of color. It is doing great damage to the relationship between citizens and the police. Get the feds out of this issue so the states can formulate their own drug policies.
I am breathing a big sigh of relief tonight! God Bless America.
Make Dubya walk back to Texas!
I find it frightening that the “deep south” (which still favors candidates like David Duke) were able to delver 100 electoral votes to a Presidential candidate. What does that say about the Republican party base?
Good luck getting a national newspaper this morning… Trib, NYT, WSJ etc…
oh kc, I think we all know what it says!!!
David P. Jordan,
The 3rd rate college that presented you with your degree in political science wants it back!
New Voice,
Resorting to insults rather than challenging my points? The next four years should be fun.
*points up* Agreed. Anyone who sees the “Left” in this country as radical needs a reality check.
Yea, David, because the last 8 years have been great.
Message to David P Jordan. President Bush has already started invading Pakistan going after bin Laden. Right after President-Elect Obama said that in his “Schock moment” he was ridiculed by those on the right, then they did exactly the same thing.
David,
Insults? Please.
The ‘points’ you are making sound ridiculously familiar. John McCain LOST the election. No need to continue on with Republican Party dribble.
“The surge worked?” You know this because……….?
I do not have time to go into an indepth analysis of the economy. If you believe that Bush and his ‘economic stimulus’ package were well on the way to reviving the U.S. economy, I would love to know just HOW LONG we as a nation were going to have to wait to see an economic upswing.
“If Pres-elect Obama does not back off his pledge to raise the capital gains tax and allow Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, tens of thousands more layoffs are inevitable, and the increased cost of doing business in this country will push more and more jobs overseas (if you think it’s bad now, just wait).”
David, here is my question to all you gloom and doomers fixating on the capital gains tax: don’t you think that the Obama people are smart enough to figure out if you are correct. If this election has proved anything its that the electorate only cares about one thing, and it isn’t Iraq, torture, abortion, race, its the economy. If Obama increases capital gains taxes a few percents and raises the top tax rate from 35.5% to 39%, it will be because they are sure that you and your type are wrong. What kind of self-diluded moron would intentionally wreck the economy and then expect to get re-elected. The only presidents that can intentionally wreck the national economy to prove some ideological point are the ones in their second term
Josh wrote: Yea, David, because the last 8 years have been great.
No terror attacks on US soil since 9-11
GDP grew from 10 trillion to 14 trillion
Caterpillar increased its local workforce from 14,000 to 19,000.
Yeah, they weren’t so great were they. And things would have been far better if Bush hadn’t given into the Dems on so many things. The solution to Republicans acting like Democrats isn’t to elect Democrats.
Another well thought out response by Mr. Jordan. Hats off to David!
Ben wrote: President Bush has already started invading Pakistan going after bin Laden. Right after President-Elect Obama said that in his “Schock moment” he was ridiculed by those on the right, then they did exactly the same thing.
The difference: Obama made his remark to the media, while limited US incursions (not an invasion) into Pakistan (and only the areas not controlled by Islamabad, mind you) were known only after the fact.
New Voice wrote:
“The surge worked?” You know this because……….?
Because Iraq went to the backburner as an election issue and US casualties are far lower now than in 2007.
I do not have time to go into an indepth analysis of the economy. If you believe that Bush and his ’economic stimulus’ package were well on the way to reviving the U.S. economy, I would love to know just HOW LONG we as a nation were going to have to wait to see an economic upswing.
I have mixed feelings about the economic stimulus package from earlier this year (if that’s what you are referring). I understand that we borrowed the money from China to send out stimulus checks. But until the recent mortgage crisis, it seems to have eased or prevented a recession.
The $700 Billion bailout was a terrible idea, but what can you do when both parties support it?
dd wrote: David, here is my question to all you gloom and doomers fixating on the capital gains tax: don’t you think that the Obama people are smart enough to figure out if you are correct.
No, I do not. The capital gains tax is a cost of doing business. If you increase it, you increase the cost of doing business, which threatens – depending on the industry – to make products manufactured here noncompetitive with those made overseas.
If this election has proved anything its that the electorate only cares about one thing, and it isn’t Iraq, torture, abortion, race, its the economy.
That’s why in my initial comment I listed the economy as the number one issue facing Obama.
If Obama increases capital gains taxes a few percents and raises the top tax rate from 35.5% to 39%, it will be because they are sure that you and your type are wrong.
When you raise taxes during a recession, you risk wrath from unemployed voters the next election. If Obama wants to risk it, then so be it.
What kind of self-diluded moron would intentionally wreck the economy and then expect to get re-elected. The only presidents that can intentionally wreck the national economy to prove some
ideological point are the ones in their second term
Wrong. One-term Bush 41 learned the hard way when he foolishly made a deal with the Dem-controlled Congress in 1990 to raise the top tax rate from 25% to 31% even though the economy had slipped into recession. Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase put it up to 39.6%. You’ll recall the term “corporate downsizing.” It lasted into the mid-1990’s for a reason. Clinton was saved from defeat in 1996 by a robust economy (NAFTA was essentially a corporate tax cut when it came into affect on 1-1-94), his ability to demonize the GOP-controlled congress, and the GOP nominating Bob Dole as its presidential candidate.
I never said Obama and his advisors would intentionally wreck the economy. But we have a history of inept politicians agreeing to policies which do so – Hoover and FDR administrations increased the top tax rate from 25% to 79% between 1932 and 1936 (a reason the Great Depression lasted so long), Nixon and his 1971 price controls, Jimmy Carter and his 1977 Social Security tax increase, price controls and higher taxes on oil companies, and the aforementioned Bush 41 (and the Dem Congress) tax increase.
David,
Your ability to pick-and-choose your stats is truly amazing! How about explaining the overall economic picture of the U.S. to your enthralled reading audience.?.?
U.S. Exports Historical Data
U.S. Imports Historical Data
Net Exports (Trade Deficit) Historical Data
U.S. Imports Forecast
U.S. Index of Industrial Production Forecast
U.S. GDP Extended Forecast by subscription
Prime Interest Rate Forecast
Bureau of Economic Analysis Website
“…Because Iraq went to the backburner as an election issue and US casualties are far lower now than in 2007.”
This is the proof you offer to support YOUR claim that the surge worked? Amazing. Would it also be safe to say that Afghanistan “went to the backburner?” That MUST mean we have captured Bin Laden!!!!!!!
Your economics seems sound to a degree – so long as you don’t fudge the data… Your military assessments……leave that to someone who knows what they are talking about. Like me!
P.S. Will discuss 9-11 – No terror attacks on U.S. sovereign soil…, etc.
PrecinctMan,
“Another well thought out response by Mr. Jordan. Hats off to David!”
– Wish we could say the same for you.
New Voice wrote: This is the proof you offer to support YOUR claim that the surge worked? Amazing. Would it also be safe to say that Afghanistan “went to the backburner?” That MUST mean we have captured Bin Laden!!!!!!!
You have a short memory don’t you? Regarding Afghanistan, it had become the “Forgotten War” (with apologies to Korean War veterans) until Iraq more or less stabilized following the success of the surge. When it was clear the Iraq War was no longer going as poorly as in 2006, the mainstream press needed another war to suggest was going badly. But it didn’t work, and the economy subsequently superceded any overseas military operations as the primary issue.
Your military assessments……leave that to someone who knows what they are talking about. Like me!
You and General David Petraeus. Oh, wait…
I hate to sound like Michael Moore, but Afghanistan is why we went to war… that is where the Taliban and Osama were… that was the origin of the 9/11 attacks… the reason it is still on the back burner is because Junior got distracted . He had to finish Daddy’s war first to save his Daddy’s reputation… (and of course all the investments of his Daddy’s friends)
Doesn’t it just make you a little curious how a little act of going after some terrorists could turn into the longest war in our country’s history? (I know you can point to Vietnam, but as of 1969, the war was being wound down and soldiers were being sent home… for all historical purposes the US stopped fighting a ground war in Vietnam in 1969.) Of course, this current “war” is long from over…
The defense budget for next year? 900 Billion.
David,
You indicated that the Iraq War “went to the backburner as an election issue and US casualties are far lower now than in 2007.” Proof you offered that the ‘surge’ worked.
I have posted several times in the past concerning the ‘war’ in Iraq. I ‘justified’ the war on two grounds: containment and homeland security. You mentioned the lack of successful terror attacks against U.S. since 9/11. I have argued this point since the ‘wars’ began. Since 1964 [further back if you wish], a major terror attack had been conducted against U.S. sovereign territory nearly every year [domestic, embassy, military bases, bombings, highjackings, kidnappings, etc]….. How many [successful] since 9/11? ZERO. Perhaps we agree on this point……?
