[Last Call] Learn how to a build a cloud-first strategyRegister Now

x
?
Solved

Leading from behind

Posted on 2011-10-28
117
Medium Priority
?
27 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-12
Is "leading from behind" an effective strategy for the Obama administration?
0
Comment
Question by:leonstryker
  • 42
  • 20
  • 17
  • +3
117 Comments
 
LVL 16

Accepted Solution

by:
carsRST earned 40 total points
ID: 37045947
>>Is "leading from behind" an effective strategy for the Obama administration?

For reelection?



Depends on the audience.  If you're a patriot who believes a strong military, along with world leadership, is necessary to maintain peace, then "no" it's no a good strategy.  Makes the US look weak, which only invites aggression.  Most of us get that.

If you're a Jon Stewart regular, left wing nut, or a know-it-all 19 year old, then the strategy may work.  
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:Tlingit
Tlingit earned 40 total points
ID: 37046170
It's their only strategy.  They don't know what they are doing because they don't have any ideas to solve the economic crisis.

I agree with Cars assessment.  Unfortunately he is right.  Most Americans are ill informed.  My boss who is very intelligent agrees with OWS but after I started telling him what was actually happening at these protests and what they really stand for he started to immediately change his view.  He gets his news from the mainstream media who reports news about OWS and Obama's presidency favorably.  He is not dumb by any imagination just ill informed, so Obama can go out their and say the GOP doesn't support my Jobs Bill when it was the Democrats who really didn't support it, but most Americans don't know this.
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37046365
>For reelection?

I am thinking of Foreign Policy actually, as with the Libyan conflict.
0
Upgrade your Question Security!

Add Premium security features to your question to ensure its privacy or anonymity. Learn more about your ability to control Question Security today.

 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37046381
>>I am thinking of Foreign Policy actually, as with the Libyan conflict.

I think it hurts the US image.  
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37046424
>I think it hurts the US image.  

Ok, explain.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:Tlingit
ID: 37046542
I think he didn't know what the final outcome would be so he lead from behind so incase it went bad he could say it wasn't his fault but if it turned out to be positive he could take credit.  He does this all the time.  That's his strategy.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37046557
>>Ok, explain.

Pretty much self-explanatory.  Name another country that leads more efforts to keep peace around the world.  The image is of a strong military, a country that leads by example.  

Eliminating that image leads to incidents as we saw under another weak president, Carter.  He cut back on defense and we saw the Iranians storm our embassy and hold US citizens hostage for 444 days.  All ended when Reagan was sworn in.  Iranians knew Reagan wouldn't mess around.

Another example of strength leading to peace - Gaddafi ended his nuclear ambitions after Bush invaded Iraq.  
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:beetos
beetos earned 40 total points
ID: 37046588
Let's see:

Lybia: goal = remove Gaddafi.   Money spent = $1B.   Time of involvement = 6 mos.
Iraq:  goal = remove Hussein     Money spent = $1T.   Time of involvement = 10 years.

You're right - you guys have the good strategies.



0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37046628
Was there a Libyan connection to 9/11 Beetos?

Even though almost every Democrat (minus Ted Kennedy) voted for the Iraq war, how many times did we hear that liberal line?

0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37046671
Neither had a connection to 9/11.


Not all "liberals" were for the war:

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.


I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

-Obama 2002
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37046792
>>Obama 2002

Was that back in his community organizing days or his days in the Illinois senate where he voted "present" for everything?

0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37046801
Was he right?
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37046824
>>Was he right?

In calling all his Democrat buds dumb and rash?  



>>shove their own ideological agendas down our throats

See Obamcare, stimulus.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37046873
Was he right about the Iraq war?  

Was he right about going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden?

Was he right in how he handled Lybia?
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37046897
>>Was he right in how he handled Lybia?

No, he needed to do what Bush did - get congressional approval.  



>>Was he right about the Iraq war?

In his own words the other night, he said it was good that Saddam was no longer in power.  For that he's right - no longer can Saddam pursue nuclear weapons, disturb the region, or kill his own people.  
He's trying to Monday morning quarterback for political reasons.  But he opposed the surge and it was successful.  




>>Was he right about going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden?

He was wrong not to send Bush a thank you letter for gathering all the intel that led to Bin Laden.

0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37046919
>>Was he right in how he handled Lybia?

Suppose you tell me the form of government taking over Libya now?

Then you tell me if it's a success.

0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37046934
>Suppose you tell me the form of government taking over Libya now?

Too early to say, but they did announced that their future laws will be based in Sharia Law. To me that is not an encouraging sign.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:Tlingit
ID: 37047057
Beetos, Lybia wasn't a threat; it was an easy victory.  He could have taken out Qaddafi within a month if he didn't lead from behind instead 6 months.  It's like my nine year old going up against my two and half year and taking his favorite toy.

Plus he didn't get congressional approval to attack Lybia, Bush did for both wars.  Even Louis Farrakhan, one of Obama's buddies, didn't approve of the war.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-20125637/farrakhan-slams-west-over-qaddafis-death/

Notice Beetos, the news clip didn't come from Fox News.
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:bergertime
bergertime earned 40 total points
ID: 37047377
I much prefer Obama to lead from behind rather than from the front.  And I have to agree with Beetos here, it is much more effective for him to lead from behind.....ever heard of that saying " Better to lead from behind and be thought a fool, then lead from the front and remove all doubt.".
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37047383
>>Better to lead from behind and be thought a fool, then lead from the front and remove all doubt.".

In this instance, Obama has it all covered.

0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37047425
LOL - Tling, that's great that you have another soucre, but now Farrakhan is your boy?  Now he's not a "fringe radical" to you all of a sudden?

Ok, so Lybia wasn't a threat, but somehow Iraq was.

We were in Lybia too long, but 10 years in Iraq is ok.  In fact, I hear the conservative talking heads saying we're leaving Iraq too soon.

Bush gets credit for Bin Laden, even though he said he doesn't know if he'll ever be caught, and doesn't think it's that big of a deal, while Obama said if it is a big deal, and if he's in Pakistan, that's where we will go get him ( and he did).

BTW - Did Bush ever actually declare WAR, or was it a military action or some such?  

>>All ended when Reagan was sworn in.  Iranians knew Reagan wouldn't mess around.  
Yup.  He didn't mess around at all.  He sold them arms right away!

How many of our brave troops were lost in Lybia?   Let me see...... oh yeah, NONE.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37047448
>> but somehow Iraq was.

Apparently Hillary Clinton, Edwards, John Kerry, etc.. thought it was.  They all authorized Bush.



0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37047459
Can I post some quotes from Hillary about Iraq, while Bill was still in office?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:Tlingit
ID: 37047475
The key word Beetos, is authorized.  You just can't go into a country and start killing people without authorization.  Come on now.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37047488
>>You just can't go into a country and start killing people without authorization.

Isn't that what B Hussein did in Libya?

Now we're stuck with a Libyan government that potentially as bad or worse.

0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37047498
"Were in imminent danger of an attack by Saddam Hussein who may already have chemical and biological weapons and may be close to a nuclear weapon.  WE NEED THIS AUTHORIZATION TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THE US.    Not only that, Al Qeada was sponsored by Saddam Hussein, he has direct ties to 9/11.


Your "authorization" for Bush was predicated on lies by Bush et al.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:Tlingit
ID: 37047527
>>Now we're stuck with a Libyan government that potentially as bad or worse.

That's what happens when you don't have a plan.  What happens after we take out Qaddafi?  Oops, we didn't think that far ahead.  While Obama is taking his victory lap, the Lybian government will be replaced with something potentially worse then if we didn't bother with Qaddafi.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37047590
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.  It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Maybe you can tell me why clinton was bombing the hell out of Iraq
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37047597
Oh that's right it was all Bush.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37047602
What exactly was the plan in Iraq again?  
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37047620
>What exactly was the plan in Iraq again?  

What was the plan in Libya? Oh thats right to save Libyan lives. So, hows that been working out for you beetos?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37047624
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.  It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Badddd  intelligence!   Did Hillary have more, or less access to CIA reports and intelligence briefings than the President?   Did Bush and Cheney select or alter the intelligence in anyway to promote their agenda?  Did Bush and Cheney WANT to tie Hussein to 9/11, and make the case that the tie existed, even though there was no such evidence, even though there was evidence that the opposite was true?

BTW - Obama beat out Hillary for the nomination to become President.  Just sayin...
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37047625
>>What exactly was the plan in Iraq again?  

