Smart move obama.

[Chef Jim]

funny that's not how I recall the quote.

 

All politicians break promises. One man (the POTUS) can't sway all of his party members.

 

If he did we'd have a dictatorship.

 

 

Again, I never said that did I? You need to stop twisting my words to suit your vision.

 

If Obama !@#$s up he !@#$s up.

 

Other than peoples "political" ideals, what has he !@#$ed up that the guy before him hasn't?

 

Can you even just once say anything other than "oh yeah, but the other guy......"

[blzrul]

You turkeys. You don't get it.

 

What's going to happen is the court will rule to release the photographs. People will be aghast when they see them. Obama will THEN be able to say HEY I told you I didn't want then to be released, I TRIED to protect our miliary from any backlash that may occur, and you should have listened to me. And oh by the way if something worse happens...well, he didn't advocate the torture, and he didn't advocate sharing the torture photos.

 

I would like to think the he reversed his decision because he got to see more of the photos ... a handful, yeah ok, write it off as some nutjobs and move on. But it sounds like there are quite a few, and they're gonna be ugly. This is one of those lose-lose situations, which HE didn't really create because HE didn't authorize torture.

 

The truth is probably somewhere in between - I imagine that I would be tempted to release them all just to make Bush and Cheney look bad. I think he's really trying to stay away from that kind of sh--, unlike Uncle Dick. But by the same token the politician in him is hedging his bets.

[Booster4324]

Other than peoples "political" ideals, what has he !@#$ed up that the guy before him hasn't?

 

Thanks for being the caricature the right on this board portray as liberals. So it is ok for Obama to screw up since Bush did it? Past decisions of Presidents, when wrong, should not be used to justify present decisions if they are the same choice only multiplied.

 

So to make it simple:

 

Bush spending too much money was a bad thing. Bush invading Iraq was a bad thing.

 

Obama spending a lot more money than Bush is a worse thing. If Obama invades 3 middle eastern countries (unlikely thankfully) that is a worse thing.

 

As to the topic of this thread, I do not see it as weakness to change decisions after more information is revealed or further arguments are presented. In fact, I consider it a strong sign of character, if a correct decision is made. I would actually consider it part of the reason those in charge (could be politicians, could be executives) tend to be noncommittal until they gather tons of info. Obama is striving for transparency, he may find that a tough balancing act when dealing with issues like this. An executive of any type that changes decisions frequently however, will not fare well.

 

Remember: when a conservative changes their mind, it's called irresponsible flip-flopping; when a liberal changes their mind, it's called "being pragmatic."

 

I must have missed something. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't flip-flopping been used mainly by the conservatives of late?

[BillsNYC]

What's going to happen is the court will rule to release the photographs. People will be aghast when they see them. Obama will THEN be able to say HEY I told you I didn't want then to be released, I TRIED to protect our miliary from any backlash that may occur, and you should have listened to me. And oh by the way if something worse happens...well, he didn't advocate the torture, and he didn't advocate sharing the torture photos.

 

Bingo...that's what I have been thinking.

 

Liberals will be happy when photos are released, Conservatives infuriated, and Obama escapes blame.

[IDBillzFan]

What's going to happen is the court will rule to release the photographs.

I may be wrong, but doesn't Obama have the executive power to stop that?

[GG]

I may be wrong, but doesn't Obama have the executive power to stop that?

 

No. Using executive power to protect state secrets is bad. Using executive power to abrogate legal contracts your cronies don't like is good.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Thanks for being the caricature the right on this board portray as liberals. So it is ok for Obama to screw up since Bush did it? Past decisions of Presidents, when wrong, should not be used to justify present decisions if they are the same choice only multiplied.

 

So to make it simple:

 

Bush spending too much money was a bad thing. Bush invading Iraq was a bad thing.

 

Obama spending a lot more money than Bush is a worse thing. If Obama invades 3 middle eastern countries (unlikely thankfully) that is a worse thing.

 

As to the topic of this thread, I do not see it as weakness to change decisions after more information is revealed or further arguments are presented. In fact, I consider it a strong sign of character, if a correct decision is made. I would actually consider it part of the reason those in charge (could be politicians, could be executives) tend to be noncommittal until they gather tons of info. Obama is striving for transparency, he may find that a tough balancing act when dealing with issues like this. An executive of any type that changes decisions frequently however, will not fare well.

 

I must have missed something. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't flip-flopping been used mainly by the conservatives of late?

That’s not what I meant. I never said it was the right thing to do.

 

The point was the R's can't B word about Obama and blame it all on him when Bush did it before him.

And now we'll hear that I'm an Obama apologist from the righties and I’m a liberal.

 

Even the concept of calling people Flip Floppers is ludicrous. We need people that are willing to admit they made a mistake and try to fix it.

[Kelly the Dog]

Okay, so he did review everything, made a decision, then RE-reviewed everything and changed his mind.

 

Or did he not review everything, make a decision, then review everything and change his mind?

 

 

No matter how you slice it, in the absence of any new information, his original statement to the effect that he was going to release the photos was either premature or flat-out incorrect by his own admission. Which basically means he's respectively either an idealist, or a flat-out indecisive idiot. There is NO way you can spin this decision-making paradigm into anything other than a bad one.

That's not really true, there is new information coming out all of the time. It isn't game-changing or earth shattering information but it surely is fluid, mostly because of the media and the idiocy of people like Pelosi. He also has ongoing evaluations of all kinds of things that started when he came in and are just coming to him now.

 

IMO, he shouldn't have said he was going to do it, and then turn around and change his mind so quickly. It was probably a mistake to say what he did at first. And he gave bad reasons for doing so, IMO, another small mistake. But things change behind the scenes all the time, and decisions that are 51-49 for or against can easily be reversed by seemingly small changes.

 

I think he probably wanted to release them and then was convinced by Patreus and the other general that they didnt think it was a good idea. He also saw Pelosi making an idiot of herself which reinforced his basic attitude toward all of this stuff that little good can come of it even if it is the right thing to do. He also wants to agree with the generals and the military as much as he can even though they may have disagreements on a lot of things and figured this thing was a small one where he could give them their say, and also small enough that he would get a bit of heat from his party but he could easily withstand it. There was without question a couple dozen considerations to that one decision, and most of them were all kinds of sides pulling at him.

 

But ultimately I do believe he is a pragmatist more than anything else. He does realize (and did before the election) that things would be different once he got there. The right should be happy with him for a lot of his foreign policy decisions so far, and the pragmatism was again shown yesterday when he reinstated the tribunals with a few added rights.

 

One of the first things he did was put a hold on them and request a full review. He just got the review back, realized they still had to exist in some form, demanded a few more rights for the detainees and reinstated them because it was determined to be the lesser of evils choice on a tough decision. He's surely proving not to be a lefty on a ton of things and the far left is after him almost as much as the far right.

[finknottle]

You turkeys. You don't get it.

 

What's going to happen is the court will rule to release the photographs. People will be aghast when they see them. Obama will THEN be able to say HEY I told you I didn't want then to be released, I TRIED to protect our miliary from any backlash that may occur, and you should have listened to me. And oh by the way if something worse happens...well, he didn't advocate the torture, and he didn't advocate sharing the torture photos.

 

I would like to think the he reversed his decision because he got to see more of the photos ... a handful, yeah ok, write it off as some nutjobs and move on. But it sounds like there are quite a few, and they're gonna be ugly. This is one of those lose-lose situations, which HE didn't really create because HE didn't authorize torture.

 

Gee, being president means having to make hard often lose-lose decisions. I'm glad the left is finally aware of that, even if making tough decisions isn't exactly Omaba's forte.

 

(Though blzrul will no doubt continue to paint all future lose-lose situations as having been caused by Bush.)

[Fastback]

No. Using executive power to protect state secrets is bad. Using executive power to abrogate legal contracts your cronies don't like is good.

 

Again, crickets from the Left.

 

Why is it we can get 20-30 pages of outrage on some teenage chick from Alaska getting pregnant out of wedlock and when our President tears up the law, nary a peep from those same 'concerned' citizens?

 

Enjoy your stimulus while it lasts Lefties...

[Kelly the Dog]

Why is it we can get 20-30 pages of outrage on some teenage chick from Alaska getting pregnant out of wedlock and when our President tears up the law, nary a peep from those same 'concerned' citizens?

Wait! Wait! I know this one! I know this one!

 

Because they're completely and utterly mutually exclusive?

[Fastback]

Wait! Wait! I know this one! I know this one!

 

Because they're completely and utterly mutually exclusive?

 

Easy there Kelly. This wasn't directed at you necessarily. You at least put some thought into your postings and try your best to make chicken soup out of the chicken schit served up by Dear Leader. Seriously though, while I don't agree with you most of the time, you at least try to make logical sense out of defending Obama's policies. It might be pretzel logic, but you still attempt to put it out there is more than one "You're a Retard!" sentence.

[UBinVA]

I may be wrong, but doesn't Obama have the executive power to stop that?

 

Yes he does, and so does congress in many circumstances. It's called three equal branches of government (they are not co-equal as some would like to say). The Supreme court is not more powerful than either of the other branches but the precedence and perception is that what ever the Supreme court rules is law. The supreme court does not make law it supposed to interpret the law. Laws can only be made by the Legislature.

 

The supreme court formulates opinions, but those opinions are only (should be) based on constitutional grounds. The President has the responsibility to defend and protect this country and any prudent action deemed by the President that does just that can be executed by the President. Many Presidents including Lincoln set aside court rulings and just ignored them based on their constitutional roles and duties regardless of what the court has ruled.

 

Read "Men in Black" by mark Levin of one really wants more information on the Supreme Court and how it has been perverted.

[Kelly the Dog]

Easy there Kelly. This wasn't directed at you necessarily. You at least put some thought into your postings and try your best to make chicken soup out of the chicken schit served up by Dear Leader. Seriously though, while I don't agree with you most of the time, you at least try to make logical sense out of defending Obama's policies. It might be pretzel logic, but you still attempt to put it out there is more than one "You're a Retard!" sentence.

 

You should try logic once in awhile, instead of posting, "Why would some lefties complain about teen pregnancy when the President is ignoring the law?" You should have simply said, "Why are there other stories in the paper and on TV when I wanna talk about this story that has zero to do with it?"

[blzrul]

Gee, being president means having to make hard often lose-lose decisions. I'm glad the left is finally aware of that, even if making tough decisions isn't exactly Omaba's forte.

 

(Though blzrul will no doubt continue to paint all future lose-lose situations as having been caused by Bush.)

 

So if there was no torture, there would be no photographs. That your pea-brain is incapable of grasping the connection is a prime example of why the GnOP is completely irrelevant.

[finknottle]

So if there was no torture, there would be no photographs. That your pea-brain is incapable of grasping the connection is a prime example of why the GnOP is completely irrelevant.

 

And this reply is supposed to convince me that in the future Obama (or any other president, for that matter) will face no difficult lose-lose situations? Well done!

[blzrul]

And this reply is supposed to convince me that in the future Obama (or any other president, for that matter) will face no difficult lose-lose situations? Well done!

Uh no, it wasn't. It was to refute your stupid statement that saying this problem of the photos and the ensuing associated bull sh-- were not results of Bush Administration actions.

[finknottle]

Uh no, it wasn't. It was to refute your stupid statement that saying this problem of the photos and the ensuing associated bull sh-- were not results of Bush Administration actions.

 

What, this statement?

 

Gee, being president means having to make hard often lose-lose decisions. I'm glad the left is finally aware of that, even if making tough decisions isn't exactly Omaba's forte.

 

(Though blzrul will no doubt continue to paint all future lose-lose situations as having been caused by Bush.)

 

Nice reading comprehension. I'll make it accessible even to you.

 

1. Lose-lose situations are often an unfortunate part of being President, something critics forget in looking over the past decade.

2. I fully expect that you will demand a pass for Obama in all future lose-lose crisis on the base of it still being Bush's fault. That is regardless of this situation, which of course happened under Bush. My prediction is based on your body of work, such as it is.

[blzrul]

What, this statement?

 

 

 

Nice reading comprehension. I'll make it accessible even to you.

 

1. Lose-lose situations are often an unfortunate part of being President, something critics forget in looking over the past decade.

2. I fully expect that you will demand a pass for Obama in all future lose-lose crisis on the base of it still being Bush's fault. That is regardless of this situation, which of course happened under Bush. My prediction is based on your body of work, such as it is.

 

I am addressing your stupid personal attack, to wit:

 

"(Though blzrul will no doubt continue to paint all future lose-lose situations as having been caused by Bush.)"

 

I was not talking about any future lose lose situations. I wad discussing the one at hand.

 

You have know way of knowing what I will and won't do. My observation in this forum was not necesarily complimentary to Obama, as a matter of fact. So your continued insistence in predicting my, or anyone else's behaviour, is dead wrong.

 

What might be is not for anyone to know. Because only God knows the future, assuming there is a God. I will go out on a limb here, but I sincerely doubt YOU are God.

[erynthered]

Because only God knows the future, assuming there is a God.

 

No. No. No. Olivier knows the future, cause he lives in France and he's 5 hours ahead of us.