Is Everyone In The Obama Administration Stuck On Stupid? [Archive]

willhaven

12th February 2010, 12:10 PM

I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. Not sure they ever opposed that part of the deal. ;)

joobz

12th February 2010, 12:12 PM

headscratcher4

12th February 2010, 12:45 PM

And yet, so many people though Obama was going to "ruin" the "achievements in Iraq" by pulling troupes out.

And here is what Biden said:
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. "

So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)...

Seriously, were this to happen as Biden says, that would just be stupid. I mean instead of winding down this undclared war against a country that posed no threat to the U.S. but which has cost us over $1 Trillion and many thousands of lives, we plan on leaving -- just as Obama campaigned on (though, as you noted, not on the schedule he campaigned on). So, there he is too stupid Obama essentially carrying out -- or trying to -- one of the promises he made to the American people when he ran for president. Is he just to stupid to understand that with a little more effort on his part we could keep 138000 troops on the ground, pay hundreds of billions more to contractors, see a lot more kids burried in VA cemetaries and essentially occupy the country for 100 McCain years...God, Obama is just too stupid to breath.

fullflavormenthol

12th February 2010, 01:43 PM

"Stuck on stupid" is stuck on stupid. Seriously we should combine all these BAC crap threads into one "Obama is a big mean stupid poopy head".

KingMerv00

12th February 2010, 02:45 PM

What catch phrase will he use next? Perhaps "You know what really grinds my gears?"

joobz

12th February 2010, 03:29 PM

The first instance of BAC starting a thread with the "stuck on stupid" concept was
September 11, 2008. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123394

I think in the politics section, we must accept that we live in a post 9/11 time. A period when BAC became stuck on stuck on stupid. While we may all wish to go back to the days before 9/11, we can't. We are seemingly stuck with BeAChooser's stuck on stuck on stupid.

BeAChooser

12th February 2010, 03:39 PM

And here is what Biden said:
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. "

And in what way is any of that an accomplishment of the Obama administration? It a matter of record that it was the Bush administration which negotiated the pullout deal for American troops from Iraqi cities, towns and villages by June 2009, and a complete withdrawal by December 2011. Did you really expect that Bush would just let those troops sit in the desert for two years? Of course most were to be coming home soon after withdrawing from the cities etc. :rolleyes:

And the ONLY reason you will see a stable, representative government in Iraq is because Bush did what Biden, Obama and the democrat establishment (and base) were deadset against back in 2007/2008 ... namely, surged our troop strength. In fact, Obama was so Stuck On Stupid that he even told a journalist after it was apparent to all (even him) that the surge worked, that even knowing how successful the surge would be, he'd still have been against it back in 2007/2008. :rolleyes:

joobz

12th February 2010, 04:47 PM

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

You snipped out my argument. That's not very nice. Here it is again.
And yet, so many people though Obama was going to "ruin" the "achievements in Iraq" by pulling troupes out.

So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)...

willhaven

12th February 2010, 05:43 PM

And the ONLY reason you will see a stable, representative government in Iraq is because Bush did what Biden, Obama and the democrat establishment (and base) were deadset against back in 2007/2008 ... namely, surged our troop strength.It wasn't just the troop levels that caused the surge to work. It was, to my knowledge, a 4 part issue.

1) Troop level increase (which put it on par with levels previously held).
2) Change in tactics with increased troop levels.
3) The Iraqi Awakening Councils. We paid folks to fight with us against Al Qaeda. Some meager percentage of these are getting folded into the Iraqi military and police force, but the lions share are ex militants that are no longer getting paid or will no longer be getting paid once the Iraqi government cuts off their funding (which used to be funded by us).
4) Muqtada al Sadr's ceasefire resulted in a major drop in violence. If he wanted to cause trouble again, he could easily snatch up some militants and struggle for power. He was popular amongst the locals.

#2 and #3 are problematic. If the funding cuts off for the Awakening Councils and al Sadr decides to wait for us to leave before causing problems, Iraq could easily see a major increase in violence.

It's not entirely due to us taking out all of the threats. Some of the threat was diverted, some was pacified. Hopefully they stay that way.

applecorped

12th February 2010, 08:12 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/26/biden.iraq/

"Biden said a "troop surge" will not work.

Biden has said he favors partitioning Iraq, something the Iraq Study Group and military leaders oppose."

Grasping at straws. A win is needed, even if on Bush's back.

BeAChooser

12th February 2010, 09:45 PM

So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)...

Not true. Republicans didn't claim we couldn't pull troops out. In fact, the Bush administration is the one that negotiated the withdrawal. They planned on a withdrawal that's not all that different (if at all) then the one that Obama is continuing. What republicans were against was the withdraw all troops "immediatedly" nonsense that Obama and his base often spouted. Especially Obama's statements that he'd withdraw the troops no matter what conditions in the country were like ... no matter how it deteriorated.

BeAChooser

12th February 2010, 09:47 PM

It wasn't just the troop levels that caused the surge to work. It was, to my knowledge, a 4 part issue.

True, but without the extra troops and the perception those troops created that we were committed for the long haul, none of the other things would have mattered.

The troops were the core of the approach.

fess

12th February 2010, 10:03 PM

Countdown until Obama leaves Office
1072 Days, 09 Hours, 57 Minutes, 24 Seconds.

Redtail

12th February 2010, 10:47 PM

Countdown until Obama leaves Office
1072 Days, 09 Hours, 57 Minutes, 24 Seconds.

Heh. I remember a similar thing started about Bush in 2002. Sadly the "OMGZ HE'S EVILS AND IZ GOING TO END AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!" kicked in and he won in 2004.

GreyICE

13th February 2010, 12:27 AM

It's ironic the acronym for BACs favorite catch phrase is SOS - because that's what this is, a distress signal from a sinking ship. Only this one the coast guard doesn't give a rat's ass about. When you've been sending out an SOS for two years with this little response, it's probably about time to admit your boat is sunk.

Wildy

13th February 2010, 01:28 AM

But we all know that's never going to happen.

BeAChooser

13th February 2010, 12:53 PM

When you've been sending out an SOS for two years with this little response, it's probably about time to admit your boat is sunk.

I don't know about that, GreyICE. When even such hard left media sources like CBS start telling the public the truth about Obama (see below), I'd say the bloom is coming off the rose. :D

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/09/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6191815.shtml

February 9, 2010

Obama Says Bipartisanship, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender

Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties.

"Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said.

It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he's searching for a way to get them out of lockup.

... snip ...

He's appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship - urging Democrats and Republicans alike "to put aside matters of party for the good of the country."

... snip ...

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its "obstinacy" and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his.

GreyICE

13th February 2010, 01:04 PM

I don't know about that, GreyICE. When even such hard left media sources like CBS start telling the public the truth about Obama (see below), I'd say the bloom is coming off the rose. :D

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/09/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6191815.shtml

Has it ever occurred to you that your 'hard left' sources are often critical of these 'stupid leftists' that apparently they worship?

Didn't think so. Reality must be so much simpler in black and insane.

KoihimeNakamura

13th February 2010, 01:58 PM

You know you just also linked a blog, right?

ETA: Not to say blogs are bad, but I will remain a bit more skeptical of political conclusions of bloggers like I would a reporter - typically speaking there's an axe to grind.

BeAChooser

13th February 2010, 02:23 PM

You know you just also linked a blog, right?

Well this isn't from the blog but from the CBS News website, and concerns the author I quoted above:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/09/broadcasts/main524942.shtml

(CBS) Mark Knoller is an award-winning White House Correspondent for CBS News. He reports for CBS Radio News, as well as The Saturday Early Show. He also contributes to the weekend editions of the CBS Evening News and Up To The Minute.

During his career as a reporter, he has covered every President since Gerald Ford. Knoller came to CBS News in 1988 after 13 years as a correspondent with the Associated Press Radio Network, where he was on the front lines of national news coverage -- everything from Presidential campaigns and hurricanes to the death and funeral of Elvis Presley.

After serving three years as Assignment Manager in the CBS News Washington bureau, Knoller was assigned to the White House, where he covered the last year of the George Bush Presidency and every day of Bill Clinton's. In fact, he has logged more miles covering President Clinton that any other member of the White House press corps. He is now covering the presidency of George W. Bush.

He has earned a reputation as one of the leading reporters on the White House beat. He has been honored with a number of AP Awards and with the Merriman Smith Award for Deadline Reporting on the Presidency, bestowed by the White House Correspondents' Association.

joobz

13th February 2010, 03:39 PM

Not true. Republicans didn't claim we couldn't pull troops out. In fact, the Bush administration is the one that negotiated the withdrawal. They planned on a withdrawal that's not all that different (if at all) then the one that Obama is continuing.
Except Obama's method was to force the issue to avoid a never ending skirmish.
It's not unusual that when US presence wasn't "definite" that the militias started to back down.

What republicans were against was the withdraw all troops "immediatedly" nonsense that Obama and his base often spouted. Especially Obama's statements that he'd withdraw the troops no matter what conditions in the country were like ... no matter how it deteriorated.
Yup. So?

MattusMaximus

13th February 2010, 07:12 PM

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore? :rolleyes:

fullflavormenthol

13th February 2010, 07:52 PM

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore? :rolleyes:
You got me. Personally I do just to feel the love of both liberals and conservatives coming together to unite in saying that hyper-partisan politics is tearing us apart. In a strange way BAC brings all parties together to say.."hey you are going too far."

GreyICE

13th February 2010, 08:08 PM

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore? :rolleyes:

Surrealistic humor.

dc1971

13th February 2010, 08:11 PM

And in what way is any of that an accomplishment of the Obama administration? It a matter of record that it was the Bush administration which negotiated the pullout deal for American troops from Iraqi cities, towns and villages by June 2009, and a complete withdrawal by December 2011. Did you really expect that Bush would just let those troops sit in the desert for two years? Of course most were to be coming home soon after withdrawing from the cities etc. :rolleyes:

And the ONLY reason you will see a stable, representative government in Iraq is because Bush did what Biden, Obama and the democrat establishment (and base) were deadset against back in 2007/2008 ... namely, surged our troop strength. In fact, Obama was so Stuck On Stupid that he even told a journalist after it was apparent to all (even him) that the surge worked, that even knowing how successful the surge would be, he'd still have been against it back in 2007/2008. :rolleyes:

What I'm reading here, it seems to me that you listen to conservative talk radio on a regular basis, no?

dc1971

13th February 2010, 08:12 PM

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore? :rolleyes:

Because his name suggests that we have a choice!!

dc1971

13th February 2010, 08:16 PM

Not true. Republicans didn't claim we couldn't pull troops out. In fact, the Bush administration is the one that negotiated the withdrawal. They planned on a withdrawal that's not all that different (if at all) then the one that Obama is continuing. What republicans were against was the withdraw all troops "immediatedly" nonsense that Obama and his base often spouted. Especially Obama's statements that he'd withdraw the troops no matter what conditions in the country were like ... no matter how it deteriorated.

So answer me this, Mr. Chooser... Why are/were there ANY troops over there to begin with?

(**realizing this is the JREF forum, and not the Sean Hannity forum, I'm safe from getting booted for asking such a question**)

daredelvis

13th February 2010, 08:18 PM

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore? :rolleyes:

You got me. Personally I do just to feel the love of both liberals and conservatives coming together to unite in saying that hyper-partisan politics is tearing us apart. In a strange way BAC brings all parties together to say.."hey you are going too far."
That, and the dearth of leftysarg initiated threads.

Daredelvis

GreyICE

13th February 2010, 08:30 PM

Because his name suggests that we have a choice!!

Oh, I thought it was an inspiration to guess what motivated the postings. I'm guessing for this one as 0.13 - reasonably moderate, by standards of these things.

BeAChooser

14th February 2010, 12:26 AM

What I'm reading here, it seems to me that you listen to conservative talk radio on a regular basis, no?

Are you trying to suggest that anything I stated is false. What, specifically?

BeAChooser

14th February 2010, 12:28 AM

So answer me this, Mr. Chooser... Why are/were there ANY troops over there to begin with?

(**realizing this is the JREF forum, and not the Sean Hannity forum, I'm safe from getting booted for asking such a question**)

Actually, your problem is that isn't the topic of the OP. :D

dc1971

14th February 2010, 06:49 AM

Are you trying to suggest that anything I stated is false. What, specifically?

Now where did I say anything about you being FALSE?:confused:

dc1971

14th February 2010, 06:52 AM

Actually, your problem is that isn't the topic of the OP. :D

Mr. Chooser...

Quote from Robert Gibbs: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

I'm confused, what is he saying here that is so wrong or so "stuck on stupid"??

joobz

14th February 2010, 07:00 AM

Mr. Chooser...

Quote from Robert Gibbs: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

I'm confused, what is he saying here that is so wrong or so "stuck on stupid"??

BAC reasoning:
If Iraq is successful, it is because of Bush's policies.
If Iraq is unsuccessful, it is Obama's fault.

dc1971

14th February 2010, 07:19 AM

BAC reasoning:
If Iraq is successful, it is because of Bush's policies.
If Iraq is unsuccessful, it is Obama's fault.

Typical conservative mindset!

BeAChooser

14th February 2010, 08:39 AM

I'm confused, what is he saying here that is so wrong or so "stuck on stupid"??

More to the point of the OP, what is Gibbs saying that can be laid at the feet of the Obama and Biden as something that they actually accomplished, rather than something they tried on numerous occasions to prevent? What Gibbs said is equivalent to saying a person who survives a murder attempt should thank the attempted murderer for saving his/her life. :rolleyes:

dc1971

14th February 2010, 08:56 AM

joobz

14th February 2010, 09:10 AM

More to the point of the OP, what is Gibbs saying that can be laid at the feet of the Obama and Biden as something that they actually accomplished, rather than something they tried on numerous occasions to prevent? What Gibbs said is equivalent to saying a person who survives a murder attempt should thank the attempted murderer for saving his/her life. :rolleyes:

Obama wanted a timetabled withdrawal, and the GOP balked. Saying a timetable would mean the bad guys could bide there time until we leave. And now, you say that our timetabled withdrawal is actually Bush's plan.

I agree, Bush did enact it. Shouldn't you be mad at bush for giving into Obama's Policies and handing the state over to the terrorists by creating a timetable?
:D