Remove Saddam from power.  
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37047631
>>BTW - Obama beat out Hillary for the nomination to become President.  Just sayin...

Now the Dems have buyer's remorse.  

0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37047641
Well if Gaddafi was killing his own people, just like Hussein, then isn't it good for them that he's gone, just like you keep telling me it's good that Hussein is gone?

Except of course in this case none of our soldiers were killed and we saved $999,000,000,000.00 to reach the same conclusion.  
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37047642
She was married to Bill, I would think she had the same for 8 years.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37047643
>>just like Hussein

Obama?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37047644
Your not suggesting slick willie would lie to he wife are you?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:Tlingit
ID: 37047655
Basically the same reason we invaded Lybia, except Iraq was far worse than Qaddafi at the time.  Most everyone in Congress supported it.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37047657
Beetos, I like your misson accomplished sign you keep waving over Libya, you really think we're done?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37047659
Didn't most in congress support Libya, what was the vote count?
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37047670
>Well if Gaddafi was killing his own people, just like Hussein, then isn't it good for them that he's gone, just like you keep telling me it's good that Hussein is gone?

So, you support the idea of intervention in other countries who possess no threat to the US, and reject interventions in other countries, who were perceived (perhaps erroneously) to threaten US interests?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37047682
That's what happens when you don't have a plan.  What happens after we take out Qaddafi?  Oops, we didn't think that far ahead.  While Obama is taking his victory lap, the Lybian government will be replaced with something potentially worse then if we didn't bother with Qaddafi.


>>What exactly was the plan in Iraq again?  

Remove Saddam from power.


The question was "what was the plan for rebuilding Iraq or installing a government AFTER Saddam was gone?"

But still, I'll go along with you guys. So if your plan was to remove Saddam from power, and it cost $1 Trillion and took 10 years, then wouldn't Obama's plan of removing Gaddafi to the tune of $1 Billion and 6 months be a better plan?

Here's what I don't get.  You guys keep telling me that Bush was right and did the world a favor by removing a brutal dictator, regardless of anything else.  How come that doesn't apply to Obama and Gaddafi?

It almost seems  from your many responses and questions, that if Obama were to end all wars, pay down the entire debt, and cure cancer you would still say he's the worst President ever.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37047715
>>How come that doesn't apply to Obama and Gaddafi?

It's how he did it.  He said there would be no Americans on the ground- that was a lie.  He didn't get congressional approval.  Now the country is facing sharia law.



>>that if Obama were to end all wars, pay down the entire debt, and cure cancer you would still say he's the worst President ever.

Obama is cancer.  A cure is coming in next year's election.

Obama paying down the debt??  Good one!
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37047718
>Here's what I don't get.  You guys keep telling me that Bush was right and did the world a favor by removing a brutal dictator, regardless of anything else.  How come that doesn't apply to Obama and Gaddafi?

No you are wrong. I support us removing Gaddafi, I am just tired of hypocrisy from Democrats on this issue.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:Tlingit
ID: 37047719
Will removing Qaddafi from power improve their situation?  That remains to be seen but from the looks of it it might have been best to have left things alone in Lybia.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37047737
The same was said about Iraq Tling, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's might agree with that.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37047816
I agree with cars on the "It's how he did it", that's what really chaps me sometimes.  Like getting Osama, where was due process?  I knew with Bush, he made no bones about it.  With Obama, he says one thing but does the other.  Like Iraq and Libya.  I can show you several quotes from Obama where he blasts Bush for acting outside of congress, yet he does it with Libya.  Does Obama support killing american citzens who have not been tried in any court of law?  Nothing pisses me off more than being sold a box of lies.  Michael Moore, can't stand him, here's a guy making millions and laughing all the way to the bank slaming the vehicle he's riding in.  Gore, does he really believe in global warming?  Then why is he such a hypocrite?  Warren Buffet.....why does he want his taes raised if he is not paying his taxes going back nine years.  You can say Bush lied us into war, but I find it strage that Clinton was saying the same things the year before, was he being feed the same line of BS?  Then don't even get me going on healthcare.  How is it even possible to be a true Dem and be in the 1%.  What % of the 100 richest people are Dems?  I'm sure it more then are Repubs.
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37053789
OK, let me get this straight. Removing Saddam and invading Iraq was a good thing
but not invading Libya and using NATO to bomb out Gaddafi and removing him using the NCT is a bad thing?

