world

Poll: People see Obama as nice, so-so president

79 Comments
By NANCY BENAC and JENNIFER AGIESTA

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

79 Comments
Login to comment

The former Republican is spot on about the self-seeking GOP:

“They block him every step of the way,” says Carag. “I don’t think it’s fair for them to say he’s been a bad president. How can you do anything if your hands are tied?”

2 ( +5 / -3 )

He had a tough set of problems to deal with and has been hindered by the state of US politics but still think he has done a poor job and certainly gone back on a lot of explicit and implicit things he committed to before election.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

To be considered a successful leader in this world you only need a 45% approval rating? Not aiming too high are we?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Obama (and Bernanke) has put America back on a recovery path after the worst economic crisis in living memory, and he issued the order to kill Osama bin-Laden.

All Americans are on track to be covered with health insurance for the first time in the nation's history. This against a wall of the worst ever vitriol and partisanship in Washington.

That's not "so so." That's astounding.

1 ( +5 / -5 )

Another worthless poll as propaganda for the leftists. One of the worst presidents EVER, especially in terms of Peace, Prosperity(overall, not just the well-connected), and Liberty including the right to Privacy. Epic Failure.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Obama (and Bernanke) has put America back on a recovery path after the worst economic crisis in living memory, and he issued the order to kill Osama bin-Laden. All Americans are on track to be covered with health insurance for the first time in the nation's history. This against a wall of the worst ever vitriol and partisanship in Washington. That's not "so so." That's astounding.

Don't forget pulling the US out of Iraq. And all while trying to be bi-partisan during his first term.

Add to that that he's the first sitting president to speak out in favor of same-sex marriage, and it looks like he's starting to move towards marijuana legalization.

Of course the racist right would use those exact same two points as arguments as to why he's no good.

Best president in decades.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

How is this propaganda for the leftists? Only the extreme right-wing would see it that way. "He's not a great president" is in no way something that the leftist propaganda machine would come out with. I really have no idea how you can read this article and think that. "He seems likable" is not how someone wants to describe their president.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

" How is this propaganda for the leftists? Only the extreme right-wing would see it that way."

Not at all. If one looks objectively at the actions the POTUS has taken, neverminding his scripted rhetoric, looking at the facts one can see through the propaganda and see the inconvenient truth.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

So-so? Well... that's about the best he can hope for.

Of course the racist right

And there goes the credibility of the entire post... right there.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The left are disappointed that Obama turned out to be more moderate that they had hoped, while the right would hate him even if he walked on water hand-in-hand with Jesus himself. It is certainly not an easy time to be president.

As Strangerland noted, he does have some impressive achievements. He has also kept American troops out the turmoil in the Middle East. I'd say, though, that he will be remembered more as a transitional figure. He halted the GOP's relentless attacks at their time of greatest strength and expanded awareness of the importance of government in dealing with America's issues.

2016 will quite likely see the election of another Democratic president who will also quite likely be to the left of Obama, but it is Obama who is paving the way for this.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yeah, I'm definitely interested in seeing how Hillary will do as president. As great as Obama is, I think she'll be even better.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

One nice thing about Obama's second term has been the way the right wing Teabillies stopped begging to see his birth certificate.

One of their heroes, Ted Cruz, might have to get to work on clearing up his own multiple citizenship issues if he plans to run for high office (and no offense is intended to Canadians or dual citizenship holders).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

One of the worst presidents EVER, especially in terms of Peace...

Unconvincing in the extreme.

Obama entered the Presidency committed, whether he liked it or not, to two wars launched by his predecessor. Other than that, he hasn't invaded anywhere, bombed any cities, or got his country into war with anyone. Sad as it is to say it, drone strikes actually constitute an improvement on what previous presidents have been doing. It's as close as America comes to being a benign military power, and unfortunately, as close as it's ever likely to come.

Before Obama, there was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (Bush II), NATO bombing of Belgrade and the not-too-successful humanitarian mission to Somalia (Clinton), the invasion of Panama and Desert Storm (Bush I), Operation Urgent Fury (the excitingly named invasion of Grenada), the bombing of Tripoli, and the massive nuclear buildup during the Reagan presidency. You have to go all the way back to Carter in the 1970s to find a president who didn't seem hell bent on getting America involved in wars, and judging by his predecessors, he was an exception to the rule.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And yet, once again, the liberals are out in force, giving praise to the do nothing president or depending your interpretation of reality seeing him for what he really is and stands for. He is by far THE worst president ever and even starts to make Jimmy Carter look decent.

If he's such a good president let's list his accomplishments...

1) how many jobs did the stimulus create again? Never trying to cut back on spending, 2) now we just hit the $17 Trillion mark in the national debt, if he's so great, why is it climbing? Why we still have a deficit? He said, to cut it in half, still waiting to see that. 3) what and why is he still NOT willing to talk about Benghazi? 4) why does Obama need to read everyone's mail? He backtracked on overhauling the NSA, why? 5) Obamacare, "if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it" turned out to be NOT true, signing up is next to impossible. Prices are THROUGH THE ROOF!! 6) every green job that Obama back and used tax payer money failed. Remember: Solyndra? Failed on Green energy 7) Blacks and Latinos are worse off under this president, despite these groups supporting him overwhelmingly. Unemployment is high over 13% for Blacks, Latinos 8.3% 8) his foreign policy is abysmal, from Syria to China to Russia and throughout the Middle East, the man that wasn't Bush was going to let the Arabs know that he's the peace maker and things will change. They sure did. Gitmo is still open, Afghanistan his war, where more troops died on his watch, the Taliban are returning, Al Qaeda is returning, they now control 40% of the country, didn't maintain the SOFA agreement with the Iraqis. He made it much worse. Criticized Bush for droning the Taliban, but Obama stepped up the program. As a whole, the country is worse off than ever before, even Clinton was 10x better. The list goes on, I'm not even halfway through.....

But I realize, in criticizing the president, that makes me or anyone else a racist, it can't be we dislike him because of his failed policies, but liberals will always inject color into the equation, because they have nothing else to fall back on. The whole blame Bush after 6 years is seriously getting old as well as blaming the Republicans and conservatives, but blaming his own Democrats and liberals, out of the question. He can go and smooze with Hollywood all he wants, go to the balls, dances, it still doesn't address the current issues that are destroying America. He might be a cool guy, a great father, but as a president.... 3 more years and counting...

Yes, Obama on a grade scale, he gets a solid F+!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

What and why is he still NOT willing to talk about Benghazi?

Probably because it's trivially unimportant, and because it's over. Next.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

bass4funk: He is by far THE worst president ever and even starts to make Jimmy Carter look decent.

Someone got an early does of AM radio this morning....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Probably because it's trivially unimportant, and because it's over. Next.

So you're saying screw the families, what difference does it make to know exactly who's responsible for their deaths. And why should liberals care as with everything else. Hmmm, had it been Bush or another conservative, liberals would have had a witch hunt until the end of time to find out the truth, partisan politics.....naaaaw.

