Indonesians have paid tribute to Barack Obama on the eve of his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. A statue of the U.S. President, who lived in Jakarta, has been unveiled in a park in the Indonesian capital.
The almost life-size statue depicts a 10-year-old Obama, wearing school-boy shorts with his outstretched hand holding up a butterfly…
“We imagined Barry, and we thought the story would be inspirational to all Indonesian children that when you dream big, they can come true,” said Ron Mullers, chairman of the nonprofit group Friends of Obama.
Next month, the citizens of Montana unveil a statue of Dick Cheney as a 10-year-old schoolboy – pulling the wings off a fly.
#58, Glenn,
Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize, for not stopping a war (in fact he’s escalated one further).
For the first time in eight years, there is a strategy in Afghanistan. For the past eight years we have been wandering around not knowing what to do.
The plan was made by professional military people, not some backroom White House huckster shit for brains wannabe leader.
Mr. F. That’s no way to talk about Bush & Obama’s SoD.
RBG
#62
The plan was made by professional military people, not some backroom White House huckster shit for brains wannabe leader.
Last I checked, the same “professional military” person planning the Afghanistan war is the same guy that was planning that war for Bush.
Frankly, the jury is still out on Obama’s performance as Commander-in-Chief. He did at least have the stones to up the ante on Afghanistan despite opposition from his own party and people like you. Let’s see how he does when the heat really turns up should the war run into problems or when the body count rises. It was people like Clinton that made the terrorists believe that America did not have the stomach for finishing what they started. Maybe Obama will prove that there is at least one Democrat with a spine.
#64, Thomas
It was people like Clinton that made the terrorists believe that America did not have the stomach for finishing what they started.
You mean like when Clinton invaded tiny islands? Or how about when Clinton sent Marines to Lebanon then quickly left when it got a little uncomfortable. Or how about when Clinton invaded pushed Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait and then went home. Of course there was that time when Clinton invaded Panama to arrest their local CIA agent.
And yes, it must have been Bush I who arrested and tried the bombers of the WTC attack in 1993. And I guess it was Bush II that stopped the genocide against Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. I’m not sure, but which Republican President was it that did try to get bin Laden in 1998 while the congressional Democrats all had the knickers in a knot over some blowjob and thus screamed this was a diversion? And I guess there weren’t any Republicans encouraging (even mildly) the American evacuation of Mogodishu.
Nope, every Republican has shown himself to be the height of bravery; never serving but ready to send others children into battle for whatever reason. Ready to pull out when the going gets a little rough.
That damn Clinton, showing them America is weak.
[/sarcasm]
#65
You aren’t seeing the bigger picture. Every one of those engagement involved small troop counts with little loss of life. Weekend warrior stuff. Lebannon and Somalia set a precedent that Clinton and the American public did not have the stomach for causalities. So, yes Clinton show America to be a paper tiger.
Let’s see, under Clinton we had the 1993 attack, bombings in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the US embassy in Africa in 1998 and of course the USS Cole in 2000. I’m sure I missed a few, but those are some of the highlights. Then there was Clinton comical attack in Afghanistan where he lobbed a few missiles in the vain hopes of hitting something. I’m not saying that Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism, but it was clear by 9/11 that what he had done was simply inadequate. One of Bush II’s smartest moves was to change the way we treated terrorists from criminals to opponents at war.
#66, Thomas,
Lebannon and Somalia set a precedent that Clinton and the American public did not have the stomach for causalities. So, yes Clinton show America to be a paper tiger.
Reagan sent the Marines into Beirut. After the barracks were bombed he ordered the Marines out.
Clinton sent the troops into Mogodishu for a fixed term. When that term was over they came home. Clinton has since said he would have liked to keep them there but Congress denied him the funds. The Republican members of Congress. The cut and run Republican members of Congress.
The WTC bombers were caught and prosecuted.
The Saudi Arabia attack investigation was stymied by the Saudis. Remember Bush II’s hand holding friend?
In 1998 all the Republicans in Congress derided Clinton for daring to attack bin Laden in Afghanistan while they were busy investigating how Clinton got his dick wet. Consensually. All the while at least three of the Republican top five were having affairs of their own.
I’m not saying that Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism,
The insinuation was he that he did not. You wrote,
It was people like Clinton that made the terrorists believe that America did not have the stomach for finishing what they started.
Are you now back tracking on what you wrote now that your selective memory has been exposed??
#67
> After the barracks
> were bombed he ordered
> the Marines out.
Yep. That was a mistake.