Now you got an indirect win, you can use the NCT to pump out oil. US, British and even French contractors are already on their way to assist.  

--
IMO the US policy hasn't changed, only the President has. You will never see the US take the same actions in Syria. They will not even ignore the UN and go on their own like they did in Iraq.
Aren't they meant to be supporting Iran and the terrorist Hezbollah, who attack Israel?

The reality is there is nothing in Syria the US wants.

-Muj ;-|
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37054035
Muj, you'll have to quote who said what you're saying.

0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37056530
It is clearly implied.

-Muj ;-|
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37056572
Where.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37056580
>>It is clearly implied.

Then you'll be able to show us
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37056634
As we clearly outlined, there are two issues with the way B Hussein O'Carter handled Libya:

1.  As Bush did with Iraq, Obama did not get Congressional approval for US military action in Libya.  
2.  Life after Muammar Gaddafi was not fully thought out.  Sounds as if the new regime may be as bad ad the original.
3.  Obama said no US troops would be on the ground.  That was a lie.

0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37056638
>>As we clearly outlined, there are two issues

...three issues...
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37057026
>  1.  As Bush did with Iraq, Obama did not get Congressional approval for US military action in Libya.  
2.  Life after Muammar Gaddafi was not fully thought out.  Sounds as if the new regime may be as bad ad the original.
3.  Obama said no US troops would be on the ground.  That was a lie. <


1. Neither did he ask for congress approval for killing OBL. That was a military action with US troops on the ground.
2. It's been like 10 days. Not 10 years.
3. If there are troops then the NATO forces have excessed their purpose there & should be charged by the UN.

-Muj ;-|
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37057037
Muj, not sure where you're going here.


>>should be charged by the UN.
The UN is impotent and a complete waste of US tax dollars.  The quicker we (US) quit wasting dollars in that corrupt organization the better.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37057169
Wow, so you do support military action without congressional approval?

Here's how Obama feels:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
So which is it?

2.  So it's only bad if it's been over a certain time period?
3. Charged by the UN.........what's the UN going to do?

Is there something in Afganistan that the US wants?

0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37058086
"That was a lie"

Cars,  I know it fits your cynical partisan narrative, but even the most casual observer can tell the difference between combat troops being sent in to carry out a mission, and the in and out rescue of a downed pilot?
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37058131
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Pentagon has sent another dozen troops to Tripoli to help the State Department lay plans for reopening the U.S. Embassy.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-09-20/American-troops-Libya/50481462/1




The Obama administration has sent teams of CIA operatives into Libya
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-libya-cia-is-gathering-intelligence-on-rebels/2011/03/30/AFLyb25B_story.html
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37058313
1.  To help the State Department reopen the US embassy - ie NOT combat troops, not there to train forces, not there to fend off attackers, just there to help rebuild the embassy.

2.  CIA operatives are NOT combat troops.  They're not even troops.  

Another NONTROVERSY from the conservative smear machine.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37058338
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/world/africa/africa-obama-troops/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

"I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield," Obama said in letter sent Friday to House Speaker John Boehner


How many examples do you need, Beetos?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37058368
Umm, that's not Lybia Cars.

I was responding to your assertion that Obama lied about sending combat troops to Lybia.  He has not.  
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37058400
Beetos, granted the amount is small, but, nonetheless, Obama sent Americans in to Libya, and he continues to use troops as he sees fit, circumventing Congressional approval.

In Iraq, Bush did no such thing.  EveryDemocrat, except for the killer, Ted Kennedy, voted in favor of force.

0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37058408
Moreover, to use the liberal talking point,I don't remember Libya attacking us on 9/11.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37058430
Cars,

You made the assertion that Obama mishandled Lybia, and lied about sending combat troops there.  The other items you listed can be debated, but this assertion of yours is false and misleading:

3.  Obama said no US troops would be on the ground.  That was a lie.


"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" - now that's a lie!

0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37058443
>>Moreover, to use the liberal talking point,I don't remember Libya attacking us on 9/11.


I don't remember the President of the United states falsely claiming they did.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37058477
>>You made the assertion that Obama mishandled Lybia, and lied about sending combat troops there.  

It's like Clinton saying he didn't have sex with Monica.


>>"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" - now that's a lie!

Pretty harsh words for your hero, Bill Clinton.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37058498
It's nothing like Clinton and Lewinsky, although I know that's one of conservatives' favorite refrains.

No, it's more like Obama wasn't born in America - it's false and misleading.

PS - Clinton didn't take over Iraq, Bush did.  
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37058514
>>PS - Clinton didn't take over Iraq, Bush did.  

Apparently, Bill Clinton supported it.  

And Hillary Clinton said she doesn't regret her vote.

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-21/politics/iraq.hillary_1_weapons-inspection-process-iraq-vote-saddam-hussein?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37058526
Beetos, did Bill Clinton lie when he said Iraq had WMDs?

0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37058577
Even Mr Flip Flop, throw my medals away, John Kerry says he didn't regret his vote on Iraq.  
My guess is he fell for the lies coming out of Bill Clinton, when Bill Clinton said there was "clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."



Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-09/politics/kerry.iraq_1_weapons-inspectors-vote-on-iraq-war-bush-authority?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37058624
A lot of Politicians said they backed the war in 2004, which is when your articles are from.

Since then, the truth has come out that the Bush admin manipulated the intelligence reports to bolster their case for war with Iraq ( even though they didn't actually call it "war")  Given good intelligence, I don't know how many of those same representatives would have voted for war.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but Hillary did vote for the war, and we elected Obama.

0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37058655
>>A lot of Politicians said they backed the war in 2004, which is when your articles are from.

Everything was exposed by the time those articles came out; hence the "regret" part.



>>Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but Hillary did vote for the war, and we elected Obama.

Yeah, Obama was hanging out with terrorists and anti-American preachers, all the while voting "present" in the Illinois senate.  


0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37058712
Back to the "America-hating, hanging out with terrorists" thing already?

For a terrorist sympathizer, Obama must be brilliant because he's killing terrorists all over the world and destroying their organizations just to convince us he really isn't a terrorist sympathizer.   What an evil genius!
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37058735
Beetos, while watching you and cars fight is always fun, this statement interests me.  

Since then, the truth has come out that the Bush admin manipulated the intelligence reports to bolster their case for war with Iraq ( even though they didn't actually call it "war")  Given good intelligence, I don't know how many of those same representatives would have voted for war.

Not to beat a dead horse, but Clinton was claiming that Iraq had WMD while Bush was still in Texas, I'm wondering why he was saying the same thing, and then I'm wondering why, before Hillary was to vote for the war, Bill didn't pull her aside and tell her the truth.  
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37058770
And on a side note, why send in troops to help with the rebuilding, why not contractors?

What makes Obama an evil genius is he verbally preaches due process, yet he kills at will, regardless of any trial.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37058798
It was a long time ago, so I might be fuzzy on the details, but didn't Clinton attack Iraq in a series of bombing runs to destroy Saddam's weapons?   Did he not succeed?   Somehow, whatever he did, he managed to do it without committing thousands of troops there for a decade.

Then, some 4 years later, Bush was beating the war drums with not only "WMDs", but also that Saddam had a connection to the 9/11 attacks.  

Come on.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37059239
>>It was a long time ago, so I might be fuzzy on the details, but didn't Clinton attack Iraq in a series of bombing runs to destroy Saddam's weapons?

Israel did.

Operation Babylon[1] (Codeword: Opera, Hebrew: ¿¿¿¿¿¿)[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on June 7, 1981, that destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad, Iraq.[3][4][5]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37059255
>>Saddam had a connection to the 9/11 attacks.  

I don't remember him connecting to 9/11.

But saddam did pay terrorists $25k per attack.

0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37061714
UN should charge NATO forces for exceeding the mandate by the UN Resolutions. They should be taken to the ICC for War-Crimes.

-Muj ;-|
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37061967
Well, here's what Obama got as an ROI on his Libya investment.  Good job!


Flying proudly over the birthplace of Libya's revolution, the flag of Al Qaeda

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055630/Flying-proudly-birthplace-Libyas-revolution-flag-Al-Qaeda.html



The black flag of Al Qaeda was hoisted in Libya yesterday as Nato formally ended its military campaign.
The standard fluttered from the roof of the courthouse in Benghazi, where the country’s new rulers have imposed sharia law since seizing power.

