Latest Ad For The Scumbag In Chief

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Latest Ad For The Scumbag In Chief

  1. rocknblues81 says:

    How many lives have been lost under the republicans wars the last decade?

    • I hate it when the first comment goes completely off topic.

    • rocknblues81 says:

      And it’s not that Clinton doesn’t deserve scorn.

      He is possibly a serial rapist, a bad President and a man with few good qualities so he deserves bashing.

    • Indeed — one could argue that the Vice President who pushed us into Iraq deserves abuse. Here he is, speaking to recalcitrant Democrats:

      If we knew that al-Qaida had particular weapons, knowing, as we did, what their stated objective was, and with the intelligence we had, we would be fully within our rights–not under any doctrine of preemption–because of the existence of a clear, present, and imminent danger to move against al-Qaida.

      Conversely, with Hitler in the 1930s, the rationale for moving against Hitler wasn’t a doctrine of preemption because we knew he was a bad guy. It was because his country signed the Treaty of Versailles. He was violating the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles did not have an end date on it. It didn’t say you cannot have forces for the first 2 or 3 years, or you cannot do the following things. We were fully within our rights as a world community to go after Hitler in 1934, 1935, 1936, or 1937. It was not based on the doctrine of preemption but a doctrine of enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles, and in a very limited time.

      What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority–not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike.

      The problem here is that I actually agree with this.

      Of course, when he said this on the Senate floor on October 10, 2002, Joe Biden was not yet Vice President.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • DEEBEE says:

      You have shown how much of a Democrat party mascot you are by this comment, to characterize American wars as belonging to a prty. Punch yourself in the face for me.

  2. rocknblues81 says:

    But as for the video, I don’t think Obama was “Brave” in any way. I don’t think he should take credit for getting Bin Laden. But is it worse than Bush saying that he doesn’t care where Bin Laden is?He doesn’t care where the man who put together the 9/11 is.

    We have had dumb Presidents for years and years now.

    • DEEBEE says:

      It is your dumbeness that is more profound. If the first line of defense is to compare a current POTUS behavior to a previous POTUS behavior — GWB was not a touchstone for future genrations of PsOTUS

      • The fuller context of the issue shows that we had bin Ladin on the run, hiding in caves, ineffective in prosecuting any sort of attack upon the US, and rather completely marginalized. Bush noted this on multiple occasions. Hence his comparative unconcern: His focus was protecting the US. Obviously, he had teams of people seeking Usama bin Ladin though various intelligence channels — a process that allowed Obama to take credit later. But the primary purpose: preventing further al Qaeda-led attacks on US soil, was achieved.

        The cost of the wars was tragic in terms of US soldiers’ lives lost, but the actual number was comparable to peacetime training efforts. Of course, the deaths accelerated under Obama, largely due to changes in rules of engagement as well as poor strategic decisions forced upon the generals from above.

        I’m always intrigued by our friends on the Left ignoring the road not traveled: They were strident in claiming that it would have taken Hussein (Saddam, this time) five years to develop a nuclear weapon. But it’s now almost a decade later … if we had not taken him out, he would have continued to obtain WMD support from China, Russia, France and Germany as well as various Middle Eastern interests such as Pakistan. Do we think that Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would be rational? And that his various delivery methods, from the al Queda people he supported to the freighter ships at his command, would have no chance of success?

        We are a bit off topic, I think, from allowing Obama his moment of self-congratulation when his team decided to go ahead with the bin Ladin mission without his knowledge. At least he got to hear the successful conclusion when they brought him in off of the golf course.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • rocknblues81 says:

      While I’m not that flag carrying type, it’s pretty obvious that Michelle doesn’t have a lot of respect for anything. It was obvious when she said that she was proud of america for the first time in 2008. That said, most of our leaders sold out the american people and this country out a long time ago.

    • Me says:

      Your welcome!

  3. David says:

    rocknblues81, No response to keith Dehavell excellent post??

    • rocknblues81 says:

      Of course they’re going to throw any excuse out there that they can.

      Saddam shows some resistance, plus 9/11 and BOOM we got the “war on terror”. C’mon. Dick’s agenda was obvious. They were looking for any excuse to invade Iraq. They just knew he had the weapons, but only they couldn’t find them. Dick was an opportunist and a war monger, and his line about “deficits don’t matter” suggests that he didn’t really weigh the potential costs of his actions. Which makes me wonder why people from the conservative side who claim that we should be responsible about our spending would defend him.

      We have become what Eisenhower warned that we would become.

      • DEEBEE says:

        And you know this because you have your mouth up Dick’s dick.

      • rocknblues81 says:

        Oh shut up. Please.

        I’ve been critical of both parties pretty much since I’ve been here. I’ve had my wars with the extremes on from the left at thinkprogress. If anything, I’m pushing more and more toward libertarian ideals.

      • rocknblues81 says:

        “And you know this because you have your mouth up Dick’s dick.”

        Oh yeah, I was just totally eating up everything this man spit out for years. Your comments just makes so much sense.

      • jimash1 says:

        If you don’t understand the war, or why we have been in it, or what it is about ,
        please feel free to wallow in your miserable, obviously unhappy, ignorance.
        But don’t try to push it on people as some kind of “enlightened” viewpoint. Because it is not.

      • I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but the White House press pool pushed Bush and Cheney for about a year to take out Saddam Hussein, and they resisted. They were asked frequently during press briefings why Saddam was allowed to still do what he was doing — and the administration consistently responded that they did not have good evidence of Iraq’s ties into the 9/11 events. Even the somewhat anti-Bush book, Bush at War, made this clear. The author developed a respect for Bush as he dug into the details, though he made it clear that he still despised Republicans in general. (The author, Bob Woodward, was a key player in uncovering Nixon’s Watergate doings, and was played by Robert Redford in the movie.)

        At the time (the months after 9/11), the reporters were clearly disappointed, as the order to take out Hussein (the Clinton “Regime Change” executive order of 1998) was still on their minds. And Clinton, of course, needed no international cooperation; he launched missiles at Iraq and then informed other countries and the UN about it. So, the reporters pushed, why the delay?

        The later emergence of evidence of collusion (amusingly, with the media attempting to scrub reports from their archives) helped bring this case together. I was particularly intrigued by Saddam’s letters (and money) to “al Qaeda of the Philippines” — as the terrorism there is a long-standing problem, and that group is tied into the Oklahoma City bombing (evidently training Terry Nichols, according to Clinton/Bush czar Richard Clark). AQoP was also a key element of the Bojinka plot to bring a dozen airliners down.

        Hussein was, of course, the largest supporter of terrorism in the world, a role that has now fallen to Iran. But when we ultimately moved into Iraq, with the support of majorities of both US parties, several things happened:
        • Iran immediately gave up their nuclear ambitions, dropping all research and making this public in March 2003. The National Intelligence Estimate made this clear (and tried to use it against Bush) years later.
        • Libya dropped its WMD research, and was approaching the UK and US within ten days asking for some sort of cooperative deal.
        • Saudi Arabia became very cooperative with the US, cracking down on al Qaeda funding from citizens (including some royals) within the country.
        • al Qaeda became, suddenly, very unpopular in the Middle Easy among leaders and funders. It was only their later success in Madrid that got them back in business — and that, only because Spain caved to this pre-election pressure to abandon Iraq to the terrorists.

        Do you remember Hans Blix’s discovery of prohibited long-range missiles that Hussein had tried to hide away? And that they had been made with equipment (and propellant molds) that Hussein had fooled Blix into believing had been destroyed? That, all by itself, was a “causus belli” considering the prohibitions in place. There were many others, and Blix later blamed Germany for weakening the UN resolve and thus forcing war as the only alternative. This was not reported in the US.

        So we went in, and were immediately successful with little loss of life, and were indeed greeted as liberators. The aftermath was not handled well.

        The US’s faltering and apparent lack of resolve cost us some of our early success; after a few years, Iran started up again on their nuclear process.

        The entire Iraq was moderately expensive, only because of the way government buys things, but Obama spent more in a single day on the stimulus than we did in the Iraq theater in a decade. As wars went, it was monetarily cheap — and with the surge, ultimately achieved some success.

        Oh, and Eisenhower’s warning could be better understood as a warning against big government, as well as a prescient caution against the current global warming hype. Listen more than the popular tiny excerpt.

        I appreciate libertarian ideals, and share a number of them. But I try to be careful to reach past propaganda to underlying data in forming opinions. And I am always seeking better data.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • rocknblues81 says:

        The reporters? Who cares? I don’t care what the Democrats believed before 9/11. I didn’t vote for Clinton, Bush or Obama.

        It’s very obvious to me that The Tea Party is part of the neoconservative party at this stage. No wonder you end up with Romeny (A Neoconservative) what a shame.

