The Oscar Goes to . . .

The Oscar Goes to . . .

Bob
Bob

January 4th, 2010, 2:50 pm #1

I'm not blaming everything on Obama, just thought this is amusing . . . . .


DON'T BOTHER WATCHING THE NEXT OSCARS, THE CHOSEN ONE HAS ALREADY WON IT FOR BEST ACTOR...





Q: What's the real problem with Barack Obama jokes?
A: His followers don't think they're funny and the rest of us don't think they're jokes.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 4th, 2010, 4:47 pm #2

One must remember that this financial crash began in the Bush administration- and was largely a result of deregulation of the banking and financial industry that has occurred under Republican administrations. Obama was in a no-win situation because no matter what he did things would be bad- and had he done nothing- you can be sure Republicans would be pounding him about that!

And as bad as things are now- the bail-outs have kept us from sinking into a even worse 1930s style depression which we were surely heading for. So before Republicans bash Obama they should remember their part in bringing this situation about- including the two-TRILLION dollars we have poured down a rat-hole in Iraq on a totally unnecessary war which has been a total waste.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

January 5th, 2010, 3:46 am #3

The first thing I wrote was that I didn't really blame the mess on Obama. But, Nat, again . . I think you too-quickly discount the role of the Dems is deregulation . . at least of mortgage lending rules, which helped greatly in bringing about the sub-prime mortgage mess. As for the Iraq war . . . didn't Congress have to appropriate funds for the war? And, if you looking at the voting on war funding, a lot of Dems voted in favor of that also. That is one thing we can hold Obama faultless on, as he did vote against such funding.

But, as I have noted before, Obama isn't the only one who is faulted no matter what he does (at least in some quarters). Had U.S. not taken action against Saddam Hussein when intelligence, British as well as American, indicated he had WMD, and if an attack ensued in U.S. or Western Europe, it would have all been Bush's and America's fault. Remember that Hussein was reportedly interfering with and steering the inspections by UN inspectors who were trying to ascertain if he was abiding by the proscriptions against WMD. If he wanted the West to be reassured, why did he interfere with this process? To the contrary, he seemed to want Western leaders to think he had WMD's. So, in part, he brought on the invasion, perhaps wanting to start Jihad.

The war has been expensive, but what started our collapse was the "global economy", agreements such as NAFTA, and having American manufacturing relocate to other countries. Parties as diverse as Rush Limbaugh to Bill Clinton promoted this debacle, which resulted in the outsourcing of many American jobs, great increases in our national debt to foreign countries, the American economy being dependent upon constant purchases by Americans (since few foreigners were buying anything Americans still made), Americans over-using credit and withdrawing equity from their homes. If "blame" is important we can blame politicians of every stripe. But, blame does not get us out of this hellish mess.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 5th, 2010, 6:25 am #4

Given the mood of the country after 9/11 Democrats could scarcely have refuse a request from the president telling us how much peril we were in. Now we know it was a snow job. The CIA doubted the WMD evidence and furthermore, we had considerable control of Iraq at that time due to the UN sanctions- we controlled Iraq's boarders and air space and UN inspectors were there in Iraq checking for WMD (and finding none) so I think this could have been handled in a much more peaceful way but Bush and Cheney were so gun-ho for war nothing would stop them.

In any case, I think the Iraq war is the worse blunder this country has ever made. It has cost us dearly in dollars and lives and tarnished our image around the world- and rather than make us safer it has only encouraged even more Islamic hatred towards us.

As for the Democrat's part in the economic problems- yes- their desire for more lenient mortgage rules played a part- but at least their intention was good- to help people of modest means buy a home- which is more noble than helping rich businessmen get even richer as so much of the Republicans deregulation did.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

January 5th, 2010, 6:35 pm #5

that Nat didn't take the opportunity to re-interpret events so as to make them more palatable to him. The President wanted to go to war . . so how could the Dems buck him? Easy: It seems to me that the WHOLE purpose of American political parties is to try to thwart the will of opposing parties (which is what I think most of the Reublican opposition to health care reform has been about . . but I digress). The Dems and Repubs have been fighting each other since before I was born, and I don't see why or how Democrats couldn't buck President Bush on anything if they were determined to do it. Maybe the Dems also feared the intelligence might be correct? Maybe they saw how Saddam's stoolies paraded the inspectors through this door and out the next rather than allowing inspectors to look where they wished and needed to look.

As for the motives behind loosening of home lending restrictions: This was because the Dems REALLY care about the little guy? How do you CARE about someone (let alone the country) by helping them to buy a house they cannot afford, and then be foreclosed upon? And, to do this in large numbers, all over the country? Is this CARING? Sounds to me like a recipe for the disaster that ensued . . that many predicted was coming. Then, as Dems, you could blame the collapse upon Bush, the Republicans, the mean-spirited Conservatives in the hip pocket of the wealthy corporate execs. Sounds like Democrats.

