# Todd and Sarah Palin to divorce



## GAP (3 Aug 2009)

Todd and Sarah Palin to divorce
Affairs on both sides
Updated 7:53am Sunday AKDT August 1, 2009 
Article Link

Palin lawyer threatens to serve papers to blogger at kindergarten, then balks

9:20pm Saturday - AlaskaReport.com receives letter from Palin lawyer Van Flein evidently confirming some details (will post when we clarify missing information)
AlaskaReport has learned today that Todd Palin and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin are to divorce. Multiple sources in Wasilla and Anchorage (including a former Palin staffer) have confirmed the split. 
More on link


----------



## gaspasser (3 Aug 2009)

And this is important to day to day life because............ :-\


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2009)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> And this is important to day to day life because............ :-\




Because Ms. Palin "leads" (or is the _poster girl_ of the moment for ) a large, important wing of the US Republican Party. Until that wing can be exorcized and replaced with more _traditional_ Republicans (small towns, small business, small government, socially moderate, fiscally prudent and modest in foreign policy) then Obama will have free rein.

That being said, divorce is an unhappy process and one hopes that both parties will do their best to minimize the impact on children and grandchildren.


----------



## gaspasser (3 Aug 2009)

Okay, thanks, I don't keep up on US politics much. I know alot of the mid-west doesn't care too much for Obama.  As for Palin, I think divorce should be a private thing especially for a public person.  It does wreck havoc on the kids and close family.  
I wish both parties good luck and hopes for the future.
 ^-^


----------



## GAP (3 Aug 2009)

As ER says, it is important in today's US politics....it explains much of recent events and adds fodder to future plans for many...

Edited to Add: Whomever the Republicans choose for 2012, is basically a throwaway candidate....I don't see Obama losing much support in his first 4 years....but there's always hope...


----------



## Redeye (3 Aug 2009)

I of course can't find the link at the moment but apparently both Palins denied the story and called it basically unsourced nonsense.  I'm sure it will disappoint President Obama if it isn't true, because Caribou Barbie managing to get on the GOP ticket in 2012 is about the best re-election insurance policy he could dream of.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Aug 2009)

Geez, I don't know about this report. I checked CNN, CTV, CBC and Nationalnewswatch and Bourque. None of them have reported it. That does not mean it is not true, but it seems to be in the not proven category for now.

Having said that, I have got the ketchup ready in case I have to eat my words.

Edit: ditto for Fox News.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Aug 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> Edited to Add: Whomever the Republicans choose for 2012, is basically a throwaway candidate....I don't see Obama losing much support in his first 4 years....but there's always hope...


I remember a SNL skit in 91 that was a mock up of the Democrats' convention, basically trying to pick someone who'd get their ass kicked by Bush in 92.  That was on the heels of the First Gulf War, and of course, William Jefferson Clinton pulled that one out.  

UPDATE:
Palin denies divorce rumours
Sarah Palin divorce reports are untrue, says the ex-governor of Alaska's people


----------



## GAP (3 Aug 2009)

I was just going to post "Huffington Post" article saying it wasn't true, but MR beat me to it....but, true or not, it continues the swirl of controversy around her. It will be interesting to see what the end result will be.....does she survive? or do the instigators get outed?


----------



## gaspasser (3 Aug 2009)

Caribou Barbie......that's funny!


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Aug 2009)

The loonie toon left (LTL) has mounted a continuous attack on Ms Palin. She has been subject to, and has been proven innocent of, at least 17 ethics violations. All the legal fees for her defence comes right out of her own pocket. Attempts to bankrupt her??

Maybe the divorce is true, she denies it. Maybe another personal attack by the LTL.

This is harassment plain and simple. If Ms Palin was not a Republican, and a threat to the current administration, this would not be happening.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Aug 2009)

A threat to the current administration ?!?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (3 Aug 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> because Caribou Barbie managing to get on the GOP ticket in 2012 is about the best re-election insurance policy he could dream of.



I'm not so sure.  When the presidential campaign is well underway in 2 years Obama will then own the recession.  There will also be the inevitable scandals that always appear and the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police gaffe will be repeated.  There is also a thriving conservative news media in the US unlike Canada.

If 3 out of 100 voters changed their minds a Republican could be president.  Just as Obama came out of nowhere to lead the Democrats there are lots of Republican senators and governors that could do the same.

Whether Sarah Palin could ever be president is still a big maybe.  I always thought the first black president would be a Republican because Democrat African-American leaders become leaders by slamming the system.  Obama, from outside the traditional African-American society, co-opted the system.  He was white enough for mainstreet America and black enough for racial minorities to support.

Personally I find Hillary Clinton not to be made of the material necessary to be the first female president.  She is too polarizing and easy to dislike if you don't agree with her.  Sarah Palin has a natural constuency ouside the major industialized states but until she starts convincingly attacking issues relevant to urban and minority voters, she's dead in the water.  The liberal media did a job on her last election and I don't know if she can recover.

Personally I like Palin.  She didn't go to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or Cambridge.  She's from the same kind of people I am and on her trips south she probably gassed up at my local gas station and grabbed a burger at the local MacDonalds.


----------



## Xiang (4 Aug 2009)

> I know alot of the mid-west doesn't care too much for Obama



I thought so too until the state of Indiana, a state that has voted Republican since 1964, gave Obama a majority.   Strange world eh?

Also, I'm going to hold back my opinion on this story until it comes out of a bigger news outlet that doesn't reference the National Enquirer as one of its sources.


