Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (605498)	3/29/2011 12:48:20 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583713

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.” For NO GOOD REASON AT ALL! Sorry but that's what cowboys do......for no good reason. I am really grateful that in 2000, I didn't know TX only has a part time governor. I would have been more worried than I already was. And to think wingers gladly voted him into office.

To: bentway who wrote (605498)	3/29/2011 1:46:18 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583713

"But at the same time, he said, directing American troops to forcibly remove Colonel Qaddafi from power would be a step too far, and would “splinter” the international coalition that has moved against the Libyan government. In the judgment of a community organizer who has no grasp of foreign policy. “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.” This was a rather blatant effort to differentiate his actions from Iraq for one reason only -- to deflate complaints that he is a hypocrite for doing precisely what he criticized Bush for doing in Iraq. It failed. What he is doing is exactly the same as what he harshly criticized Bush for doing. Same as GITMO. Just as he ultimately followed Bush's plans to the letter in Iraq. And in Afghanistan. Just as he caved on the release of prisoner photos. Just as he has now backed off on trials for detainees. On and on. The reality is that GWB was RIGHT on every one of these subjects, Obama harshly criticized him, then upon entering the WH as a trainee, found his predecessor was precisely correct on every point. Tonight was a really pathetic attempt at explaining away his incompetence when making those criticisms.

To: bentway who wrote (605498)	3/29/2011 7:32:51 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1583713

How did we make Iraq a multi-decade problem? By leaving him in power the first time we fought him - 1991. And thats what Obama runs the risk of doing here. Obama is following the Iraq road - leaving Daffy for a future administration to have to handle. -------------- ... This is reminiscent of George H.W. Bush’s declaration that he wanted Saddam gone, had used our military to save Kuwait, but not to remove Saddam, urged others to remove him — and then ended up solving one problem while creating another more violent and unending. ..... nationalreview.com

To: bentway who wrote (605498)	3/29/2011 7:45:22 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1583713

Is the goal to divide Libya into two lawless illegitimate terroritories perpetually at one another's throats? How is that a good idea?

To: bentway who wrote (605498)	3/29/2011 7:52:47 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1583713

Maddow Notices Similarity Between Obama's Libya Address and Nobel Peace Prize Speech - But Not The Irony By Noel Sheppard \| March 29, 2011 \| 00:31 MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday went to great pains illustrating the similarities between President Obama's Libya address to the nation and his December 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Not surprisingly, the devout dove suddenly turned hawk chose not to discuss the irony (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW: Whether or not you like this intervention in Libya, it is clear that the President's explanation for why it is justified matches what he said he would do with military force, what he would see as the justifiable use of the U.S. military. It is clear that it matches what he said about that issue at the very start of his presidency, when in his first year as president he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. Maddow then played a clip from that acceptance speech back in December 2009, and a part of Monday’s address containing some similar language and concepts, after which she continued: MADDOW: 2009, “America cannot act alone.” 2011, “The burden of action should not be America’s alone.” Whether you are for or against American participation in an international intervention like this war in Libya, it is the type of intervention that this president said at the outset he would favor as president. As for the differences between him and the previous guy, as for the differences between him and George W. Bush, defined sharply tonight at one point in his speech in terms of why the U.S. would not make it the goal of our war in Libya to topple the dictator there, a la Iraq. So, rather than point out the hypocrisy not only in Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize months before he expanded the war in Afghanistan and started a new one in Libya, but also in these speeches having any similarity at all, she instead made the case that such likeness was a good thing while taking the opportunity to bash Bush. Truth be told, we have entered a new era in liberal media bias when doves are growing talons before our very eyes. Let's understand that we have absolutely no idea how this incursion is going to turn out for America, Libya, or this region. This is complicated by our very involvement in humanitarian military missions in the past being by no means without their disappointments and casualties. Despite this, devout, military-hating leftists have lost the ability and/or the desire to express any skepticism concerning this legislatively un-sanctioned mission. Like her colleague Ed Schultz, it appears Maddow's devotion to Obama has trumped all her natural, lifelong anti-war instincts. Between the two of them, the past ten days have been like watching Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders root for the New York Giants. I can't wait to see what color her pom poms will be tomorrow. Read more: newsbusters.org --------------------