Our schools are run by liberals

[jazyd]

Just read 3 articles from schools in 3 states

Elementary principle in NY refused to allow students to sing Go Bless America or Stand Up for the Red white and Blue

U of zwyoming student government would not allow a military vet recite the pledge of allegiance because it would offend international students

High school in Conn blocks all websites of republicans, NRA, any that mention Jesus, conservative groups, right to life but does not block gun control sites, democrat party website, planned parenthood, Islamic websites, and all liberal sites.

What the hell happened, where is my country

[suncat05]

The soapbox doesn't work anymore. The ballot box is rigged in the other side's favor, as witnessed in the last general election. There's only one other box left, and they're doing their damnedest to take that away from us to leave us defenseless. I am concerned that that option may be our only, and last option.
Congress has already betrayed us and put us at a huge disadvantage, and you can expect them to do nothing to correct their wrongs. They just won't. The Supreme Court has betrayed us, and will continue to do so.

You guys think things are bad now? It's only going to get worse at every turn. And the breaking point is not far off.

[Doc]

What needs to happen is these need to be taken to court and appealed up the ladder.

[jazyd]

Sun, I am afraid the younger generation is being brainwashed so bad they won't do a thing and that there might be a revolution soon before the young get in control. Hearing too many say a revolution is only way too stop what's happening. Cities are not only voting in ultra liberals but damn socialists, Muslims, communist.

The breaking point is closer than many realize


QUOTE=suncat05;195276]The soapbox doesn't work anymore. The ballot box is rigged in the other side's favor, as witnessed in the last general election. There's only one other box left, and they're doing their damnedest to take that away from us to leave us defenseless. I am concerned that that option may be our only, and last option.
Congress has already betrayed us and put us at a huge disadvantage, and you can expect them to do nothing to correct their wrongs. They just won't. The Supreme Court has betrayed us, and will continue to do so.

You guys think things are bad now? It's only going to get worse at every turn. And the breaking point is not far off.[/QUOTE]

[Darrell KSR]

This coming year will be the 21st consecutive year I'll have a child in a school that not only allows them to pray, but it's part of the curriculum. I have to pay for that privilege, and I have mixed thoughts on that, too.

What a world we live in.

[suncat05]

But that is the proof that at least some of the American people fully see and understand that there is a big problem, Darrell. And it's also proof that there is 'some' hope because some people are educating their children the right way.

They bad guys infiltrated the school systems long ago. Education has turned into indoctrination, not actual learning. The education systems in our country are FILLED with liberals, Communists and their sympathizers, and recently Muslim radicals. If we fail, it will be because we failed to protect our children from this filth & vermin. And that rests squarely on our shoulders. There it is: that personal responsibility that we have with regards to our children.
The education systems, the media, and then the government. Control those three things and you can control the masses.

[MTcatfan]

Just read 3 articles from schools in 3 states

Elementary principle in NY refused to allow students to sing Go Bless America or Stand Up for the Red white and BlueTrue, pretty silly, but school does open each day with Pledge of Allegiance and America the Beautiful. Due to this the superintendent backed the principal. The principal should just get over it.

U of zwyoming student government would not allow a military vet recite the pledge of allegiance because it would offend international studentsThe correct way to say this is that the University of Wyoming student government would not allow a unilateral change to how they open meetings. They have charters that prescribe how meeting are to open, to be run and how to close, and to make a change to those you must write a bill, and the student government has to vote. The leaders of the student government felt to make the change without following proper procedure would be disrespectful to the 2 international students in student government. The student in question is planning on submitting a bill to make the change. Also the UW president, a Vietnam vet, would like to see the student government meetings opened with pledge, but it is a student government decision. This is not a huge deal to me, this is the student of a college that is actually quite a conservative college, and this is not being done by the administration of the college

High school in Conn blocks all websites of republicans, NRA, any that mention Jesus, conservative groups, right to life but does not block gun control sites, democrat party website, planned parenthood, Islamic websites, and all liberal sites.This needs to be fixed, block em all or block none, pretty easy to figure out.

What the hell happened, where is my country

See red above.

[Doc]

This coming year will be the 21st consecutive year I'll have a child in a school that not only allows them to pray, but it's part of the curriculum. I have to pay for that privilege, and I have mixed thoughts on that, too.

What a world we live in.