----------



## Redeye (4 Aug 2009)

Palin isn't a threat to the current administration.  She's an asset.  If she rises to any sort of prominence in the next GOP campaign she's sure to help Obama win a second term.

She's great as a small town mayor I'm sure.  Probably on the PTA too, and even as governor of a small, mostly rural state (well, until she abruptly and inexplicably quit).  She lacks the education and wisdom to be president and that was clear during the campaign.  She though the "liberal media" was attacking her unfairly, but they were doing their job and showing she was not up to the job.  She'll be great as an organizer for the GOP perhaps, but as a candidate she is doomed.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The loonie toon left (LTL) has mounted a continuous attack on Ms Palin. She has been subject to, and has been proven innocent of, at least 17 ethics violations. All the legal fees for her defence comes right out of her own pocket. Attempts to bankrupt her??
> 
> Maybe the divorce is true, she denies it. Maybe another personal attack by the LTL.
> 
> This is harassment plain and simple. If Ms Palin was not a Republican, and a threat to the current administration, this would not be happening.


----------



## Roy Harding (4 Aug 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> ...
> Personally I like Palin.  She didn't go to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or Cambridge.  She's from the same kind of people I am and on her trips south she probably gassed up at my local gas station and grabbed a burger at the local MacDonalds.



I like her too - for similar reasons.

Hell - I'm pretty sure that she and I could get along and enjoy each other's company over a beer or two.

Just because I like someone, however, is not a recommendation for them to assume the most powerful office currently existent in the world.

I know a BUNCH of guys that I like having a beer with - and I wouldn't trust ANY of them with my personal financial information - let alone public office.


----------



## mariomike (4 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I like her too - for similar reasons.



Me too.
A bit of a learning curve to be sure. However, the only one of the four candidates with high level executive experience ( ie: governor ) was Sarah Palin. G.W. Bush, Clinton and Reagan were all governors. Spiro Agnew only had about a year in as governor when Richard Nixon picked him as his running mate. 

P.S. I came across a Richard Nixon quote that I must include: When Nixon was asked why he kept Agnew on the ticket in the 1972 election, Nixon replied that "No assassin in his right mind would kill me."


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Aug 2009)

I did not give an opinion that Ms Plain had the credentials to be POTUS. I said she is a threat to the Obama administration. The smear campain is evidence of this, otherwise why would there be all the attacks on her?

Ms Palin is a threat because of what she brings to the table. I am supposing that everyone reads the thread before posting. If you did not, read post number three.

Do you really think that Pres Obama has the experience to be POTUS?? But, he is and lets all hope he turns out to be an excellent President, cause as the US of A goes, so does Canada (and the rest of the "free world" to some lessor extent).

To continue to bash President Obama WRT his credentials to be POTUS is about as useless as demanding his birth certificate. He is The President.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Aug 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> I thought so too until the state of Indiana, a state that has voted Republican since 1964, gave Obama a majority.   Strange world eh?
> 
> Also, I'm going to hold back my opinion on this story until it comes out of a bigger news outlet that doesn't reference the National Enquirer as one of its sources.



As I understand it, a lot of Repulican voters stayed home in a snit about something or other, giving everything to the Dems. I hope they learned their lesson for next time. As for Obama, he just got a lesson that as Senator you can say any stupid thing and people really don't care, but when you say something stupid as POTUS, then they do care and listen. We will see if his next lesson costs more than a round of beers to fix.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2009)

Perhaps this is going to allow her to do whatever it is she has planned without the press being able to attack her family. Just a thought. 

If they weren't worried about her, Letterman and the rest of the Hollywood school kids wouldn't still be attacking her.


----------



## Yrys (5 Aug 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If they weren't worried about her, Letterman and the rest of the Hollywood school kids wouldn't still be attacking her.



I thought they were doing it because it's easier for them to make fun of her
then the new Prez... They don't seem to know how to laugh at him...


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Aug 2009)

Sweet! Where do I sign up for a date? She's my kind of woman...


----------



## Xiang (5 Aug 2009)

Palin is certainly a nice woman, don't get me wrong.  The problem I have with the current situation is that she quit.  Despite how she tries to spin it (leaving because she loves Alaska?), she quit.  One of the reasons was because of how the media involved her family.  

I see it as, when the going got tough, Palin got going.  And she has rumored to have the Presidency in her sights?  

The Taliban, Russians or Chinese don't care if you were a soccer mom.  Politics isn't for her anymore if you ask me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2009)

Quitting or positioning? Most politicians do much the same thing. Quit one position to get in place, and consolidate, for a run at another. It's all in the eye of the beholder I guess.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Aug 2009)

There is no divorce. This was another lefty lie planted by a blogger,since debunked. The democrats are terrified of Palin and have worked ceaselessly to destroy her. They certainly have run her out of office with their bogus "ethics" complaints. I suspect that she will be a candidate in 2012 for President. By that time the public will be so disgusted with the democrats they wont be listening to the lies and smears about Palin.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Aug 2009)

Xiang

President Obama quit the Senate to become the President. He did not complete his first term, nor introduce ANY legislation.

Former President Clinton quit seeing Monica.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Aug 2009)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Sweet! Where do I sign up for a date? She's my kind of woman...


She can drive a truck, and probably a quad and a snowmobile. She can shoot. Can she handle high explosives?

My kinda woman indeed!! >


----------



## GAP (5 Aug 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Xiang
> Former President Clinton quit seeing Monica.



You sure? Leopards and spots and all.......


