Generally speaking, few politicians ever investigate their predecessor unless unjustifiable immoral and illegal activities occured; and the public is crying out for clarity or justice in the situation. The reason for this is simple, you don't want to throw stones in a glass house and you don't know what questionable acts you will think are justified later in your term.
[sarcasm] It is a double win in fact, 1.000 talibans eliminated and the worst President to date will have to justify himself about it... [/Sarcasm]
Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.
| Kasz216 said: Sounds like he wants to put up a smokescreen. My guess... he doesn't expect the economy to recover within his term. That and Pakistan being tough, Afghanistan being tough and Iraq being worse then when bush left office.... Got to deflect somehow. Either way, stupid thing or not politically, i'm for it. |
I think it is much simpler than that ...
Even though his party has control of the house and the senate, Barack Obama needs to have a healthy approval rating in order to push forward his adgenda because (with mid-term elections around the corner) he won't be able to get the support of the house or the senate if they think he is a liability to their relection hopes. In a large part because he has done so many high profile things that people didn't approve of (or that failed) no president in recent history has had their approval rating fall as quckily or as far as Barack Obama has, and unless something changes quickly he will soon have a below 50% approval rating.
Right now Barack Obama is falling back on the strategy that has worked for so many Democrats over the past couple of years, and that is to blame Bush for something whenever you find yourself in trouble. Unfortunately, since Bush is out of office and everyone knows how poor of a president George W. Bush was, this strategy becomes less effective every time it is used and could (potentially) start to backfire on people who use it.
| HappySqurriel said: Generally speaking, few politicians ever investigate their predecessor unless unjustifiable immoral and illegal activities occured; and the public is crying out for clarity or justice in the situation. The reason for this is simple, you don't want to throw stones in a glass house and you don't know what questionable acts you will think are justified later in your term. |
True, but this is the kind of thing people with leadership skills learn.
Obama has none.
| TheRealMafoo said: Also, even if it's found true that Bush did this, it's not against the law. All he would have done in effect is say "I don't care how the leaders we work with in other countries act". While a shitty thing to think, it's nothing new for a world leader. |
According to the CNN article the guy who murdered the POWs was CIA-backed, and Bush specifically discouraged the investigation from happening.
I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't seem as simple as you're saying.
My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957
NJ5 said:
According to the CNN article the guy who murdered the POWs was CIA-backed, and Bush specifically discouraged the investigation from happening. I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't seem as simple as you're saying.
|
The "Person" was a warlord. Someone who is a leader of his area.
If I had to guess, we were working with the guy to get things done in his area, and along came this investigation. Bush had to either investigate and lose the advantage this leader brought in the region, or continue to have success towards his goals. It's not like anyone who you're investigating is really going to help you.
So Bush probably said "don't look into it. I don't want to know. What he does in his country is his thing", now, give him 10 million so he can take that camp out bla bla bla...
It's scummy, but not against the law.
| Dodece said: I know that for some morality is merely a luxury item that can be discarded when it is inconvenient. Doing the right thing is its own reward is not just a silly cliche. Doing the right thing maintains ones own self respect, and keeps them on the just path. Fail to live up to that which you hold sacrosanct and you are truly lost. America must own up to its failures. Otherwise it and its people will become lost. The path to hell is easily found by those that avert their eyes. In a sense a nation stands or falls on its values, and what those represents. No doing the right thing is the right thing to do. How can you prove the justness of your cause if your will to behave unjustly all in the name of convenience. Want to see what happens when justice is sacrificed in the name of convenience. Just read your history it is full of nations and empires that were all too willing to cast aside their ideals, because it was so convenient to do so. Ideals are the foundation deny them, and they will crumble at your feet. |
Tell that too the once-powerful Europe 
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
starcraft said:
Tell that too the once-powerful Europe |
I am a moral guy, and I want to always do the right thing, but after reading this (Dodece's comments), I have to say, you need a reality check.
Every major country was built, and kept because of a lack or morality. They all fell due to a breakdown in there economy, and in every case, it was because we injected morality into Government.
People are starving, let's make the government fix it. People need healthcare, let's make the government fix it. These moral choices have, and will, bring down every government that ever destroyed itself.
Look at my Jefferson quote in my sig. It's really about morality.
| kowenicki said: Is Obama still the second coming over there or has his honeymoon period ended yet? |
So far, he has been able to keep the performance of government Bush's fault, and it has helped him keep good approval rating.
One day he is going to have to take ownership, then it's over for him. If he can keep the blame somewhere else until the economy picks up, and that full credit for that, he will get re-elected. If not, he is a 1 term guy.
| TheRealMafoo said: The best thing to do, is nothing at this point. It was 7 years ago, and nothing can be done about it today. |
So, according to your logic, the men involved in the slaying of three civil rights workers in Mississippi in the 60s shouldn't have been locked up because it was several years ago?
Here's the case, BTW: http://crime.about.com/od/history/p/ms_burn.htm
What about the men who killed thousands of blacks - including the four girls killed in the church bombing in 1963?
Just because time has passed by means, in your opinion, to just push it under the rug? Dude, this is the U.S. Justice has no bounds and if a person commits a crime, I don't care if they are old and decrypted, they should pay the penalty, regardless if it's the POTUS or a dog catcher.
The Nazis that killed millions of Jews - find them all and string them up, even if they are 99, blind with Alzheimer's. They slaughtered folks - they need to pay the penalty for their actions.
Justice is justice, Mafoo. I can not believe you don't want this to happen. Do you hate Obama that much? Your post reeks of it.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
