The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rowech

Perhaps if you're a new candidate but people know who he is from last time and have seen him on TV a lot. He's been on not just his show but many others. He could get in right now if he wanted to. He won't -- but he should. The Republicans are going to do everything they can to not run Romney and therefore give Obama four more years.

His ground people have already picked new teams. They aren't sitting and waiting for him. He'd get some of them back, but he can't fill all the holes in two months.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's the big question I have about MMJ. I work downtown and live 7 miles away. On the way home, there are 12 MMJ shops just on my route. There is no way that there are that many patients to support 50-60 (?) shops just in my city. Seems like the two big hospitals could handle the relatively few patients that are prescribed.

Shit there are like seven within a few blocks of each other on Colfax further up past East HS. I recall being on the bus once last year after taking light rail and heard two people in their 20s talking about "which doctors to go to" that would prescribe it to them. "Just tell 'em you have pain."

There might not seem to be that much demand and at least one of those former weed shops is already a car dealership, but...there's no doubt that it's the newest boutique business in Colorado and they're working hard to get some regulation and licensing to keep upstarts from getting in.

There's got to be way more demand and the "patient" numbers have to be increasing significantly to warrant how many shops there are in the city, the suburbs and even along I-25 that sell it or sell the supplies to grow it.

[Edward64]

Should be interesting. I'm kinda glad the Tea Party forced this ultimatum.

Deficit 'Supercommittee' Struggles as Clock Ticks - ABC News

The supercommittee is struggling.

After weeks of secret meetings, the 12-member deficit-cutting panel established under last summer's budget and debt deal appears no closer to a breakthrough than when talks began last month.

While the panel members themselves aren't doing much talking, other lawmakers, aides and lobbyists closely tracking the committee are increasingly skeptical, even pessimistic, that the panel will be able to meet its assigned goal of at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings over the next 10 years.

The reason? A familiar deadlock over taxes and cuts to major programs like Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.

Democrats won't go for an agreement that doesn't include lots of new tax revenue; Republicans are just as ardently anti-tax. The impasse over revenues means that Democrats won't agree to cost curbs on popular entitlement programs like Medicare.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

There's got to be way more demand and the "patient" numbers have to be increasing significantly to warrant how many shops there are in the city, the suburbs and even along I-25 that sell it or sell the supplies to grow it.

I think we are agreed the medical marijuana policy is being abused. I'm good with the DOJ clamping down ...

[Buccaneer]

Without changing the tax codes, there is very little chance that they will get "lots of new tax revenue". Simply raising the rates will not get anywher near the revenues that will make a difference. But neither sides want to simplify the tax codes; one is being delusional and ignoring how tax changes behaviors, while the other is protecting the status quo.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Without changing the tax codes, there is very little chance that they will get "lots of new yax revenue".

Dr. Seuss must be pissed.

[Buccaneer]

Ah, sorry about the typo.

[Edward64]

I don't know much about it but seems to be out of the norm for Obama. Why poke our nose into something that isn't related to our war against AQ and Uganda doesn't seem very strategic to us?

Obama sends U.S. military advisers to Africa - World news - Africa - msnbc.com

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said in a letter to Congress Friday he is deploying around 100 U.S. military advisers to Uganda to help battle the notorious Lord's Resistance Army.

The rebel group is accused of a campaign of murder, rape and kidnapping that began 20 years ago.

The White House said the first troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday. Ultimately, they'll also deploy in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The combat-equipped personnel will support regional forces pursuing Joseph Kony and other Lord's Resistance Army commanders.

"I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield," Obama said in the letter.

"The support provided by U.S. forces will enhance regional efforts against the LRA. However, although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense," he said.

[Edward64]

I sure hope this doesn't come back as crying wolf (e.g. weapons of mass destruction), we can't afford another one. The meeting with Iranian officials is interesting, you wouldn't think Iran would want to meet with us ... wonder what's going on.

"Unusual" meeting between US, Iran over plot - CBS News

U.S. officials, meanwhile, confirmed the Obama administration has had direct contact with Iran over the allegations. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, met with Iranian officials at Iran's mission to the U.N. on Wednesday — a highly unusual contact for two countries that do not have diplomatic relations.

Obama would not say whether Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, knew of the alleged plan. Yet he called it part of a pattern of "dangerous and reckless behavior" by the Iranian government and said people within that government were aware of a murder-for-hire plot.
:
:
U.S. diplomats have given their host governments information about the foiled plot. The U.S. criminal complaint says the Iranian plotters hired a would-be assassin in Mexico who was a paid informant for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and told U.S. authorities all about their plot.

"We've laid the facts before them," Obama said of world leaders. He said once they analyze them, "there will not be a dispute" over what happened.

That State Department conceded Thursday that the response from foreign governments was initially skeptical.

"When you look at these details, it seems like something out of a movie," said department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

"And that's always the first reaction. That was the first reaction when this effort was briefed to some senior folks in this government," she said. "But as you begin to give more detail on what we knew and when we knew it and how we knew it, it has credibility."

At the United Nations, American allies said the U.S. evidence of an Iranian plot was convincing, but Russia and China reacted with caution.

[Edward64]

Well, crap ... hope its not an indication of things to come.

Obama administration scraps program in health reform law - latimes.com

The Obama administration on Friday told congressional leaders that it cannot implement a new program to provide Americans with long-term care insurance, abandoning a controversial part of the new healthcare law the president signed last year.

The move will not affect implementation of other parts of the sweeping healthcare law, including preparations for a major expansion of health insurance coverage starting in 2014, according to administration officials.

But the decision to give up on what was once touted as a key benefit of the law marks a major retreat for the Obama administration and a vindication for critics who have voiced doubt about the promises that Democrats made as they fought to enact the law last year.

It also struck a blow at one of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s long cherished goals – a government entitlement to help elderly Americans pay for home care or a nursing home at the end of their lives.

In a letter to senior Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said such a benefit remains critical.

But she said the program envisioned in the healthcare law – known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports, or CLASS, program – couldn’t have been structured to collect enough in premiums to remain solvent

[Edward64]

Was wondering where Jesse Jackson was since hearing about Al doing the occupy Wall St thing. Didn't know he had a son in Congress. His numbers don't add up imo but there is something appealing about its simplicity to me.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Calls On Government To Hire All Unemployed Americans For $40,000 Each | Fox News

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. has offered his own $804 billion jobs plan that calls on the federal government to hire the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans for jobs paying roughly $40,000 each, and bail out all the states and cities facing budget crises.

In an interview with the Daily Caller on Wednesday, the Illinois Democrat applauded President Obama for directing his staff to greenlight job-creating initiatives without congressional approval after his $447 billion jobs bill was defeated in the Senate this week
:
:
“It could be a five-year program,” he said. “For another $104 billion, we bail out all of the states. For another $100 billion, we bail out all of the cities.”

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know much about it but seems to be out of the norm for Obama. Why poke our nose into something that isn't related to our war against AQ and Uganda doesn't seem very strategic to us?

And the answer ...

Why send US special forces troops to Uganda? - World news - Africa - msnbc.com

Why is the U.S. sending its troops to finish off a fractured band of bush fighters in the middle of Africa? Political payback for the quiet sacrifices of Uganda's troops in Somalia could be one reason, experts say.

President Barack Obama announced Friday he is dispatching about 100 U.S. troops — mostly special operations forces — to central Africa to advise in the fight against the Lord's Resistance Army.

The LRA is a guerrilla group accused of widespread atrocities across several countries. The first U.S. troops arrived Wednesday.

Long considered one of Africa's most brutal rebel groups, the Lord's Resistance Army began its attacks in Uganda more than 20 years ago.

But the rebels are at their weakest point in 15 years. Their forces are fractured and scattered, and the Ugandan military estimated earlier this year that only 200 to 400 fighters remain. In 2003, the LRA had 3,000 armed troops and 2,000 people in support roles.

But capturing LRA leader Joseph Kony — a ruthless and brutal thug — remains the highest priority for Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, a 25-year-leader who has committed thousands of troops to the African Union force in Somalia to fight militants from al-Shabab, a group with ties from al-Qaida.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Was wondering where Jesse Jackson was since hearing about Al doing the occupy Wall St thing. Didn't know he had a son in Congress. His numbers don't add up imo but there is something appealing about its simplicity to me.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Calls On Government To Hire All Unemployed Americans For $40,000 Each | Fox News

1. Would there be a public report to the hiring entity (i.e. the taxpayers) detailing what was accomplished by those workers?

2. What percentage of that bailout money for states would go to California? Got to be a pretty large number.

It's still going to be a mess in the end. The states will feel like they can start spending again. It also disincentives the states who have remained responsible during this period. They receive nothing for their good financial management.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Well, crap ... hope its not an indication of things to come.

Obama administration scraps program in health reform law - latimes.com

There was no way it could work. I told you that last year.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

We're suddenly surprised that a program that gives away insurance to millions isn't going to be implemented due to solvency issues?

That's rich.

[molson]

I'm impressed they pulled the plug on it rather than do the sports gm "refuse to admit mistakes" thing and keep a guy around when its clear he wasn't going to work out.

[Edward64]

I'm good with this. Sure there will be violence and instability after we leave and it would be nice to leave some troops (when will it ever be a good time to leave 100%?) but if they can't do this by themselves by now ...

U.S. Lawmakers Warn Of New Violence In Iraq If White House Abandons Deal | Fox News

Iraq faces a greater risk of renewed violence if U.S. forces are told to leave Iraq, top U.S. lawmakers warned Sunday as the White House insisted negotiations to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq haven't been abandoned even though Iraqi officials remain adamant they not get immunity if they remain.

As the clock ticks down to a Dec. 31 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, both sides say they want U.S. forces to stay in Iraq in training and peacekeeping capacities.

But a senior government official in Iraq told Fox News on Sunday that all Iraqi political blocs agree U.S. troops should not have immunity from prosecutions for killing Iraqi civilians or others if they stay beyond 2011. That's a deal breaker for the Pentagon.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm impressed they pulled the plug on it rather than do the sports gm "refuse to admit mistakes" thing and keep a guy around when its clear he wasn't going to work out.

Oops, spoke too soon.

Obama opposes repeal of healthcare program suspended last week

Obama opposes repeal of healthcare program suspended last week - The Hill's Healthwatch

[SteveMax58]

That's the problem when you worry about the cart more than the horse to pull it.

Of course we can't fund it yet with our current taxes/expenditures. That is why the first thing a forward thinking person looks at in 2009 is how to get us started on recovering our value as a nation. And our value begins with figuring out what we export vs what we import. And evaluating that doesn't need to conclude in (traditional) protectionism.

It begins by seeing that energy sourcing is a massive black hole we send money down every year and will be the problem we face with moving to a next generation world. And the outpouring of dollars to it can be slowed & eventually stopped so that we keep those dollars in the US economy. This leads to an increased demand for educated researchers, engineers to implement, construction workers to enable the infrastructure, and raises real buying power of individuals (to the extent it lowers energy and/or increases the avg wage more than the energy price rises). This doesn't even assume any ability to outsource our developments to other countries nor does it even need to frame the (potentially bigger) issue of national security interest in being 100% self-reliant regarding energy.

[JPhillips]

Does anyone have any good info on why the House GOP is going to kill the bill that would get tougher on Chinese currency manipulation? I've read a lot of reports of what, but I don't know why. I don't understand why the GOP is against sanctions on China.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Does anyone have any good info on why the House GOP is going to kill the bill that would get tougher on Chinese currency manipulation? I've read a lot of reports of what, but I don't know why. I don't understand why the GOP is against sanctions on China.

Well it's a bit of a wedge issue, for one thing. Quite a few Republicans voted for the bill in the Senate, and quite a few rank and file Republicans would do the same in the House. I think some of the GOP leadership believes it would be dangerous to threaten some kind of trade war (so do I actually, as a Democrat.) I think the House GOP leadership doesn't want to bring the bill to a vote because they are afraid it will pass. Why they don't want it to pass could be "dangerous" and "potential trade war" as they have been saying, but probably also most likely companies that back them are lobbying hard against it to avoid increasing their costs.

