Official GOP 2012 Nomination Thread

kev9100 · 18-05-2011 09:30PM

Jackalope wrote: »

Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation.

So many options, so little time.

Eh what? It was a Republican President that failed to stop 9/11. It was a Democratic President that killed the guy who did 9/11.

coonecb1 · 18-05-2011 11:18PM

Jackalope wrote: »

Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation.

So many options, so little time.

Yeah, I hate the way Osama bin Laden got away scot-free for that whole 9/11 thing

Jackalope · 19-05-2011 02:16AM

Not a lot of point in trying to discuss it if all I'm going to get is partisan sound bytes.

I already know you don't like Bush. That pony has already ridden to the sunset.

Funglegunk · 19-05-2011 04:52AM

Jackalope wrote: »

Not a lot of point in trying to discuss it if all I'm going to get is partisan sound bytes.

I already know you don't like Bush. That pony has already ridden to the sunset.

You don't think "Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation." is a partisan soundbyte?

Jackalope · 19-05-2011 10:16AM

Funglegunk wrote: »

You don't think "Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation." is a partisan soundbyte?

I think it was a response to "Although if he did miraculously become president he could continue in the family tradition and invade/start a war with Iraq"

I'd much rather talk about his realistic political chances than listen to a re-hash of eight years of Democratic shots at his brother.

Let me be clear, I didn't vote for Bush. It would be doubtful if I'd vote for his brother. That said, I did not disagree with the need to invade Iraq (although I did have a lot of criticism for the military strategy used). Nor do I give President Obama any particular credit for getting Osama bin Laden. The military got the intelligence, found him and executed him. I have great admiration for the SEALS who carried out the mission. As for Mr. Obama's role, I can only ask what anyone thinks any President would've done had they been presented with bin Laden in their lap? Can anyone envision a President saying "No" to this operation?

I don't criticize Mr. Obama for this operation. I simply give him the credit he is due. He was in the right place at the right time.

Funglegunk · 19-05-2011 01:44PM

Jackalope wrote: »

As for Mr. Obama's role, I can only ask what anyone thinks any President would've done had they been presented with bin Laden in their lap? Can anyone envision a President saying "No" to this operation?

I don't criticize Mr. Obama for this operation. I simply give him the credit he is due. He was in the right place at the right time.

I doubt that you would be saying the same thing if a Republican was in office.

It was morbidly fascinating to watch the American right squirming to try and attribute this to anyone but Obama, (even citing Bush, the man who disbanded the CIA Bin Laden unit in 2005!), and imply that this 'landed in Obama's lap' as you say. Look at the paragraph below:

Bush was the one who, soon after taking office, massively ramped up CIA activity in Pakistan. Bush was the one who explicitly said during his campaign that he intended to capture or kill Bin Laden if he was found to be hiding in Pakistan. Bush had significant input and was kept closely in the loop in formulating a plan once the compound was discovered in August. It was Bush who eventually authorised the operation once it was determined there was enough intelligence to act.

Sounds great for Bush right?! What a ledge. Now switch the word Obama with the word Bush.

Jackalope wrote: »

Can anyone envision a President saying "No" to this operation?

Yes. Watch the 2008 presidential debates, as this is exactly what McCain said he would not do.

Jackalope · 21-05-2011 08:49AM

Funglegunk wrote: »

I doubt that you would be saying the same thing if a Republican was in office.

And you would be wrong. As I stated earlier, I am not a Republican either. I have voted for the Libertarian candidate for the last four elections. I was never a fan of George Bush either. I did however, agree with his foreign policies. It was his domestic agenda that I disagreed with.

Funglegunk wrote: »

It was morbidly fascinating to watch the American right squirming to try and attribute this to anyone but Obama, (even citing Bush, the man who disbanded the CIA Bin Laden unit in 2005!), and imply that this 'landed in Obama's lap' as you say. Look at the paragraph below:

Bush was the one who, soon after taking office, massively ramped up CIA activity in Pakistan. Bush was the one who explicitly said during his campaign that he intended to capture or kill Bin Laden if he was found to be hiding in Pakistan. Bush had significant input and was kept closely in the loop in formulating a plan once the compound was discovered in August. It was Bush who eventually authorised the operation once it was determined there was enough intelligence to act.

Sounds great for Bush right?! What a ledge. Now switch the word Obama with the word Bush.

You can switch it with George Washington if you like, but it still doesn't matter. I really get tired of this continual idea that if you criticize a Democrat, it's only because you're a Republican.

No person sitting in the President's chair would've failed to authorize this operation. It was the first real chance to get bin Laden in eight years.

As always, I give the credit to the SEALS and to the intelligence community for this breakthrough. They're the ones who did the work and took the risks.

IMO, you'd have a much better case to praise Obama with the Somali pirate incident than the bin Laden execution. That took a great deal more leadership.

Memnoch · 21-05-2011 10:38AM

You fail to acknowledge that the US's activity in Pakistan increased greatly as a result of Obama's directive. Including missile strikes and intel gathering. This was a broad strategic decision, unpopular to many on the left that ultimately led to the discovery of Bin Laden.

As has been already pointed out, McCain already said in 2008 that he wouldn't go into Pakistan, so for you to say any president would have made that decision is nonsense.

I don't agree with many of Obama's policies. I'm not really in agreement on the execution of Bin Laden either (I believe he should have been captured and tried), but give credit where it's due. Your comments on Obama seem highly partisan and unfair.

Exile 1798 · 21-05-2011 12:30PM

Jackalope wrote: »

I think it was a response to "Although if he did miraculously become president he could continue in the family tradition and invade/start a war with Iraq"

I'd much rather talk about his realistic political chances than listen to a re-hash of eight years of Democratic shots at his brother.

Let me be clear, I didn't vote for Bush. It would be doubtful if I'd vote for his brother. That said, I did not disagree with the need to invade Iraq (although I did have a lot of criticism for the military strategy used). Nor do I give President Obama any particular credit for getting Osama bin Laden. The military got the intelligence, found him and executed him. I have great admiration for the SEALS who carried out the mission. As for Mr. Obama's role, I can only ask what anyone thinks any President would've done had they been presented with bin Laden in their lap? Can anyone envision a President saying "No" to this operation?

I don't criticize Mr. Obama for this operation. I simply give him the credit he is due. He was in the right place at the right time.

It's so nice of you to not criticise the President for this wildly successful operation. How magnanimous of you.:rolleyes:

You say the military got the evidence, found him and executed him. This glibly overlooks the fact that the CIA had no confirmation that it was Bin Laden in the compound and estimated the likelihood at a mere 60%. You also ignore the fact that helicopters and men were sent in to allow for confirmation of Osama's death and evidence gathering as opposed to the less politically risky option of dropping a bomb. You further disregard the fact the Obama made getting Bin Laden a priority from the beginning of his administration, and indeed before that it was a campaign pledge.

But most egregious of all is the way you attempt the obscure in the basic truth that while you claim President Obama deserves no credit for the successful killing of Bin Laden - had anything gone wrong, had soldiers died or been captured, had Bin Laden not been there, had the helicopters been shot down by Pakistan - you would be giving President Obama 100% of the blame. That's the truth, and any discerning observer knows it.

cheesehead · 22-05-2011 01:23PM

Daniels not running. Do the Republicans start a "draft Christie" campaign?

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110522/NEWS05/110521011/Official-statement-from-Gov-Mitch-Daniels-?odyssey=nav|head

silja · 23-05-2011 01:25PM

What are everyone's thoughts on Herman Cain? I like his ideas for policies, the "low hanging fruit" wording makes sense, but they are just that- ideas. I don't think he has enough political experience to be President just yet, and may be a bit too honest about the country needing to work hard to get back to strength. Normally, I'd also say he won't get the nomination but with the standard GOP candidates not running, he might just get it.

Amerika · 23-05-2011 09:25PM

silja wrote: »

What are everyone's thoughts on Herman Cain? I like his ideas for policies, the "low hanging fruit" wording makes sense, but they are just that- ideas. I don't think he has enough political experience to be President just yet, and may be a bit too honest about the country needing to work hard to get back to strength. Normally, I'd also say he won't get the nomination but with the standard GOP candidates not running, he might just get it.

No impact on the race!

He’s a good fiscal conservative, but doesn’t have a clue on foreign affairs or policy. Last I heard he had a $13 (thats thirteen dollars) balance in his Political PAC. The little support he is currently getting is from conservatives who are sending a message that they won’t support a RINO this time around. Still though... it’s good entertainment.

Official GOP 2012 Nomination Thread

Comments