Trying split up addressing your points and enoch's here, forgive me if things bleed over between a bit.

Large terrorist networks like Al Qaida were and still are using your definitions against your country. They operated with impunity and effectively as their own autonomous state within the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The question is whether acts of war launched from that region then are classed as an act of the Afghan or Pakistani state. If they are, then Afghanistan and Pakistan are to be held to account as states launching the act of war. If they are not, then they have for intents and purposes yielded the sovereignty of that territory to a new independent state waging it's own independent war.

The jihadists are trying to hard to live in an international loophole where they are operating with the autonomy of a state right up until another nation state wants to wage war back against them and then suddenly they are just citizens of the larger state they are technically within the borders of.

When the Bush admin pushed back hard, the Afghanistan government refused(more on this in my reply to Enoch) while the Pakistani government extremely begrudgingly agreed to at least pretend they weren't friendly with them in back channels anymore. Thus act of war met with war in Afghanistan, and yes, I would insist a war that Afghanistan initiated and NOT GW.

As for Saudi Arabia, they are more responsible for Jihadi ideology and funding than any other state, and yes the west largely has ignored it so long as they sold their oil and then used the money to buy back top of the line American made military hardware. I have to say I think it's a bit shortsighted to have made Saudi Arabia number 3 on the global military budget charts... You won't find my hypocritically trying to defend them, they are the ones sending most of the money into Pakistan's mountains to build the madrasa's that don't seem to teach anything after how to fire and assemble your AK.

@lantern53
ill agree with the sentiment of your comment if not the wrongful use of certain words.

bush was a big business president.
perma tax breaks anyone?
to use the term "progressive" in describing bush is being inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst.

the bush admin pushed through some of the most extreme expansions of executive powers (thanks addington and woo).they are guilty of war crimes.they are guilty of spying on american citizens.they are guilty of perpetrating an illegal war based on total fabrication.
and all of it.every last bit...retroactive immunity.

now here comes obama.
and while his rhetoric is beautiful and poetic,having a strong populist flavor,the facts remain that not only did the obama admin CONTINUE the bush executive powers,his admin EXPANDED them!

/waves to the NSA

so i do not know where you get this "fundamentally changing" this country when it has been business as usual.
unless you are speaking of oabamacare and i would point out that obamacare is a health care provider bail out.

bush bails out the banks.
obama bails out big pharma and health insurance industry.

and we get to pick up the tab.

the rhetoric may have a progressive tilt but the reality is business as usual.socialism for the rich,capitalism for the poor.

and it bothers me that some people i know who were ultra critical of the bush admin are relatively silent in regards to obama.

Bush 43 was disappointing. He spent like a drunken democrat. Today what is worse is that what Bush spent in 8 years OBAMA has spent in 3. Now that scary.

Bush turned me into an independent.


>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^bobknight33:
What made the USA great is following the Constitution. We have trashed that document over the last 60 years and now we on the edged of the abyss.
Bernie Sanders and most other politicians don't give dick about the Constitution but only care about giving out other peoples money to keep themselves rich through the good old boy network.

Stand up people and demand elected officials obey the Constitution or see the USA a broke ass piss poor 3rd rate Country.

What's your opinion of the Bush admin?

>> ^bobknight33:

What made the USA great is following the Constitution. We have trashed that document over the last 60 years and now we on the edged of the abyss.
Bernie Sanders and most other politicians don't give dick about the Constitution but only care about giving out other peoples money to keep themselves rich through the good old boy network.

Stand up people and demand elected officials obey the Constitution or see the USA a broke ass piss poor 3rd rate Country.


What's your opinion of the Bush admin?

>> ^chilaxe:
Olbermann has been a stain on the reputation of liberals for a long time.

If by "a long time" you mean "Since Obama got sworn in", I'd agree that he's done more harm than good, mostly because he's continued dedicating the bulk of his show to discussing whatever the Republicans are saying or doing, elevating their importance.

There have been a few exceptions, though.

He did a lot of really good advocacy on the topic of health care. He's also advocated against escalation in Afghanistan, for not letting the Bush admin off the hook for torture, and for being too soft on Wall Street.

Mostly though, I think you're utterly wrong about putting a "stain" on the reputation of liberals. He's the first person on TV I've seen make any positive case for liberalism at all. There are a couple more now, but only a couple, and they basically share a studio with him.

He ain't perfect by any stretch, and I wish he'd spend more time talking up progressivism than trying to shit on conservatives and conservatism, but he's a net plus for the movement, if only because we finally have someone who is publicly, and unashamedly liberal, making arguments from the left on TV.

I *know* this will be long. But understanding things should never be allowed to be reduced to sound bites and short sentences.

Police raided a school as an exercise? Not even some warrents? Sounds like some individuals whom need to be held accountible for their jobs. Which could be fines, jail time, lose of job, and so on. People make mistakes, and do dumb things. Can you honestly say you haven't done dumb things in your life so far?

The narrator is trying to use fear, to get the proper response out of you, the audience. To some degree, as with posters above, he succeeds at the task. He uses a collection of words and phrases, and links them to imagery, sounds, and even old pictures. In ways, this concept is known as NLP, or, Neuro-logical programming (look it up in wikipedia, its both fascinating and scary stuff).

Police have to keep up with technology and tactics, as their duty in our country, is to up hold the law. The legistators create laws, the executive signs such law in to effect. Its the law enforcement (i.e. the police, FBI, and other local/state/federal agencies) whom maintain the law. The justices decide on whether the laws are within Consitituional limits, or if they breach them. All these sets of checks & balances do not work, if the citizens of the country let in to the fear this narrator wants you to feel. I know the police in my town. Friendly bunch whom work very hard to keep things normal and safe. They are very much studied and watched. We pay them very well, and make sure they have the proper tools to do their job correctly, honestly, lawfully, and to be responsible.

The 'police state' effect, that the narrator talks about, did come in to effect during the Bush Administration. The US Patriot Act was passed in to law very quickly, shortly after Sept. 11, 2001. One of its passages allowed the goverment to circumvent the 4th Amendment, allowing the White House to 'spy' on over 300 million Americans. This was conducted in an effort to catch and eliminate "...those whom are a threat to our country." This narrator does not hold Mr. Bush, nor the White House accountible to each and every time, this action took place.

If I recall the issue of military 'APC's for Waco, Tx correctly. The Branch Davidians were holed up in a central structure compound with numberous fire arms. Now, this by itself was not illegal. The agents conducting the warrents and arrests initally were met with the civilian sold version of the Barrett M82A1 'light fifty' rifle. This weapon, to my knowledge, is a single shot weapon (the military version can fire rounds from a magizine....I think?). I'm sure the gun nuts on here could inform us, of the gun's name. Anyways, this weapon, like its military cousin, could blow holes through armored police cars. The APCs were used to conduct operations and hopefully bring the matter to a non-violent conclusion. As the history books show, this did not happen. But the police, and FBI, did not racket up their skills and tools in a vacuum. After the event was over, there were a number of studies on the issue, and people held properly (depending on one's viewpoint I guess) of their actions and inactions that led to the events.

If you, the citizen really are consern about the nature of the police or law enforcement, then why not go visit the police. Talk to them, become active in your community and seriously look at how a police state could be formed, and take proper, legal, honest action to oppose it. Believe it or not, the police I know, are AGAINST a police state. And they are in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (since, some of you conversatives think us Mass residents are all commie, liberal, socialistic, islamic happy, tree hugging, yuppy, homosexual liking, religios hating, psych-paths....did I leave anything out?). In fact, thsoe whom are liberal REALLY are against the police state. We voted to remove Republicans at the federal level, out of office (since the Bush admin *IS* Republican).


Finally, recall its Thomas Jefferson that said, (paraphrasingly) that if we are afraid to speak our minds in pursuit of our nations freedoms and equalities, then we allow tyranny to win.

I would go further and say it's almost impossible NOT to screw up with American nation building. My point on Iraq is not that nation building there was sure to work. If anything, it was almost certainly doomed to the horrific failures we've been watching over the last years. My point was that spending those same years under Saddam's rule would've been worse, more and more as each year goes by. The majority of the problems in Iraq regarding infrastructure and the economy didn't start with the American invasion, but with Saddam's continuing construction of new palaces while sanctions starved the rest of the country. The reason the riots and mis-content America faced from the public hadn't boiled out when Saddam was in power was entirely a testament to the fear he had sown in people. If you were suspected of questioning Saddam, you might find the police knocking on the door the next day and handing you a video of your daughter being raped by them.


I'm also more than a little concerned that the country is going to dissolve about 15 minutes after the last troops leave.


Me too, but I'm confident that at least the Kurdish region will make out alright. I'm also hopeful the interest they show in working with the rest of the country will help keep it stable. In either event though I find it hard to imagine an Iraq that is worse than it was under Saddam.


To a large extent I think America needs to rethink the way it uses military power in modern times. Specifically, this idea that any trouble spot in the world should be dealt with by invasion and US-led regime change.
...
I definitely think going through the UN for problems of that scale is a good idea


I agree that America needs to be extremely careful with it's use of it's power. I also feel though that if America is never willing to use that power, then many nations are going to start acting that way. Look how many instances there are of nations that ignore all UN warnings, condemnations and rebukes over human rights violations and atrocities, content in the knowledge that it is all bark. For every wrong step America has made with military action you can point to an atrocity that went unchecked by inaction as well. In the line that needs to be walked between when to act and when not to, Iraq is an example of a fight that was put off too long, rather than jumped into too soon.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I think we ended up getting lucky with Iraq. I don't think it's a testament to how it's somehow impossible to screw up with American nation building, I think it's a testament to how expensive in terms of both money and lives it can be, even when the country is theoretically low-hanging fruit in terms of nation building.

I'm also more than a little concerned that the country is going to dissolve about 15 minutes after the last troops leave.

I do want us more active in Sudan, but not militarily. I still think the fix for Sudan is for America to use its diplomatic ties to encourage China to stop supporting the Sudanese massacre.

I'm less certain of what to do about Congo. I certainly don't want us to roll in there with troops and tanks and tell them we're going to "help" them establish a stable government.

To a large extent I think America needs to rethink the way it uses military power in modern times. Specifically, this idea that any trouble spot in the world should be dealt with by invasion and US-led regime change. I didn't like us doing that during the Cold War, and I like it even less now.

I definitely think going through the UN for problems of that scale is a good idea. I don't think that means giving the UN a veto over US actions, but I definitely think we should be extremely careful about when and where we "go it alone."

For the moment, I think America's plate is past full. If the world comes to us begging for help, we should help, but I don't think we should be shopping for new places to invade, we should be getting disentangled from the countries we're currently in.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I find the argument of 'why not country x' to be completely lacking in relevance. I'm not arguing that America chose to remove Saddam because it made the world a better place, especially for Iraqi's. I'm arguing that for whatever unknowable reasons America really chose to remove Saddam, that an Iraq free of Saddam is better for the region and the Iraqi people. So much better in fact that you'd be hard pressed to screw such a war up badly enough to make things worse when you were done. Now the Bush admin certainly tried very hard to screw it up, but thanks in large part to the Kurds the situation in Iraq today IS much brighter than it would have been with Saddam still in power.

Would it be 'better' if America had put the same effort into Sudan or the DR Congo? Maybe, the atrocities in the Congo shock the conscience, but it would also be harder to stabilize than even post-Saddam Iraq. I find it hard to use that as an argument against what America did in Iraq. To play that argument out in a fair way, I would point the finger at the whole 1st world and blame them all for doing nothing to help the people of Sudan and the DR Congo. I would give a slight nod to the Americans though in understanding that they were tied up in Iraq and that their actions there had at least helped a different humanitarian disaster.

I think we ended up getting lucky with Iraq. I don't think it's a testament to how it's somehow impossible to screw up with American nation building, I think it's a testament to how expensive in terms of both money and lives it can be, even when the country is theoretically low-hanging fruit in terms of nation building.

I'm also more than a little concerned that the country is going to dissolve about 15 minutes after the last troops leave.

I do want us more active in Sudan, but not militarily. I still think the fix for Sudan is for America to use its diplomatic ties to encourage China to stop supporting the Sudanese massacre.

I'm less certain of what to do about Congo. I certainly don't want us to roll in there with troops and tanks and tell them we're going to "help" them establish a stable government.

To a large extent I think America needs to rethink the way it uses military power in modern times. Specifically, this idea that any trouble spot in the world should be dealt with by invasion and US-led regime change. I didn't like us doing that during the Cold War, and I like it even less now.

I definitely think going through the UN for problems of that scale is a good idea. I don't think that means giving the UN a veto over US actions, but I definitely think we should be extremely careful about when and where we "go it alone."

For the moment, I think America's plate is past full. If the world comes to us begging for help, we should help, but I don't think we should be shopping for new places to invade, we should be getting disentangled from the countries we're currently in.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I find the argument of 'why not country x' to be completely lacking in relevance. I'm not arguing that America chose to remove Saddam because it made the world a better place, especially for Iraqi's. I'm arguing that for whatever unknowable reasons America really chose to remove Saddam, that an Iraq free of Saddam is better for the region and the Iraqi people. So much better in fact that you'd be hard pressed to screw such a war up badly enough to make things worse when you were done. Now the Bush admin certainly tried very hard to screw it up, but thanks in large part to the Kurds the situation in Iraq today IS much brighter than it would have been with Saddam still in power.

Would it be 'better' if America had put the same effort into Sudan or the DR Congo? Maybe, the atrocities in the Congo shock the conscience, but it would also be harder to stabilize than even post-Saddam Iraq. I find it hard to use that as an argument against what America did in Iraq. To play that argument out in a fair way, I would point the finger at the whole 1st world and blame them all for doing nothing to help the people of Sudan and the DR Congo. I would give a slight nod to the Americans though in understanding that they were tied up in Iraq and that their actions there had at least helped a different humanitarian disaster.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^bcglorf:
War is bad, but sometimes in our world not fighting a war is worse. Like ignoring dictators that have repeatedly committed genocide against their own people, annexed their neighbors and absorbed them as part of their state, provided international terrorists with not only safe haven, but government offices, and have actively pursued and established WMD programs and successfully hidden them from international inspections. Sometimes not going to war is worse than going to war.

So, in that case the US should unilaterally invade:

North Korea
China
Iran
Syria
Cuba
Burma/Myanmar
Most of Africa, including Sudan

It seems to me that it isn't the US's responsibility, nor within the US's authority to be judge, jury, and executioner for the governments of other nations.

In theory, I'm not opposed to using our military to fight injustice, I just don't think what we did with Iraq ever had anything to do with liberating the Iraqi people. I also don't think terrorism is something you use the military to fight, nor do I think our main focus should be toppling the governments of other countries -- it seems that's more likely to create the kind of violent chaos that terrorism thrives on.

I'm a bit more sympathetic towards using military to police the creation/sale/use of nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure in the long run how effective we're going to be at keeping nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands (i.e. the hands of anyone who would use them), even if we blow up every suspected nuclear facility in the world. But that's really an aside, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any nukes.

I find the argument of 'why not country x' to be completely lacking in relevance. I'm not arguing that America chose to remove Saddam because it made the world a better place, especially for Iraqi's. I'm arguing that for whatever unknowable reasons America really chose to remove Saddam, that an Iraq free of Saddam is better for the region and the Iraqi people. So much better in fact that you'd be hard pressed to screw such a war up badly enough to make things worse when you were done. Now the Bush admin certainly tried very hard to screw it up, but thanks in large part to the Kurds the situation in Iraq today IS much brighter than it would have been with Saddam still in power.

Would it be 'better' if America had put the same effort into Sudan or the DR Congo? Maybe, the atrocities in the Congo shock the conscience, but it would also be harder to stabilize than even post-Saddam Iraq. I find it hard to use that as an argument against what America did in Iraq. To play that argument out in a fair way, I would point the finger at the whole 1st world and blame them all for doing nothing to help the people of Sudan and the DR Congo. I would give a slight nod to the Americans though in understanding that they were tied up in Iraq and that their actions there had at least helped a different humanitarian disaster.

I've always said this guy is a terrible Press Sec. Where's Scott McClellan when we need him? The Bush Admin. was reprehensible on many many fronts but they got things done. They pushed ideas through. The ideas were terrible but dammit, they got accomplished.

That's what I wish most for the Dems: more balls and less worrying about being popular.

Almost reminds me of a daily show montage.

I do love the attacks on her intelligence. As Karl Rove rightly put it, "I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools"...many of whom he served with in the Bush admin. Although I don't think the stupid people graduate at the top of their class.

i honestly think if someone from the bush admin did this u guises wud not be as accepting

*braces for downvote fury*

obama is just past the 100 day mark,so ill reserve judgment on his performance.
but i have to say mr turley is spot on with his assesment,and brings up some very troubling points.however,there are a few that mr turley did not bring up that still bother me.
1.the recinding of executive powers garnered by cheney during the bush admin.
2.patriot act 1+2,victory act 1+2,MCA should be put out to pasture.
3.where is the reconfiguring the powers of the DHS and the TSA?those agencies wield entirely TOO much power.
other than those points i totally agree with mr turley.how can obama be an agent for change when he resorts to the very tactics that brought down the GOP,and helped get HIM elected?
onlookers would be right to call us "hypocrites".
sighs...every time i have a tiny hope of restoring america's integrity,they pull the carpet out.
then again..i am charlie brown.
this is just wrong and does little to promote confidence in those countries who view us with understandable skepticism.

>> ^imstellar28:As far as I can see nothing has changed.
1. We still torture
2. We are still in Iraq
3. Drugs are still illegal
4. We still don't have habeus corpus
5. The RIAA still controls the courts
6. Our economy still sucks
7. Nobody has been prosecuted for any crimes of the last administration
8. 95% of the people in this administration worked for the last administration
9. I still lose 50% of my income to taxation
10. Our federal budget is still greater than $3 trillion
Its naive to assume they are different because they have different names or party affiliations. You say they are different tell me why the budgets they propose are almost identical.



Ugggh

1. No we don't
2. We are leaving soon. If Obama were prez in 2003, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first fucking place.
3. Oh I forgot, Obama was elected to legalize all drugs immediately
4. We do have habeus
5. The RIAA and FISA are shitty matters that make me angry.
6. Our economy sucks, which wasn't Obamas fault. I guess to you, we should've already been rich again in three months. Stupid Obama!
7. Yeah, what a dick that Obama hasn't prosecuted Bush&Cheney himself within three months!
8. %95 statement is ridiculous and completely inaccurate.
9. You lose 50% of your income? WTF? Where the fuck do you live and how much money do you make to lose that much? Fuck man, I make 120+ and only lose 34%
10. Yeah, shame on Obama for not zero-ing out our debts



Man, what world do you have to live in to think that Obama would have everyone out of Iraq, fix our economy, legalize all drugs, and prosecute the Bush admin within 100 days of being in office?

Jesus fucking christ man!

Wait, what? Now I'm confused as to who you're talking to. I assume it's me since I'm who you quoted. But where am I wrong?

USA didn't fuck-up Iraq? We have no responsibility to help them financially?

"Sorry guys, we bombed the shit out of your country, destroyed your infrastructure, your electrical grid, your sewage and water systems. We leveled your hospitals and schools, filled your morgues and cemetaries, disbanded your armies and killed off your police forces. We even were kind enough to leave your museums open to looters, almost erasing your cultural artifacts, which happen to kinda be important since Babylon n shit was like all first human colonies n stuff. But, you guys been around these parts a while now. I'm sure you need no help or money from us. BYE!!"



@blankfist: Sorry, I read the sentence wrong. I did read your whole stupid thing, but I missed that part, cuz i dum. also.


>> ^imstellar28:
Your logic is wrong on so many levels, I'd need a ladder to even attempt to address it. Since arguing with you is about as constructive as arguing with a brick wall, I'll just leave a comment here noting that people think you are wrong.
>> ^volumptuous:
That was personal?
I'm just wondering what you're getting at here. There are many ways the Gov should fix messes they've created.
Iraq is a good one. As Colin Powell said to GWB "You break it, you own it."
Obviously the Bush admin was too corrupt and incompetent to fix a fucking flat tire, but still, the US now owes Iraq big time. We completely fucked their shit up, and to not fix it is a horrendous idea.