Obama's Legacy

Status
Not open for further replies.
:blah:
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Why does the location matter in determining cost? The only difference between Chicago and Hawaii is an extra tank of gas in the jet. Everything else is relatively the same.

This is basic logic.
Click to expand...
I read that beach front vacation homes require more coastal security (SEALs, Navy, Coast Guard), which is an added expense.

I suppose ease of control of accessibility is one factor, and rental costs can vary by area.
 
Reba said:
I read that beach front vacation homes require more coastal security (SEALs, Navy, Coast Guard), which is an added expense.

I suppose ease of control of accessibility is one factor, and rental costs can vary by area.
Click to expand...

Until I see numbers, I don't think this is any justification. I really don't think it can be all that more expensive than providing security in a dense urban environment like Chicago.
 
I guess we better elect Marion Barry as President; his travel requirements will be dirt-cheap.
 
kokonut said:
Kind of like getting more credit cards and use them to help pay off other previous credit cards debts? And repeat that indefinitely?

Rather an insane thing to do.
Click to expand...

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.....



Blame it on Clinton and Greenspan.
 
eighty said:
commodity futures modernization act of 2000.....



Blame it on clinton and greenspan.
Click to expand...

bingo (along with the failure of each successive president to enact any sort of safeguards or regulation of the derivatives granted protection by this act)
 
War against Islam? Bin Laden’s documents show Obama was right, and Gingrich and Santorum were wrong. - Slate Magazine
Al-Qaida documents show Obama was right about targeting Islam, and Gingrich and Santorum were wrong.

Two years ago, President Obama changed the way the U.S. government talked about its conflict with Osama Bin Laden. The administration announced that we were at war not with “jihadists,” “Islamists,” or even “terror.” Instead, our enemy was al-Qaida, and al-Qaida’s Muslim victims were our friends. Republicans denounced this reframing of the war as a capitulation to radical Islam and political correctness. But now we know, from Bin Laden’s own hand, that the reframing hurt al-Qaida. Obama was right, and his critics were wrong.

On May 26, 2010, John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, gave a speech outlining the new language:
Our enemy is not “terrorism” because terrorism is but a tactic. … Nor do we describe our enemy as “jihadists” or “Islamists” because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children. Indeed, characterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims.
Click to expand...

The next day, the White House released its National Security Strategy. The document declared:
The United States is waging a global campaign against al-Qa’ida and its terrorist affiliates. To disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates, we are pursuing a strategy that … denies al-Qa’ida safe haven, and builds positive partnerships with Muslim communities around the world. … We will always seek to delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out. Yet this is not a global war against a tactic—terrorism—or a religion—Islam. We are at war with a specific network, al-Qa’ida, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners.
Click to expand...

Conservative pundits ridiculed the administration, arguing that we should define our enemies as soldiers of Allah because that was how they described themselves. Republican politicians agreed. “Radical Islam poses the single greatest threat to America today,” said Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. Yet “the Obama administration refuses to acknowledge the link between Radical Islam and the terror attempts of the past nine months.” Peter King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, chimed in:
Even though we have been at war against radical Islamic jihadists since they killed almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11, the Obama Administration fails to even mention such terms. … John Brennan and others in the Obama Administration … have used this critically important National Security Strategy as another opportunity to satisfy the politically correct left wing …
Click to expand...

Over the next several months, King and other Republicans escalated the assault on Islam, whipping up hysteria over the “Ground Zero mosque.” Soon, their cause was taken up by Republican presidential candidates. Newt Gingrich led the way, and Rick Santorum followed. “We're fighting a war against radical Islam,” Santorum asserted in a debate on Nov. 22, 2011. In a debate on Jan. 7, 2012, Santorum complained: “This president has sanitized every defense document, everything. There's no—the word ‘radical Islam’ doesn't appear anywhere. Why? Because … we're trying to fight this politically correct war and not being honest with the American public as to who the enemy is.”

Usually, this kind of macho windbaggery can’t be falsified. But this time, Allah was merciful. On May 2, 2011, Obama, in a fit of political correctness, sent a SEAL team to kill Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The SEALs, upon entering Bin Laden’s compound, inexcusably failed to call him a radical Islamist. They did, however, shoot him dead and make off with a haul of al-Qaida documents. Some of these documents have now been declassified, and David Ignatius of the Washington Post has just published the first eyewitness account of them. He writes:
Bin Laden’s biggest concern was al-Qaeda’s media image among Muslims. He worried that it was so tarnished that, in a draft letter … he argued that the organization should find a new name. The al-Qaeda brand had become a problem, bin Laden explained, because Obama administration officials “have largely stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims,” and instead promoted a war against al-Qaeda. The organization’s full name was “Qaeda al-Jihad,” bin Laden noted, but in its shorthand version, “this name reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them.” … Bin Laden ruminated about “mistakes” and “miscalculations” by affiliates in Iraq and elsewhere that had killed Muslims, even in mosques. He told Atiyah to warn every emir, or regional leader, to avoid these “unnecessary civilian casualties,” which were hurting the organization. “Making these mistakes is a great issue,” he stressed, arguing that spilling “Muslim blood” had resulted in “the alienation of most of the nation [of Islam] from the [Mujaheddin].”
Click to expand...

There you have it. Gingrich, Santorum, and their pals were wrong. Obama and Brennan were right. So was George W. Bush in his steadfast refusal to blame Islam for 9/11. Bin Laden wanted a religious war. Bush and Obama refused to let him have it. At the end of his life, isolated by left-wing drone strikes and marked for death by PC commandos, this was Bin Laden’s chief lament. And that, Sen. Santorum, is why you don’t call it a war on radical Islam: because choosing your words carefully is part of winning the war.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, Bush was right. It was well known that bin Laden was not the leader of Islam.
The Ayatollahs and Imams are the leaders. While most Muslims are peaceful, these leaders have declared jihad on the kafir and declared America to be the Great Satan.
The countries of Iran, America, Iraq, etc. are just that, the difference being that America is not ruled by a religion. Obama took out a terrorist, bin Laden, but not the head of Islam. These are the guys who have declared they want to destroy Israel and America (jihad) and wil stop at nothing less. Yes, Obama is right about most Muslims being peaceful but he would be wrong to say that about the Ayatollahs and Imams. They and Obama and any president after him will be long gone but the jihad will never end. That is unless the whole world is Muslim. It is always the leaders of a peaceful people that are the problem, not the people themself.
 
rolling7 said:
Yes, Bush was right. It was well known that bin Laden was not the leader of Islam.
The Ayatollahs and Imams are the leaders. While most Muslims are peaceful, these leaders have declared jihad on the kafir and declared America to be the Great Satan.
The countries of Iran, America, Iraq, etc. are just that, the difference being that America is not ruled by a religion. Obama took out a terrorist, bin Laden, but not the head of Islam. These are the guys who have declared they want to destroy Israel and America (jihad) and wil stop at nothing less. Yes, Obama is right about most Muslims being peaceful but he would be wrong to say that about the Ayatollahs and Imams. They and Obama and any president after him will be long gone but the jihad will never end. That is unless the whole world is Muslim. It is always the leaders of a peaceful people that are the problem, not the people themself.
Click to expand...
leaders of peaceful people that are the problem? like GWB?

and who is this "head of Islam" you speak of?
 
The Ayathollahs and Imams...........the very same who declare jihad.......even on a cartoonist.
 
Rapid growing of national debt isn't surprised me and I have common sense about what saying on US president.
 
rolling7 said:
The Ayathollahs and Imams...........the very same who declare jihad.......even on a cartoonist.
Click to expand...

And you consider them as head of Islam? :laugh2:
 
rolling7 said:
Nope, not me. Islam does. Just like the Catholics consider the Pope and Bishops the head of theirs.
Click to expand...
Not all religions have a one-person head or leader.
 
rolling7 said:
Nope, not me. Islam does. Just like the Catholics consider the Pope and Bishops the head of theirs.
Click to expand...

but you said so.

Ayathollahs and Imams are not title for "Head of Islam"... not even close.... please learn some history. your ignorance is outstanding.
 
Jiro said:
but you said so.

Ayathollahs and Imams are not title for "Head of Islam"... not even close.... please learn some history. your ignorance is outstanding.
Click to expand...

If they are not, then tell us all why the Muslims do as the Ayatollahs and Imams proclaim, especially jihad on the kafir.

Why don't you stop playing games and just post whom it is you think is the head of Islam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top