Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I am a bit ambiguous about the Libya intervention/war/whatever. I think that US intervention around the world is out of hand and the President's power to unilaterally declare war is unconstitutional and dangerous but I also believe in limited intervention for humanitarian reasons in select cases. If we can accomplish humanitarian goals with no ground troops and with regional support then I am open to humanitarian military aid.
The BIG difference I see in this and Iraq is the method and scale. This is much more like the Balkans, where US/NATO stopped genocide and Al Qaeda intrusion into Europe through a very limited engagement. In short if Libya can be limited to costs of millions of dollars and few US lives, I feel it can be justified. But to say the US should ever spend TRILLIONS and lose THOUSANDS of troops for humanitarian reasons is ridiculous. The Libyan intervention is more akin to the Iraqi No-Fly zone (which contained Saddam Hussein) than the Iraq War.
It is basically a cost-benefit analysis. As I said, if we can accomplish humanitarian goals with no ground troops and with the support of the majority of people and governments in the region then I am open to humanitarian aid in many cases. This would include Darfur and Ruwanda.
Now let me add that this is all good in theory but this is where my ambiguity comes in. I think the US mentality of NEVER "turning the other cheek" is counter to this type of mission. We have been taught to never accept combat deaths. In these types of mission, the intervening country must realize that some losses are inevitable and striking back and escalating (as in Somalia) are usually counter-productive. We as a Nation may not have the humility and rationality to accept the necessary losses, meaning inevitable escalation. This is why I am never for sending ground troops and for abandoning the mission if/when it becomes obvious that we have done all we can. Once again, I doubt we have the humility to accept this type of "defeat" when it comes.
So my ambiguity continues. I feel we should do these things but may very likely be too volatile and immature a people to actually be trusted to do them well.
Let the attacks on my wishy-washy liberal nature begin...
Last Edit: Mar 31, 2011 7:50:41 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Libya is different from Iraq due to the unique transformation of northern Africa right now.
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. This is not a "unique transformation." Israel is no longer the lone bastion of democracy in the Arab world. As much as I cringe at sounding like a Bushite in saying so... this is a domino effect which started with invading Iraq. There wasn't a lull between Iraq and Tunisia. Libya can't really be an example of one-of-a-kind "unique" circumstances when the same things are going in other nations - which, you know, happens to be the case. There was the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon; there were the Iranian uprisings which were quashed by Ahmedinejad. Need I go on? Or is two counterexamples enough to disprove your "unique" claim?
Qadddafi's attacks on his citizenry, rebels and civilians alike, have led to refugees fleeing to Tunisia and Egypt. These two countries are in a fragile state of democracy, and refugees to these places would add a sectarian burden they can't afford right now.
Why do you point out that "rebels and civilians alike" are fleeing Qaddafi without acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, people of all religious stripes might be fleeing? A majority of Libyans are Sunni Muslims; a majority of Egyptians are Sunni Muslims; a majority of Tunisians are Sunni Muslims. Explain to me how this qualifies as a "sectarian burden." Also explain to me why your "humanitarian" causes are only valid when they are between people who share the same religion? The majority of Americans sure as hell aren't Sunni Muslims, nor are the majority of any NATO member nations with the exception of Turkey - and Turkey opposes our air strikes.
The Mexican NO NO WORD!!! wars have led to an increase in Mexican immigration which has caused resentment in many regions of our country and we're a 300 year old democracy. Imagine one that is only about a month or two old. (They called themselves democracies, but let's be blunt they were dictatorships)
Your Mexico example ignores a few very important things that I can think of off the top of my head - probably more if I'd spend more time pondering your aside here. First, if you're saying immigration from Mexico has nothing to with anything besides the NO NO WORD!!! War, you're incorrect in omitting our stronger economy from your assessment - unless you're making more of an "every wetback has a balloon up their ass" kind of argument. In which case, I still disagree here. Second, you're writing off ethnic tensions completely. If you're saying Americans' Hispanic xenophobia has nothing to do with racism, you are sadly mistaken. Thirdly, "they" weren't the only ones who called themselves democracies - so did we... and "they" made those statements with the blessing of our government and backing of our military. Saddam Hussein proclaimed himself to be democratically elected while being a dictator, and we helped put him in power. If we're going to go that route... aren't you still saying we should be in Libya now for the same reasons we invaded Iraq then?