> Clinton sent the troops
> into Mogodishu for a fixed term…
> Clinton has since said he
> would have liked to keep
> them there but Congress
> denied him the funds.
First, sending troops anywhere for a “fixed term” is a mistake of objectives. Never let your opponent know when you are leaving. Second, one of the signs of a good leader is the ability to convince people to support your position. It is one of the reasons that Obama, so far, has been such a poor leader and, in this one particular case, why Clinton did not show good leadership skills.
> The WTC bombers were
> caught and prosecuted.
This was part of Clinton’s mistake: treating terrorists like common criminals. Sure, we might have caught the guys that actually planted the bombs but the individuals and governments that trained and funded them continued to operate. It is akin to the change in strategy we used when going after the mob. Sure, we might catch a guy or two that kills someone but unless we take down the entire family we won’t make any progress. What was required was the will to go after the governments that fostered terrorism. Either Clinton himself did not have it or he did not possess the ability to convince Congress and the nation to go after them even after numerous attacks.
> In 1998 all the Republicans
> in Congress derided Clinton
> for daring to attack bin Laden
> in Afghanistan
Here you go off the deep end. They derided him for the utterly inept manner in which he went after Bin Laden which was “coincidentally” (*wink*, *wink*) right when he was being investigated. It is not much of a stretch to think that he ordered the attack, in part, as a distraction.
>> I’m not saying that Clinton
>> did nothing to fight terrorism,
> The insinuation was he that
> he did not…
Not even close. I’m stated, not insinuating, that what he did to fight terrorism was clearly not successful enough by the laundry list of terrorist attacks. Furthermore, some of the actions of his administration actually made it worse (e.g. the Gorelick memo).
No selective memory on my part but rather selective reading on your part.
#68, Thomas,
Keep digging.
and, in this one particular case, why Clinton did not show good leadership skills.
The troops initially were sent under Bush I authorization. They were attached to the UN relief mission for a fixed period. Congress would not extend that period, even at Clinton’s request.
This was part of Clinton’s mistake: treating terrorists like common criminals.
They are common criminals. They represent no government. In America we treat murderers as murderers. The same attitude was applied to McVey and Nichols after Oklahoma City. Why is McVey to be treated any differently than the Blind Sheik?
They derided him for the utterly inept manner in which he went after Bin Laden
Selective memory. The Republican leadership bashed Clinton for reacting on the best intelligence the CIA had. They missed bin Laden by only a few hours. Yet the Republicans were upset that Clinton dare try to protect America from its enemies.
All this time the Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, was poking his secretary while his wife was in the hospital with cancer. Henry Hyde was getting a little on the side too. There was a third leader who’s name escapes me at the moment that was also wetting his wee willy. Yet, these self same moderators of Presidential morality didn’t care about protecting America.
I’m stated, not insinuating, that what he did to fight terrorism was clearly not successful enough by the laundry list of terrorist attacks.
Contrast that to the Presidents both before and after Clinton and what they did to stop terrorism. Yup, Bush I did nothing and Bush II provoked the biggest recruitment for al Quada possible. More Americans were killed by Bush II’s actions than Clinton’s.
The Republican Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have all been cut and run. Sometimes with decent results, usually not. The only wars Republican Presidents have won were against such small nations the Kalamazoo Michigan police department could easily have overtaken them. And you consider the Democrats spineless?
#69
RE: Fixed term
Then Bush I was equally at fault. Sending troops on a “fixed” term is a mistake. Something that Bush I never should have started and Clinton never should have continued.
RE: Terrorists are common criminals
No they aren’t. That’s the point. It is very much like going after the mob. If you only kill the soldiers that kill people, you will never take down the rest of the organization.
McVeigh and Nichols were two nuts acting on their own using their own resources. They wasn’t part of a greater organization with millions in funding and training acting in multiple countries.
RE: Clinton and Bin Laden
> Yet the Republicans were
> upset that Clinton dare try
> to protect America from its
> enemies.
What a load of balony. If you believe that, then you have some serious issues. The Republicans derided Clinton because lobbing a few missiles against a lone terrorist leader is a pathetic solution to fighting terrorism. Even if we got lucky, you do nothing to solve the root issue: governments and wealthy individuals sponsoring and funding terrorists across the globe. Even if Clinton had smoked Bin Laden, 9/11 still happens. I never said the Republicans were all roses but their criticism in this respect was justified.
RE: Other Presidents and Terrorism
Actually, the only two Presidents you can really look at since FDR would be Bush I and Bush II IMO. I would agree that Bush I for all his CIA experience was inept. During Reagan’s administration, the Soviet Union was the bigger threat so throwing a somewhat blind eye towards terrorism is not completely inexcusable. Arguing that FDR for example didn’t do enough to stop terrorism would be silly as WWII was bigger threat.
> The Republican Presidents
> since Teddy Roosevelt have
> all been cut and run.
Frankly, it wasn’t until Bush II that anyone put together a coordinated, focused effort to go after all terrorist organizations and specifically those in the Middle-East. Granted, he benefited from them being dumb enough to bomb us. Still, treating terrorists as opponents in war was absolutely the right choice as we’ve tried damn near everything else and it wasn’t working.
#71
I’m not apologizing for what the Republicans have done. I said that Reagan and any President going back to Roosevelt, had larger issues to deal with than terrorists.
> Eisenhower sued for peace in Korea.
After Truman got us into Korea and then handcuffed MacArthur. However, again, the Soviets (and China) were bigger threat and there was the possibility of a nuclear war had we not come to some resolution.
> Nixon sued for peace in Viet Nam.
After Kennedy and Johnson got is into Vietnam and then tried to micromanage the conduct of the war. I would qualify that as being more inept than spineless. Still, Nixon was spineless in pulling out before we finished. However, that again was more than 30 years ago. What have the Democrats done lately?
> Reagan cut and ran from Beruit.
Yep. That was a mistake.
NOTE
Carter’s half-assed attempt to free the Iranian hostages
Clinton’s half-assed attempts in Lebannon and Somalia.
Arresting terrorists does not solve the root problem. Clinton pulled out of Somalia when we started racking up casualties and by the way, we left long before any of the leaders were captured. Either Clinton completely bungled by getting involved at all or he was spineless by pulling out before anything was resolved (except for the numerous American casualties).
RE: Bush
It is a complete steaming pile of bull that Bush II ignored warnings of an imminent attack. He had no actionable information. By the way, a huge reason that 9/11 happened at all was the Gorelick memo which prevented the CIA and the FBI from sharing information. You can thank the Clinton and Reno for that gem. I’m sure it was “coincidence” that it just “happened” to come at time when Clinton was being investigated for illegal Chinese campaign donations and the wall created by that memo impeded the investigation.
Iraq was only a waste in your mind. Bush II rightly understood that simply going after Bin Laden would not solve the problem. Simply taking out the few members that actually perpetrated 9/11 would never solve the problem. The only way to stop these terrorists is to go after the governments and individuals that provide them support. To do that, we had to put pressure on the other governments in the Middle East who believed we were a paper tiger thanks to Lebannon, Somalia, the Iranian hostage fiasco, Beirut and so on. The Iraq invasion was, in part, about scaring the crap out of the other countries to force them to cooperate and that has worked up until now. (Yes, it was also about oil).
> Now we have another Democrat
> in the White House who has
> formulated plans to withdraw
> troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
> and do good while there.
What dream world do you live in? It was Bush that set in motion plans to withdraw from Iraq before he left office and Obama just increased the troop levels in Afghanistan. Further, like an idiot, he set a deadline on their stay. We’ll see how that works out. My guess is that absolutely nothing will change because all that the terrorists need do is to wait us out. Obama has shown himself to be a weak President in the eyes of the world and it is possible that much of the work that has been done in the past eight years to eliminate (not capture, not prosecute, not negotiate with) terrorists will be undone. We’ll see. As I said, the jury is out on Obama.
> The various Republican leaders
> since Eisenhower have mostly been
> military failures. Only Bush I
> and Rumsfeld served in combat.
If you think that, then you must think the Democrats have been abject disasters. Clinton dodged the draft and Obama had zero experience leading anyone, military or otherwise, until he was elected.
RE: Reagan
You really are deluded.
A. Reagan enlisted in Army Reserve in 1937.
B. In 1942, he was physically disqualified from combat duty due to his eyesight. However, he did serve as liaison officer and was later reassigned to public relations. He WANTED to fight but was not allowed.
> And you have the
> unmitigated audacity to
> suggest the Democrats are spineless?
Considering your current boy has never served and your last boy dodged the draft while not inhaling. Yes, spineless.
“Next month, the citizens of Montana unveil a statue of Dick Cheney as a 10-year-old schoolboy – pulling the wings off a fly.”
Time’s The Top 10 Everything of 2009
2. The President Executes a Housefly
http://tinyurl.com/yhw5rqm