      • So at least you have retracted your references to “Republican wars.”

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • rocknblues81 says:

        In my experience it has been mostly republicans that have been for war. I gotta whole bunch of republican relatives that are fine with flattening these foreign countries in order to “protect ourselves”.

        There are reasons I haven’t ever voted for these parties.

        As far as the public goes, I rarely run into Democrats that favored the war in Iraq. So when I say “republican wars” that’s a great deal of what I mean. I’m not saying there are no Democratic citizens that were for the invasion of Iraq. But I haven’t met many.

      • rocknblues81 says:

        And I think that if you take into consideration that the troops are funding Ron Paul (the guy that was not for the wars), it seems to suggests that the military folks are tired of being used by old politicians in suits to kill.

        Liberals aren’t the only ones tired of war.

      • rocknblues81 says:

        KD… I appreciate that you address me without name calling and without responding with children responses like this:

        “And you know this because you have your mouth up Dick’s dick.”

      • It’s very obvious to me that The Tea Party is part of the neoconservative party at this stage.

        I wonder what you mean by “neoconservative party.” I don’t think I’ve heard two definitions of “neoconservative” that were consistent; it appears to be “whatever [the writer] doesn’t like.”

        This definition of “neoconservative” actually sounds rather more like you than me:

        A neoconservative (also spelled “neo-conservative”; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means “newly conservative,” and thus formerly liberal. A neocon is a type of RINO, and like RINOs does not accept most of the important principles in the Republican Party platform.

        As to “party” — it’s not at all clear to me that there is an actual party by that name.

        I’ve met many conservatives; I have been privileged to have had dinner on multiple occasions with Newt Gingrich and Oliver North, and once debated signing statements with libertarian Bob Barr. But there didn’t seem to be a “neoconservative party” to go to; we simply shared a reverence for this country and its founding principles.

        Perhaps you will tell me that neoconservatives are bad guys, somehow. And perhaps you can explain how it is that you see Mitt Romney in the same mold as, say, Jim DeMint or Sarah Palin or any of the others esteemed by Tea Party types (including me, in fact). But it doesn’t seem likely that you will be able to offer evidence of the Tea Party as a force for evil.

        MItt Romney has endeavored to appeal more to us, but has not been entirely successful. Nevertheless, by comparison with Obama, Romney looks almost Reagansesque. Paul Ryan helps here a lot.

        The concept behind the Tea Party is clear enough: Limited government, a free market, a free people. Do you like any of that?

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • rocknblues81:

        KD… I appreciate that you address me without name calling and without responding with children responses like this…

        You’re welcome. I don’t see you as an enemy; I think we have some common ground. But I do think that you are mistaken on some important points.

        Opinions can diverge, of course; they are subjective by nature. But the underlying fact base should be able to be agreed upon; it is what I hope to accomplish. And I think that, as a result, your opinions (as expressed here on some topics) might change.

        It is true of my own as well. Mine are always being refined, of course, but these days this occurs at the edges; new details of some historical event come to light, or whatever. There are not many surprises for me in the core topics — but I never rule them out.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • rocknblues81 says:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_conservatism

        “Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which combines features of traditional (paleo) conservatism, military interventionism, social conservatism, nationalism, ”

        It’s true, people have some different idea’s.

        Me? I learn toward free markets, socially liberal, fairly anti war and not outwardly patriotic, and I want us to stop putting people in prison for smoking a little dope.

        I would be open to working with social conservatives on things like prayer in school. Things like that. Which is a fairly new thing for me.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve assumed that The Tea Party would be against the wars like Ron Paul.

        If I’m wrong correct me. Lots of misunderstanding in society. Plenty of Conservatives have assumed that I’m on the environmentalist bandwagon just because I’ve called myself a liberal before. Plenty of people have assumed that I’m find with the budget that we have. Which is untrue.

      • rocknblues81 says:

        MItt Romney has endeavored to appeal more to us, but has not been entirely successful. Nevertheless, by comparison with Obama, Romney looks almost Reagansesque. Paul Ryan helps here a lot.”

        I fear we will never get a President again that isn’t corrupted.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        rocknblues said:
        Me? I learn toward free markets, socially liberal, fairly anti war and not outwardly patriotic, and I want us to stop putting people in prison for smoking a little dope.

        Yep. The drug war is crazy. It’s nanny state bs. Idiots will be idiots. You can’t legislate common sense. Keep it illegal for kids and if you are a danger to others you should spend some time in the tank.

        rocknblues said:
        I would be open to working with social conservatives on things like prayer in school. Things like that. Which is a fairly new thing for me.

        Not religious myself, but it annoys me when the secular try to restrict religious freedoms or demean religious groups. As long as kids are being taught readn writing and rithmetic, let them preach to the kids as well. Those kids that don’t have faith will go there own way when of age.

        rocknblues said:
        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve assumed that The Tea Party would be against the wars like Ron Paul.

        My thought is that the Tea Party is mainly concerned about fiscal matters. That’s from what I’ve read, but it’s large and loosely organized. I’m guessing if you ask 10 tea partiers you’ll get 9 different answers.

        rocknblues said:
        If I’m wrong correct me. Lots of misunderstanding in society. Plenty of Conservatives have assumed that I’m on the environmentalist bandwagon just because I’ve called myself a liberal before. Plenty of people have assumed that I’m find with the budget that we have. Which is untrue.

        I think people who assume like that are either kidding you or are idiots.
        IMO, the federal government is way too big. *ALL* sectors. When the government just prints and borrows money whenever they want it’s stealing from the rest of us who are doing honest work. Also, if you are working for the government, it forces you to align your interest with your job regardless of what your true thoughts might be.

      • @rocknblues81

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve assumed that The Tea Party would be against the wars like Ron Paul.

        I am hardly empowered to speak for the Tea Party, but I can tell you my own observations of common thoughts:

        • Many of Ron Paul’s domestic reforms, such as “audit the Fed,” are well-received in the Tea Party. He exhibits aspects of fiscal conservatism that are refreshing, though he’s not exactly in the Austrian mode of a Hayek or von Mises.

        • At the same time, the expression “against the wars like Ron Paul” is more than a bit troubling. He has stated assumptions about “the source of the trouble” with jihadists that are utterly naive and foolish, in my opinion, and that seem to be rather ignorant of the history of the rise of jihadism over the past couple of centuries.

        • No one “likes” war, and many in the Tea Party are actively serving their country or have family in that position (as I do). I think that there is general disagreement with Paul’s idea that they won’t attack us if we just leave them alone. Thus, a strong defensive capability remains important, as well as intelligence capabilities to better understand what the various Muslim Brotherhood factions (from CAIR to al Qaeda) are up to. Paul seems to oppose any such efforts.

        • Ron Paul has made a number of statements that are so counterfactual regarding the history of jihadism as to be breathtaking. He’s been booed for these, and I think that the Tea Party generally is irritated at these statements.

        I have good friends that are Paul supporters. But they are not also Tea Party folks. I’ve suggested that if we could pick bits of Paul, Gingrich, Romney, Ryan and a few others, we could make a perfect candidate. However, that’s not what we have — and the choice is four more years of a “more flexible” Obama, a notion repellent to a great many people.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Keith DeHavelle says:
        September 3, 2012 at 10:35 pm

        Interesting post regarding Iraq. I was against the war, but appreciate that there were benefits for the US. Although, If there ever was a time for the big kid in the playground to make an example of someone, that was it. It’s not how I’d prefer the country conduct itself (less than ideal IMO).

  4. RobertvdL says:

    Richard Engle Interview

    Richard Engle, President of BellWest America and former Rules Committee Member of the RNC, on the rules changes adopted at the RNC.
    BROADCAST CENTRAL
    Richard Engle Interview
    http://schiffradio.com/

    Whatever color they are or whatever animal they represent, keep their feet to the fire. Never trust politicians. To serve the people or their country is never their first goal.

  5. “Middle Easy,” I wrote. Alas, it was never that.

    Please pardon the typos; I was writing from memory and in a hurry.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  6. Those big ears are what are horrible for him.

    Note to any White House employee that may be monitoring this web site–and it is highly likely there is:

    Please bring my comment about his ears to his attention. Thank you.

    • @Amino Acids in Meteorites: Those big ears are what are horrible for him.

      Amusingly, you have picked the one aspect in which I resemble President Obama. I’ve resigned myself to this fate: “Two ear is human…”

      I like your moniker, by the way: Abiogenesis has long been an area of interest, and I have just over 2,000 abstracts on file in that topic, many involving meteoric investigations and hypotheses. I’ve got a 6-kilo Namibian nickel-iron on my desk. (No amino acids likely to be found in that one.)

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s