Can someone Please tell Obama...

[Full Quiver]

WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush said the biggest regret of his presidency was flawed intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and told ABC "World News" in an interview airing on Monday that he was unprepared for war when he took office.

[Tim Elston]

We presume the guilt of men whom we don't classify as either prisoners of war or domestic or international criminals, and we hold them apart from any legal jurisdiction to prevent anyone from defending their innocense. Isn't it pathetic how nationalism deranges the minds of otherwise good people?

Okay.

You are right. America is a horrible, unfair, imperialistic, baby-killing, war-mongering country that doesn't deserve to take up space on the planet. We should demand that the POTUS-ANOINTED hand over the keys to the country to some really honorable, deserving nation and go out of business.

Oh, WRETCHED disgusting people are we.

Gary, get a grip on your self-righteous nationalism. Your political correctness doesn't allow criticism of American war policy, does it? The gate keepers of rightist political correctness throw a tantrum when someone dares to challenge their holy cows. The melodrama is not warranted. You cast a valid criticism of a specific policy or set of policies as an utter condemnation of America. That's patently unfair and as passive aggressive as any leftist derailment of discourse I've seen.

[Pastor Gary]

We presume the guilt of men whom we don't classify as either prisoners of war or domestic or international criminals, and we hold them apart from any legal jurisdiction to prevent anyone from defending their innocense. Isn't it pathetic how nationalism deranges the minds of otherwise good people?

Okay.

You are right. America is a horrible, unfair, imperialistic, baby-killing, war-mongering country that doesn't deserve to take up space on the planet. We should demand that the POTUS-ANOINTED hand over the keys to the country to some really honorable, deserving nation and go out of business.

Oh, WRETCHED disgusting people are we.

Gary, get a grip on your self-righteous nationalism. Your political correctness doesn't allow criticism of American war policy, does it? The gate keepers of rightist political correctness throw a tantrum when someone dares to challenge their holy cows. The melodrama is not warranted. You cast a valid criticism of a specific policy or set of policies as an utter condemnation of America. That's patently unfair and as passive aggressive as any leftist derailment of discourse I've seen.

If I disagree with your assessment, I am a blind right-wing nationalist; if I agree with your assessment, I am unfair and passive aggressive. A guy can't win with you in political discussions, can he?

America has plenty of warts -- more than our share, but we are still my favorite country, and I am not sure I'd be happy living in any other.

War is a horror... even a "good" war is unbelievably bad. Babies die. Women die. Young idealistic soldiers die. Husbands, fathers, mothers and daughters die. Innocent people who were just born in the wrong place at the wrong time die. Are there evils worse than war? Apparently so.

[Mike Vande]

The chances are better than not that it will look something like that. Many conservatives will be at the ready hypocritically to blame Obama for everything, after they weren't willing to blame Bush for anything.

What the conservatives say about the President won't be a patch on what the liberals say when he stops being a social and media darling.

I expect Obama's presidency to bog down. The difference between me and some is that I was willing to criticize Bush for his gross violations of American values while partisan Republicans weren't.

When Obama has his "Et tu, Brute?" moment, will you one of those with a bloody knife in hand, I wonder? At least then you can feel good about yourself as compared with "some", Tim, as you obviously do now. That's the important part, how you feel, right?

...and if Bush had gone after Bin Laden instead of Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11, we wouldn't have gotten another 3000+ Americans killed and provided a terrorist training ground for Bin Laden in Iraq at our expense.

The intel we, and everybody else in the world, had at the time made what President Bush did the only responsible thing he could have done. And he DID go after Bin Laden, is still after him, actually. But he had a head start, that thanks to his liberal predecessor...

[jinjer]

My problem with it Tim, is your opinion of President Bush was uncalled for in this thread. It was a thread only about the arrogance of a President Elect to declare an "office," and to use it continuously since the election to self-impose power. If you wanted to make those remarks start your own thread with the appropriate title. It gets very old when anyone hijacks a thread to state their opinion when none was necessary. That includes the thread about a song a songwriter wrote to express his thanks to the President. If you have different opinion, write your own song and spread it over the country.