I'm quite conservative but am agaist prayer in school, or at least public school. School is for learning, church if for prayer. I don't go to church and expect a spelling test so why should one expect a prayer in school? You want to pray in the morning, do it at home when you get up. Pretty simple.

Now if you elect to send your kids to a private religious based school and that is part of the circulum then fine. No problem with that either. Your choice to do so, and obviously a religious based school has its own priorities.

[suncat05]

I am not against prayer.........anywhere. Now I attended a private Catholic school, as some of you may recall me mentioning previously. Prayer was part of the curriculum(sp?), and that was never questioned.
I understand those that do not wish to participate in a public school setting. But to pray or not to pray should be a choice made by the individual student, and no one else. But that's just me.

This whole thing about telling me when and where and how I am allowed to express my faith/belief in God rubs me the wrong way, and it always has. I understand that others do not agree nor do they want to be exposed to it, and that's okay, but I take issue with being denied my right to religious expression because it offends them in their presence.

This has been a hot-button topic for as long as I can remember in my lifetime. And I guess it probably always will be.

[MTcatfan]

Update on Connecticut one: now superintendent is blaming their internet filtering software by Dell for the issue.

[CitizenBBN]

Update on Connecticut one: now superintendent is blaming their internet filtering software by Dell for the issue.

lol. I"ve owned probably 50 Dell computers and set up their networking equipment more times than I can count. It wasn't the software. It was the wetware, specifically the wet between the ears pseudo-intelligentsia that has a stranglehold on American education.

[jazyd]

Lol. The liberal way, blame it on someone else


QUOTE=CitizenBBN;195377]lol. I"ve owned probably 50 Dell computers and set up their networking equipment more times than I can count. It wasn't the software. It was the wetware, specifically the wet between the ears pseudo-intelligentsia that has a stranglehold on American education.[/QUOTE]

[MTcatfan]

Lol. The liberal way, blame it on someone else


Yeah conservatives never do that either...roll eyes...

[jazyd]

has your boy Obama ever, and I mean EVER admitted wrong, no, always Bush is fault. Hell even now he blames Bush, as does Reid, Pelosi, Schultz, the whole bunch. But here is how they do it, well I voted for it, but I really meant to vote against it, but I was kinda of a dumb ass when I origianlly voted for it and high at the time, but now that I see my base against it and I need to be president, I am against it. And as soon as we write it, and vote it in, then I will have a subordinate read it and tell me kinda whats in it. Yep, thats your guys.


Yeah conservatives never do that either...roll eyes...

[MTcatfan]

Yeah Dick Cheney admits his faults all of the time doesn't he...everything is always Obamas fault, like Iraq, never mind the fact that Dick and his war hawks are the morons who destabilized the region in the first damn place, oh and lied their friggin asses off as to why they were justified to do it. If they were wooden men their noses would stretch from Cali to DC...

But hey all the problems today are Obamas fault, and Dickie and his boys have all come out of the woodwork and are screaming and yelling on every program out there how much they were right and this is Obamas mess.

Look I can't stand extremism on either side, it is stupid to behave in a it's my way or the highway attitude, and I will call out either side that pretends their turds don't stink. Personally I have not been that affected by this President or the last one and the current one ain't perfect, but in the real world we are in year 14 of some pretty ineffective Presidential and Congressional leadership, and quite frankly from the look at the morons pretending their turds don't stink at the present time, the streak is more than likely to extend to 20 years at the least...

[suncat05]

Yeah Dick Cheney admits his faults all of the time doesn't he...everything is always Obamas fault, like Iraq, never mind the fact that Dick and his war hawks are the morons who destabilized the region in the first damn place, oh and lied their friggin asses off as to why they were justified to do it. If they were wooden men their noses would stretch from Cali to DC...

But hey all the problems today are Obamas fault, and Dickie and his boys have all come out of the woodwork and are screaming and yelling on every program out there how much they were right and this is Obamas mess.

Look I can't stand extremism on either side, it is stupid to behave in a it's my way or the highway attitude, and I will call out either side that pretends their turds don't stink. Personally I have not been that affected by this President or the last one and the current one ain't perfect, but in the real world we are in year 14 of some pretty ineffective Presidential and Congressional leadership, and quite frankly from the look at the morons pretending their turds don't stink at the present time, the streak is more than likely to extend to 20 years at the least...

