He's more and more like W every day.

Now he's wee wee'd up Moore, its all over as far as the unhinged rabid anti-war left is concerned.

One term blunder...

I don't feel sorry for the guy. I think he is a sorry ( read pathetic ) guy.

Nuanced.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Unilateral = twice as many coalition partners as obama

The needs of the 'Won' outweigh the needs of the many.

Obama dithers on force: weak!
Obama uses force: incompetent!

Obama doesn't act like Bush: fool!
Obama acts like Bush: blunder!

Why do you even bother commenting on his actions? You won't like him no matter what he does.

john, you were so close to hitting the truth, and you blew it.

Obama isn't incompetent for using force; he's using force incompetently. And he's also acting like Bush, but incompetently.

And his supporters who howled so loudly when Bush did the same things (but more competently), have pretty much nothing to say about Obama doing many of the same things (but incompetently).

J.

Obama should not be unilaterally ordering forces into combat without Congressional approval, but I don't know how anyone could use force more incompetently than Bush did. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are still free, Afghanistan is still a mess, and Iraq will be dominated by Iran after we leave after 8 years, 4440 American dead and a trillion dollars wasted.

For Obama to sink to the Bush standard, we'll have to invade Libya, spend a trillion dollars there, lose thousands of soldiers and leave it for Al Qaeda to take over when we leave in ten years.

So Bush deposed a dictator that was murdering 100's of thousands of his own people, putting political opponents into wood chippers, using chemical weapons on his own people, and funding terrorism world wide. He succeeded in killing thousands more terrorists than we lost soldiers and forced them to fight in a middle eastern wasteland rather than letting them remain in comfort as they plotted the murder of innocents in the US.

Some failure. obama should be so lucky.

jim m, you really are on the Bush crack. I thought that brand had expired and been pulled from the market for lack of sales. It's kind of quaint you're repeating the same BS you were saying back in 2003. A "dead-ender."

So Bush deposed a dictator that was murdering 100's of thousands of his own people, putting political opponents into wood chippers, using chemical weapons on his own people, and funding terrorism world wide.

Guess what? There are many dictators doing those kind of things around the world. We don't care about Zimbabwe or Burma, and even help Equatorial Guinea and Uzbekstan. Shit, we were even helping Saddam when he was "using chemical weapons on his own people," giving him billions in credit and imagery intelligence. Our "friends" the Saudis fund far more terrorism than Saddam ever did.

He succeeded in killing thousands more terrorists than we lost soldiers and forced them to fight in a middle eastern wasteland rather than letting them remain in comfort as they plotted the murder of innocents in the US.

99.9% of those "terrorists" were offended we invaded their country, as I will be when we're broke and tapped out from all these foreign wars and the Chinese come in the back door in ten or twenty years. For the few others who were committed jihadists, didn't Bush help them out by sending Americans over there to kill? An easy trip over the border to Iraq or Afghanistan. Otherwise they wouldn't have got near the USA or an American base.

And his supporters who howled so loudly when Bush did the same things have pretty much nothing to say about Obama doing many of the same things

That's a joke, right?

There are many dictators doing those kind of things around the world. We don't care about Zimbabwe or Burma, and even help Equatorial Guinea and Uzbekstan.

Ah yes, the tired leftist excuse of "there's evil elsewhere so opposing it anywhere is wrong". You're an asshole to even make such an amoral and ignorant argument.

99.9% of those "terrorists" were offended we invaded their country, as I will be when we're broke and tapped out from all these foreign wars

Such people did not need an excuse to attack the US. They merely seized upon this one because it was popular with the leftist press.

obama has spent far more in two years on his wasted stimulus than Bush spent on the war in eight years. You worry about spending the country into poverty take a look at your dear fascist leader.

Shorter Jay Tea: Obama is incompetent because he is Obama.

Such people did not need an excuse to attack the US.

Iraqis attacked the US?

obama has spent far more in two years on his wasted stimulus than Bush spent on the war in eight years.

In other words, it cost more to dig us out of the hole than it did to dig the hole in the first place. Shocker.

As for "wasted"... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/25/cbo-says-stimulus-kept-unemployment-rate-lower/

Really John? Politicians claim that a political move helped the economy? In related news, students at any college with a team still in the Dance believe their school has a great chance to make the Final Four.

Unfortunately for Obama, the real world is not so naive. Unemployment continued to climb, well beyond the promised limits, the banks never did loosen their credit again, and that's not even touching the Imperial decrees which crippled oil, fishing, manufacturing and construction.

Small wonder Obama wants a little war, he desperately needs the distraction.

"Iraqis attacked the US?"

Hussein fired on US warplanes (on numerous occasions) patrolling the No Fly Zone during that time. So yes, to answer your question.

Anyone else find it telling that Chico claims to know what "99.9% of terrorists" are thinking?

Politicians claim that a political move helped the economy? In related news

The CBO are politicians? More like "economists claim that an economic move helped the economy".