If blame is important (I don't think it is), I blame BOTH parties equally for this mess. To me, to argue otherwise is to be stuck in the mindset that one party are the "good guys" and the other party the "bad guys". They are ALL crooks!
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 6th, 2010, 3:04 am #6

Bob, you are forgetting the mood of the country just after 9/11- everyone was feeling super patriotic- flying flags and gung-oh for revenge. Everyone- Democrats and Republicans alike was saying this is no time for partisanship- we must be united as Americans- just as happened after Peril Harbor- when many isolationists gave total support to Roosevelt. To have opposed any president doing what he says is necessary to defend the country would be seen as treasonous. There were many Democrats (and Republicans) who thought the Iraq invasion was a bad idea- but they knew it would be political suicide to oppose the president at a time of war- especially if there was another attack- which everyone was expecting.

There have been several former CIA agents who have written books telling about how the agency was coerced by the Bush administration to cherry-pick only information supporting the idea Saddam had WMD. As it turned out- all this "intelligence" about WMD had come from one guy- a Saddam dissident who wanted to see Saddam overthrown- and went around telling various governments Saddam had WMD in hopes of getting rid of him.

The irony is that Iraq was just a foolish diversion from our real enemy- Islamic terrorists- who just got stronger as we pull our troops out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. Obama is now having to finish the war in Afghanistan that Bush abandoned. Furthermore, Iraq's overthrow has allowed Iran to take over dominance in the region- which is now our big problem. History will look back and see the Iraq war as a colossal mistake in so many ways.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

January 6th, 2010, 6:53 pm #7

If politicians are not strong enough to do their own research (using their staff) before deciding how to vote, what good are they? They were afraid to buck the trend? They were/are, in other words, sheep? Nice to know we have true leadership, huh?

You say American intelligence was cherry-picked to support Bush's evil plans. What about British intelligence? Were they cherry-picked as well? Was that cherry-picking of British intelligence done by the Bush Administration or by the evil Tony Blair and his henchmen?

As for your claim that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein allowed for a power-grab by Iran's leaders . . . may I suggest an alternative scenario? You know that many Iranians have been demonstrating against last year's election and in favor of the opposition leader. Might the fall of Saddam given Iranians hope that they too could shed the dictator and seek democracy for themselves? If this is possible, then it could lend credence to the "New American Century" folks, who think many of these Arab dictatorships could fall like dominos once some start to fall. Not that this was Bush's intent, but maybe it is an alternate explanation of the events.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 6th, 2010, 10:25 pm #8

1. Do politicians consider what the public will think when making decisions?
. . . Of course they do!- They know if they buck popular sentiment they will be out of a job in the next election.

2. British intelligence had the same phony reports from the same guy. The fact that every one is drinking the same bad tea doesn't make it good tea.

3. Had it not been for Bush's intervention the CIA expected Saddam would have been soon overthrown anyway. He was widely hated and in constant fear of a revolt- even from his own military. This would have been an even better example for the Iranian people to follow.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

January 7th, 2010, 1:57 pm #9

Nat, someone observed many years ago that people tend to seek out information and opinions that coincide with their own -- that serve to validate what they already believe. This is why Conservatives are the ones to listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, while Liberals listen to NPR radio and watch Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. I think that is what is occurring in our debate: You and I both selectively attend to information and opinions that validate what we prefer to believe, and then we fill-in with our own interpretations whatever the "facts" don't support. I will admit doing this . . will you?

As for your rebuttals:

1. Do politicians consider what the public will think when making decisions?
. . . Of course they do!- They know if they buck popular sentiment they will be out of a job in the next election.

Oh, really? Why does it seem to me that an aweful lot of pols vote in ways not in accordance with their electorate's wishes? Immigration, for example: The great majority of people in Congress are weak on opposing illegal immigration and enforcing our existing laws in that regard. Yet, when polled, a sizeable majority of Americans want illegal immigration stopped and only those here legally to remain. As I've said, the pols have their own agenda, and that includes trying to promote disagreements among citizens even on those things which there is generally great agreement.

2. British intelligence had the same phony reports from the same guy. The fact that every one is drinking the same bad tea doesn't make it good tea.

And, if Iraq was "Daddy's war" for Bush, or a US lust for Iraqi oil, why did the British leadership feel the need to pursue a "war they knew was unwise and unnecessary"? Where was their dog in that fight?

3. Had it not been for Bush's intervention the CIA expected Saddam would have been soon overthrown anyway. He was widely hated and in constant fear of a revolt- even from his own military. This would have been an even better example for the Iranian people to follow.

This is wild speculation. Saddam was ruthless toward all opposition (remember the Kurds?) The ruling minority Sunnis had to stick together to keep control over the larger Shiite population, so any disagreements at the top would, in my view, have been put on the back-burner to the over-riding concern with maintaining power. Remember "Desert Storm"? There were factions within Iraq back in the early '90's that did rise up against Saddam then, but they were quickly defeated and executed due to the lack of U.S. military involvement (Bush Sr's decision not to be content to have liberated Kuwait and to not proceed to taking Iraq -- the latter being General Scwartzkoft's stated preference). The same would have happened now -- had the U.S. not invaded Iraq, Saddam would have maintained his grip on power. Anyone who dared oppose him would be killed. So, I disagree with your take on this.
Reply
Share

Bob
Bob

January 7th, 2010, 2:00 pm #10

that Bush was content on liberating Kuwait (I think you know what I meant, but just in case )
Reply
Share