Qaddafi's ruthless tactics to prevent his dwindling power are just as alarming as Milosevic was in Bosnia. If the world did not intercede, Qaddafi would have massacred his own people on a massive scale.
Milosevic was committing genocide, going after people because of their religious and ethnic divisions. Qaddafi is fighting a civil war over national politics. I should further point out that Milosevic started it in his country; Qadaffi didn't. Surely that should say something to your statement about Qadaffi's dwindling power. The situations are probably more different than you care to admit.
Iraq was different, because the reason Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds is because they were cooperating with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's. Albeit brutal and deplorable, it's not the same as citizens protesting for change.
You say that as if Hussein only had one crackdown on the Kurds, during the end of the Iran-Iraq War in the late 1980s. Not so. You do realize that President George H.W. Bush encouraged a separate Kurdish uprising against Hussein after the first Gulf War, correct? That this first Gulf War occurred after the Iran-Iraq War which you cite? Daddy Bush encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Hussein, then failed to follow through with his promises to support their uprising... leaving it to ultimately be put down by Hussein.
I think that this latter example most reflects the course of things yet to play out in Libya.
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. This is not a "unique transformation." Israel is no longer the lone bastion of democracy in the Arab world. As much as I cringe at sounding like a Bushite in saying so... this is a domino effect which started with invading Iraq. There wasn't a lull between Iraq and Tunisia. Libya can't really be an example of one-of-a-kind "unique" circumstances when the same things are going in other nations - which, you know, happens to be the case. There was the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon; there were the Iranian uprisings which were quashed by Ahmedinejad. Need I go on? Or is two counterexamples enough to disprove your "unique" claim?
So you're saying a democratically elected government is NOT new to Northern Africa. Egypt and Tunisia have had the same leaders for the past 40-50 years, due to rigged elections. That is what I meant by basically dictatorships, not legitimate democracies. I gave you credit to read between the lines on that one. UNLIKE Iran, these protests are actually successful so you're seeing a different transformation to these countries. Also Cedar Revolution was about Lebanese wanting to remove Syrian soldiers and Syrian influence in the government. Removing foreign influence is NOT the same as democratic protest. So you are wrong with your examples. Forgive me, I don't know how to do the multiple quote bubbles within an argument. So to make it easy, mine will be in regular. Mister Forward will be in italics Today at 1:16am, Jurymiahbullfrog wrote:Qadddafi's attacks on his citizenry, rebels and civilians alike, have led to refugees fleeing to Tunisia and Egypt. These two countries are in a fragile state of democracy, and refugees to these places would add a sectarian burden they can't afford right now.
Mister Forward wrote: Why do you point out that "rebels and civilians alike" are fleeing Qaddafi without acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, people of all religious stripes might be fleeing? A majority of Libyans are Sunni Muslims; a majority of Egyptians are Sunni Muslims; a majority of Tunisians are Sunni Muslims. Explain to me how this qualifies as a "sectarian burden." Also explain to me why your "humanitarian" causes are only valid when they are between people who share the same religion? The majority of Americans sure as hell aren't Sunni Muslims, nor are the majority of any NATO member nations with the exception of Turkey - and Turkey opposes our air strikes.
Rebels and civilians alike. How does that relate to religious groups? I said that statement to illustrate that Qaddafi is attacking all the citizens of Libya. Just because these countries are the same religion, doesn't mean they are gonna magically get along. Ethnic and nationalist divisions would play a part. It would be Libyan Sunni and Egyptian Sunni/Tunisian Sunni, those are how the sects would be split up. Other tensions that would arise would be job opportunities. Egyptians and Tunisians would feel threatened by Libyans taking away employment opportunities thus leading to an unstable democracy in those countries. It's got to do with the reality refugees bring to a nation. This point also relates to my Mexico example.
Today at 1:16am, Jurymiahbullfrog wrote:Qaddafi's ruthless tactics to prevent his dwindling power are just as alarming as Milosevic was in Bosnia. If the world did not intercede, Qaddafi would have massacred his own people on a massive scale.
