What Obama doesn't want to talk about

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43187

The continuing collapse of his war in Libya. The siege of Misrata, which Obama demanded must stop immediately in an editorial he published in concert with British and French leaders, continues unabated. Obama has authorized $25 million in “non-lethal” assistance to a Libyan rebellion that appears to have non-lethality down to a science.

The brutal oppression of Syrian demonstrators, by a man the Obama Administration described as a “reformer” only a few weeks ago. The dissidents remain defiant, issuing a statement that if the dictator Assad “does not wish to be recorded in history as a leader of this transition period” to democracy, Syrians must “move forward along the same path as did the Tunisians, Egyptians, and Libyans before them.” They might want to reconsider following the Libyan path.

The worsening situation in Afghanistan, where an Afghan military pilot gunned down eight American soldiers and an American contractor today, and hundreds of captured Taliban fighters recently escaped in a bizarre prison break. The Associated Press reports “It was the seventh time so far this year that members of the Afghan security forces, or insurgents impersonating them, have killed coalition soldiers or members of the Afghan security forces.” Are we still on schedule to begin drawing down our forces in Afghanistan this summer?

The historic first-ever press conference held by the Federal Reserve, at which Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is expected to announce the end of Obama’s “Qualitative Easing” monetary policy. This is an absolute vindication for critics such as Sarah Palin, who correctly pointed out the negative inflationary consequences of this policy at the time of its passage. Not long ago, it was said that every word spoken by the Fed chairman could send earthquakes rumbling through the markets. Now they’ll be holding more press conferences than the President does.

Skyrocketing gas prices, and the role of Administration policy in causing the problem. We do not need any staged witch hunts for “price gouging” profiteers. We need answers from Barack Obama, the man who caused this crisis as a matter of deliberate policy. Why are offshore drilling projects a mortal threat to the Earth that must be stopped at all costs in American waters, but a noble bid for prosperity worthy of American subsidies in Brazil? These policies should be listed, discussed, and defended before the American electorate.

The dire forecasts of Standard & Poor’s and the International Monetary Fund, which have predicted America could lose its AAA credit rating, and soon be surpassed as the world’s largest economy by China. Obama should explain why he tried to suppress the Standard & Poor’s report. If he had been successful, he would have deprived Americans of vitally needed information about the financial future of their country.

The Administration’s action against Boeing on behalf of labor unions, which former National Labor Relations Board chairman Peter Schaumber called “unprecedented.” Why is this unprecedented action, to block Boeing from opening a non-union production line in South Carolina, being taken? What freedoms do American corporations retain? Which companies will be next to find the federal government is teaming up with unions to control their business decisions? Schaumber told Fox News that if the union claim is upheld, “it could jeopardize any company with unionized workers that wants to expand in a right-to-work state.” Do the people who live in right-to-work states have any say in this?
Click to expand...

que Obama apologists.... time to come to the One's defense again...
 
Damocles said:
BDS...

Now that we've exchanged pleasantries do you have an opinion on one of the actually important issues of the day?
Click to expand...

Oh - you mean that the President actually has problems, and that there are problems in American & in the world?

Yeah, that's a shocker alright. I forgot how Obama campaigned on a "problem-free world" platform.

As for Libya, he lost my vote on it....
 
Now that I am done being a smart ass.... and thanks for playing along Lorax.... I think the article does indeed bring up very valid questions. Why a press conference on the release of his birth certificate, but none on any of the topics listed above?

For someone who thinks (rightly so) that the birth certificate issue was a distraction and not worthy of discussing further.... WHY the need for a press conference on the topic? Why not use that time to discuss the important issues?
 
Superfreak said:
Now that I am done being a smart ass.... and thanks for playing along Lorax.... I think the article does indeed bring up very valid questions. Why a press conference on the release of his birth certificate, but none on any of the topics listed above?

For someone who thinks (rightly so) that the birth certificate issue was a distraction and not worthy of discussing further.... WHY the need for a press conference on the topic? Why not use that time to discuss the important issues?
Click to expand...

That's insanely nitpicky. Clearly, they didn't want to release it; it might have been for political gain, and it might have been because they thought it lowered the office to cater to nutters. It's hardly surprising that he thought it deserved an explanation....
 
He also doesn't want to talk about
Unemployment
his artificially keeping billions of barrells of oil off the market (thanks Barry)
Slow growth
the other bullshit wars
hundreds of thousands of military in europe
any fiscal responsibilty at all
why discuss that when he can focus on fringe moron birthers, and act like it's most republicans
 
Onceler said:
Oh - you mean that the President actually has problems, and that there are problems in American & in the world?

Yeah, that's a shocker alright. I forgot how Obama campaigned on a "problem-free world" platform.

As for Libya, he lost my vote on it....
Click to expand...

So your answer is you're going to vote for Trump for President after Obama "lost" your vote over Libya?

I'm not quite getting what your aiming at here. Every one of these are in direct relation to policy decisions made by our President. Sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly proclaiming you can't hear isn't really a valid position. Maybe you should go back to the BC threads where you can pretend that the distraction is working.
 
Topspin said:
He also doesn't want to talk about
Unemployment
his artificially keeping billions of barrells of oil off the market (thanks Barry)
Slow growth
the other bullshit wars
hundreds of thousands of military in europe
any fiscal responsibilty at all
why discuss that when he can focus on fringe moron birthers, and act like it's most republicans
Click to expand...

So, you think it is in his powers to remove the troops from Germany, Japan, and South Korea?

The oil issue, I was not aware of, but will investigate

I think, in all honesty, that he has been concentrating on these issues, and wants to and that is why he released the birth certificate to shut everyone up, so they could get down to the real business.

The birth certificate is and always has been an issue that the crazies have used to detract and make him look suspicious and a desperate attempt to keep him off the ballet in some states that has now FAILED miserably!
 
Rana said:
So, you think it is in his powers to remove the troops from Germany, Japan, and South Korea?
Click to expand...

He is the commander in Chief. He is also the President. He most certainly could lead the charge to bring them home.

The oil issue, I was not aware of, but will investigate
Click to expand...

Toppy is referring to his position on deep sea drilling restrictions in the US (despite turning around and supporting US money going to Brazil for deep sea drilling) and the fact that the US is STILL reluctant to drill here. (apparently we would rather continue depending on foreign energy, which in turn hurts our trade deficit and transfers US wealth to other countries)

I think, in all honesty, that he has been concentrating on these issues, and wants to and that is why he released the birth certificate to shut everyone up, so they could get down to the real business.
Click to expand...
Then why didn't he just do this three years ago so that we wouldn't have had to listen to the birthers all this time?
 
I must be the only person on the forums who supports Obama on Libya. And while technically the 'siege' is still going on, rebel forces now occupy all the strategic positions and Ghaddfi forces have largely pulled out of Misrata. They (the rebels) are also gaining significant ground along the Tunisian border.
 
King of Wisdom said:
I must be the only person on the forums who supports Obama on Libya. And while technically the 'siege' is still going on, rebel forces now occupy all the strategic positions and Ghaddfi forces have largely pulled out of Misrata. They (the rebels) are also gaining significant ground along the Tunisian border.
Click to expand...

nope.... I actually think he made the right call on Libya as well. Though I am a proponent of avoiding mass slaughters and think we should have done the same for Rwanda and the Sudan. But that is just me.... evil warmonger that I am rather than being that great peace loving anti war liberal who would prefer we sit back and watch the slaughter of innocents.
 
Superfreak said:
nope.... I actually think he made the right call on Libya as well. Though I am a proponent of avoiding mass slaughters and think we should have done the same for Rwanda and the Sudan. But that is just me.... evil warmonger that I am rather than being that great peace loving anti war liberal who would prefer we sit back and watch the slaughter of innocents.
Click to expand...

You believe in a global policeman role for our military then?

I'm not trying to provoke. I think it's a legit debate, but I'm wondering where you would draw the line if you believe in that kind of role. Certainly, over the past 3-4 decades, there are plenty of situations where we could have used our military to save lives & ease suffering...
 
Onceler said:
You believe in a global policeman role for our military then?

I'm not trying to provoke. I think it's a legit debate, but I'm wondering where you would draw the line if you believe in that kind of role. Certainly, over the past 3-4 decades, there are plenty of situations where we could have used our military to save lives & ease suffering...
Click to expand...

If we have the power to do so, yes, I think we should step in to prevent the slaughter(s).

Are we going to be able to in every situation? No.

Should we try to get it to be UN/NATO led? Yes, because while we would likely be the leader regardless, it would at least stop all the 'empire building' or 'warmongering US' type talk from forming.
 
SF and Onceler both bring up excellent points. I was listening to a local radio host this week who for a long time was a (sort of left-leaning) Libertarian and then after Bush became a Democrat and supported Obama. He backs a lot of what Obama does but he had a great show on this topic about the U.S.'s role in the world. He took Onceler's position which is it is not the U.S.'s role to be the worlds policeman and get involved. If there is slaughter going on he felt it was the UN's job to intervine. There were varying responses among the callers as well between the two positions.
 
Superfreak said:
If we have the power to do so, yes, I think we should step in to prevent the slaughter(s).

Are we going to be able to in every situation? No.

Should we try to get it to be UN/NATO led? Yes, because while we would likely be the leader regardless, it would at least stop all the 'empire building' or 'warmongering US' type talk from forming.
Click to expand...

I can respect that general opinion, but I do disagree with it. It really redefines the use of our military in a radical way, if you look at its traditional role. It also opens up a can of worms regarding what kinds of situations would qualify, and leave a lot to whoever happens to be executive at the time.

Our non-defense use of the military over the years has left a lot to be desired, and has often created more problems than it has solved.
 
Onceler said:
I can respect that general opinion, but I do disagree with it. It really redefines the use of our military in a radical way, if you look at its traditional role. It also opens up a can of worms regarding what kinds of situations would qualify, and leave a lot to whoever happens to be executive at the time.

Our non-defense use of the military over the years has left a lot to be desired, and has often created more problems than it has solved.
Click to expand...

It is certainly debatable... and an issue that I think warrants more discussion. I think the non-defensive uses you mention have struggled for the sole reason that we never seem to have a clear defined 'this is what we will do' stand. Either we go in and use all force necessary to resolve the issue or we don't go in at all. These half measures are what kill us. There was NO reason for the UN to be in Rwanda if they weren't going to do anything to stop the violence and slaughter.

you are correct that it would be up to the CIC at the time each event occurs. I think that should indeed be the case. Trying to use today's line of thought to deal with what might happen 30 years from now would be dangerous in itself. It should be up to the CIC, though I would strongly encourage at least the attempt to gain support from NATO and the UN. I would not make it a requirement given the tendencies of all countries (US included) to defend tyrants/dictators that are favorable to the country's economy (Egypt being a good example for the US.... the Sudan a good on for China etc... ) and to conversely want to remove/regime change those that are unfavorable
 
Superfreak said:
It is certainly debatable... and an issue that I think warrants more discussion. I think the non-defensive uses you mention have struggled for the sole reason that we never seem to have a clear defined 'this is what we will do' stand. Either we go in and use all force necessary to resolve the issue or we don't go in at all. These half measures are what kill us. There was NO reason for the UN to be in Rwanda if they weren't going to do anything to stop the violence and slaughter.

you are correct that it would be up to the CIC at the time each event occurs. I think that should indeed be the case. Trying to use today's line of thought to deal with what might happen 30 years from now would be dangerous in itself. It should be up to the CIC, though I would strongly encourage at least the attempt to gain support from NATO and the UN. I would not make it a requirement given the tendencies of all countries (US included) to defend tyrants/dictators that are favorable to the country's economy (Egypt being a good example for the US.... the Sudan a good on for China etc... ) and to conversely want to remove/regime change those that are unfavorable
Click to expand...

I think the argument works better where there is more of a Spartan military ethic - lifelong service, from people who are there to fight.

But that's not our military. Our military is loaded with people who are trying to get through school, or get specific training, or who are otherwise there on a temporary, volunteer basis. Yes, they absolutely know that their life could be put on the line at any time when they sign up, but if our role did formally become more one of a policeman, it would entail such different considerations.

It's an emotional argument, but for any military endeavor, what would the decision be if someone had to send a member of their family? Most would say only for our defense in that circumstance, and only when all other options have been exhausted....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top