----------



## mariomike (5 Aug 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> She can drive a truck, and probably a quad and a snowmobile. She can shoot. Can she handle high explosives?
> My kinda woman indeed!! >




The Republicans haven't seen anyone like her come along since Ronald Reagan came to national attention in 1964.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Aug 2009)

Her resignation speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/03/sarah-palin-resignation-s_n_225557.html

Of course it's what she says happen, but personally I believe her side. You can differ. Why, see the second quote from her speech.

_Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year - the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate - I say others changed.

Let me speak to that for a minute.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters' questions.

Every one - all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to "opposition research" - that's money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers - or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the "politics of personal destruction" ... Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources - spending other peoples' money in their game.

It's pretty insane - my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more "politics as usual," but THIS isn't what anyone had in mind for ALASKA._

It is now 17 ethics complaints. 

Now, how about this:

Palin opened her speech with what she called "some straight talk," taking on the media (and then Hollywood).

_You represent what could and should be a respected, honest profession, and what could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy -- and that's why our troops are willing to die for you.

So how about in honor of the American solider you quit making things up?_

Google her speech and you will see the LTL media, the heavy weights from Vanity Fair, the late night show hosts, Hollywood are all over it.

Yep, the are afraid.


----------



## Redeye (5 Aug 2009)

A large part of Democratic Party success relies on two things - getting out all its supporters to vote (which is why they mobilize huge groups of volunteers to help people register and get them to the polls), and trying to find a way to get one of the constituent groups of the GOP to stay home.  If they can, for example, persuade the crazed religious right to stay home en masse, it helps them immensely.

The fact is that there's so much ludicrous mudslinging on both sides that it almost would make for good TV - well, I guess it does - but it's just a sideshow.  The Right blames Obama for everything they can (which is pretty ludicrous, the recession started before he took office and the US' budget mess is a product of the last eight years of mismanagement, including the channelling of trillions of dollars into a war that was based on lies and deception.  Rove, Bush, and Cheney engineered the selling of a personal vendetta to the American public, greatly enriching themselves in the process.

Even now, as Obama tries to move forward on his own goals - which it seems he has a mandate from the American public to do - the debate is being skewed and delayed by absolutely atrocious propaganda efforts led by insurance industry lobbies and "astroturf" groups. Then there is the utterly ridiculous birther movement.  Arguing about their validity makes about as much sense as arguing about the colour of unicorns, a friend told me yesterday.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> As I understand it, a lot of Repulican voters stayed home in a snit about something or other, giving everything to the Dems. I hope they learned their lesson for next time. As for Obama, he just got a lesson that as Senator you can say any stupid thing and people really don't care, but when you say something stupid as POTUS, then they do care and listen. We will see if his next lesson costs more than a round of beers to fix.


----------



## Xiang (5 Aug 2009)

> President Obama quit the Senate to become the President. He did not complete his first term, nor introduce ANY legislation.



True, but Obama left the Senate to pursue his candidacy as President.  Palin is not pursuing anything.  She made it clear with her speech that she is stepping down because of the pressures she is under.

I wouldn't want someone like this to run the free world.  If she couldn't hack some personal issues with reporters, how will she be able to deal with international politics and enemies who will exploit that weakness?

Like I said, she is a great lady, and the governor of Alaska spot suited her.  The oval office, IMO, would not.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Aug 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> I wouldn't want someone like this to run the free world.  If *she couldn't hack some personal issues with reporters,* how will she be able to deal with international politics and enemies who will exploit that weakness?
> 
> Like I said, she is a great lady, and the governor of Alaska spot suited her.  The oval office, IMO, would not.


Dude, it was a bit "more" than "some" personal issues.  It was a smear campaign, and I would love to see you (or I) attempt to last as long as she did.

The current POTUS can get away with virtual murder right now because of mainly one thing: his race.  The media don't know how to criticise him (or his actions) for the fear of appearing racist.  Well, they *do* criticise him to some ends; however, a blind man can see that he is being treated with virtual "kid gloves" compared to G.W. Bush and all the others before him.


> The Right blames Obama for everything they can which is pretty ludicrous, the recession started before he took office and the US' budget mess is a product of the last eight years of mismanagement, including the channelling of trillions of dollars into a war that was based on lies and deception.  Rove, Bush, and Cheney engineered the selling of a personal vendetta to the American public, greatly enriching themselves in the process.


Well, the left blamed (and continue to blame) G.W., Rove, Cheney et al for everything from 9-11 to the war in Iraq to Global Warming, and I'm surprised that they haven't blamed the death of Michael Jackson on them either!  Let us (and you) not forget that Congress authorised the president's action in Iraq, and that it was a popular move in the US (and in Canada, at least up until a few months prior to the invasion).  Let us try to pretend that it was a personal agenda.  There are too many checks and balances in the US system for that to happen.
Iraq only became unpopular when Al Qaeda in Iraq fanned the flames there.  Let us also not forget that (surprise!) the war is virtually over there, but Afghanistan drags on.  Last month: something like 7 Military deaths in Iraq.  We all know that Canada alone has lost close to that number within the last month in Afghanistan.  Then again, nobody likes losing, and I'm not saying that GW et al ran the tightest ship out there, but I stand by my support of their decision to go into Iraq (although I had been saying "Go back to Iraq" since the mid 90s).


[/rant]


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Aug 2009)

Midnight Rambler

I was going to say the same, but personally did not want to get into defending everything I post which becomes boring to others.

You said it, and I will add ones family to "you (or I)".


----------



## Xiang (5 Aug 2009)

> Dude, it was a bit "more" than "some" personal issues.  It was a smear campaign, and I would love to see you (or I) attempt to last as long as she did.



GWB went through everything from being called a murderer, a war criminal to a reptilian shape shifter from the planet Alpha Draconis.  He was demonized by the US media, and a lot of his own citizens.

It comes with the territory of being a politician.  One side of the political/media spectrum will support you, and the other will do what they can to discredit you.

If Palin folded over some ethics accusations, a wardrobe scandal and having her morals called out after her daughter got pregnant, I would hate to see how long she would last if she were exposed to the same sort of global demonetization GWB was.

Not only did Bush endure it and not let it get to him, but he even went on to win a second term.  That's what a strong leader does.

We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.


----------



## Redeye (5 Aug 2009)

I'd like to think the media could criticize him objectively without it being spun into a racial issue, but there's a lot of reason that's wishful thinking.

As for Iraq there was a personal agenda at play - and a lot of self interest on the parts of key players.  Bush's inner circle fabricated the reasons for the invasion. While long-term Iraq may well end up better off, it was pretty clear that it was going to be a mess.  Wolfowicz et al expected that it'd be simple, that they wouldn't need a massive force to occupy.  That there would be a torrent of sectarian violence unleashed was clear to anyone with an understanding of the region - and of multiethnic states run by totalitarian strongmen (think Yugoslavia post-Tito).

One must wonder what sort of shape Afghanistan would be in if it didn't become a sideshow when America committed to the Iraq War.  I'm not suggesting the US abandoned Afghanistan entirely like some on the left think - but it definitely played second fiddle.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Aug 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> GWB went through everything from being called a murderer, a war criminal to a reptilian shape shifter from the planet Alpha Draconis.  He was demonized by the US media, and a lot of his own citizens.
> 
> It comes with the territory of being a politician.  One side of the political/media spectrum will support you, and the other will do what they can to discredit you.
> 
> ...


I thought they said that GW was from Alpha Centauri, but that's neither here nor there.
I find a huge difference in between what was said of GW and what was done to Palin.  GW's family wasn't dragged into things as much as Palin's, and she has been fighting off frivolous lawsuits, whereas GW could ignore criticisms of him by switching off the TV.
GW was criticised for his actions (rightly or wrongly).  Palin has been critised for being.  That's the main difference I think.

ANyway, to keep on topic: I don't think they are divorcing  :-X


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> If Palin folded over some ethics accusations, a wardrobe scandal and having her morals called out after her daughter got pregnant, I would hate to see how long she would last if she were exposed to the same sort of global demonetization GWB was.



I think you're being purposely simplistic, rather like Letterman et al. Don't like her? Fine, but don't treat us like morons ok? Your Democrat style misdirection has already gotten old.


----------



## mariomike (5 Aug 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> a blind man can see that he is being treated with virtual "kid gloves" compared to G.W. Bush and all the others before him.



Apparently,  the original SNL parody has been removed from Youtube.  But, Hillary had something to say on the subject:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/hillaryclintonvideos/youtube/hillary-pillow.htm


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Aug 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Personally I like Palin.  She didn't go to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or Cambridge.  She's from the same kind of people I am and on her trips south she probably gassed up at my local gas station and grabbed a burger at the local MacDonalds.


Maybe I'm old school, but I think there's something to knowing that the person running the country is smarter than I am that has a certain appeal... it's like watching the CFL, it's good football, until you realize that the linemen make less than you do.  Sarah Palin is a charming person, but frankly, she is far too uneducated to run the free world.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Aug 2009)

On the otherhand we have Barak Obama who has an Ivy League education and zero executive experience running the free world. Do you sleep better at night ? I sure dont.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (6 Aug 2009)

I do sleep better... Obama is smarter than I am, and that's a good thing. GWB, Palin, and persons in the Republican/Conservative right like Bill O'Reilly are people that I listen to, and make arguments much like 16 year old girls... "I'm right, so there". At least Obama is willing to listen to the opinion of others. In fairness, GWB illegally invaded a country for no particular reason... I dont see Obama doing the same. Palin said that god wanted them to do it... enough said.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Aug 2009)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm old school, but I think there's something to knowing that the person running the country is smarter than I am that has a certain appeal... *it's like watching the CFL, it's good football*, until you realize that the linemen make less than you do.  Sarah Palin is a charming person, but frankly, she is far too uneducated to run the free world.


You should have stopped right there.  Whether a lineman in the CFL makes more than you or not is irrelevant.  In fact, some would argue that part of the charm of the CFL is that they aren't spoiled rich kids like some other pro leagues.


			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I do sleep better... Obama is smarter than I am, and that's a good thing. GWB, Palin, and persons in the Republican/Conservative right like Bill O'Reilly are people that I listen to, and make arguments much like 16 year old girls... "I'm right, so there". *At least Obama is willing to listen to the opinion of others.* In fairness, GWB illegally invaded a country for no particular reason... I dont see Obama doing the same. Palin said that god wanted them to do it... enough said.


GW listened to others.  That is part (a major part) of what made him so successful.  He was a "hands off" type of person, be it as president, governor or as CEO.  As for "illegal" invasion, can you please provide "which" laws GW broke by invading?


----------



## observor 69 (6 Aug 2009)

I could waste a lot of time searching out references to support an anti Bush anti Palin argument but the best thing IMHO I can happily say is that those in the know politically agree that the Republican party is too far to the right for the majority of voters to win the next Presidential elections.

And my reference for that is 
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-presidential-election-2012     ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Aug 2009)

;D
Sarah Palin looks far better in a dress......IMO


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2009)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> At least Obama is willing to listen to the opinion of others.



He said WHAT?? 

Sorry. I'm not buying what you're smoking.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Aug 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> A large part of Democratic Party success relies on two things - getting out all its supporters to vote (which is why they mobilize huge groups of volunteers to help people register and get them to the polls), and trying to find a way to get one of the constituent groups of the GOP to stay home.  If they can, for example, persuade the crazed religious right to stay home en masse, it helps them immensely.
> 
> The fact is that there's so much ludicrous mudslinging on both sides that it almost would make for good TV - well, I guess it does - but it's just a sideshow.  The Right blames Obama for everything they can (which is pretty ludicrous, the recession started before he took office and the US' budget mess is a product of the last eight years of mismanagement, including the channelling of trillions of dollars into a war that was based on lies and deception.  Rove, Bush, and Cheney engineered the selling of a personal vendetta to the American public, greatly enriching themselves in the process.
> 
> Even now, as Obama tries to move forward on his own goals - which it seems he has a mandate from the American public to do - the debate is being skewed and delayed by absolutely atrocious propaganda efforts led by insurance industry lobbies and "astroturf" groups. Then there is the utterly ridiculous birther movement.  Arguing about their validity makes about as much sense as arguing about the colour of unicorns, a friend told me yesterday.




The meltdown ca be traced to the Clinton days when rules where changed regarding lending regulations, also take a look at who was on th boards of Freddie and May, quite a few high ranking Dem names involved. Both McCain and Bush warned about the issues several years in advance of the meltdown. The Rep. still take some of the blame, but certainly not all of it. 

One Obama's problems will be living up to the mythology being built around him, combined with a press who's love affair is begining to wilt.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2009)

:nod:


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (6 Aug 2009)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm old school, but I think there's something to knowing that the person running the country is smarter than I am that has a certain appeal... it's like watching the CFL, it's good football, until you realize that the linemen make less than you do.  Sarah Palin is a charming person, but frankly, she is far too uneducated to run the free world.



Palin has a degree in journalism from the University of Idaho.  Obama has a law degree from Harvard.  Whether one is better educated to lead the free world is a matter of opinion and not fact.  Some people, myself included, see no advantage to a leader having a law degree nor an advantage to a leader having a Harvard degree nor an advantage in having any degree.  Part of the problem is that, in general, people you don't agree with appear stupider.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (6 Aug 2009)

I suppose, but I vote conservative. At the end of the day, US politics is more polar than even ours is. I would say though that the right wing types seem to be far more "boisterous" about their beliefs. Leftists tend to be more prone to the intellectual superiority. The Republicans have many smart, well articulated folks. Sarah Palin is not one of them, nor was George W. Bush. If you  need any proof, just watch her interviews during the election, or the debate.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2009)

Take away Obama's teleprompter and he has trouble stringing three sentences together. I would prefer someone who talks on the level with other people rather than someone who likes using big words and catch phrases while talking down to them.

It's all moot anyway, POTUS may seem to be a powerful figure and rule the strongest nation on earth, but he's really just a figurehead. There are too many checks and balances, and too many levels of 'advisors' for him\her to go off willy nilly and do whatever they want.


----------



## GAP (6 Aug 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Take away Obama's teleprompter and he has trouble stringing three sentences together. I would prefer someone who talks on the level with other people rather than someone who likes using big words and catch phrases while talking down to them.
> 
> It's all moot anyway, POTUS may seem to be a powerful figure and rule the strongest nation on earth, but he's really just a figurehead. There are too many checks and balances, and too many levels of 'advisors' for him\her to go off willy nilly and do whatever they want.



Unless the words on the teleprompter and his "team" can convince enough people that want change that "this" change will do the trick!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Aug 2009)

Regardless of which party people belong to, reaching level to be either a President or Prime Minister generally excludes “stupid people” I don’t think Obama, Palin, Clinton or Bush are stupid people, they may not interview well or be as prepared as they would like. Just thinking what the schedule would be like for anyone that becomes the POTUS makes my head hurt.

Stick Palin, Bush, Obama and Biden out on the Tundra, I know which team I would take. Palin was thrown into the fray with little prep, most people enter it with a couple of year of preparation. Also remember that everything you see gets filtered, and those filtering have a bias. I fully expect to see Palin back again. Despite some stumbles she has the gift of not being part of the beltway and not tainted with much of the Rep. Infighting. With some polish she will reviti

I think history will be kind to Bush, He upset a very rotten applecart in the Middle East and the apples are still rolling, the results of his actions will play out for many years. I also think that unless something significant happens in the next few years, Obama’s only footnote in history will be as “First Black POTUS” As for the economic crisis, just how many people can name the US President in 1929 without Google’s help?


----------



## Redeye (7 Aug 2009)

The origin of the housing market meltdown isn't precisely traceable as fault lies with both parties, the private sector, unscrupulous lenders, etc etc ad nauseum.  Trying to blame it on any one party, person, president, whoever is impossible, and above all, irrelevant.  That's only one small part of the American economic problem.  In eight years the USA went from running budget surpluses to running massive deficits (which oddly enough in history is sort of the norm for Republican governments).  I accept that the disposal of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the military commitment of NATO to that region was necessary after 9/11 (if I didn't believe in that mission, as a reservist I would not have volunteered to serve there next year).  The invasion of Iraq, however, was wrong.  I'm not going to argue about legality (or the unenforceablility of international law or whatever), but it was simply wrong.  Perhaps if Bush 41 had finished the job in 1991 as MR supports, it would have turned out differently then (before Hussein had stoked religious fervour in what had for years been a secular nation), but in 2003 it was wrong.  Bush et al used lies (obvious lies to anyone who had any understanding of the region, as well) to sell the war to the public.  I think some part of them honestly believed that it was going to be a lot easier, but a country with two long-disenfranchised sects/ethnic groups (the Kurds and the Shia) forming the majority of the population was obviously going to cause problems once the Baathist state was disposed of.

