Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[franalexes]

The Difference


President George W. Bush's speech afterthe capture of Saddam Hussein:
"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them!"


Obama's speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden:
"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan ."



Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

The Difference


President George W. Bush's speech afterthe capture of Saddam Hussein:
"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them!"


Obama's speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden:
"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan ."



Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !

I am not an Obama supporter, but I am a supporter of truth. And I am afraid that the post by franalexes is not the truth.

The full transcript of Obama's speech announcing the death of bin Laden is readily available at the White House website and on many, many other sites (including news sites such as CNN.com). There, the untruth of franalexes' post can be found. Obama said in that speech:

"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

"We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day."

A post of the type above by franalexes is designed to perpetuate the myth the right so adroitly spins that Obama is somehow "different" or "other." Hell, she even uses the word "difference" to close her post. But the only difference here is that Obama, in this one speech, limited his direct thanks to those who carried out the mission in Afghanistan to get bin Laden. Bush, who sent American soldiers to lose their lives in Iraq based on a total lie, broadly thanked the members of the Armed Forces.

Just to set the record straight, Obama makes speeches thanking the Armed Forces for their service with regularity. Here are excerpts from just one example, at Fort Bragg on December 14, 2011, announcing the formal "end" of the war in Iraq:

"... the United States military is the most respected institution in our land because you never forget that. You can?t afford to forget it. If you forget it, somebody dies. If you forget it, a mission fails. So you don?t forget it. You have each other?s backs. That?s why you, the 9/11 Generation, has earned your place in history.

"Because of you -- because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met, Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. That?s part of what makes us special as Americans. ...

"Because of you, in Afghanistan we?ve broken the momentum of the Taliban. Because of you, we?ve begun a transition to the Afghans that will allow us to bring our troops home from there. And around the globe, as we draw down in Iraq, we have gone after al Qaeda so that terrorists who threaten America will have no safe haven, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth.

"So here?s what I want you to know, and here?s what I want all our men and women in uniform to know: Because of you, we are ending these wars in a way that will make America stronger and the world more secure. Because of you. ...

"The war in Iraq will soon belong to history. Your service belongs to the ages. Never forget that you are part of an unbroken line of heroes spanning two centuries ?- from the colonists who overthrew an empire, to your grandparents and parents who faced down fascism and communism, to you ?- men and women who fought for the same principles in Fallujah and Kandahar, and delivered justice to those who attacked us on 9/11. ...

"All of you here today have lived through the fires of war. You will be remembered for it. You will be honored for it -- always. You have done something profound with your lives. When this nation went to war, you signed up to serve. When times were tough, you kept fighting. When there was no end in sight, you found light in the darkness. ...

"And years from now, your legacy will endure in the names of your fallen comrades etched on headstones at Arlington, and the quiet memorials across our country; in the whispered words of admiration as you march in parades, and in the freedom of our children and our grandchildren. And in the quiet of night, you will recall that your heart was once touched by fire. You will know that you answered when your country called; you served a cause greater than yourselves; you helped forge a just and lasting peace with Iraq, and among all nations.

"I could not be prouder of you, and America could not be prouder of you."

The honest response from franalexes would be to come on and post a simple retraction of her attempt to divide people on such a flimsy basis. There are plenty of genuine policy differences among politicians that demand serious discussion. The attempt to perpetuate the pseudo-"otherness" of Barack Obama does a disservice to the cause of everything I bet franalexes would insist she stands for as an American.

[GRH]

There WAS a difference between the two speeches SMC. One of them dealt with a credible threat to our national security; the other, not so much. I don't think that was supposed to be what I took away from Fran's post though.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

There WAS a difference between the two speeches SMC. One of them dealt with a credible threat to our national security; the other, not so much. I don't think that was supposed to be what I took away from Fran's post though.

I agree. In fact, I was going to point out that difference, GRH, but I decided to focus on the method of discourse employed in the post, and make a point that cannot be disputed with fabrications. Those who contend that Iraq represented "a credible threat to our national security" will spin all manner of fabrication to make their case. But they cannot deny that the portrait of Obama franalexes seeks to paint with her post is completely false; they can only ignore the truth and keep making the same claim, hoping that if it is said enough times the ignorant will buy it as the truth.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !

LOL, that's our fearless leader for you. And you can bet your cute ass if the mission went bad the word "I" would not appear in the speech.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

LOL, that's our fearless leader for you. And you can bet your cute ass if the mission went bad the word "I" would not appear in the speech.

How convenient to skip over the posting of the truth so you can spew your worthless bile.

But I think I've figured you out, TracyCoxx. The two pictures below are, in fact, one and the same.

[franalexes]

smc may be right. my computer doesn't have an automatic "snoopes" button.
Shun the gulability of being on someones forward list.

