How we judge Presidents!

[Jarod]

no one would have known if it failed

it would have simply been another mission in pakistan...no one would know the target

I think we would have had to exploain why we invaded sovrin airspace without permission, and it would have had to be a very good reason.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

kerry was a navy fag too

I think you should write to the Seals and let them know your high opinion of the Navy. I hear rumors that team six is pretty good and taking care of problems.

 

[Topspin]

I think you should write to the Seals and let them know your high opinion of the Navy. I hear rumors that team six is pretty good and taking care of problems.

Next time I need advice from a douche riechwinger I'll call ya

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm talking about Taft, the president who passed through more progressive initiatives than either his predecessor or his successor did in twice the amount of time that he had to get stuff done in. That Taft. If you think WWII, the rise of Communism, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, and the modern War on Terror were worth the price of making the world safe for democracy in WWI, then I guess there's a lot to be said for isolationism.

I guess the proles deserve nutjobs like TR and ideologues like Wilson running our government, so that we can have the satisfaction of endless wars and spending.

You don't know what you're talking about. Taft tried to roll back almost all of TR's progressive reforms which led to the split in the Republican party and the formation of the Bull Moose party and the formation of the modern conservative Republican party of plutocrats.

You sir are an idealist with a lunatic fringe view of history. I don't know who's opinions on history are nuttier, you'rs or Dixies.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yeah...like that secret would have been kept.......no one would know the target?

The gullibility of some people is astounding.....

the number of people who knew he MIGHT be there was extremely small....they did not know if he was even there, it was a 60-80% chance. why you think it would have become known is beyond me...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I think we would have had to exploain why we invaded sovrin airspace without permission, and it would have had to be a very good reason.

we have done it before in pakistan...i guarantee that the admin would have only said a "high priority" target was there etc....they would never have to admit anything about osama

 

[Mott the Hoople]

He gets the huge balls card to play in the race.
Repukes can't play the soft on defense or the no foreign policy card.
Obama just bitch slapped those widestance faggots.

Yea he cetainly stole their thunder there but that won't guarentee Obama re-election. His re-election will depend largely on his domestic policy, the economy and the quality of his opponent. Republicans will have to resist the urge to nominate someone who is unelectable in a general election.

 

[Jarod]

The biggest factor in President Obama's reelection is who the Republicans nominate.

If the nominate a Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich type they are screwed.

If they nominate a Pawlente, Romney, Huntsman type, they have a chance.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

alone it certainly won't....but it has given obama a huge boost...one of his weaknesses was the claim he would be soft on terror (3 am phone etc...) and now, what is usually a big dem weakness, weak in military matters...its out the window....there are very few dems who could run on a platform of being tough on the war on terror...hillary could and did....now...one of her big talking points is dead and it was also a huge talking point for the right.

i predict obama wins hands down in 12....unless the economy collapses.

I agree, I think these circumstances and the lack of a viable and electable candidate by Republicans put 2012 in his favor. Who knows, a lot can happen between now and then.

To be honest, I don't think there's any thing Obama can do that will make him popular with older working class white men. I think the lack of a quality Republican opponent weighs more in his favor then anything else. If the Republicans nominate Romney, the angry old white guys will stay home and Obama wins with a majority. If they nominate someone to the extreme right, like Newt or Huckabee, Obama wins in a landslide. The only real hope I see for Republicans is for the economy to tank and I don't think even they want to see that happen.

 

[Rationalist]

Often, the correct decision will, due to chance or grace, simply go badly.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. You have no clue what the word 'grace' means, do you?

Seriously dude, think about it:

http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/index.cfm

 

[Jarod]

I have been predicting Obama's win in 2012 for a while.... This makes me more confident.

I will say however, that he may have a race if his opponant is a Romney like canidate, without the Romney health care baggage....

 

[Jarod]

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. You have no clue what the word 'grace' means, do you?

Seriously dude, think about it:

http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/index.cfm

I have an extra coma in after Often. Take that out and it makes sense.

 

[Rationalist]

I have an extra coma in after Often. Take that out and it makes sense.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

no one would have known if it failed

it would have simply been another mission in pakistan...no one would know the target

Yeah, that crashed US chopper in the yard wouldn't have tipped anybody off, would it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's not true. I'm reasonably sure that none of our Presidents since Carter are professionals at dessert war fare. Carter pulled the trigger on a decision to rescue the hostages. The mission failed and it cost him dearly politically. The success or failure of the mission had little, if anything, to do with Carter but with the military commanders who ran the operation. The same is true with Obama. He pulled the trigger on a very risky decision, just like Carter did, but his commanders pulled the mission off. Had this mission failed, Obama would have paid huge political price for it too.

I disagree on several points... Bill Clinton ordered the failed "Black Hawk Down" mission, and it didn't seem to harm him politically, he won re-election in spite of the failure. Then he went on to give us the PR nightmare of bombing an aspirin factory, trying to get OBL... and we forgave him for that too... There are all kinds of things which go in to judging a president, military action is just one. I don't believe the failed hostage rescue hurt Carter as bad as the economy and inflation, and of course, the hostage situation happening and dragging out as long as it did to begin with...the fact that he TRIED to rescue them, was probably favorable to him politically, to be honest.

This single incident, while it's huge, is not something that guarantees Obama reelection. It does, however, present an opportunity to turn his presidency around, he was really on a slow slide down, and this could really be a turning point for him, but other things are going to have to happen... I still don't see any indication he has a clue of how to fix the economy or the job situation, he is stuck on this Keynesian stupidity, and the policies he has pushed forward are not conducive with growing the economy or producing the jobs, and then there is the problem of the gas prices... if gas goes to $6 a gallon this summer, I don't think he can get reelected. And this is all ignoring the implications of things yet to come that we can't foresee really... another terror attack is likely, how will he handle that? Will his response be viewed favorably? Will the far-left or far-right try to blame it on us killing OBL? How will that play with the electorate? There is still WAY too much that can happen between now and Nov. 2012, to be betting your money that Obama will win reelection. That's my opinion.

 

[Crashk]

Kinda like the outpouring of defense for John Kerry for meeting with the Viet Cong and negoiating with the enemy in the middle of a hot war....while out troops were fighting and dieing....
some of you pinheads still, even today, only show little or mild misgivings about traitors like Jane Fonda and her ilk....

We know all about the double standards and selective memory of the lefties over the years.....

Here's what a traitor does to get elected...
A member of the Republican Party, William Casey directed the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan in 1980. During the campaign Casey was informed that Jimmy Carter was attempting to negotiate a deal with Iran to get the American hostages released. This was disastrous news for the Reagan campaign. If Carter got the hostages out before the election, the public perception of the man might change and he might be elected for a second-term.

According to Barbara Honegger, a researcher and policy analyst with the 1980 Reagan/Bush campaign, William Casey and other representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections. Reagan’s aides promised that they would get a better deal if they waited until Carter was defeated.

On 22nd September, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. The Iranian government was now in desperate need of spare parts and equipment for its armed forces. Jimmy Carter now proposed that the US would be willing to hand over supplies in return for the hostages.

Once again, the Central Intelligence Agency leaked this information to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. This attempted deal was also passed to the media. On 11th October, the Washington Post reported rumors of a “secret deal that would see the hostages released in exchange for the American made military spare parts Iran needs to continue its fight against Iraq”.

A couple of days before the election Barry Goldwater was reported as saying that he had information that “two air force C-5 transports were being loaded with spare parts for Iran”. This was not true. However, this publicity had made it impossible for Carter to do a deal. Ronald Reagan on the other hand, had promised the Iranian government that he would arrange for them to get all the arms they needed in exchange for the hostages..."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcaseyW.htm

the difference is Fonda wasn't running for president. If you don't believe this look at the exact time and date the hostages were released, and think about a presidential candidate negotiating with the enemy for political gain. Good news from the graveyard, Reagan and bin Laden are still dead.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yeah, that crashed US chopper in the yard wouldn't have tipped anybody off, would it?

so pakistan would just admit they knew all along osama lived there...and i never said they wouldn't know it was the US...read my post again, slowly

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

A poll from Monday night shows a bounce.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_05022011.html

of course there is a bounce....why don't you link us to how the sun will come up tomorrow

 

[Crashk]

of course there is a bounce....why don't you link us to how the sun will come up tomorrow

2 years of faux news, the junkie limbaugh, hannity and the rest discrediting and attacking Obama just went down the drain. LOL!

 

[Rationalist]

the difference is Fonda wasn't running for president

No, the difference is Jane Fonda is an actual traitor, whereas your nice little story amounts to nothing more than a wacky conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it -- one that only the paranoid, delusional followers of Lyndon LaRouche (such as yourself) are gullible enough to believe.