Milosevic was committing genocide, going after people because of their religious and ethnic divisions. Qaddafi is fighting a civil war over national politics. I should further point out that Milosevic started it in his country; Qadaffi didn't. Surely that should say something to your statement about Qadaffi's dwindling power. The situations are probably more different than you care to admit. Milosevic was committing genocide BECAUSE of national politics. The Bosnian war happened because Yugoslavia was being broken up. Croatia and Slovenia already declared independence before the war started. That left Serbia and Bosnia. Bosnia's ethnic population was Muslim Bosniaks, Croat Bosniaks, and Serbian Bosniaks. Slobodan consolidated with the Croats and the Serbs to eliminate the Muslims so he could block the formation of the Bosnian state and make it part of Serbia. Even though all ethnic groups wanted the independence but Muslims became the scapegoats during a land grab essentially. It's kinda similar to Darfur. I was comparing him to Qaddafi because both are willing to massacre civilians to protect their national agenda.
Today at 1:16am, Jurymiahbullfrog wrote:Iraq was different, because the reason Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds is because they were cooperating with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's. Albeit brutal and deplorable, it's not the same as citizens protesting for change.
You say that as if Hussein only had one crackdown on the Kurds, during the end of the Iran-Iraq War in the late 1980s. Not so. You do realize that President George H.W. Bush encouraged a separate Kurdish uprising against Hussein after the first Gulf War, correct? That this first Gulf War occurred after the Iran-Iraq War which you cite? Daddy Bush encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Hussein, then failed to follow through with his promises to support their uprising... leaving it to ultimately be put down by Hussein.
You just strenghthened my previous made point. When groups resort to foreign influence to achieve their means, it changes the engagements of war(because in a sense, they are committing treason to their own country) and it no longer becomes a humanitarian effort. The people who were protesting in Libya did not reach out to foreign aid. They were just demonstrating democratic practices and Qaddafi struck it down using the military and brutal violence. He engaged in war, the people did not. That is why assistance to them is a humanitarian effort.
Last Edit: Mar 31, 2011 16:16:29 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
Rebels and civilians alike. How does that relate to religious groups?
How do you have a "sectarian burden" if there is not intradenominational religious friction?
As far as Qadaffi/Milosevic... Milosevic targeted a specific ethnic/religious group; Qadaffi fought back a civil war. I'm not approving of what Qadaffi does, but I am trying to say is that one of the pair's actions constitutes genocide and one of them does not. Halting genocide and taking sides in a civil war are not the same thing. As a threshhold for international intervention, I think that means something.
Oy... and I'd barely sat down to start on responding to troo... I'll get to it.
When I see that word, I always presume religion is involved, with "faction" being its secular counterpart. Maybe I'm wrong.
Off to Wiki for a quick definition check... Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or factions of a political movement.
Well, I'll be damned... I always assumed the word "sect" had inherent religious connotations. Guess I was wrong on splitting that hair
I am a bit ambiguous about the Libya intervention/war/whatever. I think that US intervention around the world is out of hand and the President's power to unilaterally declare war is unconstitutional and dangerous but I also believe in limited intervention for humanitarian reasons in select cases. If we can accomplish humanitarian goals with no ground troops and with regional support then I am open to humanitarian military aid.
Agreed on point one there. You might have seen me posting Eisenhower's farewell address elsewhere around here recently.
As for constitutional power to declare war: the United States has not officially declared war on anyone in either of our lifetimes.
You said "limited intervention" as if we have some measure of military restraint in this country; I beg to differ.
I think it's telling that your thoughts on the matter use the word "war" before "humanitarian." Part of what I was asking in that original question was, if humanitarian purposes were valid in Iraq as they are in Libya, shouldn't the same response be warranted? Wouldn't precedent have us going up to - and including - war?
The BIG difference I see in this and Iraq is the method and scale.
Have you asked yourself how we'd be handling a military response to Libya if we had enough troops at the ready to conduct a military response similar to Iraq? We have the same will, but this time we don't have the way.
This is much more like the Balkans, where US/NATO stopped genocide and Al Qaeda intrusion into Europe through a very limited engagement. In short if Libya can be limited to costs of millions of dollars and few US lives, I feel it can be justified. But to say the US should ever spend TRILLIONS and lose THOUSANDS of troops for humanitarian reasons is ridiculous.
