Obama’s accomplishments so far

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Arraya: Man, when you’re right, you ARE right. [/quote]

So Iraq was started on principles, while Libya is all about self-interest?

Iraq has gone awry and cost us $1 trillion (who knows what amount now), thousand of lives and 10 years of war.

And Libya, if it works out, will make us money and help our business interests and provide a measure of freedom to the Libyan people.

Which was the better strategy? I wonder.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Arraya: Man, when you’re right, you ARE right. [/quote]

So Iraq was started on principles, while Libya is all about self-interest?

Iraq has gone awry and cost us $1 trillion (who knows what amount now), thousand of lives and 10 years of war.

And Libya, if it works out, will make us money and help our business interests and provide a measure of freedom to the Libyan people.

Which was the better strategy? I wonder.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Arraya: Man, when you’re right, you ARE right. [/quote]

So Iraq was started on principles, while Libya is all about self-interest?

Iraq has gone awry and cost us $1 trillion (who knows what amount now), thousand of lives and 10 years of war.

And Libya, if it works out, will make us money and help our business interests and provide a measure of freedom to the Libyan people.

Which was the better strategy? I wonder.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Arraya: Man, when you’re right, you ARE right. [/quote]

So Iraq was started on principles, while Libya is all about self-interest?

Iraq has gone awry and cost us $1 trillion (who knows what amount now), thousand of lives and 10 years of war.

And Libya, if it works out, will make us money and help our business interests and provide a measure of freedom to the Libyan people.

Which was the better strategy? I wonder.[/quote]

Brian: Two things. First, I was dead wrong on Iraq and will be the first to admit that.

Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Arraya: Man, when you’re right, you ARE right. [/quote]

So Iraq was started on principles, while Libya is all about self-interest?

Iraq has gone awry and cost us $1 trillion (who knows what amount now), thousand of lives and 10 years of war.

And Libya, if it works out, will make us money and help our business interests and provide a measure of freedom to the Libyan people.

Which was the better strategy? I wonder.[/quote]

Brian: Two things. First, I was dead wrong on Iraq and will be the first to admit that.

Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Arraya: Man, when you’re right, you ARE right. [/quote]

So Iraq was started on principles, while Libya is all about self-interest?

Iraq has gone awry and cost us $1 trillion (who knows what amount now), thousand of lives and 10 years of war.

And Libya, if it works out, will make us money and help our business interests and provide a measure of freedom to the Libyan people.

Which was the better strategy? I wonder.[/quote]

Brian: Two things. First, I was dead wrong on Iraq and will be the first to admit that.

Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Hey, any thoughts on that Salon/CIA article? I’m getting crickets from pri on that and I don’t know why.

I’d think that someone who supports Progressivism and the rule of law and the inherent rights of man would probably be pretty upset about that, right?

I mean, going on the campaign trail and promising to restore civil liberties and abolish all of those bad, bad Dubya programs and then not doing it? That’s bad, right? Especially with Obama being a Constitutional Law professor and all…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Hey, any thoughts on that Salon/CIA article? I’m getting crickets from pri on that and I don’t know why.

I’d think that someone who supports Progressivism and the rule of law and the inherent rights of man would probably be pretty upset about that, right?

I mean, going on the campaign trail and promising to restore civil liberties and abolish all of those bad, bad Dubya programs and then not doing it? That’s bad, right? Especially with Obama being a Constitutional Law professor and all…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Hey, any thoughts on that Salon/CIA article? I’m getting crickets from pri on that and I don’t know why.

I’d think that someone who supports Progressivism and the rule of law and the inherent rights of man would probably be pretty upset about that, right?

I mean, going on the campaign trail and promising to restore civil liberties and abolish all of those bad, bad Dubya programs and then not doing it? That’s bad, right? Especially with Obama being a Constitutional Law professor and all…

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”

Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?

[/quote]

Tea Party influenced politics and political pragmatism, my friend, pragmatism.

Obama cannot be be seen as soft on terrorism.

Same goes with immigration. While Obama increased deportations over the Bush Administration, but he was still accused of being soft on unauthorized immigration and not controlling the border (which is simply not true because Obama was harder in enforcement than Bush).

As I said before, ofentimes in politics, you need to pander to the public to achieve your larger goals.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”

Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?

[/quote]

Tea Party influenced politics and political pragmatism, my friend, pragmatism.

Obama cannot be be seen as soft on terrorism.

Same goes with immigration. While Obama increased deportations over the Bush Administration, but he was still accused of being soft on unauthorized immigration and not controlling the border (which is simply not true because Obama was harder in enforcement than Bush).

As I said before, ofentimes in politics, you need to pander to the public to achieve your larger goals.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”

Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?

[/quote]

Tea Party influenced politics and political pragmatism, my friend, pragmatism.

Obama cannot be be seen as soft on terrorism.

Same goes with immigration. While Obama increased deportations over the Bush Administration, but he was still accused of being soft on unauthorized immigration and not controlling the border (which is simply not true because Obama was harder in enforcement than Bush).

As I said before, ofentimes in politics, you need to pander to the public to achieve your larger goals.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).

[/quote]

Yes, I support an American Empire. But a softer, gentler one based on earning the hearts and minds of people through American democratic principles, but also through the brands, consumer lifestyle ideas and products and technology that we sell.

National interests come first. But humanitarian principles should be part of our foreign policy.

There are times when military force is necessary. But I generally believe that commerce, relations and people exchange achieve a lot more than intransigence and hard demands that we make under threat of force.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).

[/quote]

Yes, I support an American Empire. But a softer, gentler one based on earning the hearts and minds of people through American democratic principles, but also through the brands, consumer lifestyle ideas and products and technology that we sell.

National interests come first. But humanitarian principles should be part of our foreign policy.

There are times when military force is necessary. But I generally believe that commerce, relations and people exchange achieve a lot more than intransigence and hard demands that we make under threat of force.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).

[/quote]

Yes, I support an American Empire. But a softer, gentler one based on earning the hearts and minds of people through American democratic principles, but also through the brands, consumer lifestyle ideas and products and technology that we sell.

National interests come first. But humanitarian principles should be part of our foreign policy.

There are times when military force is necessary. But I generally believe that commerce, relations and people exchange achieve a lot more than intransigence and hard demands that we make under threat of force.

[Author]

Posts