Iraq was boondoggle on a Mongolian Clusterf**k scale.  It has cost American taxpayers thousands of soldiers' lives and billions if not trillions of dollars, to say nothing of what it has done to the people of Iraq who have died in the tens of thousands at the conservative end of the scale.  The tide of Iraqi refugees has caused problems for neighbouring states like Jordan, and provided a ripe opportunity for Iran to rattle its sabre and stoke violence in its neighbour.

There's no easy way out of it for America, and the fiscal damage is preventing meaningful debate on issues like healthcare reform.  They worry about further deficits but the lion's share of them are funding the debacle in Iraq still, and now even more scandal is emerging over it, with things like Erik Prince's murder allegations and so on coming to light.

I don't think Obama is some messianic figure or that he's somehow going to be able to save America in a few months (the standard by which his opponents seem to want to judge him), but I do think he was the right man for the job vice John McCain who didn't seem to offer anything to counter what has gone horribly wrong with America in the last eight years.  I similarly can't have seen another Republican government having done much else to handle the economic meltdown.  They would have engaged in the same sort of economic stimulus efforts they claim so passionately to oppose now because they probably don't have any better ideas... no one seems to.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> The meltdown ca be traced to the Clinton days when rules where changed regarding lending regulations, also take a look at who was on th boards of Freddie and May, quite a few high ranking Dem names involved. Both McCain and Bush warned about the issues several years in advance of the meltdown. The Rep. still take some of the blame, but certainly not all of it.
> 
> One Obama's problems will be living up to the mythology being built around him, combined with a press who's love affair is begining to wilt.


----------



## mariomike (7 Aug 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think history will be kind to Bush, He upset a very rotten applecart in the Middle East and the apples are still rolling, the results of his actions will play out for many years. I also think that unless something significant happens in the next few years, Obama’s only footnote in history will be as “First Black POTUS” As for the economic crisis, just how many people can name the US President in 1929 without Google’s help?



Archie Bunker sang, "Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again."
From Wikipedia:
"After the defeat, Hoover's attempts to reach out to Roosevelt to help calm investors and begin to resolve the economic problems facing the country were rebuffed; since Roosevelt was not inaugurated until March 1933, this "guaranteed that Roosevelt took the oath of office amid such an atmosphere of crisis that Hoover had become the most hated man in America."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Aug 2009)

People forget that the situation prior to the Invasion was not sustainable. The US and UK were spending billions to enforce the no fly zones, Saddam only complied with the UN at the last moment in an attempt to forestall the invasion, he was actively trying to rebuild his WMD program and the missiles to deliver it. The US had very poor humit based intelligence on his program and it is likely that Saddam kept everyone in the dark to maintain a potential of a creditable effectiveness as deterrent to Iran. The sanctions were failing, Saddam was offering China, Russia and France access to his oil reserves as part payment on his astronomical debts that he owed. Had the US not invaded, we would currently see a Iraq under Saddam being rearmed likely with mainly Chinese equipment, posing a major threat to everyone. Within a decade you would have likely have a nuke armed Iraq and Iran jostling with each other and very likely to use their weapons, both sides have used WMD’s already.

Thank you but I much rather live with “Bush’s mistake” than the alternative, however I do agree that Bush senior should have finished the job in 91. Iraq was in much better shape to rebound at that point.


----------



## Redeye (7 Aug 2009)

The Iraqi WMD program had halted years prior to the invasion.  That's why the UN couldn't find any evidence of it, and the Americans could not either.

I have a hard time believing the idea that Saddam Hussein had any intention of doing anything but keeping himself looking strong domestically.  He knew Iran would not be in any mood to fight him, nor anyone else, but if it had been done right in the first place it'd be a non-issue anyhow.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> People forget that the situation prior to the Invasion was not sustainable. The US and UK were spending billions to enforce the no fly zones, Saddam only complied with the UN at the last moment in an attempt to forestall the invasion, he was actively trying to rebuild his WMD program and the missiles to deliver it. The US had very poor humit based intelligence on his program and it is likely that Saddam kept everyone in the dark to maintain a potential of a creditable effectiveness as deterrent to Iran. The sanctions were failing, Saddam was offering China, Russia and France access to his oil reserves as part payment on his astronomical debts that he owed. Had the US not invaded, we would currently see a Iraq under Saddam being rearmed likely with mainly Chinese equipment, posing a major threat to everyone. Within a decade you would have likely have a nuke armed Iraq and Iran jostling with each other and very likely to use their weapons, both sides have used WMD’s already.
> 
> Thank you but I much rather live with “Bush’s mistake” than the alternative, however I do agree that Bush senior should have finished the job in 91. Iraq was in much better shape to rebound at that point.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (7 Aug 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Had the US not invaded, we would currently see a Iraq under Saddam being rearmed likely with mainly Chinese equipment, posing a major threat to everyone. Within a decade you would have likely have a nuke armed Iraq and Iran jostling with each other and very likely to use their weapons, both sides have used WMD’s already.



