And This is How Obama Remembers 9/11?

[Hot Mega]

The worst one probably is saying Barak Hussein Obama is not an "american" name.As if there was any name that is not potentially an american name.But I get what he means ,he means real americans, who of course all have anglo sounding names and fair skin.

That is of course a very narrow definition of an american which would be rejected hopefully by most americans.If they think those are the only real americans they are sadly mistaken.

You have the Americans..the people who mind their own business and appreciate our country's unique, non-homogeneous diversity.

Then you have the 'MARRRCANS who think it's "their" country, it's "us against them" (whomever "them" may be today), their actions are not accountable to anyone but God (never mind the fact that many of their actions and beliefs are in direct contravention to the principles the God they claim to serve stands for) as they only have one commandment they live by "Do as I say, not as I do".

 

[georges]

As usual you're clueless (apparently except for muscle cars)...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/14/gitmo.detainees/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Here's a test. This article was written on Jan 14, 2009 and it cites cases of former detainees released and suspected of returning to terror since 2002.

Who was the POTUS between 2002 and Jan. 14, 2009...the time frame these individuals were released? Here's a hint...his initials aren't BHO.

But daddy Bush was keeping us safe with his rainbow terra alerts...Had this been a Demo POTUS he Fox would be skewering him or her.

But "georges" don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie.

I am very far to be clueless, you on the other side have a lot naivety that prevents you to think over the long run as well as to be realistic. Because you think you are so knowledgeable on politics that every person should accept your views (the views of an Obama fanboy) as the aboslute truth?
Obama did this and Obama did that, this always what people are hearing thousands and hundred thousands of times. But the expected and the promised results are not here, the economy is in the shitter and the social situation is not improving. Aside praising and promoting Obama blindly, you never proved that he did things right.
I don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie, but you use the hype of the Obamamania in order to pass Obama's first months of presidency as something fine and acceptable when it is not.

 

[Guido11]

I think 9/11 has been remembered enough, yet even so, Obama should, or could remember it without going overboard. The disaster has been politicized too much, and I'm getting weary of it, personally.

Yet those calling his speech some sort of marxist agenda, and calling Obama a communist, etc, are you serious? I'll admit, I voted for him, yet even so, I'm not impressed with him. Nowadays I can say I don't even trust him, but I don't trust any politician. Heck, I strongly disagreed with Bush going to war, (I think he knowingly lied, as did Powell and others), yet even so, I don't think he's a nazi, or a communist, etc.

Where do you people get this stuff? If you don't agree with what the President or officials are doing, give good reasons on why not, have a real discussion. A meaningful one. There's no need to throw labels around.

 

[rad2927]

All of the Bush love and Obama hate just proves the adage that the biggest threat to the truth is not the lie but the myth or legend.

 

[Hot Mega]

I am very far to be clueless, you on the other side have a lot naivety that prevents you to think over the long run as well as to be realistic. Because you think you are so knowledgeable on politics that every person should accept your views (the views of an Obama fanboy) as the aboslute truth?
Obama did this and Obama did that, this always what people are hearing thousands and hundred thousands of times. But the expected and the promised results are not here, the economy is in the shitter and the social situation is not improving. Aside praising and promoting Obama blindly, you never proved that he did things right.
I don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie, but you use the hype of the Obamamania in order to pass Obama's first months of presidency as something fine and acceptable when it is not.

I'm not trying to prove Obama did anything right or wrong in this thread. I just refuted a flat-out lie you asserted.

You claimed Obama released terrorists...That not only a lie but you hero, GWB was the one who actually did.

What do you have to say to that? Nothing but a bunch of nonsensical, pointless gibberish.

Can you at least acknowledge you didn't know what the hell you were talking about and GWB released detainees who are now being sought again as terrorists????

Doubtful....(I sense another smattering of gibberish and gobble-de-gook coming).

 

[jasonk282]

All of the Bush love and Obama hate just proves the adage that the biggest threat to the truth is not the lie but the myth or legend.

What about Bush hate and Obama love? Dems are holding onto the past and not blazing a trail forward. things Dems hate about the Bush admin but have still NOT changed them.

1) Are not withdrawing from Iraq
2) Are escalating the war in Afganistan
3) Have not closed Gitmo and do not have a concrete plan to do so
3) Are continuing with warrantless wiretapping
4) Are not working on passing the Freedom of Choice Act
5) Are not working on allowing gays in the military or pushing for gay marriage
6) Have abandoned universal healthcare

"that's not change, ^that's more of the same"

 

[Hot Mega]

What about Bush hate and Obama love? Dems are holding onto the past and not blazing a trail forward. things Dems hate about the Bush admin but have still NOT changed them.

1) Are not withdrawing from Iraq
2) Are escalating the war in Afganistan
3) Have not closed Gitmo and do not have a concrete plan to do so
3) Are continuing with warrantless wiretapping
4) Are not working on passing the Freedom of Choice Act
5) Are not working on allowing gays in the military or pushing for gay marriage
6) Have abandoned universal healthcare

"that's not change, ^that's more of the same"

Most of the claims you make are either wrong or misunderstood from what I can see.

 

[chitrodriguez]

Do you remember the Alamo?

 

[JacknCoke]

Most of the claims you make are either wrong or misunderstood from what I can see.

Prove them all wrong then

 

[Hot Mega]

Prove them all wrong then

Without even trying...

The first two....we are undeniably withdrawing from Iraq. That's a fact.

Although Obama didn't have to do anything as Bush triggered the withdrawal in Dec.

Secondly, how could Demos ever "hate" Bush for escalating the war in Afghanistan when he did no such thing...he de-escalated it. Further, Obama ran on the campaign promise to escalate the commitment in Afghanistan. He's done just that.

 

[rad2927]

What about Bush hate and Obama love? Dems are holding onto the past and not blazing a trail forward. things Dems hate about the Bush admin but have still NOT changed them.

1) Are not withdrawing from Iraq
2) Are escalating the war in Afganistan
3) Have not closed Gitmo and do not have a concrete plan to do so
3) Are continuing with warrantless wiretapping
4) Are not working on passing the Freedom of Choice Act
5) Are not working on allowing gays in the military or pushing for gay marriage
6) Have abandoned universal healthcare

"that's not change, ^that's more of the same"

I was simply trying to point out that Obama is being blamed for things that happened while Bush was President but people blame on Obama-releasing prisoners from Gitmo,beginnings of bail-outs and more. The name calling and obstructionism was called Un-Americanwhile Bush was President because we were in 2 wars. I hate to point this out but we are still in 2 wars. I don't know how successful Obama will end up being but after we gave Bush 8 years and we can see where we got I think Obama deserves more than 7 months to see what he can do.

 

[Hot Mega]

but after we gave Bush 8 years and we can see where we got I think Obama deserves more than 7 months to see what he can do.

Shhhh...you're attempting to make sense. That will only upset Obama haters.

 

[jasonk282]

It took an act of congress to pull us out of vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords and the Case-Church Admendment, whch stopped funding the war, signed in January 1973. On 29 April 1975 the final people were evacuated fron Siagon. I don"t think the 2010 timeline is going to be reached. It took us a year and an half to get out of Vietnam. it's going to take longer to get out of Iraq

 

[Hot Mega]

It took an act of congress to pull us out of vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords and the Case-Church Admendment, whch stopped funding the war, signed in January 1973. On 29 April 1975 the final people were evacuated fron Siagon. I don"t think the 2010 timeline is going to be reached. It took us a year and an half to get out of Vietnam. it's going to take longer to get out of Iraq

Maybe..maybe not...sooo...how do you not understand that we're not out in 8 months then???

 

[jasonk282]

Maybe..maybe not...sooo...how do you not understand that we're not out in 8 months then???

There is not even any talk about pulling us out. Obama wants us out by 31 August, 2010. Thats a year way I have a feeling this is going to be a last minute thing.

 

[Hot Mega]

There is not even any talk about pulling us out. Obama wants us out by 31 August, 2010. Thats a year way I have a feeling this is going to be a last minute thing.

Hmmm....well what if any significance do you place on the fact that US troops have withdrawn from all Iraqi cities and the Iraqis just proclaimed June 30th national sovereignty day as a result?

 

[jasonk282]

Hmmm....well what if any significance do you place on the fact that US troops have withdrawn from all Iraqi cities and the Iraqis just proclaimed June 30th national sovereignty day as a result?

"The withdrawal of U.S. troops will start more slowly than the timetable Pres. Obama laid down during the campaign, and when the withdrawal is complete, up to 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, apparently indefiinitely"

" have not seen any discussion of how this new plan is to be reconciled with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), negotiated between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government and ratified by the Iraqi Parliament (but not the U.S. Congress) late last year. That agreement states unambiguously (Article 24) that:

"All United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011."

"There were plenty of loopholes built into Pres. Obama's campaign position on the war. He always said his goal was to "end the war responsibly," and start a phased withdrawal that would get "combat troops" out of Iraq within 16 months. Without quibbling over the precise number of months, the key loophole was the word "combat" in front of troops. Obama did say, when pressed, that his commitment left open the possibility and even the likelihood of "residual" forces remaining in Iraq, indefinitely for a specified list of missions, including training Iraq troops, protecting the U.S. embassy and U.S. civilians and to make targeted attacks on terrorists. That last one, of course, always sounded a bit like "combat," although the precise meaning is ultimately
semantic"

guess what the US troops are doing in Iraq, you got it Training Iraq Troops, Protecting the US embassy and US civilians, like KBR people etc... and Targeting attacks on Terrorist.

Obama has been hinting for some time that a simple, straightforward reading of his campaign rhetoric about Iraq would be naive Put yet people voted because he would end the war and bring our troops home, guess he lied.

"On MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had expected that the residual forces would be more in the 15,000-20,000 range and she needs to hear more about what missions would justify the bigger numbers. She also noted that U.S. troops have supposedly been training Iraqi troops for years now. She didn't say, but I do, that there will always be new Iraqi troops that need to be trained, but if this will always be a U.S. responsibility, someone should level with us about that. Otherwise, perpetual training looks like a fig leaf for perpetual occupation.


Here is the atricle http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/02/26/7001/long-term_us_troop_strength_in_iraq_50000
IMO a good bit of folks voted for Obama becasue he would end the war and bring our troops home, but apprently he has no plans fof this at all.

 

[Hot Mega]

"The withdrawal of U.S. troops will start more slowly than the timetable Pres. Obama laid down during the campaign, and when the withdrawal is complete, up to 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, apparently indefiinitely"

" have not seen any discussion of how this new plan is to be reconciled with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), negotiated between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government and ratified by the Iraqi Parliament (but not the U.S. Congress) late last year. That agreement states unambiguously (Article 24) that:

"All United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011."

"There were plenty of loopholes built into Pres. Obama's campaign position on the war. He always said his goal was to "end the war responsibly," and start a phased withdrawal that would get "combat troops" out of Iraq within 16 months. Without quibbling over the precise number of months, the key loophole was the word "combat" in front of troops. Obama did say, when pressed, that his commitment left open the possibility and even the likelihood of "residual" forces remaining in Iraq, indefinitely for a specified list of missions, including training Iraq troops, protecting the U.S. embassy and U.S. civilians and to make targeted attacks on terrorists. That last one, of course, always sounded a bit like "combat," although the precise meaning is ultimately
semantic"

guess what the US troops are doing in Iraq, you got it Training Iraq Troops, Protecting the US embassy and US civilians, like KBR people etc... and Targeting attacks on Terrorist.

Obama has been hinting for some time that a simple, straightforward reading of his campaign rhetoric about Iraq would be naive Put yet people voted because he would end the war and bring our troops home, guess he lied.

"On MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had expected that the residual forces would be more in the 15,000-20,000 range and she needs to hear more about what missions would justify the bigger numbers. She also noted that U.S. troops have supposedly been training Iraqi troops for years now. She didn't say, but I do, that there will always be new Iraqi troops that need to be trained, but if this will always be a U.S. responsibility, someone should level with us about that. Otherwise, perpetual training looks like a fig leaf for perpetual occupation.


Here is the atricle http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/02/26/7001/long-term_us_troop_strength_in_iraq_50000
IMO a good bit of folks voted for Obama becasue he would end the war and bring our troops home, but apprently he has no plans fof this at all.

Doesn't the article say something you conveniently omitted about no administration official touching those claims....

 

[jasonk282]

Doesn't the article say something you conveniently omitted about no administration official touching those claims....

And it says "Not for attribution" which means The comments may be quoted directly, but the source may only be identified in general terms (e.g., "a government insider"). And it also says

"No administration official is yet putting his or her name on these facts, the plans are being described on a not-for-attribution basis to Washington reporters. The most authoritiative current version is in this morning's New York Times. The facts are attributed to administration and Pentagon officials who are not named"

So someone in the adminstration or Pentagon gave this report, but does not want their name attached to it.

 

[calpoon]

So people are mad at Obama because he's going after "Right-wing domestic terrorists".

Why is that a bad thing? Why would you support domestic terrorism in any form? Or is it OK if it backs your own political ideology? The defense departments definition of what terrorism is and how it investigates that has not changed under Obama. If he arrested everyone who disagreed with him as a terrorist there would be no one on Freeones right now.

People are also mad because he's holding a meeting to discuss his political agenda, in this case his health care reform plan.

So the president is not allowed to do his job on 9/11 because it commemorates a national tragedy? And is it just Obama, or is no one allowed to do anything in politics on that day? What exactly are we supposed to do, spend the entire day only talking about 9/11 and no one else is allowed to do anything else?

That's pretty stupid.