OBYs new war in Yemen

[NCRAVEN]

You are probably asking yourself: "How can it be possible that this guy who I swore was Kenyan, swore was socialist, swore was a Muslim, swore was the anti-christ, swore was sure to bring about the already pending-apocalypse, swore was a really bad guy with terrible ulterior motives, somehow was actually none of those things at all. He can't be good at anything. I won't believe it. La-la-la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you-la-la-la-la..."

Holy shit is this Galen or THE EP?

You want so badly for Obama to be the democrats' W, when it reality it's not close - certainly not in this instance.

You're right it's far worse

[TheExtraPoint]

You're right it's far worse

Go on...

[4G63]

Wasn't 0bama against the troop surge in Afghanistan before he was for it?

[NCRAVEN]

Go on...

I do believe you have not responded to my request for a list of what you believe his success are.

[4G63]

Ruh roh...the Narcissist King may have to make a decision?!?

...Obama has said he intends to carry out the current U.S.-Iraq agreement, worked out in 2008 before he became commander in chief. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said repeatedly that he hopes Iraq asks for some continued presence beyond Dec. 31...

[4G63]

Another point of view...

[Dade]

Obama is running the war the same way Bush did
you idiot. Dade just left the air force and can't see that or that
his brothers and sisters are dropping bombs in harms way.

He's usually middle of the road and level headed but is sounding
ridiculously like the ridiculous Galen.

OBY was the guy who was gonna shut down Gitmo too
but didnt.

When did I ever say that the pilots are not in harm's way?

To hear you describe it the US involvement in Libya is on the same level of Iraq. You say Obama is employing the same military tactics as Bush which just isn't true. What he has done is continued Bush's approach to foreign policy.

And as I must constantly remind you please don't assume you know how I feel. I do sympathize with my brothers and sisters. However this is their job. If they accomplished the mission and come back unharmed, that is a reason to celebrate.

I may no longer be in the Air Force, but I still work for the military.

[ActualSpamBot]

Trap has zero credibility Dade. Don't let him insult you, your expertise, or your service. Thank you for your bravery and sacrifice.

As for Obama, just about the only thing I think he's done very well is how he's handled his role as CiC. He's getting our troops out of Iraq, he's actually going after al Qaeda's leadership surgically, and he's getting results (see also, the fact that it him a quarter of the time Bush had to get Osama.)

I don't plan on voting for Obama next election, but the partisan denial of his skillful use of our military assets is foolish.

Like I've said about Obama before, he gives us plenty to criticize... the insistence of certain segments of the right to make up nonsense like the birther non-troversy, the secret Muslim foolishness, and this idiocy comparing his operations in Libya and Yemen to Bush's laughably inefficient crusades in Iraq and to a lesser degree, Afghanistan only give lefties like Galen the chance to tar all of the right with the "idiot brush" that should be reserved for the likes of Palin and Trump.

[TheExtraPoint]

I do believe you have not responded to my request for a list of what you believe his success are.

That's because it's totally unrelated to the discussion, unlike my question of you.

Wasn't 0bama against the troop surge in Afghanistan before he was for it?

Do you prefer your Presidents inflexible? It's kind of a rhetorical question as I think I know the answer.

In reality, it's far more important that a President is ultimately right than only initially so, and that he retains the open-mindedness to get there. At least, that's my view.

You frame this as a bad thing, but in truth, it is not.

[NCRAVEN]

That's because it's totally unrelated to the discussion, unlike my question of you.
.

WHAT!?!?!

It's the same damn thing. I say he is disastrous, you ask me to explain, I ask you for what you believe his successes are and you say, unrelated.

Should I take that as you don't have any?

my question of you was for you to prove your claim seen here:

I completely agree with you. I really like Obama and believe him to be a genuinely good family man, but at the same time think it's hard in the current political climate to bat 1.000. As a result, there are plenty of places where you can argue his success (job creation foremost amongst them).

[TheExtraPoint]

It's the same damn thing. I say he is disastrous, you ask me to explain, I ask you for what you believe his successes are and you say, unrelated.

What you said and what you meant don't seem to align. Your reply was to my comment that in terms of their roles as commander in chief, the comparison isn't close.

Should I take that as you don't have any?

No you shouldn't.

I consider among his unequivocal successes the killing of Osama bin Laden, the withdrawal of troops and conclusion of combat operations in Iraq, the repeal of the institutionalized discrimination that was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and the renewal of START as a part of broader improvements in our relationship with Russia. In fact, I think he's gone a long way in improving American image throughout the world, primarily in Europe where W could not travel without fear of being arrested for war crimes.

I also believe that he deserves credit for stabilizing economy much in the same way that he deserves to be held accountable for its overall lack of growth. And in reality, real, sustainable growth is difficult to achieve when the economy is instable. I think we'll get there. Pessimistic conservatives would naturally beg to differ.

Then there's the health care bill, which clearly falls short (mainly in tackling the monster that is the insurance industry), but even then was pursued with what I believe were were noble intentions, not malicious ones.

He's been flexible on issues like Guantanamo and the Afghan surge, open-minded enough to cede to experts and changing circumstances in spite of his initial convictions. 4G would have you believe that being "for the surge before being against it" proves that Obama a bad President. I'd argue that instead, it's proof that he understands his role, puts great faith in his most trusted advisors, and is willing to acknowledge through concrete policy when he's been wrong. Like I said to 4G, being initially right is far less important than being ultimately right.

He even kept W.'s Sec Def Bob Gates and appointed John Huntsman to be ambassador to China, a hugely important position. Hell, Hilary Clinton bad mouthed him throughout the campaign, and yet he swallowed his pride with her and as a result secured a secretary of state who has been nothing short of masterful as a result. All of these decisions were done with the best interest of the country in mind, not his personal feelings, in mind.

In a less tangible respect, I admire his measured, exacting, thorough approach to his job, and find it preferable to the free-wheeling, chest-thumping, my-way-or-the-highway, approach of his predecessor, from whom he inarguably inherited a real mess. He's been extraordinarily respectful in a climate that hasn't necessarily returned the favor. I find his restraint is admirable. Lesser men have not had such control over their emotions.

He doesn't get everything right. Enough hasn't been done in a variety of regards, most notably in terms of reforming the way Washington does business, job creation and immigration policy. I also believe that lobbyists are running amok, and that big business and wall street are not being held accountable to the extent that they should be. These are all issues he'll have to address in the months ahead.

But the characterization that he's the worst president of all time is, to be kind, short-sighted. Things could be one hell of A LOT worse. If you don't realize that, I can't help you.

So back to the topic at hand, do you care to amend your suggestion that President Obama is worse commander in chief than W on the basis that you misunderstood what I said, or do you want to expand?

[NCRAVEN]

What you said and what you meant don't seem to align. Your reply was to my comment that in terms of their roles as commander in chief, the comparison isn't close.

MY first response was to you saying you could argue his list of success’.

I consider among his unequivocal successes the killing of Osama bin Laden, the withdrawal of troops and conclusion of combat operations in Iraq, the repeal of the institutionalized discrimination that was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and the renewal of START as a part of broader improvements in our relationship with Russia. In fact, I think he's gone a long way in improving American image throughout the world, primarily in Europe where W could not travel without fear of being arrested for war crimes.

The killing of Osama came under his watch, yes, it is absurd to suggest it was his success or something that came as a direct result of him being President.

Yes, he ended the combat operations, That were won by a surge he voted against. But he kept combat troops there

Don’t Ask Don’t tell. I can see your point, I disagree with it, but I see your point.

The START treaty many believe is not strict enough, and Russia probably won’t honor that anyway.

He is improved America’s image, who knows. Maybe, socialist do love socialist.

I also believe that he deserves credit for stabilizing economy much in the same way that he deserves to be held accountable for its overall lack of growth. And in reality, real, sustainable growth is difficult to achieve when the economy is instable. I think we'll get there. Pessimistic conservatives would naturally beg to differ.

So he stabilized it, yet it’s unstable? The stimulus=failure, Auto Bailout = Failure, The Housing Bailout/Stimulus = Failure. Actually, tell me how you believe he made it stable.

Then there's the health care bill, which clearly falls short (mainly in tackling the monster that is the insurance industry), but even then was pursued with what I believe were were noble intentions, not malicious ones.

I hope your not insinuating that health insurance companies make large profits. If so, you need to do some research.. The intent may not have been malicious based on your opinion of what kind of Healthcare system we should have.

He's been flexible on issues like Guantanamo and the Afghan surge, open-minded enough to cede to experts and changing circumstances in spite of his initial convictions. 4G would have you believe that being "for the surge before being against it" proves that Obama a bad President. I'd argue that instead, it's proof that he understands his role, puts great faith in his most trusted advisors, and is willing to acknowledge through concrete policy when he's been wrong. Like I said to 4G, being initially right is far less important than being ultimately right.

He wasn’t flexible, he got there and said HOLY SHIT, you mean were not just keeping these guys cause they’re Muslim, you mean they're actually dangerous?

He even kept W.'s Sec Def Bob Gates and appointed John Huntsman to be ambassador to China, a hugely important position. Hell, Hilary Clinton bad mouthed him throughout the campaign, and yet he swallowed his pride with her and as a result secured a secretary of state who has been nothing short of masterful as a result. All of these decisions were done with the best interest of the country in mind, not his personal feelings, in mind.

He kept Gates, cause all the people he knows have no real world experience, all are just academia, like the latest failure of his economic team to resign.

In a less tangible respect, I admire his measured, exacting, thorough approach to his job, and find it preferable to the free-wheeling, chest-thumping, my-way-or-the-highway, approach of his predecessor, from whom he inarguably inherited a real mess. He's been extraordinarily respectful in a climate that hasn't necessarily returned the favor. I find his restraint is admirable. Lesser men have not had such control over their emotions.

Would you call his lack of action on the oil spill a measured thorough approach to his job?

He doesn't get everything right. Enough hasn't been done in a variety of regards, most notably in terms of reforming the way Washington does business, job creation and immigration policy. I also believe that lobbyists are running amok, and that big business and wall street are not being held accountable to the extent that they should be. These are all issues he'll have to address in the months ahead.

He rarely gets anything right. He’s made the way Washington works WORSE! Least transparent Admin, EVER. Excluding Republicans from meetings on Healthcare, backroom deals and bribes to get HCR passed, Passing HCR through reconciliation after complain about Repubs using it for what it was designer for- the budget. (still wrong IMO) [url]

But the characterization that he's the worst president of all time is, to be kind, short-sighted. Things could be one hell of A LOT worse. If you don't realize that, I can't help you.

I didn’t say worst of all time. But if you think a success of his is, well (hu hum) at least it's not worst, than you need to raise your level of expectations.

So back to the topic at hand, do you care to amend your suggestion that President Obama is worse commander in chief than W on the basis that you misunderstood what I said, or do you want to expand?

I meant far worse overall, I think he has been relatively to equal with W on CIC. Except for not getting congressional approval for his military action.