Obama: Ask Osama If I’m An Appeaser

"Ask Osama bin Laden if I'm an appeaser, b1tch!"

I have SOOO been waiting for him to slap his thing down nice and hard like that.

good on you, Mr. President.

I have SOOO been waiting for him to slap his thing down nice and hard like that.

I just have this image of the first presidential debate...

Republican Nominee: "Frankly, I question the president's manhood."

President Obama: *pulls down boxers* "Any more questions?"

That being said, Mr. Obama has been awfully appeasing to Republicans in Congress. If this is the beginning of a new, more forceful Obama presidency, I think we just might be okay.

Pretty good retort to the half twitted freaks of the republican jerks for jesus machine.

The man has great timing.
You watch, he'll peak at exactly the right time.
And the country will be ready to bitch slap the social conservative tea bagging republicans into the last century.

President Obama should get the credit for taking out a number of Al Qadia terrorist to include Bin Laden. But those on the left who continue to say that the President is getting things done that "they" (meaning republicans) couldn't do is a stretch.

Intelligence collection, assessment, and source development takes a considerable amount of time. The US did inflict mass number of insurgents, terrorist, and Al Qadia backed individuals and cells in Iraq and Afghanistan. We obtained the information on Bin Laden from sources which we picked up and detained during the Bush jr era. All the information finally lined up and we took Bin Laden out. It just happened on President Obama's watch. Good for him, glad he made the approval to take him out. But this idea that the President was sitting in his office and makes a call saying, "go find Bin Laden because I want him dead" is incorrect. Some staffer informed him that we had credible intelligence on a confirmed position on Bin Laden and he made the call to say "okay do it." The plan was already in the mix an they had developed several courses of action to determine the best approach to take.

Once we obtained the intelligence from the complex we began to take out several key players. Why? Bin Laden who had avoided capture and was being given protection from the Pakistan government most likely felt that there was no need to hide or get rid of the information. His mistake our gain.

I supported President Obama's call to allow the military to take Bin Laden out, but let's not assume that the last President did nothing in regards of taking out terrorist cells. There are many missions and events that the American public will never hear or know about but the end results are the same, bad guys taking dirt naps in order to prevent another 9/11.

President Obama: *pulls down boxers* "Any more questions?"

You owe me a clean monitor Fufu. :)

I supported President Obama's call to allow the military to take Bin Laden out, but let's not assume that the last President did nothing in regards of taking out terrorist cells.

let's not assume,
let's go by what the president said about Bin Laden six months after 9/11:

"We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is," Bush said during the 2002 news conference. "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.

"I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country," Bush continued. "I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaeda killers anymore."

If that was the case then no operations would have been diverted or requested to seek out and kill Bin Laden. At least three major operations were conducted in Afghanistan along the Pakistan border. One of those operations it was later confirmed that Bin Laden was among the area at which we were hitting. So Bush jr did make that remark but he had several intelligence communities that were still tracking and searching for Bin Laden. We were picking up his known close associates and personnel. If we had no interest in UBL then resources as well as developing human intelligence sources would have not be allocated.

If that was the case then no operations would have been diverted or requested to seek out and kill Bin Laden.

no, that really was the case (if you believe president Bush is to be taken at his word) and he was a peripheral concern which is why it took ten years to find him.

If we had no interest in UBL then resources as well as developing human intelligence sources would have not be allocated.

nobody said we had "no" interest. The president said he truly wasn't concerned about him.

who knows? maybe president Bush was right, maybe he was marginalized, no longer a potent force. But let's not give president Bush any more credit than he's willing to give himself.

His focus did include finding and taking out UBL. Whether he made public disclosure after US troops crossed over into Iraq and the increase of foreign fighters, insurgents, and jihadists into that region is something to still be determined, but large scale operations in Afghanistan would still need something of Presidential oversight or situational awareness. He like President Obama received daily briefs from his military reps in addition to various intelligence communities. A situation where UBL may have been hiding would reach the top tier in the White House. I doubt that Bush jr said, "okay, you handle it I have better things to do.." Why would President Bush make public comments and say, "where is my credit?" He spoke with President Obama and gave him his congrats. There was no need for Bush jr to say, "oh, I assisted in this matter so you should thank me as well." President Obama was fully aware that a large portion of historical and dated material and intelligence to include signal intelligence was acquired on Bush jr watch. It was not a situation to out-do the other person each President gave each other their just dues. Otherwise President Obama could have just as easily said, "I killed UBL, I did it all."

I have said several times that I give President Obama his dues on that subject, what bothers me is the approach that Bush jr nor his cabinet or administration had anything to do with UBL taking a dirt nap. That is not the case.

My tone or responses are not to cause anyone to get upset, I was voicing my personal opinion and experience in the field both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I doubt that Bush jr said, "okay, you handle it I have better things to do.."

except that's just about exactly what he said in the aforementioned press conference.

I have said several times that I give President Obama his dues on that subject, what bothers me is the approach that Bush jr nor his cabinet or administration had anything to do with UBL taking a dirt nap. That is not the case.

fair enough. I pretty much see it the same way and get irritated when people try to say president Obama doesn't deserve any credit and Bush deserves all of it. Two sides, same coin, I guess.

@ greck:

I supported President Obama on making that tough call whether to go or not to take UBL out. There are some issues that I disagree with the current administration but as to being effective on killing the top tier of international terrorist, I give him his credit. Two sides, one coin, but we are capable of debating the issue like adults and maintaining composure, thank you for allowing me to discuss my side or feelings on the subject and I appreciate your input as well. I wish newsvine was more like this than the constant barrage of comments depending on your political party affiliations or voting history.

but he had several intelligence communities that were still tracking and searching for Bin Laden.

Until he subsequently had them shut down. They were set back up at Obama's orders.

Which cells? What sections? CIA, DIA, NSA, various elements of the military intelligence centers? I know several cells that were still active and looking during the Bush jr years. There was no order placed within those sections to "stop looking for UBL and look for something else."

Go read #1.60.

Amazing enough I actually did a considerable amount of research concerning UBL prior to the push into Iraq. After two combat deployments and tracking Iranian involvement we were back looking at UBL. I read your 1.60 statement. So Bush made a statement back in 2002, big deal, there were sections within Special Operations Command, INSCOM, as well as specific sections of the Defense Intelligence Agency that were tracking UBL and his key associates, not even getting into the NSA bit. No order was tasked to us to stop looking for UBL and if we had totally shut down every asset, source, and intelligence means then how did we conjur several detain/capture actions, and at least three large scale operations in Afghanistan to kill/capture UBL? You have to have something in order to send various elements into known enemy areas of activities to search for one person. But I am sure people here will be telling me I know nothing about such things and I must be a "plant". I have deployed to the Middle East several tours and I have been involved in such things for a good period of time. But I'll let the other experts tell me something I apparently have no idea on.

I like how the emphasis is how "sly" the administration was as to keeping Pakistan in the dark? As of like the current situation where Pakistan has been more aggressive in supporting insurgents in the open? UBL frequently moved from Peshawar Pakistan back into Afghanistan. He had total support from the Pakistan government and senior ISI intelligence services. The vast amount of information that is missing concerning this assessment that President Obama fooled Pakistan is as good as the Pakistan sources being "picked up" by Pakistan Intelligence after what was left of UBL was pitched over the side of a US carrier. Those individuals were given up by the administation to "save face" and to collect the remaining tail rotor section on that downed helicopter. In order to prevent the Chinese intelligence from gaining access to the back rotor the administration gave up the people who told where UBL was at. But continue to believe that this was all on the "sly" approach.

You guys were right, Bush jr told all of "us" to stop looking for UBL. All the intelligence gathered prior to President Obama being elected was handed to us, no one had to do a thing.

To sumarize it all, Bush failed. Thanks for the elaboration any way.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, makes no difference to me. The fact that we killed top tier agents on Al Qaida and various support cells working in conjunction with AQ during both Bush jr and now President Obama is a good thing, but hold off on the idea that Bush did nothing and totally failed at prevented terrorist acts and killing known terrorist.

Please detail exactly how he is appeasing Iran.....and while doing so, please indicate that you have a clue what the word "appeasement" actually means.

web, appeasement is making consessions to avoid war. It's a form of diplomacy.

Agreeing to talks with known terrorism supporters and known manufacturers of IEDs used against our people could certainly be viewed as a form of appeasement.

Obama had my approval for Lybia, so please don't mistake me for an ideologue. I'm looking forward to Syria as well. Iran is next. Not sure why the kid gloves, to be honest.

No WWII connections intended.

Good enough for ya?

ahh so to right wingers like you all diplomacy is evil? got it.
Tell me what concessions to avoid war, did Obama give Iran.

Iran recently showed off a US drone it had forced down in it's airspace. Are flying drones over another countries airspace without their permission, a part of appeasement? does this encourage avoiding war, or discourage avoiding war.

I'm not a right winger and I don't think all diplomacy is evil. Where did you get that from?

And the current story from the White House is that the drone went off course from Afghanistan, not that we were flying it intentionally into Iran.

Seriously Naughtia?

Close, but not quite - appeasing involves ACCEDING to the DEMANDS of a hostile nation - not simply "treating them with kid gloves".....what demands have we ACCEDED to regarding Iran? None that I can think of.

What I CAN think of is the organized UN boycott/walkout on the Iranian President's speech (I can't spell his name and don't feel like looking it up) - lead by the US delegation AND NATO. Then there's the fact that we have not have an embassy there for 30 years, and the sanctions, and the push for weapons inspectors, and the continued pledge (backed up with aid, weapons, training, shared intel, etc) to support Israel and the decimate Iran if it attacked our closest ally in the region. Then there was the work with other Arab countries to continue a longstanding (yes, going back to Reagan) policy to CONTAIN Iran and push for change from within rather than meddling like we had done in the past, resulting in the rise to power of Khomeini in the first place.

But as we are not going all out and declaring war on Iran AND Syria OR Lybia OR any other country, I guess we're just not doing enough......we need to go full-on John Bolton don't we?

You said all that needs to be said below in #5:

"Fox is reporting....."

Yep - Fox, who employs the warmongers that brought us the Iraq clusterfck is trying to gin up support for a bombing campaign in Iran.....and they've been doing it for years.

web, appeasement is making consessions to avoid war. It's a form of diplomacy.

Diplomacy usually works better than war. In fact, war rarely resolves anything whatsoever, and of the top 10 recent conflicts I can think of, none of them resolved a single thing.

Why you think a war with Iran is necessary is beyond comprehension.
Agreeing to talks with known terrorism supporters and known manufacturers of IEDs

You know, when the right wing starts making noise about how much of a threat a nation is, I recall these same noises being made about Iraq. And I also recall that not only were you people wrong, it turns out you were lying, and it also turns out that the only apparent reason for the Iraq war was to loot our treasury by handing out sacks of cash in the Iraqi desert, which have never been accounted for.

So if you don't mind too much, and even if you do, I'm just going to ignore anything you say about Iran. Conservatives blew their credibility permanently with the manufactured hysteria about Iraq, and since you don't bother to source anything you say I don't even need to waste time trying to debunk it. I'll just assume it is a lie.

If we have a pressing need to fight a war with Iran, I want to make sure you queue up first to be assigned a rifle. No more tough-talking armchair soldiering by right-wing bloggers. Time to wipe the cheetos dust from your fingers, get an actual gun in your hand, and put you people's money where your mouth is.

Retired after 25 years-split between Army National Guard and subs.

But yes, I feel the love....

;-)

Thanks for the lectures guys!

Sorry, you clearly DO need a lecture - just because you were a servicemember doesn't mean that you know a damn thing about foreign policy, and it also shows that you didn't learn a damn thing about the proper use of our military - does not involve invading, destroying or occupying a country that only poses a threat to us in the minds of a bunch of political zealots.

Whatever web. You've identified yourself.

DNFTT

I see that.....took me a short time to figure it out, but all the signs are there.

Hmmm- and you have identified yourself too Bill.

You guys just slither amongst yourselves then...

slither?? Slither???

LMAO--typical republican response.

You're funny! Slither------Haaaaaaahaaahaaaa.

Retired after 25 years-split between Army National Guard and subs.

Sure you are. And I'm the King of Siam.

Can he be an appeaser in some circumstances (Iran) and an assassin in others (UBL)?

Just the fact that you used the name UBL that Faux news uses confirms you are a faithful FOX news clown.

Keep feeding yourself that drivel and you won't have any brain cells left.

There is no reason for the U.S. to go into Iran. Israel will take care of Iran as there is no way that Israel will allow their sworn enemy to obtain nuclear capabilities.

whino33 - - - and then the U.S. (if under Obama) will turn it's back on Israel ...

Definitely not. Will never happen. People severely underestimate what Israel brings to the table for us. Most educated people realize that we rely heavily on Israeli intelligence, however there is a lot more to it than that.

It's true that we provide Israel with 1.8 Billion or so annually, however what most people don't know is that Israel has to spend the majority of that money within the U.S. This policy is credited with providing over 50,000 Americans with jobs.

We also depend heavily on Israel for R&D and most of the technology that goes into our fighter planes.

If Israel attacks Iran, I agree that the U.S. might go as far as publicly chiding them in order to save face with the anti-Israel community (most of the world), however we will never turn on our backs on them.

Plus, Iran doesn't have any missiles that can reach the US

They launched a satellite into orbit with a booster that they made all by themselves. They may not have the guidance systems for an accurate attack, but even a nuke that goes off course and takes out only 2 cows instead of DC would cause a helluva lot of chaos here.

or even have nukes yet

"Yet" is the key word. Fortunately for us, Israel seems willing to do the same to Iran as they did to Iraq back in '84 to keep it that way. That would buy us some time.

so they are currently not a threat to the US.

Again, not yet. At the same time, their attitude towards us is unlikely to change for the better in time for anyone currently living to see it.

whino33 - - -

however we will never turn on our backs on them

You wanna make a bet? We're talking about Obama here ... and the Palestians (lol)

Obama can't even stand to be in the same room as Netanyahu ... he'd rather have lunch

Israel's future doesn't bode well with the Muslim Brotherhood desires, the Palestian wishes or the veiled endearment of the Islamic agenda by Obama.