I'm interested to see what your sources are for this claim... Iraq had no nuclear program, it's military was dillapadated, there was absolutely no new equipment, and the Air Force was buried in sand dunes.  They had no military capability whatsoever to do anything than control their own people.  And where does china fit into this? china can't arm the Chinese military at this time.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (7 Aug 2009)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I'm interested to see what your sources are for this claim... Iraq had no nuclear program, it's military was dillapadated, there was absolutely no new equipment, and the Air Force was buried in sand dunes.  They had no military capability whatsoever to do anything than control their own people.  And where does china fit into this? china can't arm the Chinese military at this time.



No nukes - Israel took care of that, but there are reports of buying strategic parts in Germany that used centrifuges to upgrade uranium instead of a reactor..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart3.html


----------



## Redeye (7 Aug 2009)

They had sought centrifuge parts in the very early 1990s and when caught they gave up on that too.  So again, the WMD issue is a total non-starter, and as Bird Gunner pointed out their military was obliterated to the point of uselessness for the most part after 1991 as well.



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> No nukes - Israel took care of that, but there are reports of buying strategic parts in Germany that used centrifuges to upgrade uranium instead of a reactor..
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm
> 
> http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart3.html


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Aug 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I have a hard time believing the idea that Saddam Hussein had any intention of doing anything but keeping himself looking strong domestically.  He knew Iran would not be in any mood to fight him, nor anyone else, but if it had been done right in the first place it'd be a non-issue anyhow.



Iraq is better now then it has been in the Saddam era. He was ruthless, and 100s of thousands were tortured and killed.

Numerous UN sanctions so the people suffered.

Now its teething problems for a new democratic nation, experiencing freedom for the first time.

I am glad I was there.

Sooner or later something had to be done, and the outcome rather bloody is over now and people are free. Thats what its all about.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2009)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I'm interested to see what your sources are for this claim... Iraq had no nuclear program, it's military was dillapadated, there was absolutely no new equipment, and the Air Force was buried in sand dunes.  They had no military capability whatsoever to do anything than control their own people.  And where does china fit into this? china can't arm the Chinese military at this time.



The only reason the UN inspectors found out about his nuke program is because his brother inlaw defected and spilled the beans on the program. Just prior to the invasion Iraq was caught building offensive rockets, shortly after the invasion some of his scientist dug up data and important bits from their garden where they had been ordered to hide them. The reality was that no one really knew what was going on, likely including Saddam as telling him that the program you are running is not working might get you executed or worse. As I mentioned the sanctions were failing the USA either had to admit failure in containing him or invade, did they leap onto any excuse to do it, yes likely as the world doesn’t care about how much Iraqi’s or Kurds suffered, the world wouldn’t lift a finger to save them. Under Bush Iran was likely sh*tting themselves worried about an attack, under Obama they will be laughing as they know the US is very unlikely to act.

When people say the invasion was a bad thing, ask them what their solution to the dilemma was, 9/10th will not have a clue about what was even going on, much less thought about it. I do wish that Bush had not listen to Rummy and had given Bremer the boot. Maintaining the Iraq army from the get go and taking the slow approach to de-baathication would have reduced a lot of the problems in my view.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Aug 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Under Bush Iran was likely sh*tting themselves worried about an attack, under Obama they will be laughing as they know the US is very unlikely to act.


----------



## observor 69 (9 Aug 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> When people say the invasion was a bad thing, ask them what their solution to the dilemma was, 9/10th will not have a clue about what was even going on, much less thought about it. I do wish that Bush had not listen to Rummy and had given Bremer the boot. Maintaining the Iraq army from the get go and taking the slow approach to de-baathication would have reduced a lot of the problems in my view.



"On May 23, 2003 Bremer issued Order Number 2,[28] in effect dissolving the entire former Iraqi army and putting 400,000 former Iraqi soldiers out of work."   :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Disbanding_of_the_Iraqi_Army


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2009)

The old army and police were a security risk to a new Iraqi government. We had to clean the slate and start over. In fact we did such a poor job of vetting the police/army that we had to start over after MG Eaton was fired. The Army had ceased to exist after the invasion being a draftee force they just went home. The Republican Guard and security services just went underground. The core of which we have been killing since 2003. They have little future in a free Iraq and no incentive to lay down their weapons.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Aug 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The only reason the UN inspectors found out about his nuke program is because his brother inlaw defected and spilled the beans on the program. Just prior to the invasion Iraq was caught building offensive rockets, shortly after the invasion some of his scientist dug up data and important bits from their garden where they had been ordered to hide them. The reality was that no one really knew what was going on, likely including Saddam as telling him that the program you are running is not working might get you executed or worse. As I mentioned the sanctions were failing the USA either had to admit failure in containing him or invade, did they leap onto any excuse to do it, yes likely as the world doesn’t care about how much Iraqi’s or Kurds suffered, the world wouldn’t lift a finger to save them. Under Bush Iran was likely sh*tting themselves worried about an attack, under Obama they will be laughing as they know the US is very unlikely to act.



Can you source any of this really? This seems like something I would read on FOX news or something. Even during hte recently released interviews with Saddam he readily admits that there was no nuclear or WMD programs... they pretended to have them o save face in Iraq and to project power to the Iranians.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2009)

Who cares either way?!! It happened.

Lets move forrward, this "he said, she said" is loooooong past the shelf best due date.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Aug 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The old army and police were a security risk to a new Iraqi government. We had to clean the slate and start over. In fact we did such a poor job of vetting the police/army that we had to start over after MG Eaton was fired. The Army had ceased to exist after the invasion being a draftee force they just went home. The Republican Guard and security services just went underground. The core of which we have been killing since 2003. They have little future in a free Iraq and no incentive to lay down their weapons.



Well there not much point going back to topic as it appears the story was false, however Tomahawk brings up an interesting subject, should the US maintained the Iraq army and Revolutionary Guard or disbanded them? My take was to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. A semi-functioning army could have kept them busy and might have been useful guarding border regions on the Iranian side.

Bird Gunner, you should read the UNSC reports, I think it was the Feb 2003 one were Han’s Blix asks the question: “What are they hiding”  The discovery of the long range rocket is in their reports as well, not to mention there was lot’s of footage of it at the time. Saddams brother inlaw defection is well known as was his information on the nuke program. He eventually went back, and was killed by Saddam and/or his goons. I personally would not trust anything Saddam said even at the end, he was a man that always played an angle. You should go to the Library and take out the book written by his personal Physician, a good look at why the Iraqi regime didn’t know what was going on in it’s own country.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... I think it was the Feb 2003 one were Han’s Blix asks the question: “What are they hiding”  The discovery of the long range rocket is in their reports as well, not to mention there was lot’s of footage of it at the time. Saddams brother inlaw defection is well known as was his information on the nuke program. He eventually went back, and was killed by Saddam and/or his goons...




At the risk of dragging us even further off topic: I seem to recall that there was a broad general consensus - including Blix and France and pretty much everyone - that Saddam *had* chemical weapons. He had, after all, used them on his own people. (And against the Iranians?) There was some dispute about *current* chemical weapons and potential nuclear weapons but the doubt was not about his trying to acquire WMDs, the doubt, such as it was, was about how successful he might have been.

I think that as it became more and more evident that the US planned to go to war - despite an equally broad general consensus against that course of action - the consensus about Saddam being up to no good began to crumble. Politics always triumphs.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Aug 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...- that Saddam *had* chemical weapons. He had, after all, used them on his own people. (And against the Iranians?) ...



He used them against the Iranians during the '80 - '88 war.  I saw the results.

He also used them against his own people - although I was not a personal witness to the aftermath there.


----------



## Xiang (11 Aug 2009)

> At the risk of dragging us even further off topic: I seem to recall that there was a broad general consensus - including Blix and France and pretty much everyone - that Saddam had chemical weapons. He had, after all, used them on his own people.



I don't think there was any real belief that Saddam had NO WMD.. They were the weapons arsenal the US helped him build which he then used on the Kurds and Iranian army.

These weapons were, after the invasion, discovered to be nothing more than the agents sitting in rusted munitions.

The war was trumped up on Saddams supposed active weapons programs, which turned out to be false.

The weapons found in the warehouses were never called the smoking gun because they were the weapons we all knew he had.. not weapons that were a result of his non existent weapons program the CIA and Bush administration claimed he had.


----------



## observor 69 (11 Aug 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The old army and police were a security risk to a new Iraqi government. We had to clean the slate and start over. In fact we did such a poor job of vetting the police/army that we had to start over after MG Eaton was fired. The Army had ceased to exist after the invasion being a draftee force they just went home. The Republican Guard and security services just went underground. The core of which we have been killing since 2003. They have little future in a free Iraq and no incentive to lay down their weapons.



Conflicting Views

Though Mr. Bremer was the senior civilian official in Iraq, General McKiernan, the senior American military commander at the time, had a very different view on how to raise a new Iraqi military. 

American commanders had hoped that Iraqi units would stay in their deployment areas and surrender en masse instead of running away. While Mr. Bremer argued that desertions meant that the Iraqi Army had disbanded, General McKiernan believed it could be re-established by recalling the soldiers as well as some generals and senior officers who commanded them.

“We knew they had either gone home or come out of uniform,” said General McKiernan, who was in charge of the land forces during the invasion and was recently chosen to lead the NATO force in Afghanistan. “The idea was to bring in the Iraqi soldiers and their officers, put them on a roster and sort out the bad guys as we went.”

At the Central Command, Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid, who served as the deputy commander, had a similar view. He told associates that Arab armies were traditionally large to keep angry young men off the street and under the supervision of the government. For General Abizaid, a three-division force was a good starting point, but he wanted to expand the force to as close to 10 divisions as possible. 

As Mr. Bremer and Mr. Slocombe began to prepare their decree, one important question raised by the Pentagon was whether General McKiernan was on board. Mr. Slocombe assigned the task of determining General McKiernan’s position to Col. Greg Gardner, an Army officer on his staff who has since retired from the military.

Mr. Bremer’s headquarters was in the Green Zone in central Baghdad, while General McKiernan’s was at a base near the Baghdad airport several miles away. Colonel Gardner said that there were problems with telephone communications but that he finally reached a member of General McKiernan’s staff who told him that the general accepted the decree. 

“I got the impression that Lieutenant General McKiernan was not all that keen about the course of action,” Colonel Gardner said, “but was clearly told that he did endorse the draft.” Colonel Gardner added that he could not recall the name of the staff officer he spoke with. 

General McKiernan, however, asserted that he neither reviewed nor backed the decree. “I never saw that order and never concurred,” he said. “That is absolutely false.” 

Lt. Gen. J. D. Thurman, who serves as the Army’s chief operations officer and was the top operations officer for General McKiernan at the time, had a similar recollection. “We did not get a chance to make a comment,” he said in an e-mail message. “Not sure they wanted to hear what we had to say.” 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/world/middleeast/17bremer.html?pagewanted=print


----------

