Much ado about nothing.

wow looks like the rest of the country shares our sympathys here on the board...good to see.....This really makes me wonder how he would have handled 911 ..every time he opens his mouth he reminds me more of how he sounds like a freakin heartless car salesman..

Now take a look at this little beauty over here..only has 100 thousand miles on it so I can give you one hell of a deal..should make you a nice replacment vehicle for the one your wife ran under the train..sorry to hear about her passing by the way..Oh yaaaa..I might have a few more on the back lot..

Guess they didn't have time to set up the 'prompter' eh. No string puller around to adjust his facial expression, and his mouth so he looked/sounded good? They really shouldn't let him out and about by himself. He can thank all the 'handlers' HE hired as they don't care about anything but themselves, truth be told they probably don't care much about him they just know they have a cushy job with superior benefits and an outrageous salary and have to do very little for that. 

Pull a string here or there and and fly to Europe for dinner. And no I don't know that they actually do that but that is the attitude they present.

FSG: 

     really??  are you serious?? YOU need a reality check or should we check YOU for a pulse????

FSG Much ado about nothing.

well FSG that just put you in the same crap catagory as Owe..proud of yourself?? man I want to say so many things to you right now for what you just said but i cant because it would get me kicked off the board..i gotta get out of here witters this guy makes me sick

Thank you for posting yet another Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes op-ed piece highlighting the mindset of the extreme right wing of American politics. You folks here are so far right you now just create circles when you post.

and thank you adam for yet another far left extremist post that shows the true nature of your democratic party by defending this self centered egotist..

http://www.nbcchicago.com/n...

Actually Adam, this is out of "o's" home state.

 This really makes me wonder how he would have handled 911

Much better than George W. Bush.  Obama already knew about the shooting when he addressed this crowd, so you can't attack him for inaction - not like we could W, who literally sat there looking helpless as a child read to him.  The man could have easily excused himself from the classroom.

really??  are you serious?? YOU need a reality check or should we check YOU for a pulse????

I believe Obama responded appropriately.  There was no reason why he should have begun his speech announcing the shooting - tell me how it would have changed anything?  I think he was cool and collected, but somber as he informed the crowd of what had taken place.  His character was not out of line - he specifically stated that his thoughts and prayers were with those affected - what more could you really ask for?

well FSG that just put you in the same crap catagory as Owe..proud of yourself?? man I want to say so many things to you right now for what you just said but i cant because it would get me kicked off the board..i gotta get out of here witters this guy makes me sick

Give me a break, Sioux.  My comment was specifically about the stink you are all making about Obama, not about the shootings.  Who posted about this whole incident first? Me.  Unlike you, I actually have peers that are in the military.  Some of my best friends are currently serving our country, and the first emotions I had when I heard about the shootings was concern not only for those affected, but also for all my friends who could have just as easily been harmed by such an incident.

Get over yourself and stop reading too much into one comment.

Oh, and I'd love for you to say whatever it is you feel.  In fact, Private message it to me - I promise I'm not going to tattle tale on you.  Better yet, the next DL meeting I'll be at will be the first Thursday in December (I'm out of town for our next one in 2 weeks).  You're more than welcome to come on down and chat with me man to man.  I have no shame, nothing to hide, and I'm definitely not scared of you.  The ball is in your court.

Hard to believe even this topic is divided along the political line.  We're talking about a tragedy in US military and the response from our Commander in Chief and all you guys can muster is 'much ado about nothing'?  Of course, if a Republican president was in the office, adam and fsg along with all the libs would be crying foul or even find someway to blame the president.  Think outside of your political alignment just for this one time and you can see the message the POTUS is sending out by shouting 'shout out to...'.   

Crack a few jokes, talk about a mass shooting, crack a few more jokes, tell everyone what a wonderful guy you are, crack a few more jokes.    Hey, he's just doing what his teleprompter tells him.  Its not his fault..

How wrong you are, Casooner.  To be quite honest, even when Bush was President, I rarely nitpicked his speeches.  The only reason I even brought him up was because the subject was already brought up by one of your own.

I disagree with the insensitivity claim and Its beneath you to make a issue of it.

However even if it were true it beats Bush's nonreaction to September 11, 2001.  In case any of you have forgotten.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Bush's reaction was after being told a plane had hit the WTC.  The intial reports that morning said a small twin enginer commuter plane had hit the WTC.  Tragedy, yes, but not really that big a deal and not unprecedented.  A B-25 flew into the Empire State building years ago.

Obamas reaction was HOURS after the killings.  He even had time to rewrite his speach.  It was HOURS after the massacre.  And he is cracking jokes and sending out "shoutouts".  This guy has no clue.

