The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Since when is responsibility mutually exclusive? Republicans bear complete responsibility for just one thing: torture. Democrats ended that. But all the other foolish and dangerous errors of the permanent surveillance and warfare state have been extended by Democrats. Some, like drone policy, have been made even worse.

Well, thanks for 'splaining that, Lucy. Responsibility became mutually exclusive the day the Empty Suit in Chief first took the oath. And you d*mn well know it. To hear the ladies of the chorale tell it, he's not responsible for anything, ever.

"Surveillance and warfare state?" Hysterical paranoia much? Maybe Snowden needs a roomie.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Well, thanks for 'splaining that, Lucy. How 'bout 'splaining ISIS? Responsibility became mutually exclusive the day the Empty Suit in Chief first took the oath. And you d*mn well know it. To hear the ladies of the chorale tell it, he's not responsible for anything, ever.

Do any of you right wingers read history, or remember it? You should maybe read up on the Iraqi history of the last 14 years or so and get back to us.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

He becomes responsible the minute he steps into office. But the more important question is what he is responsible for. To me, he and every other president or chairman is responsible for the extent to which his policies made a situation worse under circumstances when it should have been made better. Or for the extent to which his policies made a situation better which ought to have been made much better.

You pointed out a while ago that Nixon should not be held responsible for our presence in Vietnam, and you were right. It was an unholy mess when he took over, and he was not going to magically change that.

Clinton took over with a deficit and left with a surplus, but his policies also contributed to the lending offenses that were a big part of the economic collapse, so Bush should not be held solely responsible for the financial disaster he left us with either. To be sure, he made it worse, and the continual right wing chorus of keeping government out of business led to serious lack of oversight of the banking industry (my under educated and uninformed opinion). But we liberals deserve criticism for laying it all on Bush.

So Obama definitely deserves to be held accountable for that part of the economic problem that reasonably should have been resolved or improved by now. A while ago, I posted a question asking posters to identify who would have guided us to a better situation with the economy and with what policies. No answer. Our coping mechanism for dealing with the size and complexity of fiscal policy issues is to just dig in and wallow in the most simplistic and useless generalizations. I do it.

Something like Iraq? Bush's baby, no doubt, though most politicians were just too chicken to let wisdom prevail over overheated and much abused appeal to patriotism. Whoever inherited the mess Bush left in Iraq was going to have to deal with the kinds of problems Cheney warned about. If Obama fails to apply policies to improve the situation or gets us in a worse situation when another policy could foreseeably have avoided that, it's on him.

Short answer, though? Never.

When does Obama become responsible?

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

That's a low blow. "Hillary" has two l's.

She was named after Sir Edmund before he climbed Everest.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

He's responsible for falling for this ISIS BS and going to war again. Afghanistan, Iraq, and the overall instability of the ENTIRE Middle East is on Bush.

Let's be clear, here Metternich, the Middle East was stable before Bush?

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Let's be clear, here Metternich, the Middle East was stable before Bush?

Of course it was Opie. Nothing ever bad happened on Reagan's watch in the Middle East (cough Beirut cough).

[burd]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

When does Obama become responsible?

It's OK, Pio; we know you weren't always this slow.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This is awesome.

[joecct]

So as soon as he does send in the troops, it's probably safe to assume that Ryan will change his narrative to, "Obama said no boots on the ground! LIAR!"

He needs Congressional authorization to make sure the i's are dotted and t's crossed. It will also give him cover if he needs to go full LBJ.

[Slap Shot]

Do any of you right wingers read history, or remember it? You should maybe read up on the Iraqi history of the last 14 years or so and get back to us.

At the very least Opie doesn't read any posts here. He gets his panties in a bunch daily here over sine supposed chorale even when no one is pushing the agenda he's upset about.

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This is awesome.

The goal should never be to win. There is no win. It should always be to end the war.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Of course it was Opie. Nothing ever bad happened on Reagan's watch in the Middle East (cough Beirut cough).

Study up on question marks, maroon.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

It's OK, Pio; we know you weren't always this slow.

My "slowness" isn't an answer to the question, is it? I'm guessing "never" is your answer.

[geezer]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

"The goal should never be to win. There is no win. It should always be to end the war."

Let me guess: Lincoln? Possibly Churchill?

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Study up on question marks, maroon.

You do realize if you were nicer to the orderlies they'd stop p!ssing in your oatmeal every morning before serving it to you, right?