Forgive me for not reading on about your "related news", since you've already demonstrated an inability to follow the news.

Unemployment continued to climb, well beyond the promised limits

But less than it would have. See point #1 above.

Hussein fired on US warplanes (on numerous occasions) patrolling the No Fly Zone during that time. So yes, to answer your question.

So to counter the assertion that Iraqi terrorists attacked the US because we were in their country, you offer that Saddam shot at our warplanes while we were in Iraq. Fail.

"So to counter the assertion that Iraqi terrorists attacked the US because we were in their country, you offer that Saddam shot at our warplanes while we were in Iraq. Fail."

I countered nothing. I answered an apparently poorly worded question with an accurate, factual statement. Further, I didn't make the claim we were in Iraq while US warplanes were shot at. He fired on them multiple times prior to the invasion, which was a blatant disregard and violation of US and UN terms. This was reason enough to invade.

John: "The CBO are politicians? More like "economists claim that an economic move helped the economy"

BS - These guys are paid by politicians and have more than twice been caught packaging data to serve political agenda. And no, anyone who only cherry-picks data that serevs the conclusion they want to present, can not properly be called an economist.

Me: "Unemployment continued to climb, well beyond the promised limits"

John: "But less than it would have. See point #1 above."

Your problem is that there is no empirical evidence to support that claim. And plenty that disproves your claim (ironically, including Dept of Labor data). You are MSU (making stuff up) just like your idol's fictional "jobs created or saved" metric. You are Wizbang's version of Joe Biden.

One day you might want to wake up and consider why the 2010 election went the way it did. And why the 2012 election will go the way it will.

Or ... you can just go on and be you, and in a couple years we can read your explanation of why Obama was a one-term President and Americans gave the Senate back to the GOP (hint: it's not because the Republicans are brilliant or ethical, so much as the alternative)

John: "The CBO are politicians? More like "economists claim that an economic move helped the economy"

BS - These guys are paid by politicians and have more than twice been caught packaging data to serve political agenda. And no, anyone who only cherry-picks data that serevs the conclusion they want to present, can not properly be called an economist.

Me: "Unemployment continued to climb, well beyond the promised limits"

John: "But less than it would have. See point #1 above."

Your problem is that there is no empirical evidence to support that claim. And plenty that disproves your claim (ironically, including Dept of Labor data). You are MSU (making stuff up) just like your idol's fictional "jobs created or saved" metric. You are Wizbang's version of Joe Biden.

One day you might want to wake up and consider why the 2010 election went the way it did. And why the 2012 election will go the way it will.

Or ... you can just go on and be you, and in a couple years we can read your explanation of why Obama was a one-term President and Americans gave the Senate back to the GOP (hint: it's not because the Republicans are brilliant or ethical, so much as the alternative)

The assertion was: "[Bush] succeeded in killing thousands more terrorists"

The response was: "99.9% of those 'terrorists' were offended we invaded their country"

The rebuttal was: "Such people did not need an excuse to attack the US."

My question was: "Iraqis attacked the US?"

I see now that you weren't actually participating in this thread, but were just going off on your own with it was reasonable to invade because Saddam shot at our warplanes. My apologies for engaging you on a topic that you weren't addressing.

John,

The muslims hated the US long before we invvaded Iraq. I don't know why the left has clung so bitterly to this fantasy that it is Iraq that makes muslims hate us. 9/11 was before Iraq so was the USS Cole. Decades of islamic terrorism preceded Iraq. They didn't like it because we took out one of their biggest financial backers.

As to the delusion that the war caused the recession it is just that a delusion. The recession was caused by a lot of things and probably the biggest was the housing bubble. The housing bubble that is primarily the fault of the dems. Dems got fat and rich by cutting sweetheart deals with mortgage banks. Just ask Chris Dodd. In 2003 the GOP tried to do something to avert the crash but the dems stopped them. Barney Frank got on the floor of the House and declared that there was nothing wrong with Fannie Mae. Well we now know that he is a scumbag liar. (actually some of us knew it already back then but everyone should acknowledge the truth of it now).

The deficit under Bush was something like $400B. Under obama it is $1.4T. It isn't the war that caused the debt. It is obama paying off his union friends.

Yes unemployment would be higher if not for the stimulous but the jobs created (when you count out the ones created in non-existant congressional districts) are mostly government jobs that are not productive for the economy but are just more parasites on the economy. You could have given every unemployed person $100,000 and spent less money than the stimulous and had a greater effect. Unemployment today is going down because the government is reducing the size of the workforce in their exstimates. If you keep the number of people who they say have given up trying tofind a job and the people who are working part time jobs that don't meet their bills real unemployment stands near 17%.

If it were a GOP president you would bother to research the numbers but because it is obama you are happy to drink the Kool Aid.

BS - These guys are paid by politicians

So people who are paid by politicians to provide an unbiased report are more insidious than the actual politicians who disagree with their report?

Republicans cite the CBO when it suits them, and claim bias when it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Your problem is that there is no empirical evidence to support that claim.

There's no empirical evidence the other way, either. But you can either believe experts, mathematical models, and history, or you can live in your "I believe it because it suits my political point" dreamworld. Your choice.

John: "There's no empirical evidence the other way, either"

Actually, there is, John. CPI and Unemployment raw data, including Dept of Labor non-Farm payroll records. They all show that unemployment 2009-2011 is higher than any comparable time frame in the past 25+ years.

Sucks for you.

But let's make it real simple. Walk down your street and ask 5 businesses if they are hiring, or have staff as large as they did in 2008. Ask 10 people who are looking for jobs if they have been searching for more than 6 months, or if they got a job, whether it pays as well as their last job.

Simple.

Direct.

Damning.

John: "Republicans cite the CBO when it suits them"

Only to highlight the irony, John. When Obama's own hacks can't massage the numbers to say what he wants, then you know the numbers are bad indeed.

But you miss the point, out of incompetence or malice I don't know and don't really care. Political reports come out all the time, which take data only where it supports the claims the suits want to say. That applies to your cherished "mathematical models", which by definition are built on assumptions. Show me a government report which includes a sensitivity study? That will happen about the time they discover the Deming Loop, which is close to never. Raw data is available if you look, and time is much better spent working with those numbers. The problem is, very few things the government does stand up well to that kind of inspection. That's the real "history", and it's odd that you would mention history since so much of it warns against letting government have much of power or money in the first place.

Go back and read Tom Paine's pamphlets and The Federalist. You seemed to prefer 'The Mythical Adventures of Unicorn Lad' instead, but the comic book President is not going to solve any problems in the real world.

jim m: we had to invade Iraq to save the Muslims who hated the US and blew up the USS Cole long before we invaded Iraq to save the Muslims who hated the US long before we invaded Iraq . . .

Like a dog chasing his tail.

Plus this is a gem: Ah yes, the tired leftist excuse of "there's evil elsewhere so opposing it anywhere is wrong". You're an asshole to even make such an amoral and ignorant argument.

If someone proposed spending a trillion dollars on health care in the U.S., roads, bridges, high-speed rail and education, you'd be bitching to no end. The difference is, that none of those things involves bombing people, so you can't jack off to it.

CPI and Unemployment raw data, including Dept of Labor non-Farm payroll records. They all show that unemployment 2009-2011 is higher than any comparable time frame in the past 25+ years.

And they show that without the stimulus things wouldn't be worse? Sorry, when you brought up "empirical evidence", I assumed that you knew what it meant.

Walk down your street and ask 5 businesses if they are hiring

Oh, good. Determine macroeconomic policy based on who you happen to be standing next to. OK, how's this... my company is hiring like crazy, and we're finding it more difficult to find people than it was 6 months ago. Sucks for you. Damning. Blah blah.

Political reports come out all the time, which take data only where it supports the claims the suits want to say.

So you're just dismissing the CBO. That's fine. We'll remember that when Republicans cite them.

Chico,

Muslims have used the Koran to attack Americans for over 200 years. As They told Thomas Jefferson which was the reason that he had a Koran to see if what he was told was true. Like idiots we paid tribute at first.
Then We went to War twice.

So before there was Desert Storm, The Nation of Israel we have had Muslims who like to cut off people head for their religion. That being the case we need to ensure that choice out battles wisely. We need to pick those in out best interest.

It was written in their Qu'ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

I see my mistake now. I treated John as if he was a rational adult.

Noted for future use ...

All I can say is, the Muslims are kicking our asses by getting us to invade their countries and spend trillions of dollars.

According to CNN, this Libya operation will cost $100 million per day.

God forbid we put that to cancer research or high speed rail or teachers, the Tea Party would revolt.

Wow, guess Chico had too much fun using his Charlie SheenTM Do-it-yourself Lobotomy kit. He's completely lost all touch with reality.

It's like he's possessed by Nancy Pelosi.

The Cycle of DJ:

Specious argument --> Get pwned --> Personal attack

Chico,
Did we go to war in with Zimbabwe in 1991?
Did we enforce No fly zone for 10 years?
Did Zimbabwe shoot at American airplanes?
Did Zimbabwe win France and Russia UN vote by doing an Oil For Food program? France, UN and Russia funnel billions of Dollars to a dictator and encourage him to starve his people wile opposing UN sanctions.
Did we promise not to continue hostilities with Zimbabwe if they abide by the terms of cease fire.

Yeah thought not .

John, you sound/whine more and more like Chico.

"I see now that you weren't actually participating in this thread, but were just going off on your own with it was reasonable to invade because Saddam shot at our warplanes. My apologies for engaging you on a topic that you weren't addressing."

On the contrary. My point makes the "topic" you're addressing moot.