Rumsfeld ~ How did Obama win Nobel on Hope ?

[Exotix]

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said over the weekend that President Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize he received in 2009.


Today

Donald Rumsfeld: Obama Didn't Deserve The Nobel Peace Prize (VIDEO)



"He had not accomplished a thing when he got the Nobel Prize, it was given to him on hope -- had to have been, because there wasn't anything that he'd done.
He'd been in office 15 minutes," Rumsfeld told CNN's Candy Crowley in an interview.

Asked by Crowley if he thought the president had been successful in improving the nation's image abroad, which she said might be evidenced by the seemingly shrinking number of anti-American protests on the streets of foreign nations, Rumsfeld objected.

"I don't think there's data that supports that, I think he has made a practice of trying to apologize for America," Rumsfeld claimed.

Despite his apparent disagreement with the merit of the president's brief legacy, Rumsfeld did say that he was pleased with the Obama administration's apparent willingness to keep some of the most controversial national security structures implemented during the Bush presidency.

"They are keeping Guantanamo Bay, they are keeping indefinite detention, they are keeping military commissions," Rumsfeld said.
"They have come to the conclusion that it's easier to campaign than it is to govern."




Video inside ~WATCH (comments start around 4 minutes)

[Z06PDQ]

this from the guy that said " we'll be in Iraq 30 days & no more" or some ignorant shit like that.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

this from the guy that said " we'll be in Iraq 30 days & no more" or some ignorant shit like that.

I like the beginning of the vid when asking Rummy why did the Taliban comeback (and as anti-american) and in a big way for you to leave for Obama ?

I thought Rummy was going to have an aneurysm ...

[73sbVert]

"He had not accomplished a thing when he got the Nobel Prize, it was given to him on hope -- had to have been, because there wasn't anything that he'd done. He'd been in office 15 minutes," Rumsfeld told CNN's Candy Crowley in an interview.

He's right. How can you argue against it?? Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean he was wrong.

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by 73sbVert

He's right. How can you argue against it?? Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean he was wrong.

don't argue with us. argue with the people that awarded the prize. just because you don't like Obama doesn't mean they were wrong.

[ChasC5]

Let's see, Peace or War, who gets the prize.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

don't argue with us. argue with the people that awarded the prize. just because you don't like Obama doesn't mean they were wrong.

I don't like Rumsfeld OR Obama.

Rumsfeld is correct on this particular issue, though. The junior senator had done nothing to merit a Nobel Peace Prize at the time it was given.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Let's see, Peace or War, who gets the prize.

So, exactly what peace has Obama brought us? He campaigned on ending the wars, bringing the troops home, and yet, there they are, still in country, occupying, fighting, dying.

What peace?

At least if he had ordered our troops to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, he might have deserved the prize. As it is, he got it for talk with no results.

[73sbVert]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

So, exactly what peace has Obama brought us? He campaigned on ending the wars, bringing the troops home, and yet, there they are, still in country, occupying, fighting, dying.

What peace?

At least if he had ordered our troops to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, he might have deserved the prize. As it is, he got it for talk with no results.

That's what I'm saying.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

So, exactly what peace has Obama brought us? He campaigned on ending the wars, bringing the troops home, and yet, there they are, still in country, occupying, fighting, dying.

What peace?

At least if he had ordered our troops to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, he might have deserved the prize. As it is, he got it for talk with no results.

Originally Posted by 73sbVert

That's what I'm saying.

How'bout the Arab Revolt going down now in the entire Middle East ... how would this play-out in terms of Hope & Change ?

As opposed to Rumsfeld who's been a war criminal and loser since Viet Nam ...

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Exotix

How'bout the Arab Revolt going down now in the entire Middle East ... how would this play-out in terms of Hope & Change ?

As opposed to Rumsfeld who's been a war criminal and loser since Viet Nam ...

Exactly how does O get credit for the "Jasmine Revolution" playing out in the ME? Seems like O carried out the foreign policy of previous administrations, paying off and staying in bed with thug dictators who the US thought would keep those pesky Middle East folks in line.

True change and hope would have been to stop supporting dictators, and start siding with people yearning to be free. Unfortunately, your boy O waited until he saw which way the wind was blowing before he had anything to say about the matter.

And what difference does it really make what he says? Actions speak louder than words, and his actions are the same as all of his predecesors.....support dictators keeping down their own people in the name of political expedience.


Agreed on Rumsfeld as a war criminal. Cheerleading to invade Iraq qualifies as war crime in my book.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Exactly how does O get credit for the "Jasmine Revolution" playing out in the ME? Seems like O carried out the foreign policy of previous administrations, paying off and staying in bed with thug dictators who the US thought would keep those pesky Middle East folks in line.

True change and hope would have been to stop supporting dictators, and start siding with people yearning to be free. Unfortunately, your boy O waited until he saw which way the wind was blowing before he had anything to say about the matter.

And what difference does it really make what he says? Actions speak louder than words, and his actions are the same as all of his predecesors.....support dictators keeping down their own people in the name of political expedience.


Agreed on Rumsfeld as a war criminal. Cheerleading to invade Iraq qualifies as war crime in my book.

Of course, by the time it was clear their were no WMD's in Iraq (Rummy's famous quote: *they are somewhere north, south, east, west of Baghdad) , you turned on Bush & the neocons and expressed outrage and took to the streets in protest ... yes ?

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Of course, by the time it was clear their were no WMD's in Iraq (Rummy's famous quote: *they are somewhere north, south, east, west of Baghdad) , you turned on Bush & the neocons and expressed outrage and took to the streets in protest ... yes ?

History lesson:

I didn't vote for either Bush, Sr., or shrub.

I was and am against the Iraq war. Bush et al are war criminals for electing to invade a country that was not threatening to attack the US. Anyone who believes that Iraq would have mounted an invasion armada to attack the US mainland has a great imagination. Did he have WMDs? Who gives a crap? Unless he was about to attack the United States, then that would have been non of our business. Do we have WMDs? Should we be attacked preemptively because we have a crapload of WMDs?

But quit obfuscating. Why do you feel Obama deserved that Nobel Prize? He didn't even deliver on the promise of ending two wars.

In Texas, we call that all hat and no cattle. Big talk, but no peace. Big talk, but keep supporting dictators. See how this looks bad for O?

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

History lesson:

I didn't vote for either Bush, Sr., or shrub.

I was and am against the Iraq war. Bush et al are war criminals for electing to invade a country that was not threatening to attack the US. Anyone who believes that Iraq would have mounted an invasion armada to attack the US mainland has a great imagination. Did he have WMDs? Who gives a crap? Unless he was about to attack the United States, then that would have been non of our business. Do we have WMDs? Should we be attacked preemptively because we have a crapload of WMDs?

But quit obfuscating. Why do you feel Obama deserved that Nobel Prize? He didn't even deliver on the promise of ending two wars.

In Texas, we call that all hat and no cattle. Big talk, but no peace. Big talk, but keep supporting dictators. See how this looks bad for O?

Can you imagine the moxy (balls) it took for the Nobel Symposia to give Obama a Nobel based on Hope ... the question is, did this come and suspiciously on the cusp of the end of Bush & the neocons' holocaust on Iraq & Afghanistan and America and all the other countries duped into the the Global World War on Terror on one man Osama Bin Laden ?

[sasnglass77]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

I don't like Rumsfeld OR Obama.

Rumsfeld is correct on this particular issue, though. The junior senator had done nothing to merit a Nobel Peace Prize at the time it was given.

Or has done anything to deserve it since...
all that did (giving it to Obama) was to lessen the importance of the "Nobel Prize"

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Can you imagine the moxy (balls) it took for the Nobel Symposia to give Obama a Nobel based on Hope ... the question is, did this come and suspiciously on the cusp of the end of Bush & the neocons' holocaust on Iraq & Afghanistan and America and all the other countries duped into the the Global World War on Terror on one man Osama Bin Laden ?

So, the Nobel Prize is now an anti the-other-guy-was-a-dick award? Wow. Talk about prestige.

Color me unimpressed, especially when the new guy is still fighting and occupying the same countries as the old guy.

