"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

On Jan 22, 2:57 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Again, you seem to overlook a simple fact: Obama INHERITED not just one
but TWO expensive so-called wars with no exit strategy

Stevie Nichts wrote:

And yet, Obama assured us that he *had* an exit strategy
for Iraq -- and don't you remember him telling you that
Afghanistan was the important war? Sure you do!.

Hey Stevie...
Are ya sittin' down? Are ya ready for this?

I agree with you; we are on the same side of the fence on this one.

Obama was just telling the people what they wanted to hear -- and
they -desperately- want to hear that we are going to get out of those two
fiasco sink hole 'wars'. A politician that tells the people what they want
to hear -- how quaint! I'm sure no Republican politician ever did that.

But let's look a little deeper.

Poppy (Bush Sr.), in his book, stated that he did not invade Iraq because
"there was no exit strategy".

W painted us in a corner in both places -- we are screwed if we stay...and
we are screwed if we leave. Why? Because there is NO EXIT STRATEGY. Too
bad junior didn't listen to Poppy. And no easy solution for Obama, McCain
or anyone else.

So Muslim jihadists had been attacking the US at least since the taking of
hostages in Iran ... bombing of Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, bombing two
US embassies in Africa, Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, World Trade
Center I bombing and then flying planes into the WTC to name a few attacks
on the US. Also keep in mind that Saddam had not complied with the
agreement for 12 years to account for his WMD. What would be your next move
.... to keep talking ... the UN had done this for 12 years ... we got the
food for oil scam from the UN.

So, Obama said it, people are hoping he's right...but only time will tell.

I give Obama credit for going after Muslim jihadists and his stepping up the
use of military drones to attack Muslim jihadists around the world. I don't
support his handling of the enemy combatants.

and INHERITED a
major Depression -- that started on Bush's watch.

Say, when did the Democrats take over Congress?
Oh, right: 2006. Would you care to revise and extend
your remarks? And what's this about a "depression"?
Not even Krugman goes that far. Go on, do go on.

It DID start on Bush's watch as stated above, pegged at either 4Q '07 or 1
Q '08 by nothing less than the very right wing Wall Street Journal.

Keeping in mind that Congress was held by the Democrats as the US economy
started south ... Congress controls the money and legislation. 4Q '07 or
1st Q '08 there was a Democratic Congress ... what did they do?
Unemployment was about 4.6% at that time.

As to a "depression", it could be semantics... but it IS the worst
economic upset since 1929.

You have to realize that the gubermint fudges the figures; for example,
once your unemployment benefits run out, the gubermint takes you OFF the
list of the unemployed -- even though you still ARE unemployed.

inflation...the gubermint jockeys those numbers around too, by either
continuously changing the "market basket" of goods they use, or just plain
ignoring costs of education, medical care and energy.

Believe it or not, many do call this a Depression. Your mileage may vary.