approves

Wow, they mentioned one liberal by name who was upset...a Code Pink douchenozzle e-mailing from Tehran.

Quick, call Fred Phelps or the Imperial Wizard of the KKK so we can find out what conservatives think!!!

Lionel Mandrake: Quick, call Fred Phelps or the Imperial Wizard of the KKK so we can find out what conservatives think!!!

I am waiting for Rush to tell me what I think. I am lost when he is on too much OxyContin vacation.

Where is your savior now libbys? Don't worry, we'll be in Iraq until the job gets done, even Obama can't avoid that when he's forced to face reality. McCain was right, it might take a hundred years but its worth it. Though the way Obama will probably flub it, don't expect much progress for at least four.

You lost, get over it.

Obama can hire whoever he likes, he's still the boss.

A smart diplomat doesn't rule out war.

Has anyone mentioned that Obama is the president yet?

This is a repeat of the last greenlighted politics headline, "Progressive regret...."

No Such Agency: Where is your savior now libbys? Don't worry, we'll be in Iraq until the job gets done, even Obama can't avoid that when he's forced to face reality. McCain was right, it might take a hundred years but its worth it. Though the way Obama will probably flub it, don't expect much progress for at least four.

The funny thing is, there are right-wingers who believe this. For now. With the new SOFA though, they're going to do what Bush has already started doing; saying the SOFA is victory and therefore it's ok to pull out the troops now.

So it's goes:
Invade Iraq because they're linked with al Qaeda
We invaded Iraq because of WMDs
We invaded Iraq to liberate the people
We're occupying Iraq to fight the terrorists
We're occupying Iraq to stabilize the new government
Withdrawal is admitting defeat
Timetables are legislating defeat
SOFA with a timetable for withdrawal means we can declare victory

Gotta love that right wing foreign policy. It's definitely foreign.

I want to know when President Obama is going to put Bush, Chenney, Rove and Rush in jail.

Can someone post that "changey candidate is changing" pic for me?

ilambiquated: This is a repeat of the last greenlighted politics headline, "Progressive regret...."

heh!

And people were biatching about the lack of new links. They're gonna love this.

ilambiquated: This is a repeat of the last greenlighted politics headline, "Progressive regret...."

Yes, but this one is rated "Fascist", unlike the other rated as "Commie". Clearly, both articles must exist to add balance to the universe. It's like duct tape, ya know.

portscanner: I want to know when President Obama is going to put Bush, Chenney, Rove and Rush in jail.

NEVER! HA HA!

Also, I don't like Rush either, but I don't think Obama has any jurisdiction over Canadians.

rathoth: No Such Agency: Where is your savior now libbys? Don't worry, we'll be in Iraq until the job gets done, even Obama can't avoid that when he's forced to face reality. McCain was right, it might take a hundred years but its worth it. Though the way Obama will probably flub it, don't expect much progress for at least four.

The funny thing is, there are right-wingers who believe this. For now. With the new SOFA though, they're going to do what Bush has already started doing; saying the SOFA is victory and therefore it's ok to pull out the troops now.

So it's goes:
Invade Iraq because they're linked with al Qaeda
We invaded Iraq because of WMDs
We invaded Iraq to liberate the people
We're occupying Iraq to fight the terrorists
We're occupying Iraq to stabilize the new government
Withdrawal is admitting defeat
Timetables are legislating defeat
SOFA with a timetable for withdrawal means we can declare victory

Gotta love that right wing foreign policy. It's definitely foreign.

Oh, it gets better than that. The SOFA hasn't even been translated into english yet, and the Bush administration has said that they're NOT GOING TO until after the Iraqis have approved it. And apparently, there's lots of interpretation that hasn't been agreed to on whether US forces and their proxies are or aren't subject to any elements of Iraqi law.

Got that? You don't get to see or comment on the agreement that may or may not put US forces in jeopardy of detainment, imprisonment, or execution, because Bush doesn't want you to.

Keep supportin' those troops, guys.

unyon: Oh, it gets better than that. The SOFA hasn't even been translated into english yet, and the Bush administration has said that they're NOT GOING TO until after the Iraqis have approved it. And apparently, there's lots of interpretation that hasn't been agreed to on whether US forces and their proxies are or aren't subject to any elements of Iraqi law.

Got that? You don't get to see or comment on the agreement that may or may not put US forces in jeopardy of detainment, imprisonment, or execution, because Bush doesn't want you to.

Keep supportin' those troops, guys.

If you don't want to be subject to the laws of a nation, leave.

I knew the appointments weren't going to sit well with the ideological Far Left (ala Code Pink), I have to admit, I'm happy with his "tilt".
No doubt with four and most likely eight years ahead of him, there's plenty of time for him to remain somewhat hard line in Iraq and pull out a worth while victory to claim. I didn't realize that Hilldog was hard on Iran, that's kind of troubling, but we'll see.

I'm more concerned with what he allows congress to get away with, regarding the Economy to be honest.

unyon: Keep supportin' those troops, guys.

Well first off Rathoths brilliant summation forgot to take into account that time actually moves forward and situations change as that happens. Second, why should they bother to translate something into English before the Iraqi's approve of it? I mean, do we really need to read and understand something that *might* or *might not* be offered to us? I mean allowing the Iraqi's to vote on it first doesn't mean we're going to blindly accept it, it just means we're going to wait for them to make a genuine offer for us to accept.

And lastly - Of course I'll keep supporting the troops, even if I disagree with their mission. What an idiotic thing to end your post with.

CanisNoir: I didn't realize that Hilldog was hard on Iran, that's kind of troubling, but we'll see.

Hillary has always been a feminist, and the situation for women in Iran is pretty grim. She probably suffers the classic delusion that you can force progressive values on a nation. See: Afghanistan. Build infrastructure, the values will sort themselves out in time.

Bored Horde: CanisNoir: I didn't realize that Hilldog was hard on Iran, that's kind of troubling, but we'll see.

Hillary has always been a feminist, and the situation for women in Iran is pretty grim. She probably suffers the classic delusion that you can force progressive values on a nation. See: Afghanistan. Build infrastructure, the values will sort themselves out in time.

I never thought of that, but it makes sense. I just hope she doesn't push too hard; Iran really just needs some time to come around. I'm all for helping the youth movement covertly and smuggling in cultural items, but I think all out hostilities in that country would be a major mistake on our part.

Damnit! When will Obama achieve the impossible goals that Republicans think I have for him?!

Seriously, why do Republicans keep thinking that Obama was a super-dovish candidate? A lot of the protests at the 2008 DNC were because of Obama's hawkish stance.

I know that bitte Republicans are clinging to the myth that anybody thinks that Obama is "The Messiah", but the truth is that a lot of democrats voted for the lesser evil, like every other election. But Obama was just such a sharp contrast to the horrible Bush presidency that it felt like the lesser evil was almost good.

CanisNoir:
I'm more concerned with what he allows congress to get away with, regarding the Economy to be honest.

Yes, the deafening chorus of those crying for regulation without any understanding at all of its repercussions. They seem to be believe that the cure for fixing the economy is a wand impregnated with a phoenix feather and a wizard to swish and flick it, incanting 'curiatio pecunia' until 2.5 million jobs are spontaneously created.

Somehow I'm not convinced regulation is the solution to the immediate problem, or that regulation would have kept us from stumbling into the current troubles, or even that regulation isn't indirectly responsible for bringing us to where we are right now.

Now that I see what the GOP has built up for Obama to achieve...it's no wonder they think he's going to fail.

They've got every stupid stereotype built in expecting something to happen. And, amazingly, nobody else is expecting that...not even the people that voted for him.

Obama has never been anti-war. He has been anti-Iraq. He has consistently been strong on Afghanistan and Pakistan (remember when McCain railed on him for it in the debates?). People that build him up as a pacifist and then bash him when he doesn't appoint pacifists to his cabinet are retarded.

Unright: Seriously, why do Republicans keep thinking that Obama was a super-dovish candidate?

Because that's what Bill O. said.

IndyGemini: Somehow I'm not convinced regulation is the solution to the immediate problem, or that regulation would have kept us from stumbling into the current troubles, or even that regulation isn't indirectly responsible for bringing us to where we are right now.

The obvious solution is to move towards complete unfettered capitalism.

Phil Gramm is a saint.

FTFA: "...there may be an interesting design in what Obama is trying to do. Maybe it doesn't fit easily in a neatly sculpted box of liberal pacifist and warmonger hawk. Maybe it's more complex than that."

Huh. Imagine that... An American president who might be more than a focus-group developed, easily pigeonholed, kneejerk stereotype. I think this just may work for me, although Reagan and W's adorable little cowboy suits were pretty appealing, too.

Must have learned something from his first National Security briefing...Just wait until have gets inaugurated.

Dancin_In_Anson: Must have learned something from his first National Security briefing...Just wait until have gets inaugurated.

He's consistently had the exact same position on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

People took his views on Iraq and his desire to leave and projected it on every other conflict in the world. That's just not the case and never has been.

I don't know if you're expecting him to find out the "truth" and suddenly feel the need to stay in Iraq indefinitely until we can get 60 permanent bases like W...but that's not the case.

Flab: Unright: Seriously, why do Republicans keep thinking that Obama was a super-dovish candidate?

Because that's what Bill O. said.

Umm, because he campaigned as a Super Dove; that's why the Code Pinkers are so peeved. He was quite proud of the fact that he never voted for the war.

We took him at his word; but it was a campaign so I'll wait for his actions to critisize. It does explain where these thoughts are coming from though.

Dancin_In_Anson: Must have learned something from his first National Security briefing...Just wait until have gets inaugurated.

Obama never came across as a Peacenik type to me anyway (Canadian, always interested in American politics). He was against Iraq sure but he supported Afghanistan and has spoken strongly on instances where he thinks military options are appropriate. I'm not surprised he has lots of right leaning Democrats as people in important foreign policy posts. One would assume that those people would be a little more centrist then they would be truly right wing.

CanisNoir: Umm, because he campaigned as a Super Dove; that's why the Code Pinkers are so peeved. He was quite proud of the fact that he never voted for the war.

We took him at his word; but it was a campaign so I'll wait for his actions to critisize. It does explain where these thoughts are coming from though.

Proud of voting against Iraq != Dove (at least if Dove means Peacenik like I suspect it does). He has supported Afghanistan fully, something that the peaceniks don't.

bulldg4life: I don't know if you're expecting him to find out the "truth" and suddenly feel the need to stay in Iraq indefinitely until we can get 60 permanent bases like W...but that's not the case.

I think that you'll see a bit of a change on his get thefarkoutnow position.

CanisNoir: Umm, because he campaigned as a Super Dove; that's why the Code Pinkers are so peeved. He was quite proud of the fact that he never voted for the war.

We took him at his word; but it was a campaign so I'll wait for his actions to critisize. It does explain where these thoughts are coming from though.

No, he didn't campaign as a super dove. He campaigned as someone against the war in Iraq and clearly expressed his desire to finish the war in Afghanistan.

He never once campaigned as a 100% dove anti-war pacifist.

He didn't like the war in Iraq and he expressed that. He never once said that he didn't agree with the war in Afghanistan.

Dancin_In_Anson: I think that you'll see a bit of a change on his get thefarkoutnow position.

Well, considering the Iraqi government has already passed an agreement that said we have until 2011 to "getthefarkoutnow"...I don't see how that position can change.

Do you expect him to defy the Iraqi government's wishes and stay in Iraq indefinitely?

who said Barack was a dove anyway? Just because he saw Iraq as a bad idea doesn't mean he's a dove. Just a realist. Iraq was not worth the cost as anyone with a thinking brain knows.
Iran has more political power in Iraq now. A trillion bucks and only God knows how many innocent lives lost later and all we can say good about it is that Saddam is dead. Big whoop. He was our guy back in the day just as this new govt is. Will it last? Probably not. Just what has the world gotten out it? The only ones benefiting from this is the military contractors and Iran. Oh and bin Laden. He loves it.

IndyGemini: Yes, the deafening chorus of those crying for regulation without any understanding at all of its repercussions. They seem to be believe that the cure for fixing the economy is a wand impregnated with a phoenix feather and a wizard to swish and flick it, incanting 'curiatio pecunia' until 2.5 million jobs are spontaneously created.

Bandages don't make a person healthy, but they do stop the bleeding.

Somehow I'm not convinced regulation is the solution to the immediate problem, or that regulation would have kept us from stumbling into the current troubles, or even that regulation isn't indirectly responsible for bringing us to where we are right now.

Really? I have no doubt that poor regulation is the cause of the problem. I guess I have many reasons for that, but overall it stems from the belief that there is no morality in greed. Since greed and shrewedness are seeming virtues in a capitalist system, those who rip off the ignorant and unprepared are rewarded with profits.

I'm not a rich man. In fact, I live pretty close to the poverty level, but I'm college educated and so is my wife. When we shopped for a house after housing prices were tumbling, we were offered many, many approved mortgages with tricky changing interest rates that we could not afford. Eventually my brother-in-law got us a great 30-year mortgage with a low fixed rate, but he had to jump through many hoops.

An unregulated system will always disadvantage the poor and the middle class. It's government's duty to protect it's citizenry not only against foreign threats, but corporate ones as well.

I RTFA, and wish I could have that 5 minutes back. Obama promised to get us out as quickly as was responsible. The SOFA has a timetable, and if bush agrees to it it's likely to be too long. I'll wait and see what happens before I become dissapointed.

CanisNoir:
Well first off Rathoths brilliant summation forgot to take into account that time actually moves forward and situations change as that happens. Second, why should they bother to translate something into English before the Iraqi's approve of it? I mean, do we really need to read and understand something that *might* or *might not* be offered to us? I mean allowing the Iraqi's to vote on it first doesn't mean we're going to blindly accept it, it just means we're going to wait for them to make a genuine offer for us to accept.

And lastly - Of course I'll keep supporting the troops, even if I disagree with their mission. What an idiotic thing to end your post with.

Yes, the situation changed and the lies changed with it. There's no point in arguing the merits of the war or the likely reality of the motivations for it or even ultimate responsibility for it, your opinions have been made clear.

There is a good reason to translate the proposed agreement - to allow plenty of time of discussion and debate. There is only one reason not to do so - to reduce the opportunity for educated dissention.

To me, it seems unlikely that bush would reject whatever is proposed, because anything that comes later is not likely to come through until after he leaves, and is not likely to favor him or his buddies as much.

As for supporting the troops, certainly you do. I interpreted unyons comment to be directed toward the current administration, which does not support the troops.

I seem to recall that the quality of he posts on Fark were better than this a couple of yours ago. We get way too much of the right telling us what the left believes and vice versa. How about a little bathroom diddling or some cash in a freezer?

bulldg4life:
The obvious solution is to move towards complete unfettered capitalism.

Phil Gramm is a saint.

That isn't the obvious solution to me, but I'm hard pressed to come up with examples of where the government has imposed financial regulation that is more effective and efficient than industry self-regulation. Government regulation is subject to the eddies of politics, and so frequently become implements of unscrupulous companies who use those regulations to shelter themselves from competition.

Here's an example of why I am skeptical: Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to have established an environment of investor confidence, but it's most tangible effect seems to have been the collapse of venture capital and the rise of private equity firms. Has SOX paid off? I don't know, but there are reasons to doubt that it has.

CanisNoir: Umm, because he campaigned as a Super Dove; that's why the Code Pinkers are so peeved. He was quite proud of the fact that he never voted for the war.

He is AGAINST the war in Iraq.
He is FOR the war in Afghanistan.
He is FOR kicking Pakistani butt, if required.

If what you got out of that is that he's a dove, then you weren't paying attention.

CanisNoir: ...he campaigned as a Super Dove; that's why the Code Pinkers are so peeved. He was quite proud of the fact that he never voted for the war.

Being proud of not voting for this war doesn't equal "Super Dove," so why not stop pretending that it does? The days of draft-dodging tough guys growling "You're with us or you're against us" are officially over, and the big people are in charge again.

Insisting that "Attacking Iraq is a bad idea" is secret code for "I'm a hippie who loves terrorism" is intellectually dishonest at best. More likely, you're some kind of special idiot.

bulldg4life: Now that I see what the GOP has built up for Obama to achieve...it's no wonder they think he's going to fail.

They've got every stupid stereotype built in expecting something to happen. And, amazingly, nobody else is expecting that...not even the people that voted for him.

Obama has never been anti-war. He has been anti-Iraq. He has consistently been strong on Afghanistan and Pakistan (remember when McCain railed on him for it in the debates?). People that build him up as a pacifist and then bash him when he doesn't appoint pacifists to his cabinet are retarded.

Pretty much this.

Are there people with unrealistic hopes for Obama? Of course, but the right (having lost horribly and being whiny biatches) is going to spend his whole first term telling us how disappointed we (Obama voters) apparently are. You mean politicians occasionally have to moderate positions and compromise? No wai!

I'm going to wait until he is actually president to get all worried about it. He is far from perfect, but also far better than McCain, and moving in the right general direction.

CanisNoir: Umm, because he campaigned as a Super Dove; that's why the Code Pinkers are so peeved. He was quite proud of the fact that he never voted for the war.

We took him at his word; but it was a campaign so I'll wait for his actions to critisize. It does explain where these thoughts are coming from though.

Not really. Most informed doves were pretty peeved about his choice of Biden, who is pretty hawkish.

You might want to question how well your news sources have been informing you.

Dancin_In_Anson: I think that you'll see a bit of a change on his get thefarkoutnow position.

Republican predictions are worth about as much as a Zimbabwean dollar.

bulldg4life: Do you expect him to defy the Iraqi government's wishes and stay in Iraq indefinitely?

Defy?

No.

CanisNoir: Umm, because he campaigned as a Super Dove;

Ummm, no, he didn't. He campaigned on the "The GOP was stupid for invading Iraq without a full plan and without proper justification in the first place" platform.

PC LOAD LETTER: CanisNoir: Umm, because he campaigned as a Super Dove;

Ummm, no, he didn't. He campaigned on the "The GOP was stupid for invading Iraq without a full plan and without proper justification in the first place" platform.

I remember that day when the Congress voted for invading Iraq. The GOP, armed with billy clubs and bottles of shaken seltzer water, herded the noble Democrats into a dungeon and then discretely replaced each Democrat with a doppleganger loyal to the GOP. That's why it *seems* like most members of both parties were in support, but actually it was all a part of Karl Rove's evil plan for world dominance.

Frighteningly, Barack Obama, on account of having an anaphylactic reaction to seltzer water, has been forced to retain Republican-appointed members of his defense council. It's all very upsetting to me.

Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: I don't know if you're expecting him to find out the "truth" and suddenly feel the need to stay in Iraq indefinitely until we can get 60 permanent bases like W...but that's not the case.

I think that you'll see a bit of a change on his get thefarkoutnow position.

How many times do people have to repeat that withdrawal from Iraq has already been determined by the SOFA agreement before it finally sinks in with you?

Unright: Most informed doves were pretty peeved about his choice of Biden, who is pretty hawkish.


You mean all 9 of the "informed" doves in the country? Biden is about as hawkish as a seagull, and about as smart.

Dancin_In_Anson: Defy?

No.

Then what is your point in making the statements? You don't make sense and your comments are illogical. Is that what you're going for?

Unright: I
An unregulated system will always disadvantage the poor and the middle class. It's government's duty to protect it's citizenry not only against foreign threats, but corporate ones as well.

Regulated by whom? The market? The government? Self-regulation? Or would you agree with me that the most efficient and effective regulation, regardless of its origin, should be preferred?

I'm reluctant to accept your claim that unregulated systems always disadvantage the poor and middle class.