Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wait, obama never said he would close GITMO, and he never signed anything saying that?
Quote:
The president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."
Oh, and of course we all know that if the mission to get Bin Laden had failed all you right wingers would be saying. "Oh, that's not Obama's fault, he had nothing to do with it."
Of course none of that matters because people like you don't understand logic or principle.
Had Obama`s policies been in place in 2004, instead of Bush's, what mission to bag Bin Laden would there have been?
Somebody better check to see if we are making more of them!
We are but probably not enough, especially if we have a conflict with Russia, China or North Korea.
"The U.S. Navy’s current reliance on the Tomahawk, known as “the world’s most advanced cruise missile,” comes just months after the Obama administration attempted to significantly cut funding for the weapon and then eliminate it completely it in 2016, a move that drew heavy criticism from defense experts and lawmakers."
With the military relying on the weapons in its strikes against ISIL targets in Syria, defense leaders have begun to warn that the Pentagon could quickly run through its Tomahawk stockpiles, a problem exacerbated by defense budget cuts known as sequestration, defense sources say.
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) is now expressing concern that the Pentagon has “insufficient weapons inventories” and that the Obama administration’s proposed termination of the Tomahawk missile program in fiscal year 2016 would worsen “a deficient inventory problem,” according to defense insiders and sources close to the committee.
I was reading the news this morning as I do every morning, and just as I started reading this article, "Another one bites the dust" started playing on Pandora. Made for a bit of a moment I thought I would pass along...
"Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor has been killed in a US strike in Pakistan, according to multiple sources, a year after he was appointed leader of the group."
And you think Obama had anything to do with it, that's adorable.
I'm not one to give credit to a POTUS for these sorts of developments, since almost all that happens during a presidential administration is the result of a vast array of efforts and circumstances well beyond what a POTUS can control, but to the chocking up of good developments vs bad during any administration, this one is generally considered a good one for Obama. Fair?
Funny how these things go, because I really didn't have any intention of drawing attention to Obama when I started this thread. Truth be known, I first tried to start this thread with the title "Another one bites the dust," but I was quickly advised that title could not be used, because it had been used several times before!
So, I quickly came up with the alternative just to put out that little story of mine without thinking about the title much further, that story about reading the article and then hearing "another one bites the dust" at just about the same time. That's all...
All that said, it is also interesting to see how well the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" principle holds true when it comes to people either inclined to credit Obama or criticize him -- about anything -- based on ideological bias. Add all the confusion and misinformation to the mix/thread, and yet again the opinions from every direction become viable regardless how well reasoned or unfounded...
When it comes to judging Obama as many have commented in this thread, it is true that these problems and wars begun long before Obama came along have not been resolved as I am sure Obama would love to resolve them, but he did marshal America out of Iraq for all practical purposes, and another measure of failure or success should be the death count of American troops engaged in these wars, right?
Right-winging anti-Obama bashers (regardless the issue or truth of these matters) don't much like to make light of how much better we have been doing with the Middle East when it comes to ultimate disengagement and lower troop body counts as compared to many past administrations, lead by a D or R POTUS.
The cost of these engagements may have gone up instead, I am not sure if upon close analysis this is true, but even if true, how do we blame Obama only certain negatives while not recognizing important positives? And to suggest taking these enemy leaders out is not a prize, as compared to broader warfare? Astounds me.
How? Why? Well that's obvious, just as obvious that the actual truths of these matters have little to do with our opinion in most these regards.
Obama has been ruthless against ISIS and the Taliban. Seems I recall he was the president that authorized the successful slaughter of... darn, help me here -- what was that guy's name -- you know, the mastermind of 9/11? Osama! Yeah, Osama bin-Dead.
Contrast to GW Bush, who just "never thought much about him, really."
What had Osama done since 9/11???? Nothing. He was hiding and a non-factor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