To be honest it's one of those issues which doesn't cut across the normal political lines - especially since the President doesn't really support the bill either.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

To be honest it's one of those issues which doesn't cut across the normal political lines - especially since the President doesn't really support the bill either.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure where I fall on this one myself. But my inclination is to be very careful & mindful of doing anything to make our relations with China less "cooperative" moving forward.

I mean, I am of the opinion that we could ultimately "win" (however you want to try & define that) a trade war of sorts as I think it would spark pullback of outsourcing to China as we get their currency to a more legitimate state. Plus the vast majority of world's wealth will align itself to be favorable to the US if things got really ugly. But I'm not sure the world economy could withstand the chaos of the transition (assuming China plays hardball in such disputes).

IDK...a very complex issue with a lot of moving parts to it. I think we need to be very careful how we presume to tell countries like China what they should be doing with their currency when we are fortunate enough to still be the reserve currency.

[albionmoonlight]

A Tale of Two Presidents

To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.

[MrBug708]

...and democrats would still call him the great Satan

Oh it's not baseless assertions day?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

A Tale of Two Presidents

So wait I thought the Obama administration said we weren't directly involved in the Libya mess? Is there a third war or not?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

...and democrats would still call him the great Satan

Oh it's not baseless assertions day?

Yes, because Democrats have a history of not praising GOP President foreign policy victories. So when Bush 1 had a 91% approval rating after Desert Storm, I guess there must've only been 9% Dems in this country.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by panerd

So wait I thought the Obama administration said we weren't directly involved in the Libya mess? Is there a third war or not?

Or fourth -- as per Uganda.

[molson]

I've been pleasantly surprised by Obama's foreign policy. This was one of his big question marks. And he's given the republican candidates zero ammo in this area.

[JediKooter]

Yay!

Obama announces full American troop withdrawal from Iraq | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Yay!

Obama announces full American troop withdrawal from Iraq | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

+1, glad he is sticking to the timelines on this, would have liked it sooner, but at least the end is in sight.

You are right Molson, foreign policy is one area he has been consistently good in. Hopefully getting troops home, besides saving shitloads of money, will have a postive effect on the markets. Could go either way if there is panic about a relapse into greater instability in the ME.

[JPhillips]

Knowing the cost in money and lives, how many people that supported the war initially still think it was beneficial to the U.S. in hindsight? As much as I disagree with the way the Libya "war" originated, the outcome was far better than Iraq.

[Buccaneer]

ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
A Freedom Communications newspaper

The latest news from President Barack Obama’s Labor Department is that a federal grant doled out from the administration’s stimulus program to train and employ people in “green jobs” so far has spent $162 million, but resulted in only 8,035 people getting jobs. That would be bad enough. But only 1,033 of them still were on the job after six months.

If that weren’t irritating enough, a report from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform says many of those “created” jobs weren’t new. Worse yet, they weren’t even “green.” Some of the jobs simply were relabeled as “green” by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They rather creatively were identified as “green” although they were seemingly as colorless as government regulators working at the Environmental Protection Agency, university professors teaching ecology and Washington lobbyists seeking government loan guarantees for clients.

Cool. The Federal Govt. continues to pay a lot of taxpayer funds for so little return. Shall we encourage them to continue to do more of this?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Knowing the cost in money and lives, how many people that supported the war initially still think it was beneficial to the U.S. in hindsight? As much as I disagree with the way the Libya "war" originated, the outcome was far better than Iraq.

I know its unpopular to say it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is sensitivity to people who did lose their lives in it...but I still believe the dethroning of Saddam was perhaps one of the most long-term beneficial things for the world (and the US). Impossible to say what might have become (either way) but the Middle East will become a different place without such a man leading one of its countries...and I think for the better.

I'd say the same for Libya as well. The entire conversation is different when you no longer have crazy tyrants accepted as "normal" in international affairs.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I know its unpopular to say it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is sensitivity to people who did lose their lives in it...but I still believe the dethroning of Saddam was perhaps one of the most long-term beneficial things for the world (and the US). Impossible to say what might have become (either way) but the Middle East will become a different place without such a man leading one of its countries...and I think for the better.

I'd say the same for Libya as well. The entire conversation is different when you no longer have crazy tyrants accepted as "normal" in international affairs.

I won't quite say that yet, but I do believe we really need to evaluate what the Middle East looks like in 10-20 years. If these events somehow bring something that hasn't been there before in the majority of countries over there and progress is somehow made in a variety of ways then maybe history will judge this period very differently.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I know its unpopular to say it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is sensitivity to people who did lose their lives in it...but I still believe the dethroning of Saddam was perhaps one of the most long-term beneficial things for the world (and the US). Impossible to say what might have become (either way) but the Middle East will become a different place without such a man leading one of its countries...and I think for the better.

I'd say the same for Libya as well. The entire conversation is different when you no longer have crazy tyrants accepted as "normal" in international affairs.

I don't think you'll find a lot of people right now complaining about removing either of them. Maybe in 30 years we might feel different if someone just as bad or worse is ruling, but that could happen anywhere. But, really, let's look at the costs.

But it's not as if we've rid the world of crazy tyrants. The world still looks like a rogues gallery from a bad James Bond movie. Two words for you: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kim Jong-Il is still kicking. Fidel handed off to Raul but anyone think he's not crazy? Hugo Chavez would fit nicely as the main character in Tropico. I think Vladimir Putin actually was the villain in one of the Timothy Dalton Bond movies, not that anyone would know. And it's good thing Robert Mugabe is still in power because otherwise we'd have to have a runoff for biggest genocidal maniac in Africa.

That said, at what price? Libya seems fairly easy math: Tens of thousands in genocide saved in exchange for a fraction of that in rebel lives, 0 American lives, and about $1B. Seems like a pretty good deal.

Iraq is lot messier: How many thousands of American lives? How many tens of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives in a civil war? How many hundred of billions of dollars? Could Saddam even have killed that many people if we had left him alone for 10 years? That one isn't so easy. Afghanistan is no better to try and do the math and justification.

SI

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I know its unpopular to say it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is sensitivity to people who did lose their lives in it...but I still believe the dethroning of Saddam was perhaps one of the most long-term beneficial things for the world (and the US). Impossible to say what might have become (either way) but the Middle East will become a different place without such a man leading one of its countries...and I think for the better.

I'd say the same for Libya as well. The entire conversation is different when you no longer have crazy tyrants accepted as "normal" in international affairs.

Depends on whether this Iraq remains a counterweight to Iran, IMO. We basically gave up our military bases in the region outside of whatever we end up with in Afghanistan for this regime change.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Iraq is lot messier: How many thousands of American lives? How many tens of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives in a civil war? How many hundred of billions of dollars? Could Saddam even have killed that many people if we had left him alone for 10 years? That one isn't so easy. Afghanistan is no better to try and do the math and justification.

SI

I think there are 2 things here:

1) Its always easy to forget how much worse than just a "zany crackpot" Saddam was. This guy was the scourge of the Middle East (and the world ftm). Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad (so far), and everybody else combined (with the exception of Lil' Kim) didn't directly lead to half as many deaths as Saddam. Easily one of the most sinister bastards to ever walk the earth. This wasn't some run of the mill "bad guy".

2) Did we execute the post-war competently? Absolutely not. We had far too many deaths, spent far too much money, and had far too much general chaos in Iraq for too many years after the dethroning. So poorly managed to the point that I can definitely understand people not thinking it to have been worthwhile. And of course, nothing is ever worthwhile if your son,daughter, nephew, cousin, etc. lost their life in it...but I believe historians will look back & see that as a very bright moment (i.e. deposing of Saddam) in the history of the Middle East.

[Buccaneer]

SI, would you say the exhorbant math and deaths of WW2 was justified?

Shouldn't we also be asking the same questions of the government in non-military matters as well?

[molson]

Ya, there's a huge difference between "was this worth it" and "is the end result great for the world"......I mean, who knows, what would have happened without the war. Iraq always maintained a much stronger and more well-paid military than Libya or Egypt, so it's unlikely there would have ever been a successful people's revolt there while Saddam was in power, but Saddam might have settled into a quiet irrelevance until his death, and then the people may have taken power then.

The cost was huge, and probably was too much - but hey, here we are, and things are looking up in the middle east, and Iraq is a big part of that. Maybe we don't even have Egypt and Libya revolutions without the Iraq war.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by molson

The cost was huge, and probably was too much - but hey, here we are, and things are looking up in the middle east, and Iraq is a big part of that. Maybe we don't even have Egypt and Libya revolutions without the Iraq war.

I would say Vietnam's 58,000+ casualties was a huge cost.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Shouldn't we also be asking the same questions of the government in non-military matters as well?

Yeah, you could add the space shuttle missions to the list of things that aren't worth the human and financial tolls when they cause more deaths than expected (in relation to the tangible lives that are saved). Certainly there are relative scales to that expectation (such as, we expect 0 casualties from a given SS mission whereas an invasion has a certain amount of anticipated casualties that number in the thousands).

But I don't think you point to the f-ups that occur as reasons for it not being worthwhile.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

The cost was huge, and probably was too much - but hey, here we are, and things are looking up in the middle east, and Iraq is a big part of that. Maybe we don't even have Egypt and Libya revolutions without the Iraq war.

I guess thats where I was going. I don't think you have the environment for what we have been seeing if not for deposing Saddam. So, out of a gigantic clusterfuck of an operation came an environment that could produce an awakening in the Arab mainstreet. Certainly not the only reason, but 1 of the bigger reasons for the environment to be where it needed to be.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

SI, would you say the exhorbant math and deaths of WW2 was justified?

Shouldn't we also be asking the same questions of the government in non-military matters as well?

To the first question, it seems like a kneejerk "yes" but if you've got the number of causalities caused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stain, etc, the number killed in the war, and the cost in 2010 dollars at your fingertips, I'd be curious to see if it's just an "easy" answer because the textbooks say it is.

The second question is even easier. The answer is, of course, "yes". We should always be holding our government accountable. But you're going to find war way down on my list of things I'd prefer the government spend money on and if I'm going to have them "waste" it, I'd much rather it be in scientific or educational pursuit or for the betterment of the people.

To that point, I love all the consternation and hand wringing over a bunch of the energy grants and loan guarantees. Considering the number of IPOs and young companies that fail in the private sector, I fully expect a lot of our taxpayer money to be "wasted". But I realize that is also the cost of trying to do this sort of support where the government is the only loaner or insurer large enough to take the risks necessary to spawn a new industry or type or products. And I damn sure would rather see us trying to spend money on engineering than war.

SI

[Edward64]

It may go to hell after the pullout but agree with it ... we've given them better than even odds to do this themselves. I think it would be optimal to wait for right after the next presidential election but there will always be reasons to stay ... time to really focus on Pakistan (and Iran).

Obama is right to stick to withdrawal in Iraq - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

“The tide of war is receding,” President Obama said today. He’s right to withdraw our troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

I am sure some longtime supporters of the war will criticize him for pulling out too quickly. But as Obama pointed out, we have been at war in Iraq for nine years. The situation there will never present a perfect time for withdrawal. We still have our commitment to Afghanistan. He is far better to stick both with his own promise and also to the agreement President George W. Bush reached before he left office to have our troops out by the end of this year.

Moreover, the administration seems serious about building the U.S. civilian presence in Iraq. Whether you were for the war or thought it was a mistake, as I do, the United States should want to do what it can to preserve the progress Iraqis have made toward building a more democratic nation. The best U.S. role is assisting in institution-building, not in maintaining an indefinite U.S. troop presence.

It’s also not clear to me how large a difference leaving a modest number of troops there would make. The risk is that they could get entangled in violence, which could then create pressure to send more troops and create an unhealthy, even dangerous, spiral. It’s time to end our engagement.

[Edward64]

It seems as if the Obama administration has an "aggressive" foreign policy in regards to "war on terror" ... see below bolded. Normally I would have said talk is cheap but Obama has shown he is willing to follow through.

I don't know the Pakistani political calculus. It would seem to me they would want to negotiate a massive economic aid deal, real long-term security partnership, guarantee from India etc. -- all of which the US would do if Pakistan really embraced the fight against their extremists.

Sure some Pakistanis may think they will become a US surrogate etc. but they could ask for alot and get it.

washingtonpost.com

ISLAMABAD — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Friday that U.S. officials have met secretly with members of the Pakistan-based Haqqani militant group, a disclosure that came as the top U.S. diplomat pressed Pakistani leaders to do more to rein in terrorists operating inside their country’s borders.

The meeting last summer with Haqqani leaders was arranged by Pakistan’s intelligence agency and was intended to gauge whether the notoriously violent Haqqanis could be enticed to join peace talks aimed at ending the decade-old insurgency in Afghanistan, State Department officials said.
:
:
With the scheduled departure of combat forces from Afghanistan just three years away, the Obama administration is pressing Pakistan to do more to stop insurgent and terrorist attacks emanating from the Pakistani side of the border. Clinton, who was accompanied by a high-level entourage that included CIA Director David H. Petraeus and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Pakistani officials at the start of the visit that the United States was prepared to act unilaterally if Pakistan did not clear out Haqqani havens in its territory.

[SteveMax58]

You know, I have this theory about Presidents (and perhaps all people in general).

They tend to make better decisions about topics they can admit to themselves (and others) that they are not the expert on. Its when they believe they already have the answer that they make poor decisions.

Foreign policy & military operations are things I think Obama is fully willing to have a completely open mind on and evaluate on their merits...because he does not believe himself to be an expert or authority on it so he fully engages & absorbs the information brought to him.

I think the opposite is why he does not make the best analysis on domestic policy, namely regarding financial conditions & legislative policy. I think he believes himself smarter than the others in the room on such subjects, and feels it is something they should conclude in a way that satisfies his presumptions.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

SI, would you say the exhorbant math and deaths of WW2 was justified?

We didn't have a choice in WW2 given that Japan and Germany declared war first. A war of defense is much different than a war of choice.

[Edward64]

Not educated enough to really say if good or not but interesting that this is one that Republicans support and "nearly three-fourths of House Democrats voted against the trade measures".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44989775...s-white_house/

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama signed off Friday on the first three — and possibly last — free trade agreements of his administration, deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that could be worth billions to American exporters and create tens of thousands of jobs.

The three deals were years in the making, and the difficulty of bringing them to fruition make it unlikely there will be another bilateral trade agreement during Obama's current term.

Obama signed them with none of the ceremonial fanfare that normally accompanies such triumphs. Republicans, while supportive of the deals, continue to find fault with Obama's trade policies. And nearly three-fourths of House Democrats voted against the trade measures.
:
:
The three deals were initially signed in the George W. Bush administration but were slowed down as the Obama White House renegotiated changes and haggled with Republicans over the worker aid program. Democratic opposition was strongest against the Colombia deal because of that country's record of violence against labor leaders.

The U.S. Trade Representative Office is now shifting its attention to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an economic alliance that would link the United States with Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam and four countries that are already free trade partners — Australia, Chile, Peru and Singapore. Going beyond cutting tariffs, the alliance would tackle such areas as financial services, intellectual property rights, government procurement, investment and conservation.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We didn't have a choice in WW2 given that Japan and Germany declared war first. A war of defense is much different than a war of choice.

Semantics though. We all know the US was supporting UK with lend lease. If someone did that for the Taliban/AQ et al in Afghanistan and Pakistan you can bet that's a declaration of war.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would say Vietnam's 58,000+ casualties was a huge cost.

Yes, huge cost.

It stopped/reduced the "domino effect" throughout the region, see below wiki has for/against the argument. I tend to believe there is alot of truth to it.

Domino theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia