patrick.net

Remember, just two weeks ago he derided Obama as an â€œamateurâ€ for not sending military support to help the dictator Mubarak, claiming he favored the Muslim Brotherhood.

Help us "remember" a little better by copying and pasting my comments that support the above fiction. LOL

26

marcus 2011 Mar 20, 12:15pm

if RayAMerica has ever had an independent bone in his body, it belonged to his Libertarian boyfriend.

Speak of the devil... (you might need to show all posts to know what I'm talking about)

27 Fisk 2011 Mar 20, 1:13pm

I actually support Obama here (grudgingly), as I already said.
Grudgingly, because the flip-flopping on his part and that of his long-time liberal supporters is truly shameless. For one, they have vehemently accused Bush and Cheney of lying to Congress about Iraqi WMD so as to obtain the authorization for use of force. Obama didn't. He has simply entered US into this war without Congressional authorization or hearing of any sort, in blatant violation of constitution and his own repeated statements in 2006 - 08 that the US president has no right to start a military action abroad without Congressional authorization unless the US is under attack or imminent threat thereof. This audacity has been compounded by his sleight-of-hand announcement of that decision not in a formal address to the nation, but a minor aside while on a trip to Brazil. Just imagine what would the left say had Bush done so in 2003.

28

RayAmerica 2011 Mar 21, 12:52am

http://patrick.net/?p=626466

He is entirely motivated by hatred. Remember, just two weeks ago he derided Obama as an â€œamateurâ€ for not sending military support to help the dictator Mubarak, claiming he favored the Muslim Brotherhood.

.... and what I actually said:

"President Obama and his team of amateurs have helped usher in a nightmare scenario in the Middle East in which both America and Israel will be the biggest losers. It is in fact a revolt that has been orchestrated by the radical Islamists, mainly the Muslim Brotherhood. This revolt, encouraged by Obama et all, will continue to spread throughout the Middle East."

Nothing said about "military support" for Mubarak. Did in fact get it right that this revolt, encouraged by Obama et all, would continue to spread throughout the Middle East and it has. Do you have anything else Nomo? LOL

29

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq 2011 Mar 21, 5:58am

The vast majority of the Muslim Brotherhood members are peace-loving secularists who have no desire to see an Islamic regime in Egypt. The vast majority of Egyptians want democracy and do not want an islamic government, despite the paranoid ramblings of Glenny Beck.

This wasn't started by Obama even though I'd love to give him credit. President George W. Bush was the first American President to advocate and begin regime change for the purpose of seeding democracy in the Middle East. So if democracy in the middle east is your "nightmare scenario" ushered in by a President, then Bush is your man to blame.

The revolt has already spread across the middle east, and it is far from being a nightmare. The Rebel leader in Libya has emphatically claimed that the aim of the revolt is PEACEFUL transition of power in Libya to a SECULAR DEMOCRACY. It makes perfect sense that France would lead this mission in their own backyard.

I'm not really seeing how all of this is some "nightmare scenario". But let's take Glen Beck's paranoid delusions to its improbable conclusion: Osama Bin Laden rises as the leader of a Unified Arab Middle East under the most brutal of Sharia law that stretches from Tunisia to Iraq. Then what?

1) Bin Laden will cut off the flow of oil to the West! Then he will watch the simultaneous implosion of every single economy in the middle east. Sands will swallow cities whole like they did following the end of the Islamic Golden Age in the 13th Century.

2) Bin Laden will attack! Not certain how a military composed of irregular guerilla fighters could expect to beat any Western nation without oil money to back their mad plans.

3) At the minimum, a Unified Arab Middle East under Bin Laden would destroy Isreal! Frankly, the Isrealis are doing more to destroy Isreal than the combined might of the entire Arab world could ever hope to accomplish. But let's assume every Arab nation attacks Isreal. First, the primary maker of all military hardware used by the Arab countries is the US and West. I don't see any attack lasting very long without replacement parts, ammo, etc. Second, the US and the West could beat a united Arab attack on Isreal easily and handidly without breaking a sweat. That's if the US trained Arab militaries didn't immediately defect upon receiving orders for such a suicide mission.

So please elaborate on this "nightmare scenario" of Arab democracy.

30 kentm 2011 Mar 21, 6:09am

Arabs aside and Ray's situation-specific cynicism ignored, the actions of the US in this case are clearly an act of war. Bombs are falling.

Isn't there something in the Constitution that lays out a procedure for getting a war on? Isn't Congress etc supposed to be consulted?

If laws mattered anymore in this country, this would be an impeachable offense.

31

RayAmerica 2011 Mar 21, 6:36am

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/21/kucinich_obama_ignored_constitution_his_own_advice_with_strikes_on_libya.html

Isnâ€™t there something in the Constitution that lays out a procedure for getting a war on? Isnâ€™t Congress etc supposed to be consulted?
If laws mattered anymore in this country, this would be an impeachable offense.

Check this out ...

32 kentm 2011 Mar 21, 6:45am

There you go. Only Kucinich it seems retains the honesty to discuss this elephant openly.

But it won't happen... After 8 years of the rolling Bush-Chaney charnel house & abattoir show, which has been continued very competently by Obama, there'll be no impeachment now. It hasn't happened yet so why should it for this little thing?

33

RayAmerica 2011 Mar 21, 6:59am

Bin Laden would destroy Isreal!

the Isrealis are doing more to destroy Isreal

Arab nation attacks Isreal.

united Arab attack on Isreal

I have a hard time taking seriously anyone that wants to debate the Middle East that spells Israel .... "Isreal." LOL

34 kentm 2011 Mar 21, 7:18am

RayAmerica says

I have a hard time taking seriously anyone that wants to debate the Middle East that spells Israel â€¦. â€œIsreal.â€ LOL

Well that's convenient for you then. By the way, I've been meaning to ask you who "in fact" is.

RayAmerica says

Did in fact get it right that this revolt, encouraged by Obama et all, would continue to spread throughout the Middle East and it has.

Or you could just ignore this troll post and his mistake, as you're probably one of the worst grammar/spelling offenders, and just answer his questions...

35

Â¥ 2011 Mar 21, 8:00am

If laws mattered anymore in this country, this would be an impeachable offense.

Engaging in acts of war would be an impeachable offense if it was against the will of the congress.

ie if the Congress doesn't approve of this action they are free to impeach & remove Obama from office.

There is a gray area about the powers of being Commander in Chief vs. the power to declare war -- clearly these are not identical concepts.

36

RayAmerica 2011 Mar 21, 9:30am

The vast majority of the Muslim Brotherhood members are peace-loving

Is it possible to nominate an entire movement for the Nobel Peace Prize?

37

RayAmerica 2011 Mar 21, 9:33am

Troy says

Engaging in acts of war would be an impeachable offense if it was against the will of the congress.

How do we determine the "will of the congress" without a vote?

38

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq 2011 Mar 21, 10:45am

Again, Ray, please elaborate on the "nightmare scenario" of Arab democracy. (Blame Patrick for a lack of Spell Check on this forum!)

Shrekgrinch seems to think the Arab democratic movements have a risk of ending in dictatorship (no doubt) so we should just continue to support the first dictatorship.

Why? Because one dictatorship is better than another?

Far more democracies have emerged without requiring an occupational force than have been created by force. Aren't Libyan rebels an occupational force, anyways?

Finally, Obama isn't asking to increase spending on this operation. Tea Party nuts should be thrilled that the President is being so frugal. Obama is the Tea Party President!

39

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq 2011 Mar 21, 10:48am

RayAmerica says

Troy says

Engaging in acts of war would be an impeachable offense if it was against the will of the congress.

How do we determine the â€œwill of the congressâ€ without a vote?

The "will of Congress" can be seen by what theydebate and don't vote on as well. I would assume Congress supports the policy of NOT NUKING THE UNITED STATES without requiring a vote on the matter.

40 surfingerman 2011 Mar 21, 11:53am

â€œThe president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,â€ - Obama December 2007.

41

Â¥ 2011 Mar 21, 12:21pm

$4 gas might be construed as an imminent threat . . .

42

Bap33 2011 Mar 21, 12:59pm

surfingerman says

â€œThe president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,â€ - Obama December 2007.

43

Vicente 2011 Mar 21, 1:37pm

I always find it amusing to see Republicans trying to stir up anti-war sentiment. You seem more at ease typically on the left side of this picture than the right:

44 Fisk 2011 Mar 21, 2:02pm

Vicente says

I always find it amusing to see Republicans trying to stir up anti-war sentiment. You seem more at ease typically on the left side of this picture than the right:

â€œEagles are dandified vulturesâ€ - Teddy Roosevelt

We are.
What we dislike is for those on the right side to bash those on the left side for every sin imaginable to man, then, after successfully routing them on thus created wave of public indignation, change into their clothes and pick up their weapons as a matter-of-course.

45

Clarence 13X 2011 Mar 21, 3:08pm

Why? To prevent another genocide like what has occurred in Rwanda.

46

Vicente 2011 Mar 21, 3:10pm

Perhaps you mistake Democrats for pacifists, which is not generally speaking accurate. It's still a valid tool in the toolbox.

47

Clarence 13X 2011 Mar 21, 3:11pm

http://patrick.net/?p=648534

Interesting. First you called Obama an â€œamateurâ€ when he refused to support the Egyptian dictator, and now you call him a hypocrite because he refuses to support the Libyan dictator. Iâ€™m starting to see a patternâ€¦

I cannot lie, that does sound a bit like your flip flopping on the issue. I think we can all agree that we do not want to see another Rwanda.

48 kentm 2011 Mar 21, 6:26pm

Fisk says

We are.
What we dislike is for those on the right side to bash those on the left side

Sweet. Nice to see a textbook example of Conservative victimhood in action, even in such a mild state. I've been on the lookout ever since this article:

Check it out.

By the way, that photo was probably a bad one to start making a claim about right-wing victimhood with, considering it was taken at Kent State, where 4 unarmed students were shot by national guardsmen, during a peaceful protest. Here's another pic on subject, fyi:

49 kentm 2011 Mar 21, 6:31pm

Clarence 13X says

Rwanda

WTF?

...I actually more expected to see you arguing that the action was necessary to stave off POSSIBLE UNION INTRUSION into Libya, but invoking Rawanda is a little extreme even for you, a little out of Whack Field, even though it kind of fits pretty well with your MO & general lack of connection to actual reality.

50

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq 2011 Mar 21, 10:59pm

The only thing that will make me upset with the US involvement in Libya would be if we don't ram a cruise missle directly up Qaddaffi's ass before we end our involvement.

We will never forget Pan Am Flight 103, you pineapple faced son of a bitch.

Anti-war lefties and right-wing pansies in the media can go pound sand. This is long overdue.

(Edit: Rant not directed at anyone on the forums)

51

RayAmerica 2011 Mar 22, 1:50am

â€œThe President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

â€œAs Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,â€ Obama continued. â€œIn instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.â€

Sen. Barack Obama (Boston Globe interview, Dec. 20, 2007)

52

RayAmerica 2011 Mar 22, 2:21am

http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2010/10/analysis_of_kent_state_audio_t.html

Kent State, where 4 unarmed students were shot by national guardsmen, during a peaceful protest.

Hardly the "peaceful protest" the left claims. The following is an account from Prof. Jerry M. Lewis, himself an anti-war activist. He was there for all the main events leading up to the shootings:

May 1, Friday evening

"Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken."

May 2, Saturday evening

"As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1000 demonstrators surrounding the building."

May 3, Sunday evening

"Further confrontations between protestors and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus. "

May 4, Monday

"A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated."

"Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about ten minutes."

An audio recording contains conclusive evdidence that prior to the shooting by National Guard Troops, a handgun was fired "four distinct times." Forensic analysis has identified the weapon as a .38 caliber handgun. National Guard Troops were not then, and never have been, issued .38's.

53

RayAmerica 2011 Mar 23, 2:48am

I think it's comforting to know that we are not sending in any ground troops into Libya. President Obomba stated that we'll only do the killing from the air. No wonder he won the Peace Prize.

54

RayAmerica 2011 Mar 23, 5:18am

Vice President "Fighting" Joe Biden calls for the impeachment of Bush .... for doing the SAME THING Obomba is doing in Libya! I refuse to call our esteemed Vice President a hypocrite ... no way!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw&feature=player_embedded

55

Clarence 13X 2011 Mar 23, 2:52pm