This Will Mean Nothing

President Obama is removing the last of the U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. is abandoning plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq past a year-end withdrawal deadline, The Associated Press has learned. The decision to pull out fully by January will effectively end more than eight years of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, despite ongoing concerns about its security forces and the potential for instability.

Of course this will mean nothing to the far-left anti-Obama screechers who will entirely ignore the fact that he ended the war. Ended it — full stop. A major and very liberal campaign promise fulfilled and some on the left will continue to mope around like the president ran over their dogs while wearing a cowboy hat and doing his best George W. Bush “eh-eh-eh” laugh.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Iraq and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Scopedog

    Sad, isn’t it?

    The President just accomplished a major campaign promise…and yet, Greenwald, Hamsher, Swanson, Lindorff, Ross, and all the other schmendricks (sic) on the far Left will simply not give a flying fuck. Or they’ll switch over to the “illegal” attack on Libya to dislodge a “popular” leader.

    This President has done more progressive shit than we’ve seen in nearly half a century, but some people are just blind, deaf, and dumb to the change he has brought.

    Pardon my French, but….fuck ‘em all.

    • missliberties

      I will note for the record that as a progressive democrat, the actions and words of the ‘acitivist liberal base’, have been a real eye opener. I detest the far left as much if not more than I detest the tea baggers. Liberals, I falsely assumed should and would know better. Very disappointing. Even worse they depress the Presidents numbers with their constant childish whining.

      I am with George Clooney. The left gets what they want, and then they betray their own causes by showing zero loyalty to our Democratic President.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Far-left liberals are never, ever satisfied with the efforts of Democratic lawmakers. For some reason they seem to enjoy feeling “betrayed” and “taken for granted” by Democrats; they sound like my mother sometimes. For some reason they think the best way to achieve progressive policy goals is to emotionally blackmail Democrats by electing Republicans.

        • holyreality

          You give the “far left” a lot of power to be “electing”.

          Extremists have the liberals cornered, t-baggers on one side, firebaggers on the other, edges are there for a reason, and you don’t know where it is unless you get out there. No large influential numbers come from the fringe.

          The voters who decide elections are the more central type.

          The problem is not the President, or really which party, the problem is corporate ownership. Legislation written by, and for the corporate lobby is and must be a primary gripe.

          It is not an extremist demand that corporate power be reined in. Clarence is off scot free because dude took a pic of his equipment, United rules us through Congress, and the Wall Street gang runs amok still.

          There is no pleasure to the feeling of betrayal from our man President Obama. That doesn’t mean I will work for the other team, a squeaky wheel getting the grease I complain when necessary.

        • missliberties

          Oh yeah!

          “For some reason they think the best way to achieve progressive policy goals is to emotionally blackmail Democrats by electing Republicans.”

          How can you ever ever achieve a blasted thing when after a few weeks, or months the hen pecking from the left starts in. Who needs Republicans when we have liberals doing their dirty work. As if the GOP doesn’t know this!! Of course they do.

          Many of the trolls on the bridge to progress are in fact liberals.

          I swear to god, I can’t forgive them for the disrespect they have shown this President.

  • adks

    I hate to be a party pooper, but according to the linked article, the withdrawal is required by a 2008 U.S.- Iraq agreement, which means that it was negotiated during the presidency of the idiot that started the war. So I am not sure how this President can claim credit for it.

    • missliberties

      There It is.

      • jjasonham

        Exactly.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BLXL263VFZTK4TXZBYLBPPTSSA Shark

        There it is. Facts in your face and you still deny them.

    • jjasonham

      The President gets credit for sticking to the agreement when the entire military complex was frothing at the mouth to keep a presence there, for at least the next year, to continue training.

    • gobrooklyn

      An agreement many on the left said Obama would not keep.

      • adks

        “The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.”

        It appears that he did his best not to keep the promise, but he had to walk away when he couldn’t protect the troops from being held legally accountable by their hosts.

        • drsquid

          There it is again. Yeah but…

          Why don’t you just say what you mean?

