A new low in American politics

#26
#26
The problem with Romney's statement is that as usual it totally contradicts statements he made in 2007-08. Who would have thought?

Contrary to popular opinion around here, the President stated during his campaign what he would do foreign policy wise and militarily, including if he had the opprtunity to fo something like the OBL raid. President Obama has been remarkably consistent in fulfilling these promises. Ex-SECDEF Gates has stated that it's one of the gutsiest decisions he's seen a President make. And he served in what, five or six administrations?

I guess it wouldn't be tacky if Mr. Obama hopped on an aircraft carrier, stuffed his crotch full of socks, stood I'm front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner babbling pidgin English. Much more tasteful. Except of course having the balls to actually accomplished the mission. THE NERVE!!!

And just for the record, President Carter was anything but weak. He knew more about command than any other President save Ike. Annapolis grad, submarine commander and was cleared for command of nuclear subs when he left the service to go home to run the farm. He too had the guts to order that raid to free the hostages. Not his fault it didn't work. He inherited an insanely bad economy (we had wrestled with high inflation and interest rates for YEARS). That by the way persisted well in Reagan's first term. Most of all, and a big part of his downfall was his habit of insisting that the American people sacrifice, actually make lifestyle changes to solve various problems, notably the energy shortages of the Seventies. He is a good man who served IMHO quite ably in a really effed up time. After all, Bill Battle was head coach when he was elected. LOL
 
#29
#29
dave956 said:
The problem with Romney's statement is that as usual it totally contradicts statements he made in 2007-08. Who would have thought?

Contrary to popular opinion around here, the President stated during his campaign what he would do foreign policy wise and militarily, including if he had the opprtunity to fo something like the OBL raid. President Obama has been remarkably consistent in fulfilling these promises. Ex-SECDEF Gates has stated that it's one of the gutsiest decisions he's seen a President make. And he served in what, five or six administrations?

I guess it wouldn't be tacky if Mr. Obama hopped on an aircraft carrier, stuffed his crotch full of socks, stood I'm front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner babbling pidgin English. Much more tasteful. Except of course having the balls to actually accomplished the mission. THE NERVE!!!

And just for the record, President Carter was anything but weak. He knew more about command than any other President save Ike. Annapolis grad, submarine commander and was cleared for command of nuclear subs when he left the service to go home to run the farm. He too had the guts to order that raid to free the hostages. Not his fault it didn't work. He inherited an insanely bad economy (we had wrestled with high inflation and interest rates for YEARS). That by the way persisted well in Reagan's first term. Most of all, and a big part of his downfall was his habit of insisting that the American people sacrifice, actually make lifestyle changes to solve various problems, notably the energy shortages of the Seventies. He is a good man who served IMHO quite ably in a really effed up time. After all, Bill Battle was head coach when he was elected. LOL
Click to expand...

Sounds like you got the memo
 
#31
#31
#32
#32
Joe Scarborough agrees with LG on this.
He said this morning that Romney's comment was a cheap shot.
 
#36
#36
utvolpj said:
actually many reports say a huge problem was Carter micromanaging the entire thing. To Obama's credit he didn't do that (not like he could have anyway)



agreed
Click to expand...

Amazing. Here, you give Obama a backhanded compliment so as to maintain criticism of Carter, then take it away in the parenthetical.

This is what the GOP is doing here - try to claim Democrats are always weak on national defense, acknowledge bin Laden killing, then refuse to give Obama any credit for it.
 
#37
#37
sorry you view the truth as bad. His post spelled out the prowess of Carter on military issues. To my knowledge Obama has no military knowledge or background. If you would like to follow up with one on Obama's then I will read it too

as for the call, Obama said 'execute your plan' and other than the fact he would take the criticism if it failed (like any Pres would) I can't see how he should be sainted for the move. Gutsy? Sure, but it gets cheaper every time he spikes the football
 
#38
#38
It seems the Navy Seals believe Obama's ad is rather low:

SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign


A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#39
#39
volved said:
It seems the Navy Seals believe Obama's ad is rather low:

SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign
Click to expand...


The first ex-Seal they quote is a Republican state senator now.

The next is a guy who wrote a book about being a sniper and went on O'Reilly's show to get some readership for it and whose claim to fame is that he punched Jesse Ventura.

The next guy is buddies with the second. He goes on and on about how Bush ought to get credit for killing bin Laden, and of course it was Bush who gave him his medal.

I see this article repeated all over the place on conservative blogs. Wonder if there might have been a bit of a concerted effort here to get these guys to criticize Obama.

Gee, ya think?


"Josh Marshall is exactly correct--the origination of this story in the British tabloid media is no accident.

So far, we have one unnamed and serving SEAL who doesn't like the fact that President Obama is paying tribute to our professional military. We have one Republican politician from Montana who used to be a SEAL. And, we have Chris Kyle, who claims to have knocked Jesse Ventura on his ass but is now being sued for his claims because Ventura says it never happened. We have Brandon Webb, who sure likes to sell watches and copies of his book (nothing wrong with that). And we have Clint Bruce, a former SEAL who runs his own self-described version of the CIA in Texas. Then we have a lot of anonymous SEALs who are unhappy with what the President is doing.

These are all honorable people who have served their country. But, as with the Bush Presidency, we have civilian control of the military. It was wrong when unnamed, anonymous, and former generals criticized his conduct during the Iraq War, and it was wrong for Democrats to exploit these statements in order to score political points against the President. If you don't like what President Obama is saying or doing, by all means, express your opinion. But don't hide behind a Swift Boat-style smearing of the President and run it in the British funny papers and claim it means something, because it doesn't.

When you get a bunch of right-leaning guys who want to slam the President in one article, don't pass that off as some sort of benediction on what every Navy SEAL has to say. Don't try to sell the country on the idea that a major community within our military isn't loyal to the President in order to bolster the election prospects of Mitt Romney. That's wrong.

Just so we're not mistaking what is really going on--there are a number of people who are mad that President Obama is popular with the troops. They are mad that he has given successful orders to kill pirates and terrorists. They want to convince everyone to vote for the guy who never served in the military who just so happens to have five sons names Ben, Craig, Josh, Matt, and Tagg who somehow found a way to go through ten years of war and not feel the need to join up with the SEALs or the Rangers or the guys who put on the Anchor, Globe, and Eagle and go fight for America.

Now, if Ben, Craig, Josh, Matt, and Tagg were all SEALs who said that they were mad as heck that the President was taking credit for exercising civilian control of the military to kill pirates and terrorists, well, I would grant you that point just to be civil.

What we don't have are the SEALs that agree with the President, and who are glad to have him as a Commander in Chief, one who gives the order to shoot pirates and terrorists. I don't see anything from those guys, if they do, in fact exist. We don't have anyone who says that they believe in returning the country to the gold standard and voting for Ron Paul, either. Where are those guys? I'm sure that there is at least one Ron Paul supporter amongst the SEALs. Where is his opinion on provoking a response from the Islamic world by continually invading their countries? Where is the SEAL who advocates for Ron Paul's version of international detachment and isolationism? And where is the Navy SEAL who thinks Call of Duty is *****en and wicked and won't play World of Warcraft because he's tired of the poseurs?

That's why I'm leery of these kinds of stories. They confirm the "worst fears" of those who oppose the President, you see. They confirm the notion that the military opposes the President, and this benefits the Republicans.

These would be the same Republicans who believe in starting wars of choice, abandoning our troops after they get hurt, and who want to balance the budget on the backs of veterans by slashing their benefits, reducing their access to Tri-Care, and denying them treatment for severe and debilitating injuries.

Funny how you don't hear any Navy SEALs talking about how Republicans turn on veterans and cut their benefits every time a war ends."
 
#40
#40
Obama's detractors will say he's using it as a political chip and its meaningless. Obama's supporters will say the GOP is brushing it off. Meanwhile both parties are laughing all the way to the bank that idiots get caught up in this crap.
 
#41
#41
you'll defend Obama at every turn but run down people like the Navy Seals that actually work for a living. For an undecided voter you've really taken a turn huh? Sad, sad little man and the fact you went all gsvol in that post just makes it even more laughable
 
#42
#42
The comical thing to me is that Bill Clinton, the guy that wouldn't give the kill order for OBL in the 90s, is the guy asking if Romney would have had the guts to give the order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#43
#43
utvolpj said:
you'll defend Obama at every turn but run down people like the Navy Seals that actually work for a living. For an undecided voter you've really taken a turn huh? Sad, sad little man
Click to expand...


No, no, not at all. I applaud their service to the country and congratulate them for it.

However, when that circle of friends is quoted by one of the British papers as all criticizing Obama, and all of them since their military careers have some ... dubious alliances or credentials as "speaking for the SEALs" which is what the article and the conservative blogs are implying, then yes, I am going to call shenanigans.
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
No, no, not at all. I applaud their service to the country and congratulate them for it.

However, when that circle of friends is quoted by one of the British papers as all criticizing Obama, and all of them since their military careers have some ... dubious alliances or credentials as "speaking for the SEALs" which is what the article and the conservative blogs are implying, then yes, I am going to call shenanigans.
Click to expand...

Could be shenanigans, but they would have nothing to talk about if Obama hadn't made it a campaign issue.
 
#47
#47
GAVol said:
The comical thing to me is that Bill Clinton, the guy that wouldn't give the kill order for OBL in the 90s, is the guy asking if Romney would have had the guts to give the order.
Click to expand...


In fairness, things were a bit different then.

Pre-9/11 if would have been very difficult to go into a foreign country and takeout a terrorist leader. In fact, given the circumstances at the time it might have led to a stronger Al-Qaeda.

Interestingly, in 2007 during the primaries, Obama said he would give the order to go into a foreign country to go after bin Laden if intelligence said he was there. Romney said he would not.

After Obama said he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden, Romney said:

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort.” And: "I think his comments were ill-timed and ill-considered.”




So, Romney and his camp have majorly f'd up here. By taking the bait on the original comments, Obama's people can now play those words back at Romney. And so when he says "of course" he would have gone into Pakistan to get bin Laden?

Yet ANOTHER flip flop from Romney! He specifically criticized Obama for saying that back in 2007.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
No, no, not at all. I applaud their service to the country and congratulate them for it.
Click to expand...

except now they should just shut up and get out of the way for the Obama train? Sorry but they have done more in their lives to serve the American people than Obama will ever do. The pres can spike the football all he wants but these men actually had to pull the trigger.
 
#50
#50
Fitting that LG being the Steely Dan fan that he is would apply his patented pretzel logic here.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top