Wow, the Left really turning on Obama

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

Obama had the potential for becoming a great leader. The reality turned out to be different. Partly it was the obstruction on the right and partly it was Obama's failure to rise to meet that challenge. He never used his office to inspire the people to push for his agenda. Had he done so I am reasonably certain he could have got a whole more accomplished than he did.

Either way he just doesn't have the same "cult" following as Reagan does in my opinion.

PS there have been any number of attempts on the right to place Obama on a pedestal just so that they can subsequently tear him down. I have never seen anyone on the left call Obama "the Messiah" or "god-like" so I dismiss that as just partisan rabble rousing.

Good summary.

Obama was ( and still is ) wildly popular internationally. He is, rightfully, seen as a pragmatic leader by those outside of our ridiculous entertainment news media's reach.

He isn't worshipped by those who voted for him. He is admired. Huge difference.

LOL. His poll numbers suggest more of a repulsion than admiration!!

 

[ChrisL]

What are you democrats going to do when you run out of other people's money anyway? There must be a limit to your greed. With the economy hurting, people taking pay cuts, where do you think all of this money is going to come from? And just where does this taxation stop? How much MORE of a percentage of my income do you want to take?

Are you lost? What thread are you responding to?

Your income taxes aren't higher now than they were in 2009. Are they?

Oh, so then you want lower taxes? Or how about no new taxes until the government can prove that they aren't wasting our money . . . or giving it to Palestine?

 

[ChrisL]

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

Obama had the potential for becoming a great leader. The reality turned out to be different. Partly it was the obstruction on the right and partly it was Obama's failure to rise to meet that challenge. He never used his office to inspire the people to push for his agenda. Had he done so I am reasonably certain he could have got a whole more accomplished than he did.

Either way he just doesn't have the same "cult" following as Reagan does in my opinion.

PS there have been any number of attempts on the right to place Obama on a pedestal just so that they can subsequently tear him down. I have never seen anyone on the left call Obama "the Messiah" or "god-like" so I dismiss that as just partisan rabble rousing.

Good summary.

Obama was ( and still is ) wildly popular internationally. He is, rightfully, seen as a pragmatic leader by those outside of our ridiculous entertainment news media's reach.

He isn't worshipped by those who voted for him. He is admired. Huge difference.

LOL. His poll numbers suggest more of a repulsion than admiration!!

I've heard Chris Matthews, et. al., have lost their tingles.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

Obama had the potential for becoming a great leader. The reality turned out to be different. Partly it was the obstruction on the right and partly it was Obama's failure to rise to meet that challenge. He never used his office to inspire the people to push for his agenda. Had he done so I am reasonably certain he could have got a whole more accomplished than he did.

Either way he just doesn't have the same "cult" following as Reagan does in my opinion.

PS there have been any number of attempts on the right to place Obama on a pedestal just so that they can subsequently tear him down. I have never seen anyone on the left call Obama "the Messiah" or "god-like" so I dismiss that as just partisan rabble rousing.

It was Evan Thomas, Editor of Newsweek, who said "in a way, Obama is standing above the country, above the world, he's sort of God".

Editor of Newsweek.

Reagan's contemporary following is very intense, indeed. But from an independent perspective, it's apples and oranges, and the love Obama had from his followers was more profound, and remains so to this day. And in the clip, Thomas says pretty much what I said above, that Reagan was about America, Obama is above that.

Source:



.

So, you are saying that the words of one man are suddenly supposed to apply ot the feelings of all Liberals and/or Obama supporters?

Strange. I have never said that about our President nor have I ever felt it.

Hmmmmm.... guess I'm not an Obama supporter, after all.

 

[Bfgrn]

I suppose Bush is responsible for Barry's inept leadership when it comes to fighting ISIS? The "reset" with Russia?

I suppose Bush is responsible for the Fast & Furious scandal? The Benghazi debacle? The IRS abuses? The wiretaps on American journalists? The total lack of transparency of the Obama White House?

