Yes, please. You are way too old to be an internet hipster. Let me offer you a better alternative.
"Say chap, I dare say you were soundly beaten by that drunk Irish fellow over yonder in your duel of wits. Perhaps it would be best if such a dispute were settled by some boxing, eh?"
I don't begrudge anyone for shifting their viewpoint. I'd much rather have a president who is willing to do the right thing, than a president that must adhere to a fixed platform. However, what do you make of Rove's point that this goes beyond a normal learning curve and is actually indicative of a dishonest campaign platform? I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Heck... I don't think there has ever been a presidential candidate that truly believed they could deliver everything they promised during the campaign.
Combat performance milestones for presently deployed troops
Terrorist detainee pictures
Iraq War timetables
All military matters that, frankly, Obama probably didn't have enough experience with during his (brief) time as a senator. If "flip-flops" were going to happen, they were certainly going to happen with foreign, namely military, affairs.
Combat performance milestones for presently deployed troops
Terrorist detainee pictures
Iraq War timetables
All military matters that, frankly, Obama probably didn't have enough experience with during his (brief) time as a senator. If "flip-flops" were going to happen, they were certainly going to happen with foreign, namely military, affairs.
EDIT:OL's are hard to style properly.
I think people forgot when Obama said what his position was he always said he would consult with the military and get their opinion before he blindly made decisions. He said things like "I would like us out of Iraq in 6 months, unless I am told by the military that this can not be done at the time or it would threaten everything done so far." Obama has mostly made positions that rely on certain factors being meant before he goes ahead with his plan, it's better then if we had a leader who would rather follow all his policies blindly without regard to strategy and timing.
Obama has mostly made positions that rely on certain factors being meant before he goes ahead with his plan, it's better then if we had a leader who would rather follow all his policies blindly without regard to strategy and timing.
We just had a leader that did exactly that - follow all his policies blindly without regard to strategy and timing. That's the style that, from the tone of his article, Rove thinks is most appropriate, i.e. once you state a position (or even if Rove and his friends think you've stated a position), you must never, ever change that position even by a micrometer, no matter what is actually happening in reality. We've seen how successful such a style can be.
It really brightens my day to read about Rove accusing someone of being dishonest. The irony is enough to fuel an entire episode of Seinfeld on its own.
Yeah, he didn't promise that we absolutely would be completely out of Iraq in 6 months. In fact, he rarely made any absolute promises. Most of what he said was in the line of "we will work towards X to the best of our ability."
He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama's policy is that those 50,000 will remain there until December 2011, at which point they will be withdrawn. The plan is a full, staggered withdrawal. Also, did Obama ever actually promise to have all troops out by March 2009? Anyone have any campaign trail quotes where he said that? I'm curious.
Certainly the "surge" was an example of Bush listening to military advisers. Nonetheless, I have no argument that he followed his moral compass first and foremost. I, however, suspect that Obama does likewise. (Isn't that why people voted for him?) We're still fleshing out where Obama will draw the boundaries.
By coincidence, a very liberal blog that I read posted this article today.
I see Obama moving to the center. Everyone knew it would happen. We can argue all day whether or not this is correct. At the end of the day, it's a matter of personal preference.
What concerns me is this naive desire to maintain that Obama is perfect. He's not, and that's okay. Nobody is perfect. It's likewise okay to criticize something that's wrong - even if you almost always agree with the person who did it. That's how the public can ensure that politicians are responsible for their promises. Certain things (like warrantless wiretapping) shouldn't be excused as part of a "learning" process.
Didn't Obama kind of run on being a centrist? I always thought he was kind of in the middle.
This is slightly tangential to those articles, but is anyone else pissed off at the public perception of the Guantanamo inmates being held in America? I mean..."I don't want those terrorists in MY neighborhood!"...seriously? Because a high-security prison is absolutely your neighborhood. And by the way, those murderers and serial rapists that they hold in there already? Totally less dangerous than a terrorist. Totally. No reason to be concerned about them at all, but god forbid you put a potential terrorist in there. His terrorist cooties might get in the air (they are airborne, you know!), and then your kids might breathe the air and die! Or worse...convert to Islam!
