Posted on 12/07/2009 9:02:46 PM PST by advance_copy
With President Barack Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending 30,000 additional troops to battle Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, he has put his imprint on the war on terror, and at the same time, given up the Democrats' most famous fallback position: blame George W. Bush.
Couple that with the economy and we are seeing the end of the president's first year in office coincide with him having to accept the full responsibility for the condition of the country.
Obama rode into office on the "blame Bush" tidal wave as the nation sickened of everything he touched. The economy? Bush was horrible at stewarding it. Giving banks billions in TARP funds? Dumb idea by Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank "Mr. Wall Street" Paulson. Sick of billions going to the war? It was all the fault of Bush and his chief crony, Vice President Dick Cheney.
The blame Bush mantra proved effective because it totally silenced Republicans, who were loathe to defend a conservative president who began with a surplus and ended with a deficit, as well as the architect of a war in Iraq based on never-proven claims of weapons of mass destruction. They couldn't even muster the strength to call him a conservative.
(Excerpt) Read more at campbellbrown.blogs.cnn.com ...
“Hey, very good. Alliances work both ways, like having a common enemy. Did you know that the government of Iraq is a sworn enemy of al-Qaeda?”
Different sects of Islam. The Sunni and Shia have been fighting for centuries. They still agree on the infidel.
“If you had it your way, we would have abandoned Iraq to al-qaeda once we removed Saddam. And you wonder why isolationists like Chuck Baldwin aren’t embraced by conservatives, whereas real conservatives like Sarah Palin are embraced.”
Conservatives are against “nation-building”. It doesn’t work.
“Iraq is internationally recognized as a democratic state, and they are a U.S. ally. This is true wheter you want to admit it or not.”
No “democratic state” can possibly have all laws flowing from Islam.
“Liberals opposed the Patriot Act, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and our intervention in Afgansitan. You voted for Baldwin. What’s his views on these issues?”
Liberals are now happy to USE the Patriot Act against conservatives. Conservatives - actual ones, not you - warned about this. They were right. Always assume any law you support will be used by your greatest enemy. The Patriot Act is NOT limited to use against actual terrorists.
Baldwin is for a strong national defense.
“”We will have a national defense that is second to none, with armed forces that serve only under our flag, whose mission is to defend these United States of America!” - Baldwin
McCain voted to kill the F-22.
“”When I am President of these United States all funding for the United Nations stops!” - Baldwin
““US should pay arrears to UN after the UN implements management reforms.” “ - McCain
Of course:
“The first day Chuck Baldwin is in office as President is the last day Ramos and Compean spend in jail!” - Baldwin
McCain’s position on immigration is well documented. You supported a damnable traitor (look up Juan Hernandez and note McCain says he agreed with him) for President against a Marxist. You have NO moral leg to stand on talking down to conservatives who are tired of liberal Republican goat-ropes.
McCain also can’t read: we did not violate the Geneva Conventions at Gitmo.
You know, death2tyrants, you keep attacking conservatives because we didn’t support your pet traitor....
Interesting.
“From the Iraqi Constitution. You already errouneously claimed these provisions don’t exist.”
All laws must be in accord with Islam. THAT is the operative law and THAT is the problem. The “where do you get this stuff” question had to do with your complete ignorance of the subject of Islam and who and what our enemy actually is.
Are they affiliates of the French and British governments as well? And where did I claim to support the KLA? Is this your answer for justifing your cut and run strategy in Iraq and abandoning them to al-qaeda? A non-sequitir?
Baldwin is not a “truther”.
He isn't? And you wonder why people don't take candidates like Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr seriously.
I voted Baldwin because...
Because you're an isoltionist instead of a conservative. Conservatives support the war on terror. Isolationists want to retreat. They want to abandon our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. Palin supports these efforts. Baldwin doesn't. This is why he has your support. He's an isolationist too. You even have to play make-believe in order to paint Iraq as a failure.
I might’ve voted differently if Palin...
Why would you vote for Palin over candidates like Baldwin, Barr, and Paul? Palin isn't an isolationist.
I just oppose nation building
Like I said before, you aren't even falimiar with the legisation that authorized the invasion of Iraq. You prove this over and over with your silly statements.
Why would I support Barr?
Why wouldn't you support Barr?
Just keep on attacking conservatives
Conservatives don't support cut-and-run strategy. Liberals do. Conservatives don't oppose the Patriot Act, liberals do.
The Iraqi government is comprised of both. Is this the very first debate you've had on the subject?
They still agree on the infidel.
I must have missed the announcement that they elected you their spokesman.
Conservatives are against “nation-building”.
Then Palin isn't a conservative, going by your definition.
It doesn’t work.
As long as one pretends that Iraq is a failure. In order to be consistant, we can pretend that Germany and Japan are failures as well.
No “democratic state” can possibly have all laws flowing from Islam.
They don't subscribe your al-qaeda interpretation of Islam. This is why they banned takfir, which you pretend never happened.
Baldwin is for a strong national defense.
Does he even believe we should have military forces outside the U.S. boarders?
They don't subscribe to you al-qaeda interpretation of Islam.
“Are they affiliates of the French and British governments as well? And where did I claim to support the KLA? Is this your answer for justifing your cut and run strategy in Iraq and abandoning them to al-qaeda? A non-sequitir?”
The non sequitur here is your constant ranting about Bob Barr. If you could read, you would have noticed that I stated that George W. Bush supported Al Qaeda-affiliated KLA.
“Because you’re an isoltionist instead of a conservative. Conservatives support the war on terror. Isolationists want to retreat. They want to abandon our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. Palin supports these efforts. Baldwin doesn’t. This is why he has your support. He’s an isolationist too. You even have to play make-believe in order to paint Iraq as a failure.”
Do you have any clue what conservative ideology actually is? At the very least, it is a robust defense but NO NATION-BUILDING. Conservatives - you aren’t one - support the WAR, but not the namby-pamby manner in which it has been fought - with more interest in prosecuting our guys than letting them kill the enemy. The whole “kindler/gentler/hearts and minds” garbage. I prefer Patton’s answer on the whole “hearts and minds” thing.
“Why would you vote for Palin over candidates like Baldwin, Barr, and Paul? Palin isn’t an isolationist.”
She’s not a traitor like McCain. I could not stomach voting for that bastard no matter his running mate.
“Like I said before, you aren’t even falimiar with the legisation that authorized the invasion of Iraq. You prove this over and over with your silly statements.
There was a lot of motherhood in that resolution. That does not change that liberating other nations is not the proper role of our government. Defending US is. We didn’t invade Germany to free the Germans.
“Why wouldn’t you support Barr?”
You are the one who keeps bringing up Barr.
“Conservatives don’t support cut-and-run strategy. Liberals do. Conservatives don’t oppose the Patriot Act, liberals do.”
Conservatives don’t support legislation that will be used against them. Liberals are fine with the Patriot Act now that they can use it against us.
“The Iraqi government is comprised of both. Is this the very first debate you’ve had on the subject?”
Iraq is majority Shi’ite. Is this the first debate you’ve had on any subject?
“I must have missed the announcement that they elected you their spokesman.”
LOL. I read their press and I’ve read their book. It’s very instructive to know your enemy.
“Then Palin isn’t a conservative, going by your definition.
George Bush ran on a no nation-building platform in 2000.
“As long as one pretends that Iraq is a failure. In order to be consistant, we can pretend that Germany and Japan are failures as well.”
Different circumstances and different people. For one, Germany and Japan were COMPLETELY defeated as in entire cities laid waste. Iraq was not. They weren’t saddled with Islam, either.
“They don’t subscribe your al-qaeda interpretation of Islam. This is why they banned takfir, which you pretend never happened.”