Did the ‘surge’ work? Politicians and even military men will say yes and no. That is to be expected. The ‘surge’ was not nearly as decisive as the planners had hoped. It did, however effect a number of positive results [of which you listed a few]. Based on this many political/military leaders claimed ‘VICTORY!’
I agree with Obama’s plan of implementing a slow withdrawal from Iraq, and a greater focus on Afghan. If and how this happens remains to be seen.
kcdad wrote: I hate to sound like Michael Moore,
No you don’t.
…but Afghanistan is why we went to war… that is where the Taliban and Osama were… that was the origin of the 9/11 attacks…
Correct.
the reason it is still on the back burner is because Junior got distracted . He had to finish Daddy’s war first to save his Daddy’s reputation… (and of course all the investments of his Daddy’s friends)
Evidence?
Newspapers, the Federal Defense budget, 5000 dead American soldiers… what kind of evidence were you looking for?
kcdad wrote: Newspapers, the Federal Defense budget, 5000 dead American soldiers… what kind of evidence were you looking for?
You get an “F.” I asked you to offer evidence that GWB went to war against Saddam Hussein to finish what his father did not. Your assertion is typical looney-left conspiracy theory, support for which can only be found in DailyKos, Democratic Underground, The Huffington Post and other famously fair and balanced media 🙂
Check this out: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/ This February 18, 1998 town meeting has been forgotten. Rhetoric from Secy Cohen, Albright and NSA Berger in 1998 could be interchangeable with Rumsfield, Powell and Rice in 2002.
The fact of the matter is, if Bush refused to do anything about Saddam Hussein, his critics would have accused him of failing to deal with all terror threats.
Its a moot point for anyone to argue on way or another now. We’re in Iraq now, we’d damn well better finish the job so we don’t have to do it again and the same goes for Afghanistan. Its really pointless to argue about it unless you are promoting a completely reckless and irresponsible strategy like immediately pulling everyone out of there.
So why did GW invade Iraq? Because of UN inspectors? No. Because of WMDs? No. Because of terrorists? No. Because of the attack on the WTC and Pentagon? No. Because of the genocide of Iraqis by Hussein? No.
Hmmmmmm…. what other possible (oil) reason could GW have (oil) had to invade this country that his father (oil) had invaded but not finished a decade (oil) before? Why was it that GHW had invaded Iraq? Was it that Hussein had invaded Kuwait over… dare I say it????? OIl?
Because of WMDs?
I hate this statement. What denotes a WMD? A vehicle in the hands of a drunk driver can become a weapon of mass destruction, just as several planes did on one fateful day in American history. An idiot with bombs attached to him can become a weapon of mass destruction, just as a training camp for idiots to learn how to become suicide bombers. Mr. Bush did what he had to and let us hope that Mr. Obama will continue to protect us. Yes he is the first half white, half black American president. Now, for it to really mean something, he needs to make the next four years as productive as so many think he can. Otherwise his being of black heritage means very little. I don’t care if he’s purple with pink polkadots. I care only, if he can get the job done.M
N.B.C. Warfare
Nuclear
Biological and
Chemical weapons.
That is what the military means when they use that stupid euphemism.
(Love how you put that “half white” in there. Sure sounds about 50% better, doesn’t it?)
“stupid euphenism”, Really? Has the discourse degraded so much that we are resorting to attacking terms now? kcdad, since you’re an expert on the topic you left out the fact that conventional high explosives are also included in the category of WMD. The term does not require the weapon to be NBC in nature. It is used to denote the impact the weapon would have on the people and location it is employed.
You’re quite right, 11Bravo … and Obama will not recklessly pull out of Iraq.
However, the original sin of the Iraq invasion IS an issue that should not be swept under the carpet. That’s why GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo and many others need to be indicted for war crimes and punished for their attempt to establish an imperial presidency and destroy the Constitution they swore to uphold.
However, given the state of our economy and other more pressing issues, that will have to wait. We’ll have to be satisfied with unraveling all the damage the Bush administration has done to our republic over the last 8 years of monstrous idiocy. We wouldn’t want to waste taxpayers time & money and fiddle with high-profile prosecutions while Rome burns. That sounds like something Republicans would do!
Actually the news media may include them, but the military doesn’t.
And yes, actually I am (or was) an expert in that area. I taught NBC defense and tactics in the US military in the 1980s…
When high explosive devices are included in the definition, EVERYTHING is included. (except knives and baseball bats)
An airplane is not a WMD… even if it is flown into the WTC.