Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Sep 9, 2013.
He is handling that task, himself, quite nicely.
No assistance needed.
Oh please. That's as weak as conservatives spouting that it was anti-American to question Bush on the invasion in Iraq.
Do what other Presidents before him have done. Whatever those who can make a buck off it want him to.
I know that anti-Castro Cubans, who hated JFK's guts (first for the Bay of Pigs and then for failure to invade Cuba over the missiles), were known to be used as covert operatives (initially against Cuba, later against Nixon and who else) by the CIA, which also hated JFK's guts. And it would be logical to use Cubans in a hit in Dallas designed to look like a Cuban hit squad from Castro, which would lead to, voila, an invasion of Cuba. (The "pro-Castro" Oswald, presumably to be found after his flight or death to be a member of the hit squad, screwed up the operation by getting arrested by the Dallas police. "Get word to Ruby, give him an order that he can't refuse.")
JFK already had the Vietnam problem. The straw that broke the camel's back on Cuba was the secret talks that had begun between his administration and Castro on getting along together, talks which it didn't take the CIA long to discover.
It's not a matter of questioning the intelligence or what alternatives we have, I hope people look at all the facts and options. But trying to make our president look weak and incompetent in this situation merely for political gain is quite another matter.
Nobody has to try to make Obama "look weak or incompetent" wrt Syria. He took care of that all by himself.
The effort to characterize criticism of Obama's actions as anti-American or unpatriotic is LOL material.
Besides the obvious reason - they still want to be a major player on the world stage - I very much believe that most (all?) of their motivation in the Middle East is related to getting Siberian oil/gas out to the Indian Ocean. That is their best chance for being an 800 gorilla in fossil fuels.
Oh, I see what you're saying. It was Professor Plum on the grassy nole with a candlestick.
While you seem to be implying that it is beyond question, and some other seem to be saying that it is clear he looks incomptent by himself, the fact it is that it is history, likely highly classified material, and a lot of research at least 25 years from now that will be the judge on this one. But implying that any political leader in a democratic society should not be challenged, questioned, or criticized for a political action, whether foreign or domestic, is what is anti-American. It was when the GOP said it in the last administration and it is when you say it now.
This is the type of political talk that undermines our position while we are dealing with Russia and Syria.
Whenever I can point out the right's hypocrisy, logic flaws and flip flops, I will do so.
Nah, its just cheap talk. Just like accusing people of being insufficiently patriotic. If we avoid a war, and a deal is brokered, I'd wager few people will care all that much about how we arrive there, especially as time passes.
Shamelessly stolen from Darth's posting on another thread:
Hypocrisy, in politics, NO WAY!
You are guilty of it yourself. So what is the point? Deal with the present.
More Buchanan quotes stolen from Darth's posting on another thread, and an excerpt therefrom is worth repeating here:
There is a lot of cheap talk that goes on, especially on Fox and with Limbaugh and the like. Talk that sways their gullible listeners and in turn these listeners sway their representatives in Congress.
Buchanan cuts through the warfare state's BS and propaganda better than anyone I've read.
Ok. But what is "anti-American" about this process? People have every right to influence public opinion with their available means, even if it is perhaps against our best interests internationally, and not entirely well-intentioned.
Don't you think we would want to do our best to have the President in as much of a position of strength when dealing with Russia and Syria?
BTW, I said leaning towards anti-American. Questioning the intelligence and options available is one thing but trying to portray the President as incompetent in this matter while dealing with Russia and Syria is not in America's best interest.