It’s not Al Qaeda’s interpretation, but what their book says and what Mohammad did - he is held up as the example for all mankind, after all. Just banning the official recognition of declaring a Muslim an apostate doesn’t change that. Islam is still their highest law. If you had one lick of understanding of the subject matter, you’d feel the same as I do. You’d just prefer to believe this happy “can’t we all just get along” version of world history regarding Islam.
“Does he even believe we should have military forces outside the U.S. boarders?”
I’m sure we can do better for our military forces than quartering them in people’s spare rooms. Some BOQs are quite nice. We are over-extended in oversea commitments. Many of them are no longer required or the countries in question should pay for their own defense.
He has said he wants the military to have the best tools. McCain doesn’t want that.
You voted for McCain, didn’t you? You know, the lying, back-stabbing, traitor to his country McCain?
“They don’t subscribe to you al-qaeda interpretation of Islam.”
Mohammad did.
Not entirely true. I included your other heros like truther Baldwin as well.
Do you have any clue what conservative ideology actually is?
I know what your of conservatism is. Isolationist Libertarian. Like your grand strategy of how you wanted to abandon Iraq to al-qaeda.
it is a robust defense
I hate to break it to you, but conservatives don't consider people like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and ACLU-Bob to be strong on defense. If you wern't in denial about this fact, you wouldn't be scratching your head wondering why your guy only got less votes than Ralph Nader.
but NO NATION-BUILDING.
You're saying that real conservatives favored abandoning Iraq to al-qaeda, loosing Western Europe and Japan to the Soviets, and abandoning our efforts in Afganistan. You keep confusing Libertarians with conservatives. Libertarians have fiscally conservative views, but they are unrealistic on national defense.
more interest in prosecuting our guys than letting them kill the enemy
Your confusing real conservatives with Libertarian aclu kooks like Barr.
She’s not a traitor like McCain.
I'm talking about Palin, not McCain. Why would you vote for Palin in 2012 over candidates like Baldwin, Barr, and Paul? Palin isn’t an isolationist. If you give a non-answer again with the usual McCain non-sequitur I'll assume you are afraid to admit that you favor isolationists like Baldwin over real conservatives like Palin. Supporting Libertarian candidates doesn't mean your sinister, it simply means that you actually beleive that stationing troops in other countries isn't in the national security interests of the U.S.
liberating other nations is not the proper role of our government
Well, at least you're honest about your isolationist views.
We didn’t invade Germany to free the Germans.
We invaded Western Europe to liberate them from Nazi rule. We even engaged in 'nation building' after the war and maintained a military presense within their boarders. Perhaps someday you'll understand why this is necessary for our national security, both militarily and economically.
“I know what your of conservatism is. Isolationist Libertarian. Like your grand strategy of how you wanted to abandon Iraq to al-qaeda.”
Not supporting nation-building is not “isolationism”. If you want to remake the world through some Wilsonian impulse, do so on your own dime. I stand with the Founders on that idea.
“I hate to break it to you, but conservatives don’t consider people like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and ACLU-Bob to be strong on defense. If you wern’t in denial about this fact, you wouldn’t be scratching your head wondering why your guy only got less votes than Ralph Nader.”
I hate to break it to you, but conservatives don’t consider you one of them. I don’t wonder why Baldwin didn’t win at all.
“You keep confusing Libertarians with conservatives. Libertarians have fiscally conservative views, but they are unrealistic on national defense.”
Nation-building why building DOWN our major assets is NOT NATIONAL DEFENSE. It’s a welfare program for foreign nations.
“Your confusing real conservatives with Libertarian aclu kooks like Barr.”
So, you are saying it was Bob Barr who allowed JAG to run wild? Really? Do you even READ the news aggregated on this website?
“Why would you vote for Palin in 2012 over candidates like Baldwin, Barr, and Paul? Palin isn’t an isolationist. If you give a non-answer again with the usual McCain non-sequitur I’ll assume you are afraid to admit that you favor isolationists like Baldwin over real conservatives like Palin.”
If I agree with her politics and platform, I’ll vote for Palin. If not, I won’t. That’s what a “vote” is supposed to be.
“Supporting Libertarian candidates doesn’t mean your sinister, it simply means that you actually beleive that stationing troops in other countries isn’t in the national security interests of the U.S.”
In many cases, it isn’t. The US military is not a welfare program. It is not a Red Cross with tanks.
“Well, at least you’re honest about your isolationist views.”
Being anti-nation building is not being “isolationist”. You never seem to reply to my statement that nation-building was viewed by the 2000 Bush campaign as a bad Clinton policy.... and they were right.
“We invaded Western Europe to liberate them from Nazi rule. We even engaged in ‘nation building’ after the war and maintained a military presense within their boarders. Perhaps someday you’ll understand why this is necessary for our national security, both militarily and economically.”
Again, we didn’t invade Germany to liberate them from their own government. If push had come to shove, we’d have nuked them. We fire bombed their cities. We were there to defeat Germany the nation and people. We did so. Taking the “Marshall Plan” (Marshall himself was a nut... he wanted us to rebuild the Soviet Union too) lessons and applying it to a limited, “hearts and minds” war, is taking the wrong lessons as to why it worked. Germany and Japan were completely defeated. We destroyed the ideology of Germany and DESTROYED the official religion of Japan! We imposed a government on both countries. That is NOT what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problematic religion is still in place and the countries were not bombed into oblivion prior to offering them a helping hand.
If you aren’t going to take their violent religion from them, the only thing that has worked with Muslims in the past is to stomp them in the dirt and make it clear that if they make trouble again, they’ll get it worse.
I know this is all over your head. You just spout talking points and you believe thew news media.
Opposing any effort to maintain troops abroad is isolationism. This is what the isolationist Libertarians (ie, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr) want. If we had abandoned Iraq to al-qaeda after Saddam was removed, it would have been short sighted. It wouldn't be in our national security interests to do so.
If you want to remake the world...
I'm familiar with the legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom. You'll be surprised to know that no where does it say anything about 'remaking the world'.
but conservatives don’t consider you one of them
First I missed the news flash that the Iraqis voted you as their official spokesman, then I missed the news flash that conservatives voted you as their official spokesman. I need to start paying more attention to the news.
If I agree with her politics and platform
What do you mean 'if'? She's already expressed her support for a strong foreign policy, including Iraq and Afganistan. You oppose both efforts. You are an isolationist Libertarian who's views are no different than Baldwin, Paul, Barr, ect...
In many cases, it isn’t.
When does Baldwin support stationing troops abroad? You voted for him, you should know. Isn't he like Paul, who thinks we should remove all of our troops from foreign soil?
Again, we didn’t invade Germany to liberate them from their own government.
Yes we did. In fact, we invaded all of Western Europe to liberate them from Nazi rule. Otherwise we would have left after '45. You can't explain why we stayed and rebuilt Germany and Japan because it contradicts your 'no nation building' talking point.
The problematic religion is still in place
Once again, the objective was never to remove their religion. That would have been a pretty silly objective.
and the countries were not bombed into oblivion prior to offering them a helping hand.
Hold on anti-Saddam Iraqis, we're going to help you, but first there are still a few buildings standing that we haven't bombed yet.
you believe the news media
Well, you've got me there. I forgot that the MSM were such big supporters of the liberation of Iraq.
“Opposing any effort to maintain troops abroad is isolationism. “
Opposing the efforts to police the world isn’t either.
“I’m familiar with the legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom. You’ll be surprised to know that no where does it say anything about ‘remaking the world’.”
I’m familiar with it to. I also understand where Bush wanted to go with it. He had this messianic vision of a free Middle East with him remembered as the great democracy giver.
“First I missed the news flash that the Iraqis voted you as their official spokesman, then I missed the news flash that conservatives voted you as their official spokesman. I need to start paying more attention to the news.”
You seem to have placed yourself as that official spokesman for conservatives. Apparently, it’s an easy job to get. You just have to defend the Republican Party against Conservatives.
“What do you mean ‘if’? She’s already expressed her support for a strong foreign policy, including Iraq and Afganistan. You oppose both efforts. You are an isolationist Libertarian who’s views are no different than Baldwin, Paul, Barr, ect...”
I oppose nation-building and “limited” wars of attrition that do nothing but suck up funds better used maintaining the fleet and the heavy divisions and NOT wearing the crap out of our service members through back-to-back deployments.
“When does Baldwin support stationing troops abroad? You voted for him, you should know. Isn’t he like Paul, who thinks we should remove all of our troops from foreign soil?”
I support foreign deployment ONLY in the direct interests of the United States.
What amuses me most is that you party-firsters demand we accept some percentage of disagreement (usually 80% or so) from your pet candidates like McCain, yet you expect us to agree 100% with the person we actually voted for.
“Yes we did. In fact, we invaded all of Western Europe to liberate them from Nazi rule. Otherwise we would have left after ‘45. You can’t explain why we stayed and rebuilt Germany and Japan because it contradicts your ‘no nation building’ talking point.”
No, we didn’t. We invaded Germany to defeat Germany, not liberate the Germans. We didn’t leave after ‘45 due to the Russians. You, as usual, are incapable of understanding why rebuilding those two countries were different propositions from the nation-building of today.
“Once again, the objective was never to remove their religion. That would have been a pretty silly objective.”
Which is why it will fail and why Japan did not. Their religion is and always has been the problem.
“Hold on anti-Saddam Iraqis, we’re going to help you, but first there are still a few buildings standing that we haven’t bombed yet.”
You have to work for the State Department. You have an idiotic view of wars and how and why they are fought. Couple that with your childish view of “democracy!” and Islam.... Geez. You must work for State. You have all the delusions.
We fought Iraq for economic reasons. They were threatening trade. There is nothing wrong with that basis for war. In fact, that’s a common one.
We fought Japan because they were attempting to control the East-Asian region and threatening our territory directly and because they attacked us. We fought Germany because our major trading partners were attacked and Germany foolishly declared war on us.
We did NOT fight German and Japan to help the Germans and the Japanese. That is the MOST idiotic idea I have seen in a very long time.
Under what Constitutional authority would liberating others be cause for our blood and treasure? We fight wars for our own interests. If, on the way, we liberate people, then that’s great. It, however, is NEVER JUST JUSTIFICATION ON ITS OWN.
...to police the world...a free Middle East...defend the Republican Party against Conservatives...wars of attrition...back-to-back deployments...you party-firsters...your pet candidates like McCain...It is NEVER JUST JUSTIFICATION ON ITS OWN....
Please stop! Your army of gigantic straw men is too overwhelming. I surrender. We should abandon Iraq and Afganistan to al-qaeda at once! Ron Paul/Chuck Baldwin 2012!
“Please stop! Your army of gigantic straw men is too overwhelming. I surrender.”
Those aren’t strawmen. You never did reply to the fact of Al Qaeda SUPPORT from the Bush Administration - continuing a Clinton policy in Kosovo.
You go on voting for the “electable”, though. That’s worked out well so far... (snicker)
You favored a candidate who has endorsed liberal Democrats on multiple occasions.
Nice going there.
"I have to tell you, [Obama] is a decent person, a person that you
do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States."
U.S. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, 10 OCT. 2008
"I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have
no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy."
U.S. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, 02 APR. 2004
Of course you, just like the far left, favored Obama over McCain.
Point to the statement where I endorsed Obama for president.
Though, in your mind, merely refusing to support McCain must constitute an endorsement of Obama.
Endorsed, enshmorsed. You're just a paulista. It doesn't matter who you endorse. What I said was, you favored Obama over McCain.
YOU LIE.
I endorsed neither.
Unfortunately, you're far too indoctrinated with RINO Party propaganda to realize that there is such a thing.
Enjoy your Kool-Aid.
Who said anything about endorsements? What I said was, given a choice between McCain or Obama, you favored Obama.
Then point to the statement where I said that I favored Obama. Either put up or shut up.
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.