Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I could have wrote this article. I have been saying this exact same thing for months. Obama is copying Bush's anti terror policies because he doesn't know what he is doing, or they were good policies in the first place.

Damn I hate it when I am right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... ns_opinion

Dick Cheney is not the most popular of politicians, but when he offered a harsh assessment of the Obama Administration's approach to terrorism last May, his criticism stung—so much that the President gave a speech the same day that was widely seen as a direct response. Though neither man would admit it, eight months later political and security realities are forcing Mr. Obama's antiterror policies ever-closer to the former Vice President's.

In fact, the President's changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan.

However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues, and it is on those that it is suffering the humiliation of having to walk back from its own righteous declarations. This is Dick Cheney's revenge.

Once again. I called it months ago that Obama didn't know squat!!!

C'mon people. This has got to get more replies than the Obama Corpse thread.

SeattleGriz wrote:I could have wrote this article. I have been saying this exact same thing for months. Obama is copying Bush's anti terror policies because he doesn't know what he is doing, or they were good policies in the first place.

Damn I hate it when I am right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... ns_opinion

Dick Cheney is not the most popular of politicians, but when he offered a harsh assessment of the Obama Administration's approach to terrorism last May, his criticism stung—so much that the President gave a speech the same day that was widely seen as a direct response. Though neither man would admit it, eight months later political and security realities are forcing Mr. Obama's antiterror policies ever-closer to the former Vice President's.

In fact, the President's changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan.

However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues, and it is on those that it is suffering the humiliation of having to walk back from its own righteous declarations. This is Dick Cheney's revenge.

That's all you need to know.

I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.

There's a third possibility.

Obama does know what he is doing (or at least NSC does) and he was just saying what was popular to get elected. The guy is a pragmatist with a touch of good ol Chicago dishonesty.

That seems as likely as anything.

CID1990 wrote:I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.

There's a third possibility.

Obama does know what he is doing (or at least NSC does) and he was just saying what was popular to get elected. The guy is a pragmatist with a touch of good ol Chicago dishonesty.

That seems as likely as anything.

I am sure Obama does. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought Obama said that he would have all troops home from Iraq by the end of his first term if elected, only to change his tune once he had a National Security briefing the following week. When asked that question again, he said he could not guarantee that the troops would be home.

Interesting turnabout after seeing some intelligence.

Once again, this is from memory and I have no insight into the inner workings. I may be a partisan hack, but I don't willingly spread lies.

Looks like the liberal triumverate in charge are good politicians but piss poor leaders, which has been pretty much the case since Reagan, who was a great leader but often inept at politics.

Unfortunately our nation is screaming for leadership and the crowd in Washington currently is offering none. All they do is play volleyball over power and control of our lives and capital. This does not portend well for us as a nation going forward.

blueballs wrote:Looks like the liberal triumverate in charge are good politicians but piss poor leaders, which has been pretty much the case since Reagan, who was a great leader but often inept at politics.

Unfortunately our nation is screaming for leadership and the crowd in Washington currently is offering none. All they do is play volleyball over power and control of our lives and capital. This does not portend well for us as a nation going forward.

I cry because I fear you are correct. Again.

SeattleGriz wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.

There's a third possibility.

Obama does know what he is doing (or at least NSC does) and he was just saying what was popular to get elected. The guy is a pragmatist with a touch of good ol Chicago dishonesty.

That seems as likely as anything.

I am sure Obama does. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought Obama said that he would have all troops home from Iraq by the end of his first term if elected, only to change his tune once he had a National Security briefing the following week. When asked that question again, he said he could not guarantee that the troops would be home.

Interesting turnabout after seeing some intelligence.

Once again, this is from memory and I have no insight into the inner workings. I may be a partisan hack, but I don't willingly spread lies.

I am willing to bet you money that Obama learned some new information once he became President. I'm sure, as a Senator, he was not savvy to all the intel.

Ibanez wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
I am sure Obama does. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought Obama said that he would have all troops home from Iraq by the end of his first term if elected, only to change his tune once he had a National Security briefing the following week. When asked that question again, he said he could not guarantee that the troops would be home.

Interesting turnabout after seeing some intelligence.

Once again, this is from memory and I have no insight into the inner workings. I may be a partisan hack, but I don't willingly spread lies.

I am willing to bet you money that Obama learned some new information once he became President. I'm sure, as a Senator, he was not savvy to all the intel.

Doubtful because once he became the dem presidential nominee he was given access to more intel... more likely a case of a politician saying what he knows the people want to hear so they'll vote for him- which would be called lying or bait and switch if you or I did. More politics as usual...

[quote="blueballs"]Looks like the liberal triumverate in charge are good politicians but piss poor leaders, which has been pretty much the case since Reagan, who was a great leader but often inept at politics.

Unfortunately our nation is screaming for leadership and the crowd in Washington currently is offering none. All they do is play volleyball over power and control of our lives and capital. This does not portend well for us as a nation going forward.[/quote]


So true, but we will never get that leadership because we don't want to make sacrifices that need to be made, and which, I suspect a lot of our current leaders know should be implemented but won't BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE RE-ELECTED; because when our leaders try make tough decisions that cause us Americans to be a little uncomfortable, tighten our belts some, give up some luxuries, etc...WE KICK THEM OUT OR REFUSE TO ELECT THEM FOR BEING HONEST ABOUT THE TOUGH DECISIONS. The prime example was Bush taking us to War with no plan for raising revenue. Many people asked about what sacrifices were going to be asked of the American People, to which his response was 'none'. "Go shopping" I recall being one of the cheers when there were concerns about the economy. We have no concept anymore of what 'national sacrifice' means. People think we are 'overtaxed' and yet, no one will give up anything. With the thousands of millionaires in this country, would you think increasing their income taxes by a couple thousand dollars would be missed? No. How many BMWs, boats, second and third homes, and McMansions do we need to be happy? The 'boomer' generation, sad to say, had too much handed to it because the previous generation KNEW what sacrifice and deprivation was and didn't want to see their kids have to want. Unfortunately, the asking of succeeding generations to 'sacrifice' for country is a foreign concept, WITH THE EXCEPTION, of those few who do volunteer for the military, and a few other organizations such as the Peace Corps. We may be too far over the dam to swim our way back upstream. In the words of Billy Crystal, "Don't get me started!"...

Ibanez wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
I am sure Obama does. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought Obama said that he would have all troops home from Iraq by the end of his first term if elected, only to change his tune once he had a National Security briefing the following week. When asked that question again, he said he could not guarantee that the troops would be home.

Interesting turnabout after seeing some intelligence.

Once again, this is from memory and I have no insight into the inner workings. I may be a partisan hack, but I don't willingly spread lies.

I am willing to bet you money that Obama learned some new information once he became President. I'm sure, as a Senator, he was not savvy to all the intel.

And he certainly knew that there were things he was not privy to.

Nancy Pelosi certainly WAS privy, and she certainly saw all of this coming. But then, who cares what happens as lot as we get "one of ours" in the White House?