FYI:  "o" speaking from the rose garden - probably going to try to gloss over his gaff.

FSG You're more than welcome to come on down and chat with me man to man. I have no shame, nothing to hide, and I'm definitely not scared of you.  The ball is in your court.

is this some kind of threat??

In all honesty, the shootings in Texas probably aren't that big a deal.  Servicemen are getting blown up at a record pace in Afghanistan as we speak.  And the Ditherer in Chief does nothing but give shout outs to medicine men.....How about giving a shout out to your hand picked commander in Afghanistan and giving him the resources to execute the plan you came up with, genius??

I've learned that even the most thinly veiled threats on this forum are all smoke and mirrors, no substance. There is no on who participates on this forum (that I am aware of) who is more "public" than I: I use my real first name- the same name I use as my "by" line for the columns I write- I've been on the local news and radio and attend perhaps 70% or more of the not-for-profit events in this city. It would take a brain-dead idiot NOT to figure out who I am, where I live and who I work for. Christ, I'm probably the only gay man in this county proudly flying the Amerigay flag by the front dooor- so I'm not exactly hard to miss. Yet for all the bluster I read and all the crap that has been slung and all the threats not ONE of them have called my office, complained to my boss, shown up at my doorstep or an event to confront me. Nothing.

Cowards: Afraid of their own shadows hiding behind false nomenclature and empty words.

There's nothing cowardly in remaining anonymous, Miles.

--virgil

 is this some kind of threat??

No, it's not.  I don't threaten people, and I'm not a violent person.  I'm giving you an honest and open invitation to come to Drinking Liberally.  Ask anyone here - we're civil and we don't bite. In fact, Refiguy showed up one time.  If you trust his judgement, ask him how we acted when he came by (I'll give you a hint - everyone was nice).

If I'm not mistaken, if anyone is giving threats, it's you.

FSG you are an idiot to think is about nothing!  It was a massacre of young men fighting for our freedom.  This President is all ego.  Any sane person would have had a separate press conference immediately.

 There's nothing cowardly in remaining anonymous, Miles.

--virgil

Then you and I have very different views on what "cowardly" is.

 How about giving a shout out to your hand picked commander in Afghanistan and giving him the resources to execute the plan you came up with, genius??

Depending on who you speak to in Afghanistan, everyone has a different idea of what we should do.  For example, one of my best friends, who's been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times as part of a special ops team seems to think that we need more special ops forces, not so much your every day soldier.  Then you have others who disagree.

FSG.

Obama picked McChrystal.  If he is not going to back him, he might as well fire him and appoint someone  that will tell him what he wants to hear..

 FSG you are an idiot to think is about nothing!  It was a massacre of young men fighting for our freedom.  This President is all ego.  Any sane person would have had a separate press conference immediately.

If I were you, I'd be careful who you call an idiot, especially when you can't get your facts straight.  First and foremost, there were women involved in this event - in fact, the officer who shot Hasan is a woman. Second, it is your opinion that he should have had a separate press conference, it is not fact. Third, I'd also be very careful touting who must be "sane" or insane, especially when you probably cannot comprehend the definition.

Go back to the sandbox and let the adults have our discussion.

 Obama picked McChrystal.  If he is not going to back him, he might as well fire him and appoint someone  that will tell him what he wants to hear..

There are plenty of historical examples where a Commanding General's opinion is considered but not agreed upon.  Just because Obama put McChrystal in that position doesn't automatically mean he should agree with McChrystal's every idea, nor should Obama always defer to McChrystal.  Instead, he should rely on a team of advisors who can give a more balanced opinion.  In fact, I think any President would be stupid to take the advice of one person as it pertains to military matters.  There's a reason we have such things as the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"Then you and I have very different views on what "cowardly" is."

Apparently so, Miles.  :   )

--virgil

Do you realize that in the same amount of time Obama has dithered on Afghanistan, that the US landed hundreds of thousands of troop in France and marched into Berlin and ended the war with Nazi Germany?

10 months from thed day 200000 soldiers went ashore in France to the fall of Berlin.  And in that same amount of time, this Ditherer in Chief can't decide if he wants to give his hand picked commander the 40,000 troops he asked for.

Ron, your total lack of knowledge of history would fill volumes. In WW II we were freeing a continent from tyranny. In Afganistan we are in the middle of a civil war, which we will never be able to end. There is no clear cut goal, no definition of what victory means. That is what the President is trying to decide now; how to end this thing with some kind of honor and extract ourselves from a situation that could easily become another Vietnam. 

I remember a general named Westmorland who kept asking for more troops to finishe the job in Vietnam. How did that work out for us.