@superlib

Sorry, don't listen to AM radio, but nice try.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Let's see, Gitmo is still open, Afghanistan is a mess, Pakistan is following suit, the NSA is spying on everybody and they can't even get a web site to work. Obama picked up where Bush left off and made an even bigger mess.

Oh, wait, he did win the peace prize. While blowing up more people with drones than Bush did.....

3 ( +4 / -1 )

With all the claimed good said in this thread the president did only bin-laden is acceptable. All the other "claims" are full of holes.

Healthcare, lies and increased costs thus far and more to come. If I replace my current insurance with the equivalent Obamacare I would have a $12,000 per year deductible!!!

Iraq withdraw, not at all strategic as we've been led to believe.

Economy, wheres the good paying jobs?

Entitlements have seen gains like no other time in history!

Debt, I feel sorry for the future generations in the US.

As for sweeping Benghazi under the rug.....That was US soil and 4 dead Americans! The second greatest terrorist attack on the US since Oklahoma!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

...and what alternatives do we have to Obama? Michelle Bachman? Rick Santorum? Herman Cain? Mike Huckabee? Rick Perry? Donald Trump? Obama's approval ratings could drop to below 20% and he'd still be polling higher then Republicans. And Republicans sit there and wonder why their obstruct and smear campaign isn't resonating with anyone, just like Benghazi. People don't like you and they don't trust you and talking about Obama isn't going to change that.

Last I checked, Republicans were a part of government so where is the leadership? Where is your jobs plan? Where is your plan to deal with the wealth gap? Where is your health care plan? Oh, wait, Obama passed it so suddenly you're against it. The only thing Republicans are famous for is their War on Women, their War on Minorities, shutting down the government, Congressional witch hunts, banning abortion, legitimate rape, gerrymandering, anti-gay platforms, keeping poor people off of Medicaid, and lying to their constituents about a fantasy impeachment.

You have no plan and no leaders. Until you actually get off your butts and start contributing ideas (not catchphrases) you're just dead weight to America.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

As I recall its usually the democrats that obstruct and smear and divide! They do it best.

The republicans are fractured, agreed. But, they do realize that finally.

Your claims against republicans is absolutely childish and completely wrong!!! Head back in the sand please.

Why was Romney left out of your list?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

"....had it been Bush or another conservative, liberals would have had a witch hunt."

That's a howler. Bush was on watch during America's the 2 most catastrophic events of the postwar era: 9/11 and the global financial meltdown. Neither event was preceded by any preventative actions from the White. And no, there was no anti-Bush "witch hunt."

But of course, the conservatives can only think about Benghazi. The live in their own little reality-distortion bubble.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

...and what alternatives do we have to Obama? Michelle Bachman? Rick Santorum? Herman Cain? Mike Huckabee? Rick Perry? Donald Trump? Obama's approval ratings could drop to below 20% and he'd still be polling higher then Republicans. And Republicans sit there and wonder why their obstruct and smear campaign isn't resonating with anyone, just like Benghazi. People don't like you and they don't trust you and talking about Obama isn't going to change that.

Sorry, super! NOT going to work, there is far more, way more division with the highly partisan president, the country is by far worse off than when Bush left. $17 Trillion, this guy is insane!! This president I killing the country.

Last I checked, Republicans were a part of government so where is the leadership? Where is your jobs plan? Where is your plan to deal with the wealth gap? Where is your health care plan? Oh, wait, Obama passed it so suddenly you're against it. The only thing Republicans are famous for is their War on Women, their War on Minorities, shutting down the government, Congressional witch hunts, banning abortion, legitimate rape, gerrymandering, anti-gay platforms, keeping poor people off of Medicaid, and lying to their constituents about a fantasy impeachment.

Sorry, Obama is the one that NEVER wants to meet Republicans on anything, doesn't want to back an inch, doesn't want to meet in the middle, unlike Clinton. Even Clinton told Obama he should try to meet Boehner halfway, but no..... Your fellow Dems had the White House for over 2 years controlling all 3 branches without any opposition from Republicans, they were neutered and what did the public get, more debt, this is the whole reason as to why the Tea party was formed and the other result! the Dems lost the house, don't even try to tap on that.

You have no plan and no leaders. Until you actually get off your butts and start contributing ideas (not catchphrases) you're just dead weight to America.

Once the Republicans take the Senate back, there will be time for that, and oh, if Republicans are dead weight, why is the Presidents approval falling so bad? I know, I know, it's Bush's fault and everyone else is a complete racist. ROFLMAO!

@jeff

That's a howler. Bush was on watch during America's the 2 most catastrophic events of the postwar era: 9/11 and the global financial meltdown. Neither event was preceded by any preventative actions from the White. And no, there was no anti-Bush "witch hunt."

Well Clinton had OBL in his sights and had a chance to blow hiss ass away in 1998, but didn't. And if you want to blame the financial meltdown on someone, turn to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd both Dems.

But of course, the conservatives can only think about Benghazi. The live in their own little reality-distortion bubble.

I know for you Dems, it's all about the President, who gives a....if 4 Americans were killed! who cares? I mean, the parents just have to suck it up, even though Obama was going through that campaign of his! knew the attacks were happening! but chose to do nothing! the parents have a right to know! this admin keeps stone walling, but it's not important right? Again, if this were a Republican, you Dems would lose your mind and demand in inquiry a thorough investigation. Everyone knows it!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OK, bass, maybe you can tell us some Republican achievements over the past 6 years. Or give me a list of potential candidates for 2016.

You have no plan and you have no leaders. You are simply dead weight.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Oh, there are a lot, but I know full well if I start to not them off one by one, the Mods will either delete it or say, I back on topic, but I will gladly post it on another thread when one is available and oh, yeah as for dead weight, why is it that Dems are running around like chickens with their heads cut off? Because they know they are in serious hot water and Obamacare everyday is taking them down with it and it will only get worse. Dead weight is this socialist president and the further the Dems can distance themselves from this lame duck! the better they will be. Oh, and Hilary is also not looking too great! That comment and stonewalling about Benghazi and her saying "What difference does it make?" Well, that chicken is coming home to roost.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So you're saying screw the families, what difference does it make to know exactly who's responsible for their deaths.

Oh you want to talk about families.

I'm saying 4,000 American troops died in a war fought for phony reasons - cooked-up intelligence about WMDs that were not there - and the official reaction was a shrug. In the Reagan-Bush-Bush II years, there are incidents that got far more people killed than Benghazi: the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, USS Stark, and the invasion of Iraq. Two of those are a more or less direct result of US encouragement - under Reagan/Bush - of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. As well as boosting Saddam, they sold weapons to Iran.

And of course there's the huge fatality count for 9/11, where Bush's lack of interest in security concerns in the preceding months is a matter of record.

Benghazi is a minor event, and there isn't much mileage to be had from it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Superlib,

Don`t know why you always bring up Republicans.

Without question, more people are suffering in America and it has become a police state. More crazy laws and regulations than you can shake a stick at. News focusing on the Presidents wifes hairstyles is also really dumb and distraction.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Thanks pointofview! May I add the wealth gap widened immensely under Obama.

The laws and regulations are appalling. And this is the land of the free? I blame lawyers/politicians democrats and republicans. Time for a change.