Obviously we disagree about Obama's "veiled endearment of the Islamic agenda" as quite frankly, I think it's bullsh!t.

The right wing has made a big to do over certain comments that were merely echo's of things that previous Presidents have already said. Furthermore, Obama has always had Israel's back when it matters.

It just rankles the republicans that President Obama has had such amazing success doing what they couldn't do -- fighting the actual terrorists. Of course, they are not even patriotic enough to cheer for our victories.

@#3: I approve of the UBL killing. But he's really soft on Iran.

You think? Or perhaps, "He's softening Iran".
Now do you think Bush would have invaded Iran the way he did Iraq? Hell no!
Iraq had no mass destruction weapons and look at the big mess he created in both Iraq in the U.S. Now, remind me for I seem to forget, who was it again we were at war with in Iraq?

Bear in mind, Iran is not Iraq. They do have not only heavy destrucitve weapons and a blood-thirsty leader, but also strong allies. This is the mistake the Reps keep making, they believe other nations still tremble before the word "America". That was a thing in the past, not any more. So you'd better be well prepared and motivated before you engage the enemy you think you're going to swallow 1,2,3. Vietnam is an example.

feliznavidad:

they (Republicans) are not even patriotic enough to cheer for our victories.

That had to be said again.

Indeed! They are not patriotic Americans. They need to hear that and think it over. Thanks.

I think there are some GOP presidential nominees who would've wanted Bin Laden to still be alive.....

Ever wondered why the Bush administration allowed Ben Laden to escape from Kandanhar? Methinks it was to keep this country engaged in a perpetual war.

he sure seemed to release tapes when ever bush needed it.

...the Bush administration allowed (Bin) Laden to escape....

Do you also believe 9/11 was an inside job? Do you doubt Obama's citizenship too?

lol

Bill Fan

The more eric fuller and Stevie-445471 post the stock in their tin foil hat business goes up. They are probably birthers also.

the Bush administration allowed (Bin) Laden to escape....

It's a factual statement. Bush did allow Bin Laden to escape and when asked later what about Osama he glibly blew it off, saying he really wasn't that important.

Whether Bush did it deliberately, or because he was stunningly incompetent is really not important. Bush's behavior explains nicely as either delibeate sabotage of a nation, or just breathtaking, clodhopper-stupid mismanagement. But either way, he most certainly did let OBL escape. Otherwise, he would have caught and killed him at Tora Bora.

That's crazy - If Bush could have captured/killed Osama, he def would have. To state otherwise accomplishes nothing but making other liberals look bad.

Conjecture; Dateline USA: It was reported today that a military mission authorized by President Obama in the action to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden was met by disaster. The misison designed and based on information by Us intelligence. It appears that the mission was unable to accomplish it task. More news to follow as information filters in.

What would have the response been had this been the outcome? Who would have had to accept the responsiblity? What political reprecussions would have resulted? The President did not have to address this conjecture. It takes great courage to know that you make a decision that can have many different conclusions. I respect everyone who was involved in this action. I also give credit across the board to those responsible and of course the person ultimately responsible for ordering the action. I also acknowledge that had this failed, he would have been drawn, quartered, run over the coals and probably would have a much higher mountain to climb. I remember he was described as "weak" "no b(*&(&--lls" and the rest. This as well as the clubbing that D. Thrump took at dinner are examples that this description did not and does not apply to President Obama. I believe now that the President must also show this mettle in dealing with Congress and the GOP. He must stand by his convictions. I, for one, am willing to accept any pain associated with drawing a line in the sand and sticking with it, Mr. President. Others are also.

That's crazy - If Bush could have captured/killed Osama, he def would have.

Whether or not it's true, it would fit the GOP's need for fearmongering in their platform that's been displayed for years.

In dependant Voter,

What in the world are you talking about?

whino33

That's crazy - If Bush could have captured/killed Osama, he def would have. To state otherwise accomplishes nothing but making other liberals look bad.

Really?...well I think Bush doesn't agree with you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g

While serving as an unpaid staffer at a shelter for homeless families, a very wise old fellow explained to me in 1983 that "Reagan will never reform welfare because it's his whipping-post, and if he fixes it he can't use it to campaign against." It was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who finally did the deal (and more compassionately, i would add).

When Bush Jr. proudly declared, "I'm a war president," I realized why he let Public Enemy #1 get away so early in the Afghan war. He wanted to invade Iraq and he couldn't solve the real problem before he could milk it for his real #1 priority: oil contracts.

A lot of innocent Iraqi civilians and great, loyal American service members died as a direct result.

This president, a Democrat, did the right thing on several fronts. I liked watching "The Ed Show" tonight where he ran the clip of Obama saying "ask Osama if I'm an appeaser" after about 10-12 clips of every Republican presidential wannabe disparaging him for appeasement. I don't care much for Ed's style, but tonight when he said, "the president hit it out of the ballpark," I had to say, "Amen, Brother!"