If WE are going to demand that these people be locked up, shouldn't WE be willing to put some resources into it? NIMBY people really grind my gears when they refuse to take responsibility for their own choices. If you support keeping these guys locked up, you should support holding them in prisons in America.
Didn't Obama kind of run on being a centrist? I always thought he was kind of in the middle.
He's been a centrist all along, he had run as a centrist and he still is one, it was the right that turned him into some sort of commie socialist and it was the left that got deluded into thinking he was the pinnacle of liberalism. People try and pigeon hole everything, (Your a conservative, I'm a liberal, whatever!) these people are just doing it for political gain. Face it guys, the people in the center left (and center right) voted him in because we wanted some judgement and brains in the white house, all those on both ends of the spectrum just gotta deal. (I got what I want so far :-p)
Obama is not perfect (could have picked a better treasury sec.) but he's a hell of a lot better then what we had in the last 8 years.
This is slightly tangential to those articles, but is anyone else pissed off at the public perception of the Guantanamo inmates being held in America? I mean..."I don't want those terrorists in MY neighborhood!"...seriously? Because a high-security prison is absolutely your neighborhood. And by the way, those murderers and serial rapists that they hold in there already? Totally less dangerous than a terrorist. Totally. No reason to be concerned about them at all, but god forbid you put a potential terrorist in there. His terrorist cooties might get in the air (they are airborne, you know!), and then your kids might breathe the air and die! Or worse...convert to Islam!
There are some valid concerns about Gitmo prisoners converting other inmates to fanatic and "terrorist" ideals. Prisons are notorious for their racial/religious gangs that foster fanaticism and violence. Adding a genuine terrorist in with the general population is an obvious issue. However, why can't the Gitmo prisoners be kept separate from the general population until they are properly tried and even afterward if they are sentenced to more time in U.S. prisons?
This is slightly tangential to those articles, but is anyone else pissed off at the public perception of the Guantanamo inmates being held in America? I mean..."I don't want those terrorists in MY neighborhood!"...seriously? Because a high-security prison is absolutely your neighborhood. And by the way, those murderers and serial rapists that they hold in there already? Totally less dangerous than a terrorist. Totally. No reason to be concerned about them at all, but god forbid you put a potential terrorist in there. His terrorist cooties might get in the air (they are airborne, you know!), and then your kids might breathe the air and die! Or worse...convert to Islam!
There are some valid concerns about Gitmo prisoners converting other inmates to fanatic and "terrorist" ideals. Prisons are notorious for their racial/religious gangs that foster fanaticism and violence. Adding a genuine terrorist in with the general population is an obvious issue. However, why can't the Gitmo prisoners be kept separate from the general population until they are properly tried and even afterward if they are sentenced to more time in U.S. prisons?
Uhhh, yeah...there IS such a thing as solitary confinement, and to a lesser degree, separate facilities. That excuse is a cop-out.
Plus, it's hypocritical. The people we already have in prison are just as bad and are already sharing/planning together. People learn new tricks while they're in prison. If this is really a concern, then they should overhaul the entire system, not just apply it to the inmates from Gitmo.
Basically, anything they use as an excuse for why we can't adequately contain the Gitmo prisoners is also a reason we can't adequately contain ANYONE. It's similar to Michael Steele saying we shouldn't allow gay marriage because it will cost employers money to cover the spouses under company-provided health insurance.
Basically, anything they use as an excuse for why we can't adequately contain the Gitmo prisoners is also a reason we can't adequately contain ANYONE.
True. We're holding Zacarias Moussaoui, who was supposedly a big terrorist. We're holding Ramzi Yousef. We held Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. It's hard to imagine why the Gitmo people would be worse than any of those guys.