I had personal experience with a general named Clark who wanted to go all out in Korea before President Eisenhower shut him down.

So don't tell me about the "wise military". Those guys know one thing - keep fighting. This country is sick of these futile wars. I applaud the President for being cautous with our soldiers lives.

 ron- What next? Comparisons to the Crusades or perhaps a Roman war or two?

Do you realize that in the same amount of time Obama has dithered on Afghanistan, that the US landed hundreds of thousands of troop in France and marched into Berlin and ended the war with Nazi Germany?

Of course I do.  Do you realize that the invasion of Normandy took years to plan before implementation?  How long did we spend planning our invasion of Afghanistan? Months.

Do you also realize that warfare in 1940's Europe was much different than warfare in the postmodern era, especially in the Middle East and Asia?  We're dealing with a completely different kind of enemy - one that doesn't show themselves.  One that doesn't wear uniforms.  One that can literally melt into the general populace. We're still trying to adapt to this new environment.

Don't lecture me on military history - I'll own you in a heartbeat.

10 months from thed day 200000 soldiers went ashore in France to the fall of Berlin.  And in that same amount of time, this Ditherer in Chief can't decide if he wants to give his hand picked commander the 40,000 troops he asked for.

I think you mean to be speaking of our last President, who rushed into something that we weren't prepared for.  Obama's actually trying to correct that mistake, but you're obviously too uninformed to understand just how much we're having to change not only our tactics and strategy, but even the equipment we use.  Just like in WWII when our boys had to jerry-rig welding metal planks on the front of Sherman tanks so they could bulldoze throw overgrown brush, we're having to do similar things today - much of the alterations taking place first in the field before they're actually implemented on the conveyor belts.

Go read something and then come back and talk like you actually understand what's going on.

 There is no clear cut goal, no definition of what victory means.

And Obama is calling this a "just" war worth fighting.....but not worth claiming victory in....

In WW II we were freeing a continent from tyranny.

In Iraq, we were freeing a nation from tyranny.  But that wasn't a "just" war in the eyes of the clean, articulate, Harvard scholar

Ron, though I usually disagree with you, I have respected your judgement in some areas. Please, please, please my friend, don't try to justify that b**ls**t in Irag. People died and are still dying there for nothing but the hope to get access to cheap oil and get away from the Saudis. 

I know you are staunch in your opposition to the Obama Presidency, but don't drink so much of the koolaid that it clouds your judgement. You are better than that amigo.

People died and are still dying there for nothing but the hope to get access to cheap oil and get away from the Saudis. 

And Obama does nothing.  Uses the same Iraqi  playbook GWB used...

I am still trying to figure this thing out.  Bush and his oil company budies wanted to invade Iraq for their cheap oil.... Now why do oil companies want cheap oil??  I thought oil companies liked oil to be expensive?  What happend to TKrazy??

Ron, I don't know who TKrazy is. I have been trying to converse with you in a civil, intelligent manor, but you don't seem to be able to hold up your end. 

Are you justifying a war and deaths for oil? Shame!

Obama is getting the troops out of Iraq. If we put 40,000 more in Afganistan there will be more deaths. Is that what you want?

Here's the deal with Iraq: our government lied about the initial reason for invasion, which means that the invasion of Iraq wasn't justified.  We literally used Saddam like a ragdoll - feeding him weapons, technology and intelligence during the Iran-Iraq war in hopes of containing Iran (which we suceeded in), while literally turning a blind eye to the atrocities which Saddam commited - from his tyrannical rule and brutal executions of political foes, to his treatment of the Kurds as early as 1974.  When the Iran-Iraq war fizzled out into a ceasefire via the UN, there was really no reason to ignore Saddam's dastardly deeds any longer, so in '91 we finally invaded.  The no-fly zones were enacted after Bush I failed to keep his promise to the Kurds and Shi'ites, thereby allowing for their rebellions to be squashed while U.S. forces did nothing.

There is still to this day no credible evidence that Saddam was stockpiling chemical or biological weapons, nor did he have the capabilities to restart his nuclear program (which we helped set up in the beginning).  There are only a few real reasons why one country invades another, and in modern times, it's usually for natural resources.  Invading Iraq makes complete strategic sense when taking into account the oil reserves, especially when also taking into account how much closer we are to staging a potential invasion of Iran.  However, whether oil was really the motive behind the 2003 invasion or not, the reality is that we've actually done more to destabilize the region than anything else.  It's not that Saddam wasn't a bad man, and it's not that he shouldn't have been removed from power - it's how and when we did it that makes the difference.  If the United States really cared about making the world safe from tyranny, evil and non-democracy, we should have gotten rid of Saddam in the 1980's when we had the chance, or at least in '91.

I could write volumes, but I don't have the time.

Here is a little light on the effect of the first Gulf War on Muslim countries. I was in Algeria in 1993 after GWI. Every little shop had a big picture of Sadaam prominately displayed. He was a hero for standing up to the U.S. My wife and I wore Tee shirts with Canadian maple leafs on them when we went out.

 I have been trying to converse with you in a civil, intelligent manor, but you don't seem to be able to hold up your end.

That's RonMexico's modus operandi - he talks a ton of crap and when we call him out on it, he conveniently decides not to post again. 

I've learned that even the most thinly veiled threats on this forum are all smoke and mirrors, no substance. There is no on who participates on this forum (that I am aware of) who is more "public" than I: I use my real first name- the same name I use as my "by" line for the columns I write- I've been on the local news and radio and attend perhaps 70% or more of the not-for-profit events in this city. It would take a brain-dead idiot NOT to figure out who I am, where I live and who I work for. Christ, I'm probably the only gay man in this county proudly flying the Amerigay flag by the front dooor- so I'm not exactly hard to miss. Yet for all the bluster I read and all the crap that has been slung and all the threats not ONE of them have called my office, complained to my boss, shown up at my doorstep or an event to confront me. Nothing.

Cowards: Afraid of their own shadows hiding behind false nomenclature and empty words.

LOL  probably because their afaid to get their ass kicked by Miles Muzio  LMAO

Speaking of insensitivity, did anyone see this crap on the Larry King Live?  That Captain is the typical aloof officer tht NCOs despise.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I've learned that even the most thinly veiled threats on this forum are all smoke and mirrors, no substance. There is no on who participates on this forum (that I am aware of) who is more "public" than I: I use my real first name- the same name I use as my "by" line for the columns I write- I've been on the local news and radio and attend perhaps 70% or more of the not-for-profit events in this city. It would take a brain-dead idiot NOT to figure out who I am, where I live and who I work for. Christ, I'm probably the only gay man in this county proudly flying the Amerigay flag by the front dooor- so I'm not exactly hard to miss. Yet for all the bluster I read and all the crap that has been slung and all the threats not ONE of them have called my office, complained to my boss, shown up at my doorstep or an event to confront me. Nothing.

Cowards: Afraid of their own shadows hiding behind false nomenclature and empty words.

Okay, I'm a little slow here - so you're telling me I was threatened to a 'get ass whoopin' by a weatherman?  A weatherman in Kern county that can't predict anything outside of 'hot'?  No, tell me it ain't so joe.  Tell me miles is a "tolerant" person and not that "fag" person.  No, I can't watch him on TV anymore.  Not miles, the guy giving me the soil temperature everymorning?  Now that's rich!

Uh.. I'm confused.. do you guys think Miles is Miles Muzio?  According to his profile, he's not..

 WP:  I think we have a so-called commander-in-chief who is learning on the job at our expense and at the expense of our military.  Okay, so there's a learning curve involved, as with all new jobs.  However, this one has been at it since January, and I think he -- or one of his kazillion czars -- could sharpen up the rough edges a little.  But if they're in the same shape he is, how are they going to help?

We have a c-i-c who is worried about nobody but himself.  He cares about nothing but his image. 

You are correct Alicen.  I don't think being POTUS should be a "learn as you go" position.

WP:  And they said Sarah Palin didn't have the qualifications!  They just hadn't seen anything like this bozo yet. 

 I think we have a so-called commander-in-chief who is learning on the job at our expense and at the expense of our military.

That's every new President.

You know what I think when I read things like this (or SCR and Vanity's blogs on this subject)? Honestly? "Blah blah blah blah blah", more complaining from the right. If he had cancelled the planned event, the right would have complained. If he had started with the speech about the incident and then went on to the speech for the planned event, the right would have complained. If he had just spoken about Fort Hood, the right would have found one word or phrase that just wasn't "sensitive enough to the situation" and complained. This is about as stupid as the people complaining about Bush wrapping up his reading session with the children after 9/11. Nitpicking on a partisan scale is still nitpicking and is still annoying.

Well shwaine, guess we on the right will just complain when they hang us with a NEW rope!!!!!

The article itself came out of a Chicago paper.................obama's home town. How about that. Even THEY are complaining and you know they are very democrat

 When the Iran-Iraq war fizzled out into a ceasefire via the UN, there was really no reason to ignore Saddam's dastardly deeds any longer, so in '91 we finally invaded.  

I guess that the small fact that Hussein (the Iraqi one) had invaded Kuwait was a little too inconvenient to mention as it didn't fit into your narrative that the US has just been nothing but exploitative to those poor peace loving middle easterners.