Superlib has an axe to grind it seems.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"And if you want to blame the financial meltdown on someone, turn to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd both Dems."

Yeah, right. 84% of the subprime loans were flooged by private-sector institutions ("cowboys") operating outside of federal regulations. And then Wall Street (all private sector again) sold the poison that caused the meltdown.

Dems in public service had nothing to do with it, while the Reps in power at the time chose NOT to do anything about it.

Welcome to 2001-2008, kids: "The Nightmare Years." (thank god they're over)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

bass4funk: but I know full well if I start to not them off one by one

You have nothing to list. You have no accomplishments, no platform, and no candidates.

Your party is dead weight to America.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Strangerland, you might want to find out the facts about who ordered the withdrawal from Iraq before crediting the wrong person.

" All American military forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush."

Even available on the Wiki.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Please learn the difference between debt and deficit. The deficit HAS gone down A LOT since the stimulus ended. A lot of people are confusing debt and deficit, though. "Halving the deficit" means "we will gain debt half as fast". That's not the same as lowering debt, which would require a SURPLUS (which, by the way, we haven't had since Clinton was president).

@MarkG can you explain how too many regulations and laws have contributed to the rising wealth gap?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So you're saying screw the families, what difference does it make to know exactly who's responsible for their deaths.

Oh you want to talk about families.

I'm saying 4,000 American troops died in a war fought for phony reasons - cooked-up intelligence about WMDs that were not there - and the official reaction was a shrug. In the Reagan-Bush-Bush II years, there are incidents that got far more people killed than Benghazi: the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, USS Stark, and the invasion of Iraq. Two of those are a more or less direct result of US encouragement - under Reagan/Bush - of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. As well as boosting Saddam, they sold weapons to Iran.

So it's back to blaming Bush again, that's it? Soooo what about the soldiers now under Obama, more died in Afghanistan under Obama, you do know that, I hope. Where is your outrage. Obama didn't follow up on Iraq and the SOFA agreement. He had his work cut out and what did he do? As usual, nothing and now where is Iraq....40% under the control of Al Qaeda. What is Obama doing about Iran, nothing, Assad, got cold feet. As Gates said, Obama didn't believe in ANY of his own strategies and Biden was wrong, virtually wrong about EVERY foreign policy issue, but they are both sooooo smart and how did the smarts help these two?

And of course there's the huge fatality count for 9/11, where Bush's lack of interest in security concerns in the preceding months is a matter of record.

Then you should blame Clinton as well, had he offed OBL in 1998, had he done that, maybe we wouldn't have had a 911. But Liberals can never think like that, because they don't live in a world of reality.

Benghazi is a minor event, and there isn't much mileage to be had from it.

When Alec Baldwin made said that gay slur, that got him fired from the Obama network, the LGBT community asked for his head and they got it. They sounded the drum beats and went nuts over it. However, 4 Americans were murdered and now Republicans, conservatives and the families can go ....themselves because you liberals think their lives are not worth a darn?

@super

You have nothing to list. You have no accomplishments, no platform, and no candidates.

Your party is dead weight to America.

I do have a list, but it's irrelevant right now, but if there is another post that ask the question, I will put them down. Also, you repeated that line and lastly. Your president has virtually zero accomplishments except for creating more debt, CA and NY are way out of control, the murder rate in NY is slowly creeping back up...I wonder why? 3 more years of this wretched guy. Obama has a platform, they call it bloviate! which he is a master off. And you think Hilary is a viable candidate? It'll never happen.

The dead weight are the demcrats, but from this year, that'll all get aired out soon enough, thank god.

Personally, I think both parties stink, but the Dems are just the absolute worst! I want to have a real politician that cares about the country and works with and fights for the people and the last 6 years, the Dems have been doing the exact opposite! That's your dead weight!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

" Please learn the difference between debt and deficit. The deficit HAS gone down A LOT since the stimulus ended. A lot of people are confusing debt and deficit, though. "Halving the deficit" means "we will gain debt half as fast". That's not the same as lowering debt, which would require a SURPLUS (which, by the way, we haven't had since Clinton was president)."

So many holes in that statement that it looks like swiss cheese without the cheese.

There was NO surplus under Clinton. That fable has been roundly debunked.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bass4funk: I do have a list

No, you don't.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@super

You are entitled to YOUR opinion, your wrong, but the fact of the matter is, your president is a lame duck and and it gets worse everyday with this walking disaster of "do nothing" rhetoric. You liberals keep writing checks that you can't cash and the fact of the matter is, is that Dems are sinking in the polls in most places as well as the anointed one himself just annoys you guys. You can't pin it on Bush anymore, that boat sailed a long, long time ago. Every year, when I go back to California, I am quickly reminded at how one of THE most beautiful states was turned into a zombie entitlement cesspool, thanks to the looney left and their socialist policies.

@jean

Please learn the difference between debt and deficit. The deficit HAS gone down A LOT since the stimulus ended

So where are all the jobs, why do we still have a $17 Trillon outstanding debt? Please don't tell me, Obama is a fiscally conservative guy. If he can squeeze the average American for every last cent, this guy would do in a nano second!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@bass, I was quoting the previous woefully misinformed comment.

A well-documented debunking of the Fabled Clinton "surplusses" can be found here: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So it's back to blaming Bush again, that's it?

Blaming Bush for what? There are certain things he is clearly to blame for: the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, obviously , and of course the number of servicemen who died there during his presidency, which is where the number 4,000 came from. Blaming him for things that are happening during Obama's presidency? No, obviously not.

The reaction to Benghazi from commenters like you is disproportionate both to the number of people who were killed and its wider signficance. Previous presidents have some monumental screwups to live down, something worth mentioning every time Benghazi is brought up. There is no scandal, but of course it's the best thing they have to work with, because in the Obama presidency, we have no Monica, no WMDs to get the vapours about, no Iran-Contra, no new wars (he appears to understand that America no longer wins them).

So you're stuck with Benghazi, but you're also stuck with the fact that Americans aren't going to get excited enough about four deaths to chase this president out of office, or call him Worst President Ever, or whatever it is you want them to do. See, that's the problem you're faced with when far worse incidents are just shrugged off by Republicans as "crap happens".

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Blaming Bush for what? There are certain things he is clearly to blame for: the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, obviously , and of course the number of servicemen who died there during his presidency, which is where the number 4,000 came from. Blaming him for things that are happening during Obama's presidency? No, obviously not.

Ok, give you that. Then that means, we can hold Obama equally responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi, you made my point for me. So now back to the present, your president doesn't support the military, doesn't support the veterans, doesn't care about the national debt, unlike most liberals, I know the republicans are far from being perfect, however you liberals will NEVER, EVER give an inch to the faults of the anointed one. Tell me something, how's that ACA doing? How many people signed up? How many young people are breaking down the doors to get coverage? Why is it that Blacks and Latinos are suffering more under Obama? These are the people that in mass numbers voted for him, so why is the unemployment still so high for these two groups? You guys want to blame it on racism....again? Sorry, won't work.

