| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: OBAMA USING 9-11 JUST LIKE BUSH |
 |
|
OBAMA USING 9-11 JUST LIKE BUSH
The clip is from the Obama team daily news briefing where press secretary Robert Gibbs is asked by renowned journalist Helen Thomas if Obama's Afghan-Pakistan war plan has anything to do with oil pipeline routes. He plays dumb and says he has never heard of that before and then goes on to repeat the standard George W. Bush line that this is all about, "19 men hijacked four planes and murdered nearly 3,000 people on Sept 11, 2001." Helen then said that is what the last administration kept saying, are you going to do the same? His response, "That's why we are in Afghanistan right now."
Same, same........
The entire conference is at the link; the question by Helen Thomas starts at 14 minutes.
No doubt at all that this administration is fully working for the same oil corporations and military industrial complex. All that talk about Obama being different is blather. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Really? He's centering all of American foreign policy around 9-11 and the War on Terrorism? Really? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well it's certainly true America is in Afghanistan because of 9/11. You can also argue America wants to get Al-Qaeda who are in Pakistan and so staying in Afghanistan is a reasonable way to ensure close access to attack them.
I can see some differences between Bush and Obama. Bush started a war and didn't support it correctly, Obama's now made a timetable to stop the war and apparently, provided proper support for its success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guava
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you look back to about 40 years ago, one could say,
I can see some differences between Kennedy and Nixon. Kennedy started a war and didn't support it correctly, Nixon's now made a timetable to stop the war and apparently, provided proper support for its success
| RufusW wrote: |
I can see some differences between Bush and Obama. Bush started a war and didn't support it correctly, Obama's now made a timetable to stop the war and apparently, provided proper support for its success. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guava wrote: |
If you look back to about 40 years ago, one could say,
I can see some differences between Kennedy and Nixon. Kennedy started a war and didn't support it correctly, Nixon's now made a timetable to stop the war and apparently, provided proper support for its success
| RufusW wrote: |
I can see some differences between Bush and Obama. Bush started a war and didn't support it correctly, Obama's now made a timetable to stop the war and apparently, provided proper support for its success. |
|
I wonder what you're trying to imply here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guava
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I wonder what you're trying to imply here. |
I'm not trying.
I am implying the same idea as RW, or the opposite idea, or a parallell idea, depending upon what it is you are wondering that RW is trying to insinuate.
What do you wonder RW is trying to insinuate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guava wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
I wonder what you're trying to imply here. |
I am not trying.
I am implying the same idea as RW, or the opposite idea, or a parallell idea, depending upon what it is you are wondering that RW is trying to insinuate.
What do wonder RW is trying to insinuate? |
Bush and Obama are directly related to the topic of the thread, while Kennedy and Nixon are not. As such, I wondered why you felt the need to bring them up, and I was hoping you'd clarify your motivation. RufusW's motivation is clear, because Obama and Bush are both directly mentioned in the original post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guava
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
RufusW's motivation is clear, because Obama and Bush are both directly mentioned in the original post. |
1. What do you think his motivation clearly is?
2. Have you never discussed something in a thread which is not directly mentioned in the original post? (I don't think so) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And FDR got us into a war that dragged on and on and finally, Truman came in and using our mighty nuclear bombs, got us out. Maybe Obama should look to Truman, that's the answer...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guava wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
RufusW's motivation is clear, because Obama and Bush are both directly mentioned in the original post. |
1. What do you think his motivation clearly is?
2. Have you never discussed something in a thread which is not directly mentioned in the original post? (I don't think so) |
Why do you refuse to clarify why you felt Kennedy and Nixon were worth bringing up? If they were worth mentioning in the first place, surely the reason why they were worth mentioning is worth explaining? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guava
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Why do you refuse to clarify why you felt Kennedy and Nixon were worth bringing up? |
1. I asked a question first.
2. I have not refused.
3. Why do you refuse to clarify what you think his motivation clearly is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyway boys, this is getting a little silly.
Historical observations might be analogous, but I was merely defending Obama using 9/11. It is clearly associated with Afghanistan.
I contend Obama wants to maintain forces in Afghanistan so attacking Al-Qaeda in Pakistan is possible/easier. Enforcing the US presence in Afghanistan is easier, possibly less risky and possibly more effective than locating troops only in the border region or operating via Pakistan (with UAVs).
Maybe he's throwing 'good money after bad', but the idealist in him thinks it's worth one last attempt should be made in - yes - responding properly to 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guava wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Why do you refuse to clarify why you felt Kennedy and Nixon were worth bringing up? |
1. I asked a question first. |
Perhaps you were the first one to use a questionmark, but the statement, "I wonder what you're trying to imply here," is clearly of an inquisitive nature.
| guava wrote: |
| 2. I have not refused. |
Thus far you have.
| guava wrote: |
| 3. Why do you refuse to clarify what you think his motivation clearly is? |
Because his motivation is completely obvious: to draw a distinction between two presidents who both committed American resources to a particular war, in a discussion where the war in question and both presidents are being discussed.
On the other hand, you brought up two presidents and a war unrelated to the discussion at hand, which is why I asked you to clarify further. Now, if you're done dancing around the question, perhaps you'll clarify why you felt them worth bringing up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guava
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
Anyway boys, this is getting a little silly.
|
I concur. History. Parallels. Failure to see. Silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guava wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
Anyway boys, this is getting a little silly.
|
I concur. |
Yes, it was fairly silly of you to refuse to explain why you felt Kennedy and Nixon were worth bringing up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
