Posted on 03/08/2015 6:05:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Brian Smith wrote: How long would you say we would need to prop up the Iraqi forces in order for them to defend themselves (give or take a hundred years)? You cannot train or give enough equipment to a military that will voluntarily lay down their weapons when encountering the mildest resistance. There may have been the illusion of peace but there was never any real peace. What do you think "Democracy blooming in the Middle East looks like?" It looks like Libya. It looks like Egypt. It looks like Syria.To suggest that Obama is responsible for the Arab Spring is ridiculous
Dear Comrade Brian,
I didn’t say that Obama was responsible for the Arab Spring. I said Obama was responsible for his own policy choices. He’s the guy who decided to intervene militarily in Libya; he’s the one who decided to support the Muslim Brotherhood; he’s the one who, against the advice of the top military and intelligence advisors, decided to pour money and arms into Syria.
"Ultimately a combination of diplomacy and pressure will be needed to bring about a political transition," said Secretary of State John Kerry just two days ago about toppling the regime in Syria. "Military pressure particularly may be necessary given President Assad's reluctance to negotiate seriously.”
So Obama toppled Gadhafi in Libya, Mubarak in Egypt, and now wants to topple Assad in Syria, even though there is no point in international law that would make it legal under the liberal definition that they applied to Iraq. At least Bush had authorization from both Congress and the United Nations. Bush, unlike Obama, didn’t create a power vacuum however. He filled it in Iraq… right up until the moment that Obama signaled that we would not leave one soldier in Iraq. And then fulfilled that promise.
Guys with guns, restoring utilities, holding elections and protecting citizens don’t destabilize areas. The country was stable by comparison to what’s going on now.
Only Barack Obama with his infinite capacity to $#% things up, could have gotten the easiest call of his presidency wrong. From Obamacare to the stimulus to mortgages to education to foreign policy not only does he have the most wrongheaded policies, but he lacks the executive ability to actually make his own policies work.
Perhaps that’s why despite all his rhetoric about equality the rich have done better under Obama than under any president.
Warren Buffett, the guys who argues for higher taxes on everyone on behalf of Obama, had one of the highest one-year net worth increase ever in human history at $14 billion even though he presumably now pays the higher taxes that Obama imposed on the rich.
And if you believe Buffett pays more tax then congratulations: you’re a comrade.
As to how long we should have remained in Iraq: Who cares? How long did we remain in Europe? How long did we remain in Japan? How long did we remain in South Korea?
Forget about whether the Iraqis can defend themselves for just a moment.
The only prism we should view the decision through is whether keeping troops in Iraq was in the best interest of Iraq and the United States.
If, as you imply, stability and supporting democracy was the goal, you, by your own method, have to score Obama as a failure.
Your only other option is saying that Saddam was a nicer, more deserving dictator than the guys Obama decided he wanted to topple-- Gadhafi, Mubarak or Assad.
Liberal stupidity is enough. But your bad faith and hypocrisy is appalling.
It is, I will admit, your best feature however.
bernardini wrote: I'm disappointed, John. You wrote a column last week where almost all of your readers thought you had lost your mind. Or at least they questioned your conservative bona fide's and you don't even mention it on the hit parade - The Cartoon President
Dear Comrade B,
There really weren’t enough comments to make a full article. I’ll answer them below.
Joe Gardner wrote: I have a better motto: Almost everything is Ronald Reagan's fault. And, it is. Just think of how much better off we would be as a country in a multitude of areas if not for him. Remember Nixon's comment after meeting with Reagan," Boys, that is one dumb son of a bitch." He was the most prolific presidential liar during my life. However, one must know the truth to tell a lie. So, maybe he was just displaying his ignorance - The Cartoon President
Dear Comrade Joe,
Attacking Ronald Reagan by invoking Richard Nixon’s judgment on him probably isn’t fair to either guy. In any event, it doesn’t advance your argument. Nixon was wrong about a lot of things and a lot of people.
FederalFarmer wrote: Russia has a much bigger interest in the Ukraine than we do. They will invest far greater effort and take greater chances than we will here. Arming the Ukraine against the Russians would be a major escalation of the conflict. At best, it would only serve to get more people in the Ukraine killed and could lead to war with Russia. - Opposition Marches in Moscow; Bullets for the Ukraine
Dear Comrade Farmer,
Oh so we are just supposed to let Russia walk all over Ukraine because of proximity? So that means we get to invade Canada when we want and no one should say anything about it.
Actually it’s the fact that Russia has to invest far greater resources and commitment to Ukraine to win that helps a strategy of arming Ukraine work. We risk little; they risk everything.
And oh, by the way: Russia says they aren’t providing military aid to “rebels” in Ukraine. Or troops.
So we should take the military aid that we don’t supply Ukraine and launch a missile strike against the mass of Russian troops who aren’t there. I mean John Kerry is arguing for that in Syria, another Russian proxy.
Or does Ukraine not qualify for military affirmative action because they are white people?
The mistake Putin made was that he did not understand how hard it would be to settle the conflict once he started it.
Make no mistake: Russia now has to swallow all of Ukraine and he still won’t get peace.
There will be bombing and fighting in Ukraine only until Putin decides to stop fighting.
Elucidated1 wrote: From every single poll, 2/3 of Americans want billionaires and corporations to pay their fare share of taxes. . .and if they did, it would cover the short fall of SS and Medicare. What are we missing? Oh, wait. . we don't have any Congressmen who agree. Nevermind - End of Welfare for Billionaires...maybe?
Dear Elucidated,
The top ten percent paid almost 70 percent of taxes.
From Heritage:
Top earners are the main target of tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 while earning 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes but earned 12 percent of income.
That means that between the top 50 income earners and the top 10 income earners --the middle-- paid 27 percent of income taxes.
Corporations don’t pay taxes. They pass the costs along to their customers, just as you would if we passed an “idiot tax” on being liberal. You be lobbying the DNC to provide you a subsidy to pay the tax. And they would probably provide it.
apzzyk wrote: This article was headed so that one would expect something about welfare for billionaires, and other than mentioning the great increase in wealth, which went to these billionaires, there was nothing. The biggest government welfare system for billionaires is found in the tax code, which is a GOP creation where those who are billionaires and could afford to pay more taxes, are now planning to use this money to run negative campaign adds against those who propose to increase their taxes.. - End of Welfare for Billionaires...maybe?
Dear Comrade Pfffthp,
The welfare for billionaires is the monetary system that has turned commodities into financial assets; that has put Wall Street results above those of Main Street.
The last time I looked the recent changes in the tax code enjoyed more Democrat support than GOP support.
You don’t like the tax code? Blame both parties.
Jim Kress wrote: Arabs are a Semitic people, just like the Hebrews. If they are "anti-Semitic", then they are suicidal.
Anti-Jew or Anti-Hebrew is the correct appellation. - Are Obama's Arab-Firster Policy Hawks Anti-Semites?
Dear Comrade Jim,
Spoken like a true know-it-all liberal.
Why? Because of course you are wrong when you insist your cleverness should take place of wisdom; when you take the accepted, universal usage of a word and insist it doesn’t conform to how you feel.
From Wikipedia: “Antisemitism (also spelled Anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group. A person who holds such positions is called an ‘antisemite’. Antisemitism is widely considered a form of racism.”
From Merriam-Websters: “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.”
From the ADL: “The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.”
Go quibble someplace else.
Elucidated1 wrote: I do find it amusing that for years this blog has had anti semitic comments all over the place but NOW Ransom acts like the guy who is anti semitic is from Slate? Nice deflection. In fact, this site and Fox have had to shut down comments in the past due to anti semitic comments. - Are Obama's Arab-Firster Policy Hawks Anti-Semites?
Dear Comrade Dated,
My own affection is always with Jews. I have dated them, been friends with them, been engaged to them and loved them in my own family.
Typical idiot liberal speaking about something he knows nothing about.
The guy from Slate is Anti-Semitic. I mean if you’ll take the word of Jews who likely know about such things.
From the Beacon article:
“Given CAP’s disturbing familiarity with, and history of, deploying what leading global anti-Semitism experts and watchdog organizations identified as actual anti-Semitic language, it is both ironic and troubling to see CAP’s Matt Duss dubiously objecting to imagery that is not being described as such by such experts in his transparent attempt to smear those with whom he disagrees,” one senior Jewish official said.
“Instead of deploying offensive speech himself, Duss and CAP are resorting to accusing others of doing so,” the officials said. “Clearly they feel that is just a smarter way for them to get away with similar behavior.”
There is a long history on the progressive side of tolerating anti-Semitism, ala Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton.
bernardini wrote: Two things. On the whole I'd say a Master's degree in International Relations probably prepares you more for this kind of stuff than oh say a sports journalism degree does. That doesn't make you right every time of course. Also, using a broad brush to paint everyone as anti-Semitic who disagrees with Bibi and doesn't relish sending their kids over to fight Israel's battles is pretty much the same as saying that anyone who criticizes Obama is racist. - Are Obama's Arab-Firster Policy Hawks Anti-Semites?
Dear Comrade Bernie,
I don’t know anyone with a sports journalism degree, except my friend Bill Rogan from Denver. And to be honest he’d probably make a better national security expert than Matt Duss would. You know… if your object was national security.
And I didn’t say that everyone who disagrees with Netanyahu is an anti-Semite. I said Matt Duss is an anti-Semite.
I think he is.
He was also a part of the Jurnolist hit parade led by that great fraud Ezra Klein.
Kenmarx wrote: I'm sorry John, but you can't legitimately make such statements as "Had it been I in Zimmerman’s place Trayvon Martin most certainly would be alive today. Of this I am sure." You weren't underneath him having your head beat into the concrete. - The Real Crimes By Obama: Against Blacks
Dear Ken,
Yes, actually I can.
I wouldn’t have been sitting in a parking lot waiting for trouble armed with a gun. When trouble did come, I wouldn’t have followed it. I would have called the police and followed their instructions. I’m not saying Zimmerman shouldn’t have defended himself.
I’m saying he shouldn’t have put himself in that position to begin with.
That’s it for this week,
V/r,
JR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.