I blame George Bush. ( there! that should cover it)

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

smc may be right. my computer doesn't have an automatic "snoopes" button.
Shun the gulability of being on someones forward list.

I blame George Bush. ( there! that should cover it)

There is so much of which one can be legitimately critical of Barack Obama's policies and his approach to governance. I hope, as the smart woman you are, that you will focus on these in the future, rather than the "talking points" that both conservatives and liberals use to diminish discourse and deflect attention away from their own failures and shortcomings.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

There is so much of which one can be legitimately critical of Barack Obama's policies and his approach to governance. I hope, as the smart woman you are, that you will focus on these in the future, rather than the "talking points" that both conservatives and liberals use to diminish discourse and deflect attention away from their own failures and shortcomings.

Seriously? You're suggesting she stick with a TLB moderator approved list of talking points rather than her own?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Seriously? You're suggesting she stick with a TLB moderator approved list of talking points rather than her own?

Of course that's not even remotely what I wrote, but you're such an inveterate fabricator that it doesn't matter ... so long as you can post something, right?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

There is so much of which one can be legitimately critical of Barack Obama's policies and his approach to governance. I hope, as the smart woman you are, that you will focus on these in the future, rather than the "talking points" that both conservatives and liberals use to diminish discourse and deflect attention away from their own failures and shortcomings.

Ok, well let me rephrase that then. If fran is going to criticize Obama, smc (a TLB moderator) advises her to stick with topics that are "legitimate" criticisms of Obama. Who determines what issues are legitimate? The moderator does, not the members. But she's good with that, so I'm sorry to interrupt.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, well let me rephrase that then. If fran is going to criticize Obama, smc (a TLB moderator) advises her to stick with topics that are "legitimate" criticisms of Obama. Who determines what issues are legitimate? The moderator does, not the members. But she's good with that, so I'm sorry to interrupt.

Again, that is not what I wrote. By counterposing "talking points" to other things one might write, I drew a distinction between -- to use the most recent example -- a discussion about Bush vs. Obama on praising the troops and a discussion about policy or the direction for the country or anything else that is substantive.

The "praise the troops" topic is the sort you often seem to like, TracyCoxx, I suppose because it lends itself to out-of-full-context sound bites simply to score points, not advance any genuine argument. To her credit, franalexes recognized that when the fuller context was provided. You, on the other hand -- based on how you have handled such things in the past -- would have been much more likely to ignore the correction and move on to something else, hoping no one would notice.

I understand, TracyCoxx, that absent having anything substantive to say, you would repost the same insipid thing about the "talking points" comment. Anyone who reads your serious posts knows that you are smarter and more articulate than you often pretend to be just so you can get in your "digs." That's why I will insist, until you prove otherwise, that most of the time you are nothing more than a troll.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by franalexes

The Difference


President George W. Bush's speech afterthe capture of Saddam Hussein:
"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them!"


Obama's speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden:
"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan ."



Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !

True! Granted as smc points out, those are just snippets of those speaches. However one can not deny that there is a lot of, at the least, distrust between obama and the military. I have spoken with quite a number of military personnel, including dozens of officers. Almost all of them were extremely concerned and distrustful about having to serve under obama. obama has repeatedly promised to slash the military budget (Now mind you, I believe there is a lot of overspending in the military.) also he has shown blatant disregard to military decessions - for example, he wouldn't give the order for the Navy SEAL snipers to shoot the Somali pirates and it took obama about three months of "study" to approve a fraction of the requested troop increase.

A lot of the rank and file I've spoken to are concerned about the possibility of being ordered to engage in oerations against US civilians (hence NDAA). I have always refered them to the decesion that was passed down from the Nurrenberg Trials, that a soldier does not have to follow an order which is illegal.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

True! Granted as smc points out, those are just snippets of those speaches. However one can not deny that there is a lot of, at the least, distrust between obama and the military. I have spoken with quite a number of military personnel, including dozens of officers. Almost all of them were extremely concerned and distrustful about having to serve under obama. obama has repeatedly promised to slash the military budget (Now mind you, I believe there is a lot of overspending in the military.) also he has shown blatant disregard to military decessions - for example, he wouldn't give the order for the Navy SEAL snipers to shoot the Somali pirates and it took obama about three months of "study" to approve a fraction of the requested troop increase.

A lot of the rank and file I've spoken to are concerned about the possibility of being ordered to engage in oerations against US civilians (hence NDAA). I have always refered them to the decesion that was passed down from the Nurrenberg Trials, that a soldier does not have to follow an order which is illegal.

Hearsay evidence of a "distrustful" military aside, it seems to me that independent of whether it is Obama or someone else, having a president who does not routinely say or imply (as Bush did, and as Romney does) that he will simply go along with whatever the "commanders on the ground" advise is not only what the Founding Fathers intended by having a civilian-led military, but a good system of checks and balances. I state that without taking a particular side on shooting Somali pirates or increasing troop sizes, which are certainly questions about which thoughtful consideration could certainly be given.

As for operations against U.S. civilians and the NDAA, I think it's safe to say that Obama is simply continuing George W. Bush's terrible policies. For instance, the the Obama administration argues that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution permits the detentions of United States citizens. Bush and Obama applied AUMF to authorize their use of indefinite detentions around the world. The difference today? NDAA codifies this into law.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

Hearsay evidence of a "distrustful" military aside, it seems to me that independent of whether it is Obama or someone else, having a president who does not routinely say or imply (as Bush did, and as Romney does) that he will simply go along with whatever the "commanders on the ground" advise is not only what the Founding Fathers intended by having a civilian-led military, but a good system of checks and balances. I state that without taking a particular side on shooting Somali pirates or increasing troop sizes, which are certainly questions about which thoughtful consideration could certainly be given.

As for operations against U.S. civilians and the NDAA, I think it's safe to say that Obama is simply continuing George W. Bush's terrible policies. For instance, the the Obama administration argues that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution permits the detentions of United States citizens. Bush and Obama applied AUMF to authorize their use of indefinite detentions around the world. The difference today? NDAA codifies this into law.

I have heard it argued that the "Comander in Chief" title given to the Presidency is outdated and should be removed. That military decesions should be left to the military. As a student of Clausewitz, I believe the military should always be subject to the will of the political leadershi of the State. That being said, I could be open to discussions about whether that means giving one man (i.e. the President) with that power or give it to a board of oversight, the membership of which would be decided on by Congress.

I loved how these Civil Rights advocacy groups raised such a fuss about Bush's warrantless wiretapping when firstly that paticular program was never stopped. That means that it is still ongoing to this very day. Secondly, ever since the late 60's (if I rember the report correctly) all new telephone line that were installed to people's houses were automatically tapped.

[ila]

Originally Posted by tslust

I have heard it argued that the "Comander in Chief" title given to the Presidency is outdated and should be removed. That military decesions should be left to the military. As a student of Clausewitz, I believe the military should always be subject to the will of the political leadershi of the State. That being said, I could be open to discussions about whether that means giving one man (i.e. the President) with that power or give it to a board of oversight, the membership of which would be decided on by Congress...

There must always be civilian oversight of a country's military. That oversight must be the government. As for decision making military decisions should be broken into two areas, strategic and tactical. Strategic decisions are for politicians to make whereas tactical decisions must remain in the hands of a military. Politicians are the ones that have to strategically guide a country and its policies and that is why they must make the strategic decisions. Most politicians have no idea of military planning and execution and that is why the military must be allowed to make tactical decisions without interference from politicians. In other words policiticians make plans (strategy) and the military carries out those plans (tactics). Neither is in a position to do properly do the other's job.

[GRH]

I don't have the official source to back this up, because as I recall, I heard a snippet on some news program (may have been radio or television). At any rate, it said that in terms of polling, President Obama is actually leading Romney among the military demographic.

A number of comments need to be made regarding this, though. In terms of troops on the ground, Obama's policies are of course going to be popular. We've effectively withdrawn from Iraq (as opposed to indefinite occupation that some have suggested). We are also on a time table for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Whether these are wise decisions from a strategic standpoint, I will leave to others to debate. But in terms of being a troop on the ground who is putting your life on the line everyday-- how could these NOT be popular policy stances? Especially when the overall national sentiment towards these foreign misadventures is that we've spent too much time and money in these backward shitholes and that it's time to come home. Add to that the fact that Obama made the order to assasinate Bin Laden, and it just adds credibility to his role as Commander and Chief.

Now among military brass, I can certainly see Obama as being less popular. They are the ones tasked with trying to find cost savings in today's era of austerity. They are the ones who will see pet projects, platoons, etc. cut. My own opinion is that austerity should be shared at ALL levels-- including national defense. But in terms of talking points, military brass are probably going to lean towards the party that says they will spare the military any cuts (in favor of wrenching cost savings out of middle class "entitlements").

[TracyCoxx]

I know you all hate Limbaugh, but what he says here is exactly right.

Limbaugh:
So the regime is using the Department of Homeland Security to punish Obama's enemies. I saw a great phrase at a blog post on PJ Media: Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona. Let me read to you from that post. "This is a political maneuver designed to punish Arizona, which" had the audacity... I mean, what is this really all about? Obama is not enforcing immigration law. Arizona is falling apart. A responsible governor says, "All right, well, we're going to write some laws to give us the ability to enforce the border ourselves."

So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.

Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.

It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!

"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.

Come on in, gang!

Nobody here to stop you!

And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.

We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.