It has been mentioned here on this blog that the President should have no credit in the capture/killing of OSL. As an independent, you above all, should understand that the action was a two edged sword. Failure brings out all the Goolies braying for blood about a President who could not get the job done. He did. Ronald Reagan gave us all that pride back so we can fly our flags. We were able to defeat the Empire of Panama as well as the successful invasion of Fortress Grenada. These are victories given to R. Reagan. President Obama as Commander in Chief, orders the captures/kill of OBL. This also is a victory. Perhaps its an ever bigger victory due to the circumstances involved. So, when you ask "what are we talking about", well, its what we've been talking about for the past 3 years. We have been analizing the victories and defeats of the President. Sometimes those battle/victories were in the theatre of healthcare reform, DADT, women's rights, debt ceiling battles........the hostage taking scenarios etc etc. Now we must include actions against OSL, Kadafy as victories. It could have gone the other way. But, and most importantly, it didn't.

I love how all the right wingers cry foul at the mention of Bushs name when talking about the mess Obama inherited... but when Obama is given due credit for osamas assassination... it was all because of Bush!!!

LMAO - you guys are crazy !!

Your video link does not in any way support the fact that Bush wouldn't have captured Bin Laden if he had the opportunity to do so. He makes a good point by saying that the war on terror is bigger than one person and he admits that he doesn't know where Bin Laden is.

Sorry Chucky, but I totally stand by my statement. As you can see from my comment history, I am quite liberal. However, I feel that asinine comments like the ones above from Stevie and Thisbusymonster do nothing but discredit rational liberals such as myself.

"The people of Egypt have spoken. Their voices have been heard. And Egypt will never be the same.

With the election results Obama was right about the last part. Except it looks like that are heading backwards a few hundred years.

I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you. -

G.W.Bush when asked about Osama Bin Ladin

If you really believe that you and Bin Laden had that in common.

The bin Ladin family invested heavily in Bush's businesses and his daddy was having breakfast with Osama's brother on the morning of 911. The Bin ladin family were given clear air space to be the only ones flying to leave the US days after 911.

When Bush said he didn't spend much time looking for him I took him at his word. Of course if Bush had gotten him or made an attempt that would have been different...did I miss something IV?

Except it looks like that are heading backwards a few hundred years.

It is THEIR country, who are we to tell them how to run it, so long as it is the will of the PEOPLE?

Fred, we can try to influence them now or fight them later.

...did I miss something IV?

The color of your tin foil hat and the device you use to play the Twilight Zone music...or does it run continous in your head?

I took him at his word

Why? You did not believe anything he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml

http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

#6.6 flagged as no value and inflammatory . Some here will quote BillO flames to dispute the facts... sorry, that doesn't qualify as debate.

GWB didn't just say that Osama wasn't important, he shut down the CIA mission to find him. Virtually on the first day of his administration (actually right after appointing Panetta) President Obama gave the order to find UBL and insured to finance the effort. Facts that no matter how hard the right wing tries to deny can't be avoided.

Yes Ron, Independent Voter knows these facts as well, but chooses to insult the messenger with worn out BillO flames rather than face the historical record.

Nevermind Bill and IV they are both Fox entertainment junkies.

Fred, we can try to influence them now or fight them later.

The first part is true, the second is a HUGE assumption on your part. And we ARE influencing them by demonstrating how freedom is a GOOD thing, and how religious doctrine is inappropriate in government.

Going in shooting or demanding they behave how WE want them to, is a guarantee they won't.

I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you. -

G.W.Bush when asked about Osama Bin Ladin

If you really believe that you and Bin Laden had that in common.

Except that the team that was supposed to be looking for him was shut down for good in 2006. And of course, let's not forget that Bush had 8 years to get the guy and just flat-out never did.

That is because he stopped trying.

Let's not forget that the revolution in Egypt started mainly with the youth and that our president, a year or so earlier, inspired them with a speech at a major college there. I give this president credit for inspiring the Arab Spring, to some degree, and thereby earning to some extent the "aspirational" Nobel peace Prie that he was awarded. He lived up to it. In the words of the Army captain in Saving Private Ryan, "Earn This," I believe President Obama earned that prize when he inspired Eqyptian youth to work toward genuine democracy. I cannot imagine another president in our lifetimes having more or better inspired the youth in so many arab countries. Other events played huge roles in the Arab Spring, but I cannot discount having the right US president inspire rather than insult them as being a big part of that matrix, too.

Liberal lemmings are so funny that they heap praise on a man who is intent on collapsing our economy by printing (actually digitizing) money to make our dollar worth less and spending a billion dollars or more in order to get re-elected ... all the while wanting to raise taxes on those who make over $250,000 per year who already pay the majority (and more than their equal share) of income taxes collected. And ... instead of being a unifier, he encourages class warfare to assure his popularity with the masses.

Yeah, that's quite a President we have there. (Oh yeah ... and he killed Bin Laden ... shot him dead he did)

Ron ...your last post makes no sense t all. As bad as the economy is right now inflation is not a problem. Your rant about printing money has no basis in fact. I don't know where you got it from but it is a made up problem that does not exist.

When 1% make the majority of the money and hold the majority of the wealth it only makes sense that they would, and should pay the majority of the taxes.

The country is unified under Obama. Most of the 1% support his tax plan and all of the 99% do. Only a tiny legion of traitorous congressmen are sworn to protect the wealthiest of the wealthy from sharing in the responsibility of our debt. These traitors were bribed to take this oath and to hold in higher regard than the oath they took to the American people and their nation.

Class warfare was declared decades ago by the republican party and if you look at who has made all the financial gains it is easy to see who is winning ... so far...

Obama commanded the forces that got Bin Laden. You can't stand that fact but it is the historical record.

I don't think most republicans know that you can use technology for something other than trolling.

Ask Ahmadinejad if Obama is appeasing .

Yeah, sanctions are really presents.

Stuxnet was a wonderful present too.

Exactly.

As a non-ideologue, I support both Presidents in their dealings with our enemies.

and the same people who complained about Bush consider him a hero.

That's not true actually, not all the Democrats are pacifists you know.

However, I could think of lots of different reasons to hate Bush other than waterboarding.

Thanks, Colonial for your rational post at #10.3. That's it in a nutshell. The world is safer, much safer, because Bin Laden is dead. Especially our military.

President Obama never described himself as a friend of Iran's reformers

Not True:

Washington (CNN) -- Middle Eastern leaders "can't be behind the curve" as their populations demand change, President Barack Obama said Tuesday after protesters forced out Egypt's longtime strongman and faced a government crackdown in Iran.

Speaking at a White House news conference, Obama said Iran's clerical leadership is "pretending to celebrate what happened in Egypt" while "gunning down and beating people who were trying to express themselves peacefully."

Mindful of the Islamic republic's accusations that the United States and other powers were behind Monday's opposition protests in Tehran and other cities, Obama said Washington can "lend moral support to those who are seeking a better life for themselves."

"My hope and expectation is is that we're going to continue to see the people of Iran have the courage to be able to express their yearning for greater freedoms and a more representative government, understanding that America cannot ultimately dictate what happens inside of Iran any more than it could inside of Egypt; that ultimately these are sovereign countries that are going to have to make their own decisions," Obama said.

I suppose you would call that support.

Obama has been consistent in his dealings with the entire region: people-powered politics. The Arab people must take the lead role in overthrowing their oppressive dictators - we've seen that in Egypt, Libya, Iran, with the Palestinians, even with the Saudis....with Libya, the rebels asked for NATO's help, and we assisted with logistical and refueling support for the NATO mission. We have called for peace in the region, supported the long-standing compromise (1967 borders w/ mutually agreed upon swaps) with Israel, stated there is no negotiating with Iran UNLESS the leadership recants its position regarding Israel, and officially recognizes its right to exist. We have condemned terrorism in all forms, and have gone after terrorists in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere. We've promoted peace and diplomacy time and again....and it has worked. BUT, make no mistake - this president knows how to channel Roosevelt quite well, and has proved it time and again. He walks (and speaks softly), but carries (and uses) a very, very big stick.

Obama has been consistent in his dealings with the entire region: people-powered politics.

Really? Barack Obama when asked if he viewed President Mubarak as an authoritarian ruler in an interview with the BBC's Justin Webb in June 2009:

No, I tend not to use labels for folks. I haven't met him; I've spoken to him on the phone. He has been a stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States. He has sustained peace with Israel, which is a very difficult thing to do in that region, but he has never resorted to unnecessary demagoguing of the issue and has tried to maintain that relationship. So I think he has been a force for stability and good in the region.

20 months later, the White House emphatically called for Mubarak to go.

That is just one.

Good insight IndependentVoter - - - Do you think that might be because Obama saw the opportunity to further the Islamic "Arab Spring" that would enhance and facilitate the political agenda of the "Muslim Brotherhood". Same in Libya and elsewhere. He will compliment anyone until he stabs them in the back.

Pray for Israel ... he is no friend.

webslinger

(and uses) a very, very big stick.

Though the United States acts as the guard dog of the Zionist regime, they still haven't been capable enough to deal with Iran and its nuclear program, As such, the continued U.S.-Israeli banging on the drums of war against Iran is nothing more than empty threats; not only does it not strike fear in anyone's heart, no one really believes it anymore.

