Here is the thing..
I like that Obama understands he can't do anything he said during his campaign since now he is making better choices in some cases...
But this specific story makes this whole Presidency and all the sheeple in the media look like complete morons.
You had Obama and liberals spewing the complete lie that McCain is just like Bush, which is hilarious to those of us who can get over 100 on an IQ test, or are not one of the 97% of Obama supporters who know nothing about Obama...
So McCain is a war monger like Bush, Obama is going to get make sure we leave Iraq...but now he shows signs he will not leave, Iraq TODAY voted to keep us there for 3 more years (another blow to liberals on this site that want the world to hate us), I know people going to Iraq that say there is NO WAY we can leave for atleast 16 months, and now Obama keeps Bush's main war guy...
I don't mind Obama using his brain for the first time in his political career, but boy is he making you liberal supporters look like idiots.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Obama keeps Bush’s Defense Secretary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
here's the thing...what?
"Obama understands he can't do anything he said during his campaign"
he does? he can't? says who? he's not even president for another 50 some days.
"But this specific story makes this whole Presidencey and all the sheeple in the media look like complete morons."
actually, no. it makes the author look like the moron she is. the story is nonsense and it's fitting that you post it here.
gates does not set policy; he carries it out. and it will be president obama's policy, not bush's and not mccain's.
obama's policy is to leave iraq as quickly as it is safely possible to do so. this hasn't changed and it won't change because gates is his sec def.
"Iraq TODAY voted to keep us there for 3 more years (another blow to liberals on this site that want the world to hate us)". more nonsense.
no they voted to have the us get out within 3 years. "It sets out a timetable requiring American troops to withdraw from cities and towns by June 30, 2009, and for all troops to leave the country by the end of 2011".
"bush's main war guy"? i don't think so, tim. rummy and dick were bush's main war guys.
I don't mind Obama using his brain for the first time in his political career". more nonsense.
"but boy is he making you liberal supporters look like idiots." no, he's make you and michelle write like one.
"obama's policy is to leave iraq as quickly as it is safely possible to do so."
In your mind, perhaps. Obama spent most of his campaign, which started back in the fifties, I believe, saying that he will end the war, while Bush was saying that we won't leave until the Iraqi's can take care of themselves. Now, he's softened his rhetoric on this as he has on other things. I doubt he will pull us out before people like Petraeus and the Iraqi government say it is time, but, we'll have to wait and see.
From what I read in my local paper, the Iraqi government speaks of leaving when they can take care of business without us, not before. We are much closer to that than Obama ever pretended to believe, and definitely much better off than Dingy Harr Reid has any idea of. But anyway, the Iraqi's figure another three years and they'll be golden, but not before.
Happy Thanksgiving, Game.
The underlying envy that is a hallmark of your posts on Obama is trite. You seem to be modeling those kids you see at recess who've been hogging the ball the last few years and have now had it taken away from them by the new kid. So they stand off to the side grumbling about how everyone's gonna be sorry some day.
If you're so impressed with your own IQ, why not put it to work in ways that the rest of us can identify with?
I'm glad Obama is picking reasonable center-left people to run America's bureaucracies, rather than far-left loons. My opinion of Obama surprisingly is more favorable than the nutroots at this point. The progressives have been duped!
It appears we'll win in Iraq, we won't tax the rich, and the economy should rebound next year.
The real fight will be over socialist medicine, imo. I wish the Republicans would take a hardline stance against the billions of corporate welfare the Dems want to push through, but we've surrendered on that front years ago.
The progressives haven't been duped. They just recognize that a competent center-left candidate is vastly superior to a warmongering, senile, uninformed ideologue.
But we'll let you guys keep pretending that an Obama presidency is secretly a deep down, read-between-the lines justification of your worldview. lol. Whatever makes you feel better and lets you stop whining while the grownups get us out of the mess you created.
Other commentators suspect (underline "suspect") that O will be more inclined to use the military quickly than his campaign rhetoric led people to believe.
Maybe so.
Clinton used the military at the drop of a hat (Bosnia, anyone?)
Face it. Military adventurism is a very good way to distract people from domestic difficulties, and it still one of the better methods of overcoming domestic economic problems.
"They just recognize that a competent center-left candidate is vastly superior to a warmongering, senile, uninformed ideologue."
Obama can wage war and give billions of dollars to corporations -- as long as there is Bush hatred, all sins are forgiven. As I said, the progressives have been duped. You're not the only ones-- I also thought Obama was going to be a principled progressive. I was wrong; he's already drifting to the right. It took Clinton until 1996 to start doing that.
It is interesting that you use 'ideologue' as an insult, as if having ideas is a bad thing. If you took ideas seriously, you wouldn't betray them so quickly. This is why conservatives can get things done like cuts in the capital gains tax, telecom deregulation, welfare reform, etc. when they're in the minority.
If it makes you feel like a grownup to see the Messiah govern like a conservative, more power to you!
Ideologues, by definition, aren't interested in "get(ting) things done." They want it their way or no way at all. You're either with them or against them.
"They want it their way or no way at all. You're either with them or against them."
Absolutely. If one person sticks to their guns, while another believes in compromise, then the compromiser will drift to the principled position of their opponent. Pragmatism is the most unpragmatic doctrine.
The Dems have had the Congress since 2006, and could have easily stopped the Iraq War by cutting off the funding. But they didn't, because Bush stuck to his guns, and the Dems, well, compromised. Maybe the Dems are correct when they say they aren't socialists. Apparently they're just a bunch of anti-s without any ideology, only a laundry list of puerile complaints.
Gee, just yesterday, Obama said that he is still on the 16 month timeline. And Gates said that he “would subscribe to what the President-elect said yesterday in Chicago.”
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
And as far as your "principled conservatives" comment goes, that made me laugh out loud. Conservatives had six years of complete control over all three branches of government during which time we saw the following:
-Record government spending on entitlements
-Record sales of government debt
-Record growth in the size and scope of government agencies
-Record deficit spending
-Roe v. Wade still in effect
-Numerous Republican indicted and convicted of corruption and other lawbreaking
So, realize that you look foolish trying to claim that Republicans are the party of principles and ideas. They sold them out a long time ago for power.
And for a bonus English lesson, an ideologue is not a person who lives by their principles. An ideologue is someone who refuses to modify their worldview even when it conflicts with reality.
And the simple fact that Obama is so obviously putting competence ahead of ideological purity in the formation of his administration indicates for a certainty that he is not going to "govern like a conservative". At least not any conservative during my lifetime.
Realism,
Me thinks you haven’t a clue as to the true meaning of a “Conservative”.!
Bush? He simply went along with lefties in order to win a war!!! He’s a man of principal, he felt the war in Iraq was the most important issue, and went along with lefties in order to win.
He could have been a typical lefty and abandoned our troops, he could have been a typical lefty and stuck his wet finger in the wind, and led by polls. He could have abandoned his principals for the sake of politics, and concentrated on the next new bureaucracy,
But you know what? He never had a chance to be a conservative leader, because he had a ficking war to win!!! He committed, and then did whatever it took to win that war!
Unlike typical Democrats who will take whatever chance they get to advance their own power, to hell with the realities of war! Hell it’s common knowledge that Dem’s would prefer defeat in Iraq if it equates to victory at election time.
And that’s why Dem’s will always have the advantage in elections. They’ll bend with the wind, if it’s advantageous.
And that’s why Conservatives will NEVER support lefties; we’d rather support a man of principal.
So lemme get this straight -
1. A conservative is a person who never betrays their principles
2. Bush was a true conservative who betrayed his conservative principles to win (a war)
3. True conservatives voted for Bush in 04 betrayed their conservative principles by voting for a president who wasn't a real conservative, but that's ok because they wanted to win.
So, your "logic" indicates that a "true" conservative doesn't have to work toward "conservative" goals, as long as they can win. That's exactly what I was saying with my comment:
"So, realize that you look foolish trying to claim that Republicans are the party of principles and ideas. They sold them out a long time ago for power."
I will try to explain it a little more clearly for you, since you demonstrated above that your critical thinking skills aren't up to par.
Bush could've chosen to do the principled thing and govern as a conservative. But, instead, he decided to pursue non-conservative ends to enrich his friends and constituents, in order to gain and maintain power.
In 2004, Republican voters could've chosen to do the principled thing and refused to vote for Bush, who proved that he was not interested in pursuing conservative policies. But instead, they decided to vote for this non-conservative in order to keep political power.
By your own comment, Bush was principled because he "did whatever it took to win that war", which is debatable, but in any case, apparently your definition of "principled" is "Doing whatever it takes to win". Democrats and Republicans differ in that respect.
Bush? He simply went along with lefties in order to win a war...He could have abandoned his principals [sic] for the sake of politics
How your head does not explode, I'll never know.
You do know that he CHOSE to start that war, right?
And that’s why Conservatives will NEVER support lefties The electoral results in Indiana, North Carolina, etc prove that you (once again) don't know what you are talking about. I thought that Obama was supposed to be the "Mostest LIEbrul DEMONcrat Centaur EVAR!!!!11!1!!!one!!1"
Now, you are trying to tell us that we liberals got fooled into voting for a center left moderate? We knew that all along. You guys were the idiots that got fooled by your own party's propaganda, as is usually the case.
"He simply went along with lefties in order to win a war" - You do know that the REPUBLICANS had control of both house and senate for most of Bush's term, right?
realism, that's actually a good point
it's like my rationale for not being overly worried about the fairness doctrine
for, when the democrats were in the same situation, they'd certainly have done it, right there and then
jason, it's a beautiful thing, when your attempts to redefine american conservatism backfire, and you turn into stalin's press secretary before our eyes
Post a Comment