0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37062128
Oh the dailymail when will you learn.

-Muj ;-/
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37062178
>>Oh the dailymail when will you learn.

Yeah, I'm sure they're lying, Muj.    Just don't tell these other news agencies:



Al Qaeda Plants Its Flag In Libya
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/al-qaeda-plants-its-flag-in-libya_n_1064651.html

Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html

Al-Qaeda Flag Planted On Libyan Courthouse
http://nation.foxnews.com/libya/2011/10/29/al-qaeda-flag-planted-libyan-courthouse

Liberated Libya: Al Qaeda Flag Aloft Benghazi's Courthouse
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/liberated_libya_al_qaeda_flag_aloft_benghazis_courthouse.html

Libya: Al-Qaeda plants its flag at Benghazi courthouse
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/libya-al-qaeda-plants-its-flag-at-benghazi-courthouse.html

Al-Qaida plants its flag — literally — in Libya
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/28/al-qaida-plants-its-flag-literally-in-libya/
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37062268
I didn't say they were lying they simply are like Fox News who spin the story.
Beside it makes no difference to be I was always against the NATO bombing of Libya.
All of the Governments in NATO from Europe that were part of it are conservatives.

-Muj ;-/
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37062271
>>I didn't say they were lying they simply are like Fox News who spin the story.

How do you spin an al qaeda flag flying on a courthouse?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37062386
Here's what I want to know, where are the rest of the major news putting out this story.  I think that it's important.  Where is msnbe, cbs, cnn, you know what we call the mainstream media.  
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37062514
> How do you spin an al qaeda flag flying on a courthouse? <

Let's see now, from the link let me quote:
"Sharia Law is a form of hardline Islamic rule favoured by fundamentalist groups such as the Taliban Afghanistan"

So not true!

-Muj ;-/
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37062540
Muj, normally I let you make silly, unsubstantiated comments, but please explain.

We can ignore the fact that you're changing the subject.



0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37062549
>> Where is msnbe, cbs, cnn, you know what we call the mainstream media.  

Same place they were while covering Obama's radical ties.

0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37063257
> How do you spin an al qaeda flag flying on a courthouse?

Easy, you film it and show it on the air, and bring attention to it.
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37065268
> We can ignore the fact that you're changing the subject. <

I am not changing the subject and I am not the one who brought it up.
All I pointed out is that its just been 10 days and already their is fear up into the heart of people that Libya has become a terrorist state.

There really isn't anything Obama can do to please the Conservatives, anything he does you complain.

-Muj ;-\
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37065288
>>All I pointed out is that its just been 10 days and already their is fear up into the heart of people that Libya has become a terrorist state.

Always was a terrorist state.  All Obama did was help remove one bad apple to put in another.



>>There really isn't anything Obama can do to please the Conservatives, anything he does you complain.

I will not complain when he's fired next year.  No more community organizers!

PS--I'm a moderate.
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37065358
>>All I pointed out is that its just been 10 days and already their is fear up into the heart of people that Libya has become a terrorist state.

Actually that was the biggest fear from the begining, and was one of the major reasons that congress did not want to provide funding for the effort.
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37065435
> Actually that was the biggest fear from the begining, and was one of the major reasons that congress did not want to provide funding for the effort.<

Let Libya have elections now & see where things go. If things go bad you can always send the Troops in and secure the Oil fields. I am sure NATO and even Congress will agree.

-Muj ;-)
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37065499
>>Let Libya have elections now & see where things go

Go idea.  Saddam had those kind of elections.  He managed to win 100% of the vote.
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37065528
> Saddam had those kind of elections.  He managed to win 100% of the vote.<

Didn't realize Saddam was back from the Dead in Libya.

-Muj ;-D
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37065536
>>If things go bad you can always send the Troops in and secure the Oil fields. I am sure NATO and even Congress will agree.

Sure, the Hamanistan model; and we have made soooo much money on exploiting the Iraqi oil fields.
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37065560
> exploiting the Iraqi oil fields. <

The corporations do, even if you don't.

-Muj ;-)
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37065627
>The corporations do, even if you don't.

Please, your conspiracy theories are as slim as the chances of Greece paying off thier debts. Take a look at which companies have bids on developing Iraqi fields and then talk.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37065658
>>Take a look at which companies have bids on developing Iraqi fields and then talk.

After liberating the Iraqi people and all it costs the US, I believe we should have taken the same amount in oil.  
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37065688
> Take a look at which companies have bids on developing Iraqi fields and then talk. <

BP, Exxon Mobil and even Shell.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ai2RXfGm2.EU

Lets not forget BP in Libya. The whole reason the release the Libyan bomber.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8389397/BPs-contracts-in-Libya-still-valid-despite-turmoil.html

-Muj ;-\
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37065698
Who TF cares who is pumping the oil?

The Iraqis themselves decide.   The world needs oil, Iraq has oil, oil companies are in between making that happen.  

So who cares
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 37065730
I think we should ban oil companies from pumping oil and instead give it to Solardyne.  It's those greedy oild companies, everyone that works there is in the top 1%.
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37065753
>BP, Exxon Mobil and even Shell.

You forgot a several:

China National Petroleum Corp. , Malaysia’s Petroliam Nasional Bhd., or Petronas

“Big or small, no company wanted to be left out of Iraq,”

Lets not forget BP in Libya. The whole reason the release the Libyan bomber.

Even I won't blame Obama for this one, but it seems like they already had a lock on the oil, so NATO did not need to invade to get it. You logic is circular and flawed.
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37065809
> You logic is circular and flawed. <

Where did I go in a a circle?

> China National Petroleum Corp. , Malaysia’s Petroliam Nasional Bhd., or Petronas <

I presented the Western Corporations didn't I. You asked for it & I gave it.

> so NATO did not need to invade to get it. <

No but it shows you the dirty dealing that goes.

-Muj ;-\
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37065850
>Where did I go in a a circle?

BP had a lock on Libyan oil -> NATO invaded to get Libyan oil

>I presented the Western Corporations didn't I. You asked for it & I gave it.

And I presented that it was not just Western companies, but Chinese and Malaysian ones as well. So, unless you can present the case that US is a front for all Oil firms, you logic fails.

>No but it shows you the dirty dealing that goes.

So, why would they need to invade to control somethign they already controled?
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37065859
BUT we are side tracking.

Is "leading from behind" an effective strategy for the Obama administration?
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37068068
> leading from behind" an effective strategy for the Obama administration <

I think it's a good idea that the US doesn't get involved in military campaigns from here on, unless needed to. We have already seen enough bloodshed from the US & it's Allies.

-Muj ;-/
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37069007
>>I think it's a good idea that the US doesn't get involved in military campaigns from here on, unless needed to.

Well, b/c you said so
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37069118
> Well, b/c you said so <

Yeap!

-Muj ;-)
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37070243
>unless needed to

Please define what you consider a 'need to'.
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
ID: 37075242
> need to < 

Defend itself from attacks but not like the one they did in Iraq or are planning for Iran.

-Muj ;-|
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37080025
>Defend itself from attacks but not like the one

So, what kind of attack? Would terrorist launching missiles over the boarder and sending suicide bomber qualify?
0
 
LVL 6

Assisted Solution

by:Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
Mujtaba_Alam_Khan earned 40 total points
ID: 37087722
> Would terrorist launching missiles over the boarder and sending suicide bomber qualify <

Didn't think mexico's or canadian would do that but whatever rocks your boat.

-Muj ;-|
0
 
LVL 29

Author Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 37088006
Well, I am glad to see that you at least support Israel 's right to retaliate.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37089292
>>Didn't think mexico's or canadian would do that but whatever rocks your boat.

Mexico just sends over its welfare and those that don't respect our laws.
0

Featured Post

How to Use the Help Bell

Need to boost the visibility of your question for solutions? Use the Experts Exchange Help Bell to confirm priority levels and contact subject-matter experts for question attention.  Check out this how-to article for more information.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
this video summaries big data hadoop online training demo (http://onlineitguru.com/big-data-hadoop-online-training-placement.html) , and covers basics in big data hadoop .
As many of you are aware about Scanpst.exe utility which is owned by Microsoft itself to repair inaccessible or damaged PST files, but the question is do you really think Scanpst.exe is capable to repair all sorts of PST related corruption issues?

831 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question