Ahmad Ezz Al-Arab, the deputy director of Egypt's nationalist liberal Al Wafd Party

So much for the big stick.....Yeah Obama has them shaking in their boots.....

nothing that you have said refutes what I said.....it's just more sour grapes from you guys, and it's quite pathetic.

Obama's message earlier in 2009 during the traditional Persian holiday of Nowruz in which he called upon "the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations."

Not only has President Obama never described himself as a friend of Iran's reformers but his futile efforts to engage the Iranian regime have served only to legitimize it.

Sorry, but what I get from that Obama quote you brought up is, "If Iran stops acting like children they can sit at the grownup table."

That's far from "legitimizing" Iran's behavior.

I suppose you would call that support.

What would you call it Non-Independent Voter?

" Washington can lend moral support to those who are seeking a better life for themselves."

webslinger

Post #12.6 takes care of your big stick nonsense.

Not quite - not by a long shot, except in your head. But Yosho and leonthecat have already said all that needs to be said and the President has proven his worth time and again regarding foreign policy.

Independent Voter at #12.14 -- so you suppose that the best plan of action from the US was to call Mubarak names in public as the Egyptian Spring emerged? Perhaps they wanted to "speak softly" so they could divert him, then slam him. Isn't that what happened, in fact? The truth is, he's gone, and he's gone after a relatively peaceful transition, lead from inside Egypt. That's what I would call a victory.

He didn't serve in the military he sits behind a cozy blanket of protection and risks the lives of others. What the hell does he have to worry about. He is a coward.

Coward? get outta here.

He's done more to take out the terrorists than the radical right ever did.

Republicans want to start wars-take all the money, and run. Then leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

Yeah, he didn't serve...like Bush and Cheney and the rest of the Republican paper tigers.

Frankly, I prefer a president who has not served in the military. The United States military is under civilian control and I think that is an important balance of power.

and Dean-you dare to say Obama risks the lives of others?

I guess you were sleeping during the Bush administration when Bush sent thousands of our finest servicemen and woman to die in a F&^%$# war, in the wrong place, based on a lie!

What a bunch of BS.

How can anyone say he was never in the military?

Is he not Commander In Chief of all the US forces?

How more friggin' "military" can you be?

Bravo,Leon!

Ted: Dean and the rest of the neocons only believe in military service for Dem Presidents, don'cha know?

Ted: They like to ignore that their own people, like Bush (who had a Daddy who could get him into the National Guard so he wouldn't have to actually fight), and Cheney (who got a record 6 deferments because he was "too busy" to serve his country) never had any direct military experience. They just like to START wars. They could never be bothered to do the dirty business of actually fighting in one.

Not that they have anything to offer other than more of the same old George W. Bush method of foreign policy, in which the word "diplomacy" is a dirty word.

It would be lovely, but hardly Presidential.

And if the Saudi Royals were allowed to leave after 911 (without tidying up) they would drive by the royal digs of Idi Amin Dada (also allowed) as they approached their kingdom. They took credit (quietly) for protected "that" angel until his death in 2003.

Ron W.-1891955

"If it were sunny on an Obama visit to Seattle, he would take credit for the sunshine.

and the rain-soaked lemmings would clap their little feet."

________________________________________________________

The term "drivel" comes to mind. Google the words "Obama takes responsibility" sometime! You will spend a few months reading the responses.

The modern Republican seldom takes responsibility for anything, (Afterall Watergate wasn't Nixon's fault and Reagan knew nothing of Iran Contra, /sarc) and when they do, as was the case late in Bush's second term when he said he regretted numerous statements he had made in the leadup to the re-invasion of Iraq , their followers jump ship or plug their ears in horror. And they even refuse to acknowledge he bailed out the banks (because he truly had no other choice).

Based on the opinions of your prized pundits there has never been an action made by a single conservative that has ever damaged America or her reputation. Not a single one! According to these deep thinkers everything bad that has ever happened is the fault of liberals. That is not even a logical belief! And so many drink from that Kool-Aid! It is nothing but poison added to the experiment that is this country. The same crapola that Orwell showed would doom the common man. Because when the truth becomes meaningless ots over for the majority. You need to tame your hate and educate your mind. The whole lot of you. Then come back and make your arguments. For now there is nothing to discuss.

It would be easy to go back and name numerous examples where leaders from both sides of the aisle have made correct decisions as well as instances where they have failed terribly. But it seems we have lost the ability to have any sort of logical perspective. There is no pretense of bi-partisanship and frankly if the animal your party has beome remains so poorly trained it won't happen any time soon.

voxrationis - - - Drinking the "Kool-Aid" was a phrase coined by people describing the actions of those who blindly followed Jim Jones a Marxist, Leftist, drug addicted, possibly homosexual despot. The Left gets to claim him and his lemmings not the right. (lol)

Ron, Jim Jones was a nut job. Not left, not right, just a nut.

Jim Jones' People's Temple

www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm from google

"Drinking the Kool-Aid " is a phrase used only by Bill O'Reilly, that egotistical racist swine.

You tip your hand about where you get your point of view when ever you use it.

leonthecat - - - That's not true Leon. Do your research on the subject and you will find the origin of the phrase. Research, not ad hominem attacks will help you be able to discuss things with more intelligence on the subject matter at hand whatever the subect may be.

"Drinking the Kool-Aid " is a phrase used only by Bill O'Reilly, that egotistical racist swine."

You guys are nuts. This goes back to the 60's (if not before) and had to do with ingesting LSD. Read my post again again and tell me, "do I sound anything like an O'Reilly viewer"?

Dean at #13.1 -- So the President is a coward, because he's not in the army? Please do tell me the heroic war stories about George W.Bush, Dick Cheney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Donald Trump, Rick Santorum, and other great heroes of the republican party.

Years ago (in the 1990s)" Drinking the koolaid" was not in uncommon use , but today the only ones using this antiquated phrase on a daily basis are BillO and his followers. The same could be said for the equally idiotic an outdated phrase about tin foil hats.

In BillO's world these comebacks qualify as debate. To the rest of the world they only serve to hilariously identify the user as a BillO follower who get all their talking points from Fux Snooze : )

leonthecat - - - Please do some research ... To say that "only Bill O'Reilly" uses the term means you haven't been looking very hard at the way it is used by your comrades here on the vine.

Defintion: "Drinking the Kool-Aid" is a metaphor commonly used in the United States and Canada that refers to a person or group's unquestioning belief in an ideology, argument, or philosophy without critical examination. The phrase typically carries a negative connotation when applied to an individual or group. The basis of the term is a reference to the November 1978 Jonestown Massacre,^[1][2] where members of the Peoples Temple were said to have committed suicide by drinking a "Kool-Aid"-like drink laced with cyanide.^[3]

^{It has an alternate (not as widely used) definition of the phrase involving the 60's and "acid tests" but this is not the meaning behind what most use it today. And guess what? ... no mention of Bill O'Reilly. (You can leave your ad hominem remarks at the door)}

^{---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

^{And BTW YELLOW DOG D .- - - Do some research on Jim Jones as well. Even your own source (to the exclusion of thousands more) said he developed Communist beliefs in his latter years, you will also see his arrest for gay solicitation in S.F. and his free abuse of drugs. Very leftist individual ... and vocal in his political views. He was definitely one of yours.}

You have spent too much time in the "no spin zone" Ron.

Fact is no one at Jonestown drank Kool-Aid.

The drink poisoned with cyanide was a British made product named Fla-Vor-Aid.

But BillO was never one to pay attention to being factual.

Give us the Wikipedia blurb on tin foil hat wearing as well if you like Ron, BTW tin foil hasn't been available to the retail market since about 1945 the correct modern reference would be to aluminum foil...

...we still know you hang on BillO's every word even though nothing he says is accurate. ;-)

@20.10Ron, is the the part of the article you are talking about............ "Later on, however, this gospel became explicitly socialistic, or communistic in Jones' own view, and the hypocrisy of white Christianity was ridiculed while 'apostolic socialism' was preached." _{1 from google source}

Bush couldn't catch OBL, could he? Not even in eight years.

It took Obama to catch Osama.

In 3.

GOP......he done just played your tune in 3 notes.

Twang.

Twang.

Twang.

Obama made the right call! He put his presidency on the line, if the information had been wrong or the seals failed he was done for. 23 terrorist & counting,This president is strong on foreign affairs & its just killing the republicans.

^^ This was a day of huge historical importance for this country that was well documented. You should read up on it, because everything you claim is false.

Obama's national security team was sharply divided over Osama bin Laden raid

Also, and I have asked you this before: who exactly are you willing to assassinate?

I give no credit to Obama for Osama

How bout Libya? Somali Pirates.....any of the kills?

I mean its not like he did an aircraft landing with a mission accomplish banner behind him as he spoke.

No Credit Willing?

I mean he said he was going to hunt down and kill Bin Ladin in Pakistan way back in 2008

http://youtu.be/qZDSJN7mVPo

I give him mad props.

Bin Laden would have been found on that day no matter WHO happened to be sitting in the oval office.

Except Bush.

. What was he going to do? Say No, leave the guy alone after our brave military risked thier lives and found him?

Well yeah... of course he could have...GWBush did exactly that.

http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf

But Barry didn't . He put his ass out there on the line and got the bastard. It was his call and when push comes to shove Barry did it and Bush didn't. They both had the chance and Bush cowarded out.

I give no credit to Obama for Osama

How could you, hatred and praise travel on different roads very far from each other.

Hatred finds no friend in the facts.

It's only allies are lies.