Obama receving lib-left accolades.

[bush_cheney2004]

oh I see... so by that logic he could have attacked... um mozambique, canada and Hungary say... because of 911... and we should have all been fine with that... right?

Doesn't really matter if you should be fine with it or not.....your desires were obviously irrelevant. The president may "attack" according to the War Powers Act of 1973....and that includes Negro presidents too!

[lictor616]

Doesn't really matter if you should be fine with it or not.....your desires were obviously irrelevant. The president may "attack" according to the War Powers Act of 1973....and that includes Negro presidents too!

yes but the war powers act does not afford the US any moral authority on anything though... right to attack has no bearing on anything.

hence the lack of enthusiasm for our hazardous nutty neighbor down south... and you begrudge people who hold antipathy towards such a hegemon?

[bush_cheney2004]

yes but the war powers act does not afford the US any moral authority on anything though... right to attack has no bearing on anything.

Correct...the ability to do so is far more relevant.

hence the lack of enthusiasm for our hazardous nutty neighbor down south... and you begrudge people who hold antipathy towards such a hegemon?

Again...irrelevant to a superpower...just goes with the job. "Please, Please Love Us" is a Canadian value.

[Pliny]

Which is exactly what he should have done considering his nation was attacked.

Agreed. Personally, I think he was ill advised on his plans but some action was indeed necessary.

[KrustyKidd]

Agreed. Personally, I think he was ill advised on his plans but some action was indeed necessary.

I agree. Iraq was necessary to place US troops outside of Saudi Arabia to enable independent pressure to attack Qutbists the Royals were appeasing and unwilling to take on themselves. With the Bsuh doctrine, they would be fair game. This pressure forced action from the house of Suad to come on board the War on Terror and, the action they took stopped the rampent exporting of Jihadists.

In short, despite the problems, Iraq was an essential action in the War on Terror.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In short, despite the problems, Iraq was an essential action in the War on Terror.

Moreover, it was consistent with aggressive US/UK policy for Iraq since 1991 (Gulf War). I think Sec'y Albright put it best (in reference to Kosovo)....."What is the point in having a $500 billion military if you can't use it".

[KrustyKidd]

Moreover, it was consistent with aggressive US/UK policy for Iraq since 1991 (Gulf War). I think Sec'y Albright put it best (in reference to Kosovo)....."What is the point in having a $500 billion military if you can't use it".

By showing you will use it if necessary places your foreign policy on a serious scale. More than cheapo bags of grain you've stolen from your own farmers to use as a peaceful tokens to corrupt thugs in countries where the black market prevails.

[Oleg Bach]

By showing you will use it if necessary places your foreign policy on a serious scale. More than cheapo bags of grain you've stolen from your own farmers to use as a peaceful tokens to corrupt thugs in countries where the black market prevails.

Got you on that one. Back to Obama..if the left is giving him accolades, it is part of the plan - the extreme right and those sitting on top of the pyramid just love it when we become socialists...super capitalists have always used socialism as a form of management for capitalist empires. Obama represents the super rich and powerful - like all presidents do --- do you think that the status quo would really release someone to change that status quo?

[ironstone]

It seems to me that although Obama is holding onto some popularity with liberal moderates, he is finding disfavour among the far left.

In my opinion he is far left himself so why isn't the far left fawning over him? I do see he is exercising some caution in risking alienating everyone to his right because that is just about all Americans but can't the left see that? They should be used to the liberal ploys by now and see right through them with a wink and a nudge.

I think he's just biding his time.He should be favoured to win a second term regardless of how well the country is doing four years from now.If or when he starts his second term,I think that's when he'll show his true colours.He'll likely start pushing hard for big labour and gay marriage,and other issues that are important to the left.

[Pliny]

I think he's just biding his time.He should be favoured to win a second term regardless of how well the country is doing four years from now.If or when he starts his second term,I think that's when he'll show his true colours.He'll likely start pushing hard for big labour and gay marriage,and other issues that are important to the left.

I doubt he will get a second term.

[Pliny]

Got you on that one. Back to Obama..if the left is giving him accolades, it is part of the plan - the extreme right and those sitting on top of the pyramid just love it when we become socialists...super capitalists have always used socialism as a form of management for capitalist empires. Obama represents the super rich and powerful - like all presidents do --- do you think that the status quo would really release someone to change that status quo?

The left isn't giving him accolades.

Obama is a socialist and has never been a capitalist. Capitalists at least understand a little about economics - socialists don't and Obama's plans make that quite evident. He isn't at all concerned about how he is going to pay for any program and he avers he is not going to raise taxes for the middle class. Plain economic idiocy that he ignores trying to explain beyond his statement of a redistribution of wealth.

Are the super-capitalists happy with Obama. He is treading a little bit on their toes, I think.

But I agree that super capitalists like nothing more than dictating how things will be, so they love it when we become a little more socialist and grant our governments more power and bigger mandates. I don't think it occurs to them that the masses will eventually revolt at the cost economically and in terms of freedom and liberty. They are used to being dictator of their corporation. Government is a different animal. It holds the power of force and law when made is not as retractable as unsuccessful corporate plans and policies which must be changed. Unsuccessful laws are generally made to benefit someone and repealing them is almost impossible. Businesses come and go but government is a monopoly that never dies.