• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama’s novel definition of ‘hostilities’

I understand why liberals are upset over this.

I also understand why conservative members of Congress are upset as well. Obama's decision to act in Libya flies in the face of the narrative they've been trying to establish since day 1 that he is soft on defense. Boner and other hawkish Pubs are really pissed that they no longer own the defense and war on terror issues lock stock and barrel.

Yes, Obama is playing fast and loose with the language on this, but the only reason it's an issue at all is because congressional republicans are worried about losing the high ground on this issue.
 
I understand why liberals are upset over this.

I also understand why conservative members of Congress are upset as well. Obama's decision to act in Libya flies in the face of the narrative they've been trying to establish since day 1 that he is soft on defense. Boner and other hawkish Pubs are really pissed that they no longer own the defense and war on terror issues lock stock and barrel.

Yes, Obama is playing fast and loose with the language on this, but the only reason it's an issue at all is because congressional republicans are worried about losing the high ground on this issue.

Almost every president in the last 100 years - regardless of party - has pushed the boundaries of his power as commander in chief. Not sure why it's suddenly such a big deal now.
 
Almost every president in the last 100 years - regardless of party - has pushed the boundaries of his power as commander in chief. Not sure why it's suddenly such a big deal now.

Like I said, it's because Obama is playing in the Republicans perceived sandbox.
 
Almost every president in the last 100 years - regardless of party - has pushed the boundaries of his power as commander in chief. Not sure why it's suddenly such a big deal now.

Right. I don't think this is a Pub or Dem thing but an in power v out of power thing. Clinton bumped into in Kosovo, Bush with Iraq and now Obama in Libya. That being said, you would have to be blind to not see that Obama has really handled this poorly.
 
Republican at the helm = savvy Commander in Chief leadership and putting the might of the US military to good use!

Democrat at the helm = poor Libya doesn't deserve such rash action let's argue in Congress for months and delay any military action until everyone agrees!

(Just flip the two perspectives if it's a Democrat posting while a Republican is in power)
 
Republican at the helm = savvy Commander in Chief leadership and putting the might of the US military to good use!

Democrat at the helm = poor Libya doesn't deserve such rash action let's argue in Congress for months and delay any military action until everyone agrees!

(Just flip the two perspectives if it's a Democrat posting while a Republican is in power)

Perfectly said.
 
Oh, and Obama's "definition" is utter and total crap. Legal fiction of the bestselling order.
 
Right. I don't think this is a Pub or Dem thing but an in power v out of power thing. Clinton bumped into in Kosovo, Bush with Iraq and now Obama in Libya. That being said, you would have to be blind to not see that Obama has really handled this poorly.

You've used David Horowitz as a source. you've used Drudge repeatedly.

We'd be blind if we didn't see if you entore POV for the past six months is attack, attack attack.

I think what's critical in this case is the term "hositilities" has changed dramatically.

I guearntee ten or twenty or more years ago "hostilities" would have demanded at least armed US advisors on the ground in a shooting war. Most likely the definition would have been US troops on the ground and being shot at.

That doesn't exist here.

Do I think he should lay out what we are doing better? Yes.

Do I believe what we are doing is participating in "hostilities"? No. I think we have to have people being shot at for this term to be used.
 
Do I believe what we are doing is participating in "hostilities"? No. I think we have to have people being shot at for this term to be used.[/QUOTE]

Jibberish. Of course it is hostilities. The use of military force by its definition is hostile. If dropping bombs is not hostile then why does Pakistan have their panties in a wad when we send a drone across their border?

I'm betting money you don't believe half the crap you post.
 
I understand why liberals are upset over this.

I also understand why conservative members of Congress are upset as well. Obama's decision to act in Libya flies in the face of the narrative they've been trying to establish since day 1 that he is soft on defense. Boner and other hawkish Pubs are really pissed that they no longer own the defense and war on terror issues lock stock and barrel.

Yes, Obama is playing fast and loose with the language on this, but the only reason it's an issue at all is because congressional republicans are worried about losing the high ground on this issue.

Do you really believe that bombing the shit out of LIbya is going to make people suddenly believe that he isn't soft on defense? Him upholding some Bush-era policies in Iraq and Afghanistan did a lot more for that than bombing the shit out of Libya a day late and a dollar short.
 
Almost every president in the last 100 years - regardless of party - has pushed the boundaries of his power as commander in chief. Not sure why it's suddenly such a big deal now.

When you have a candidate who campaigns on "I am different from the previous" and "I am change" then it gets frustrating when he does the exact same moves once in office.
 
Wow was that a mean-spirited neg rep. Jeepers.

My point was that nearly every candidate for either party says the same thing when trying to unseat an incumbent.

That's what the GOP field is running on right now -- "I am different from Obama" and "I am change." That's what the Tea Party candidates ran on, and they've become old-school, classically self-interested Washington operators already.
 
Last edited:
When you have a candidate who campaigns on "I am different from the previous" and "I am change" then it gets frustrating when he does the exact same moves once in office.

I guess, but we should know better by now.
 
Back
Top