Who KNEW that the man you liberals derided for all those years as the "village idiot" was actually a political MASTERMIND who somehow manages to control the US government from his ranch in Crawford, Texas!

Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country? Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

So what should Obama have done? If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

Q: Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

A: Who else would he be referring to?

Q: Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country?

A: No Bush did. Obama invited a far greater threat into that country by refusing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement; he had a chance to stem the tide.

Statement: Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

Response: Saddam committed genocide. I grant you he would have seen them as a benefit, not a liability.

Q: So what should Obama have done?

A: His job.

Q: If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon(s) ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

A: He has already armed Syrian rebels, and yes, our weapons are in the hands of ISIS. Anything else you wish to know? What you call 'whining' is a legitimate concern.

Q: Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

A: Yes he is. His administration has played a direct role in just about all of them. Now there are revelations that Valerie Jarrett was involved in the IRS scandal. So, who are we to blame? Republicans? The only reason 'faux news' reports it is because the excuses for news you watch on CNN or MSNBC don't even touch the issue.

Do you live under a rock? This one is ALL Bush...

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.


Army Sgt. John Bruhns

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them."

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

If the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

All that typing and for nothing:

"Mr. Obama sought to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed United States troops to stay in Iraq after 2011. Initially, the Obama administration was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, the Obama administration lowered the figure to about 5,000 troops - some 3,500 of which would be continuously based in the country while the remainder would periodically be rotated through. The role of the American forces would be to train Iraqi troops, patrol Iraq's skies and help Iraqi commandos fight Al Qaeda." (Michael Gordon and Scott Shane, "Fact Check: A Status Of Forces Agreement?" The New York Times, 10/22/12)

He had actually succeeded in negotiating the agreement, then he pulled defeat from the ashes of victory.

"Obama was suggesting that he had never favored keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the December 2011 withdrawal deadline that the Bush administration had negotiated with the Iraqi government. Actually, the Obama administration tried for many months to win Iraqi agreement to keeping several thousand American troops there beyond 2011 to continue training and advising the Iraqi armed forces. The talks broke down over a disagreement on legal immunity for U.S. troops." (Calvin Woodward, "FACT CHECK: Missteps In Final Presidential Debate," The Associated Press , 10/22/12)

So, you can spin this all you like, but facts are facts.

Interesting...Bush signs an agreement that put our troops under the sovereignty of Iraqi law. And you chastise Obama for not doing the same thing?

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki indicated that he might be willing to work out an agreement to allow some American troops to stay. But the Iraqis did not agree to an American demand that such an agreement be submitted to their parliament for approval, a step the Obama administration insisted was needed to ensure that any American troops that stayed would be immune from prosecution under Iraqi law.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What are you democrats going to do when you run out of other people's money anyway? There must be a limit to your greed. With the economy hurting, people taking pay cuts, where do you think all of this money is going to come from? And just where does this taxation stop? How much MORE of a percentage of my income do you want to take?

Are you lost? What thread are you responding to?

Your income taxes aren't higher now than they were in 2009. Are they?

Oh, so then you want lower taxes? Or how about no new taxes until the government can prove that they aren't wasting our money . . . or giving it to Palestine?

You did not answer the question.

 

[LoneLaugher]

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

Obama had the potential for becoming a great leader. The reality turned out to be different. Partly it was the obstruction on the right and partly it was Obama's failure to rise to meet that challenge. He never used his office to inspire the people to push for his agenda. Had he done so I am reasonably certain he could have got a whole more accomplished than he did.

Either way he just doesn't have the same "cult" following as Reagan does in my opinion.

PS there have been any number of attempts on the right to place Obama on a pedestal just so that they can subsequently tear him down. I have never seen anyone on the left call Obama "the Messiah" or "god-like" so I dismiss that as just partisan rabble rousing.

Good summary.

Obama was ( and still is ) wildly popular internationally. He is, rightfully, seen as a pragmatic leader by those outside of our ridiculous entertainment news media's reach.

He isn't worshipped by those who voted for him. He is admired. Huge difference.

LOL. His poll numbers suggest more of a repulsion than admiration!!

And.....that is the depth of your interest in the subject. The reason why you aren't developing as a political commentator. You aren't interested beyond the optics.

 

[ChrisL]

What are you democrats going to do when you run out of other people's money anyway? There must be a limit to your greed. With the economy hurting, people taking pay cuts, where do you think all of this money is going to come from? And just where does this taxation stop? How much MORE of a percentage of my income do you want to take?

Are you lost? What thread are you responding to?

Your income taxes aren't higher now than they were in 2009. Are they?

Oh, so then you want lower taxes? Or how about no new taxes until the government can prove that they aren't wasting our money . . . or giving it to Palestine?

You did not answer the question.

Does this answer your question?

We’ll note that taxes have gone up for some as a result of Obamacare. The law imposes a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income that applies to people who earn more than $200,000 a year for singles, or $250,000 for joint filers. It also levies an additional Medicare tax of 0.9 percent on wages, salaries and self-employment income for people in those income groups. However, these changes also took effect in 2013, not 2014.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's not forget the sneaky way the democrats forced us to buy a product from health insurance companies. This has already been in effect in Massachusetts for several years now, and has had terrible effects on jobs! MANY jobs are now only "temporary" jobs and a lot of people have to go through employment services to get a job. Also, a lot of jobs that used to be full time have now been cut back to part-time, and this is all due to the expense of providing mandatory health insurance, unless of course you are a favorite and get an Obama waiver. Good Lord! *rolls eyes*

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, let's see.

Well, in the 2064th day of his presidency, GWB was at 44%. On the corresponding day, Obama is at 43%. So, the figures are pretty even. On this corresponding day in 1950, Truman was as 33%.

History is smiling on Truman.

Caveat: those are Gallup's figures, which I rarely quote and actually trust very, very little.

Presidential Job Approval Center

 

[TemplarKormac]

I suppose Bush is responsible for Barry's inept leadership when it comes to fighting ISIS? The "reset" with Russia?

I suppose Bush is responsible for the Fast & Furious scandal? The Benghazi debacle? The IRS abuses? The wiretaps on American journalists? The total lack of transparency of the Obama White House?

Who KNEW that the man you liberals derided for all those years as the "village idiot" was actually a political MASTERMIND who somehow manages to control the US government from his ranch in Crawford, Texas!

Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country? Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

So what should Obama have done? If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

Q: Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

A: Who else would he be referring to?

Q: Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country?

A: No Bush did. Obama invited a far greater threat into that country by refusing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement; he had a chance to stem the tide.

Statement: Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

Response: Saddam committed genocide. I grant you he would have seen them as a benefit, not a liability.

Q: So what should Obama have done?

A: His job.

Q: If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon(s) ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

A: He has already armed Syrian rebels, and yes, our weapons are in the hands of ISIS. Anything else you wish to know? What you call 'whining' is a legitimate concern.

Q: Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

A: Yes he is. His administration has played a direct role in just about all of them. Now there are revelations that Valerie Jarrett was involved in the IRS scandal. So, who are we to blame? Republicans? The only reason 'faux news' reports it is because the excuses for news you watch on CNN or MSNBC don't even touch the issue.

Do you live under a rock? This one is ALL Bush...

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.


Army Sgt. John Bruhns

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them."

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

If the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

All that typing and for nothing:

"Mr. Obama sought to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed United States troops to stay in Iraq after 2011. Initially, the Obama administration was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, the Obama administration lowered the figure to about 5,000 troops - some 3,500 of which would be continuously based in the country while the remainder would periodically be rotated through. The role of the American forces would be to train Iraqi troops, patrol Iraq's skies and help Iraqi commandos fight Al Qaeda." (Michael Gordon and Scott Shane, "Fact Check: A Status Of Forces Agreement?" The New York Times, 10/22/12)

He had actually succeeded in negotiating the agreement, then he pulled defeat from the ashes of victory.

"Obama was suggesting that he had never favored keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the December 2011 withdrawal deadline that the Bush administration had negotiated with the Iraqi government. Actually, the Obama administration tried for many months to win Iraqi agreement to keeping several thousand American troops there beyond 2011 to continue training and advising the Iraqi armed forces. The talks broke down over a disagreement on legal immunity for U.S. troops." (Calvin Woodward, "FACT CHECK: Missteps In Final Presidential Debate," The Associated Press , 10/22/12)

So, you can spin this all you like, but facts are facts.

Interesting...Bush signs an agreement that put our troops under the sovereignty of Iraqi law. And you chastise Obama for not doing the same thing?

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki indicated that he might be willing to work out an agreement to allow some American troops to stay. But the Iraqis did not agree to an American demand that such an agreement be submitted to their parliament for approval, a step the Obama administration insisted was needed to ensure that any American troops that stayed would be immune from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Q: Interesting...Bush signs an agreement that put our troops under the sovereignty of Iraqi law. And you chastise Obama for not doing the same thing?

A: Yes I do. He needed to keep troops in Iraq. Too late now, ISIS is on a rampage, and Obama is regretting not pushing harder for residual forces there.

--Perhaps you should stop making excuses for him.

 

[Bfgrn]

Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country? Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

So what should Obama have done? If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

Q: Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

A: Who else would he be referring to?

Q: Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country?

A: No Bush did. Obama invited a far greater threat into that country by refusing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement; he had a chance to stem the tide.

Statement: Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

Response: Saddam committed genocide. I grant you he would have seen them as a benefit, not a liability.

Q: So what should Obama have done?

A: His job.

Q: If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon(s) ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

A: He has already armed Syrian rebels, and yes, our weapons are in the hands of ISIS. Anything else you wish to know? What you call 'whining' is a legitimate concern.

Q: Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

A: Yes he is. His administration has played a direct role in just about all of them. Now there are revelations that Valerie Jarrett was involved in the IRS scandal. So, who are we to blame? Republicans? The only reason 'faux news' reports it is because the excuses for news you watch on CNN or MSNBC don't even touch the issue.

Do you live under a rock? This one is ALL Bush...

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.


Army Sgt. John Bruhns

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them."

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

If the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

All that typing and for nothing:

"Mr. Obama sought to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed United States troops to stay in Iraq after 2011. Initially, the Obama administration was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, the Obama administration lowered the figure to about 5,000 troops - some 3,500 of which would be continuously based in the country while the remainder would periodically be rotated through. The role of the American forces would be to train Iraqi troops, patrol Iraq's skies and help Iraqi commandos fight Al Qaeda." (Michael Gordon and Scott Shane, "Fact Check: A Status Of Forces Agreement?" The New York Times, 10/22/12)

He had actually succeeded in negotiating the agreement, then he pulled defeat from the ashes of victory.

"Obama was suggesting that he had never favored keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the December 2011 withdrawal deadline that the Bush administration had negotiated with the Iraqi government. Actually, the Obama administration tried for many months to win Iraqi agreement to keeping several thousand American troops there beyond 2011 to continue training and advising the Iraqi armed forces. The talks broke down over a disagreement on legal immunity for U.S. troops." (Calvin Woodward, "FACT CHECK: Missteps In Final Presidential Debate," The Associated Press , 10/22/12)

So, you can spin this all you like, but facts are facts.

Interesting...Bush signs an agreement that put our troops under the sovereignty of Iraqi law. And you chastise Obama for not doing the same thing?

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki indicated that he might be willing to work out an agreement to allow some American troops to stay. But the Iraqis did not agree to an American demand that such an agreement be submitted to their parliament for approval, a step the Obama administration insisted was needed to ensure that any American troops that stayed would be immune from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Q: Interesting...Bush signs an agreement that put our troops under the sovereignty of Iraqi law. And you chastise Obama for not doing the same thing?

A: Yes I do. He needed to keep troops in Iraq. Too late now, ISIS is on a rampage, and Obama is regretting not pushing harder for residual forces there.

--Perhaps you should stop making excuses for him.

SO, you really don't care about our troops. You only care about scoring points on an obscure political message board...got it!

But you are right about ONE thing...

All that typing for nothing

DON'T read anything Army Sgt. John Bruhns, who served in Iraq has to say...you really don't want to know what a traitor Bush turned out to be...

Sorry Obama isn't a piece of shit traitor like Bush...

 

[Freewill]

anyone who hasn't wised up to Obama and the democrats and the total failures they are is blind as a bat.

But to be fair I have to give credit where it is due. Obama didn't "fail" without a great deal of "help" from the right doing it's utmost to make sure that he did. Their strenuous efforts from the very outset of his presidency to make him a "failure" deserve to be recognized. The right put a lot of hard work into achieving this outcome and they should be given the credit that comes with reaching their stated goal of failure.

Reagan rose above the democrat party politics and was successful. Did you ever think it was the leader of the free worlds fault that people just don't get along?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's not forget the sneaky way the democrats forced us to buy a product from health insurance companies. This has already been in effect in Massachusetts for several years now, and has had terrible effects on jobs! MANY jobs are now only "temporary" jobs and a lot of people have to go through employment services to get a job. Also, a lot of jobs that used to be full time have now been cut back to part-time, and this is all due to the expense of providing mandatory health insurance, unless of course you are a favorite and get an Obama waiver. Good Lord! *rolls eyes*

 

[Freewill]

The point is and always has been is that your accusation that the Tea Party discriminates against blacks is just pure BS. There is nothing in their platform does that. There is nothing in the rhetoric of those who we can call leaders. It is an imagination made up by the liberal left. Mostly the reason that there are not more blacks is because blacks, for some reason that I don't understand, side with the party of slavery. So how would the Tea Party attract blacks? Since the beginning the left has lied about the TP. Every black that sides with the TP is labeled by the democrats as being a sell out or worse.

Why isn't there whites in the NAACP? A group that was formed by WHITE REPUBLICANS to help the black man. Why did the black House Caucus prohibit a BLACK Republican from membership. For that matter why is there even a all black caucus? Could a white man join either of those groups? I seriously doubt it. Can a black man join a TP, yes, without a doubt.

All you have is deflection because you cannot support the fact that the TP is an extremist right wing organization made up virtually exclusively of aging white people who don't even live up to their stated principles when it comes to actions.

Where did I deflect? What is a hoot is look at the democrat party, look at their leaders. Reid, he is older then dirty. Pelosi, rich arrogant grandmother Hillary, crooked as they come and again, old and white. And all of them sound angry, as do you.

You just deflected again!

But I am not surprised that a partisan sycophant such as yourself cannot comprehend your own myopic partisanship.

You have effectively conceded that my point is valid about the TP and that you have no substantive rebuttal. Have a nice day.

I never made the statement that the TP isn't composed of mostly whites, never said it. But you and your ilk are inferring that because they are mostly white that means they obviously are excluding blacks. THAT is BS. Blacks exclude themselves and I don't blame them. The treatment a black person who leaves the DNC receives is disgraceful and unfortunately the virtual chains placed on them by the DNC are really hard to break.

As a white man can I join the NAACP? I would guess that answer is yes, but could be wrong. But lets say it is yes, my not joining doesn't mean that makes the NAACP racist. And if you want to say my not joining makes me racist then what would you be saying about blacks and the TP? I seriously doubt I could join the black caucus do you think they racist?

Your latest strawman deflection is treated with the contempt it deserves. Have a nice day.

So pointing out that you have absolutely no problem with the NAACP being all black or that the Congressional Black Caucus is all black. Really? I'll also bet you don't have a problem with the Black Entertainment Television or the Black Ms. America contest or a host of other black only organization or events. BUT one groups truthfully started by whites that does NOT exclude anyone and that you find to be troublesome, that you find to be a strawman. Wow the denial runs deep.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's not forget the sneaky way the democrats forced us to buy a product from health insurance companies. This has already been in effect in Massachusetts for several years now, and has had terrible effects on jobs! MANY jobs are now only "temporary" jobs and a lot of people have to go through employment services to get a job. Also, a lot of jobs that used to be full time have now been cut back to part-time, and this is all due to the expense of providing mandatory health insurance, unless of course you are a favorite and get an Obama waiver. Good Lord! *rolls eyes*

Are you kidding? Lol. NO. I don't think we need a link to the above. It is common knowledge.

 

[Derideo_Te]

anyone who hasn't wised up to Obama and the democrats and the total failures they are is blind as a bat.

But to be fair I have to give credit where it is due. Obama didn't "fail" without a great deal of "help" from the right doing it's utmost to make sure that he did. Their strenuous efforts from the very outset of his presidency to make him a "failure" deserve to be recognized. The right put a lot of hard work into achieving this outcome and they should be given the credit that comes with reaching their stated goal of failure.

Reagan rose above the democrat party politics and was successful. Did you ever think it was the leader of the free worlds fault that people just don't get along?

It takes both parties to reach a compromise. The Dem Speaker was willing to work with Reagan and reach a compromise.

Boehner has not been willing to do anything of the sort which means that the fault is not Obama's in this instance.

Boehner has become the puppet of the TP and as such has proven himself to be a craven coward who is unwilling to do what is best for America. He has allowed the TP to push for a government shutdown and a violation of the Constitution.

So please refrain from blaming Obama for the egregious divisiveness of the extreme right.

 

[ChrisL]

Just to humor some of your dumb asses.

Money Morning

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's not forget the sneaky way the democrats forced us to buy a product from health insurance companies. This has already been in effect in Massachusetts for several years now, and has had terrible effects on jobs! MANY jobs are now only "temporary" jobs and a lot of people have to go through employment services to get a job. Also, a lot of jobs that used to be full time have now been cut back to part-time, and this is all due to the expense of providing mandatory health insurance, unless of course you are a favorite and get an Obama waiver. Good Lord! *rolls eyes*

Are you kidding? Lol. NO. I don't think we need a link to the above. It is common knowledge.

Failure to provide a link when asked is a de facto admission of spewing partisan lies.

 

[Derideo_Te]

All you have is deflection because you cannot support the fact that the TP is an extremist right wing organization made up virtually exclusively of aging white people who don't even live up to their stated principles when it comes to actions.

Where did I deflect? What is a hoot is look at the democrat party, look at their leaders. Reid, he is older then dirty. Pelosi, rich arrogant grandmother Hillary, crooked as they come and again, old and white. And all of them sound angry, as do you.

You just deflected again!

But I am not surprised that a partisan sycophant such as yourself cannot comprehend your own myopic partisanship.

You have effectively conceded that my point is valid about the TP and that you have no substantive rebuttal. Have a nice day.

I never made the statement that the TP isn't composed of mostly whites, never said it. But you and your ilk are inferring that because they are mostly white that means they obviously are excluding blacks. THAT is BS. Blacks exclude themselves and I don't blame them. The treatment a black person who leaves the DNC receives is disgraceful and unfortunately the virtual chains placed on them by the DNC are really hard to break.

As a white man can I join the NAACP? I would guess that answer is yes, but could be wrong. But lets say it is yes, my not joining doesn't mean that makes the NAACP racist. And if you want to say my not joining makes me racist then what would you be saying about blacks and the TP? I seriously doubt I could join the black caucus do you think they racist?

Your latest strawman deflection is treated with the contempt it deserves. Have a nice day.

So pointing out that you have absolutely no problem with the NAACP being all black or that the Congressional Black Caucus is all black. Really? I'll also bet you don't have a problem with the Black Entertainment Television or the Black Ms. America contest or a host of other black only organization or events. BUT one groups truthfully started by whites that does NOT exclude anyone and that you find to be troublesome, that you find to be a strawman. Wow the denial runs deep.

Yet another deflection because you cannot refute the facts about the Tea Party being an extremist right wing organization made up virtually exclusively of aging white people who don't even live up to their stated principles when it comes to actions.