The OFFICIAL "Throw Rahm Under the Bus" Betting Pool - Page 7

Yes Frank, we all know how supportive you were of any other political figure not speaking to the press for a month.

Let's see if they are willing to "waste" a question on it or if they will follow up.

First, This Week had Obama on for half the show last week and as he has done all along, he won't answer the question since there is only one president at a time.

Unless Emanual is just an undisciplined boob(which he isn't), he isn't going to pop off and spill something contrary to what Obama wants.


Personally I think discussion that a guy named Rahm Emanual is going to convince a guy named Barack Obama to toss the Middle East under the bus is sort of ironically funny.


The best way to get away from Pax Americana is to make sure we don't have to police the world. Whenever someone thinks that because one country is dropping bombs on another, we need to pull off our glasses and reveal our cape, they are enabling the problem.

Remember bring the troops home Artman? It isn't just a campaign slogan and it isn't just from Iraq. It is something we need to do worldwide. We aren't post-anything. We aren't police-anything. We need to take care of our own and if others don't want to bare the responsibility of ensuring their own well-being, we need to let the world be the world and let what may happen occur.

Russia can build more nuclear power plants in England and we can't build them here. Support whatever gets us off oil and we will bleed this problem dry.

Of course there are plans ahead. Remember my sig about those wanting us out of Iraq but in Darfur? Remember my claims about a neo-con position being the old liberal position and finally that if you take Truman Doctrine and change the word communism to terrorism, that you have followed what every president, Republican or Democrat has done since it was enacted?


As you note, it isn't Republican or Democrat. I'm not trying to be crass but Bush didn't work alone or differently from Clinton. Likewise Obama will stick our nose into policing the world as well. The argument will become about how Bush did it wrong and Obama will do it better but hopefully at some point the argument will be "better" is only relative and we ought not be doing it at all.

When that question does come up, if there can't be discussion because neo-cons and liberals like described above get to discredit the other side using -isms and caricatures, then whoever doesn't stand against that will have helped continue and contributed to the continuation of war/world police policy.

We don't have to engage the ideals of Cheney, he is a monster. We don't have to engage the ideals of Bush, he is a retard. We don't have to engage Palin, she is a bimbo.

We need to stop the short cuts in thinking no matter the side. That doesn't mean one cannot draw conclusions, but caricatures are not conclusions.


I have no doubt there will be a cease-fire but what does that really mean since it has happened dozens of times before now. Does it really mean we stop fighting until new tunnels are built and new rockets and bombs are built or bought?

Obama as you know (because I sent you the link when I didn't have time to get to it and btw thanks for posting it) has already made statements with regard to clear military options for three out of those four, has made strong statements on a fifth (Iran) and we can't guarantee those troops in Iraq will come home.

As I loved pointing out before the election, "redeployed out of Iraq" isn't home. As the link notes and as I noticed in his statements, he has pledged to escalate the war in Afghanistan (his own surge) and I believe I specifically started a thread on the fact that he wouldn't rule out preemptive war as an option.(Pakistan)

All president, no matter what the pledge cannot control all the factors that happen on their watch. As you noted, Bush sounded more isolationist, but attacks on our own soil changed that. It has to make you wonder and worry when the guy that people perceive as being for peace really is more hawkish than they seem to understand. I've snarked at it by noting the tearing down invisible walls and protecting the bloggers of Iran but the reality is that his statements talked about much more than preemption of fighting. They talked about an intolerance of many more factors and the desire to preemptively address those factors. That Berlin speech has some incredibly broad calls and if you read the transcript without looking at the pretty face saying them or (heaven forbid) if you imagined someone like Cheney reading those words, it would scare the crap out of you.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.

Remember what I said about taking Communism and replacing it with Terrorism. Obama here is calling for NATO, a defensive organization to become an offensive organization that will go to war worldwide to end terrorism. People complained about Bush acting without the U.N. to address Iraq and somehow turn a blind eye to Obama demanding NATO preemptively go to war with any elements worldwide associated with terrorism.


I think the frameworkd of government is in shambles in part because starting with Nixon the media realized they actually have as much power as many of the officials who are elected. Some like to put forward the notion that the media doesn't serve Democratic interests but instead serve their own interests. There is truth to that statement but only if you realize that they serve their interest and their interests are to the left of even the Democratic party.

This is why Bill Clinton can go from being the "First Black President" to being practically Jim Crow himself when running against Obama who was seen as being to the left of his wife. One of the reasons Obama can appear so tranquil and to the high road is because the media is rendering the attacks for him and they desire to do so.

We will watch this play out with Obama as well since the media is now already proving cover for him with regard to his Pax Americana actions. We've seen a sudden influx of stories about how "hard" it will be to close Gitmo and how "dangerous" everyone there suddenly happens to be. We've heard about how he will end torture except for loopholes and of course this will be fine.

The time Obama will fail is when he fails to follow the precise way in which the media is liberal. If there are types of Democrats, bluedog for example, the Obama must surely be the best Media Democrat.


Perhaps you should look into how the media has attempted to discredit every Obama opponent and how the media now reduces anyone they don't want elected down to a caricature.

Here is a good one, when Obama was running for Senate the media went to California and got the divorce records of his opponent unsealed so they could air claims by his ex-wife and effectively end his campaign. You said you believe the caricature of Palin and on what would that be based? She is a mother of five and has been married to the same man since her 20's. How does that make her a bimbo?

In the meantime the media went after anyone and everything associated with her. Obama didn't have to lift a finger. What does it say when the governor with an incredibly high job satisfaction rating can watch it begin to plummet not because of actions she took as governor, but because the media decides to create and keep fabricating dirt to fling for months on end.

Obama was elected by the media. They came off the sidelines in ways that Clinton supports, Palin supports, anyone but Obama supporters can easily understand. The feelings may be soothed for a while, but it will be interesting to see what happens when Obama does something the media doesn't already endorse.


Obama could just as easily press the case against their actions when he takes office. He will do the bidding of the media since for now, they happen to match his aims.

BTW, I watched MTP this morning and sure enough, Rahm was asked a couple yes or no questions about Blago. I think one was the media narrative and a couple straw men to knock down. If I asked yes or no questions to fourth graders I'd be fired for not activating their critical thinking.

Well as you can see from the quoted interview the "harsh" interview consisted of helping him iron out the inconsistencies of his own story and not questioning it at all.


I think they are the bus.


You are so good at caricaturing, you ought to consider becoming a cartoonist.

Watching all these bubbles pop, why anyone who would suggest that there can be a mass delusion that we wake up from and face reality, they clearly are just deluded.


Oh, is that what the talking points say? Last I checked a western power in an Islamic country was what created new martyrs and the solution was leaving, not winning.


How exactly is "winning the peace" in Afghanistan going to be any different. Everything you describe is what we are doing in Iraq. The delusion is believing that you can impose democracy and build a nation. It isn't a Bush or Obama delusion, it is just a straight up delusion, period.


We can protect ourselves within our borders. The apparently now forgotten claims regarding 9/11 are that it occurred because America is spread all over the world like an empire and we don't leave countries to themselves. Is this forgotten much like the first WTC attack, the U.S.S. Cole attack, etc all were when Bush was in office. Are we not back to having to kick their ass on their own soil to stop them instead of bringing troops home because we have a Democrat in the White House?


I didn't bring up Ted Turner or George Soros, why did you?


No I'd say it was right but then the media would declare that anyone not supporting Pax Americana is just racist and hates brown people since we aren't acting in Darfur, controlling the price of tortillas in Mexico, etc.


Justifications don't require any response ever since all action is excused.


What first step? This is what is being "floated" by the media to help gauge the public response to it.


No. We have to wait longer. Anyone who put 1/18/09 on the betting pool lost.


Mr Gregory: Let me hit you with something that doesn't make sense and a bit of information that makes your story fall apart.

Mr. Emanual: These are not the droids you are looking for.....(waving hand)

Mr. Gregory: Ok.

Look at how "smart" and "competent" that Rahm Emanual is when answering questions. I mean I know that if Sarah Palin said, "Don't ask me, ask that other guy" the media response would be "okay" with no follow-up.

You guys are apparently happy with this.