          • adks

            I’ll let Chris Weigant say it:

            “Because, once again, the timing of the end of the Iraq War is simply not ours to make. It is up to the sovereign government of Iraq — and they have made it pretty clear that we’re not going to be welcome past New Year’s Eve. Our costly venture is almost over, and there’s nothing we can do to change the schedule any more. The end of the Iraq War is in sight.”

        • gobrooklyn

          Oh I love it when people think they know how hard he did or didn’t try to do something.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BLXL263VFZTK4TXZBYLBPPTSSA Shark

            He wanted to keep troops there. The Iraqi’s said no.

            WTH is your point.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    On Maher’s show Friday, the execrable John Fund said “Obama promised to close Guantanamo and get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. How’s that working out for you?” Bill said, much to the delight of the crowd, “Well, he didn’t promise to get us out of Afghanistan; you made that up. Iraq, he is getting us out.” Then, unfortunately, “And he did lie about Guantanamo.”

    NO, HE DID NOT LIE ABOUT GUANTANAMO.

    I absolutely cannot stand this constant and ubiquitous idea that if a politician promises or states an intention to do something that does not end up actually getting done, then the promise or statement was therefore a “lie.” Sometimes people promise to do things that turn out not to be feasible. Obama fully intended and intends to close Guantanamo but he can’t do it by fiat; he can’t do it by himself. Why isn’t this obvious? Why is it so difficult to understand that sometimes we can’t achieve, let alone instantaneously achieve, the things we say we want to achieve?

    Did Rex Ryan lie when he said the Jets would win the Super Bowl this year? Seriously, can you imagine the callers on WFAN, dunderheaded douchebags that they are, calling Ryan a liar for making that prediction and insisting that he lied when he said that?

    Unbelievable.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      ? Why is it so difficult to understand that sometimes we can’t achieve, let alone instantaneously achieve, the things we say we want to achieve?

      Because many of those who disbelieve are politically naive to the point of utterly stupid, and many of them seem to be tinged with racist feelings which color their view of our black president.

    • gescove

      Did Bill Maher forget that President Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo within two weeks after taking office? Did he forget that the bedwetters in Congress would not appropriate the funds necessary to close it? Or the “terrorists have magical powers” crowd refused to allow detainees to be tried in our civilian courts because, you know, they have scary powers and can kill you with their beards? As much as I like Bill Maher, that comment is EPIC FAIL.

      • Scopedog

        “Did Bill Maher forget that President Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo within two weeks after taking office?”

        Either he did, or he’s deliberately ignoring it just to lay into the President some more.

        Honestly….the facts about what happened are there for all to see if one just looks. But it seems that some do not give two shits either way and are just willing to wail and gnash the teeth.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BLXL263VFZTK4TXZBYLBPPTSSA Shark

          Obama restructured the illegal courts that Bush set up.

          I think you forgot it or never knew that’s what happened.

          If those courts are not restructured Guantanamo would have to be closed because those prisoners would have to face trial. United nations treaty. America laws.

          They couldn’t be put on trial in Guantanamo because the Supreme Court ruled those trials as being illegal.

          So what does the president you support do. Restructure the illegal courts.

          Why not just let the ruling stand. If he does that the Congress has to overrule their ruling.

          That would never happen. Obama himself opened the door for the prison to stay open.

          Funny how so many on this site talk about people on the left no knowing what’s going on when most of Bob’s followers like himself don’t know what’s going on or happened.

          Obama himself by restructuring an illegal court gave Congress the opportunity to keep it open.

          Why would he do that. If you stay with the Supreme courts ruling Congress has to overturn the ruling to keep it open.

          It would have never happened.

          • Scopedog

            Wow…you should become a novelist, because what you’ve written is pure fiction.

            The President was pushing for the closure of Gitmo and for the trial of KSM in NYC. In both cases, he was told to fuck off by Congress and the politicians in NYC.

            And where’s your proof to back up your claims?

            Cut the crap, will you?