Terrorists that are/were in U.S. Prisons: Theodore Kaczynski Clayton Waagner Eric Rudolph Robert Goldstein William Krar and Judith Bruey George Metesky David Berkovitz Jeffrey Dahmer Timothy McVeigh
Can we really classify him as a "terrorist?" I mean, I guess his purpose was to inspire fear and terror, but if we go that broadly, Charles Manson would be considered a terrorist too. So would pretty much any serial killer and/or mass murderer.
I think he qualifies. He terrorized and entire city for months. People were literally "terrified". From Wikipedia:
David Richard Berkowitz (born June 1, 1953), also known as Son of Sam and the .44 Caliber Killer, is an American serial killer and arsonist whose crimes had terrorized New York City for a year.
I think he qualifies. He terrorized and entire city for months. People were literally "terrified".
From Wikipedia on terrorism:
Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence intended to intimidate or cause terror for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies."
So I don't think serial killers generally qualify, no matter how terrifying they are.
Comments
"Say chap, I dare say you were soundly beaten by that drunk Irish fellow over yonder in your duel of wits. Perhaps it would be best if such a dispute were settled by some boxing, eh?"
I don't begrudge anyone for shifting their viewpoint. I'd much rather have a president who is willing to do the right thing, than a president that must adhere to a fixed platform. However, what do you make of Rove's point that this goes beyond a normal learning curve and is actually indicative of a dishonest campaign platform? I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Heck... I don't think there has ever been a presidential candidate that truly believed they could deliver everything they promised during the campaign.
- Military tribunals
- Combat performance milestones for presently deployed troops
- Terrorist detainee pictures
- Iraq War timetables
All military matters that, frankly, Obama probably didn't have enough experience with during his (brief) time as a senator. If "flip-flops" were going to happen, they were certainly going to happen with foreign, namely military, affairs.EDIT: OL's are hard to style properly.
It really brightens my day to read about Rove accusing someone of being dishonest. The irony is enough to fuel an entire episode of Seinfeld on its own.
By coincidence, a very liberal blog that I read posted this article today.
I see Obama moving to the center. Everyone knew it would happen. We can argue all day whether or not this is correct. At the end of the day, it's a matter of personal preference.
What concerns me is this naive desire to maintain that Obama is perfect. He's not, and that's okay. Nobody is perfect. It's likewise okay to criticize something that's wrong - even if you almost always agree with the person who did it. That's how the public can ensure that politicians are responsible for their promises. Certain things (like warrantless wiretapping) shouldn't be excused as part of a "learning" process.
This is slightly tangential to those articles, but is anyone else pissed off at the public perception of the Guantanamo inmates being held in America? I mean..."I don't want those terrorists in MY neighborhood!"...seriously? Because a high-security prison is absolutely your neighborhood. And by the way, those murderers and serial rapists that they hold in there already? Totally less dangerous than a terrorist. Totally. No reason to be concerned about them at all, but god forbid you put a potential terrorist in there. His terrorist cooties might get in the air (they are airborne, you know!), and then your kids might breathe the air and die! Or worse...convert to Islam!
If WE are going to demand that these people be locked up, shouldn't WE be willing to put some resources into it? NIMBY people really grind my gears when they refuse to take responsibility for their own choices. If you support keeping these guys locked up, you should support holding them in prisons in America.
Obama is not perfect (could have picked a better treasury sec.) but he's a hell of a lot better then what we had in the last 8 years.
Plus, it's hypocritical. The people we already have in prison are just as bad and are already sharing/planning together. People learn new tricks while they're in prison. If this is really a concern, then they should overhaul the entire system, not just apply it to the inmates from Gitmo.
Basically, anything they use as an excuse for why we can't adequately contain the Gitmo prisoners is also a reason we can't adequately contain ANYONE. It's similar to Michael Steele saying we shouldn't allow gay marriage because it will cost employers money to cover the spouses under company-provided health insurance.
Theodore Kaczynski
Clayton Waagner
Eric Rudolph
Robert Goldstein
William Krar and Judith Bruey
George Metesky
David Berkovitz
Jeffrey Dahmer
Timothy McVeigh
From Wikipedia: