I understand completely....people can see the same situation in 2 different ways....
Posted By: sam on 2008-08-27
In Reply to: That is interesting ... - kiki
I am not trying to bash your opinion either...and I will just touch on this briefly and leave it alone. Wanting regime change in Iraq did not originate with George Bush. It originated during the Clinton administration:
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.
Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.
US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.
U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.
More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.
Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.
Pentagon unveils details of Operation Desert Fox
Transcript:Text of Blair's remarks on Iraq attack
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
RELATED VIDEO
Clinton statement from the Oval Office on attack against Iraq
Windows Media 28K 56K
Pentagon outlines 'Operation Desert Fox'
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
British Prime Minister comments on the airstrikes
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
Watch as anti-aircraft fire erupts over Baghdad
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
In this story:
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
In-depth special:
Strike on Iraq
Related stories:
Explosions in sky over Baghdad - December 16, 1998
Iraq not cooperating with U.N., chief inspector says - December 15, 1998
Visiting U.N. weapons inspectors depart Iraq - December 14, 1998
Iraq oil sale wins approval from U.N. chief - December 12, 1998
Cohen: Iraq could be attacked at any time - December 10, 1998
U.S. reacts sternly to Iraq's rebuff of inspectors - December 9, 1998
There were limited bomb strikes at that time. And then we had not been attacked. George Bush did not invent the idea of regime change in Iraq. No, it did not turn into full fledged war at that time...but we had not lost 3000 of our citizens either.
Also, please check out the Iraq Liberation Act passed and endorsed enthusiastically by Democrats. And if you check closely...the same democrats who are decrying going into Iraq now were all for it then. When I look at the entirety of it...and I remember well Clinton saying from the oval office he was going to bomb Iraq and why he was going to do it...I agreed with him and I agreed with Bush. That is what I absolutely hate about politics...that partisan lockstep. If a Democrat President thinks we should bomb and/or invade Iraq, the Democrats are all behind him. Remember, the majority of Democrats voted this time to go in too. It was not George Bush alone. And the intelligence he used to make his decision is the same intelligence Bill Clinton had. I don't want to make argumentative. Just stating facts. And it is the totality of it that makes me say what I said about Bush. I do not believe for one minute that he went into Iraq knowing there was no WMD, any more than I think Clinton bombed Iraq knowing there was no reason to do so.
So far as I can see, John McCain did not say he was for more war. Even Obama has said that we cannot just pull out. So no matter who is elected, we are there for awhile. The say in Iraq for 100 years was misquoted and misrepresented by the Obama campaign and others...what he said was that there "could" not will be an American presence in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, like bases, advisors, etc. Not fighting soldiers. Like we had bases in Germany, bases in Korea, etc. Those wars had been over a long time and we still had bases there. He did not say we would be fighting in Iraq in a hundred years. That being said, if we are attacked again, he is certainly not afraid to fight. We can't afford a President who is not willing to fight. Clinton did not react to the first world trade center bombing, the khobar towers bombings, the embassy bombings, or the bombing of the USS Cole. Had he done so, we might not have had 9-11 and we would not have gone into Iraq. If Clinton had accepted bin Laden from the Sudan when they offered him...if, if, if. The war in Iraq was not the product of one man.
Again, not trying to be argumentative, but I do not understand how a huge group of people can blame one man for all the ills of this country and congress gets a pass. Bush by himself can't do very much. I mean I got pretty disgusted with Clinton at the end, and I didn't much care for a lot of the things that happened during his admin, but I did not blame him personally for it. That is not how the government works.
Yes, there are some things I did not like about the Bush admin and still don't like...but I don't demonize him and make him the poster chld for everything wrong with the country...I blame Congress. THey are the ones who can change things. And they haven't done diddly.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
And you should understand the situation more. nm
Your the one showing how little you understand about the situation
What part of Hamas and Israel at war don't you understand.
What part of Hamas terrorizing Israel don't you understand.
What part of Hamas slaughtering and killing innocent citizens, women and children don't you understand.
To me it looks like you don't understand any of what is going on over there, therefore should keep your comments to yourself.
I just say thank goodness our incoming President understands it very well.
What was that quote I read that Ben Franklin said "Better to keep one's mouth closed ...".
I understand that is a horrible situation for
it's not my responsibility to pay a mortgage for someone who had no business getting one in the first place. I have to pay my bills and my mortgage; they should never have had a mortgage.
I understand completely
Your posts were both humerous and informative and I enjoyed them. I was only joking about getting Xanax (I absolutely hate taking any meds and will suffer with a headache before I take aspirin). I only meant I wanted something to "numb" out the news of Hillary (still can't figure out why she's dominating the news when she's no longer running)...anyway...I took your original post to be humerous and took your second post to be very informative about CF. I have learned something new. I am truly greatful not to have such a horrible disease and I really did not know much about it til I read your post. Thank you for that. Keep posting the humerous messages - I love em.
I understand completely why you do not find it...
disagreeable. Believe me, I do.
Every situation is different, but I do know people
nm
I can't understand people
fighting against themselves either. Reaganomics was the beginning of this disaster. The trickle down just didn't trickle.
I don't understand you people!!!
I don't understand how if Obama fails to act you condemn him, then when he does act, you condemn him for that same act you were requiring earlier...
I am one of those that voted for Obama. Do I think he is perfect? No, definitely not... do I think he has made some bad decisions? Yes, definitely so...
However, I still feel like he is doing a good job as President of the United States. He walked into a boatload of crap and is having to deal with it one step at a time with every once in awhile another load being dumped in. Why can't ya'll give him a chance?
I know he will make mistakes - what man has never made mistakes? I know the problem is that his mistakes will have an effect on everybody in this country today and tomorrow and for many years to come, but he is trying! Can you not give him a break sometime?
I understand that many people use it now...
but legalize it, and how many more will. I have never tried it-why? Because it is illegal. I know that I am not the only person who obeys laws. I do not believe that marijuana is not addictive, nor do many doctors. I doubt that tax revenue would increase with pot, just black market prices would be forced down to compete and people would grow their own. We do not need to agree--we rarely do.
You gotta understand mentality of people
nm
I understand that, if the people on the ground in hurricane country werwe not immediately alarmed...
why on earth would someone expect George Bush to be? He was relying on the local and state authorities to do their jobs. Kathleen Blanco knows that she messed up...which is why she is no longer in LA politics. All I am saying that everyone should share the blame...not one man.
Wow, my post was totally and completely respectful and yours is totally and completely not. sm
what a surprise. Can't stand to be corrected or proven wrong, can you. Have to call everyone a liar, don't you. Got to tell people to stick things somewhere, don't you. TSK TSK TSK Anger management might be helpful.
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
This is not a situation that can
...be simplistically reduced to a quarrel over "doom and gloom" or not, IMHO. Top military brass has tried repeatedly to bring the message home to this administration that we don't have the troops or planning necessary to "win" anything in Iraq and this has created a terrorist hotbed and training ground where none existed before. This is just a fact that no amount of "can-do" attitude can fix.
Of course, if the intention is simply to create a state of chaos that can enable thieves to steal with impunity, the job is more than fixed.
Also you might want to note that the 1700 casualty figure is grossly understated. Only combat deaths that occur in Iraq are counted. Those whisked out of the country to Germany or elsewhere and die en route or at the destination hospital are NOT counted. This is official US policy - a Bush policy. Ask yourself why they would have this policy.
I agree with MTME about the lying - I am sick of it myself. I would like the truth for once, instead of more spin and more efforts to divide the American people (more chaos, more cover for thieves).
If she (or anyone in that situation) sm
had kept her legs together she wouldn't be in this predicament. Simple solution.
and I am sorry for your situation!
x
what situation?
nm
There are ALWAYS two ways about everything, gt.
Of course, it takes a reasoning fair minded person to do it. And that is very rare, practically nonexistent anymore. One of William Bennett's best friends is Thomas Sowell. If he is a racist, explain that. You can't, because he isn't. You and others like you do more to divide the white and black peoples of this country. Anything to drive a wedge in and portray the Democratic party as the saviors of the blacks. They don't need saviors, you know. They are perfectly able to fend for themselves. In fact, many blacks are coming to realize that they have been used as pawns by the Democrats. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. And frankly I don't care if you do. Just keep spouting your leftist propaganda. People are listening and they are running the other way. 
That goes both ways...sm
cant have it both ways
Either she is a tough, experienced mayor and governor who has and will face down the big boy club, or else is an novelty, inexperienced candidate who must be sheltered from from reporters. You can't have it both ways.
it certainly does go both ways
If you're a dem, it's obvious what he was saying when you listen to the full context.
If you're repub, it was a freudian slip and he's really a Muslim.
It annoys me when people's opinions are already predetermined based on their views - conservative/liberal.
I usually vote republican, but I have a sister-in-law who is republican and very conservative, and she is so predictable it kills me.
Sad in many ways ...
First of all, it is sad. However, for everyone to jump to the conclusion that it was an Obama supporter is taking things a little too far. All the man said was "I'm going to teach you a lesson." He did not say, "This is because I'm carrying out my crime on behalf of Barack Obama." For all we know, (a) he could simply hate McCain, or (b) it could have NOTHING to do with politics whatsoever. That he "noticed" a McCain bumper sticker is a thoroughly subjective guess on the victim's part, until we hear otherwise in the form of a confession or a direct quote that he attributed it to being an Obama supporter.
No one is to blame for this, however, save the man who carried out the crime. The story should be covered, but with that angle and that alone. One really, really messed up person did a really, really messed up thing. Clearly he was neither emotionally nor mentally stable to be robbing an ATM in the first place.
And, in regards to "there are probably many other people out there who have the same opinion," that's postulating a theory that will only incite more anger and violence.
We let politics divide us far too much. It's so disheartening.
Well he is asking to have it both ways isn't he? sm
To keep abortion legal through all 9 months and to take more of our money as well, right? I do understand that there are reasons people do this and I do believe it is between that person and God. I don't want it to be illegal altogether because I know what would happen with backyard illegal abortions then. However, I do think children should be protected after a certain gestational age, yes.
Oh my. So many ways one could go with that. LOL. nm
nm
You can't have it both ways, you know
If you take a strict constitutionalist, you may be setting yourself up to lose the gay marriage debate. A strict reading of the constitution, without putting any empathy or thought as to what the electorate wants, would simply stop at that "all men are created equal thing", meaning that a man has the right to marry...period. Nowhere does it say what gender he has to marry.
you can't have it both ways
"I didn't say it was always OUR choice in some instances, as obviously most of us don't commit suicide." Another quote from you. I didn't put the words in your mouth. I quoted you. First you say our choices, then you say not our choices but someone else's choices. I don't know if you are cold but I do believe you are awfully self-righteous. Also a bad choice. One for which you will have the opportunity to repent. Another human being was denied that chance, and you seem to be just fine with that because you didn't approve of what he was doing.
come on bush, help with the oil situation
And here comes the winter..Im sure Bush with all his power can find ways to help America through the winter with oil prices but..nah..he has to pay back his oil cronies..OMG, if we can influence countries to stop nuclear production we surely can influence companies to help us through the oil crisis. The profits the oil companies are making is obscene..I have a friend who lives in Bakersfield, an oil town. He and his wife divorced and she married the head of a major oil company in the Bakersfield region. Not gonna say the name of the company but it is one of the biggest in America..He told me she lives in extreme luxury..I bet, especially in Bakersfield where prices are relatively low anyway..These oil barons are living high and we are, as my aunt used to say, *robbing peter to pay paul*. Ummm.do I smell and feel a revolution arising..sure hope so..
It's a no-win situation for Bush with you
The 9/11 commission criticizes his lack of a security plan pre-9/11(that's just barely 8 months after he enters office BTW). Then he's criticized for doing wiretaps in the name of national security which the FISA act gave the authority to do.
Okay, then which one is it--he's not tough enough on National Security or he's too tough bordering on some perceived legal violation?
Wait a minute, I know your answer Well, it's both. Sheesh...
It is a weird situation, for sure...
...but not really getting a good in-depth report on it from the news, have to think there MUST be more to the story - though can't think what in the world could explain such an attitude as prison is not going to help this offender (heard the judge himself say that). Whoever said prison was to HELP anybody? It's PUNISHMENT!
But then again, have never gotten the whole story- you never do on TV news, and have caught O'Reilly in numerous fabrications and exaggerations and grossly slanted panel discussions before, so who the heck knows!
From *The Situation* last night.
And Tucker Carlson is hardly a liberal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459509/
But first to a story horrifying even by the coarsening standards of Iraq, the brutal murder and torture of two U.S. soldiers.
Privates first class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker went missing Friday after an attack on a checkpoint they were manning south of Baghdad. Their bodies were found on Monday night. They were reportedly so badly mutilated they were tentatively identified by tattoos and scars. The corpses were also booby-trapped, an apparent effort to kill recovery teams.
Al Qaeda‘s new leader in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the soldier‘s slaughter.
In the face of brutality like this, is Iraq worth the cost in American lives? Here to answer that question, Brad Blakeman. He‘s the former deputy assistant to the president. He joins us tonight from Washington.
Brad, thanks for coming on.
BRAD BLAKEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: So we have spent untold billions of dollars, 2,500 American soldiers killed, all in an effort to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq. In return, they torture and murder and mutilate our soldiers. Remind me why this is a good bargain?
BLAKEMAN: Well, Tucker, look, this is a tough thing, and our hearts go out to every soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can live in freedom.
But Iraq is worth fighting for. The region is worth fighting for. It‘s in our interest. These terrible, brutal dictatorships must be brought down when they become a threat to our national security. You know...
CARLSON: OK. But that‘s not the rationale the president has offered. He has said now, because as you know, and not to rehash the whole war, but no weapons of mass destruction were found. And he‘s said now this is worth doing because it‘s worth bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. They yearn for freedom, and it‘s our duty to give them the freedom they yearn for.
My question is how have they earned our sacrifice to bring them that freedom? What about Iraq justifies the death—brutal deaths of American soldiers? Why should we feel like it‘s worth it to bring these people democracy when they behave like animals like this?
BLAKEMAN: We‘re focusing on the animals and not the good and decent people of Iraq. The vast majority of Iraq is peaceful.
CARLSON: Is that right? I don‘t think—I don‘t think there‘s any evidence of that.
BLAKEMAN: There are 12 million people who went to—who went to the polls. They have four successful elections. They have a new government. We tend only to focus on the very bad, on the insurgencies, and the evil people. But the vast majority of Iraqis want to be free.
You know, if we took your attitude...
CARLSON: Is that true? Is that true?
BLAKEMAN: Hold on, Tucker. If we took your attitude, we would have turned back at the beaches of Normandy when all those people...
CARLSON: Spare me the tired, hackney, cliched World War II analogies. Let‘s get to the war in progress, and that‘s Iraq. There are decent people there. I have been there. I‘ve met decent people there. I know firsthand.
However, your claim that most people want peace is bosh as they say.
Let me show you...
BLAKEMAN: It is not.
CARLSON: It certainly is. A poll undertaken by the ministry of defense from Great Britain, part of the coalition, said 65 percent of Iraqi citizens support attacks on U.S. citizens.
Our own polling, done by World Opinion, public opinion, 47 percent approve attacks on U.S. forces, 88 percent of Sunnis, 88 percent approve of attacks on U.S. forces.
These are—are these—these are the people our sons and daughters are dying to make rich and free? How does that work?
BLAKEMAN: It is our responsibility. We brought down this dictator, this evil dictator...
CARLSON: How are we responsible?
BLAKEMAN: ... who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Now, it‘s our responsibility to bring democracy to these people. We can‘t cut and run and defeat the dictator and then leave...
CARLSON: Why is it our responsibility? There are countries across the world who live in shackles.
BLAKEMAN: We are the freest nation on earth. That‘s why it‘s our responsibility. We‘re the freest nation on earth. We brought down the dictator, and now it‘s our responsibility...
CARLSON: How does that work? They have not done one thing for us. Look—look, think of the implications of what you are saying. I don‘t know if you have thought this through.
BLAKEMAN: I‘ve thought it through very well.
CARLSON: Nation after nation after nation, starting with Mugabe in Zimbabwe, moving all the way to communist—still communist, still unfree China, people who are living in fetters who are unfree, who are oppressed, is it our, as you put it, obligation as a free a nation to free those nations? Do you really want to play this?
BLAKEMAN: Is it—do you know what our obligation is? It‘s to bring freedom to those people who yearn to be free. And China has come a long way.
CARLSON: So it‘s your obligation to sent your son, my obligation...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... people I‘ve never met in countries that hate us? You‘ve got to be kidding. It‘s my obligation to do that?
BLAKEMAN: Yes, it is our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation.
CARLSON: Where does the obligation come from? I didn‘t sign up for that obligation.
BLAKEMAN: It‘s our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation to go into Europe where we weren‘t attacked? No, Europe let a dictator get so strong that collectively they couldn‘t take him down, and we had to come down.
CARLSON: We got in war when we were attacked.
BLAKEMAN: We lost 400,000 Americans in that war. We lost—a million people were wounded in that war.
CARLSON: Right. And there were...
BLAKEMAN: But was it worth it?
CARLSON: Let me just remind you, we entered that war on December 7, 1941, when our soil, the protectorate of Hawaii, was attacked by a foreign nation and thousands of Americans died. We went to war on that day, and not before. OK? So the overall principle you are stating here, that we have a moral obligation to free the unfree, think it through, man. It‘s...
BLAKEMAN: I didn‘t say that, Tucker. I said when we took down the dictator, when we made an obligation to risk our soldiers to free a country, we just can‘t cut and run. We have to establish a government for them. We‘ve got to give them the opportunity to succeed. That‘s our obligation.
CARLSON: And you may be right as far as that goes. But the blanket obligation that Bush implies, and you just stated, that we have to go free the world, to send our sons and daughters to go...
BLAKEMAN: No, we don‘t have to free the world
CARLSON: ... die for other people‘s freedom, people who hate us, it‘s a scary thing.
BLAKEMAN: Well, then you know what? Didn‘t the Japanese hate us?
Didn‘t the Germans hate us? Do they hate us today?
CARLSON: They attacked us first. We had no choice.
BLAKEMAN: They‘re our allies. They our allies, and they stand shoulder to shoulder with us. Should we have waited to get attacked by the Iraqis? No.
CARLSON: You know, I thought—when I supported the war initially, I thought that they were capable of attacking us, and it turns out, as you know, and I‘m sad to report, that we weren‘t.
BLAKEMAN: They were pretty capable of attacking us if they wanted to.
CARLSON: Brad Blakeman, thanks a lot.
BLAKEMAN: You are welcome.
It depends on the situation
I voted for Bush the first term. He was running against Gore. The country could not afford another 4 years of Clintons. I voted for Bush and I'm proud I did because it helped keep a known bafoon who didn't know squat diddly out of the white house. After Bush was elected a lot changed. I didn't want to vote for him again, yet the best the dems could do was give us Kerry???????? There were so many qualified people running. How that ninny got in there (must have been all those purple hearts). So I voted for Bush again. However I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against Kerry. That doesn't make me and others morons, it makes us well-informed voters. If it meant four more years with Bush in there then so be it, but I'll tell you something. With everything that has happened in the world these past eight years the US is lucky that Gore and Lerch were not in office. That's the way a lot of people feel.
Now we're in a totally different election. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are very different from their usual party people. This year is an unusually difficult election. Times are quite different than they were 4 and 8 years ago.
To tell someone they are a moron because they didn't vote for democrats? The other choice would have been even more moronic to vote for.
With everything that has happened I'll take Bush over Gore or Kerry anyday. And before anyone goes blaming him for everything that's happened - He's just a talking head being told what to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the bafoons in his party (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc to include the people who tell Bush what he's going to do).
my understanding of the situation...
My understanding is that Obama says this is a practice that can be regulated at the state level. The federal government is just making sure that abortion stays legal and then the individual states decide how far their state will go with it.
I have a friend in the same situation...sm
His father worked for GM and died several years ago, leaving my friend a nice trust fund and health care benefits and pension for his widow who currently is in a long-term care facility. My friend, who is an MT and cannot afford insurance and is in bad health himself, told me that when his mom loses her benefits at the first of the year, he doesn't know what they will do.
I don't know if blame the government for this mess as much as I blame mismanagement by the automakers with their big executive salaries and perks and insistence on manufacturing super trucks and huge SUVs. It seems to me that more could have been done to stem this before it got this far.
Yes, it is a no-win situation all the time.
Governing bodies do their budgets on what the expected income will be at that time. Any time anything goes wrong, it throws a monkey wrench into their budgets, then everybody has to fork over extra money.
It's always the taxpayers who lose in the end, no matter what. 
My twist on your situation
I was a democrat who became a republican and will probably reaffiliate as an independent in the not-too-distant future. I find the assumptions made on this board amusing and likely as not completely off base.
I think Obama is a likeable guy, but his starry-eyed supporters drive me up a wall. If not for the lunacy surrounding him and his office I probably wouldn't feel as apprehensive and insecure about his presidency as I do. Okay, I don't agree with him on much so far, but I so believe he's intelligent and sincere.
Try not to take the categorizing too seriously; it's just more silliness.
At lest Obama is TRYING to better the situation.
If he will be successful the future will show. At least we should give him some TIME.
The republicans would not have even TRIED to better the situation, but would have trotted along the same path, down into the final abyss.
But I agree with you that discussions about pub : dem AND about pro-life : pro-choice 'suck' and lead nowhere but to personal attacks.
When you say "world situation"....(sm)
and that Obama has played a big part in it, exactly what are you talking about? The economy was in the toilet before he got there, and yes, he's spending a lot of money, but that's in an attempt to try to stop (or at least slow) the progression of this economic downfall.
As far as foreign affairs go, I think we're on better terms with just about everyone now.
So I don't get what you're talking about.
situation in Iran
Iranian opposition leader calls for rally Thursday
because the situation OVER THERE CHANGED,
Taliban in Pakistan is getting stronger!
Think and get more flexible.
Let me count the ways...
1. Behaving as if he had a mandate from day 1.
2. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq and Iraq (this includes everything from the phony buildup to the quicksand of today).
3. Leaving Afghanistan to go to Iraq.
4. Tax cuts for the billionaires.
5. Restoring integrity to the WH??? Libby, Rove, Cunningham, Goss, DeLay, Cheney, Wilkes, Allen, Watergate redux (we are not only replaying Viet Nam, we are replaying freaking Watergate).
6. Staffing his cabinet with old fogies from his Dad and even Ford's time who see the world quite differently from what it has become in reality.
7. Gross incompetence in domestic and foreign affairs.
8. Making the United States a laughingstock.
9. Turning us into a third world country with outsourcing, offshoring, hiring illegal immigrants, importing much more than we are exporting, the glorification of cheap Chinese stuff at Wal-Mart and on and on....
10. Medicare fiasco.
11. Education fiasco.
12. The reuniting of church and state.
13. Job losses.
14. Healthcare fiasco.
I'm just sayin' it goes both ways
I'm sure that you want voter fraud to work in your favor .....jus kiddin'
I didn't say anything about having anything both ways....sm
However, I do agree with the first part of your first comment here:
She is a tough, expereienced mayor and govenror and has and will face down the big boy club. She just did it with Charlie. She will continue to do so. Keep watching.
I called the interview as I saw it.
You called the interview as you saw it.
You think she's a novelty, which is fine, and is your viewpoint.
Two completely different sets of viewpoints.
I think we can agree to disagree, don't you?
Yer always saying we "cant have it both ways", yet
can objectively look at 'both sides' of the issues and parties involved. If WE can't 'have it both ways', then why do you think YOU should?
I think that works both ways -
I think there are a lot of people who will not publicly acknowledge to people that they will vote for Obama, but when the time comes and nobody knows what they really do, they will choose him.
You cannot have it both ways. On one hand you...sm
say he is not doing enough and on the other is is asserting himself and being disrespectful. Which is it? Nothing he does or says is going to be right for you repubs.
Pubs want it both ways....(sm)
Having it Both Ways: Republicans Take Credit For 'Pork' In Stimulus Bill They Opposed
Of course, no one's really surprised, right? I just wonder if the Democratic communications staffers will kick into gear and capitalize on this kind of story:
WASHINGTON — Rep. John Mica was gushing after the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass the big stimulus plan.
"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.
Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.
Republicans echoed their party line over and over during the debate: "This bill is loaded with wasteful deficit spending on the majority's favorite government programs," as Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., put it.
But Mica wasn't alone in touting what he saw as the bill's virtues. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, also had nice things to say in a press release.
Young boasted that he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."
One provision would have made it harder for minority businesses to win contracts, and Young explained that he "worked with members on the other side of the aisle to make the case for these programs, and was able to get the provision pulled from the bill."
Yet later in the day Young — who recently told McClatchy that he would've included earmarks, or local projects, in the bill if it had been permitted — issued another statement blasting the overall measure.
"This bill was not a stimulus bill. It was a vehicle for pet projects, and that's wrong," he protested.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/having-it-both-ways-republicans-take-
It goes MANY ways. For example, I see racism
nm
They want it both ways, Cyndiee.
They don't want the lowest-paid workers to make a decent living wage, and they don't want social services to assist these people either. Their solution to the economic crisis is to have the government pay off their mortgage, so they can buy a big-screen television for their bedroom and put a new deck in the backyard. They talk about McDonald's but, in actuality, they are more like Burger King...they want it their way!
Let me count the ways
1. Really poor choice of Republican presidential candidate (republican lite).
2. George Soros's backing.
3. Mainstream media gave him a complete pass as far as any close scrutiny. Still are, although the honeymoon may be ending.
4. He's gonna fill my gas tank and pay my mortgage.
5. Political correctness.
6. The teleprompter.
7. Etc.
exploring situation from both sides? What?
Exploring the situation from both sides? What two sides? The man stated crime would go down if we aborted black babies. What is the side you are referring to? It is a racist remark, a dumb remark and insensitive hateful remark. No two ways about it..PERIOD..
His bosses handled the situation, as it should be - nm
x
|
![Iran](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090617/videolthumb.ec330d8bf51ff0f97896c253d0a81a66.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=n02llinss0WKJvn1w3HGlg--")