The reaction to Benghazi from commenters like you is disproportionate both to the number of people who were killed and its wider signficance. Previous presidents have some monumental screwups to live down, something worth mentioning every time Benghazi is brought up. There is no scandal, but of course it's the best thing they have to work with, because in the Obama presidency, we have no Monica, no WMDs to get the vapours about, no Iran-Contra, no new wars (he appears to understand that America no longer wins them).

So that's the typical liberal excuse???? There is no scandal, of course not, the families of those 4 dead that were murdered is completely irrelevant. Screw them right, I mean, screw ups happen, Obama was in the middle of an election and he knew if that story got out, there would have been a slight chance that it could've derailed his chances for winning a second term, but hey, that most definitely is far more important than the insignificant lives of these men, the families should take a hike, I get it. Unbelievable.

So you're stuck with Benghazi, but you're also stuck with the fact that Americans aren't going to get excited enough about four deaths to chase this president out of office, or call him Worst President Ever, or whatever it is you want them to do. See, that's the problem you're faced with when far worse incidents are just shrugged off by Republicans as "crap happens".

I'm sorry, did I miss something, everyone is already calling him THE worst president ever. He's sinking badly in the polls and he has 3 more years to go. I give it until summer when many Democrats start jumping ship on this guy. If they don't, they are done and they know it or they can stick with this guy and go down with him. For some reason, I believe they will bail! If not, they are bigger fools than I thought.

This is NOT a partisan issue for me, I just want someone that puts The people and the country first, be that Republican or Democrat, it's just liberals think that they are perfect and can run things better and by the looks of the last 5 years, the answer is a clear, NO!

@jean

Sorry, man. Made a mistake with that post. Read it wrong, realized after I hit the submit button, my bad. Thanks for the link.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

There IS one bright spot in the economy that we can thank Obama and his idolaters for, and that is the gun industry. THAT one industry has outpaced most every other in the US in terms of sales, manufacturing(including ammo and countless accessories). First-time buyers, especially WOMEN have been the fastest growing group. Bravo! My shares of Ruger have done rather well!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Then that means, we can hold Obama equally responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi, you made my point for me. So now back to the present, your president doesn't support the military, doesn't support the veterans, doesn't care about the national debt, unlike most liberals, I know the republicans are far from being perfect, however you liberals will NEVER, EVER give an inch to the faults of the anointed one.

What laughably ridiculous drivel... I really think some folks lose an IQ point every time they type the word "liberal".. or "socialist" for that matter. Pretty sad.

@superlib - "dead weight to America", well put.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

bass4funk: So you're saying screw the families

It's genuinely alarming how you don't see how Republicans are received. So let me help you.

No one believes you're doing this for the families. We've spent more time and money and manpower on these 4 diplomats, more than all the diplomats killed under Bush combined. People smell a rat, and people smell politics, and every time you open your mouth to try to tell us that you're doing this because you really, really, really care about the families we are all thinking that you just have no shame.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What laughably ridiculous drivel... I really think some folks lose an IQ point every time they type the word "liberal".. or "socialist" for that matter. Pretty sad.

Funny, it seems like half the country lost their IQ when they voted for this socialist. That's what he is, punish the rich, what was that quote again, you didn't build that? You want to talk about IQ, let me tell you something, rich people, can ALWAYS relocate somewhere because they have the money, so it doesn't bother them one iota and they don't have to worry about suffering financially. But the middle class and the poor have to deal with this nut. I hear every single day people and yes, NOT the Kool aid drinking liberals that this guy is horrible. Maybe to a lesser extent it's a good thing that all this is happening so that people can wake up and realize what this man really is, charlatan! Dead weight will be dealing with this guy unbearably for the next three years, but this too, shall pass.

@super

It's genuinely alarming how you don't see how Republicans are received. So let me help you.

No one believes you're doing this for the families. We've spent more time and money and manpower on these 4 diplomats, more than all the diplomats killed under Bush combined. People smell a rat, and people smell politics, and every time you open your mouth to try to tell us that you're doing this because you really, really, really care about the families we are all thinking that you just have no shame.

Now you're spinning like Debbie Wasserman Shultz, I know for a fact, that liberals don't give a .... About the 4 that were killed, but for libs gay rights and immigration are TOP priorities for you guys, we all know the country is not important, but whether CA acknowledges same sex marriage is highly important. As in usual liberal fashion, you guys have your priorities backwards. And if you talk about care, when did liberals care about anyone? Obama cares? I know congers couldn't care less, but you actually think Dems and liberals care about the people??? The party in power that supposedly cares for people, is a total lie! First of all, if Obama really cared, the king of lies wouldn't have dissed our military, lied to the people about healthcare, Benghazi, he would have tried to cut the national debt, work with Republicans, work for the people and NOT his party. All politicians lie, but this one takes the grand prize. That Nobel he got should have been for the most talented BSer in US history.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

You aren't making much sense anymore.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hey, question...when did any liberals or Democrats and this admin. Make ANY sense of ANY policy for the last 5 years? I think that should be your real question.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"....this socialist. That's what he is,"

Ah, you must mean George Junior Bush? Because Busy is the one who signed the legislation for the US government to take that stake in GM. "Socialism" means state ownership of enteprises. And Bush, a conservative Republican, was the one who approved govt ownership of what was until recently America's biggest private corporation. Hello, reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I never said anything that Bush was a true conservative, quite the opposite.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Obama is right-wing. He has done nothing to reverse the Bush administration's trend. He rescued the people that crashed the economy. He didn't end wars in Middle East. He's still sending out drones. It's out of the president's control, really. But the fact is that he didn't even try.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"I never said anything that Bush was a true conservative, quite the opposite."

Fine. But why is Obama the "socialist" when Bush was the one who signed the legislation and initiated the moves for the government to take ownership of private companies and for the taxpayer bailouts of other private companies?

Let's hear you (and the teabaggers and the wingnut bloggers, et al) say, "George W. Bush is a socialist."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Obama is right-wing. He has done nothing to reverse the Bush administration's trend. He rescued the people that crashed the economy. He didn't end wars in Middle East. He's still sending out drones. It's out of the president's control, really. But the fact is that he didn't even try.

Don't even start, Obama is not even in the same stratosphere, he's as left as they come, maybe not progressive left, but still radical left. Bush was a huge spender no doubt and the economy tanked on his watch get it, but let's not forget, Frank and Dodd severely helped with the economy tanking. Don't get partisan. As far as the wars in the Middle East, Obama doesn't care about the troops or the outcome of what happens in the ME, didn't care about maintaining the SOFA agreement. Yes, he didn't do anything.

@jeff

Fine. But why is Obama the "socialist" when Bush was the one who signed the legislation and initiated the moves for the government to take ownership of private companies and for the taxpayer bailouts of other private companies?

The man believes in Income redistribution, hung out and had Bill Ayers write his book, Ayers a known socialist/communist former member of the weather underground. The communist party USA supported Obama during his primary. Doesn't believe in the private sector, wants to punish success, like the infamous comment "you didn't build that." So people like Steve Jobs shouldn't get credit for making Apple a super giant. His mother was a communist and his father was a known socialist. When Obama was a student at Cooper Union College he admitted to attending communist conferences. Obama endorsed senator Bernie Sanders who is a bonified and committed socialist. Obama doesn't believe in cutting anything, the man is on steroids when it comes to spending,especially other people's money. And it goes on and on with this guy. So why hasn't Obama spoken about or addresed the national debt? Apparently, $17 Trillion is chump change we keep printing money,we spend more than 40 cents on the dollar, the guy is a mess and in typical Obama fashion, it'll all work out. The man had potential to do great things, I don't like Obama because he's a liberal, I don't like him, because he chose to put partisan politics FIRST before the people and to the point where he cut Republicans from everything, we don't have a one party system and yet, this guy acts as if we do. The bad thing is, you libs don't want to see or acknowledge that this president could ever do anything wrong, EVER! The only thing you libs can is one thing, blame Bush and it's gotten so old now, the average American doesn't buy into that anymore, you guys had the first 3 years, respectively, but now NO more excuses. It's all on Obama, the economy, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, the relations between Russia and China, it's all Obama's now. That's all that is relevant at this point and time. And one more thing, look at Californa a blue state and compare it to Texas a red state. Californa is starting to look like a third would country and Texas is moving forward lower unemployment a conservative state, California a liberal state. Liberal policies destroyed the once 5th largest Economy in the world.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"And one more thing, look at Californa a blue state and compare it to Texas a red state."

The blue states are the productive heart of America, where you'll find Silicon Valley plus the Microsoft, Amazon, etc in the Pacific Northwest, and also New York, the financial capital, IBM, etc. to name only two.

The conservative red states are generally America's most backward and unproductive regions.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The blue states are the productive heart of America, where you'll find Silicon Valley plus the Microsoft, Amazon, etc in the Pacific Northwest, and also New York, the financial capital, IBM, etc. to name only two.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2011/10/12/silicon-valley-no-longer-save-california-or-america/

Not only are they NOT creating jobs as they once did, many of these are being given to foreigners from overseas.

http://calwatchdog.com/2013/08/27/is-california-the-next-detroit-2/

This sums everything up as to what liberals and their policies did to my home state. You can't even buy a house these days. But the president wanted to build a Bullet Train, are you serious, in California? No one would ever use it. We have a subway in L.A. That cost millions to construct and the only people that really use it are mostly poor people, another waste. How is California going to get the money? Everyone is already maxed out in paying taxes and Obama wants to use California as a model? Where the disparity between rich and poor is so evident.

The conservative red states are generally America's most backward and unproductive regions.

Sorry, but wrong again.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20121219-texas-has-gained-576000-jobs-in-oil-and-gas-boom-study-says.ece

People can work, they don't have to be punished for their work, they can afford a house, the cost of living is completely night and day if you compare it to California. Most are anti-Obama and with good reason. But in typical fashion the man is trying to heavily regulate drilling for oil and gas because he's so against it, but all of his green energy pet projects went bankrupt. Had Texas adopted Obama and liberal policies, well, I don't even want to imagine...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

After eight years of chimp-brained Bush Two any Democrat looked good. However I liked President Clinton more than I currently do Obama.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

After eight years of chimp-brained Bush Two any Democrat looked good. However I liked President Clinton more than I currently do Obama.

In 3 more years, Bush will look like a Saint compared to this presidents and Democrats destructive policies won't even close to mediocre reign.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Former President Bush is a nice guy too - so what? America needs a president that can bring the country together and solve it's problems - poor economy, unacceptable levels of unemployment, historically low labor market participation rate, high poverty rate, ever expanding debt, among many other things. Obama is likeable - only if you think racism is likeable.

After eight years of chimp-brained Bush Two any Democrat looked good.

A comment like this would get censored by the moderators - if it were directed at Obama.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Former President Bush is a nice guy too - so what? America needs a president that can bring the country together and solve it's problems - poor economy, unacceptable levels of unemployment, historically low labor market participation rate, high poverty rate, ever expanding debt, among many other things. Obama is likeable - only if you think racism is likeable.

Exactly! That is the seriousness of Americas problems. It's not about Left or Right, Blue or Red, Liberal and Conservative it's about bringing the country together, which Obama did the exact opposite.

After eight years of chimp-brained Bush Two any Democrat looked good.

A comment like this would get censored by the moderators - if it were directed at Obama.

Because it would be considered racist and insensitive.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

After eight years of chimp-brained Bush Two any Democrat looked good.

And after eight years of the current republican opposition, any democrat will still look good. That's why the republicans lost the last election - the essentially shot themselves in the foot during their primaries, by trying to out-republican each other.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And after eight years of the current republican opposition, any democrat will still look good. That's why the republicans lost the last election - the essentially shot themselves in the foot during their primaries, by trying to out-republican each other.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Disapprove rating is at 51%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-poll_n_3255403.html

Benghazi is taking its toll on the president and of course Hillary. Had it been Chelsea in that situation, you'd better believe she'd turn that White House on its head to find answers, there would have been a witch hunt until the end of time.

The president said in his first address to the nation, no more partisan politics, so how's that working out? The first 2 years he and the Dems controlled all 3 branches of government and what was the result? The Dems losing the House.

Obama cares more about Hanging out with Jay-Z and Beyoncé, all the Hollywood elite than the people. Obama enjoys star status and wants to be treated like a celeb. Why did he chose that job if he doesn't care about the people. Why would he ask for a surge in Afghanistan, if he didn't believe in it, then he should have ordered all the troops to come back home and NOT send them in harms way.

Obama threatened, if the house goes back to the Republicans, he would use his pen to veto ANY opposition that is against his policies, so basically, screw what the people want, let's have a one party system and create a Stalinist totalitarian US. This is THE most divisive president ever in US history and the sad thing is, you libs think that the opposite can't happen to you. Obama's reign too, shall pass.

Also, one thing you liberals never put into the equation. Many of those people that came out and voted for Obama were 1st time voters, they are older. Ow, seen what this country has gone through and probably will stay out of the voting cycle or vote for a conservative. Everything that Obama promised never came to fruition. Don't believe me, the same happened to Bush, the last 2 years of his admin. A lot of kids and young adults suffered and wanted a change, they came of age and Obama at the time seemed like to them a clear and natural choice. That same group will NOT do that again, rest assured.

But please, humor me. What are Obama's greatest achievements that we will remember for years to come? And please, stay on topic, don't ramble about Bush, this is Obama's moment, he's the big cheese. He calls the shots. Bush is out of the conversation. NO one is buying it anymore, NO ONE.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To side with either Bush or Obama is complete stupidity. They are both big business presidents who don`t give a rats ass about you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Benghazi is taking its toll on the president and of course Hillary. Had it been Chelsea in that situation, you'd better believe she'd turn that White House on its head to find answers, there would have been a witch hunt until the end of time.

That goes without saying. It also goes without saying that the death of four American's that she was responsible for is only seen from her standpoint as a potential stumbling block on her way to the Democrat nomination in 2016. She didn't know those that died and really didn't do much to protect them when they were giving her warnings about security or help them after the attack began. It's 3AM and who would do you want to take the call? Well for those four in Benghazi, unfortunately it was Clinton - and now they are dead.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It also goes without saying that the death of four American's (sic) that she was responsible for is only seen from her standpoint as a potential stumbling block on her way to the Democrat nomination .