I did a quick search and saw a list price of a Tomahawk cruise missile for $1,066,465. We fired 100+ of them the first day, March 19th. That's $100 million in a day; that was thirteen days ago. Exactly how long do you think we can keep this in the millions? Do you think we wouldn't participate in a proper war declared by our NATO allies?
The Libyan intervention is more akin to the Iraqi No-Fly zone (which contained Saddam Hussein) than the Iraq War.
How does a no-fly zone over a country lessen the likelihood of war? Did we, or did we not, go to war with Iraq after conducting a no-fly zone over their territory?
It is basically a cost-benefit analysis. As I said, if we can accomplish humanitarian goals with no ground troops and with the support of the majority of people and governments in the region then I am open to humanitarian aid in many cases. This would include Darfur and Ruwanda.
Neighboring Tunisia and Egypt don't necessarily have the most stable governments right now, though I'll give it to Egypt. Algeria to the west, however, is involved on Qadaffi's side and arguably saved his ass before we stepped in. Humanitarian aid is one thing, and I am fine with that... but as I said in one of my posts above, military action on behalf of one side in a civil war should be held to a different standard. This isn't Doctors Without Borders, this is Yankees With Missiles.
Now let me add that this is all good in theory but this is where my ambiguity comes in. I think the US mentality of NEVER "turning the other cheek" is counter to this type of mission. We have been taught to never accept combat deaths. In these types of mission, the intervening country must realize that some losses are inevitable and striking back and escalating (as in Somalia) are usually counter-productive. We as a Nation may not have the humility and rationality to accept the necessary losses, meaning inevitable escalation. This is why I am never for sending ground troops and for abandoning the mission if/when it becomes obvious that we have done all we can. Once again, I doubt we have the humility to accept this type of "defeat" when it comes.
So my ambiguity continues. I feel we should do these things but may very likely be too volatile and immature a people to actually be trusted to do them well.
We won't accept defeat, that's why not escalating is not an option. You admit up here that escalation is "inevitable" so I am confused why you won't yet call it a war - official declaration notwithstanding. I think it's overly idealistic to assume we've learned to come at these things with a level head. I don't think "turn the other cheek" is the U.S. mentality; it's a Jesus mentality. It's civil disobedience, it's responding to an aggressor without using violence. I don't understand how those criteria fit what we're doing there.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't see the consistency in the totality of your argument. Here's some of your main points as I see them: 1. This is and should only be a strictly humanitarian intervention. 2. You are never for abandoning the mission. 3. You are not for sending ground troops. 4. You oppose going to war. 5. Escalation is inevitable.
Do you understand how taking all these points in total might not fully reconcile? Are that many liberals still treating Obama like a reflective blank slate enough to believe he wouldn't start a war of his own?
I guess I call out the approach to Libya because I see it as a lot of liberals in denial that their self-reflective blank slate actually went and started a war.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Apr 1, 2011 21:43:39 GMT -5
The U,S has a long history of placing all theese dictators in there positions of power. So far we've been burned by ALL of those we put into power by them turning into dictators,and not giveing up power like they agreed to when we put them there.
Yes, our government did some regrettable things during the cold war. And we lashed out against Iran because of the hostage crisis, by funding sadam and the Iraqis during their war against Iran. But with every one of those. There is a Somalia, where we tried our best to stabilize a region that was hijacking food and medical aid from nonprofits and the UN. Also, a Bosnia where there was a unilateral effort to prevent a genocide. Both those efforts came after the cold war. So I believe this nation is gradually maturing from the complications that arise from foreign intervention and certain crooked power brokers within our system. Under this administration, we showed great success in Haiti when our Navy used our aircraft carriers as offshore hospitals, and some contingent forces to maintain some order when their central government was in disarray. Now with Libya, I think the US are making an effort to protect those who wish for democracy and suffrage. It's a long road but I believe as a whole, we are trying to make amends and renew the belief of being "the light on the hill".
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Apr 2, 2011 9:24:24 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you but in Haiti there's warehouses over flowing with food and water as well as basic medical supplys all controled by local thugs. Abuddy of ours just came back from there and told us the international aid was kicked out way to soon yes that goes for us as well and by aid I'm only referring to the policeing portion of the aid.
My father works for the UN. I talked to him about this issue, considering Haiti has a notorious reputation when it comes to corruption. Currently, all warehouses that house UN aid are being protected by UN forces. After the earthquake, the US left after 3 months because Haiti finally reestablished their government. During that time, not only were we the biggest contributors of aid but also lent our Navy to help. As far as the policing part of the aid goes, at some point the Haitian police need to step up. In a perfect world, it would be great for the US to stay there and help the people. But its not a perfect world, and there is a lot of people who object to that type of commitment.
Mr. Forward_ I admit my inconsistencies. Thus the final wishy washy statement.
And not to quibble but I did not say escalation was inevitable, only that if we do not have the requisite humility that escalation is inevitable. I can only hope we can learn this humility.
Nevertheless, my ambiguity comes from what I think we SHOULD do in these cases (air power only acknowledging the limited effectiveness and possible defeat) and what we usually do (start small, get in over our heads, escalate to save face.)
Clinton showed limited war can be effective in the Balkans and with the No Fly Zone in Iraq. Just because Bush decided to invade Iraq does not change this. Bush would have gone in regardless of the No Fly Zone, IMHO.
Air Power can be used to curb aggression against civilians and destroy terrorist training camps, all with minimal loss of US life, especially in countries that we can easily dominate in the air (Ruwanda, Somalia, Darfur, Libya. ) But this is no guarantee that we will achieve the desired outcome. We must learn to accept that and be satisfied in trying to do the humane thing.
Once again, my ambiguity comes from my hope that we can learn the limits of power and power of humility. But also from my contrary knowledge that we are slow to learn and are just as likely (more likely?) to screw things up.
Hope vs experience. Irreconcilable, maybe, but I can not reject either.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Apr 3, 2011 21:15:14 GMT -5
Heres the way I see it we did nothing in Darfor to dtop that genocide so why should we do anything in anybody elses genocide. We still have'nt learned that every time we interfear in another countrys civil war we end up on the very short side of the stick. Vietnam , Korea. When are we going to take that monroe doctorine that says we are suppose to police force the world and take care of US first.
When are we going to take that monroe doctorine that says we are suppose to police force the world and take care of US first.
I'm confused about this last sentence. If you could reword it, I would appreciate it. I respect what you are saying though. As for Darfur, I for one thought we should have done something to protect those people. The northern and southern Sudanese were complicit in turning a blind eye to Darfur. The US and the world basically let a Bosnia happen and no one did anything about it. I will agree, that currently we should be in a "shield" mentality. Because we have threats within our borders (ie bad corporations and industrialists) that not only threaten the law of our land but is systemic to why parts of the world sees us in a negative light. If we don't protect those in our own country, then Americans abroad will suffer the consequences.
But that does not mean we can ALWAYS turn away. We are one of the few nations that can make change to a destabilized world. Yeah it sometimes come with negative results, because we handle it immaturely or because it causes waves people cannot foresee. But standing up against those who wish to be predators is an honorable thing.
We should put down our sword and return to our shields. But if you see a defenseless woman being raped, you must use that sword to defend her. That is my view on foreign intervention in a nutshell.
Last Edit: Apr 3, 2011 23:43:54 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Apr 5, 2011 16:36:18 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting that we always turn a blind eye but right now we as a nation are not able to take care of our selves with double digit unemployment, familys becoming homeless faster than we can people to work, jobs leaving the country faster than people are looseing there homes,and our government is helping by making tax free boarders enabling the people loaning us money to manufacture products send them to our neighbors to have them assembled and forcing us to purchase them while due to the tax free boarder the lenders make out twice we still pay those loan payments and they dont pay taxes on good brought into the united states. All I would like is for us to be able to actually take care of us before we go helping others with there political issues.
1. I think it may be inevitable at this point - but I may be wrong and there may be a miracle at the last minute.
2. I will be furloughed as a "non-excepted" employee. That means that I am not vital to the government and, therefore, will be off work until they get the budget issue resolved. I cannot use vacation time. I cannot volunteer my time and continue to work to keep my office up to date (if I do that - I face serious personal fines) and I may or may not get paid when all is said and done. apparently will NOT be furloughed as I have just been informed that I am deemed "essential" and am necessary in my job capacity.
I am one of the lucky ones. My dad is retired military and my parents have gone through shut downs and understand what happens. If needed, they will help out monetarily (hope it's not needed)
Edited as seen above
Last Edit: Apr 7, 2011 15:20:42 GMT -5 by Meg - Back to Top
I'm not suggesting that we always turn a blind eye but right now we as a nation are not able to take care of our selves with double digit unemployment, familys becoming homeless faster than we can people to work, jobs leaving the country faster than people are looseing there homes,and our government is helping by making tax free boarders enabling the people loaning us money to manufacture products send them to our neighbors to have them assembled and forcing us to purchase them while due to the tax free boarder the lenders make out twice we still pay those loan payments and they dont pay taxes on good brought into the united states. All I would like is for us to be able to actually take care of us before we go helping others with there political issues.
Agree with alot of that. Yeah our tax situation with corporations is a mess, the corporate tax is only 20-30%. The same as an individual, it's not reasonable yet they hire lobbyists for tax breaks and they find tax shelters. Plus our trade deficit with China gives us no leverage on why they can send it to Mexico to have it assembled. Globalization should give companies a wider consumer base, it seems odd Americans are losing jobs. I don't get it.
Once again, my ambiguity comes from my hope that we can learn the limits of power and power of humility. But also from my contrary knowledge that we are slow to learn and are just as likely (more likely?) to screw things up.
I think your "hope that we can learn the limits of power and power of humility" stance is overly idealistic in regards to the situation, but maybe I've just being overly cynical about this. That would go a ways in explaining why I differ in opinion from others with whom I agree on a lot otherwise. What you're seeing as idealistic, I'm seeing as perhaps somewhat delusional.
Globalization should give companies a wider consumer base, it seems odd Americans are losing jobs. I don't get it.
Globalization also gives companies a wider range of options for where and how to produce, making for greater competitiveness. We Americans as employees command higher wages and benefits than similar workers around the world; we Americans as a nation impose stricter regulations on environmental and workplace safety, to name a few aspects, upon businesses that choose to operate here. How are Americans to compete when the costs of doing business here are so greater than they are doing business elsewhere? This is why H. Ross Perot predicted a "giant sucking sound" of our jobs leaving across our borders... and that was damn near twenty years ago. Things haven't really changed that much since, sadly. It certainly doesn't help that our national reliance on oil and the political influence of oil interests (see: Bush/Cheney, Koch brothers) has not led us to be on the cutting edge of new technology, which would create the lower-end jobs we ship elsewhere. Even here in Wisconsin, we had a wind turbine manufacturer with existing plans to build a plant cancel those plans - claiming legislation proposed by Scott Walker (in some areas, and lack thereof in others) made for too uncertain/unfriendly of an environment in which they could do business. I hope that limited explanation helps.
Semi-related question for Meg: are you a union employee?
I would be remiss posting in this thread without mentioning that Obama has officially filed his papers and launched his 2012 campaign:
Question (somewhat related) for Meg: are you union?
Nope - my job position is such that it is not part of a bargaining unit. We deal with the unions on a frequent basis as we are the attorneys for the Department of Veterans Affairs on a local level.
In other words, whenever a grievance, EEO or any personnel matter is filed by a union rep - we represent the VA in the matter.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Jul 7, 2011 20:27:02 GMT -5
Didn't really know where to put this, but here's an awesome article that I felt like sharing about Obama and his handling off the fallout of the economic crisis with a little bit of indecision 2012 thrown in. I guess that's the best way to describe it.
Why not tell the truth and say that you are being held hostage by the most liberal of your base? Why not say that it is the dems that don't want to give up anything on their sacred entitlement programs?
Good thing someone bumped this up. I was gonna make something to try and alleviate the threadjacking in Kdogg's Wisconsin topic.
Anyway - after tonight's speech by Obama, we realize that once again our President is acting like a weak handed father trying to settle down the commotion at the kids table and failing miserably. Meanwhile Boehner's response makes him look remarkably shameless and once again talking down to people.