hokie4redskins Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 The good ol' damning with faint praise strategy. Rove offers a blistering critique as well. As polarizing as Obama is, he has probably equally surprised and not surprised supporters and non-supporters alike in different ways. This is an interesting synopsis. But the "it's okay when Obama does it" hypocrisy coming from people who blasted Bush for identical measures and actions is hilarious. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286200693341141.html Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face. For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't. He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel. Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq. As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there. These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning. We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good. Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget. However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Yeah I read that. Rove's been offering a blistering critique of Obama since he won in Iowa. Frankly, Rove's intense dislike of Obama is almost a good enough reason alone to vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Let the liberal excuse making begin in 5...4...3...2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Let the liberal excuse making begin in 5...4...3...2... So does "liberal excuse making" always come 5 seconds after the right wing whiner attacks? Do we always need name calling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I certainly don't fault him for changing his approach on national security issues,he was not aware of all the intell or aspects that factor in. He is inexperienced in this area and deferring to those that are.(a good thing) I hope he remains open to changing some of his other preconceived notions as well....though it is a bit late in some matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 As polarizing as Obama is... Yeah Obama is very polarizing to about 30% of the electorate. But the "it's okay when Obama does it" hypocrisy coming from people who blasted Bush for identical measures and actions is hilarious. Yeah people tend to react differently to an incompetent screwup wanting to do something vs a competent individual wanting to do something, even if they are trying to do similar things. That's not hippocricy but common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 So does "liberal excuse making" always come 5 seconds after the right wing whiner attacks?Do we always need name calling? :hysterical::hysterical: Thats rich, coming from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 Yeah people tend to react differently to an incompetent screwup wanting to do something vs a competent individual wanting to do something, even if they are trying to do similar things. That's not hippocricy but common sense. Exhibit A to said hypocrisy. Bush does it = incompetent screwup. Obama does exact same thing = competent individual and anybody with common sense can see it. Well done. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I wonder if Rove was the one who actually wrote the line Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place during the 2000 campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Exhibit A to said hypocrisy. Bush does it = incompetent screwup. Obama does exact same thing = competent individual with common sense. Well done. :laugh: More like: Bush = incompetent screwup. Obama = competent individual with common sense. THEREFORE Bush does it = probably going to screw it up. Obama does the same thing = probably going to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Wait a minute! Roved turned on Obama! Now I've seen everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Reality is full of liberal excuse making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 More like:Bush = incompetent screwup. Obama = competent individual with common sense. THEREFORE Bush does it = probably going to screw it up. Obama does the same thing = probably going to get it right. Wow. Blind to your own hypocrisy. ****, you're blind to the proper spelling of "hypocrisy." But you continue to unknowingly prove my point, so by all means, keep posting your staggering illogic. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Wow. Blind to your own hypocrisy. ****, you're blind to the proper spelling of "hypocrisy." But you continue to unknowingly prove my point, so by all means, keep posting your staggering illogic. :thumbsup: Different people implement same policies in different ways. I am not sure what you find so staggering about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Wait a minute! Roved turned on Obama! Now I've seen everything! Wait a minute! A politician said something to get elected, then didnt follow through? INCONCEIVABLE! This is unprecedented! Thank God we have guys like Karl Rove around to point these things out. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 Different people implement same policies in different ways. I am not sure what you find so staggering about that. Ahh, must be that pesky liberal nuance I sorely lack. So lemme get this straight: It's not the policies you object to, it's the person who implements the identical policies? I don't know whether to laugh or weep for the future. :ciao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 More like:Bush = incompetent screwup. Obama = competent individual with common sense. THEREFORE Bush does it = probably going to screw it up. Obama does the same thing = probably going to get it right. Even more shocking . . . . hokie4redskins creates a thread bashing Obama! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 There is so much hacking going on in this thread, it's like waking up to my cat having issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Ahh, must be that pesky liberal nuance I sorely lack. So lemme get this straight: It's not the policies you object to, it's the person who implements the identical policies? I don't know whether to laugh or weep for the future. :ciao: Maybe a hypothetical will help. Let's say you have an old house that's needs a fixup. You hire a guy that proceeds to royally %^#$ everything up. Then you fire that guy and get somebody else to do the job. The new guy proceeds with cleaning up the mess and working on the house. He seems to be doing alright. He proceeds to fix the roof as well. Then somebody comes and says: "you are such a hipocrite because that %$@#$ up wanted to fix the roof as well, but instead you fired him". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 :hysterical::hysterical: Thats rich, coming from you. Good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 There is so much hacking going on in this thread, it's like waking up to my cat having issues True. Not that I expected anyone to actually refute the article........cogently that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 True. Not that I expected anyone to actually refute the article........cogently that is. ES's resident biggest hack complaining about hackery. How ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 True. Not that I expected anyone to actually refute the article........cogently that is. Okay, well, then tell me if you think this statement is true: Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKSkinsFan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Regardless of who's making decisions, there will ALWAYS be someone criticizing them. The fact that people constantly point out that Bush was criticized more WHILE they're criticizing Obama only proves that you're even more of a complainer. Not only are you complaining about the current president, you're complaining about the people that complained about the previous president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 True. Not that I expected anyone to actually refute the article........cogently that is. I'm not sure what there is to refute. Obama's more hawkish than we thought. I agree that's a good thing. Domestically, did anyone NOT think he'd spend a lot? Who seriously finds his economics shocking? I don't feel like he 'misled' me into thinking he was a fiscal conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.