Just my opinion about my own thread, but I'm a conservative, so it's not a correct opinion!!

Jinjer

[Who new]

Jinger. Can you actually name something that Obama does that makes him arrogant or is that just your subjective interpretation? I don't see arrogance at all. Having followed his philosophical perspective over this election cycle, I've seen the most competent, in command of the issues and passionately committed, level headed reasoning imaginable. It would seem that hundreds of thousands of my fellows agree with me too. I would be more persuaded of your perspective if you supported it with fact rather than your gut.

[jinjer]

Jinger. Can you actually name something that Obama does that makes him arrogant

I don't recall saying anything about my gut feeling. I did name something, that's what this whole thread is about. The arrogance of the incoming president to name an "office" that doesn't exist to self-impose some power. His power comes on January 20th.

Jinjer

[Paully_44]

I thought in previous elections, that the elected presidents were referred to as "The President Elect".

Same with Govenor, "the govenor elect"

[pastorables]

Jinger. Can you actually name something that Obama does that makes him arrogant or is that just your subjective interpretation? I don't see arrogance at all.

Not Jinjer, but I seem to recall a quote concerning a specific answer being "above my pay grade"? How much more arrogant do you want?

Having followed his philosophical perspective over this election cycle, I've seen the most competent, in command of the issues and passionately committed, level headed reasoning imaginable. It would seem that hundreds of thousands of my fellows agree with me too...

I vote this to be quote of the year on Jude2. The other hundreds of thousands of our fellows do not drink "socialist" kool-aid.

[Tim Elston]

If I disagree with your assessment, I am a blind right-wing nationalist; if I agree with your assessment, I am unfair and passive aggressive. A guy can't win with you in political discussions, can he?

I'll have to watch myself on that. I don't see it; but I'm willing to watch for it. I doubt that I see my faults as easily as others do. But do you see what I was saying? I criticized torture, indefinite detention of men who have no legal recourse or status, and the fabrication of evidence to justify war. I would think that you would agree that those are bad things, even evil things. My criticism of those things in no way warrants a reactionary implication that I categorically condemn America. That is a visceral response you have to the criticism of American wars. I'll never empathize with that visceral response, not because I categorically condemn America, but because I take issue with the specific policies and actions in question.

Let me ask you, Gary: Did you ever have that same visceral reaction to criticism of Clinton when he used military force? Remember when people were alleging that he used force to distract from the Lewinsky scandal? Did you ever cop a "yeah, America is scum" reaction to criticism of those actions? I don't need to know the answer, but I think you need to ponder the question.

America has plenty of warts -- more than our share, but we are still my favorite country, and I am not sure I'd be happy living in any other.

I love America, and I feel it my duty as an American to hold my leaders accountable for their crimes and misdemeanors. I see no conflict of interest in that; indeed, quite the contrary. I'll admit to having no empathy at all with the notion that American presidents should not be roundly criticized as the Commander in Chief when they fail that most sacred civil trust.

War is a horror... even a "good" war is unbelievably bad. Babies die. Women die. Young idealistic soldiers die. Husbands, fathers, mothers and daughters die. Innocent people who were just born in the wrong place at the wrong time die. Are there evils worse than war? Apparently so.

That's why we should consider it our duty to censure misjudgment, at best, and condemn misconduct, at worst, with regard to the President's conduct as Commander in Chief. The very fact that President Bush admits that there were no WMDs should, at the very least, merit sharp reprimand of his decision to take the gambit he did, under the circumstances of intense domestic and international pressure not to do it. In addition, the conduct of Dick Cheney, in ordering the CIA to write a fraudulent intelligence report of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, warrants my and your demand for impeachment. Instead, for reasons with which I will never empathize, partisan loyalists bristle at the accusation itself as though it were a condemnation of America. No, Sir, it is for the love of America that its failed and immoral leaders should be held to account for their conduct.

[Tim Elston]

When Obama has his "Et tu, Brute?" moment, will you one of those with a bloody knife in hand, I wonder?

If and when Obama fabricates evidence to justify strategic war or detains men without charge indefinitely outside the reach of military, domestic, or international law, my fangs will come out against him. In the mean time, my fingernails are already drawn and ready for his Wall Street favoritism, his abortion advocacy, and his economic protectionism. But since I hang out in more than one politically oriented context, I know about myself that I tend to be contrarian relative to the context. In a radically liberal environment, I tend to counter extreme invective against conservatives; in a radically conservative environment, I tend to counter extreme invective against liberals. It has a lot to do with how the audience is postured, and I enjoy the adrenalin rush of being ointment on the flies.

...and if Bush had gone after Bin Laden instead of Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11, we wouldn't have gotten another 3000+ Americans killed and provided a terrorist training ground for Bin Laden in Iraq at our expense.

The intel we, and everybody else in the world, had at the time made what President Bush did the only responsible thing he could have done.

Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States, even if he had possessed WMD. The notion that he did was the result of a promotional campaign led by the White House. Most of us fell for it, including you, me, Congress, and the UN. It's amazing what a fear campaign can accomplish. But we had Saddam entirely contained, and al-Qaeda was the timely target of our strategic military force. President Bush made a grand strategic blunder. His judgment failed miserably.

And he DID go after Bin Laden, is still after him, actually. But he had a head start, that thanks to his liberal predecessor...

Oh, his predecessor Reagan. (How dare you disrespect a President!) Iraq was a disasterous distraction, intelligence-wise, monetarily, and militarily, from pursuing Bin Laden.

[Mike Vande]

...I know about myself that I tend to be contrarian relative to the context. In a radically liberal environment, I tend to counter extreme invective against conservatives; in a radically conservative environment, I tend to counter extreme invective against liberals. It has a lot to do with how the audience is postured, and I enjoy the adrenalin rush of being ointment on the flies.

Like I said, it's how you feel that the important part, right?

Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States, even if he had possessed WMD. The notion that he did was the result of a promotional campaign led by the White House. Most of us fell for it, including you, me, Congress, and the UN. It's amazing what a fear campaign can accomplish. But we had Saddam entirely contained, and al-Qaeda was the timely target of our strategic military force. President Bush made a grand strategic blunder. His judgment failed miserably.

Yeah, Tim, you were the only one who was there when it happened, and have the only valid viewpoint on that, and/or anything. As usual...

Oh, his predecessor Reagan.

No, Tim, his Liberal predecessor. Here's a hint; he was the president right before George W Bush, not George H.W. Bush. Clearer now? By the way, what ever happened to the WMDs the liberals swear up and down the Reagan administration gave the Hussein regime? Did they evaporate? There were no WMDs found, and there is no evidence he used them all up against the Kurds or other dissidents he massacred, so where did they go? Tell us, all-knowing one...

(How dare you disrespect a President!)

If the congress hadn't been packed with left-wing axe-grinders, the sexual predator and serial adulterer I was referring to would have been removed from office after he was impeached for perjury,instead of merely censored. So, his position as president is at least morally questionable...

Iraq was a disasterous distraction, intelligence-wise, monetarily, and militarily, from pursuing Bin Laden.

"Disasterous"? Do you mean "disastrous"?

Tim, if there were any credibility to even half of the allegations you are throwing around, the US congress, a left-wing heavy congress that was lusting after the President's chitlins, and even had members idiotic enough to try to float impeachment proceedings against him, would have nailed him to the wall and left him there as a warning to everyone else. You can spew specious speculations and quote leftist talking points in hopes someone will, like you, accept them as fact if you want to. But the fact just don't bear what you say out.

Nice try, though...