Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Obama Failed Iraq


Rogue Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well the troops are out, no more reports of US troops in Iraq getting killed. For all of you arm chair quarterbacks who have never set foot in Iraq let you be first to tell the loved ones of the killed in combat if we had left earlier maybe their kin would not have been killed. Always someone saying this, saying that and never been in combat or supported the troops. When you can do that and say the troops should have never left or keep them in Iraq and be sent to a kangaroo court because of no immunity and sentence for some trump up charges. You would be the first to blame the president. Since that is not going to happen now, you have to find something to blame the administration about. Oh yes i will get negs for this but oh well. Osama died this year and not 2003.

I thought she was vacation, Merry Christmas to all

LOL, she negative me for saying merry Christmas. NC

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have thought almost from day 1 that O got as president to take this country down and he has pretty much succeeded. As the years went by bailout after unnecessary bailout put us into deep economic peril. I pray it is not too late to turns things around.

Pharoah bin Obama wants another 1.2 trillion in stimulus by the way. Too much is never enough with that shithead.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Obama haters A charge him with leaving Iraq while Obama haters B charge him with falsely taking any credit for getting us out as it was fully agreed to already and without a new agreement, that Iraq would not sign, he no choice in the matter. Come on folks, at least get your Obama rants in sync! :)

You're missing the point....a loser is a loser....whether we're an "A", "B", "C", "D",...etc:o

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Obama haters A charge him with leaving Iraq while Obama haters B charge him with falsely taking any credit for getting us out as it was fully agreed to already and without a new agreement, that Iraq would not sign, he no choice in the matter. Come on folks, at least get your Obama rants in sync! :)

the guy has done nothing for this country , i mean nothing

is that in sync enough for you

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the last election was bought...people can now see him for who he is, even the ones that voted for him. He won't make it. Look at what he has done (very little), more what he has undone.

The fact that Iraq would not allow immunity for our troops to me justifies not staying in Iraq.

They're all in this together. When President Obama walk alongside President Bush to the oval office, he was getting his instructions just like they all do. The presidents do not run this country.

the guy has done nothing for this country , i mean nothing

is that in sync enough for you

It's gonna take him more than four years to clean-up the mess that he walked into. No one else would have done any better!!

Edited by SGD
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have thought almost from day 1 that O got as president to take this country down and he has pretty much succeeded. As the years went by bailout after unnecessary bailout put us into deep economic peril. I pray it is not too late to turns things around.

I HAVE NOT SEEN SO MUCH IGNORANCE IN ONE PLACE. STUNNING. STUNNING.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point....a loser is a loser....whether we're an "A", "B", "C", "D",...etc:o

I think it is you who do not see the point. Both claims of why Obama is supposedly a loser wrt Iraq can not be true, yet his opponents believe both anyway. Thus clearly it is the opposition to him that came first. It isn't based on what he did or did not do in Iraq, since the claims are mutually exclusive.

What would you have had him do? Iraq has to take charge of itself and no amount of force would be able to push a western culture democracy onto them. They are going to have to sort it out mostly on their own. Had Iraq wanted us to stay and withdraw more slowly that might have been better (but hard to say), but they did not want to do that. It also is something we can not afford. We have plenty of forces in the area should something really catastrophic occur.

On a related topic: I think Obama should veto the defense bill that has the new Iran sanctions in it. Now is not the time to be provocative.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it is just so amazing how finally I get to see people with common sense speaking up and not letting the people who drank the Obama fault everything kool-aid. let's face it, if aliens invaded tomorrow, they would say Obama brought them here. If it were a Republican in office, they would rally around the flag.

I was in Baghdad during the worse of the rocket attacks and I for one am grateful we are out of there. If they want to kill each other then it is on them, we gave them the chance for a better opportunity.

And oh, if you don't like the democratically elected government here, get over it and stop telling all these stupid lies. Have some honor for once.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama did not decide to leave Iraq. He was forced to withdraw troops because Iraq would not give immunity to them any longer past Dec. 12. It was George W. Bush that set this date. Please, please read and listen to media that will inform you instead of these lies you spin. These are difficult times and we need a populace that has actually thought about and read about what is really going on. Those who watch Fox News actually are the least informed of those who watch the media. It is spin and propaganda much of the time trying to make us afraid so we will vote against our own best interest in favor of the 1% who have gained over 200% in income per year over the last 30 years. The reason our president has not been able to make much change is because people in the Congress held back that change. If you want to see the positive changes happen vote him in and a congress that supports his ideas so we no longer have this circus going on there with the Tea Party out. The party of "No" will not help us get to a better way of functioning in our nation that needs to pull together.

And Cnn is so much better why dont you get off the one sided couch and join the few who realize it is our gov as a whole that is f**king up our community not the republicans or the dems its all the top dogs competing against e ach other but who are for the same cause mo money mo money mo money (ohh and world dom).... so why dont you stop trying to blame a specific side and admit that both sides have done some of the most outrageous acts in the name of america freedom and u.s. aka Us the people...

sorry ive had a long night and dont mean to come off as being an arse but i had to speak my mind because noone els would cheers i just saw afroman in concert

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O has still not produced a legal birth certificate...nullifying anything he has signed, and nullifying him as ever being a legal president. The latest birth certificate is obviously flawed proving it's illegal. What a joke!

I'm tired of him cramming himself down our throats! I am U.S. citizen speaking out for my right to have a president that is a legal citizen of the U.S.! The deaf ears will allow him to finish his term and then we will be done with him...

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its amazing how facts speak a totally diffrent story when it comes to President Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As of December 31, 2011 the likelihood of the Democrats retaining the Presidency is 53.7 percent, retaining the Senate is 20.7 percent, and taking the House is 32.7 percent. This is compiled from Betfair, Intrade, and Iowa Electronic Market prediction market data.

The chart shows how these three main predictions have shifted during the course of the year. Obama had a small spike when Osama Bin Laden was captured, but otherwise he's been on a slow decline for most of the summer and early fall, with a slow resurgence in the late fall and early winter. The Senate has been relatively steady with small spikes corresponding to shifts in specific seats, including retirements and announcements of new candidates. The House has shown the most flux with a steep decline that mirrored the President's, but continued longer into the fall. Yet, it has taken a sharp turn towards the Democrats in recent weeks:

Likelihood of Democratic Victory in President, Senate, and House_Dec 31

Sources: Betfair, Intrade, and Iowa Electronic Market

Obama has been polling well against both the generic Republican and the specific Republicans (with Mitt Romney being the most likely opponent, followed by Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum). The Real Clear Politics aggregated polling trend has him up 1.6 percentage points on Romney and down 0.5 percentage points on the "generic Republican." Other data, including approval numbers and economic indicators, have been moving in his direction, but are still far from ensuring his reelection. Key indicators, however, are still a few months away—they will come at the end of the first and second quarter of the election year.

What does that 53.7 percent mean for Obama? Not too much at this moment. With the election 10 months away, markets are going to be conservative. Still, markets are predicting that numbers will continue to move in his favor.

As for holding on to the Senate, it is not looking good for the Democrats. The Democrats control 23 of 33 seats up for election and are facing slew of retirements, including Ben Nelson from Nebraska this week.

In the House, things have been looking up for the Democrats lately, yet the Republicans are still likely to retain control. The census-induced redistricting of House seats likely helps the Republicans in the House. Yet, the recent Democratic creep forward is likely a result of record low Congressional approval numbers. It also coincides Republican squabbling over the payroll tax issue, which stemmed from lack of cohesion in the Republican-controlled House. The Wall Street Journal's editorial board called this a fiasco that could help Obama get reelected, but the reverberations for this type of event may be felt in House elections as well.

It has been a pleasure sharing our data driven view of the world with you in 2011 and we look forward to much more in-depth data driven commentary in 2012! Happy New Year!

Follow along on PredictWise for the real-time likelihood of the Presidency and the Senate and House.

David Rothschild is an economist at Yahoo! Research. He has a Ph.D. in applied economics from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. His dissertation is in creating aggregated forecasts from individual-level information. Follow him on Twitter @DavMicRot and email him at thesignal@yahoo-inc.com.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of opinionated gurus here... We do not know the circumstances of all the meetings and assumptions that lead to decisions in Washington. We can't even pretend to be that informative or that bright.

Only Time Will Tell. Waaaaay to soon to suggest failure on Obama's policies... only weak speculations because of the constant dogfights in Washington and differences of opinions. Too soon for a final grade. The folks with strong opinions more that likely have failed themselves and seeking for someone to blame.

- Blame - there's that word again! Ouch!

Edited by mojack
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of opinionated gurus here... We do not know the circumstances of all the meetings and assumptions that lead to decisions in Washington. We can't even pretend to be that informative or that bright.

Only Time Will Tell. Waaaaay to soon to suggest failure on Obama's policies... only weak speculations because of the constant dogfights in Washington and differences of opinions. Too soon for a final grade. The folks with strong opinions more that likely have failed themselves and seeking for someone to blame.

- Blame - there's that word again! Ouch!

Thanks Mo. He had a he*l of a mess to clean up. I don't want to hijack this post or turn this post into a Political one so I will leave it and lets get back to what we need to discuss. We hope everyone has a safe and Happy New Year +1

Edited by Lenape
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Mo. He had a he*l of a mess to clean up. I don't want to hijack this post or turn this post into a Political one so I will leave it and lets get back to what we need to discuss. We hope everyone has a safe and Happy New Year +1

Dude...."hijack this post into a Political one" :D .....that's exaclty what our country needs ;) to final educate those who voted the way you did :o....learn from your mistakes :P

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see President Obama is fighting to uphold American citizens rights: As shown below, because I recall all the O haters fear mongerings propaganda on here trying to accuse him of doing the complete opposit of what he signed into law here(remember the part about him trying to pass legislation that would allow American citizens to be held without charge ect,ect,ect.)

HONOLULU (AP) — President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability.

"Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded," Obama said in the signing statement.

Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.

Obama's signature caps months of wrangling over how to handle captured terrorist suspects without violating Americans' constitutional rights. The White House initially threatened to veto the legislation but dropped the warning after Congress made last-minute changes.

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or "associated forces" and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.

For example, FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the measure would inhibit his bureau's ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence. He told Congress it wasn't clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles (kilometers) away.

Other officials have said agents and prosecutors should not have to spend their time worrying about citizenship status and whether to get a waiver while trying to thwart a terror attack.

The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran.

The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil.

The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies.

This week, in response to the threatened penalties, Iran warned that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz — a vital Persian Gulf waterway. But on Saturday, Tehran seemed to back off that threat when a commander of its Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, said such discussion is a thing of the past and "belongs to five years ago." He said Iran had other, unspecified strategies for reacting to any Western aggression.

Iran also said Saturday that it had proposed a new round of talks on its nuclear program with the U.S. and other world powers. The invitation would come after the U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions. Separately, the U.S. and the European Union have imposed their own tough economic and financial penalties.

The $662 billion bill authorizes money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The measure also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices.

Obama signed the bill in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.