    • bphoon

      As I recall it, the President and his Attorney General were in negotiations to a) try KSM et al in Federal Court in Manhattan, the place where they committed their crimes, and b) house the balance of prisoners at Gitmo who were deemed unsuitable for release in a brand new, yet unused, federal maximum security prison in Illinois, thereby allowing for the shutdown of Gitmo and creating jobs in a town desperate for them. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, defunded the entire project and attached a ban on bringing Gitmo prisoners to the Mainland to a must-pass bill.

      In other words, President Obama was in the process of closing Gitmo when the occupants of the Congressional Clown Car (otherwise known as the Republican Caucus abetted by ConservaDems) put the brakes on the endeavor.

      Firebaggers: If you must blame anyone, blame them!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BLXL263VFZTK4TXZBYLBPPTSSA Shark

      Yes he did lie. This is why I was banned from this site. It was a post about Guantanomo. Thanks Bob.

      In 2006 the Supreme court ruled the trials at Guantanamo illegal.

      Get that. They were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

      Before the Congress voted on any matter in response to Guantanamo and holding trials in America Obama restructured the laws of the trials in Guantanamo.

      If Obama really wanted to close the eye sore why would he restructure the trials in Guantanamo.

      Why not let the Supreme Courts decision stay. Why try to fix the trials.

      If he doesn’t fix them they have to be tried in American courts.

      That ruling would have had to be overturned by the Congress. It would have never happened.

      So basically at the same time Obama was saying he wanted to close Guantanamo he was restructuring the rules to hold trials there.

      If you were president and wanted Guantanamo closed would you restructure the trials to make them legal or would you just stay with the Supreme Courts decision.

      I would do the latter.

      Once he restructured the courts which still may be illegal because the case has not reached the Supreme Court. He gave the power to Congress to keep it open. Which they did.

      Once again. If the trials are ruled illegal the Congress has to overturn the Supreme Court which they would have never done.

      Guantanamo would already be closed because no trials could be held if Obama did not restructure the Bush kangaroo illegal courts.

      You are the one spreading lies.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        There’s no need to be nasty.

        First of all, President Obama signed an Executive Order to close Guantanamo on his third day in office. To employ your own simplistic formulation, if Obama had no intention of closing Guantanamo why would he sign an Executive Order to do just that?

        Second, and regardless, your supposed “proof” that he had no such intention has a simple and eminently reasonable explanation: Something had to be done in the meantime while the logistics of closing Guantanamo, including (but not limited to) Congress appropriating the funds to get it done, were worked out. Why is it so difficult to understand that things like this don’t just happen instantaneously with the stroke of a pen; they take time, effort, money, planning and execution to get done, but time marches on in the meantime, people and things continue to exist in the meantime and need to be properly managed in the meantime? The intention was to close the prison, but until that happened (and in case it didn’t) the illegal tribunals had to be restructured and made legal. How are these facts incompatible?

        Your analysis conveys a desire to validate feeling a certain way, rather than an objective, empirical assessment of what has actually happened. Your purported “proof” simply does not prove what you think it proves. Again, by your logic, Rex Ryan lied when he said the Jets would win the Super Bowl.

        The fact that Guantanamo has not been closed may be characterized as a failure and/or a broken promise. But a failure is not a lie, and a broken promise is not a lie.

  • villemar

    But we’re in Elevendy Illegal Wars!!!!111!!!1111 I heard a vacationing postal worker in the Maldives tripped and fell and his shoe came off. Which in ancient Hittite culture is considered an act of War. Therefore we are in an illegal war with the Maldives. Curse you Obama! 1000000000x worse than Hitler.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

    Yeah, those dang screechy far-lefters. Don’t they know they have to get with the program and never criticize the president, even when he acts like a Republican, otherwise they are just helping the Republicans.

    Stupid naive leftys, expecting a Democratic president to govern like a Democrat.

    • villemar

      (m)oron – Are you butthurt that PBO isn’t your Personal Magic Negro who didn’t give you a gold unicorn and create a perfect progressitopia? Is that why you’re lying about PBO not being a Democrat and willfully omitting the fact that he’s accomplished more progressive goals in 3 years than Clinton & Carter combined in 12?

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

        Ha ha, brilliant Villemar,

        You really nailed me. I definitely thought Obama would be my personal magic negro and give me golden unicorns just like everyone else on the left did.

        Ignoring the bizarre racism of your post, and the fantastic imaginings you have about the motives of anyone who isn’t a syncophantic toady towards the president, apparently criticizing Obama ist verboten.

        Well I’m not a Republican who will support whatever wrongheaded idea the party tells me to. When Obama does something positive he deserves praise, when he does something negative he deserves criticism.

        Perhaps all those leftys you dismiss as naive and inconsequential do want more than can practically be achieved, but they still accomplish something, they keep the conversation from being dragged endlessly to the right.

        People point to the OWS protesters and say they are naive, demand impossible things, and will achieve nothing. Well they have already achieved something. Three weeks ago the whole national conversation was about instituting austerity and cutting the deficit. Now the conversation is about jobs and corruption and economic injustice.

        • GrafZeppelin127

          “Criticism” is one thing. Emotional blackmail is something else.

          Some far-left-liberals sound like my mother when they talk about feeling “taken for granted” by the president and/or Democrats in general. My issue is not with liberals who criticize the president; it’s with the ones who think the best way to achieve progressive policies is to emotionally blackmail Democrats by electing Republicans.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            I have yet to see a single progressive claim that they will help the Republicans win if they don’t get what they want. I have seen them work to try and get Blue Dogs replaced by actual democrats, but that is how you try and move things in a political direction you want.

            Pretty much every progressive will still go and vote for Obama in 2012, but voting for him is not enough, he needs an army of volunteers who will work for him, bang on doors, donate money, etc.

            A lot of people who worked their asses off in 2008 will sit on their hands next time, not because they want him to lose, but because their energy and enthusiasm have been taking a beating.

            Its not emotional blackmail, its reality.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            I have yet to see a single progressive claim that they will help the Republicans win if they don’t get what they want.

            I have. Plenty.

            A lot of people who worked their asses off in 2008 will sit on their hands next time[.]

            In other words, they will help the Republicans win.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            “I have. Plenty.”

            Show me an example.

            “In other words, they will help the Republicans win.”

            No.

            I could state that “by depressing the enthusiasm of its own base, the Democratic party will help the Republicans win”, and it would be just as accurate as your statement.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            I don’t have time to go back through every comment thread on every blog I’ve read in recent months just to find a link to a comment to placate you. I posted a link on this blog to a HuffPo comment thread on this topic a while back; go through the archives and find it yourself.

            Or don’t believe me, if it makes you feel better.

            And no, your statement would not be “just as accurate” as my statement. See if you can figure out the difference.

          • drsquid

            We already know that “”Joe the Bummer”, the schlemiel in Atlanta who thought himself more important than John Lewis, is planning on voting third party. From history, we already know that helps Republicans . See Ralph Nader (I-racist anti-union).

            So yes, self proclaimed progressives who want to “sit this one out” because they’re so butthurt are helping Republicans. You can argue about semantics all you want – and given that you lost the argument already you probably will – the fact remains.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            I was unfamiliar with “Joe the Bummer” and so I googled the name, and only came up with it as an insulting reference to “Joe the Plumber”, the erstwhile darling of the Tea Baggers. Please tell me that there is another Joe the Bummer out there, and that you are not holding Joe the Plumber up as an example of a progressive who has gone 3rd party.

          • drsquid

            Joe the Bummer of Occupy Atlanta, the bearded red shirt wanker.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YM23FX2FBZEC3UVDPZRGCUBIZ4 staci

            Don’t forget Ed “I ain’t gonna vote” Schultz when he got pissed at the president, or Keith Olbermann who proudly professes to not voting all while he is poisoning the well against Obama.

          • bphoon

            A lot of people who worked their asses off in 2008 will sit on their hands next time…

            You can bugger around semantically all you want but this is how a whining “Professional Left” helps Republicans come election time. You want proof? 2010.

        • drsquid

          How’s he being racist? Are you one of those conservative wannabees who claim that pointing out racism is the real racist act?

          There’s enough of thos snotheads at the GOS.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            Since I was the one that made the accusation of racism, doesn’t that make you the “conservative wannabee who claims that pointing out racism is the real racist act?”

            Why don’t you rethink your comment and give it another try.

          • drsquid

            “I know you are but what am I” is another favorite of the Conservative wannabee set.

            You made the accusation of racism towards someone who acccused Hair-On-Fire progs of racism – invoking “Barack the Magic Negro” is just another, and in that case true, description of the racism of firebagging morons.

            You simply went, “Nuh-Uh! You’re the real racist!” in return.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            On the assumption that you are not really stupid, but just have difficulty expressing yourself in writing, would you please unpack the meaning of this sentence and how it relates to what I said?

            “invoking “Barack the Magic Negro” is just another, and in that case true, description of the racism of firebagging morons.”

          • drsquid

            That’s right, dipshit, you called him racist. I asked how. You reply by calling me a racist.

            You firebaggers are real winners. And by “winners”, I mean “fucking scumbags”.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            Wow, so people to the left of you are “fucking scumbags” eh? Why don’t you save a little of your hatred for the right.

            I did call his comment racist, I never called you racist. Your reading comprehension is obviously as poor as your ability to express your point intelligibly.

          • villemar

            I asked a question. I was asking if you were butthurt that PBO was not your Personal Magic Negro. “Personal” because many firebaggers (and Greenbecks) think they are Beautiful and Unique Snowflakes who, if the President does not do X, Y and Z to exactly 100% of their satisfaction on exactly 100% of their own personal timetable (or Greenwald’s) then they are to be utterly rejected & shunned.

            Magic Negro referers to Magic Negroism. Do you know what that is? It’s a legitimate question and I’m not the first to bring it up. Why is the performance standard for Obama, say, a thousand times higher than it was for Bill Clinton? It took seven years into Clinton’s presidency for Naderism to spring up (and go after Gore by proxy at that point). It took about seven months for Greenwald & Hamsher to utterly reject the Obama Presidency.

            A Magic Negro would have fixed everything within seven months, so that’s why I was asking if you thought he was one.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            You seem to think you are clairevoiant. You can see into the minds of people you disagree with, (even when you’ve never met them, or read more than one 200 word post)and are able to see all their motivations and beliefs precisely, and lo and behold everything you see is bad and stupid and negative. Bravo Kreskin.

            When Obama was elected I had very low expectations, in some ways he has surpassed them, in other ways he has disappointed them. I never thought he was magical. It is the true believers such as yourself who seem to think he is the messiah who can do no wrong and must be defended against all and any criticism with extreme vitriolic anger.

            As for your “magic negro” comment, I know you are not the first to bring it up, that honour goes to Rush Limbaugh. It was racist when he said it, and I’m uncertain why you feel like it is not when you use it.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          We love the OWS protesters. We despise the firebaggers.

          There is a huge difference.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Honestly. It is as if you (firebagging morons) can’t read, can’t hear, can’t think for yourselves. We say it’s white, you scream “It’s black! It’s black! It’s fucking black, and Obama fucking SUCKS!!”

      Adding……..you’re a bloody idiot if you don’t understand that Pres. Obama is the most progressive president we’ve had in DECADES. Really.
      Try a history book rather than reading the likes of the money grubbing/ opportunistic hamsher, greenwald, et al.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

        I don’t read Hamsher, but the notion that Greenwald does what he does and holds the opinions he holds because he is an opportunistic money grubber is so patently absurd that you should be ashamed. I think defending the rights of people accused of terrorism probably doesn’t pay as well as you think it does.

        • villemar

          The Cato Institute does pay pretty well tho. http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/glenn-greenwald/

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            So his whole civil liberties shtick was just to get the Cato institute to commission him to write a paper on drug decriminalization in Portugal?

            What am I missing?

          • villemar

            Here’s the deal (and I don’t know what the specific motives are). Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher’s entire raison d’etre is to destroy the Obama presidency. It’s 1000% exactly in line with Micth McConnell’s stated objective. They are professional ratfuckers whose specific job it is to lie and spin and get the progressive left to hate Obama with the white-hot passion of a trillion suns. Did you really think we would sit idly by after three years of this shit and allow them to frame the narrative so as to utterly destroy this Presidency and cede all three branches of government to the GOP, forever?

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            What BS.
            You don’t know what his motives are, but you know that 100% of his reason for existing is to destroy the Obama presidency.

            What a rich fantasy world you inhabit.

            A cursory look at Glenn’s body of work would prove what an ignorant statement that is.

            If he has a single raison d’etre then it is defense of civil liberties, whether they are assaulted from Republicans or democrats.

            You think he should ignore civil rights abuses if a democrat commits them, but that makes you a partisan hack, not him.

            P.S. please support your accusations of his lying with evidence.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Exactly.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            No, his whole schtick is to gain attention, which brings with it commissioned stuff, tv appearances, etc.

            Adding…….for the love of christ, the man does not even live on U.S. soil, yet so many of you take his word as gospel.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            1)I don’t think you get paid to be interviewed on CNN

            2)Every working person wants their current work to lead to more opportunity, does that make every person an opportunistic moneygrubber?

            3)So if someone doesn’t live in the US their opinion should be discredited?

            Think through your comments before you hit “post”.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            You’re an idiot, oron.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            “You’re an idiot, oron. ”

            I’m glad you took my advice and started to give thought to your comments before you hit post.

          • villemar

            I think Glenn Greenbeck has either 1) Aspergers (or some other form of social retardation); 2) Narcissistic Personality Disorder; 3) that behavioral personality disorder (borderline?) where people put someone initially on a diefic pedestal and then because of a real or imagined slight they fly to the complete opposite extreme and consider that person the epitome of pure evil forevermore. It’s a worldview of total black & white with no in betweens; or 4) A combination of any of the above.

            As far as the timing of when Greenbeck became an obsessively monomanaical professional anti-Obama zealot; it was I think when then Senator Obama voted to reauthorize FISA in August 08. After that, the jihad was on! (Which complemented nicely at that time with Salon’s Joan Walsh having gone Full PUMAtard…and as an unreconstructed PUMA since then Joan has done nothing but Concern Troll. Between Walsh, Sirota, Greenbeck, Justin Elliott & more, Salon is basically FDL2 now).

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            Greenwald is pretty much the most careful political writer I know. All of his work is deeply grounded in fact which he meticulously lays out. He is not a partisan and criticizes left and right when deserved. (to a hardcore partisan like yourself this is clearly unacceptable)

            “then because of a real or imagined slight they fly to the complete opposite extreme and consider that person the epitome of pure evil forevermore. It’s a worldview of total black & white with no in betweens” This seems like a clearer description of yourself than Greenwald.

            I’d say if Glenn is given to absolutes, it is about right and wrong. i.e., If something is wrong when a Republican does it, then it is still wrong if a Democrat does it. Again, I can see that you would have a problem with that.

  • http://JCohenMusic.com Justin Cohen

    There seems to be a lot of animosity here towards the “far left,” as if those folks are supposed to be on “our team” but they’re somehow letting us down.

    While it would be nice if everyone who was preoccupied with social justice and the betterment of society for all of its members, regardless of race, religion or socioeconomic class would bond together, I don’t begrudge those who strongly voice their desire for more progressive action from this President, notwithstanding his many achievements.

    When it comes to election time, most folks will do what they need to do to make sure President Obama gets reelected.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

      I agree. I’m tired of all the hippy punching that goes on among the democrats. We are constantly being told that we can’t criticize Obama or we are betraying our political allies, but those same allies think nothing of denigrating us in the most insulting terms.

      The tea party may be a bunch of ignorant idiots, but no Republican would ever tell them they need to shut up and get with the program.

      • villemar

        Lol, hippy punching.

      • drsquid

        You’re not criticizing – you’re whining.

        There is a difference.

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        “hippy punching”

        Oh please………..that’s getting so old/overused.

        NO ONE ever said you could not criticize the Pres. The problem is that your criticism is frequently UNFOUNDED.

        The pity is that you are so clueless you don’t understand this.

        • missliberties

          Why can’t the President recipricate with his own criticism? He is supposed to just take it and take it and never open his mouth?

          They may as well just say “Be quiet, boy.”.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Exactly.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YM23FX2FBZEC3UVDPZRGCUBIZ4 staci

            The moment the president or anybody on his staff addressess the professional left, it’s the vapors all around. They have no problem kicking the shit out of Obama on a daily basis, but the moment their whiny ass gets called out, they become the victim. It’s damn depressing.

  • Scott Reilly

    In small defense of Bill Maher, he was trying to move on to a new topic, and John Fund wouldn’t shut the fuck up, the smug bastard. So Maher said he lied, in a kind of a defeated retort. I think if there was more time he would have been more accurate.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      I love Maher, and agree that Fund is an execrable talking-point See-’n'-Say smirking douchenozzle, but that’s hogwash. It takes just as much time to say, “He tried to close Guantanamo but couldn’t,” which is true, as it does to say “He lied about Guantanamo,” which is false.

      • missliberties

        Bill Maher isn’t really helping. I get his frustration and all but he is more of comedian than anything else. All he has generated is cynicism.

        As if the left needs to be MORE cynical than they already are.

        • Dan_in_DE

          I hear you, missliberties. But think about it this way: if we weren’t so fed up with all the firebagging bullshit, than we would see Maher’s schtick through a different prism. It’s only unhelpful when it’s taken too seriously. This is a comedian, presenting a clever and funny take on things.

          Consider that he generally puts the president in a positive light, though often rightfully frustrated with him, and he has voiced his share of frustration (disgust even) with the firebagging far left, too.

  • D_C_Wilson

    You want to know why conservatives keep winning elections even though poll after poll shows that their ideas are grossly unpopular? Because they actually back their candidates. Yes, they bitch and moan about “RINOs” and they will primary the heck out of moderates, but when the general election comes around, they all line up, hold their noses, and select the “Straight R ticket” option on the ballot.

    Meanwhile, give the left half a loaf and they’ll call you a traitor for not giving them the whole loaf. And then they’ll sit at home and pout because they didn’t get everything they wanted. They tell themselves, “Let him lose this election. That’ll show ‘em. Then, next time around, we’ll elect a REAL progressive”. And then they start the cycle all over again.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      Exactly. GOP fans get off on feeling oppressed and victmized by Democrats, while Dem fans get off on feeling betrayed and “taken for granted” by Democrats. GOP fans save those feelings, to the extent they have them at all, for when Republicans are out of power. Then it’s all, “Oh, I never supported him, he wasn’t a real conservative, I was against [X] when he did it,” etc.

      Liberals love the Democrats when they’re out of power, and complain about them when they’re in power. Conservatives do the opposite.

      Your assessment of the resulting “cycle” is precisely correct.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BLXL263VFZTK4TXZBYLBPPTSSA Shark

    For once Bob your right. It will mean nothing because it was not their decision.

    The Iraqi’s kicked us out.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Perhaps if you learned proper grammar…..

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

        Oh zing!

        You totally decimated his point. What good are facts if you don’t use an apostrophe properly.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          You’re just so bright…….I really must pay more attention to you.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GIQIFF7A7RFUB5SZVHTELINBLE oron

            I’m not really looking for any dim-witted acolytes at the moment, but thanks for your interest.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Yes, pointing out the obvious does make you far too intelligent for a dimwit such as myself to understand.