Really can't argue with your points there. Neither side is worth much, and I think we all can agree with that point of view. The lack of leadership on either side is appalling, any way you look at it. And unfortunately, Ronald Reagan IS NOT walking through that door........ :(

[Doc]

Yeah Dick Cheney admits his faults all of the time doesn't he...everything is always Obamas fault, like Iraq, never mind the fact that Dick and his war hawks are the morons who destabilized the region in the first damn place, oh and lied their friggin asses off as to why they were justified to do it. If they were wooden men their noses would stretch from Cali to DC...

But hey all the problems today are Obamas fault, and Dickie and his boys have all come out of the woodwork and are screaming and yelling on every program out there how much they were right and this is Obamas mess.

Look I can't stand extremism on either side, it is stupid to behave in a it's my way or the highway attitude, and I will call out either side that pretends their turds don't stink. Personally I have not been that affected by this President or the last one and the current one ain't perfect, but in the real world we are in year 14 of some pretty ineffective Presidential and Congressional leadership, and quite frankly from the look at the morons pretending their turds don't stink at the present time, the streak is more than likely to extend to 20 years at the least...

Dick Cheney didn't destabilize anything. First off he was vice president, not president. His role was advisor. Second, the area hasn't been stable in quite some time. Kurds, Summit, Whites, Jews, ..... all fighting all the time. Hard to destabilize something that isn't stable to start with.

As for lying, I'd suggest any Obama supporter stay as far away from that term as possible.

I was in favor of ridding the world of Saddam but felt it should have been done originally when he went into Kuwait. Instead the USA elected to play nice and let him stay in power. Nice does work with bad people. Obama and his kumbya crowd need to realize this. Playing nice with Iran won't work. Playing nice with Russia won't work. Playing nice with ISIS won't work. Playing nice in Syria won't work, etc. But I've got off topic

I don't think gwb was a great president or even a particularly good one. I do believe he was HONEST with the American people and I do believe he looked at himself as the leader of this country. I'd say the same about Clinton so don't accuse me of Parisian craObama on the other hand is the leader of the liberal/progressives. He wants to insure that the leftist agenda stays even if its not what America wants or what is best for the country. He will lie to the nation and do so deliberately and with forethought. I/have respect for folks who say I screwed up and have none for folks who lie to cover up their mistakes. That is why I so dislike and distrust Obama.

[MTcatfan]

Dick Cheney didn't destabilize anything

Except Iraq, i mean there was no danger of an anti US muslim state before we took out Sadam.


First off he was vice president, not president. His role was advisor.

If you seriously believe that one wow i am not sure what to think. Cheney and his big oil friends were the powers that be that GWB was beholden to, every President sells his soul to someone to be President and Big Oil and their billions in no bid contracts were his daddies.


Second, the area hasn't been stable in quite some time. Kurds, Summit, Whites, Jews, ..... all fighting all the time. Hard to destabilize something that isn't stable to start with.

Again see the anti US muslim nation that actually does support terrorism that Iraq becomes as being way more destabilized than Sadam Iraq ever was, even with the first war there.


As for lying, I'd suggest any Obama supporter stay as far away from that term as possible.

Really...I'll wait on this one

I was in favor of ridding the world of Saddam but felt it should have been done originally when he went into Kuwait.


I agree with this one we may have been able to head off the new Muslim Iraq if we had taken care of business back then. Though this region doesn't have a good experience with democracy, so what is happening now probably would have just happened sooner.


Instead the USA elected to play nice and let him stay in power. Nice does work with bad people. Obama and his kumbya crowd need to realize this. Playing nice with Iran won't work. Playing nice with Russia won't work. Playing nice with ISIS won't work. Playing nice in Syria won't work, etc. But I've got off topic

Mostly agree here, plus assume you meant nice does NOT work... ; )

I don't think gwb was a great president or even a particularly good one. I do believe he was HONEST with the American people


Really...so the fact that both justifications for invading Iraq were proven to be lies. Sadam was not supporting Al Qaeta, and he had no weapons of mass destruction. GWB flat out lied to the American people and has gotten a lot of Americans killed fighting a war based on lies.


and I do believe he looked at himself as the leader of this country.


I agree, though I don't believe he was much of a leader.

I'd say the same about Clinton so don't accuse me of Parisian


I thought Clinton was fine also


craObama on the other hand is the leader of the liberal/progressives. He wants to insure that the leftist agenda stays even if its not what America wants or what is best for the country. He will lie to the nation and do so deliberately and with forethought

Sure that happens, but like I said earlier to be President you are beholden to someone and Obama is beholden to the Liberal apparatus, just as GWB was beholden to Cheney and Big oil. The President always has a daddy, that is how you get to be President, and quite frankly GWB and Obama have shown they will do whatever it takes, including lie, to make sure their daddies are taken care of.

I/have respect for folks who say I screwed up and have none for folks who lie to cover up their mistakes. That is why I so dislike and distrust Obama.

I also have respect for those that can admit to screwing up but I don't recall any President ever doing it so Obama is not worse or better than any other President imho. Also imho our last two Presidents have not minded lying to cover up their mistakes and I am not sure if there will ever be a truly honest President in my lifetime, politics are just to much of a cesspool right now.

[CitizenBBN]

I find the whole idea of Presidents, ANY President, shifting blame to the past beyond a certain point to be pretty silly. Most have tried it far beyond what is reasonable or logical, and this one has taken it to be his theme song.

Yes, Obama is to blame for the current crisis in Iraq. Yes Bush I failed to deal with the situation correctly at the time and yes bush II invaded and IMO tried to vastly overreach by trying to put a democracy in a region that clearly is far from ready for the rule of law and mutual respect, but that was a known quantity when Obama ran for office and accepted the job, and it was his desire to just wash his hands of the situation in Iraq and pull out that has led to the current debacle.

It works for both sides. Bush II can't blame their failures in Iraq on Bush I either. We can easily judge each President's decisions based on the situation they inherited as either good or bad, effective or ineffectual, and accept their inherited situations as a given.

Bush I inherited the current relations we had with Saddam in Iraq from Bush I and Clinton, it was Bush I administration's decision to not clearly communicate military support for Kuwait that led to the original invasion. It was a huge mistake to not say "the US government is committed to taking any steps necessary to insure the solidarity and stablity of the Kuwaiti nation". But that doesn't mean Bush II can blame his struggles in Iraq on Bush I. Bush II's mistake of trying to put in a government that was never going to work there is all his own decision.

Likewise Obama's decision in foreign policy to simply run away from anything and everything problematic is on him. The world is full of problems and challenges and tough situations, and NO President has ever inherited a clean slate given to him by some perfect world situation with no challenges by his predecessor.

that's essentially what it would take to take Obama's position seriously: that he should have been given a perfect world with no in progress setbacks or quagmires or growing threats, and that has never ever happened nor will it happen. Each President is judged on how they deal with the situations they face whether made by other nations or past Presidents. that's how it works. Obama is living in Fantasy Land to think any hole he inherited somehow absolves him of being judged on how well he's dug us out of it. Every President starts with holes they have to dig out of, that's what separates the men from the stuffed shirts.

Obama's "blame bush" approach is laughable at this point. Six years into his administration it is no longer someone else's fault when Russia feels their aggression will fail to draw enough response to deter them, it is no longer someone else's fault when his own agencies are gathering massive data in violation of the rights of the People, it is CERTAINLY no one else's fault when Americans are left to die in attacks in countries where we didn't even have anyone 6 years ago.

I dislike extremism of either side as well and the "they lie and we don't" stuff doesn't sell with me either, I think Cheney and the neo-cons failed massively in their end game and that's NOT on Obama, b/c the only stable government we could have put in Iraq would have been another repressive dictator, but it's not like he wasn't aware of the starting point for his Administration when he took office. Just as Bush II was aware of his father's failure to end the Iraqi problem as well as his failure to prevent the invasion of Kuwait that kicked it all off. It left Bush II in a sticky situation but he gets judged on how he handled it doesn't he? So does every President, even aloof ones who like to play golf while Rome burns.

History judges Presidents on how they play the hands they are dealt, and this one has been one of the worst at playing his hand in the foreign policy realm in US history, certainly since we had any real say in world affairs by the later 1800s. His patented blend of inaction and aloofness to problems can actually work politically internally, but abroad he has allowed our enemies to surge forward by never taking strong action or a strong leadership role on anything. It has emboldened the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Taliban, Iran and everyone else that his solution to all these problems is talk and a few drone strikes that do little. They know he will do little to react or retaliate, this is their chance and they know it.

He simply cannot understand that when you communicate an unwillingness to fight back it is a message to every bully to come take your lunch money.

Bush I made that mistake in Somalia, so don't think this is a liberal/conservative thing with me. His weakness there to a) get involved, and b) run away as soon as we got a bloody nose was a watershed moment in Al Queda recruiting and emboldened them greatly. Both sides have done it, but Obama has done it to a level that makes Carter look like a war hawk. Even now as our enemies drive our tanks away he simply goes to cali and plays golf instead of ordering the air strikes to prevent them from being used against our allies. it's stunning the level of inaction he can tolerate. Targets we can no doubt pinpoint to within 6 inches of their location and hit and destroy from the air with no collateral damage and he simply watches them drive off to face israel and our other allies down the road.

Oh, and we have to blame him and Bush II for the fact that those Stinger missiles were in Iraq at all. None of those should have ever been given to ANY of our allies other than Israel as none of them were facing air attacks from anyone. terrorists don't have fighter jets so why did the Iraqi army need portable anti-aircraft missiles?

[MTcatfan]

Citizen, as per normal, says it best. Can't really disagree with anything you typed.

[Doc]

If you believe Iran was stable then any further discussion is a waste of time. Of course torture and killing political opposition or those who dare speak out against a dictator could be seen as "stable" to some but not to most who believe in a world where free expression of ideas and thought is a good thing.

Iran invaded Kuwait and Kuwait ask the USA to help kick iraq out. We did and agreed to allow Saddam to stay so long as he agreed to allow inspection. He failed to do that. He obstructed that at every point. He would not allow inspectors access, plain and simple. The USA was stupid to use any WMD excuse when they had ample reason, a clear violation of the agreement that ended the first conflict. Saddams actions destabilized the region.

[Doc]

I'll add I believe every president has his agenda to follow. Its what they should do and what they are elected to do. However once elected you need to adjust your goals to include all citizens, even those you don't agree with philosophically because like it or not they are citizens too and do deserve representation. President is leader of the NATION. He hasn't shown he is willing to do that.

[CitizenBBN]

If you believe Iran was stable then any further discussion is a waste of time. Of course torture and killing political opposition or those who dare speak out against a dictator could be seen as "stable" to some but not to most who believe in a world where free expression of ideas and thought is a good thing.

Iran invaded Kuwait and Kuwait ask the USA to help kick iraq out. We did and agreed to allow Saddam to stay so long as he agreed to allow inspection. He failed to do that. He obstructed that at every point. He would not allow inspectors access, plain and simple. The USA was stupid to use any WMD excuse when they had ample reason, a clear violation of the agreement that ended the first conflict. Saddams actions destabilized the region.

Not sure I'd call it 'stable' in that sense, but it was a nation that was not a threat to us in any meaningful way had Bush I simply contained him. If anything the threat of Iraq meant his neighbors with all the oil were deeply reliant on us whether they liked it or not. Bush I could have prevented the invasion of Kuwait but chose to not be firm and clear. I dont' know if they wanted an excuse for the first Iraqi war but I doubt it given that they RAN to the cease fire and armistice that left Saddam in power. I presume they simply misjudged Saddam's likelihood of invading.

The sad truth that no one on the national stage wants to say is that the region in question is not ready for democracy as we understand it. Really we use "democracy" where what we mean in the US is "liberty", i.e. individual liberty and equality, not just "majority rule". But that requires respect for the rule of law and belief that everyone has rights, fundamental beliefs in America that are simply NOT shared by many if not most in the rest of the world. if too many people would rather pick up guns and kill or repress everyone in the country not like them it's unlikely that elections will go well and that they will be respected or that those who win will use their political power in accordance with the law of the land and for the benefit of all.

That's where the neo-cons failed. They weren't wrong about taking action to structure things, or that the end of the cold war would mean this kind of destabilization, those were quite true. The problem was thinking that once we won the military victory we could install a democratic nation that would thrive WITHOUT us being there for decades till a generation or two of people could come up who were educated in those beliefs and accepted them. basically occupy nations as Britain did and rule them a long time then cut them loose.

I agree 100% the WMD thing was always dumb and unnecessary. As you said we had cause to confront Saddam without it and then there is no lie and no undermining of US political support for the war. We would have made the case on REAL reasons and if there was sufficient support we go to war, if not we don't.

The selling of these conflicts on the basis of lies and falsehoods is the core of the problem. From the Domino Theory of Vietnam to the WMD thing it's all a mistake. FWIW so are Obama's and Carter's false reasons for NOT taking action, the notion that all these ills are the result of US imperialism and if we just leave it'll all work out. Both positions are equally dangerous and false.

[KeithKSR]

Dick and his war hawks are the morons who destabilized the region in the first damn place, oh and lied their friggin asses off as to why they were justified to do it.

Destabilized the region? That is a very shortsighted statement. That region has not been stable in our lifetimes, our parents' lifetimes, our grandparents' lifetimes, etc. The people within the region have been at war for thousands of years and will be at war for the foreseeable future. The mistake made by politicians on both left and right is in thinking that it can be fixed by any means.

The accusation about lies has never been born out by the facts. Intelligence from all countries thought there were WMDs in Iraq, Saddam thought he had WMDs. The people gassed in Syria were gassed by the gas smuggled into Syria from Iraq.

If you want a real lie just think about the "not a smidgen of corruption" statement by Obama and watch his nostrils flare as he tells a lie that caused the adrenalin to kick in and cause the physiological impact on the body that resulted in the uptake of more O2. Obama exhibits multiple classic signs when he tells a lie, as most people do.

[KeithKSR]

I'll add I believe every president has his agenda to follow. Its what they should do and what they are elected to do. However once elected you need to adjust your goals to include all citizens, even those you don't agree with philosophically because like it or not they are citizens too and do deserve representation. President is leader of the NATION. He hasn't shown he is willing to do that.

He doesn't put the country's needs first.

[SgtBob]

It's real funny how people define the word weapon of mass destruction. I served and retired after 22 years and for many years under the Disaster Preparedness field. Trust me there was but it was not nuclear in nature as Sadam did a masterful job of convincing the world--not only our government. For those of you who want to point fingers and blame you might want to actually educate your self with that part of the world and not from a political view... What I mean not from your parties view but from the actual facts.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc]

It's real funny how people define the word weapon of mass destruction. I served and retired after 22 years and for many years under the Disaster Preparedness field. Trust me there was but it was not nuclear in nature as Sadam did a masterful job of convincing the world--not only our government. For those of you who want to point fingers and blame you might want to actually educate your self with that part of the world and not from a political view... What I mean not from your parties view but from the actual facts.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Educate us. I'd rather hear from somebody in the know than from a liberal media perspective. I have always found it funny that "Weapons of mass destruction" were somehow worse than "weapons of non-mass destruction". Do they not kill as bad? I mean does a 10,000 soldiers with machine guns mowing down civilians not kill as many people, or more, than one mustard gas bomb? And are those who were gases somehow more dead? Heck, 2 jumbo jets were used to kill over 3,000 US citizens. Could that not be considered a "WMD". Lets define a weapon of mass destruction first.

As I've stated before, Saddam invaded an ally of ours who asked for our assistance (Kuwait) and we responded. We kicked Saddam"s ass. We agreed to allow Saddam to remain in control of Iraq if he meet certain conditions which included inspections of his weapons arsenals. He failed to meets those conditions. When that happens we retaliate otherwise we look like wimps.

[suncat05]

I agree with you on that, Doc. However, post Kuwait we had William Jefferson Clinton occupying the White House, whose grasp of foreign policy and identifying possible foreign enemies(does Osama bin Laden ring a bell?)left much to be desired. Clinton basically dealt with Saddam as a nuisance rather than as a real enemy, and Clinton allowed Saddam to basically give the entire world the middle finger during his presidency. Yeah, there was that "no fly zone" that was fairly strictly enforced, because we sure couldn't allow Saddam to fly any planes or helos anywhere, but that was a foreign policy joke too.
Clinton was also the one who pulled U.S. troops(who were actually under the auspices of United Nations authority)out of Somalia after the "Blackhawk Down" situation, not Bush I, as someone previously said. His concept of dealing with foreign menaces was to do the same exact thing that "O" believes in, which is run away and pretend that the problem doesn't exist. Which in turn makes it even worse. As exactly what we're witnessing in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Egypt right now. And inviting the Iranians into the situation is going to lead to even more international problems in that region, but "O" is convinced that making the Iranians part of the solution will help stabilize that region. Just like ignoring the Iranians pursuit of nuclear weapons will help stabilize the region. Yeah, right, that foreign policy gem will work just fine. Until they attack Israel and the U.S. with those acquired weapons that "O" really believes those Islamist nutcases need.
But getting back to Clinton, I firmly believe that the attacks of 9-11 rest squarely on the shoulder of Clinton because of his lack of taking foreign threats seriously. He ignored bin Laden and allowed him to grow into the largest threat to the U.S. in our lifetime, at that point in history. Except that "O's" foreign policy is completely devoid of any rhyme or reason, and the next time we're attacked it will make 9-11 look like a slap on the backside, and "O" is complicit in the making of those future attacks happen with his "Kumbaya', "can't we all just get along?" foreign policy. And trust me, there will be "weapons of mass destruction" involved. Since we couldn't find the ones Saddam had, they'll turn up, but it'll be in someplace where we damn sure don't want them.

[Doc]

I agree with you on that, Doc. .....

Me and my wife have had this discussion often. I've frequently defended WJC because as president he has the right and responsibility to impliment his own foreign policy. My wife's position is that it was his decision to tone back on our foreign intellegence that led to the 9-11 attack, and she would be correct. The decision by Clinton to scale back on intellegence collection set back our knowledge on what was going on and what was happening considerably, but its the presidents job to focus where he feels the focus needs to be. Clinton elected to focus elsewhere (Bosnia, Somolia, etc). Unfortunately he failed to step up and take the blame for the lack of intellegence post 9-11. My POV is that is that a president has his priorities but also needs to accept the responsibilites of the consequences of the decisions that they make be they good or bad. Most presidents will take credit for the good out comes (hey, bil laden is dead and GM is alive) yet won't for the failure (hey, Al Queda is on the run......NOT).

[SgtBob]

Both Doc and suncat05 points hit the nail on the head. I handled a small vile the size of a pen that used in the right way would murder thousands. Both of your points go over many Liberals heads because they choose to see things in a political view and not as fact. Every president makes decisions that can and do affect us all for years. Sadam had plenty of Weapons of Mass Destruction just not nuclear. All we have to do is see how this president has handled foreign policy since he's been in office and the response by our enemies should be proof weakness is not respected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dan_bgblue]

weakness is not respected

It is only to be taken advantage of.

[CitizenBBN]

The Left doesn't see it as weakness. Since they believe the evil of the foreign world is largely the result of US imperialism they see it as eliminating the cause of their evil doing. We go away, everyone makes nice and rises to Rousseau's ideal society where inherently good men are not corrupted by western actions and greed.

The problem is Rousseau had many brilliant thoughts, but was as wrong about the nature of man as the guy who thought the earth was held up by 4 elephants on a turtle's back. Far better in foreign policy to hold to the German ideal of man, that life in the natural state is nasty, brutish and short. Specifically the German derivation of of that embodied by Henry Kissinger and real politik.

There are evil men in the world, and those men are sadly the heads of governments and terror groups. Pretending they can be reasoned with or transformed into good men is the fundamental flaw of the Leftist philosophy.

It was the mistake of Bush I to not cut a deal with Saddam and leave him in power and out of Kuwait. he is evil but he was secular and buyable. Clinton's mistake was to embolden him, Bush II's was to think democracy would work in a place that has no fundamental respect whatsoever for the rule of law above the rule of men. Obama's was to then hand our worst enemies both Iraq and eventually Afghanistan on a silver platter rather than correcting the problem by implementing governments there that could survive and be allies. His desire to run away was far greater than his desire to either protect America or the poor souls who live there trying to raise families and have a decent life. He doesn't give a crap about those poor bastards, which is an option other than the fact that he constantly pretends to and exclaims how we must, right until it's inconvenient for him politically.

[CitizenBBN]

Same thing in Syria btw. With the fall of the soviets Assad could have probably been bought, like we bought the peace with Egypt. Assad wants to stay in power, we help him and he stops backing the anti-Israeli forces in Lebanon, we can maybe start to stabilize things there a bit.

Of course there is always the chance of a revolution, but in the current trend of islamic radicalism any revolution will be out of our control, that's just how it will be. There will be no peaceful move to democracy in 9/10ths of that region until this current fascist movement passes. And Islamic radicalism is absolutely a fascist movement eerily similar to the one that swept Europe in the 1930s.

[Doc]

As far as Saddam goes, realistically the problem wasn't Clinton or BushII. What should have happened is Bush I should never have let the guy stay in power. Instead he tried to play nice with a guy who wasn't nice. Ruthless dictators are ruthless dictators and they take mercy as a sign of weakness. When Saddam invaded Kuwait and the USA kicked his ass out and then allowed him to keep control of Iraq we were stupid, plain and simple. We expected a ruthless dictator to learn a lesson but ruthless dictators don't by definition. We have again forgotten the lesson ruthless dictators ascend to the position of ruthless dictator because they are ruthless and don't play nice. Example, Putin will never play nice. To expect him to play nice is stupid. Bashar al-Assad will never play nice. To expect him to play nice is stupid. Etc.... Throwing money at them won't make them play nice. All it will do is allow them to spend it to kill more American and Jews. Throwing out unbacked threats won't make them play nice because they know they won't be backed up. And the longer it goes on the weaker you become.

[Doc]

It was the mistake of Bush I to not cut a deal with Saddam and leave him in power and out of Kuwait. he is evil but he was secular and buyable. Clinton's mistake was to embolden him, Bush II's was to think democracy would work in a place that has no fundamental respect whatsoever for the rule of law above the rule of men. Obama's was to then hand our worst enemies both Iraq and eventually Afghanistan on a silver platter rather than correcting the problem by implementing governments there that could survive and be allies. His desire to run away was far greater than his desire to either protect America or the poor souls who live there trying to raise families and have a decent life. He doesn't give a crap about those poor bastards, which is an option other than the fact that he constantly pretends to and exclaims how we must, right until it's inconvenient for him politically.

Edited above

I disagree (see above). No, the US should not have cut a deal with Saddam. They should have destroy the SOB at the get go. Our involvement was legitimate at the time as he was invading a sovereign nation (Kuwait) in a power grab. Fellow countries in the region could see that and there was some support for our involvement by the Arab world. 12 years later that support had eroded away and it appeared as a power grab on our part to some. Him being secular and buyable would be nothing more than what happened with the Shah and Iran. Rid the world of Saddam initially and there is no mistake by Clinton or the younger Bush. However once Bush 1 failed to do that, I do agree with your assesment on Clinton and Bush 2's failings. Obama's failings fall beyond failing. They fall in the "what the hell are you thinking, moron?" class.

[CitizenBBN]

Doc, Bush I directly encouraged the invasion of Kuwait. The dept of state said just before Saddam moved that the US had no defense treaty with Kuwait, clearly signalling a lack of military resolve to defend them.

Saddam had an iron grip on the nation, we had worked with him against Iran for many years. We do the same thing with him we did with Egypt, buy them off with aid or arms or both.

The problem of course, the problem for us in Pakistan that led to destabilization there, was our policy of non-proliferation. We distanced ourselves from saddam and the Pakistani military regime due to their pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's great, I sure don't want them to have them either, but when you do that you lose influence over them, and in Pakistan's case they got nukes anyway, b/c the chinese are happy to sell the technology.

So it's another case of a policy we'd like to think would be effective that in the end simply isn't. The only alternative is what we did with Saddam, remove him from power by force. did bush I consciously encourage the invasion to have the excuse of removing him and thus derailing his weapons development programs (nukes, bio/chem and his longer range missile work)? Impossible to say but then I agree your point kicks in: once you make that choice you finish the job.

Ideally we'd have removed him from power and installed a new regime, probably Baathist, allowing the generals with their power to remain rich and fat. Those are the very people now marching on Baghdad. They already had control over the local areas and leaders, keep everyone in line.

it's a pipe dream that the region can support the rule of law at this point. Far too many there simply don't see that as important or any kind of goal worth pursuing. They simply don't care nor understand why we care. Equality? LIberty? none of that is important to them. Patronage, dictates from your Sharif, that's what matters. No democracy can survive that, it's comical.

The only way to do it is to stay there for a generation or more, long enough to merge those value systems into something that can survive a mix of both, like India does due to long term British influence. Since we won't colonize anyone and set up shop for a at least a half century or so it simply won't work.

So we basically agree Bush I is a big part of the problem, but I think Bush i could have headed off the entire invasion and left Saddam in power. OK he has bio/chem and even Nukes, we fortify Israel to make it clear enough he'd be glassed if they were harmed, and use that threat to bolster our influence over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. The Gulf states largely embraced US influence b/c of the threat of Iran and Iraq, the madness of MADD is probably as stable as that region will be for a while, at least until oil is no longer valuable.

[CitizenBBN]

Oh and we agree on Obama, who may have inherited the situation but has managed to be the second most ignorant, naive and failed foreign policy President maybe ever. I keep putting LBJ above him b/c Obama has yet to kill 50,000 Americans for no particular reason, but other than LBJ I really can't make a case for anyone else being this ineffectual.