DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Gadarett** · 03-03-2011, 05:48 PM

Which would have been met with the proverbial middle finger extended in prior years. I fail to see the extraction of $1.5B as "lenient"; but that's politics for you. :: shrug ::

It's lenient in that it came up far short of what we requested, but we accepted.
Let's also not forget that the claim settlement deal was approved in the U.S. Senate (of which Mr. Obama was a part) by unanimous consent. S. 3370 [110th]: Libyan Claims Resolution Act (GovTrack.us)

To the extent this was "leniency" it was across the political spectrum. Sure thing, but Bush is the one who signed it into law when he had the power to veto it. Once again, I'm not doing this to put Bush in a negative light or anything. If anything, this helps show that Bush wasn't the crazy 'shoot first ask questions later' cowboy that the left often characterizes him as.

Well, you did say that President Bush was "much more lenient" than President Obama. I don't think it's a fair comparison at all for the reasons above-stated; nor was it necessary to refute the pussy/badass dichotomy you mention. Bush was much more lenient with Libya than Obama has been so far (and I did say that). I recognize that this is completely subject to change. I also recognize that the situation was much different under Bush, so the opportunity for leniency hasn't presented itself to Obama as it did for Bush. And yes, I think it's necessary in this particular discussion, as the OP claimed that Obama throw out the "big stick", implying that Bush always held onto it tightly. That's not the case and I was attempting to show it. They're both willing to negotiate, they're both willing to project power. That's all I'm really getting at. If you feel I'm trying to put Bush in a negative light, I can't really help with that, because I think I've been rather fair.

03-03-2011, 05:48 PM	#22
Gadarett Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 445 Senior Member	Which would have been met with the proverbial middle finger extended in prior years. I fail to see the extraction of $1.5B as "lenient"; but that's politics for you. :: shrug :: It's lenient in that it came up far short of what we requested, but we accepted. Let's also not forget that the claim settlement deal was approved in the U.S. Senate (of which Mr. Obama was a part) by unanimous consent. S. 3370 [110th]: Libyan Claims Resolution Act (GovTrack.us) To the extent this was "leniency" it was across the political spectrum. Sure thing, but Bush is the one who signed it into law when he had the power to veto it. Once again, I'm not doing this to put Bush in a negative light or anything. If anything, this helps show that Bush wasn't the crazy 'shoot first ask questions later' cowboy that the left often characterizes him as. Well, you did say that President Bush was "much more lenient" than President Obama. I don't think it's a fair comparison at all for the reasons above-stated; nor was it necessary to refute the pussy/badass dichotomy you mention. Bush was much more lenient with Libya than Obama has been so far (and I did say that). I recognize that this is completely subject to change. I also recognize that the situation was much different under Bush, so the opportunity for leniency hasn't presented itself to Obama as it did for Bush. And yes, I think it's necessary in this particular discussion, as the OP claimed that Obama throw out the "big stick", implying that Bush always held onto it tightly. That's not the case and I was attempting to show it. They're both willing to negotiate, they're both willing to project power. That's all I'm really getting at. If you feel I'm trying to put Bush in a negative light, I can't really help with that, because I think I've been rather fair.
	Quote