So, why again did O get the award? Because he's black? Because he gives a nice speech?

It would have been just as well for them to give the award to whoever won the national Toastmasters award in 2008. At least the Toastmaster probably wasn't lying during his/her speech.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

So, the Nobel Prize is now an anti the-other-guy-was-a-dick award? Wow. Talk about prestige.

Color me unimpressed, especially when the new guy is still fighting and occupying the same countries as the old guy.

So, why again did O get the award? Because he's black? Because he gives a nice speech?

It would have been just as well for them to give the award to whoever won the national Toastmasters award in 2008. At least the Toastmaster probably wasn't lying during his/her speech.

Well, from your rants here that are suspiciously of the same faux blind-hate outrage as CFPR&C when Obama was bestowed the Nobel ... yes, that's all you have ... let us know right away when a Libertarian gets one for all their work because of ... well, Libertaraianism ...

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Well, from your rants here that are suspiciously of the same faux blind-hate outrage as CFPR&C when Obama was bestowed the Nobel ... yes, that's all you have ... let us know right away when a Libertarian gets one for all their work because of ... well, Libertaraianism ...

Let's look at this objectively. You are obviously against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That's great. Me too. Had you elected the Libertarian (or even the Constitution Party) candidate, those wars would be over right now.

Instead, you went with O, and guess what.....yep, still warring/occupying.

Don't blame Libertarians because others can't understand that voting for the same old get us the same old. Simple concepts like don't spend more than you have, don't get involved in other people's business militarily, stop taxing and regulating people to death are concepts that seem to be rejected by most voters. That isn't my fault.

We already KNEW voting for McPalin would = continuation of the wars, but O at least PROMISED to end them. So, Presidents McPalin would have most assuredly had us still at war, but at least they were honest about it.

In the end, it is all the same: O = war president, same as Bush. O didn't deserve a Peace Prize anymore than Bush deserves one.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Let's look at this objectively. You are obviously against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That's great. Me too. Had you elected the Libertarian (or even the Constitution Party) candidate, those wars would be over right now.

Instead, you went with O, and guess what.....yep, still warring/occupying.

Don't blame Libertarians because others can't understand that voting for the same old get us the same old. Simple concepts like don't spend more than you have, don't get involved in other people's business militarily, stop taxing and regulating people to death are concepts that seem to be rejected by most voters. That isn't my fault.

We already KNEW voting for McPalin would = continuation of the wars, but O at least PROMISED to end them. So, Presidents McPalin would have most assuredly had us still at war, but at least they were honest about it.

In the end, it is all the same: O = war president, same as Bush. O didn't deserve a Peace Prize anymore than Bush deserves one.

Libertarians were behind Bush and the neocons all the way and anybody who wasn't was a traitor ... by the end of Bush and the neocons ... the Libertarians saw an opportunity to *be something different* in the newly formed *political vacuum* (political vacuums happen when the current political leadership fails) further, they called themselves (I)'s to fake like they were never right-wining neocons, by hijacking the independants by calling themselves the Tea Party and Libertarians ...

You're the same 'ol neocons in my book ...

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Libertarians were behind Bush and the neocons all the way and anybody who wasn't was a traitor ... by the end of Bush and the neocons ... the Libertarians saw an opportunity to *be something different* in the newly formed *political vacuum* (political vacuums happen when the current political leadership fails) further, they called themselves (I)'s to fake like they were never right-wining neocons, by hijacking the independants by calling themselves the Tea Party and Libertarians ...

You're the same 'ol neocons in my book ...

You are waaaaay off base.

Show me the Libertarians who were for invading Iraq. You will note that Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president in '08 DID indeed vote for invading Iraq, but later said he had made a mistake. This was one of many reasons I and other Libertarians voted Constitution Party in that election.

What exactly would Libertarians have in common with Bush or neo-cons? Deficit spending? Spying on the American People? More government bureaucracy (TSA)? Elective wars? Patriot Act? Medicare Part D? No Child Gets Ahead? Foreign Aid? War on Drugs? Compassionate conservatism welfare state?

Libertarians are against all of that. Perhaps you need a refresher on what Libertarians stand for:

http://www.lp.org/