With the past 7 years of nothing getting done in Congress, we cannot wait for
Congress to act, we need to enact a series of executive orders to accomplish
legislative goals. The poor and middleclass will just have to get things done
with the use of executive orders. This is 2012, our Constitution was written in
the 1700's, today there use to be three branches of government, now there's 2,
the White House and US Senate. The legislative power rests with Congress in
their do nothing chairs. The President's legislative overreach is not a
problem. It's a cure. Obama's "We Can't Wait" is a good thing.
The Grand Old Party has been going against the Constitution since the
ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics started with Reagan, with deregulated for
kickbacks for the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of
Dreams," (of corn and sugar cane), with more corruption, and "crony
capitalism." I guess us consumers like being forced to use this garbage
ethanol fuel and live with all the damage and problems. It's time to tax the 1
percent and shut down all off shore tax safe-havens. Let Bush Celebrate Saddam
Capture. The GOP are done in 2012.
@Earl 2:43: Thank you for telling it exactly as it is. You put the
word "persuaded" in quotes, hopefully as a euphemism for
"coerced". I am convinced this is the case, opting not to take the
cynical view that what he is doing is what he intended all along.This intelligent, well-spoken, apparently sincere but inexperienced senator
ascended the presidency at a time when our nation was war-torn, financially
bankrupt and morally exhausted. A public majority weary of the "imperial
Presidency" eagerly anticipated the promised changes. Yet Obama either did
nothing (or worse, a 180 opposite) to fulfill those promises or take advantage
of the fertile ground that all the support and enthusiasm afforded him. Why?Obama discovered quickly that he could change nothing, was irrelevant,
and had better do as he was told. The Fed and central banks have their
entrenched economic agenda. The military/security lobby has war and a domestic
police state (FISA, Patriot Act, TSA) on its agenda. The military/industrial
complex has its war-for-profit agenda. No mere president can fly in the face of
such power.Obama could have tried harder. But all he'd have gained
would have been my respect.
To "Pagan" so what you are saying, since you never actually state your
position, and it has to be inferred from soundbites that you use to write, is
that you believe that Obama, who did nothing more than sit in the Oval office at
the right time.Tell us, why should Obama get all the credit for the
things that Bush set in action. Both MediaMatters and CBS news both agree on
this issue?How is withdrawing troops from combat "ending the
war"? You could say the the war was ended in 2003 when Saddam was
captured.Who supplied the faulty intelligence to Bush? Was that his
fault for believing faulty intelligence collected by Clinton? What about the
info that Clinton left that stated that Iraq was a threat that should be taken
'Nah, Mr. Obama seems to enjoy blowing up people as much as any of the prior
White House occupants.' - Earl | 2:43 p.m. Feb. 10, 2012 But..you
can't PROVIDE that number and, if you were against the loss of human life... where were you when Bush invaded..two countries?? Iraq and
Afghanistan. Oh, that's right: 'See "Memo to media:
Bush set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq" - RedShirt | 3:08 p.m. Feb.
10, 2012 George W. Bush 'ended' the war in Iraq...
almost 2 YEARS after he left office. (sarcasm) But the REASON for
the war... wasn't George Bush's 'fault', either:
**'George W Bush says Iraq intelligence FAILURE is his biggest regret' - By Alex
Spillius - 12/01/08 - The UK telegraph All I see, are people not
taking the repsonsibilty for their ACTIONS... **'GOP chairman:
Afghan 'war of Obama's choosing' - By Philip Elliott - AP - Published by DSNews
- 07/02/10 Often: "On my orders, the United States
military has begun strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and
military installations of the Taleban regime in Afghanistan." -
GEORGE W. BUSH 10/07/2001 Good day.
To "Pagan" here is some great irony about your statement about Obama's
great troop withdrawl from Iraq. You are wrong, and MediaMatters is the website
that proves it.See "Memo to media: Bush set a timetable for
withdrawal from Iraq" at Mediamatters on June 27, 2010. Seems lime
MediaMatters found out that " In fact, Bush signed off on a specific
timeline of withdrawal from Iraq, and Obama's timeline has been endorsed by Gen.
David Petraeus, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates." For
some more fun, read "GOP: Thank Bush, Not Obama, for End of Iraq Combat
Mission" at CBS News from Aug 31, 2010.So far, we have Obama
complying with Bush policy, so he hasn't done anything independantly so far.You said that "Obama marks Iraq wars end with salute to
troops", but how is that much different than the March 2, 2003 speech by
Bush that CNN reported on in "Bush: Iraq is one victory in war on
terror"?From Fox News on December 14, 2003 we read "Bush
Celebrates Saddam Capture" where Bush is quoted as saying that Saddam now
faces the "justice he denied to millions".You complain
about the GOP saying no to everything, when the Democrats are equally guilty, if
not more. See the Washington Post article "Democratic-controlled Senate
declines to block Obama debt request" from Jan 26, 2012. You can also read
the Weekly Standard from Oct 11, 2011, "Senate Democrats Block Obama Jobs
Bill". Was it the GOP's fault that the Democrats blocked Obama's
requests?As for his popularity, lets look closer. From the
Washington Post Jan 30, 2012 "Obama: The most polarizing president.
Ever." I don't know about you, but I don't think it is good for a
President to polarize the nation.
@ Pagan: your loyalty to Mr. Obama seems to be blinding you to reality. Mr.
Obama has been "persuaded" to continue many of Bush's policies and is
in fact doubling down on some of them. He has embraced the concept of bailouts
to the banksters and put it on steroids. He seems to be doing his part (and
more) in building up the NWO and making the US another European nation (but the
leading one, of course). He is every bit as committed to the superiority of
Israel over any other middle eastern nation, and the former "peace
candidate" seems to relish the idea of commander-in-chief of an
imperialistic US as far as military power is concerned (spending on the military
continues to grow disproportionately compared to other departments). The fact
that combat forces in Iraq have pulled out means nothing when you look at how
many contract mercenaries are on the payroll of the DoD. And did I mention drone
killings? Nah, Mr. Obama seems to enjoy blowing up people as much as any of the
prior White House occupants.
'Support for Obama has shriveled with his miserable record of promising change
but giving us a third Bush term.' - CLM | 11:40 a.m. Feb. 10, 2012
Promise:*'Obama to pull combat troops from Iraq by August 2010' - CNN -
02/26/09Delivery:*'Last U.S. combat brigade leaves Iraq' - By
Rebecca Santana - AP - Published by DSNews - 08/19/10 **'Obama marks
Iraq wars end with salute to troops' - by Erica Werner - AP - Published by
DSNews - 12/14/11 **'Osama bin Laden Killed: 'Justice Is Done,'
President Says' - By DEAN SCHABNER - ABC News - 05/01/2011 Was ANY
of that done... during Bush's two terms? No. Also: **'Obama to promote ways for veterans to find work' -
By Ken Thomas - AP - Published by DSNews - 11/07/11 **US nets 200k
more jobs in December, a better-than-expected performance By Jeff Thredgold
Deseret News 01/13/12 Obama's approval rating is around the 50%
range. The Republcian controled house, who votes 'no' on
everything... is 10%. Want Obama to end Bush and
Republican polices? Support him, in doing so. Don't
obstruct him FROM, doing so.
I have a lot of respect for George Will, and agree with the majority of his
columns, including much of this one. But in some cases I think he's jumping to
wrong conclusions. For example, he seems to imply that we shouldn't have
troops in Germany, because it's a peaceful country. But the main purpose of
those troops isn't to protect or defend against Germany -- it's to give us a
vital hub of military presence to prevent or deal with potential threats in the
region -- the Middle East, Russia, etc.The thing that really
undermines this column, though, is that in the final paragraph, as evidence to
support his claims, Will uses a statement from Obama himself ("Obama says
that ..."). That's laughable, since Obama lies regularly and blatantly,
to hide the truth and to convince people that he supports things that he really
doesn't. It reminds me of the story of the reporter who asked then-President
Clinton, "How do we know this is really going to happen?", and
Clinton said, "You have my word on it." The reporter followed up,
I think that this was mislabled. The issue is foreign wars and international
policy. The fact is the GOP is still promoting ideas to secure the US borders.
The GOP wants to put up fences and increase border security, while the Democrats
are destroying what little border security we have left.
I mostly (and often unhappily) agree with Mr. Will's assessments of the
president and his actions. However, I believe Mr. Obama is disingenuous when he
talks about avoiding war with Iran. (Unless he means before the election...)Support for Obama has shriveled with his miserable record of promising
change but giving us a third Bush term. His words about avoiding war are a hook
to bring supporters back to the fold as well as disarm domestic opponents of US
war plans. Unfortunately, indications from Washington point to
readiness for war with Iran.--Economic sanctions are universally
recognized as a prelude to war.--Both Israel and the US have
indicated that "all options are on the table" unless Iran bows to
their demands.--The 60 year US commitment to Israel's security. If
Iran retaliates to a first strike by the US would assuredly come to Israel's
defense.--Reports of a steady flow of many thousands of US troops to
two strategic islands within reach of Iran.--The Saudis have been
doing intense preparation for war. American, British and French fighter-bombers
have been landing at Saudi airbases to safeguard Riyadh.Conclusion:
A possible false flag operation to start yet another war.
@Pagan | 10:32 a.m. Feb. 10, 2012 You do not contest my list of a
few similarities between President Obama and many in the Republican party. I'm
no fan of Rush Limbaugh, and disagree with him on "hoping for the
failure" of the President so I don't think that is relevant to our
particular discussion. I've admitted that Republicans have often disappointed
me. In fact, I've felt down right betrayed sometimes. If you can admit that
President Obama has disappointed you on a few things, and I point out what I
believe to be the errors of my fellow Republicans, then I think we've made a
good step in putting our country before our party.
I am indebted to Mr Will at least for the current numbers of US troops:
570.000!Also for the factoid, an important one if true, that Romney wants
to increase this to 670,000, and that the Defense Secretary at least talks of
reducing it to 490,000.Since I trust neither Romney, the current
administration, or the "god of forces" I am left to bemoan the fact
that the nation is mad with "imperial" pride with feet swift to run
into the shedding of blood.Listen attentively to Ronald Earnest
Paul's alternatives and consider what is being done now. The President of the
United States is not the President of the Middle East and all the world besides.
Let Congress and the Chief Executive (and Supreme Court) concentrate on
cleansing the innner vessel of government, and may the people do the same.Mr Will's trumpet unfortunately makes an uncertain sound and we are left
to wonder if he is serious about containing the military industrial complex,
since he says, of Romney's proposals of increasing troop levels to two-thirds of
a million men, "Maybe Romney is right." Really??
@LDS Liberal"George Will is right - Bush failed....not one
conservative, GOP, Tea Partier will EVER admit it."I am a
registered Republican, and thought I don't go to Tea Party events, I'm
sympathetic to the idea of a smaller government that taxes less and refuses to
bailout banks and other industries. I aslo consider myself pretty conservative,
relatively speaking, so here it is: George W. Bush failed. In many ways, both
home and abroad, his presidency was a disaster. Having said that, wouldn't the
next step be to avoid many of the same failures? Has President Obama trimmed
the deficit? Did President Obama sign a repeal of the Patriot Act or did he
actually sign an extension of it, with the NDAA to boot? Have Obama and the
Senate offered a balanced budget, in contrast with their Republican
predecessors? Nope. Yes, George W. Bush failed, but what does that say about
President Obama continuing his policies on deficits, civil liberties, sanctions
on countries like Iran, and prisoners at Gitmo?"A few dozen
tomahawk cruise missiles, and a Navy seal team of 6, and everybody is home, safe
and sound"The troops are home from Afghanistan?
'Here's a list of the things that "mainstream" Republicans and
President Obama have agreed on:' - David King | 10:02 a.m. Feb. 10, 2012 This, is true. And most of this list was CREATED from
2001-2006. When Republicans had the majority in the Senate, House
and George W. Bush was elected President. I will agree, I do not
support majority of this list. And I work to get RID of them. Not obstruct: **'Republicans bail on budget talks, blame
Democrats' - By David Espo - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/23/11
**'House GOP REJECTS 2-month payroll tax cut By Andrew Taylor AP Published by
DSNews 12/20/11 And not WORK, to ensure this country...
fails. **'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails - By Faiz Shakir - Think
Progress - 01/20/09 'Limbaugh told his listeners (sic) So Im
thinking of replying to the guy, Okay, Ill send you a response, but I dont need
400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.' article I try, to put
this country... before my party.
Here's a list of the things that "mainstream" Republicans and
President Obama have agreed on:-Patriot Act, NDAA-TARP- the
economic stimulus package-TSA-Gitmo (Obama said he would close it,
still waiting three years later)-continuing war in Afghanistan-keeping troops in places like Japan, Korea, and Europe, with porous borders
in the homeland-sanctions against Iran (which will hurt civilians, and
eventually lead to war)The lack of difference between President
Obama and most Republicans is bankrupting us and slowly eroding our civil
liberties. It would be nice if our politicians would actually offer us an
A few dozen tomahawk cruise missiles, and a Navy seal team of 6, and everyobody
is home, safe and sound -- accomplished more than 12 years, 1 million
deployed, $1.7 TRILLION, and 4,700 American lives lost.Bush scored 1
for his rich Oil and Defense contrator buddies.Obama scored and finished
the game for the American people.George Will is right - Bush
failed.and as previous commentors have said -- not one conservative, GOP,
Tea Partier will EVER admit it.
While most conservative pundits sit back in their armchairs and whine about
"Obama the appeaser", he is out there quietly and methodically
eliminating our enemies. Congratulations to Mr. Will for telling the truth.
"Republicans who think America is being endangered by
"appeasement" and military parsimony have worked that pedal on their
organ quite enough."Wow, it is not often I fully agree with
George Will, but that is a good line. It won't stop Santorum and Romney from
distorting facts and appealing to conservative voters who instinctually assume
Democrats are weak on defense, though. The Iraq and Afghanistan
wars have lasted through Obama's term. Bin Laden is gone. Drone strikes up.
Terrorists killed. Libya's regime toppled largely due to US support. More
deportations of illegal immigrants than during the W. years. Airport screening
processes still cumbersome. By any traditional measure, Obama is not weak on
national defense. But this is an election year, so let's pull out that favorite
conservative talking point anyway.
Well said Mr. Will. I lean Republican but this is one issue that George Bush
really bungled and the rest of the Republicans (except Ron Paul) seem determined
to continue to sink us further in the quagmire. Having served in Iraq, I am
happy we are gone and I hope we are soon gone from Afghanistan. I am so glad
that we didn't ever have "boots on ground" as so many Republicans
thought was necessary in Libya and have a protracted "nation-building"
war in that country. This is one area where Obama has done well and Republicans
are not going to win the issue by trying to get us engaged in more foreign wars
or to act as the world's police force. The general public is war-weary. Time
for smarter tactics with less U.S. casualties and no nation building.
'Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor, hence Americans, with much
valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the
second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising
to extend it indefinitely.' - Article Not JUST indefinately. But MORE OF, the same: **'GOP contenders argue on Iran' -
By Kasie Hunt - AP - Published by DSNews - 11/12/11 "If we
re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt
Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," vowed the former
Massachusetts governor." article So, war with Iran, based on
the claim of 'Nuclear Weapons.' Sound familiar? Iraq: "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and
biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.' - George W. Bush - Ohio
Speech 10/7/2002 Result? **'US gives up search for Iraq
WMD' - BBC News - 01/12/05 **'U.S. Military deaths in Iraq war at
4,485 - AP - Published by the DSNews - 12/20/2011 Oh, yeah and $800
BILLION dollars, just on Iraq. (not including Afghanistan, etc, etc.) That we could have put to use, rebuilding American roads.
This is one issue that the Republicans have completely lost. The Obama
Administration has been brilliant on defense and foreign affairs.
It will be interesting to see how many of the regulars other than the usual
(libs) jump in here to agree with George. I'll bet by this afternoon the thread
is pretty thin.
Wow. I'm completely stunned that I am in agreement with George Will for a
I don't think that Obama is weak on defense. He said in his election that if US
soldiers were being attacked from Pakistan that he would go into Pakistan. That
raised eyebrows. But he has kind of done that. Not completely: drones are
piloted remotely.Osama bin Ladin is dead.So far he has
kept us from getting sucked into a war in Iran. We aren't really at war but
we're putting sanctions on them and their enrichment control computers are
getting hacked. If they get desperate and start actually shooting then it will
look like they started it.