 |
 |
 Enlarge |
By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY |
|
| Michelle Obama hula hoops during a healthy kids fair on the South Lawn of the White House. |
First lady's popularity surpasses
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The day after the election, Barack Obama was viewed more favorably by Americans than his wife, Michelle.
Not any more.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the past week shows a surge in positive views of the first lady even as her husband's ratings have eroded. Michelle Obama is now viewed more favorably than the president, and her standing is nearly 50% higher than Vice President Biden.
"She has conducted herself as an educated, sensitive, down-to-earth woman — not a black woman, a woman — like when she does the gardening (to promote healthful eating) and taking care of the family," says Rosemarie Tate, 55, a registered dietitian from West Hartford, Conn., who was among those called in the poll. "Those are values that everybody shares."
As the first anniversary of Obama's election approaches, the poll finds:
•Barack Obama is viewed favorably by 55%, unfavorably by 42%. Non-Hispanic whites are evenly split, 49%-49%, while his rating among blacks is overwhelmingly positive, 90%-9%.
The day after his election, on Nov. 5, 2008, his overall favorable rating was 68%-27%.
•Michelle Obama is viewed favorably by 61%, unfavorably by 25%. Her standing among non-Hispanic whites is 57%-30%; among blacks, it is 91%-5%.
About a year ago, in a USA TODAY poll taken Sept. 5-7, 2008, her overall favorable rating was 54%-30%.
•Biden is viewed favorably by 42%, unfavorably by 40%. Down from 59%-29% last November, that's a steeper fall than his boss.
•Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, is viewed favorably by 54%, unfavorably by 37%. That's a drop from the day after the election, when his ratings were 64%-33%.
The poll of 1,521 adults, including 933 non-Hispanic whites and 408 blacks, was taken Friday through Monday by landline and cellphone. The margin of error is +/— 3 percentage points for the full sample, 4 points for the white subsample and 6 points for the black subsample.
From more findings from the survey — including the impact of Obama's presidency on race relations in the United States — see Friday's USA TODAY and usatoday.com.
More from USA Today
|
INLNews.com
 |
USAWeekendNews.com
 |
INLNews.com
 |
|
|
|
|
Question:
Do all the above USA politicians all work for the same bosses?
It is fairfly public knowledge that George Bush and Bill Clintoin are connected toi the powerfu l and rich Freemason-Builderberger Group.. However, a female can not be a Freemason, but can be brought into the inner circle of the Builderberger Group.. We have all seen video footage on the
www.inlnews.com website at
http://www.inlnews.com/End_
Game_NewWorldOrder.html
showing Hillary Clinton attending a Builderberger meeting..the question remains...how does Barrack Obama fit into all this......would the Freemason and Buiderberger Group who have unlimited power, money and influence.. have allowed Barrack Obama to win the USA Presidential Election so easily if Barrack Obama isn't either knowingly and/or unwittnngly, doing what they want him to do.. and/or will not let him do what he wants to do....as their obviously preferred presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton lost the right to run for president of the USA to Barrack Obama, the next best thing was to insure Hillary Clinton was in the most powerful public service position in the USA Government ,as Sectretary of State...In fact it may now suit them to have Hillary Clinton not to be President of the USA, as what ever happens will be blamed on Barack Obama, when in fact it may well be that his right hand woman, Hillary Clinton, may in fact be making the effective decisions and/or influencing Barrack Obama's thoughts on a day to day basis so that in the end Barrack Obama does exactky what Hillary Clinton's supervisors want, as far as the overall direction onfthe USA in domestic and foreign affairs.
The Rise Decline and Fall of America The Film..........Watch this space for more episodes of The Rise Decline and Fall of America ....
The Decline and Fall of America Part One
|
The Decline and Fall of America Part 2 of 31 parts
The Decline and Fall of America Part 2A of 31 parts
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGM2MzM0NTYyOTlmNjBiODdkNjVkYjdmNTAyNTkwYmM=
The Kitty-Cat Who Roared
The loud reformer Obama himself proves even emptier in his promises than Bush.
By Victor Davis Hanson
President Obama keeps roaring out deadlines like a lion — only later to meow like a little kitty.
Remember, for example, how he bellowed to cheering partisan crowds that he would close down the detainment facility at Guantanamo within a year?
The clock ticks — and Guantanamo isn’t close to being shut down. It once was easy for candidate Obama to deplore George W. Bush’s supposed gulag. Now it proves harder to decide between the bad choice of detaining non-uniformed terrorist combatants and the worse ones of letting them go, giving them civilian trials, or deporting them to unwilling hosts.
Going back further to September 2007, candidate Obama postured about Iraq that he wanted “to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now!”
That “now!” sure sounded macho.
On Iraq, candidate Obama also railed that "the American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We've had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet."
Talk about “unmet” deadlines and “spin” — here we are in October 2009, and there are still 120,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The reason why Obama fudged on his promised deadline is that the surge in 2007 worked. American deaths plummeted. The theater is quiet. Iraqi democracy is still there after six years. Obama cannot quite admit these facts, but on the other hand, he does not want to be responsible for undermining them.
This July, our president roared out another impending deadline. He warned Iran that it had to prove its compliance with non-proliferation protocols by September — or face new consequences since the U.S. was not going to “wait indefinitely.”
Now it’s October, and even the French are exasperated that Obama still sounds like the king of the jungle but acts like a purring house kitten. And no wonder that Iran and its patron Russia seem to be calculating that Obama will figure that a nuclear Iran is less troubling for him than the consequences of offending Vladimir Putin, spiking oil prices or using force in the volatile Middle East.
The list of differences between what the melodramatic Obama threatens or promises to do and what he actually does is endless.
Health care: The president once warned Congress that it had to pass comprehensive reform by the August congressional recess. August came and went, and now we’re still waiting, waiting, waiting . . . .
Afghanistan: This was once Obama’s promised war to win — the one we had to refocus on after supposedly taking our eye off the ball to fight in Iraq. Now, instead, we are suddenly blaming the eight-year-old Karzai government for not being the stable partner we need to finish the job.
Ethics reform: During the campaign, Obama vowed to end lobbyists in government, post legislation on the Internet five days before a presidential signing, and air health-care negotiations on C-SPAN.
In short, just imagine if Obama were to warn Congress to get health-care done by November 15 — or else; or to give Iran one last chance until the first of the year to stop enriching uranium; or to promise that Guantanamo really, really will close on March 1, 2010. Would anyone take him seriously, much less fret about the consequences of ignoring those vows?
Obama ran on the accusation that Bush missed promised targets and deadlines. Yet when the loud reformer Obama himself proves even emptier in his promises than Bush, he suffers from theatrical hypocrisy, too.
But there is an even greater problem. Overheated rhetoric got Obama into these jams — and he seems to expect that his dramatic flair can always get him out as well. So we all await more of the empty hope-and-change hocus-pocus — as Obama explains how he never really promised to get out of Iraq “now!” or to “take further steps” against Iran in September 2009.
When Jan. 1, 2010, comes and goes, I expect the president to say that, “I can no more shut down Guantanamo than I can . . . .”
Well, by now you know the rest of what follows.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. © 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTAwZWNjNWVlMzVlY2EyZWU1NTFmN2QwMDk1MjM5MTc=
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Obama Coming Around Slowly on Nuclear? [William Tucker]
It might seem as if the Obama administration is stonewalling on nuclear, but there are indications that its attitude might be changing.
Last Sunday in a little noted speech in New Orleans, President Obama made the following remarks:
There's no reason why technologically we can't employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way. Japan does it and France doesn't and it doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way. Now true, there are the usual hedges in there. What does “an effective way” mean? Does that mean we have to reinvent the technology once again, instead of using what we’ve got? But something is happening in the administration. According to Bloomberg, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told environmental ministers preparing for Copenhagen last week that the U.S. is “working aggressively to restart the nuclear industry. I believe the nuclear waste problem is solvable on a scientific level and a political level.”
Good rhetoric, at least — rather like the faint and indistinct noises the president made about tort reform as one way to restrain health-care costs. Now it would be nice to see the speechmaking translate into something concrete — such as the containment structure around a brand-new, real-life, up-and-running nuclear reactor.
Now true, there are the usual hedges in there. What does “an effective way” mean? Does that mean we have to reinvent the technology once again, instead of using what we’ve got? But something is happening in the administration. According to , Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told environmental ministers preparing for Copenhagen last week that the U.S. is “working aggressively to restart the nuclear industry. I believe the nuclear waste problem is solvable on a scientific level and a political level.”Good rhetoric, at least — rather like the faint and indistinct noises the president made about tort reform as one way to restrain health-care costs. Now it would be nice to see the speechmaking translate into something concrete — such as the containment structure around a brand-new, real-life, up-and-running nuclear reactor.
|
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-hard-sell
The Hard Sell
How Obama should play the politics of an Afghanistan troop surge.
Patrick J. Egan
and Joshua A. Tucker
President Obama faces an enormous political challenge
in figuring out how to respond to General Stanley McChrystal's request
for more soldiers in Afghanistan. One the one hand, resisting troop
requests from the military during a time of war is difficult for any
chief executive--particularly for Democratic presidents. On the other
hand, Americans are showing little stomach to once again commit more
troops to a distant, war-torn region: No recent survey has found majority support for the idea.
No matter what choice Obama makes, he should not be deluded into
thinking that his rhetorical gifts can move public opinion on this
issue. According to research by Professor George Edwards
of Texas A&M University, recent presidents, no matter how
golden-tongued, have had virtually no power to change public opinion on
foreign policy. Bill Clinton, for example, kicked off a high-profile
call to send U.S. peacekeepers to Bosnia with a nationally televised
address in November 1995. In response, public approval for the idea
hardly moved at all, hovering around 40 percent for the next two
years. Likewise, despite repeated pleas to the public, Ronald Reagan
never moved support for aiding the Nicaraguan contras beyond the
mid-30s.
Additionally, Democratic presidents like Obama face a particular
handicap when making major foreign policy moves: For decades, the
public has distrusted the Democrats on issues related to national
security. That remained true throughout George W. Bush's disastrous
handling of the Iraq War. And even in early 2008, when the Republican
Party was near its nadir in terms of popularity, survey data
from the Pew Research Center indicated that Democrats' best issues
remained on the domestic front--health care and education--while
foreign policy, terrorism, and even Iraq were all at the bottom of the
list.
While it is true that the Democrats' reputation on foreign policy has experienced a recent uptick--in Pew's August survey,
Democrats enjoyed a 13-point lead on foreign policy and a nine-point
advantage on Afghanistan--Obama shouldn't allow that fact to lull him
into thinking his party has conquered the American public's
skepticism. "Issue ownership," as defined by political scientist John Petrocik
to mean a party's core reputation for competence on a specific issue,
takes a long time to build. It can only be established with a
substantial history of attention to problems in a specific policy
domain, and a track record of resolving those problems consistently
over time. (The Republican edge on foreign policy goes back at least as
far as to the fall of the Berlin Wall.)
Furthermore, research
by one of us (Egan) indicates that the public, which tends to know few
details about the country's problems and even less about how to solve
them, grants the parties some leeway to make policy on issues they
"own." By contrast, voters can quickly turn against a party if its
leaders advocate unsuccessful policies in an area where they don't have
a long-term advantage. In other words, a Bill Clinton can make missteps
on a Democratic issue like health care and still get reelected, and a
George W. Bush can recover from a massive failure in Iraq. But Barack
Obama likely has little margin for error in Afghanistan.
White House nixes Cheney's charges on Afghan policy
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Thursday forcefully rejected criticism from former vice president Dick Cheney and other Republicans that President Obama's Afghanistan decision is taking too long. "What vice president Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public," Gibbs said. "I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously."
The previous top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, submitted a request for more troops that went unfulfilled by former President George W. Bush. Obama partly granted that request in March when he ordered an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to go to Afghanistan this year.
Cheney said in a speech Wednesday night that Obama needs to "do what it takes to win" and that "signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries."
Cheney also took issue with statements out of the White House that the Obama administration had to start from scratch to develop a strategy for the 8-year-old war. The Bush administration presented to Obama's transition team the review of the Afghanistan war that it undertook just before leaving office and was asked to keep it under wraps, Cheney said.
"I have not looked at that review," Gibbs said. "I don't know whether what he describes is accurate."
Gibbs said Cheney's comments were curious because the vice president wasn't focused on Afghanistan for seven years while he was in office and "given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president's, for more than eight months, a resource request filled by President Obama in March."
Meanwhile, Obama worked Thursday on a strategy to prevent fraud from occurring in Afghanistan in its runoff presidential election set for Nov. 7.
In an hourlong videoconference from the White House Situation Room, Obama and other top advisers heard a briefing and recommendations from the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. Gibbs would not specify what steps the U.S. is taking with Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission to avoid the problems that plagued the original election on Aug. 20. President Hamid Karzai faces his main challenger, ex-Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, in the runoff.
Though the Obama administration hopes it will end weeks of acrimony over Afghanistan's election, officials are under no illusion that merely re-staging the vote will produce a legitimate partner as the U.S. tries to stabilize the country and keep the Taliban from re-taking control and re-establishing a safe haven for al-Qaeda.
"Having a partner is going to take more than just an election," Gibbs said.
Regardless, Obama is not necessarily going to put off his decision on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan until after the run-off election, as some — including Democratic Sen. John Kerry— have strongly suggested he do.
"It could be before the runoff. It might be after the runoff," Gibbs said.
Faced with dwindling public support for the 8-year-old war, Obama's national security team is weighing whether the United States should send more troops to the region. His team is considering as few as 10,000 and as many as 80,000 more Americans in the region, as well as whether to order more forces to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan or to focus more narrowly on al-Qaeda terrorists believed to be hiding in Pakistan.
The U.S. already has about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, and NATO nations have supplied 36,000 more.
Comments:
======================
All your comments are completely false. Did you by chance even see a newspaper or watch TV when the whole Iraq thing started happening?
======================
Crowbro:
You have to shut off Fox and read a book now and then. I recommend "FIASCO" by Thomas E. Ricks. Lots of good quotes by military officers and soldiers who were there, rather than political spin you get from media.
Our media failed us in Iraq, yes even the NYT. They didn't ask our leaders the hard questions.
Almost all of the talking heads on Fox News were old enough to serve their nation when there was a draft and all those slimy cowards avoided the draft,that goes for most of the slime balls on conservative talk radio. They are heroes shouting patriotic slogans and waving the flag but would never be caught dead in an American military uniform in tme of war,and unfortunately our congress is full of right wing draft dodgers.
Things are really upside down when you let the cowards of the nation dictate the nations policies.
 doctor pangloss (32 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
karl Obamarx (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
doctor pangloss (32 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
karl Obamarx
uh, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but we won the war in iraq... keep it real quiet though, cant give cheney any credit for anything. Nor can we criticize Obama for extending that needless war. Sshhh.
================================================ ===================================
Any one who would honor,respect and support a COWARD like Cheney must have the same putrid blood running through their veins as well. BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER.
------------------------
Cheney understood that you cant be nice enough to terrorists to get them to stop killing you. Like Obama seems to be trying to do. Cheney took the fight to the middle east and off our shores. Obama's making us less safe by the minute by kissing the butts of terrorist supporting nations and dictators world wide. We should'nt be getting praise from Hugo 'Chavez and Vlad Putin. That is not a good sign for America.
 Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
gabbaheyy (0 friends, send message) wrote: 4m ago
More of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's wise war decisions:
Take a secular nation that was not linked to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda and turn it into a terrorist training ground with plenty of US soldiers to practice on.
Grab all males of military age and through them in prison based on hearsay and no evidence. Then their brothers and fathers and uncles are forced into honor killings against Americans.
Ignore all Iraqi customs to infuriate the civilian population, especially breaking into peoples homes, entering the women and children's rooms and dragging away suspects in the middle of the night.
Don't concentrate on restoring water or power. Make sure the oil fields are safe.
Live in Sadam's Palaces to prove you are occupiers not liberators.
======================
All your comments are completely false. Did you by chance even see a newspaper or watch TV when the whole Iraq thing started happening?
Were you there crow? I was in 2004, and I can say pretty much all of these comments are true, we raided houses in the middle of the night kicked in doors and dragged Iraqis out of their homes, half of the time finding out they didn't do anything.
The streets were filled with trash and sewage, electricity did not work, Iraqis had to wait in lines for hours on end to just get gas in their cars.
I witnessed many instances of guys in my own platoon being disrespectful to local Iraqis, whom they considered "subhuman"; throwing full water bottles and D Cell batteries at the windshields of passing cars and laughing about it.
Saddam's palaces are being occupied by U.S. troops, have been since 2003.
So crow you have no idea about the reality of the war.
TampaFlorida (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
The only pleasure I enjoy from the hardships Obama is causing the people, is knowing that more than half of them were stupid enough to vote for him, so to you I say, you reap what you sew ... Enjoy (lol lol lol)
=====================
Now ain't that the truth! - It's pretty nice - I can still hold my head up high knowing I didn't vote for him.
What is Cheney up to this time, Last time, he was trying to cover his tracks with Gitmo. Lately he has been running his mouth again along with his daughter, what are they trying to cover up this time?
gabbaheyy (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
More of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's wise war decisions:
Use contractors, especially Hallburton, whenever possible. That way even if the war goes bad me and my friends still make a buck.
Give the "war" in Afganistan a token amount of troops so the Taliban can expand and grow more poppies to fund their activities.
Don't ever use diplomacy with neighboring countries like Iran and Syria that supply weapons to the insurgents. This would be a sign of weakness.
Don't question the Saudis about funding and promoting Al-Qaeda in their religious schools, they are our oil friends.
-----------------------
Psst; hey, just so you know, Obama is still doing all of those... yeah, can you believe it? he's doing every single of of those things... except he's now getting praise from Iran and Syria, ya know, if you're nice to terrorist supporting nations they might not kill us like on 9/11 or something. I know it didnt work for Clinton, but Obama is pretty naive and thinks it will and as supporters of his we must put on blinders and just nod in agreement. pretty scary though isnt it.
karl Obamarx (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
doctor pangloss (32 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
karl Obamarx
uh, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but we won the war in iraq... keep it real quiet though, cant give cheney any credit for anything. Nor can we criticize Obama for extending that needless war. Sshhh.
================================================ ===================================
Any one who would honor,respect and support a COWARD like Cheney must have the same putrid blood running through their veins as well. BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER.
 Krevolver (0 friends, send message) wrote: 7m ago
User Image
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
Huskerind (0 friends, send message) wrote: 4m ago
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
Eagle87 (28 friends, send message) wrote: 5m ago
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago
Eagle87 (28 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
karl Obamarx (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
15% of the deaths in iraq and afghanistan are under Obama's administration already.... its the Bush/Obama wars now.
and 85% of them were under Bush's administration, just imagine how much lower our casualties would be if we did not invade Iraq and concentrated on Afghanistan, the place that had something to do with 9/11?
================
Yeah, just imagine...how the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would just be hiding in Iraq and it'd be even harder to win in Afghanistan. Hmm... maybe that's the reason we went into Iraq in the first place. Glad to teach ya something.
I thought Iraq was invaded because we had to get rid of their WMDs? I don't remember Bush telling us in late 2002 that we are invading Iraq because the Taliban and Al Qaeda were hiding there, glad to teach ya something.
============================
WMDs were one reason - Taliban and Al-Qaeda were another reason. Funny how the terrorists flock together, huh?
=================================
Taliban and Al-Qaeda were in Iraq before we were? hahahaahahahahaa you're such an idiot that you're making it up as you go along..... Saddam the bast ard would have hung any Taliban and Al-Qaeda if they stepped foot in Iraq.
=====================
Wow, it's amazing the ingorance one can read on these posts. I guess I have to give you a little time for the common sense to sink in. Saddam - Al Qaeda - Taliban - hating Americans - hating Israel - plotting. It helps to step back a bit to see the connection between all this.
----------------------------
Not even bush was crazy enough to suggest this.
Saddam executed taliban on sight. He hated them.
==============
It's exactly what Bush suggested. You just don't remember or weren't coherent enough to realize. I've really got better things to do with my time.
rawn (45 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
Cajun57 (8 friends, send message) wrote: 3h 19m ago
Obama doesn't mind rushing through healthcare so thousands don't die or lose their job. He doesn't mind having staff controlling the media (Anita Dunn). He was quick to lobby for the olympics. But he will wait while our troops are in danger. He is commander in chief by title only. Pathetic excuse for a leader and a man.
@@@@@@@@@@
Rushing? Uh, this debate has been going on since March and we are now in October.......no, rushing would be like invading Iraq based on wmds when its clear they arent there.
----------------------
Cant rush socialism! but you sure can to extend a war you've promised to end.
rawn (45 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
User Image
karl Obamarx (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
rawn (45 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
TampaFlorida (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
The only pleasure I enjoy from the hardships Obama is causing the people, is knowing that more than half of them were stupid enough to vote for him, so to you I say, you reap what you sew ... Enjoy (lol lol lol)
=====================
Now ain't that the truth! - It's pretty nice - I can still hold my head up high knowing I didn't vote for him
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
RIght, you can hold your head high you voted twice for George W Bush. Hey, aside from 911, Iraq, Afganistan, Katrina, record gas prices, and the great depression, part 2, was bush really all that bad???
------------------------
wait you mean Bush could summon hurricanes, caused terrorists to attack us, raised gas prices on purpose, and caused the housing crisis all by himself? gheeze, he was pretty powerful after all. God bless him!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
No, but he can botch and bungle the federal response to hurricanes. He can help terror attacks occur by not holding a single meeting with terror advisors and ignoring memos warning of them in the summer of 2001 and by employing clueless national security advisors......he can and he DID.
-----------------------
botched the response? oh, you must be a Kanye West fan then... He gave that City $250billion bucks to rebuild... how much do you think Obama has given that city since taking power? Zilch!... and you are right that he dropped that ball on the terror plot... but liberals also criticised him for taking the fight to them and attempting to stamp them out in the after math. Obama's not doing much better on the war on terror or the war in iraq. Were still in both and americans still die under Obama as much as they did under Bush!
karl Obamarx
and what are his crimes?
================================================ ===================================
Masterminding 2 losing preemptive wars left unfinished after 8 years. Responsible for the lives of thousands of American military and tens of thousands of innocent civilians and the trashing of 2 nations that did not attack or invade the U.S. And he will be brought to justice very soon.We hung Hussein and now it's Cheney's turn.
heron67 (31 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
gabbaheyy (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
======================
All your comments are completely false. Did you by chance even see a newspaper or watch TV when the whole Iraq thing started happening?
======================
Crowbro:
You have to shut off Fox and read a book now and then. I recommend "FIASCO" by Thomas E. Ricks. Lots of good quotes by military officers and soldiers who were there, rather than political spin you get from media.
_________
Forget it. If it's not "blessed" by the Jerry Springers of Fox and Rush, it's "liberal tripe." These are people who called Colin Powell, the only respectable member of the Bush administration and the only one with military expertise, a traitor because he started to vocalize his reservations--based on his MILITARY experience--about the BushCheney policies. No no, these Neocons would rather believe a shyster like Bremer over someone with military expertise.
==================
Expertise, right. Just because you're military doesn't mean you comprehended in the least the importance of being over there. No wonder they need more troops - looks like they need over there that can do the job right.
karl O wrote:
-----------------------
Psst; hey, just so you know, Obama is still doing all of those... yeah, can you believe it? he's doing every single of of those things... except he's now getting praise from Iran and Syria, ya know, if you're nice to terrorist supporting nations they might not kill us like on 9/11 or something. I know it didnt work for Clinton, but Obama is pretty naive and thinks it will and as supporters of his we must put on blinders and just nod in agreement. pretty scary though isnt it.
===============
Obama opening up relations with Iran resulted in street riots against the Iranian government and calls from Iranians for more freedom. This seems to be more effective than Bush calling them the "Axis of Evil" for 8 years while they moved forward with a secret nuke weapons program.
===================
It's pathetic that you were there and don't even understand WHY you were there. Why don't you start supporting your buddies that are still over there instead of bad-mouthing what they're fighting for, huh? What a shame.....Crow
Hey buddy, the guys I served with will agree with ME, not you. You are the confused one, believing all the crap Bush fed you..what a shame.
karl Obamarx (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
rawn (45 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
heron67 (31 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago
Uh oh, here come the "Cheney kept us safe" comments. More Neocon BS direct from the desks of O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity. Cheney belongs in prison. He's a war criminal. End of story.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Yeah, from 911, I can name 3000 americans he really kept "safe".
-------------------------
he did a great job waterboarding those responsible..
@@@@@@@@@@@@
You cant waterboard ashes. Sorry, but those responsible were mostly vaporized into the air when their bodies were consumed by 50000 degree flames from fuel.
well were another 3trillion in debt, still fighting two wars, socializing the nation... and all I got wasa fake promise of "change" for it all... Oye Ve'.
karl Obamarx (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
heron67 (31 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago
Uh oh, here come the "Cheney kept us safe" comments. More Neocon BS direct from the desks of O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity. Cheney belongs in prison. He's a war criminal. End of story.
---------------------
and what are his crimes?
______
Manipulating Intel in the days after 9/11, to get his war with Iraq. He and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are cohorts. Bush was just a puppet. Try researching via some other outlets besides Fox and Rush. And no, I don't mean MoveOn.org, Huffington or MSNBC. They're called books and essays. Written by longtime CIA and Pentagon staffers.
 User Image
karl Obamarx (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
rawn (45 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
TampaFlorida (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
The only pleasure I enjoy from the hardships Obama is causing the people, is knowing that more than half of them were stupid enough to vote for him, so to you I say, you reap what you sew ... Enjoy (lol lol lol)
=====================
Now ain't that the truth! - It's pretty nice - I can still hold my head up high knowing I didn't vote for him
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
RIght, you can hold your head high you voted twice for George W Bush. Hey, aside from 911, Iraq, Afganistan, Katrina, record gas prices, and the great depression, part 2, was bush really all that bad???
------------------------
wait you mean Bush could summon hurricanes, caused terrorists to attack us, raised gas prices on purpose, and caused the housing crisis all by himself? gheeze, he was pretty powerful after all. God bless him!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
No, but he can botch and bungle the federal response to hurricanes. He can help terror attacks occur by not holding a single meeting with terror advisors and ignoring memos warning of them in the summer of 2001 and by employing clueless national security advisors......he can and he DID.
doctor pangloss (32 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
karl Obamarx
Cant rush socialism! but you sure can to extend a war you've promised to end.
================================================ ==================================
If you had only a nickels worth of brains you would know that Obama cannot repeat the God Awful exit like the one we pulled in Vietnam. But then you were short changed. That's why the republican party now has a HANDICAPPED STATUS.
----------------------
Oh I get it... its okay for Obama to fight the war in Iraq, but not Bush... got it.
gabbaheyy (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
======================
All your comments are completely false. Did you by chance even see a newspaper or watch TV when the whole Iraq thing started happening?
======================
Crowbro:
You have to shut off Fox and read a book now and then. I recommend "FIASCO" by Thomas E. Ricks. Lots of good quotes by military officers and soldiers who were there, rather than political spin you get from media.
Our media failed us in Iraq, yes even the NYT. They didn't ask our leaders the hard questions.
Objective and factual books about the Iraq war are avoided like the plague by loyal Fox News viewers, they'd rather believe the bluster of those who never served in the military like Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh, guys who don't know squat about what really occurred in the war. "Fiasco" is a great book, just like Rick's sequel to it "The Gamble", ...."Cobra II, The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq" is very good also.
Eagle87 (28 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
gabbaheyy (0 friends, send message) wrote: 4m ago
More of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's wise war decisions:
Take a secular nation that was not linked to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda and turn it into a terrorist training ground with plenty of US soldiers to practice on.
Grab all males of military age and through them in prison based on hearsay and no evidence. Then their brothers and fathers and uncles are forced into honor killings against Americans.
Ignore all Iraqi customs to infuriate the civilian population, especially breaking into peoples homes, entering the women and children's rooms and dragging away suspects in the middle of the night.
Don't concentrate on restoring water or power. Make sure the oil fields are safe.
Live in Sadam's Palaces to prove you are occupiers not liberators.
======================
All your comments are completely false. Did you by chance even see a newspaper or watch TV when the whole Iraq thing started happening?
Were you there crow? I was in 2004, and I can say pretty much all of these comments are true, we raided houses in the middle of the night kicked in doors and dragged Iraqis out of their homes, half of the time finding out they didn't do anything.
The streets were filled with trash and sewage, electricity did not work, Iraqis had to wait in lines for hours on end to just get gas in their cars.
I witnessed many instances of guys in my own platoon being disrespectful to local Iraqis, whom they considered "subhuman"; throwing full water bottles and D Cell batteries at the windshields of passing cars and laughing about it.
Saddam's palaces are being occupied by U.S. troops, have been since 2003.
So crow you have no idea about the reality of the war.
===================
It's pathetic that you were there and don't even understand WHY you were there. Why don't you start supporting your buddies that are still over there instead of bad-mouthing what they're fighting for, huh? What a shame.
rawn (45 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
heron67 (31 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago
Uh oh, here come the "Cheney kept us safe" comments. More Neocon BS direct from the desks of O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity. Cheney belongs in prison. He's a war criminal. End of story.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Yeah, from 911, I can name 3000 americans he really kept "safe".
-------------------------
he did a great job waterboarding those responsible.. .till folks from the liberals side of the isle started complaining about "terrorists rights" and all... gotta keep our killers comfy and all ya know. liberals are the biggest idiots in history!
karl Obamarx
Cant rush socialism! but you sure can to extend a war you've promised to end.
================================================ ==================================
If you had only a nickels worth of brains you would know that Obama cannot repeat the God Awful exit like the one we pulled in Vietnam. But then you were short changed. That's why the republican party now has a HANDICAPPED STATUS.
gabbaheyy (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
======================
All your comments are completely false. Did you by chance even see a newspaper or watch TV when the whole Iraq thing started happening?
======================
Crowbro:
You have to shut off Fox and read a book now and then. I recommend "FIASCO" by Thomas E. Ricks. Lots of good quotes by military officers and soldiers who were there, rather than political spin you get from media.
_________
Forget it. If it's not "blessed" by the Jerry Springers of Fox and Rush, it's "liberal tripe." These are people who called Colin Powell, the only respectable member of the Bush administration and the only one with military expertise, a traitor because he started to vocalize his reservations--based on his MILITARY experience--about the BushCheney policies. No no, these Neocons would rather believe a shyster like Bremer over someone with military expertise.
rawn (45 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
TampaFlorida (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
The only pleasure I enjoy from the hardships Obama is causing the people, is knowing that more than half of them were stupid enough to vote for him, so to you I say, you reap what you sew ... Enjoy (lol lol lol)
=====================
Now ain't that the truth! - It's pretty nice - I can still hold my head up high knowing I didn't vote for him
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
RIght, you can hold your head high you voted twice for George W Bush. Hey, aside from 911, Iraq, Afganistan, Katrina, record gas prices, and the great depression, part 2, was bush really all that bad???
------------------------
wait you mean Bush could summon hurricanes, caused terrorists to attack us, raised gas prices on purpose, and caused the housing crisis all by himself? gheeze, he was pretty powerful after all. God bless him!
heron67 (31 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago
Uh oh, here come the "Cheney kept us safe" comments. More Neocon BS direct from the desks of O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity. Cheney belongs in prison. He's a war criminal. End of story.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Yeah, from 911, I can name 3000 americans he really kept "safe".
heron67 (31 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago
Uh oh, here come the "Cheney kept us safe" comments. More Neocon BS direct from the desks of O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity. Cheney belongs in prison. He's a war criminal. End of story.
---------------------
and what are his crimes?
well... its pretty sad to watch Obama the war mongerer and socialist "change" america into a european wussie state... the folks who sit on their porch all day a few blocks from my house are happy as clams though.
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
TampaFlorida (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
The only pleasure I enjoy from the hardships Obama is causing the people, is knowing that more than half of them were stupid enough to vote for him, so to you I say, you reap what you sew ... Enjoy (lol lol lol)
=====================
Now ain't that the truth! - It's pretty nice - I can still hold my head up high knowing I didn't vote for him
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
RIght, you can hold your head high you voted twice for George W Bush. Hey, aside from 911, Iraq, Afganistan, Katrina, record gas prices, and the great depression, part 2, was bush really all that bad???
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
TampaFlorida (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
The only pleasure I enjoy from the hardships Obama is causing the people, is knowing that more than half of them were stupid enough to vote for him, so to you I say, you reap what you sew ... Enjoy (lol lol lol)
=====================
Now ain't that the truth! - It's pretty nice - I can still hold my head up high knowing I didn't vote for him
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
RIght, you can hold your head high you voted twice for George W Bush. Hey, aside from 911, Iraq, Afganistan, Katrina, record gas prices, and the great depression, part 2, was bush really all that bad???
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
TampaFlorida (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
The only pleasure I enjoy from the hardships Obama is causing the people, is knowing that more than half of them were stupid enough to vote for him, so to you I say, you reap what you sew ... Enjoy (lol lol lol)
=====================
Now ain't that the truth! - It's pretty nice - I can still hold my head up high knowing I didn't vote for him.
I can be even prouder that I didn't vote for Bush both times
Uh oh, here come the "Cheney kept us safe" comments. More Neocon BS direct from the desks of O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity. Cheney belongs in prison. He's a war criminal. End of story.
======================
All your comments are completely false. Did you by chance even see a newspaper or watch TV when the whole Iraq thing started happening?
======================
Crowbro:
You have to shut off Fox and read a book now and then. I recommend "FIASCO" by Thomas E. Ricks. Lots of good quotes by military officers and soldiers who were there, rather than political spin you get from media.
Our media failed us in Iraq, yes even the NYT. They didn't ask our leaders the hard questions.
Almost all of the talking heads on Fox News were old enough to serve their nation when there was a draft and all those slimy cowards avoided the draft,that goes for most of the slime balls on conservative talk radio. They are heroes shouting patriotic slogans and waving the flag but would never be caught dead in an American military uniform in tme of war,and unfortunately our congress is full of right wing draft dodgers.
Things are really upside down when you let the cowards of the nation dictate the nations policies.
doctor pangloss (32 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
karl Obamarx (0 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
doctor pangloss (32 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
karl Obamarx
uh, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but we won the war in iraq... keep it real quiet though, cant give cheney any credit for anything. Nor can we criticize Obama for extending that needless war. Sshhh.
================================================ ===================================
Any one who would honor,respect and support a COWARD like Cheney must have the same putrid blood running through their veins as well. BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER.
------------------------
Cheney understood that you cant be nice enough to terrorists to get them to stop killing you. Like Obama seems to be trying to do. Cheney took the fight to the middle east and off our shores. Obama's making us less safe by the minute by kissing the butts of terrorist supporting nations and dictators world wide. We should'nt be getting praise from Hugo 'Chavez and Vlad Putin. That is not a good sign for America.
Crowbro (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
gabbaheyy (0 friends, send message) wrote: 4m ago
More of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's wise war decisions:
Take a secular nation that was not linked to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda and turn it into a terrorist training ground with plenty of US soldiers to practice on.
Grab all males of military age and through them in prison based on hearsay and no evidence. Then their brothers and fathers and uncles are forced into honor killings against Americans.
Ignore all Iraqi customs to infuriate the civilian population, especially breaking into peoples homes, entering the women and children's rooms and dragging away suspects in the middle of the night.
Don't concentrate on restoring water or power. Make sure the oil fields are safe.
Live in Sadam's Palaces to prove you are occupiers not liberators.
======================
All your comments are completely false. Did you by chance even see a newspaper or watch TV when the whole Iraq thing started happening?
Were you there crow? I was in 2004, and I can say pretty much all of these comments are true, we raided houses in the middle of the night kicked in doors and dragged Iraqis out of their homes, half of the time finding out they didn't do anything.
The streets were filled with trash and sewage, electricity did not work, Iraqis had to wait in lines for hours on end to just get gas in their cars.
I witnessed many instances of guys in my own platoon being disrespectful to local Iraqis, whom they considered "subhuman"; throwing full water bottles and D Cell batteries at the windshields of passing cars and laughing about it.
Saddam's palaces are being occupied by U.S. troops, have been since 2003.
So crow you have no idea about the reality of the war.
TampaFlorida (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
The only pleasure I enjoy from the hardships Obama is causing the people, is knowing that more than half of them were stupid enough to vote for him, so to you I say, you reap what you sew ... Enjoy (lol lol lol)
=====================
Now ain't that the truth! - It's pretty nice - I can still hold my head up high knowing I didn't vote for him.
What is Cheney up to this time, Last time, he was trying to cover his tracks with Gitmo. Lately he has been running his mouth again along with his daughter, what are they trying to cover up this time?
gabbaheyy (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
More of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's wise war decisions:
Use contractors, especially Hallburton, whenever possible. That way even if the war goes bad me and my friends still make a buck.
Give the "war" in Afganistan a token amount of troops so the Taliban can expand and grow more poppies to fund their activities.
Don't ever use diplomacy with neighboring countries like Iran and Syria that supply weapons to the insurgents. This would be a sign of weakness.
Don't question the Saudis about funding and promoting Al-Qaeda in their religious schools, they are our oil friends.
-----------------------
Psst; hey, just so you know, Obama is still doing all of those... yeah, can you believe it? he's doing every single of of those things... except he's now getting praise from Iran and Syria, ya know, if you're nice to terrorist supporting nations they might not kill us like on 9/11 or something. I know it didnt work for Clinton, but Obama is pretty naive and thinks it will and as supporters of his we must put on blinders and just nod in agreement. pretty scary though isnt it.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/159667/group_time_for_obamas_open_govt_promises_to_be_fulfilled.html
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2368524/posts
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/102209/opinions_102209_028.shtml
Group: Time for Obama's Open Gov't Promises to Be Fulfilled
Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Feb 17, 2009 6:10 pm
New U.S. President Barack Obama has taken good first steps toward making the U.S. government more open, but his administration's actions in the coming weeks will be critical in determining how transparent it intends to be, one open-government advocacy group said Tuesday.
During his campaign, Obama promised to create a more open and transparent government by posting more information on the Internet, and on his first full day in office, he reversed a policy from former President George Bush when he issued a memo telling federal agencies that they should generally presume government documents are available to the public when they receive Freedom of Information Act requests.
But in his first month in office, Obama has apparently broken a campaign promise to post all nonemergency legislation online before signing it, and the U.S. Department of Justice under Obama has tried to stop trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees by arguing, as the Bush administration did, that the cases would expose state secrets. Open-government groups have given Obama a pass so far, based on the expectation he'll fulfill his promises, but it will soon be time for the Obama administration to deliver, said officials with the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a digital liberties and open-government watchdog group.
"To this point, I think a lot of open-government groups have judged the Obama administration by what has happened in past administrations," said Ari Schwartz, CDT's deputy director. "There's been early leniency about how they go about open-government efforts because there's the feeling that the Bush administration was so bad."
Obama has continued to push for open-government initiatives. "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government," he said in one of his first memos. "We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government."
Obama's stated goal was to have an open-government directive in place within four months of taking office, Schwartz noted. "There's a lot of work to do in this space," he added.
One important step comes Tuesday, as Obama is scheduled to sign an estimated US$787 billion economic stimulus package. A major test will be how detailed the just-launched Recovery.gov becomes, Schwartz said. The Obama administration has step up Recovery.gov to help the public understand what's in the legislation and track the spending.
Some government policies may need to change to fully implement Obama's goals, CDT officials said. Current guidelines on information sharing by the White House Office of Management and Budget don't focus on open and participatory government, Schwartz said.
Changing the way government treats its information is "going to be an interesting challenge over the course of the next year," added Leslie Harris, CDT's president and CEO.
In addition, the U.S. government has several areas it needs to work on, CDT officials said. Last week, CDT and two other open-government groups launchedShowusthedata.org, a Web site highlighting the unavailable government documents the public is most interested in seeing. Users of the site have so far voted that they most want to see Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports, which are documents created by Congress' own in-house think tank but not widely available and reports on how private companies spent federal bailout money.
CDT operates the OpenCRS.com site, which publishes many CRS reports from multiple sources. While lobbyists have often been able to buy CRS reports from various vendors and use their access to influence public policy, members of the public haven't had the same opportunity, Schwartz said.
Users of Showusthedata.org also want to see extensive voting records for members of Congress, reports on the DOJ's use of the antiterrorism legislation the Patriot Act, and the opinions of the DOJ's legal counsel.
Asked if CDT had concerns about Obama apparently breaking his promise to post nonemergency legislation for five days before signing it, Schwartz said the administration needs to post a definition of what constitutes emergency legislation. Obama is due to sign the economic stimulus bill Tuesday, when Congress passed it late Friday. Some people may argue the stimulus bill is an emergency, but some other legislation Obama has signed without posting seemed to be less of an emergency, Schwartz said.
"We shouldn't be having a debate whether [legislation] is an emergency or not," Schwartz said. "We should be having a debate over whether it has been up for five days or not."
|