Kinda rich coming from folks actually responsible for the 4,487 deaths and the 32,000 plus casualties of the Iraq war.

Possibly. But it goes without saying that for you folks the Benghazi tragedy is, and always was, about political advantage and was never, ever about truth and accountability. How long will they keep p1ssing on the dead? As long as they think they can make political hay out of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gcbel - really? You are trying to blame me now for the dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan? As opposed to say - the enemy? You should stick to the topic ie. Obama is a nice guy but a disaster as president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Across the country, Democrat Sabrina Carag, a 58-year-old retired accountant in California gives the president higher marks on both performance and personality.

"If things aren’t great in the country, this former Republican reasons, it’s the fault of her old party and the Republicans in Congress. They block him every step of the way,” says Carag. “I don’t think it’s fair for them to say he’s been a bad president. How can you do anything if your hands are tied?”

Those evil Republicans!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wolfpack - Well, yes, really. Why should you get a pass? Unless I'm mistaken you supported the invasion of Iraq. In a democracy we bear responsibility for the policies and decisions of our elected government, especially if we give them our full-throated support brushing away any objections raised as un-patriotic. Make no mistake Democrats as well as Republicans share responsibility - Hilary Clinton among them. Yes, I believe you share the blame.

It certainly is as on topic as the Clinton and Benghazi.

I note you don't blame the enemy for the dead at Benghazi, just your political foes.

You should stick to the topic ie. Obama is a nice guy but a disaster as president.

Certainly faring better poll-wise than the Republican-held-hostage No-no Congress. What are they at, 13% now? I'm surprised Obama's been able to maintain this level of popularity despite the drip-drip-drip assault on Obama every step of the way since he entered office; the faux IRS, Benghazi scandals that you just... so... frustratingly... couldn't get political traction on, at least not enough to impeach or win an election. I do feel for you.

I understand that it's hard for these folks to come to grips with the fact that the Bush presidency was in fact a real disaster and that therefore you have to convince yourselves and everyone else that Obama was one too. But it ain't so, so far.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gcbel - Well, yes, really. Why should you get a pass?

I supported America when it decided through it's representatives in Congress (of both parties) to go to war. I didn't turn my back on the troops when the going got tough like so many on the Left did (ie. Hillary Clinton). Coming from a military family that isn't the way I was raised to be. I don't want or need a "pass" from you or anyone else. Yet so many on the Left are perfectly willing to give Clinton, Edwards, John Kerry - among many others - a pass on their pathetic turn against both wars; both the "good" war in Afghanistan and the "bad" one in Iraq.

In a democracy we bear responsibility for the policies and decisions of our elected government, especially if we give them our full-throated support brushing away any objections raised as un-patriotic.

It is certainly not unpatriotic to oppose war. But what you seem unable to get a grip on is that your side lost that battle in the debate in Congress. Once the country decides to go to war and things start getting tough it certainly is unpatriotic to change your mind and start attacking the motivations of your own countrymen solely for political gain. That is what makes so many on the political Right and Center upset with the Left.

I note you don't blame the enemy for the dead at Benghazi, just your political foes.

You should not misunderstand me. I'm not trying to blame Obama and Clinton for shooting the gun or firing the RPG that killed the four men in Benghazi. I blame them for attempting to deflect any and all responsibility from themselves and for mishandling the warnings from the ambassador when he told the State Dept that security was insufficient. I blame them for doing nothing to help them when they came under attack - they had no way of knowing how long the engagement would last yet they did not lift a finger to respond to their requests for assistance. They just didn't do their job. Obama will not even say what he was doing in the hours after he was informed of the attack on the consulate. What's that all about?

I understand that it's hard for these folks to come to grips with the fact that the Bush presidency was in fact a real disaster and that therefore you have to convince yourselves and everyone else that Obama was one too.

I have no problems coming to grips with Bush's failures - especially the huge debt he ran up, the prescription drug entitlement boondoggle, the failure to reform Social Security, and especially his failure to prevent Democrats in Congress from running the nations banking system into the ground. I don't necessarily blame him for the problems in Iraq in Afghanistan - anyone who knows history knows that war is unpredictable. Despite the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan he handed over both wars to his successor with things going pretty well and certainly headed in the right direction. But in general his failures tip the balance over his accomplishments.

Obama on the other hand, has done nothing but prevent the nation from recovering from a deep recession. He certainly hasn't led the nation into a robust recovery like Reagan did under similar circumstances in the early 1980's. On the debt, he makes Bush look like a miser. Obama's presidency is a huge failure. To quote a Democrat Senator, it has been a "train wreck".

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I supported America when it decided through it's representatives in Congress (of both parties) to go to war.

You supported ''America''. That’s nice. I supported America and the troops; before it was decided and after.

I didn't turn my back on the troops when the going got tough like so many on the Left did (ie. Hillary Clinton). Coming from a military family that isn't the way I was raised to be.

Here's what I know from generations of my family having served from the very founding of our country through the Civil war to the beaches of D-Day until now; If you really understood our obligations to the military, you’d know that first one, the most important covenant we citizens, civilians, have with those who serve, is the understanding that we will never ever put them into harm’s way lightly, without all due deliberation. Therefore, shouting down as unpatriotic those who say "wait a minute, hold on, before we send our sons and daughters in" (i.e. before they go to war) is, well, unpatriotic. We owe(d) it to those who serve to be sure we were sending them to risk life and limb for a cause we were absolutely sure about. Weren’t you taught that?

I don't want or need a "pass" from you or anyone else. It’s not up to me to give anyone a pass. See, I didn’t lose a son or a daughter in Iraq. But doesn’t mean that you get to give yourself one.

turn my back on the troops That’s a particularly odious cop out. We are talking about the initial decision to send the troops to war. It's not because you object to going to war or question the conduct of the war that you don't or can't support the troops in it; on the contrary. If simply objecting to the conduct is turning your back, then didn't your cohorts do just that when Obama became C-in-C?

Yet so many on the Left are perfectly willing to give Clinton, Edwards, John Kerry - among many others - a pass on their pathetic turn against both wars; both the "good" war in Afghanistan and the "bad" one in Iraq. True, but irrelevant to the in question .

You should not misunderstand me. Oh, I haven't misunderstood you. In other threads I’ve made my view clear as to what I think some Republicans are doing to the memory of those who died in Benghazi, and why.

I have no problems coming to grips with Bush's failures – Clearly, you do. You give him a pass on the best ones.

I don't necessarily blame him for the problems in Iraq in Afghanistan – Really? That’s generous and rather self-serving of course.

But in general his failures tip the balance over his accomplishments. Agreed. A failure.

Obama on the other hand, has done nothing but prevent the nation from recovering from a deep recession. Same tired old tune. Similar circumstances? Not hardly. This was always going to be slow going, particularly with Republicans bent on preventing any kind of economic progress that Obama could campaign on in 2012.

On the debt, he makes Bush look like a miser. What utter nonsense.

Obama's presidency is a huge failure. Oh, Obama is certainly not perfect. He was never going to live up to the over the top hype of his initial campaign. He's been too timid by far from the outset. He should have taken a page from the "imperial presidency" of George Bush and actually have gone to that mats with the Republicans. He'd certainly be enjoying a higher level of popularity with many who are now disappointed with him and, perhaps, been able to accomplish more.

To quote a Democrat Senator, it has been a "train wreck". By the way, with regard to the "train wreck" quote the "it" was about the implementation of an aspect of the roll out of ACA - the public awareness campaign. He wasn''t half wrong. Still better than anything Republicans had to offer.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@gcbel:

Therefore, shouting down as unpatriotic those who say "wait a minute, hold on, before we send our sons and daughters in" (i.e. before they go to war) is, well, unpatriotic.

So your response is to agree with me that the time to dissent is before the nation debates and decides on war? No one has ever said that is unpatriotic - quite the opposite I would say is closer to the truth. I noted to you that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry and many others supported the war then turned on it once our servicemen ran into a more difficult time than the media and some in the Bush administration anticipated. Harry Reid even had the gall to say the war was lost even before the outcome of Bush's surge was known. That is unpatriotic in my book.

If you really understood our obligations to the military, you’d know that first one, the most important covenant we citizens, civilians, have with those who serve, is the understanding that we will never ever put them into harm’s way lightly, without all due deliberation.

As someone who served in the military myself I couldn't agree with you more. But I am glad that you agree with me that the time for debate is before the war starts. War is different from most things that spring for the political realm. Once you commit, you are committed for good. To go back on your support of the war when the going gets tough is shameful and yes, "unpatriotic".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As someone who served in the military myself I couldn't agree with you more. But I am glad that you agree with me that the time for debate is before the war starts. War is different from most things that spring for the political realm. Once you commit, you are committed for good. To go back on your support of the war when the going gets tough is shameful and yes, "unpatriotic".

Nope, not if it was a war founded on falsehoods designed to justify imperialist expansion and the extraction of resources. America's war in Iraq was illegal. Time for the rest of the world to impose sanctions on the USA, the greatest menace to world peace today.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oginome - so Hillary Clinton lied? She refused to take Bush's word for it and sought out her own truth. You can she her speech on YouTube. Then guess what, she voted to go to war. Well, at least you can say she was for before she was against it.

Imperialism in Iraq? No that never happened. Afghanistan? Obama said that was the good war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oginome - so Hillary Clinton lied? She refused to take Bush's word for it and sought out her own truth. You can she her speech on YouTube. Then guess what, she voted to go to war. Well, at least you can say she was for before she was against it.

Imperialism in Iraq? No that never happened. Afghanistan? Obama said that was the good war.

I'm not an American, I don't have to follow your black and white Democrats/Republicans binary thinking. To be honest though the most psychotic and stupid Americans I've known tend to fall into the Republican category, sorry. How are the creationism studies and NRA meetings going?

Imperialism in Iraq? Definitely happened. Textbook example. And what would I care what Obama thinks? He sanctions the appalling drone murders the cowardly US military carries out against innocent villagers in Pakistan. Just the latest in a line of war criminal presidents of a war-mongering imperial nation.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Oginome - If America was still occupying Iraq you would at least have an argument to make. You are not making yourself seem all that smart when you assert imperialism. What is the great benefit the US accrued by removing Hussein's regime? Does the US have control of Iraq's oil? Was the leadership in Iraq put in power by the American government? The answer to both questions is no. A textbook example of imperialism was Japan's annexation ok Korea in 1911.

I really can not rebut your argument about the use of drones in places like Pakistan and Sudan; you make a good point there.

The Iraq war was based on the information from multiple countries and the UN. They were all deceived. Hussein played a dangerous game and lost - despite the support of people like yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oginome - If America was still occupying Iraq you would at least have an argument to make. You are not making yourself seem all that smart when you assert imperialism. What is the great benefit the US accrued by removing Hussein's regime? Does the US have control of Iraq's oil? Was the leadership in Iraq put in power by the American government? The answer to both questions is no. A textbook example of imperialism was Japan's annexation ok Korea in 1911.

I really can not rebut your argument about the use of drones in places like Pakistan and Sudan; you make a good point there.

The Iraq war was based on the information from multiple countries and the UN. They were all deceived. Hussein played a dangerous game and lost - despite the support of people like yourself.

The US manufactured a pretext to justify its illegal invasion of a sovereign country, illegally, in defiance of the UN. Imperialism in action. Iraq's oil market was completely closed prior to its occupation by the US army. Now the Western MNCs, some of them American are owned, have set up shop there and are currently raking in profits. Iraq has little to no control over its oil supply in 2014. And just because the US has officially surrendered control of Iraq doesn't suddenly mean it's not imperialist. Bizarre logic. The fact that it occupied in the first place is where you'll see the imperialism.

Of course you'll agree with me about Obama. Democrats are everything that's wrong with the US and only right wing nut jobs can save your country from itself. Right.

The UN and 'multiple countries' were deceived? Really? What information was the US privy to that eluded these multiple other countries? From what I can see, the US seemed to have been gravely misled about those elusive WMDs that were never discovered. This 'error' which costs tens of thousands of deaths and destroyed the lives of millions suggest that America has no business being a member of the international community until it has been made to account for its gross misconduct and war crimes.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I am glad that you agree with me that the time for debate is before the war starts.

I don't. You agree about our responsibility before the decision, good. But, I don't agree that all discussion ends once war starts. Once we've committed to war, we're on a certain course to be sure, but we still have a responsibility to make sure the war is being competently run, that our troops receive what they need to accomplish the mission, and are not kept in harm's way any longer than necessary. Blind faith that politicians - Democrat or Republican - will do what's right for the troops rather than what's politically expedient is an abdication of responsibility. And here again, painting as "unpatriotic", as "not supporting the troops" those who questioned any aspect of the conduct of the war was a common tactic.

Also, if it turns out that our elected officials misled the public (Bush, Cheney), failed to due to perform due diligence, or caved and later flipped out of political calculation (Hillary, Edwards...), then they should be made to pay. Because, yes, at the end of the day "War is different from most things that spring for the political realm," and we should have brooked no reason not to call all of them to account.

The Iraq war was based on the information from multiple countries and the UN. They were all deceived.

I'm afraid that's the simplistic, self-serving post-war excuse. Truth is there was ample reason to question the case for war even when one accepted what we were being told as fact - I questioned. Turned out, I was right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

oginome:

The US manufactured a pretext to justify its illegal invasion of a sovereign country, illegally, in defiance of the UN. Imperialism in action.

Who says it is illegal? Who is going to hold America to account for this "manufactured" pretext for justifying war?

Of course you'll agree with me about Obama. Democrats are everything that's wrong with the US and only right wing nut jobs can save your country from itself. Right.

No I do not. To me the Iraq war was a chance for the UN to asset it's relevance. It has proven to be impotent without the US military. Now I think the US should quite the UN and only associate on issues of common international interest on an ad hoc basis. Why should the US sweat over the useless resolutions and condemnations that are passed by the UN Security Council. Hussein can gas his people and that's cool. Assad is doing it and the UN isn't doing anything about it. Why have a UN when it does nothing but should about the inhumanity of man and does nothing about it. Seriously, how relevant is the UN now with 136,000 people killed in Syria? The UN is worse than a joke - it is a cruel joke.

Now the Western MNCs, some of them American are owned, have set up shop there and are currently raking in profits. Iraq has little to no control over its oil supply in 2014.

America spent much more then it will ever make back by any of the relatively small business ventures that US companies may be participating in post war Iraq.

America has no business being a member of the international community until it has been made to account for its gross misconduct and war crimes.

You and I seen to agree on this point. I think the US should leave the world to fend for itself and disentangle itself from the UN. America should be more concerned with it's own national interests than that of the "international community".

gcbel:

Once we've committed to war, we're on a certain course to be sure, but we still have a responsibility to make sure the war is being competently run, that our troops receive what they need to accomplish the mission, and are not kept in harm's way any longer than necessary

I agree to a certain extent. Joining in making sure that the troops have enough body armor and support materials - all of that is great. However, politicians publicly sniping at each other for political advantage is unseemly at best and moral killing at worst. Obama and Clinton both admitted that they opposed the Iraq surge for political purposes. This doesn't resound very well to their character. And worst of all, the Senate Majority leader - Harry Read - standing on the floor of the US Senate telling the nation that America lost the war while the troops were still fighting and dying based on the the decision of his institution to send them there on their behalf is despicable and terribly unpatriotic.

I'm afraid that's the simplistic, self-serving post-war excuse. Truth is there was ample reason to question the case for war even when one accepted what we were being told as fact - I questioned. Turned out, I was right.

Well I guess you should have run for president.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To me the Iraq war was a chance for the UN to asset it's relevance.

It did. Had America not cast aside the UN process and decided to go it alone, the Iraq war would not have happened, thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis would not be dead, and Iraq would not be a hotbed of Al Qaeda fighters as it is now. America deciding to go it alone actually gives a perfect example of why we should have a UN. Look at the gong show that ensued as a result of America's actions.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well I guess you should have run for president.

A flippant reply. Our servicemen and women deserved better.

Maybe next time we have a national discussion about whether or not we should send our troops to war we'll remember Iraq and think twice.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Who says it is illegal? Who is going to hold America to account for this "manufactured" pretext for justifying war?

You're not aware of international law? The Iraq war was illegal. It met the critieria for War of Aggression. The US as a member of the UN and as a permanent member of the security council has to abide by the rules, just like all nations do. Unfortunately, hypocritical US has shown a consistent and disturbing tendency to demand other countries comply with international law it while it feels it can disregard it whenever it wants. American exceptionalism in action.

No I do not. To me the Iraq war was a chance for the UN to asset it's relevance. It has proven to be impotent without the US military. Now I think the US should quite the UN and only associate on issues of common international interest on an ad hoc basis. Why should the US sweat over the useless resolutions and condemnations that are passed by the UN Security Council. Hussein can gas his people and that's cool. Assad is doing it and the UN isn't doing anything about it. Why have a UN when it does nothing but should about the inhumanity of man and does nothing about it. Seriously, how relevant is the UN now with 136,000 people killed in Syria? The UN is worse than a joke - it is a cruel joke.

So basically you're saying the US doesn't have to follow international law again? That it can invade any country it wants, and isn't answerable to anyone? Imperialism in action. The arrogance of the US is unbelievable. And acting like you actually care about the welfare of the people in these countries is hilarious. What about the injustices perpetrated against American citizens by its government within its own borders, the lack of universal health care, the NSA spying scandal, completely riding roughshod over those amendments Americans are always shouting about?

America spent much more then it will ever make back by any of the relatively small business ventures that US companies may be participating in post war Iraq.

The US has never been one for long term planning or looking at the consequences of its action. Look at the declining state of the US economy since the early 1980s when short-termism began to dominate economic thinking. The same applies to the military. Plus the US has the miliary industrial complex, and this depends on the US being in a state of 'perpetual war'.

You and I seen to agree on this point. I think the US should leave the world to fend for itself and disentangle itself from the UN. America should be more concerned with it's own national interests than that of the "international community".

Yes, the US should leave the UN so it can continue its imperialism unabashed without those annoying UN restrictions such as having to respect human rights and other countries' sovereignty holding it back, right? The US leaves the UN, it becomes a rogue state, one that threatens and invades other countries. In this situation, its only right that the rest of the world imposes sanctions on this nuclear-armed, war mongering menace to world peace.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@oginome: You're not aware of international law?

Oh sure, I've heard of international law. The problem is that whenever international law is broken there isn't any way to enforce it by punishing the violator. Hussein broke international law when he violated the terms of his surrender after the Gulf war. The UN said they were not supposed to do that - then did nothing about it. International law - as "enforced" by the UN - is a joke.

The Iraq war was illegal. It met the critieria for War of Aggression.

OK - so now what? Is anyone going to do anything about it? I didn't think so. That's the problem with your argument. You can't make a law without the ability to enforce it. It is a meaningless exercise in misplaced self-importance.

The arrogance of the US is unbelievable.

No, the arrogance of the UN is unbelievable. The UN does not function in the way it is supposed to. It is impotent and irrelevant because it lacks authority to enforce it's own rules.

So basically you're saying the US doesn't have to follow international law again?

No. What I am actually saying is that no country or individual has to follow international law whenever there is no will to enforce it. The UN was about to let Hussein get away with breaking the Gulf war cease fire agreement. The only thing that prevented that in the end was the US invasion - based primarily on the WMD intelligence (or lack thereof).

The arrogance of the US is unbelievable.

Maybe so but you should try reading some of the quotes out of Iran these days about how they swindled the international community on their agreement to "not" suspend nuclear enrichment activities. They are laughing at the US, the UN, and every other idealist international organization.

And acting like you actually care about the welfare of the people in these countries is hilarious.

What is not hilarious is people that support the UN as a means to avoid lifting a finger to stop brutal dictators from gassing or otherwise slaughtering millions of their own citizens with impunity. I'll say it again - the UN is a cruel joke.

What about the injustices perpetrated against American citizens by its government within its own borders, the lack of universal health care, the NSA spying scandal, completely riding roughshod over those amendments Americans are always shouting about?

Excuse me? The lack of universal health care is an injustice? You have been reading too much Marx - it's making you lose your mind.

Yes, the US should leave the UN so it can continue its imperialism unabashed without those annoying UN restrictions such as having to respect human rights and other countries' sovereignty holding it back, right?

UN membership doesn't stop Assad from killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. You make is sound like being a member of the UN is actually something that prevents human injustice. There is no authority to prevent thugs like Assad from being a thug. But yes, I would prefer the US leave that feckless organization.

In this situation, its only right that the rest of the world imposes sanctions on this nuclear-armed, war mongering menace to world peace.

Be my guest. In the meantime the world economy will collapse but hey, you are an idealist right? The human suffering that results is just an unfortunate consequence right!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites