Atomic Test Highlights Obama Failure
by Big Dog on May 25, 2009 at 08:13 Political
On October 9, 2006 North Korea conducted a nuclear test years after the Clinton administration provided that country with the means and opportunity to build a nuclear weapon. The test was reported as a failure of George Bush and his administration. Liberals claimed that he was so focused on Iraq that he allowed North Korea to develop and test a nuclear weapon. A headline at Truthdig from the time was Atomic Test Highlights Bush Failure and the lead paragraph stated:
North Korea’s evident test of a nuclear device speaks to a failure of diplomacy long in the making, but Democrats have justifiably laid much of the blame on Bush, whose Iraq fixation and disinterest in nonproliferation have proved disastrous.
The Democratic Underground claimed that Democrats were condemning North Korea and citing the failure of Bush diplomacy. Those commenting blamed Bush and the lack of diplomacy for the nuclear test.
Howard Dean of the DNC stated:
“Today’s announcement is further evidence that President Bush has taken his eye off the ball, allowing a member of the so-called ‘axis of evil’ to allegedly test a nuclear weapon,”
Today Newsmax reports that North Korea has conducted another nuclear test more powerful than the first:
North Korea said it staged a “successful” underground nuclear weapons test which was more powerful than its previous test of an atomic bomb almost three years ago.
George Bush is not in office and has not been there since January so there is no way to blame him for taking his eye off the ball. Since he was to blame the last time this happened it would appear that Obama is to blame this time. I have not read where any Democrat has spoken up and declared that this marks a failure of Obama’s policies and that his diplomacy failures allowed North Korea to explode a nuclear device.
The Democratic Underground has its useful idiots already complaining that Republicans will use this to attack Obama as being soft. They are wetting their pink panties over there because they are afraid that Obama will get blamed. These low life twits were the ones blaming Bush but they do not want Obama blamed. This is the double standard.
Some of them are blaming the leader of North Korea for making nukes instead of feeding his people. They are also asking if this was a nuke that was developed while Bush was busy with Iraq.
Isn’t it strange that they never blamed Clinton for giving the NORKS the means and opportunity to make the bombs? They went after Bush immediately and did not attack North Korea’s leaders or the guy who gave them the technology, they blamed Bush. Now the bed wetters are blaming Bush again and worrying about how it will make Obama look.
Let me help them see how Obama looks:
Obama took his eye off the ball. He has been too busy trying to ramrod his socialist agenda down our throats to pay attention. He has resigned himself to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and this likely emboldened North Korea. The NORKS saw how weak Obama is and decided to take advantage.
Additionally, Obama has been too busy going around the world blaming America for the ills of the world and then apologizing for all the things that America has done wrong. Obama has been too busy appeasing the world to notice the dangers around us.
Let us make no mistake, this is an Obama failure and it is one of great magnitude. He has failed our country and because he took his eyes off the dangers North Korea is one step closer to a nuclear device. Yes, Obama’s failed diplomacy resulted in this test and because of him the world is just a little bit less safe tonight.
These are undeniable truths based upon the logic of the left when the NORKS tested the first device. If they absolve Obama of any culpability then they will be absolving Bush of any as well. Either they both failed or they both did not. Since the Democratic politicians and their mind numbed, eye glazed followers were eager to blame Bush and that charge stuck, then it is obvious that Obama is just as guilty.
The liberals will not step up and blame Obama. They are already in cover up and spin mode. The folks at the DU are already asking each other for counterpoints to those of us who will blame Obama as a matter of principle and fairness.
There are no counterpoints and there is no way to backtrack. Obama took his eye off the ball and now the world is a little less safe.
The enemies of America smell weakness in the White House and now they will begin to exploit it.
And they will continue to exploit it while Obama continues to apologize for America.
UPDATE: Today North Korea test fired several long range missiles. Looks like Obama took his eye off more than one ball. While he was busy apologizing the NORKS went nuclear.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: atom bomb, north korea, test
Oh yes- Barama has NO cojones when it comes to the international arena- he seems to think his tepid personality will save the day,
My take on the situation is that he really doesn’t care if half of the world goes up in a puff of smoke, as long as the puff of smoke advances his green initiatives and socialist agenda.
Big Dog:
So how is the White House weak now compared to under Bush? Name one policy that has changed really so far other than shucking the ridiculous “war on terror” theme?
Or maybe you can tell me what it was that made the White House so much stronger under Bush if that is easier.
Blake:
Tell me what “cojones” will do for Obama in the international area? Does this put Secretary Clinton at a disadvantage from the start?
Adam, yes, it does- both are weak and naive- some people yuo just can’t reason with. Case in point- see above.
And Adam- it darn sure wasn’t the Dems that made Bush stronger- talk about the party of no- they epitomized the term. Dems don’t do war very well- I think they are a little squeamish about hard choices. The exception would be Truman in ’45.
If Roosevelt hadn’t had Churchill, I believe the war might have gone a different way.
This post does not say it is weaker or the same. What it says is if you liberals called North Korea’s nuclear test on Bush’s watch a failure for him you have to do the same for Obama.
The weakness does not come from adopting the same policies, it comes from how they are portrayed. Apologizing around the world is weakness. The weakness comes from the image projected.
Bush gave the image that he would retaliate if attacked. Obama gives the image of someone who will try to talk it out.
The ridiculous theme of War on Terror?
It is so much better to have overseas contingency operations and man caused disasters.
You really have lost it if you think the new themes are better or make a difference.
“if you liberals called North Korea’s nuclear test on Bush’s watch a failure for him you have to do the same for Obama.”
DAR
Nope, there’s a difference. Clinton left Bush a North Korea that did not have nukes. It’s GW Bush’s profound foreign policy failure that they obtained nuclear weapons on his watch. He then handed this perilous situation over to Obama. Four months in, it is no surprise they decide to pop another one off. Just another Bush disaster exploding in our face.
D.
———–
“Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life.”
—George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004
Clinton gave North Korea the reactors and Lil Kim was working on nukes before the ink on the agreement was dry.
There is enough blame to go around without you rewriting history.
When your biggest accomplishment is changing the name of the War on Terror to the obsequious sounding “Overseas Contingency Operation” there’s nothing to brag about- other than this he has not done squat. Period.
They’re one step closer to having the Bomb, Big Dog? Bullshit…THEY HAVE THE BOMB! And they intend to export their know-how to Iran, Pakistan, and the Alpha-Qs.
Pakistan already has it, Iran is close, and I personally believe Al-Qaida would do a bio first- easier to conceal.
Big Dog:
I think most people who understand what our goals are as a country in regard to terrorism believe that the term “war on terror” doesn’t really fit what we need to do to actually defeat terrorism. You’d think we’d have learned from the failed title “war on drugs” but you know we don’t learn well from the past. I don’t know if the new title is any better (probably isn’t), but it can’t be worse.
But coming from a bunch of people who ignore the successful results of law enforcement against terrorism in order to mock and laughed at John Kerry for saying fighting terrorism has a law enforcement element I’m not surprised at all when some of you think a war against terrorism is the only solution for stopping our enemies.
Show me where Obama apologized around the world, what did he apologize for exactly and how does that make us weaker?
Blake:
I feel sorry for all of the women out in America that will never be able to achieve what a man like Churchill achieved if it was in fact his “cojones” that made him great.
Cojones is a TERM, a simile- one that I don’t expect you to understand, Adam. Condi has them, hil- not so much, although perhaps after living with slick Willy- I may be wrong. Perhaps she’s wearing his.
And Barama made his “We’re the NEW America- Please Forgive us Tour” awhile back, or don’t you read the texts of his speeches? If you spend your days licking the boots of other countries, it’s no wonder things don’t seem like they are looking up.
Blake:
Oh, right, I get it now, silly me. I didn’t get that a word for testicles was being used to mean strength and a lack thereof to mean weakness. Isn’t that a bit sexist and beyond such an enlightened man as yourself?
Maybe you can find me the transcripts that I should have read since you know them so well. It’s strange that I would not have seen Obama apologizing and asking the world to forgive us. Forgive for what?
Being forgiven apparently for not deferring to others enough in the War On Terrorism- for being, as Barama said, “Tone-deaf”- do you remember this speech now? Or is your memory as selective as Darrel’s?
Barama expects his personality to settle things and feels that the “middle” position makes him wise- neither is true. Sometimes you have to take a stand, and quit basing your career on polls alone. That was Slick Willy’s fault and it looks like Barama will suffer the same way, but without Monica (possibly).
I may be enlightened, but i call a spade a spade, and do not use PC terms, as they beg the question, rather than answer it.
If you cannot handle plain speech, you should go back to meat’s site and nod and grin while he spews his hate.
“I may be enlightened, but i call a spade a spade”
That’s a good one. You should print it on a bumpersticker and stick in on your car.
The term is the same as saying someone has the balls to do something and it has been said of women. It means they are tough and has nothing to do with actually having them.
Right, and calling a woman a cunt isn’t sexist either. I mean…identifying a person by their genitalia, that’s not sexist at all.
It is not sexist. It can mean an unpleasant or stupid person or it can be a disparaging word for a woman (and in some cases a man). The word bi*ch is not sexist but it is disparaging. The C word is the same.
As you know, disparage means to belittle or bring reproach upon, and that is not sexist.
Sexist means of or pertaining to sexism which is the discrimination of one based upon sex. Calling a woman the B or C word does not discriminate.
Sexism also means the belief that one sex is superior to another. While I believe that men are superior to women in some things and women superior to men in others that has nothing to do with the use of the words. In fact, my beliefs of superiority in certain attributes would not meet the definition of sexism because they are demonstrably true.
So, the use of that word while vulgar, uncouth, nasty, demeaning, disparaging and belittling is not sexist.
The problem with liberals is that everything is either racism or sexism. Most of the time it is because they don’t know the definitions or they have been taught by liberal teachers that everything is one or the other.
Calling a man a di*k, or a bast*rd is not sexist either. It is just demeaning.
Wow- Adam, who called a woman a c***? I see, this is about you putting words in someone’s mouth- typical Lib trick.
Scorn for PC language is just a fight against accepting the reality of inequalities in our country in not just our system of society but our common language as well. I hope that my children will grow up in a country where it’s no longer cool to chastise a person’s apparent strengths and weaknesses using male and female body parts, but they’ll probably have to wait for enlightened folks like yourself to die off first.
And for the record I don’t come from “meat’s” site so I have no place to go back “to” either way.
I’m going to need some better evidence than you’re giving about Obama. Telling me “do you remember now?” isn’t helping your case. Maybe I should wait for Big Dog’s word on it. You have proven your inability to make statements based on any evidence and the echo chamber you conservatives get your”common sense” from has apparently duped you again. Imagine that…
Adam, Obama has been going around apologizing, saying we were wrong about this or that. I know you can’t have missed it.
As for language, we do not have a common one in the US because we have no official language.
However, I don’t really care if people are offended by terms used to describe assets and I don’t care whose kids are offended. There is no right not to be offended.
There will always be inequality. People are not equal. Some baseball players are better than others. Should we make a .315 hitter start each at bat with 2 strikes so that the .235 hitter has an equal chance to win the batting title or so that the pitcher with a 9.00 ERA has a chance to strike him out? Should Manning or Brady have to throw left handed so other teams have a chance?
There are inequalities because we are not all equal. The idea that some language that is inoffensive will correct that is a bunch of crap.
And what happens if some find PC language offensive? We have the right to say what we want. We have PC language because others did not have the balls to stand up for their rights.
Adam, I must say I am offended by the term undocumented worker. He is an illegal alien.
As for the War on Terror, that is what it is and we are winning it. The war on drugs will never be won. It is a waste of money and people will continue to use them. It is also a waste because our government spends its time prosecuting border patrol agents for shooting drug smugglers and leaves those importing the drugs alone.
Besides, how would Barry ever have had his liberal street creds if he did not use some blow and weed.
So our president should admit no faults in our country or else we look weak? We are looking for “a more perfect union,” not a perfect one.
“There are inequalities because we are not all equal.”
Right. That’s true, only men are created equal. Women are just a bunch of cunts that don’t have the balls and any man who agrees with this is just a pussy himself, right?
I’m not even going to entertain your ridiculous comparison of a sport like baseball to the struggle for equality in America.
We are not winning any war on terror. We may be winning the the objectives of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but those have to do with regime change, not terrorism. There are many, many more terrorists now than we started with before 9/11. Luckily the law enforcement aspects implemented by Bush and now Obama have kept America safe here at home so far.
Well we were winning it before Obama took over. You have your opinion and I have mine. If the next attack gets you or your wife I will come to the funeral.
Once again you show your ignorance. All men are created equal. Your claim is that it is sexist and does not include women. First, you will notice that I said not all people are created equal and that means within the sexes as well as between them.
But, these are 3 of the definitions of MEN:
2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.
3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.
4. a human being; person: to give a man a chance; When the audience smelled the smoke, it was every man for himself.
As you can see, this is not a sexist term and it includes women. Of course, this is not the first time you have had trouble with the English language. I understand that and accept the fact that you are not real good with it.
However, you have demonstrated my point and that is, liberals see racism or sexism in everything.
“That’s one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind” includes women.
Just wanted you to know that so you would not call Neil Armstrong a sexist.
There you go again with the c*** word- do you use this where your wife is in the same room, or just imply that this is a term we would use? You know what happens when you assume, right? And the comparison with baseball is as apt as any you have come up with. Barama cold lead us into ruin, and you would still be his cheerleader, seeing no fault, isn’t that right?
Blake:
Wow, Blake, selective memory- typical conservative wingnut trick.
If you haven’t noticed by now Big Dog’s affinity for calling women he disagrees with the “C word” then you have a short memory. Just yesterday he called Garafalo a skank and a cunt.
Perhaps Adam, but you persist- as if you enjoy it. For all you know I might be female and objecting to your blatant sexism- aren’t you afraid you’ll hurt someone’s feelings? Aren’t you SENSITIVE? a 21st century man?
Right. Quoting the sexist language Big Dog uses to attack women he disagrees with makes me sexist and I might offend a lady? Keep trying, pal.
These are but a few. Obama has apologized for some aspect of America in nearly every place he has visited.
Apologizing is actually a sign of strength not weakness.
The one example given of an actual “apology” at your link?
“We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect.” –Obama
That’s not an apology but rather a statement of fact.
Yesterday, when challenged to find a lie in Obama’s speech you said he was a liar because, while referring to America’s efforts to fight against tyranny, dictators and torture, he didn’t mention the times when we made matters worse.
Now when he simply acknowledges: “We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect.”
This is apologizing too much and going to far.
Unbelievable.
D.
Let’s just look at the whole quotes that those lines are snipped from:
Actual quote:
Again I ask do we need a president that can’t admit America’s faults without you pretending all he sees is American faults?
The only fault I see in America is the lack of leadership at the top, Adam.
That is not true. You see plenty of faults, past mistakes, things our country should have done different, or sooner, etc. But when conservatives say these things it’s patriotic. When liberals say these things we’re blaming America first.
TRUE
Blake, admitted hypocrite. I rest my case.
You bring me any quote you can find and I bet that the quote has been taken out of context by somebody like Glenn Beck or Hannity or Rush Windbagh and you have been duped again. It’s a pretty safe gamble since more times than not that is how the idiots that feed your echo chamber roll.
Is “echo chamber” your phrase of the day? How trite- first, to assume (there you go again) that I watch Beck or Hannity, or listen to Rush is a stretch, just because I am conservative. I make up my own mind, and have better things to do than listen to a single perspective as you seem to do. Pity- he could have been such an intelligent boy, if he just didn’t listen to such rot.
Strange. You are drawing the same fact free conclusions as those morons are, I just assumed you weren’t as dumb as them but simply listened to what they had to say. Sorry for assuming…
Fact free. Hahahahahahaha
Prove they are fact free. Prove it. The thing is, they present facts and you guys refuse to listen.
Don’t care mind you but when you have Obama and his fact free media spewing lies or FACT FREE BIDEN, you should not be saying much.
Beck admitted the other day on The View that he was not only a liar but that he’s not a journalist so he doesn’t check any facts. His words, not mine.
If you haven’t noticed by now Big Dog’s affinity for calling women he disagrees with the “C word” then you have a short memory. Just yesterday he called Garafalo a skank and a c***.
Yep, and she is both. Neither word is sexist as Adam claims. One is disparaging and offensive but I don’t care.
Barfalo called me a tea bagging redneck. I did not claim sexism, just said what I thought of her.
Adam if you don’t like that, too bad. I’d call your mother one if she called me a vulgar name I did not like.
My mother said that you should not dish it out if you can’t take it.
I offer the same advice I always do: Don’t use sexist or racist language (though I haven’t seen you use anything I’d say was that racist in a while mind you) and I won’t call you sexist or racist.
Funny I never see you calling a man a dick or a bastard when you disagree with them. Why is it you always attack women with disparaging, gender based attacks like skank or cunt or question who they have sex with like you do when you mention Madonna for instance.
Simply arguing it is not sexist means nothing because you have proven time and again you lack the basic ability to detect what is racist and sexist. That’s OK, because I’m not going anywhere. I ‘ll always tell you when you slip up.
Skank would refer to a type of woman you might not wish to be around, but it could refer to a man also, just as a**hole can be either. Clear?
Again, when Big Dog attacks a male politician using disparaging gender based attacks then maybe I’ll say that he’s just prone to offensive language as he claims instead of the truth which is that while I have no doubt he respects women in his own life he still has an issue about attacking women not for their opinions or their merits but for things related to their gender.
It’s just like the media’s attacks on Pelosi not for the job she is doing but her facial features and looks. Those attacks would never be made against a male speaker of the house.
And let me rephrase that: A male politician other than Barney Frank. Funny how he gets attacked by conservatives so often just for being gay and not because they think he’s doing a bad job. I’m not pointing fingers here though because I can’t remember off the top of my head any specific attack anybody on this site made on Frank because he’s gay, I’m just saying…
I attack Franks because he’s incompetent (he’s rather funny in an Elmer Fudd way, also- (“be vewy, vewy quiet- I’m hunting Wabbits”) The fact that he’s gay matters not to me. The fact that he got the mortgage mess so very, very wrong does.
But Barfalo was out of line I must say. Despite what Blake thinks of me, I am a redneck (and a hillbilly) and I’m proud of that. You sir, are no redneck.
Adam, what I think of you is of no consequence, in the end-you are argumentative, and counter to all I believe in, but then we would not have spirited debates otherwise, other than that, I have not drawn a conclusion. Despite what you think of me, I do keep an open mind,
“I have not drawn a conclusion.”
You say that now but your past writing tells a much different story. I don’t know you enough to judge so much whether your mind is open or not but you’re not making a very good case for yourself when your conclusion to many of our arguments is simply “I’m not going to change my mind.”
When my experience tells me that if I grab a poisonous snake I will be bitten, should I keep testing that hypothesis, or might anty further testing be superflous? When my mind is made up, it is for a good reason. The fact that you choose not to follow that line of reasoning is what makes for these discussions.
I have demonstrated that the words are NOT sexist. Adam’s limited education does not allow him to see it. He does not know what sexism actually is. He only knows that if you disparage a woman it must be.
It is not sexist Adam. Maybe you will get educated one day.
I don’t need a lilly livered liberal puke KID with little life experience to tell me anything. I will tell you what I said before, just because you call it sexist or racist does not make it so. You do not have the education or intelligence to make that claim as is evidenced by your inability to demonstrate what racism or sexism actually is.
I refuse to succumb to the Adam definition of these terms. I can’t help it if you are a dumb bast*rd.
And I have referred to men in these terms. Perhaps you were busy giving meaty a hand job or something. As you know, I don’t come out and directly use any of those words. Most times they are other words or expressions that mean the same thing.
BTW, did you not hear me discuss the gay blade Perez Hilton? How about some of the other gay men who I have discussed? You must have missed when I use disparaging remarks about men. None of it is sexist, only in your liberal world. This eliminates your false claim.
Barfolo called us rednecks which is considered a racist term, according to the dictionary. Wiki (the source you said was OK to use) says it is an ethnic slur just like the N word. The dictionary says:
Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
A disparaging term for whites = racist.
Don’t concern yourself with Foxworthy using it, it is OK because he is white. Like blacks using the N word…
There you go again. You do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to this stuff because you compare gender equality to baseball stats and you compare the N-word to the word redneck or cracker or gringo as you have in the past. I rest my case.
My only point in this was to joke with Blake about the term “cajones” because it’s frustrating that as a society we still define weak and strong as male vs female genitalia. If you think that’s fine then more power to you I guess.
I apologize for creating a frenzy about what is and isn’t racism because that’s the kind of argument we never settle around here.
I much prefer the term “spine” to indicate whether a person has the strength to stand on HIS Oor HER own convictions and make smart decisions. Let’s throw out this outdated male dominated society nonsense that has no place in our times.
Its ALL racist, Adam. Redneck is not less racist than ANY of the others- if one is ok to use, so are all the others, if one is not ok to use, neither are the others, that’s all.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Any time you compare the word “redneck” to the N-word as an example to say both are redneck and equal then you lose ALL credibility. Get a history lesson and maybe we can debate this again someday.
They are ALL disparaging terms, Adam- what part of this do you not understand? Do Blacks have “special” feelings? Mexicans? Come on, quit with the PC pap here- if one is bad, they all are bad. End of story.
Beck said that he was wrong about the way things transpired. He said that he was the first to say Hi and apologized. He never said that he did not check facts, that was the assertion of the harpies on The View who kept saying “so you don’t check facts” he never said that he did not. He said he was wrong and apologized.
He did say he was not a journalist when challenged. He said that he presented his POINT OF VIEW just like those on the show do, I might add. How many times have they been wrong?
And yet your media attacked Hillary.
You must not pay attention. I have commented on the looks of men, and used disparaging language. I rarely directly use the words because others read this and don’t like it. However, I use foul words to disparage both and I have (you don’t look).
Women wanted equality and I give it. They are treated equally with regard to my scorn.
We attack Frank because he is an idiot and his policies helped cause the economic downturn. Most major opponents have said the same thing. The left focuses on the gay part and ignores the substance.
Frank defended Fannie and Freddie while they were going down in flames and his support of the CRA helped bring down housing.
Calling Michael Moore fat doesn’t count.
And to say I didn’t pay attention to and comment here about the sexist treatment of Hillary in the primary means you have memory problems. I’ve lost absolutely all respect for Keith Olbermann and MSNBC in general for the way that they treated Hillary. Caught up in a fury of support for Obama many Democrats simply ignored the actions because the media was pulling for their guy. But not me…but let’s not get into a media bias debate because this sexism debate is already too much.
no, calling Moore fat is just true.
No calling Moore does not count but I have called many men other things. You do not see them or I called a black guy a name and you labeled it racist.
Just because you define it as racist does not make it so. Same with sexism.
The reality is Adam, people can claim that words are racist. There is some degree of wrong because of what people went through. However, this makes the use no worse or better, racism is racism.
History, the Democrats caused slavery, opposed ending it, enacted Jim Crow laws, opposed civil rights, and enslave blacks to second class status today within the party. The Democratic party is the party of racism and racists.
Far as I know the only member of the KKK serving in Congress is a Democrat and I bet any others that served clandestinely were Dems as well. I don’t see Republican KKK guys.
Powerline
American Powerblog
Adam, are you doing any freelance work writing themes?
Darrel, You told me to find one and I did. There are plenty of misleading statements in political speeches.
As for apologizing, it is a sign of weakness in the Middle East.
There are plenty of links to apologies that have taken place in the past few weeks.
The troubles are beginning and you and Adam and all the rest can blame it on GWB but your leader is the one that is responsible.
I read somewhere that Obama will be apologizing for us bombing a city in Germany during WWII. Don’t know if he will but it would be wrong.
We were at war with people who launched rockets into London and who exterminated 6 million Jews. If they had a city or two bombed to oblivion then that is fine.
The Rads can call it genocide but that is laughable. They can say it was punishment and maybe it was. Given what happened at Normandy they deserved to be punished.
I am sorry that we have liberated millions of people, saved Europe twice, and have been involved in ensuring the weak were defended.
There are tens of thousands of our men and women buried in foreign lands because they died fighting there. We don’t need to apologize for that and we don’t need to apologize for who we are.
Obama is apologizing for thins that have taken place decades ago because he wants people to like him and to believe that he will not make a mistake or do something wrong and that all the others were not anointed like he is.
When the defecation hits the bladed cooling device it will all be on Obama.
Me, I don’t care what other countries think. As far as I am concerned we can stop sending all of them money and we can bring all our troops home and we can then refuse to help them no matter what.
Let them all fight it out and let them see who survives. Then whoever is left can have two options; live in peace and leave us alone or be erased from the earth.
I am tired of spending billions of dollars and shedding blood in other countries who do not appreciate us and I am tired of a leader who fails to understand our history.
Her is a clue for Obama and you. Make Germany apologize, make Japan apologize, make Iran and Iraq apologize, make Russia, China, and all the other nations apologize TO US.
Choke off the money and the protection and they will start begging. Look at how Germany cried when we discussed pulling all the troops out.
Bring them home and let Germany fend for itself.
If anyone should apologize it is the idiots who elected this man child to lead us.
Hell I am older, have more leadership experience (he has none) and could do a hell of a better job.
DAR
This is astonishing. He apologizes, (and the only example given above is: “We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect.”)
And you suggest he does this because he wants people to believe “he will not make a mistake or do something wrong.”
He admits we make mistakes to make the point that he/we will not make mistakes.
Wow.
I told you to find an example of a lie in the speech and you couldn’t but you complained that (on Memorial Day weekend) he didn’t remember to bash America and speak about some of our worst war disasters. Which flatly contradicts many of your statements above.
D.
I did find a lie in the speech.
I also think you are misinterpreting what I wrote.
There are plenty of examples of apologies for past “mistakes.”
I am positive you are attributing to me something I did not say. The last paragraph is incorrect.
When you listen to him the apologies are couched in blaming others for us being bad.
His Naval Academy speech was a lot of veiled apologies and blaming Bush.
Not a smart move with that crowd. There are not too many liberals there and not that many Obama supporters. They liked Bush and he spent time bashing Bush.
Yes, look around and you will see a number of apologies. Each time he says something was a mistake he is apologizing for a decision taken by another that is only a mistake IN HIS MIND.
But you know what, keep defending him, keep your head up his butt and keep being blind to the path he is taking.
In about a year or year and a half we will have inflation approaching 15 or 20% and things will be worse than they are now.
I am willing to bet right now he will not half the deficit by the end of his first term.
How many promises has he already broken? How many countries did he go to and blame America?
If you found a lie in the speech then you shouldn’t have any trouble citing it and showing two things:
1) the claim is false
2) Obama knew the claim is false.
You can’t do it.
It is possible to acknowledge a mistake (America has made lots of them as you pointed out) without apologizing. There is a difference.
The days of the phony cowboy prancing around on the world stage are over. This may take some getting used to.
D.
——————-
“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one historian. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”
“61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst”
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
Phony cowboy?- he is more real than you D- but now we have curious george in the residency.
History will judge Bush, you just have an opinion, just like everyone else, and it is worth just as much, no more.
Somehow all the talk of how Kim is a crackpot eccentric, while Obama is portrayed as fatherly, all-knowing, and wise doesn’t quite square with reality when the “crackpot” is running circles around our flawless messiah.
This is the same Obama that was apparently busy with his puppy-vetting process or playing basketball while the Russians where nabbing our Afghan supply air-base in Kyrgizstan.
Obama is endangering our national security, a failure of his most primary duty as president… maybe we should draw a line here?
Living in a celebrity-driven/liberal/MSM fantasy world is not a right of Obama supporters to cling-to indefinitely, as it’s both the voters and the press’ duty to make informed, good-faith decisions… not waste power making a hollow fashion statement instead.
It’s rapidly getting to the point where this kind of willfully-ignorant “thinking” is not just irresponsible, but dangerous. Obamania’s sheeple are deeply delusional, and as Obama’s enablers, these fools are going to get us killed.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
This thread is probably dead but, as a woman I think it’s ok to call a spade a spade, a bitch a bitch, etc. I actually do have a bumper sticker that says “You say bitch like it’s a bad thing…” If a woman can’t take it, too bad for her.
And North Korea waited for Obama to come into office to show off their nuclear power because they knew Bush would have gone off on them. We have troops in South Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii and too many other places in the Pacific theater to name. Republicans have no problem showing off our military power and until Korea uses one against us, the current administration will just sit back and wait.
MOTHER: “North Korea waited for Obama to come into office to show off their nuclear power because they knew Bush would have gone off on them.”
DAR
No, they did not wait. North Korea shot off their first nuke on October 9, 2006, during Bush’s term. He did nothing.
D.
——————-
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” –GW Bush, 9/7/06
Well, that’s because he has to try and convince people like you, D- an almost impossible task.
A closed mind catches no knowledge.
I’ll take you at your word that a closed mind catches no knowledge.
Regarding Bush connecting Iraq to his war on terror. He was fairly successful with a large number of people. Forty five percent of the people in this poll didn’t get this wrong without a lot of effort by Bush and his team.
Note:
****
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein’s regime.
“The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein],” says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year [‘02], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.
The answer is zero.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Talk about taking out of context:
Well, I mean that a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy and will provide the enemy – more opportunity to train, plan, to attack us. That’s what I mean. There – it’s – you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. I believe it. As I told you, Osama bin Laden believes it. But the American people – have gotta understand that a defeat in Iraq – in other words, if this government there fails – the terrorists will be emboldened, the radicals will topple moderate governments.
He is saying he believes Iraq is part of the war on terror and soe does OBL but it is hard for him to make people understand. He does not mean he has a hard time and is reaching to make the connection. He makes it clear when he says that the American people need to understand that a defeat in Iraq would be bad.
Not that Darrel, is out of context but then again, a lot of your clipped quotes are that way.