Obama Diagnosis Romney with 'Romnesia'

[kraychik]

Classy Obama is now using cancer terminology with his Romnesia nonsense.

Classy and mature. Obama is clearly trying to appeal to the "Reality TV is awesome!" demographic with gems such as "Mittness Protection Program", "Romney Hood", and now, "Romnesia". They're going after Bill Maher's and Kim Kardashian's fanbases.

[Guest Derek L]

That's what people said about Bush and Al Gore.

For sure………I can remember in late summer/ early fall of 2000 seeing GWB on Letterman speaking to his domestic priorities if elected President (namely being bent over the (Oil) barrel by the Arabs) ………..Who would have thunk a year later domestic concerns would be on the back burner………..And I’m certain, if Gore had of won, and the events of 9/11 had of still taken place as historic, we’d have seen much the same results in both Afghanistan and Iraq………Perhaps different timelines, and in the case of Iraq, formal approval from the UN etc, but the end results still similar………

[Moonlight Graham]

And I’m certain, if Gore had of won, and the events of 9/11 had of still taken place as historic, we’d have seen much the same results in both Afghanistan and Iraq………Perhaps different timelines, and in the case of Iraq, formal approval from the UN etc, but the end results still similar………

If Gore was elected in 2000 9/11 likely still would have happened, but I don't see much if any reason why Gore would have wanted to invade Iraq. The many neocons in Bush's White House wanted Saddam removed via military action or otherwise since not long after the 1991 Gulf War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#1990s

Edited October 24, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest Derek L]

If Gore was elected in 2000 9/11 likely still would have happened, but I don't see much if any reason why Gore would have wanted to invade Iraq. The many neocons in Bush's White House wanted Saddam removed via military action or otherwise since not long after the 1991 Gulf War: http://en.wikipedia....servatism#1990s

As hypothetical President Gore, in his past role as Vice President and President of the Senate, signed voted in favour into law of the Iraq Liberation Act during the Clinton Administration, coupled with the fact that senior bureaucratic levels of the CIA/NSA/FBI/DoD etc would have been giving the same advice, obtained through the same means, to said Gore Administration, I don’t see how the end result would have been different aside from how I already outlined.

*Edit to correct - Crossed over the actual and for this discussion, hypothetical roles of Al Gore...

Edited October 24, 2012 by Derek L

[betsy]

President Obama's foreign policy is very consistent with his predecessors Bush and Clinton, including another war, military interventions, CIA drone strikes, sanctions, "war games", deployments to Asian rim nations, arms sales, etc., etc. Those who support Obama without recognizing this obvious continuation of U.S foreign policy are just kidding themselves. As for Romney being an unknown factor, we know for certain that, unlike Obama, he hasn't bombed anybody yet.

There you are! Nice to see you back....

[Black Dog]

Classy Obama is now using cancer terminology with his Romnesia nonsense.

Are you sad because you thought you had the monopoly on politicized faux-medical terminology?

[Moonlight Graham]

As hypothetical President Gore, in his past role as Vice President and President of the Senate, signed voted in favour into law of the Iraq Liberation Act during the Clinton Administration, coupled with the fact that senior bureaucratic levels of the CIA/NSA/FBI/DoD etc would have been giving the same advice, obtained through the same means, to said Gore Administration, I don’t see how the end result would have been different aside from how I already outlined.

*Edit to correct - Crossed over the actual and for this discussion, hypothetical roles of Al Gore...

The Iraq Liberation Act was not a plan of troop invasion. As President of the Senate, VP Gore couldn't vote on legislation unless to break a tie, and he didn't vote on this Act. Big-shot wannabe George Tenet aside, if you look at the interviews/testimony of the CIA employees who were around in the run-up to the war, the consensus have said there was no evidence of ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda, or Saddam and 9/11. The "intelligence" drummed up on WMD's was also a load of concocted B.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The invasion of Iraq was not based on recommendations/intelligence from the CIA or DoD, it came right out of the Bush White House by neocons like Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Perle etc. who had wanted Iraqi regime change via military means for in some cases almost a decade before 9/11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac#Associations_with_Bush_administration

There was no logical reason to invade Iraq in response to 9/11, so why would any other US administration not made of neoconservatives hell-bent on war with Saddam have gone to war with Iraq right after 9/11? Al Gore would almost certainly not have invaded Iraq in 2003.

[Guest Derek L]

The Iraq Liberation Act was not a plan of troop invasion. As President of the Senate, VP Gore couldn't vote on legislation unless to break a tie, and he didn't vote on this Act. Big-shot wannabe George Tenet aside, if you look at the interviews/testimony of the CIA employees who were around in the run-up to the war, the consensus have said there was no evidence of ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda, or Saddam and 9/11. The "intelligence" drummed up on WMD's was also a load of concocted B.S. http://en.wikipedia....ass_destruction

What was it's purpose?

The invasion of Iraq was not based on recommendations/intelligence from the CIA or DoD, it came right out of the Bush White House by neocons like Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Perle etc. who had wanted Iraqi regime change via military means for in some cases almost a decade before 9/11. http://en.wikipedia...._administration

The Bush Administration didn’t confer with the CIA/DoD prior to the Iraqi invasion?

There was no logical reason to invade Iraq in response to 9/11, so why would any other US administration not made of neoconservatives hell-bent on war with Saddam have gone to war with Iraq right after 9/11? Al Gore would almost certainly not have invaded Iraq in 2003.

Why would Bill Clinton support a piece of legislation calling for the “Liberation of Iraq” half way through his second term?

[Guest Derek L]

To add:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

And from '02:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107GHgPrp::

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

And:

( PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

• 
  
  • 
    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or ( is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
    

• 
  
  • 
    (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
    

[bush_cheney2004]

The Iraq Liberation Act was not a plan of troop invasion.

Nevertheless, immediately after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by the US Congress, President Clinton and PM Blair bombed Iraq at over 100 sites in a move to decapitate Saddam's regime (Operation Desert Fox - Dec 1998). Making the distinction between numerous tactical air strikes and "invasion" by ground troops is good for political points back home be it Canada or the USA. Truth is that the US and UK already had ground operations in Iraq before Bush and the "neocons" ever took office.

[Guest Derek L]

Nevertheless, immediately after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by the US Congress, President Clinton and PM Blair bombed Iraq at over 100 sites in a move to decapitate Saddam's regime (Operation Desert Fox - Dec 1998). Making the distinction between numerous tactical air strikes and "invasion" by ground troops is good for political points back home be it Canada or the USA. Truth is that the US and UK already had ground operations in Iraq before Bush and the "neocons" ever took office.

And what were some of the targets of Op Desert Fox? Why none other than Saddam’s WMD research and production facilities………….From President Clinton’s own mouth:

Now of course some wish to suggest Clinton’s motives for thumping Saddam were to cause a distraction over Monica, just as some suggest Bush’s were to settle the score for trying to pop his Daddy and steal Iraqi oil etc etc……………And then there’s those that understand Realpolitik..........

As I’ve stated, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Al Gore would have been any different, just as I have no doubts that a President Obama or a President Romney will eventually strike Iran…………

[Mr.Canada]

Obama signs off on drone attacks and covert ops into other countries all the time. he's as much of a war monger as Bush was. Same boss different name. Just because barrack is black doesn't change anything. he's one of them and they are influenced by the Bilderbergs from Wall Street.

[Moonlight Graham]

What was it's purpose?

I just read the whole Act again. The Iraq Liberation Act was pretty clearly an authorization to support the removal of Saddam and his regime from power via direct or clandestine assistance to Iraqi political opposition groups. The last section (8) made clear:

SEC. 8. - RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

• 
  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

As laid out in Section 4, with this act the US was to provide assistance to opposition groups. The Act doesn't say anything about the US leading this regime change, only that it would support efforts (most specifically those of opposition groups within Iraq) to remove the Saddam regime:

SEC. 3. - SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

My original point was that there would have been a difference between the foreign policy of a Gore vs Bush presidency. The Clinton admin, very likely including Gore, wanted Saddam gone. They were willing to see him removed via supporting Iraqi opposition groups and launching air attacks, and I'm sure other clandestine operations we know nothing about. There wasn't support at the time for 100,000+ troop invasion. Neocons (see: PNAC), of which a prominent many served in Bush's admin, were much more aggressive in supporting regime change and military action in Iraq. Immediately following 9/11 I don't see why a prudent US gov would want to commit 100,000+ troops in invading Iraq (which was a security threat to the US, but had no link to 911) while committing less resources in Afghanistan where a far greater & immediate threat remained. Bush and linked neocons obviously had a massive obsession with removing Saddam that Clinton et al. didn't have. 8 months into power those in the Bush admin got the excuse they needed to legitimate the Iraq invasion they long sought. Neocons also historically showed a disdain for needing UNSC approval of US foreign policy ("American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council" ), a disdain the Clinton admin didn't have, meaning if Gore did want an invasion of Iraq in 2003 he probably wouldn't have done so without UNSC approval unlike Bush.

We'll never know, but i think if somehow Gore did want an invasion of Iraq post-911 he (and most any other logical administration not run by neocons) would have waited until after securing Afghanistan/al-Qaeda before dividing such military resources. I just find it hard to believe a Gore admin would also have been so strategically stupid as the Bush admin.

[Guest Derek L]

I just read the whole Act again. The Iraq Liberation Act was pretty clearly an authorization to support the removal of Saddam and his regime from power via direct or clandestine assistance to Iraqi political opposition groups. The last section (8) made clear:

As laid out in Section 4, with this act the US was to provide assistance to opposition groups. The Act doesn't say anything about the US leading this regime change, only that it would support efforts (most specifically those of opposition groups within Iraq) to remove the Saddam regime:

My original point was that there would have been a difference between the foreign policy of a Gore vs Bush presidency. The Clinton admin, very likely including Gore, wanted Saddam gone. They were willing to see him removed via supporting Iraqi opposition groups and launching air attacks, and I'm sure other clandestine operations we know nothing about. There wasn't support at the time for 100,000+ troop invasion. Neocons (see: PNAC), of which a prominent many served in Bush's admin, were much more aggressive in supporting regime change and military action in Iraq. Immediately following 9/11 I don't see why a prudent US gov would want to commit 100,000+ troops in invading Iraq (which was a security threat to the US, but had no link to 911) while committing less resources in Afghanistan where a far greater & immediate threat remained. Bush and linked neocons obviously had a massive obsession with removing Saddam that Clinton et al. didn't have. 8 months into power those in the Bush admin got the excuse they needed to legitimate the Iraq invasion they long sought. Neocons also historically showed a disdain for needing UNSC approval of US foreign policy ("American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council" ), a disdain the Clinton admin didn't have, meaning if Gore did want an invasion of Iraq in 2003 he probably wouldn't have done so without UNSC approval unlike Bush.

We'll never know, but i think if somehow Gore did want an invasion of Iraq post-911 he (and most any other logical administration not run by neocons) would have waited until after securing Afghanistan/al-Qaeda before dividing such military resources. I just find it hard to believe a Gore admin would also have been so strategically stupid as the Bush admin.

You see the context of both Administrations in regards to 9/11, both pre & post? What was Clinton’/s reasoning behind striking Saddam pre 9/11? Thousands of American weren’t attacked and killed on a single day during the Clinton administration, yet the Clinton administration thought it prudent to seek a degradation of Saddam’s WMD and sought regime change……….

As to the difference between Democratic and “aggressive Republican” administration, I ask you, within the last 100 years, of the many conflicts the United States has been involved in, what administration was in power at their start?

As to division of forces, that’s a straw man and would be akin to the United States, absent of a Hitler’s declaration of war, not involving itself in Europe and Africa during the second World War………..

As to the “lack of Force in theatre” during the invasion and initial occupation of Iraq, that is the result of the mantra coined and implemented by then Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, who began transforming the United States Army into a “Objective Force”, or a leaner (and cheaper) Army………As the Chief of Staff, his advice to the Bush Administration would have been pertinent in the formulation in the war plan………And when it started to become apparent that the required numbers for an occupation of Iraq were insufficient, the General criticised the Administration for implementing the doctrine he developed several years earlier……..

Shinseki, was a Clinton appointment.

[Moonlight Graham]

As to the difference between Democratic and “aggressive Republican” administration, I ask you, within the last 100 years, of the many conflicts the United States has been involved in, what administration was in power at their start?

I never said Republicans were more aggressive than Democrats. I said neoconservatives were much more hawkish regarding Iraq than the Clinton admin.