HAW! Libs pissed that MSM is trotting out the neocons

[CID1990]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/17/t ... rs-insane/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I tell you- you gotta be pretty inept when the news turns to Paul Wolfowitz on what to do about Iraq.

Don't worry, what comes around goes around. In a few years Susan Rice and Eric Holder will be paid contributors at CNN and a sackful of other outlets. And they'll all be faithfully carrying water for Chelsea Clinton.

[kalm]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/17/t ... rs-insane/

I tell you- you gotta be pretty inept when the news turns to Paul Wolfowitz on what to do about Iraq.

Don't worry, what comes around goes around. In a few years Susan Rice and Eric Holder will be paid contributors at CNN and a sackful of other outlets. And they'll all be faithfully carrying water for Chelsea Clinton.

[kalm]

And then there's Dick.

Psp…Richard, AQ renounced ISIS. They are not the same. Oh…and Reagan made that speech the same year our embassy in Beirut was blown up. So much fail...

The president explained his view in his Sept. 23, 2009, speech before the United Nations General Assembly. "Any world order," he said, "that elevates one nation above others cannot long survive." Tragically, he is quickly proving the opposite—through one dangerous policy after another—that without American pre-eminence, there can be no world order.

It is time the president and his allies faced some hard truths: America remains at war, and withdrawing troops from the field of battle while our enemies stay in the fight does not "end" wars. Weakness and retreat are provocative. U.S. withdrawal from the world is disastrous and puts our own security at risk.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent and they present a security threat not seen since the Cold War. Defeating them will require a strategy—not a fantasy. It will require sustained difficult military, intelligence and diplomatic efforts—not empty misleading rhetoric. It will require rebuilding America's military capacity—reversing the Obama policies that have weakened our armed forces and reduced our ability to influence events around the world.

American freedom will not be secured by empty threats, meaningless red lines, leading from behind, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies, or apologizing for our great nation—all hallmarks to date of the Obama doctrine. Our security, and the security of our friends around the world, can only be guaranteed with a fundamental reversal of the policies of the past six years.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, "If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom." President Obama is on track to securing his legacy as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/dick-che ... 1403046522" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

It shouldn't just be libs that are pissed these morons are being asked what they would do

[kalm]

Hey! It turns out Scooter and Wolfie are teaching a class!

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ow/372887/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

It shouldn't just be libs that are pissed these morons are being asked what they would do

Oh shut up you flack

The same can be said about the IRS scandal

except to you it is a "fake scandal" because you were told so

[Skjellyfetti]

Not sure the IRS scandal is in the same ballpark as a war that cost $2 trillion dollars and 4,500 US lives.

[CID1990]

Not sure the IRS scandal is in the same ballpark as a war that cost $2 trillion dollars and 4,500 US lives.

I figured it would be no more than one or two posts before you or Jon jumped in to trivialize criminal Federal bureaucratic abuse

moral relativism aside

I notice that none of you are really defending Obama anymore- just pointing backwards to previous presidents

Is there ANYTHING about the guy you voted for (twice) that you can defend?

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm a libertarian.

I was just voting against Romney and McCain.

[CitadelGrad]

I'm a libertarian.

I was just voting against Romney and McCain.

Yeah, right.

I am a libertarian and I voted for Romney even though I personally know Gary Johnson and support his views. I voted for Romney because I thought it was that important to get Obama out of the White House. I think it's clear by now that I voted correctly.

[kalm]

Not sure the IRS scandal is in the same ballpark as a war that cost $2 trillion dollars and 4,500 US lives.

I figured it would be no more than one or two posts before you or Jon jumped in to trivialize criminal Federal bureaucratic abuse

moral relativism aside

I notice that none of you are really defending Obama anymore- just pointing backwards to previous presidents

Is there ANYTHING about the guy you voted for (twice) that you can defend?

Hey dork, you made the comparison to the IRS scandal.

[kalm]

I'm a libertarian.

I was just voting against Romney and McCain.

Yeah, right.

I am a libertarian and I voted for Romney even though I personally know Gary Johnson and support his views. I voted for Romney because I thought it was that important to get Obama out of the White House. I think it's clear by now that I voted correctly.

At this point, if you vote for either party you didn't vote correctly .

[CID1990]

I figured it would be no more than one or two posts before you or Jon jumped in to trivialize criminal Federal bureaucratic abuse

moral relativism aside

I notice that none of you are really defending Obama anymore- just pointing backwards to previous presidents

Is there ANYTHING about the guy you voted for (twice) that you can defend?

Hey dork, you made the comparison to the IRS scandal.

i am failing to see your point

i assume it is nuanced

[kalm]

Hey dork, you made the comparison to the IRS scandal.

i am failing to see your point

i assume it is nuanced

Not really.

[CID1990]

I'm a libertarian.

POTY

[Skjellyfetti]

It was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not libertarian.

Just parroting all the Conks on here that suddenly changed from Bush supporters to scurrying away from him and any of his policies by claiming to be "libertarian" and that they never supported Bush... "just voted against Gore and Kerry" during Bush's second term.

[CID1990]

It was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not libertarian.

Just parroting all the Conks on here that suddenly changed from Bush supporters to scurrying away from him and any of his policies by claiming to be "libertarian" and that they never supported Bush... "just voted against Gore and Kerry" during Bush's second term.

i thought you were serious for a second there


you need to work on your sarcasm

[Pwns]

Sk, how many people do you honestly think voted Bush for Bush compared to voting Obama for Obama?

You've called yourself an "Obama homer" before. Good luck trying to find that kind of enthusiasm from any conks about Bush on the board.

[Baldy]

Sk, how many people do you honestly think voted Bush for Bush compared to voting Obama for Obama?

You've called yourself an "Obama homer" before. Good luck trying to find that kind of enthusiasm from any conks about Bush on the board.

Overall I think Bush is a down to earth humble and admirable man who is (like his dad) a great ex-president. However, he was a mediocre (at best) president.

When you compare him to what we would have had with Gore and/or Kerry, he looks like George Fucking Washington and Abraham Lincoln rolled into one.

Academia and the press will hold Obama on a pedestal forever, but history will not be kind to Barack...at all.

[houndawg]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/17/t ... rs-insane/

I tell you- you gotta be pretty inept when the news turns to Paul Wolfowitz on what to do about Iraq.

Don't worry, what comes around goes around. In a few years Susan Rice and Eric Holder will be paid contributors at CNN and a sackful of other outlets. And they'll all be faithfully carrying water for Chelsea Clinton.

Reporter: "So, Wolfie, why should we listen to you about anything when you're the only person in the country wrong more often the Bill Kristol?"

[Skjellyfetti]

he Republican Party has a long-standing philosophy about welfare. It goes like this: People take responsibility only if they must. The more we intervene to prop them up, the less they do for themselves. We can’t save them from their bad choices. They have to face the consequences and adjust their behavior accordingly.

Carried to its extreme, this philosophy can become a rationale for neglect. But at its core, it’s true. It’s one reason why the welfare reforms of the 1990s didn’t produce the disaster many liberals predicted.

Now we have a different problem. It isn’t that Republicans overemphasize self-reliance in the context of welfare. It’s that they’ve forgotten self-reliance in the context of foreign policy. They’ve become grandiose and naive. Case in point: the emerging crisis in Iraq.

Eleven years ago, we invaded Iraq, deposed its government, and disbanded its army. Then we tried to build the country back up. We kept troops there for years, policing sectarian violence, facilitating elections, and training new security forces. Three years ago, President Obama offered to extend the “status of forces” agreement under which some of our troops would stay there with Iraq’s approval. Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, didn’t accept the deal.

Everyone told Maliki that to keep his country together and peaceful, he had to build relationships with Iraq’s Sunnis and Kurds. As Slate’s Fred Kaplan explains, Maliki ignored the advice. He didn’t just neglect the Sunnis. He mistreated and alienated them. That’s a big reason why a Sunni extremist group, known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, now controls much of Iraq’s territory and is advancing on Baghdad.

President Obama’s analysis of the ISIS threat sounds a lot like the GOP’s analysis of the war on poverty. Here’s how Obama assessed the situation on Friday:

Look, the United States has poured a lot of money into these Iraqi security forces, and we devoted a lot of training to Iraqi security forces. The fact that they are not willing to stand and fight … indicates that there’s a problem with morale, there’s a problem in terms of commitment. And ultimately, that’s rooted in the political problems that have plagued the country. …
I want to make sure that everybody understands this message: The United States is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together. We’re not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which, while we’re there, we’re keeping a lid on things, and after enormous sacrifices by us, as soon as we’re not there, suddenly people end up acting in ways that are not conducive to the long-term stability and prosperity of the country.

In sum, said Obama, “We can’t do it for them.”

That’s a straightforward application of self-reliance. We’ll help you, but only if you clean up your act. Our help is limited, and your initiative is required.

Republicans have made the same points, repeatedly, in proposals to reform welfare. Three years ago, Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, joined by several colleagues, introduced the Welfare Reform Act of 2011. Among other things, they stressed that the bill would reallocate welfare money “to states that successfully reduce poverty and increase self-sufficiency.” Graham, a longtime critic of “dependency on social services,” called existing levels of welfare spending “unsustainable.” Inhofe warned that welfare programs were “keeping individuals and families dependent. These reforms will empower individuals to improve their situation by encouraging and promoting greater self-sufficiency.”

All these concepts—dependency, self-sufficiency, insistence that recipients do their part—vanish when the conversation turns to foreign policy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... olicy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

I said it then and I said it now:

The Bush Administration made the right call in terms of risk/benefit analysis. You look at the consequences of being wrong and the benefit of being right along with the confidence level associated with one decision. You look a the same stuff associated with the other decision. And you make a decision. You know ahead of time that you may end up wrong. But you make the decision based on the risk benefit analysis.

And I think the Bush Administration made the correct decision in that context. As far as I can tell the overwhelmingly preponderant view of Western intelligence agencies was that Iraq under Hussein had chemical weapons stockpiles already and was going to have nuclear weapons within a few years. Less than five I think.

I said it then and I'll say it again now: I'd rather have a President that would take action under those circumstances than one that would not.

[CID1990]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/17/t ... rs-insane/

I tell you- you gotta be pretty inept when the news turns to Paul Wolfowitz on what to do about Iraq.

Don't worry, what comes around goes around. In a few years Susan Rice and Eric Holder will be paid contributors at CNN and a sackful of other outlets. And they'll all be faithfully carrying water for Chelsea Clinton.

Reporter: "So, Wolfie, why should we listen to you about anything when you're the only person in the country wrong more often the Bill Kristol?"

im not surprised that this post soared over your head like a banded snake eagle over the snowy summit of Kilimanjaro

[CitadelGrad]

he Republican Party has a long-standing philosophy about welfare. It goes like this: People take responsibility only if they must. The more we intervene to prop them up, the less they do for themselves. We can’t save them from their bad choices. They have to face the consequences and adjust their behavior accordingly.

Carried to its extreme, this philosophy can become a rationale for neglect. But at its core, it’s true. It’s one reason why the welfare reforms of the 1990s didn’t produce the disaster many liberals predicted.

Now we have a different problem. It isn’t that Republicans overemphasize self-reliance in the context of welfare. It’s that they’ve forgotten self-reliance in the context of foreign policy. They’ve become grandiose and naive. Case in point: the emerging crisis in Iraq.

Eleven years ago, we invaded Iraq, deposed its government, and disbanded its army. Then we tried to build the country back up. We kept troops there for years, policing sectarian violence, facilitating elections, and training new security forces. Three years ago, President Obama offered to extend the “status of forces” agreement under which some of our troops would stay there with Iraq’s approval. Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, didn’t accept the deal.

Everyone told Maliki that to keep his country together and peaceful, he had to build relationships with Iraq’s Sunnis and Kurds. As Slate’s Fred Kaplan explains, Maliki ignored the advice. He didn’t just neglect the Sunnis. He mistreated and alienated them. That’s a big reason why a Sunni extremist group, known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, now controls much of Iraq’s territory and is advancing on Baghdad.

President Obama’s analysis of the ISIS threat sounds a lot like the GOP’s analysis of the war on poverty. Here’s how Obama assessed the situation on Friday:

Look, the United States has poured a lot of money into these Iraqi security forces, and we devoted a lot of training to Iraqi security forces. The fact that they are not willing to stand and fight … indicates that there’s a problem with morale, there’s a problem in terms of commitment. And ultimately, that’s rooted in the political problems that have plagued the country. …
I want to make sure that everybody understands this message: The United States is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together. We’re not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which, while we’re there, we’re keeping a lid on things, and after enormous sacrifices by us, as soon as we’re not there, suddenly people end up acting in ways that are not conducive to the long-term stability and prosperity of the country.

In sum, said Obama, “We can’t do it for them.”

That’s a straightforward application of self-reliance. We’ll help you, but only if you clean up your act. Our help is limited, and your initiative is required.

Republicans have made the same points, repeatedly, in proposals to reform welfare. Three years ago, Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, joined by several colleagues, introduced the Welfare Reform Act of 2011. Among other things, they stressed that the bill would reallocate welfare money “to states that successfully reduce poverty and increase self-sufficiency.” Graham, a longtime critic of “dependency on social services,” called existing levels of welfare spending “unsustainable.” Inhofe warned that welfare programs were “keeping individuals and families dependent. These reforms will empower individuals to improve their situation by encouraging and promoting greater self-sufficiency.”

All these concepts—dependency, self-sufficiency, insistence that recipients do their part—vanish when the conversation turns to foreign policy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... olicy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh fuck. Somebody actually thinks that article makes sense.

[Baldy]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... olicy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh fuck. Somebody actually thinks that article makes sense.

Pfft...its lubejob. What do you expect?