Pages

5/1/11

Who is watching the news? Obama is about to deliver a statement in the White House briefing room. John King from CNN said that the announcement is about Osama Bin Ladin's death.

According to John King, the U.S has the body of Bin Ladin.

So what's next?

Comments (302)

In reply to cphbravo96
5/4/11
cphbravo96:
TheKing:
cphbravo96:
eokpar02:

I have given up trying to debate with people who fancy themselves Republicans. How Bush is responsible for this is something I will never know. Bush let Osama leave in 2001 and allowed the CIA to stop looking for in 2006.

It's being reported that enhanced interrogation techniques are what lead to the initial lead (the code name of the courier) that eventually lead to later intelligence that corroborated the more recent intel on where UBL was hiding out.

Where was President Obama's shout outs to EITs? Numerous sources are saying that EITs are useful and that they produce credible intelligence information, which in this case meant the death of the world's most well known terrorist...yet it's a program that Obama publicly spoke out against.

So, to summarize. The initial intel used to find and killed UBL was obtained while Bush was in office and by using techniques and operations that were supported by his administration. Those are the facts as they are being reported.

Regards

Don't simplify this. Finding Bin Laden was a massive operation with many players and tons of intel and analysis. One can say that EIT (torture, let's call it what it is) played a role (and it did), but to say that torture directly led to the capture of Bin Laden and that, therefore, Bush is the main reason we got him, is silly.

Aggravate went over the major reasons we found Bin Laden. And the fact is that many on the far right were deriding Obama for his Pakistan policies during the election, but without his Pakistan policies, this doesn't get done.

And seriously, was Obama really going to go up to the podium on Sunday night and say "Thanks to George Bush and waterboarding, we have killed Osama Bin Laden." What fucking planet do you live on, dude?

And enough of this "Obama took too much credit" bullshit. Honestly, suck a fucking dick. The guy ordered the attack and made the decision to send in the SEALs vs. bombing the place. In the end, it was his call to do this operation. And you know damn well that if something went wrong that assholes like you would be calling him President Carter.

Finally, if Obama is "taking too much credit for this" what the fuck do you call Bush flying in a fighter jet onto an air craft carrier with a fucking "Mission Accomplished" banner on it to declare the Iraq War a victory back in 2002? We're still there and it's 2011! But, oh yeah, Obama didn't suck Bush's cock enough when he announced to the world that they got Bin Laden. For the love of God.

I see you are keeping it classy...as always.

Say what you will, the initial intel that started the domino effect came from EITs...you can't deny, only try to diminish the impact. You are trying to remove 'step 1' from a multi-step process that was executed over years and years. Theoretically, without the first step, none of the rest would have occurred. Yeah, you can claim that KSM would have eventually given up some secrets because he's a nice guy or whatever, but history paints a much different picture. KSM basically was silent during his initial interrogations and it wasn't until rendition was executed and EITs used that he began to speak...which then put the whole process in motion.

I commend Obama for having the balls to carry out this mission. It was a gutsy move no matter how you slice it and he deserves credit for giving the 'go ahead'. I do question what our foreign policy is currently and will be going forward with Pakistan. I think they were prematurely given too much credit for the role they played here and as more things come to light, I think it becomes even more apparent just how uncooperative they have been over the years (whether it's the government as a whole or individual terrorist sympathizers that work within the government). With the rumors indicating that Usama had been living there for years coupled with the fact that no Pakistani government officials, intel services or military leaders knew that the raid was being conducted just goes to show that Obama's administration doesn't even trust that government as much as they lead people to believe. At this point Pakistani government officials are saying/implying that the US violated the rights of a sovereign nations...implying what we did was wrong and what could/would essentially lead to a declaration of war if the US wasn't so powerful.

And no, I would never expect Obama to thank President Bush, it would take a man much larger than he is to do so. I personally feel that Obama is very thin skinned and narcissistic and his address to the American people the other night just further supports that. I find it hard to believe that Obama (or virtually any president, including Bush) would be involved in the planning of this operation to the extent that it's been report and implied in his speech. It's much more likely that he was presented a few options, read through the files, consulted some of his advisers and made the (correct) decision.

Regards

Straight out of conservative Newsmax:

"Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through "normal interrogation approaches" and says the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a "myth."" (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/DonaldRumsfeld-git...)

This is not to say that I am necessarily for or against waterboarding and the like, but I think the far right is far too quick to put down traditional interrogation methods and stoop to levels that are far below the standards of our nation. Beyond that, far too many people on the right (yourself included) are too quick to say "see! Waterboarding got Bin Laden!" It's much more complicated than that and involves much more in terms of intelligence and analysis than a 24-style Jack Bauer scenario.

And seriously...How is Obama thin-skinned? I really don't understand this perspective. I got a good laugh over El Rushbo and friends calling his deficit speech (with Ryan in the front row) being "political" and a "campaign speech," as though Ryan's budget and basically every major Republican bill hasn't been political this year. For instance, the bill to repeal health reform was called "H.R. 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." Here's the thing, I don't really have a problem with that, I do, however, have a problem with the constant hypocrisy of the far right.

But, to say he is thin skinned. I just don't understand this. Give an actual example, seriously. Him not giving Bush enough credit to meet your level of approval does not mean he is thin skinned. What you are doing is ignoring reality and simplifying things to fit your world view.

And enough with the "keeping it classy, I see" bullshit. For one, I've seen you in multiple threads calling people names (i.e. in the mcdonalds brawl thread). Second of all, I have a hard time speaking respectfully to someone who has a distorted view of the world and disregards facts and logic to fit their world view.

If you want to be respected, bring some factual evidence to your reply instead of conjecture and the creations of your own mind.

The WSO Advantage - Investment Banking

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation +

IB Interview Prep Pack

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Actual IB Pros

Land More IB Interviews.

Find Your Perfect IB Mentor

Realistic IB Mock Interviews.

In reply to Ben Shalom Bernanke
5/4/11

fuck this political shit... Osama Bin Laden is dead! Rejoice!

haha. There shouldn't be this much negativity in a thread about this douche's bullet eating eyes.

Ben Shalom Bernanke:

Everyone is talking about Bush vs. Obama and who gets cred. Obviously it's the SEALs. But one name that you don't hear in the debate is Leon Panetta. He's the one that spent time gathering the intelligence, planning the raid, then making a ballsy pitch to the President that we should make the move. The CIA said they only believed there was a 50% chance that Bin Laden was there. But Panetta was the one that argued to Obama that they needed to act in a timely fashion. If not, he may still be sleeping on it.

Hats off to Panetta and William McRaven and the SEALs for making it happen. Not the politicians that want to have their name associated with the job.

+1

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

In reply to cphbravo96
5/4/11
cphbravo96:

And no, I would never expect Obama to thank President Bush, it would take a man much larger than he is to do so. I personally feel that Obama is very thin skinned and narcissistic and his address to the American people the other night just further supports that. I find it hard to believe that Obama (or virtually any president, including Bush) would be involved in the planning of this operation to the extent that it's been report and implied in his speech. It's much more likely that he was presented a few options, read through the files, consulted some of his advisers and made the (correct) decision.

Regards

Then according to your logic, Presidents don't do shit. Because you've just described the process for how every decision gets made. Presidents are always presented with options that have been prepared by armies of analysts and vetted with tons of advisers. And its not just Presidents - its Managing Directors, CEOS...anybody who's in a leadership position. They're never in the weeds. But somehow organizations feel that their leadership is crucial to success. They deal with the consequences and they get the credit (and giving them credit doesn't take away from others who were more directly involved). To try to not give Obama credit for this is ultimate political partisanship.

Not to mention the guy called Bush before he gave his speech (he didn't have to) and invited him to Ground Zero. That's more than enough of whatever credit he needed to give.

In reply to HireUp212
5/4/11
HireUp212:
cphbravo96:

And no, I would never expect Obama to thank President Bush, it would take a man much larger than he is to do so. I personally feel that Obama is very thin skinned and narcissistic and his address to the American people the other night just further supports that. I find it hard to believe that Obama (or virtually any president, including Bush) would be involved in the planning of this operation to the extent that it's been report and implied in his speech. It's much more likely that he was presented a few options, read through the files, consulted some of his advisers and made the (correct) decision.

Regards

Then according to your logic, Presidents don't do shit. Because you've just described the process for how every decision gets made. Presidents are always presented with options that have been prepared by armies of analysts and vetted with tons of advisers. And it's not just Presidents - it's Managing Directors, CEOs...anybody who's in a leadership position. They're never in the weeds. But somehow organizations feel that their leadership is crucial to success. They deal with the consequences and they get the credit (and giving them credit doesn't take away from others who were more directly involved). To try to not give Obama credit for this is ultimate political partisanship.

Not to mention the guy called Bush before he gave his speech (he didn't have to) and invited him to Ground Zero. That's more than enough of whatever credit he needed to give.

5/4/11

@cph I knew you would misunderstand the analogy because I didn't expect any better from you. It's obvious their intentions and actions are different. What I'm saying is you and your contituents don't question Bush and support him no matter what. Obama gets a lot more criticism from the left than Bush gets from the right and Bush was WAY worse. This kind of blind faith attitude may work in the army but it only makes you look ignorant when discussing policies.

In reply to TheKing
5/4/11

TheKing:
cphbravo96:
TheKing:
cphbravo96:
eokpar02:
I have given up trying to debate with people who fancy themselves Republicans. How Bush is responsible for this is something I will never know. Bush let Osama leave in 2001 and allowed the CIA to stop looking for in 2006.

It's being reported that enhanced interrogation techniques are what lead to the initial lead (the code name of the courier) that eventually lead to later intelligence that corroborated the more recent intel on where UBL was hiding out.

Where was President Obama's shout outs to EITs? Numerous sources are saying that EITs are useful and that they produce credible intelligence information, which in this case meant the death of the world's most well known terrorist...yet it's a program that Obama publicly spoke out against.

So, to summarize. The initial intel used to find and killed UBL was obtained while Bush was in office and by using techniques and operations that were supported by his administration. Those are the facts as they are being reported.

Regards

Don't simplify this. Finding Bin Laden was a massive operation with many players and tons of intel and analysis. One can say that EIT (torture, let's call it what it is) played a role (and it did), but to say that torture directly led to the capture of Bin Laden and that, therefore, Bush is the main reason we got him, is silly.

Aggravate went over the major reasons we found Bin Laden. And the fact is that many on the far right were deriding Obama for his Pakistan policies during the election, but without his Pakistan policies, this doesn't get done.

And seriously, was Obama really going to go up to the podium on Sunday night and say "Thanks to George Bush and waterboarding, we have killed Osama Bin Laden." What fucking planet do you live on, dude?

And enough of this "Obama took too much credit" bullshit. Honestly, suck a fucking dick. The guy ordered the attack and made the decision to send in the SEALs vs. bombing the place. In the end, it was his call to do this operation. And you know damn well that if something went wrong that assholes like you would be calling him President Carter.

Finally, if Obama is "taking too much credit for this" what the fuck do you call Bush flying in a fighter jet onto an air craft carrier with a fucking "Mission Accomplished" banner on it to declare the Iraq War a victory back in 2002? We're still there and it's 2011! But, oh yeah, Obama didn't suck Bush's cock enough when he announced to the world that they got Bin Laden. For the love of God.

I see you are keeping it classy...as always.

Say what you will, the initial intel that started the domino effect came from EITs...you can't deny, only try to diminish the impact. You are trying to remove 'step 1' from a multi-step process that was executed over years and years. Theoretically, without the first step, none of the rest would have occurred. Yeah, you can claim that KSM would have eventually given up some secrets because he's a nice guy or whatever, but history paints a much different picture. KSM basically was silent during his initial interrogations and it wasn't until rendition was executed and EITs used that he began to speak...which then put the whole process in motion.

I commend Obama for having the balls to carry out this mission. It was a gutsy move no matter how you slice it and he deserves credit for giving the 'go ahead'. I do question what our foreign policy is currently and will be going forward with Pakistan. I think they were prematurely given too much credit for the role they played here and as more things come to light, I think it becomes even more apparent just how uncooperative they have been over the years (whether it's the government as a whole or individual terrorist sympathizers that work within the government). With the rumors indicating that Usama had been living there for years coupled with the fact that no Pakistani government officials, intel services or military leaders knew that the raid was being conducted just goes to show that Obama's administration doesn't even trust that government as much as they lead people to believe. At this point Pakistani government officials are saying/implying that the US violated the rights of a sovereign nations...implying what we did was wrong and what could/would essentially lead to a declaration of war if the US wasn't so powerful.

And no, I would never expect Obama to thank President Bush, it would take a man much larger than he is to do so. I personally feel that Obama is very thin skinned and narcissistic and his address to the American people the other night just further supports that. I find it hard to believe that Obama (or virtually any president, including Bush) would be involved in the planning of this operation to the extent that it's been report and implied in his speech. It's much more likely that he was presented a few options, read through the files, consulted some of his advisers and made the (correct) decision.

Regards

Straight out of conservative Newsmax:

"Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through "normal interrogation approaches" and says the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a "myth."" (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/DonaldRumsfeld-git...)

This is not to say that I am necessarily for or against waterboarding and the like, but I think the far right is far too quick to put down traditional interrogation methods and stoop to levels that are far below the standards of our nation. Beyond that, far too many people on the right (yourself included) are too quick to say "see! Waterboarding got Bin Laden!" It's much more complicated than that and involves much more in terms of intelligence and analysis than a 24-style Jack Bauer scenario.

And seriously...How is Obama thin-skinned? I really don't understand this perspective. I got a good laugh over El Rushbo and friends calling his deficit speech (with Ryan in the front row) being "political" and a "campaign speech," as though Ryan's budget and basically every major Republican bill hasn't been political this year. For instance, the bill to repeal health reform was called "H.R. 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." Here's the thing, I don't really have a problem with that, I do, however, have a problem with the constant hypocrisy of the far right.

But, to say he is thin skinned. I just don't understand this. Give an actual example, seriously. Him not giving Bush enough credit to meet your level of approval does not mean he is thin skinned. What you are doing is ignoring reality and simplifying things to fit your world view.

And enough with the "keeping it classy, I see" bullshit. For one, I've seen you in multiple threads calling people names (i.e. in the mcdonalds brawl thread). Second of all, I have a hard time speaking respectfully to someone who has a distorted view of the world and disregards facts and logic to fit their world view.

If you want to be respected, bring some factual evidence to your reply instead of conjecture and the creations of your own mind.

How about you step into my office? Instead of misinterpreting a secondary news source...how about you just get it straight from the horses mouth? The whole clip is good and worth watching, but the part you will be most concerned with (and shocked) starts at 2:30...
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4675467/donald-rumsfeld...

Here's just one example. You can add to this Obama's remarks telling people to ignore FoxNews, etc.

As far as the McDonald's thread is concerned, I called one person a "pussy" because he (as in a dude) said he would not have interfered nor attempted to stop a crime from being committed that he could have stopped or deterred. Then he tried to justify his inaction by saying he was taught differently, blah blah blah. If you can stand and watch something occur, like what happened in that video, then you either have no morals or you are scared. For God's sake, a female senior citizen even intervened. I stand by what I said in that thread...which is far from telling someone to 'suck a dick'.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

5/4/11

While I am not a fan of Obama or any politician for that matter, Obama does deserve a lot of credit for this. He made a quick decision that would have made him look really bad if it had gone wrong. He also decided on ST6 for the raid rather than dropping a bomb.

I also remember awhile back.......there was a Delta guy on 60mins or one of those shows talking about a chance they had to get Osama right after 9/11, but their strategy was shot down by the White House because it involved entering Pakistan territory. Clearly, entering Pakistan was not a issue this time.

The most credit for this goes to ST6 and the CIA hands down!

"One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger

In reply to HireUp212
5/4/11
HireUp212:
cphbravo96:

And no, I would never expect Obama to thank President Bush, it would take a man much larger than he is to do so. I personally feel that Obama is very thin skinned and narcissistic and his address to the American people the other night just further supports that. I find it hard to believe that Obama (or virtually any president, including Bush) would be involved in the planning of this operation to the extent that it's been report and implied in his speech. It's much more likely that he was presented a few options, read through the files, consulted some of his advisers and made the (correct) decision.

Regards

Then according to your logic, Presidents don't do shit. Because you've just described the process for how every decision gets made. Presidents are always presented with options that have been prepared by armies of analysts and vetted with tons of advisers. And its not just Presidents - its Managing Directors, CEOS...anybody who's in a leadership position. They're never in the weeds. But somehow organizations feel that their leadership is crucial to success. They deal with the consequences and they get the credit (and giving them credit doesn't take away from others who were more directly involved). To try to not give Obama credit for this is ultimate political partisanship.

Not to mention the guy called Bush before he gave his speech (he didn't have to) and invited him to Ground Zero. That's more than enough of whatever credit he needed to give.

I appreciate you taking the time to quote me, but you should also take the time to read everything I wrote...

cphbravo96:

I commend Obama for having the balls to carry out this mission. It was a gutsy move no matter how you slice it and he deserves credit for giving the 'go ahead'.

The point I was making is that Obama thanked, rightfully, the military and the intelligence professionals for all of their hard work over the last 10 years...7.5 of which were during the Bush administration...but there was no reference to the effort that Bush put in. Like I said, I wouldn't expect that from Obama, so it didn't come as a surprise, but I think he would have put himself in a much better position if he would have tipped his hat.

And I'm not saying that presidents and CEO, etc do nothing, they make these decisions that impact the future of countries and companies...but if you were to watch any of the news reports by the liberal media you would think the initial press conference was delayed for so long because Obama was having trouble changing out of his bloody SEAL Team 6 operator uniform.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to cplpayne
5/4/11
cplpayne:

While I am not a fan of Obama or any politician for that matter, Obama does deserve a lot of credit for this. He made a quick decision that would have made him look really bad if it had gone wrong. He also decided on ST6 for the raid rather than dropping a bomb.

I also remember awhile back.......there was a Delta guy on 60mins or one of those shows talking about a chance they had to get Osama right after 9/11, but their strategy was shot down by the White House because it involved entering Pakistan territory. Clearly, entering Pakistan was not a issue this time.

The most credit for this goes to ST6 and the CIA hands down!

I would be careful using the term 'quick decision'. ZZZzzzzz. ZZZZZzzzz. LOL.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to djr
5/4/11
djr:

@cph I knew you would misunderstand the analogy because I didn't expect any better from you. It's obvious their intentions and actions are different. What I'm saying is you and your contituents don't question Bush and support him no matter what. Obama gets a lot more criticism from the left than Bush gets from the right and Bush was WAY worse. This kind of blind faith attitude may work in the army but it only makes you look ignorant when discussing policies.

As does siding with people who think GWB hates black people because of Katrina or doesn't care for soldiers because he sent so many to Iraq based on a lie or that he was stupid because he wasn't a great public speaker.

I still maintain that Bush cared, and still does care, more about our soldiers than any other president in recent history.

As far as that criticism from the left, it hasn't always been there and really only developed over the last year or so...but I will say that the left has been more vocal about the president especially since he's started his trek to the middle.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

5/4/11

WWAAAAAAAHHHH Bush didn't get a shout out waaaah.

Yeah, usually when a President cares soooo much for his troops, he says shit like "bring it on" when his ass isn't on the line

and in the Fox interview he just told an interviewer to wait for him to finish answering before talking... big deal right? I would do the same.

You're just getting ridiculous cph, you're giving Obama shit for everything he does or doesn't do while making excuses for GWB... what you're doing is obvious.

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

5/4/11

cphbravo:

I find it really funny that you call Obama thin-skinned over that interview when the entire far right went fucking ape shit at Katie Couric after Palin couldn't name a single magazine or newspaper that she reads and proclaimed her foreign policy expertise because of Alaska's proximity to Russia. Meanwhile, this dude is pushing the President on how he lost in Texas and whether or not he's going to campaign there and Obama is thin skinned. Absolutely absurd.

Furthermore, I'm not quite sure when the President told people to ignore Fox News, but unless you are living in another reality, it's pretty clear that most of Fox has an extreme anti-Obama bias. And before you come back with "well, MSNBC has a pro-Obama bias," I agree with that premise and don't like it. With that said, I don't think MSNBC is doing anything as egregious as some of the crap Fox pulls. Let's be clear, a commentator on Fox News referred to a fist bump between the Obamas as a "terrorist fist jab" and they literally ran wild with birther crap.

Your claims about there being no real criticism from the left are simply wrong:

--The left bitched and moaned that there was no public option in the healthcare reform deal
--The left bitched and moaned about the deal with big Pharma (no allowing drugs to be imported from Canada)
--the left (along with anyone rational and awake) gave him heat for his catering to the big banks and keeping shitheads like Larry Summers on his staff

The myth about Obama being some hardcore leftist are ridiculous. His healthcare bill, for instance, is not nearly that far off from what the Republicans proposed back in the 1990s during Clinton's term. The reason why he's considered left at all is because the Republicans are drifting further and further to the right completely eliminating most moderates. For Christ's sake, the tea party wants to run someone in a primary against Scott Brown because he isn't conservative enough. What the fuck do they expect out of a Massachusetts republican? Additionally, there is a 24/7 news cycle that needs to fill itself with content of any sort, so you end up with horse shit stories to get viewers / page views, etc.

And these claims that Bush cares more about the troops than anyone else are based literally on nothing but conjecture.

In reply to wolverine19x89
5/4/11
scottj19x89:

WWAAAAAAAHHHH Bush didn't get a shout out waaaah.

Yeah, usually when a President cares soooo much for his troops, he says shit like "bring it on" when his ass isn't on the line

and in the Fox interview he just told an interviewer to wait for him to finish answering before talking... big deal right? I would do the same.

You're just getting ridiculous cph, you're giving Obama shit for everything he does or doesn't do while making excuses for GWB... what you're doing is obvious.

Just because you don't want to agree with me doesn't change the news. Yes Bush sent troops to war/battle...but does this make him a bad person or mean he doesn't care about them? No. But if we were to follow your logic Obama is a horrible president too since he's got troops deployed all around the world right now, authorized military actions in Libya and just as of a couple nights ago, put a few dozen troops in harms way.

What does it being a (local) Fox news station have to do with what was said in the interview? The president disingenuously suggested that he lost by a couple points...which the interviewer corrected him on...he wasn't bashing the president and not allowing him to finish his statements. You appear to be the one making the excuses.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to TheKing
5/4/11

TheKing:
cphbravo:

I find it really funny that you call Obama thin-skinned over that interview when the entire far right went fucking ape shit at Katie Couric after Palin couldn't name a single magazine or newspaper that she reads and proclaimed her foreign policy expertise because of Alaska's proximity to Russia. Meanwhile, this dude is pushing the President on how he lost in Texas and whether or not he's going to campaign there and Obama is thin skinned. Absolutely absurd.

Furthermore, I'm not quite sure when the President told people to ignore Fox News, but unless you are living in another reality, it's pretty clear that most of Fox has an extreme anti-Obama bias. And before you come back with "well, MSNBC has a pro-Obama bias," I agree with that premise and don't like it. With that said, I don't think MSNBC is doing anything as egregious as some of the crap Fox pulls. Let's be clear, a commentator on Fox News referred to a fist bump between the Obamas as a "terrorist fist jab" and they literally ran wild with birther crap.

Your claims about there being no real criticism from the left are simply wrong:

--The left bitched and moaned that there was no public option in the healthcare reform deal
--The left bitched and moaned about the deal with big Pharma (no allowing drugs to be imported from Canada)
--the left (along with anyone rational and awake) gave him heat for his catering to the big banks and keeping shitheads like Larry Summers on his staff

The myth about Obama being some hardcore leftist are ridiculous. His healthcare bill, for instance, is not nearly that far off from what the Republicans proposed back in the 1990s during Clinton's term. The reason why he's considered left at all is because the Republicans are drifting further and further to the right completely eliminating most moderates. For Christ's sake, the tea party wants to run someone in a primary against Scott Brown because he isn't conservative enough. What the fuck do they expect out of a Massachusetts republican? Additionally, there is a 24/7 news cycle that needs to fill itself with content of any sort, so you end up with horse shit stories to get viewers / page views, etc.

And these claims that Bush cares more about the troops than anyone else are based literally on nothing but conjecture.

Feel free to watch the whole thing, it includes a little commentary by Dennis Miller who, despite his misleading comedic approach, is an exceptionally smart guy and typically has something good to say...

Again, if you read what I wrote, I said there is criticism from the left...it just hasn't always been there and it's far more fervent in the last year or so.

Yes, Bush being a patriot and a good president and someone who cares for the troops is based entirely on my opinion which I developed while serving in the military while he was in office and by watching coverage of his trips to visit and spend time with troops both while he was in office and after.

And King...you must be busy or something...you haven't even managed to address my previous response...you know, the one in which you told me that I had a "distorted view of the world" that "disregards facts and logic to fit". I supplied some "factual evidence" in my reply, instead of my typical "conjecture and the creations" of my own mind.

Sooooo, do you respect me now?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

5/4/11

Wow you are:

1) Living in oblivion OR
2) Arguing just to defend your foolish pride

Either way, I give up. I'm getting back to work because I have grown ups to deal with.

Regards.

In reply to cphbravo96
5/4/11
cphbravo96:

Just because you don't want to agree with me doesn't change the news. Yes Bush sent troops to war/battle...but does this make him a bad person or mean he doesn't care about them? No. But if we were to follow your logic Obama is a horrible president too since he's got troops deployed all around the world right now, authorized military actions in Libya and just as of a couple nights ago, put a few dozen troops in harm's way.

Actually sending soldiers into harm's way on patently false pretenses at the same time as firing the chief-of-staff (Gen. Shinseki) who gave a no-nonsense appraisal of what it would take to invade Iraq properly because his troop requirement number wasn't what Rumsfeld was trying to sell seems like something someone who didn't give a rats ass might do. Ike was the last President who I think you can point to as demonstratively putting the welfare of citizen soldiers over politics or some other agenda. The runner-ups would be all the Presidents who didn't use force unless it was absolutely necessary to preserve national security/interests, which realistically is only Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush (it was our canal and oil infrastructure we built was stolen in Kuwait and threatened in Saudi Arabia) and maybe Nixon if you believe he was extracting the country as fast as possible from Vietnam (personally I think that could have been done better but realistically it was already a total clusterfuck by the time he set foot in office). Of the guys who don't make the cut, Bush and Johnson stand alone because of body count and the massive lying (Gulf of Tonkin, Monolithic Communism are the WMDs, yellow cake uranium and state sponsor of terrorism of their day) that went on to justify troop deployments. So forgive me if I am unwilling to forgive a President and the 373 members of congress who sent men/women to die or be maimed (and then sit in Walter Reed while fucking rats scurried around their beds at night) for no legitimate national interest.

Then again, maybe you had a great time with your REMF buddies analyzing photographs in air conditioned offices, wolfing down hot chow three times a day and thinking a field dressing was just an emergency tampon for the girls you had in your MOS. Speaking for myself, I don't think saying the war was completely baseless and poorly planned detracts anything from of the men and women who had to drive through IED/EFP laced roads on a daily basis. It should however detract everything from how the "leadership" of the men who sent them there is viewed.

In reply to Aggravate
5/4/11

To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to cphbravo96
5/4/11

"One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger

In reply to Aggravate
5/4/11
In reply to cphbravo96
5/4/11

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

In reply to cplpayne
5/4/11

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

5/4/11

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

In reply to cphbravo96
5/4/11

"One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger

In reply to D M
5/4/11

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to wolverine19x89
5/4/11

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

5/4/11
In reply to drexelalum11
5/5/11

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

The WSO Advantage - Investment Banking

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation +

IB Interview Prep Pack

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Actual IB Pros

Land More IB Interviews.

Find Your Perfect IB Mentor

Realistic IB Mock Interviews.

5/5/11

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

5/5/11

Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art - Andy Warhol

5/5/11

Greed is Good.

5/27/11
6/21/11

Pages

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling