Obama to address nation on Monday about Libya

Re: Obama to address nation on Monday about Libya

Postby Rick345 » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:50 pm

hwmnbn wrote:Obama has been far from the perfect president. I was hoping for way more FDR policies and attitudes. But given the shitstorm facing the country and remembering the alternative choice, I'm STILL GRATEFUL Obama was elected. You have soured on his presidency, he's lost your confidence and your future vote. I get it, that's fine, it's democracy in action.

Rick345 wrote: I think military action in Libya is a kneejerk response and deliberate that's doubtful a man who made 520 campaign promises and has only been fulfilled about two dozen isn't very deliberate in thought or action.

PolitiFact is tracking his campaign promises. What you contend is "two dozen" kept promises, they document 134.

I'm certain if we dig into the weeds about those broken promises, there might be some explanation or mitigating circumstances or maybe even a fact-checked story about the how and why the individual promises were broken. Not that it matters because most folks just care about the score.

Even if he has kept 134 promises and by the way I'm keeping score as I believe are most Americans but, anyhow even if he kept 134 that's only 25% and I think the American people deserve better return than only 25% of what was promised to them. When I went to school 25% wasn't a passing grade, and as you get older even more is expected from you. If I did only 25% of the tasks I promised my boss I would complete I wouldn't have a job tomorrow I can promise you that.
Furthermore, if I did something that was illegal and jeopardized the reputation of the company not only would I be out of a job but, I'd probably be in jail.

I think a large part of the problem in politics is that we don't hold our elected officials accountable. Because we voted for them we have the tendency to defend them to the extreme almost to the ridiculous when we should be doing the exact opposite. If we vote for someone we should demand they carry out the campaign promises not look the other way or worst yet make excuses for them if they don't. You get what you tolerate.

hwmnbn wrote:Ever? Never? You are contending he has not elicited opposing viewpoints. Do you really suggest Obama is an insular president making all these decisions unilaterally without input from or regard for political opponents? Those of us on the left say he's done way TOO MUCH compromising and not enough hardball political arm-twisting. How can we both witness the same actions and see such different results? :shrug:

I was referring to talking with Congress over using military action against Libya and I still stand by that. However, in the general course of things I agree that Obama many a time didn't stick to his guns but, was all too willing to compromise on key issues which I think eroded his ability to lead. People want strong decisive leadership someone that plot a course of action and fallows through not someone who will try to make everyone happy.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”, Lincoln.

Rick345 wrote: ... so Obama not only dishonest and his little respect for his promises he not only feels he can break the law at his own whim he even breaks his very own laws...

hwmnbn wrote:Rick, if this were true, given todays highly charged partisan divide, given the 24/7 media attacks on him from Fox and hate radio, given the enormous amounts of RW cash allocated for his destruction, and given the teabagger majority in the house and thus the chairmanships of all oversight committees, don't you think there would be some legal action instigated somewhere? If Obama is as lawless as you contend, there should have already been multiple civil and criminal proceedings. Thus far only the lawsuit brought against Obama was by that birther colonel who refused to deploy. :rolleyes:

You KNOW the teabaggers are salivating at the prospect of tying him up legislatively and what better way than to hound him like they did the Clintons with investigations and depositions and individual lawsuits. My question is for all of his alleged dishonesty and criminality, why haven't his political enemies taken advantage?

My guess is because there is no there, there.

hwmnbn wrote:I can't explain it. It's a judgement call. We were discussing Libya here. For my money, he did everything correctly in front of the cameras and behind the scene. If he didn't have the TRUST of all the coalition members including the Arab League, nothing would've happened. Even though France and UK led the diplomatic efforts at the UN, do you think they would have done so if they thought Obama was a lying scumbag? I don't.

Somewhere, some folks still trust Obama with some real important shit.

And many trusted GW Bush and I still see billboards with the picture of GW grinnin' like an idiot and expounding, "Do you miss me yet?" Some people will always trust GW does that make what he did right? PT Barnum adage, "There's a sucker born every minute..." still holes true even a hundred years after he said it.

Which president has ever faced criminal prosecution? I think Nixon certainly should have faced not only Congressional censure but, criminal charges but, he never did.. Others say Bush and Chaney should have face charges but, they never did and never will in fact congress as a whole with only one or two exceptions never lifted a finger to say what Bush and Chaney did was wrong, immoral and perhaps illegal so if you honestly expect more from Congress over Obama? Just as a footnote several members of Congress did call for Obama's impeachment over the military actions taken in Libya.

The problem with this country is not we the people but, the leadership which governs us. The problem is not that we seem locked into a two party system that certainly doesn't help but, the problem goes much deeper. If we had a third or even fourth party it wouldn't improve government the problem there is no way to hold our leaders accountable for their actions. Perhaps we need to barrow from the old country and have the option to hold a "vote of confidence" from time to time.

As it is now we live in a society governed not the way Jefferson or Madison envisioned it were no man was below the protection of the law but, no one was above the law. However, today George Oswell's "Animal Farm" seems to be prophecy. We are all equal but, the pigs (leaders) are a little more equal and the horses we the people are working ourselves to death to prop up the fallacy.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?", Mahatma Gandhi.
User avatar
Posts: 3117
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Obama to address nation on Monday about Libya

Postby Rick345 » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:10 pm

quickiewle wrote:Yep... at least we know he gave the matter some thought, rather than going on a testosterone binge like Uncle George and getting all ' bring 'em on'. :roll:. And I don't sense a corporatist agenda driving this, as there so clearly was in Iraq ( Baghdad Year Zero). My current qualms are about NATO asking us to extend our airstrikes until today... here's hoping they don't ask us today to extend them 'til Friday, and so on, and so on, and so on... and I don't look forward to some bemedalled jackass saying we could be in Libya for 100 years. Different time, different place, same ol' shit. War is always the same.

And that's part of the problem even though our presence in Libya is on the down-low at the moment we are still there: providing intelligence, refueling planes, providing munitions and logistical support. The only thing we are not doing is providing boots on the ground and I'm thankful for that I take my blessings wherever I can find them. However, the rebels have repeated said that NATO can't seem to do the job so when will we be called to flex our military muscle once again? Who would have thought in 2001 we would still be in Afghanistan ten years later?

In fact from what little we know about the mission in Libya its undefined at best. Obama says we want Gadhafi out'a there yet our coalition partners say they don't want to oust Gadhafi if that ain't a recipe for a giant cluster fuck I don't know what is.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?", Mahatma Gandhi.
User avatar
Posts: 3117
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Obama to address nation on Monday about Libya

Postby quickiewle » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:52 am

Yep. I think our collective toe is caught in yet another wringer, and we could and probably will end up there for quite a spell, spending more money we don't have. And with that bleak prediction back we come to Yogi Berra again...
"It ain't over till it's over."

" I'm not sure whether the world is being run
by smart people who are putting us on,
or by imbeciles who really mean it."
Mark Twain
Posts: 5112
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:28 am
Location: Seattle
Role: punmeister ( you'll see)


Return to War And Peace

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests