Its nice to know that everybody on this board thinks the Administration is squaky clean. From a previous scandal (didn't see a fast and furious thread anywhere so I figured this is the closest we can get): No real surprise coming from an Administration that openly bullied insurance companies to not blame their rate increases on the new Healthcare law. But since it comes from the left, not much is said about it here.
I take you are making fun of somebody with that comment. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1827377
I hate to be enigmatic, but I think the title of that thread was too bigamous for him to catch. "Bigamous" is the word for "meaning more than one thing," right?
okay okay, I used "enigmatic" when I meant to use "symptomatic". I will proofread better from here on out.
Soyndra didn't take out Saddam Hussein either. This is a completely seperate issue. Its pathetic- you hear of extreme incompetence and corruption by your boys in the WH, and all you can do is yell "Bush lied people died". Stay on topic.
You just wasted an entire page of a thread talking about how liberals don't bring up Fast & Furious despite the existence of a thread here on allegedly "liberal" P&CE and then you have the gall to misspell "separate?" God damn you have some kahoeknees.
I am sure it is just a coincidence, but the head of the DoE’s loan program just resigned so he could accept a lucrative job at a liberal think tank.
That's pronounced "Coe - Jones," right? Or he's falling on his sword. It was a ******** up, so someone is going to take a fall.
It was more than a ******** up, but you're right, he gets thrown under the bus in an attempt to quell the story.
No. It was a ******** up. "More than a ******** up" is something like the invasion of Iraq at the expense of the war in Afghanistan, or putting someone like Brownie in charge of FEMA. These had lasting impacts. This was a strategy that failed. It happens. It's happening in this administration, it happened in the Bush administration (so far with far longer lasting consequences than anything Obama has failed at) the Clinton administration and so on back quite aways. You and Steamer are sounding like US fans who get pissed off that we don't win every CONCACAF qualifier by 6 goals or more.
We'll see where it ends. I do have to laugh every time a partisan such as yourself throws out a predictable red herring like the invasion of Iraq assuming I supported it.
Can you explain why Iraq has to be dragged into every conversation, regardless of how irrelevant. We're talking bribes for solar, not blood for oil.
I didn't assume you supported it. I do assume that it will be an ongoing source of several of our nation's difficulties from now until you and I are really old men. If not dead men. Which is why I don't think it's a red herring in this case. It's an example of a real ******** up with long term, disastrous consequences, which Solyndra is not. How about, in the cause of bipartisanship, I single out JFK and LBJ for their commitment of troops to Viet Nam, and subsequent escalation? That too was a major disastor -- brought to us by Democrats. See, I'm no more partisan than you are.
We should totally come up with a scale of ********ups! Here would be my anchor points: 1 - Biden opens his mouth 10 - Bay of Pigs
That's pretty good. However, I think we've still had a few administrations of both parties that were able to paraphrase Spinal Tap: "My ******** up amplifier goes up to 11!"
There is an assumption here that if we had not gone into Iraq, things would have gone better in Afghanistan. This is a subject for a different thread, but I would be interested in why you believe that is true, and what assumptions you are making to support that belief. ie do you believe if we had "gone big" in Afghanistan and made that the only focus that it would have gone well.
I'm heading out of town right now for a long weekend. If I have time to get near a computer, and if I feel like predicting where you're going to place the goalposts three or four exchanges down the road, I'll get back to you on this one.
Maybe Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan at the same time would have been a better idea. We could have told Pakistan to F-off and get our supplies to Afghanistan by the way of Iran. I guess that will go down as a missed opportunity.
Iraq was a level 10 ********up all by itself. What takes it to 11 is the Afghanistan angle. Unfortunately, we don't get to have an alternate universe to see what would have happened in Afghanistan if we'd have maintained our presence there, rather than getting distracted by Iraq.
Like I said, this is really a subject for a different thread, but I think an argument could be made that Iraq saved us from ourselven in Afghanistan. If we had not been "distracted" by iraq, the "focus" on Afghanistan may not have been such a good thing in terms of the unrealistic expectations that would have developed, and the backlash that we saw in Iraq would have instead focussed on Afghanistan. After all the "focus" would not just have been by our troops, the focus also would have been by the media, the anti-war protestors, and the other forces throughout the world who would not have seen it in their interest for the U.S. to have a successful outcome in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that the geography of Afghanistan makes it almost impossible to crush the Taliban and some type of resurgency was inevitable no matter how much we "focused" on them. If we had not been "distracted" by Iraq I think the odds are very good we would have over reacted to any resurgency and the backlash would have become very very bloody as the suicide bombers would have flooded into Afghanistan instead of Iraq. The "Surge" in iraq was only successfull because it was accompanied by the majority of Iraqi's deciding it was better to side with the U.S. than to see their country continue to hemhorage, I am not sure that would have ever happened in Afghanistan if things started getting extremely messy. I am not convinced at all that if there had not been an Iraq, that afghanistan would have gone better.