Fox guest: Obama ‘emboldened’ terrorists, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 29-12-2009 @ 03:07 PM by redoubt
reply to post by RedGolem


When it comes down to things like this, I believe that politics really has far less to do with it than the man (or woman) who is in office.

Back in the '60s, a lot of the same things were said about JFK but then, he stared down the Soviet Union and Cuba until they blinked in the '62 missile crisis.

It's hard to say... each president will respond according to their strengths and weaknesses.

Only time and history will tell when it comes to OBama.


reply posted on 29-12-2009 @ 03:21 PM by lpowell0627
One of the main problems is that Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his actions. It's no secret that much of the Muslim world considered Bush an enemy and that much of the tensions between the US and Middle East were heightened because of this.

Obama began his campaign reaching out to Muslims and the Middle East and brought forth the hope of new politics, new relations, and an overall zest for peace -- hence the whole Nobel PEACE Prize bit.

Now, only a year later, Obama is not only continuing the policies of Bush, but expanding them. In his latest speech, he said he would root out terror cells throughout the entire world if need be.... Hardly a beacon for peace.

Many of the civilians in these areas just want to live in peace. Without a trustworthy President in the US, they will turn back to their leaders for guidance. Especially since their state-run news organizations are basically one big "rah-rah-us" and "the US is the axis of evil". Unless they see action that counters that, they will believe it for lack of any other evidence.

On one hand, you have a President that everybody expected to push war, war, war and now you have a President that promised peace while secretly expanding the war into additional countries, while maintaining a presence in the first. From all outward appearances, we have now tripled our war effort.

What do you think people would react more harshly to: A man that wrongs them when they expect it or a man that they placed their hopes in only to find it misplaced?


reply posted on 29-12-2009 @ 03:38 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by RedGolem


The main problem with this guy, Wayne Simmons, is obvious...oh, AND the mouthpiece that allowed him to spew, with no "balance" in any sort of discussion.

It is just more same old, same old from the GOP. ANY little perceived crack or flaw, they dig in to blow it out of proportion.

Is this a little bit like trying to say that G W Bush 'emboldened' Richard Reid, and his accomplices, to attempt to light his shoe on fire, to cause an explosion? (With, I believe, very possibly similar components used on Northwest/Delta 253).

No, I think this is pretty evident, and it is a calculated political ploy ---chum that the GOP operatives constantly throw out, to ignite (!!) the media feding frenzy...it's a gift that they seem to excell at.


Also, any reasonable adult, not tainted by the Obama-bashing du jour mindset, can see that, really, in both instances the two perpetrators were laughably inept. Difference is, in December 2001, no one said that Bush's "policies" emboldened them. The ineptitude and stupidity of Richard Reid wasn't mentioned; it was ignored. AND, that leads us to today's inane requirements regarding shoes on airliners.


Oh, and the M.O. is different too...as to time of 'detonation'. And location onboard. Not planned well, at all. If this is the best they got, well.......

I'd say watching out for shoulder loanched SAMs is of higher concern.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^