Obama scores high marks again with 79% of Americans

[xsited1]

Here's a recent picture of Obama:

 

[Skull Pilot]

Some perception.

let's see, he basically insults his own country by telling everyone how arrogant and derisive we are. He tells NK not to launch a missile or else he'll run to the U.N. and tell....he calls for disarming and cancels production of the US air superiority fighter.... He is basically telling everyone that the he will not act in the best interests of the USA.

John Bolton Says Barack Obama's Reaction to the North Korean Missile Launch Sends the Wrong Signal to Israel and Iran - WSJ.com

Prior to North Korea's launch yesterday of a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile, President Barack Obama declared that such an action would be "provocative." This public statement was an attempt to reinforce the administration's private efforts to urge the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK) not to fire the missile.

That effort failed, as have countless other attempts to deal softly with Pyongyang. Incredibly, U.S. Special Envoy for North Korea Stephen Bosworth revealed -- just a few days before the launch -- that he was ready to visit Pyongyang and resume the six-party talks once the "dust from the missiles settles." It is no wonder the North fired away.

Wow tough stance by Obama....I bet NK is just scared silly.



So Obama runs to the UN when matters of national security arise. Do you want the UN dictating US policy?



Not only is Obama being ineffective he is sending signals that he is determined to weaken the US defense capability even further.



Do you think that Obama did nothing because he is scared shitless of china and Russia?

Don't think that people aren't watching. Obama is sending signals that he and by association the US is weak. Now don't worry about the US being attacked directly but rather worry that China will take Taiwan, that North Korea will invade South Korea and Russia will repeat the Georgian invasion in other border countries it wants back.

All the while Obama and the US will do nothing and they all know it. We will be exposed as the paper tiger we are and the decline of our country will continue.







neither should any of our other allies because Obama will not do anything.

Russia and China must also be relishing this outcome. They will have faced down Mr. Obama in his first real crisis, having provided Security Council cover for a criminal regime, and emerged unscathed. They will conclude that achieving their large agendas with the new administration can't be too hard. That conclusion may be unfair to the new American president; but it will surely color how Moscow and Beijing structure their policies and their diplomacy until proven otherwise. That alone is bad news for Washington and its allies.

Yeah that's just great for America

I would expect nothing less coming from the Wall Street Journal and John Bolton. After all, Ambassador Bolton needs to protect his own legacy. Obama, however, is trying to repair the damage done by Bolton and the other neocons who made enemies out of our allies. The fact that Obama admits that America is NOT always right (it isn't, by the way), is a giant step in the right (correct) direction. The opinion of the rest of the world is not in line with the opinions of the WSJ. Surprise surprise.

I never said the US was always right. Look how our government is trashing the constitution. but the sitting president should not be insulting his own country to curry favor with Europe.

Your own opinions embellishing those of the WSJ is further proof that the only debate the conservatives have is to PROJECT what might happen, given this dramatic change in foreign policy. Since the foreign policy of the far right fell flat on its face, including negotiations for peace between Israel and Palestine, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's time for a different approach.

I am not a conservative as you define the term. And What might happen is all we have to go on when the defense of our nation and its interests are concerned.

Would you rather we wait for another 3000 civilians to be killed or an ally attacked before we do anything? Advertising the the US is weakening its capabilities is never a good idea. And waiting for the next attack on us or our allies is not a strategy

Do you not think that other countries are watching our do nothing stance? Do you think we are instilling confidence in Israel? or any of our other so called allies?

 

[MaggieMae]

Wow tough stance by Obama....I bet NK is just scared silly.

The politics of fear are over.

Deal with it.

idiot.

This is not about fear. It's about our national security. But nice try simply picking one out of context sentence from my rather lengthy post.

Why don't you offer your own analysis of the WSJ piece and tell me why you believe it is a good thing for the US to be weak in the face of China, Russia and NK?

The US is not "weak" in the face of China. The US, China's biggest importer, is far more interested in good relations with us than North Korea. Are you kidding? China needs to save face, but I'm sure they would love to have the albatross Kim Jung Ill simply vanish into smurfdom (pun intended). As for Russia, have you looked at a map? Russia has no interest in providing Iran with nuclear material to build their bombs. If a nuclear holocaust were to occur in that region, the southern part of the Russian frontier could be wiped out.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The politics of fear are over.

Deal with it.

idiot.

This is not about fear. It's about our national security. But nice try simply picking one out of context sentence from my rather lengthy post.

Why don't you offer your own analysis of the WSJ piece and tell me why you believe it is a good thing for the US to be weak in the face of China, Russia and NK?

The US is not "weak" in the face of China. The US, China's biggest importer, is far more interested in good relations with us than North Korea. Are you kidding? China needs to save face, but I'm sure they would love to have the albatross Kim Jung Ill simply vanish into smurfdom (pun intended). As for Russia, have you looked at a map? Russia has no interest in providing Iran with nuclear material to build their bombs. If a nuclear holocaust were to occur in that region, the southern part of the Russian frontier could be wiped out.

then why are Russia and china blocking tighter restrictions and sanctions?

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10222/#3

After North Korea abandoned the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 2003, Russia and China blocked U.S. efforts to have the Security Council issue a tough resolution, and no punitive measures were taken

I

n the case of Iran, Russia has close commercial contacts with Tehran and has sought to broker a deal in which Iran's uranium would be enriched in Russia and then returned as fuel to Iranian reactors. China imports a large amount of its oil from Iran and both sides have recently reached a major deal on natural gas supplies. Russia and China have also been important arms suppliers to Iran in recent years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would expect nothing less coming from the Wall Street Journal and John Bolton. After all, Ambassador Bolton needs to protect his own legacy. Obama, however, is trying to repair the damage done by Bolton and the other neocons who made enemies out of our allies. .

If that were the case, why did pro-America Blair retain his position during the Bush years?

Why did the French throw out anti-American Chirac and replace him with pro-American Sarkozy?

Why did the Germans throw out anti-American Schroeder and replace him with pro-American (but not pro-Obama) Merkel?

Why is it the facts don't fit your theory?

 

[KittenKoder]

britney spears and michael jackson were once very popular too....

Now it's "American False Gods" and Hannah Montana ...

 

[MaggieMae]

Some perception.

let's see, he basically insults his own country by telling everyone how arrogant and derisive we are. He tells NK not to launch a missile or else he'll run to the U.N. and tell....he calls for disarming and cancels production of the US air superiority fighter.... He is basically telling everyone that the he will not act in the best interests of the USA.

John Bolton Says Barack Obama's Reaction to the North Korean Missile Launch Sends the Wrong Signal to Israel and Iran - WSJ.com



Wow tough stance by Obama....I bet NK is just scared silly.



So Obama runs to the UN when matters of national security arise. Do you want the UN dictating US policy?



Not only is Obama being ineffective he is sending signals that he is determined to weaken the US defense capability even further.



Do you think that Obama did nothing because he is scared shitless of china and Russia?

Don't think that people aren't watching. Obama is sending signals that he and by association the US is weak. Now don't worry about the US being attacked directly but rather worry that China will take Taiwan, that North Korea will invade South Korea and Russia will repeat the Georgian invasion in other border countries it wants back.

All the while Obama and the US will do nothing and they all know it. We will be exposed as the paper tiger we are and the decline of our country will continue.







neither should any of our other allies because Obama will not do anything.



Yeah that's just great for America

I never said the US was always right. Look how our government is trashing the constitution. but the sitting president should not be insulting his own country to curry favor with Europe.

Your own opinions embellishing those of the WSJ is further proof that the only debate the conservatives have is to PROJECT what might happen, given this dramatic change in foreign policy. Since the foreign policy of the far right fell flat on its face, including negotiations for peace between Israel and Palestine, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's time for a different approach.

I am not a conservative as you define the term. And What might happen is all we have to go on when the defense of our nation and its interests are concerned.

Would you rather we wait for another 3000 civilians to be killed or an ally attacked before we do anything? Advertising the the US is weakening its capabilities is never a good idea. And waiting for the next attack on us or our allies is not a strategy

Do you not think that other countries are watching our do nothing stance? Do you think we are instilling confidence in Israel? or any of our other so called allies?

Gathering our allies (AND Muslim countries) into our corner is the ONLY way to defeat terrorism at its root cause. The United States cannot do it alone. Terrorism is a state of mind, not a nation state that can be attacked and be done with. I guess that's the part you guys will never get.

The United States INVADED a Muslim nation resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people and creating millions of refugees. The rest of the Muslim population stood by and watched as angry fundamentalists formed new jihads and issued fatwas against America and its allies. They now wait to see if the US is ready to start mending relations, especially with Turkey (a strategic geopolitical region) which would have nothing to do with Bush's request for alliance during the invasion/occupation of its neighbor, Iraq.

We do not want more war. If Israel provokes a war with Iran, there will be outrage if the US goes to its defense. And they know that. What is the next worst thing that could happen with Israel anyway? Negotiations will resume between Israel and Palestine, and America will once again make known its wishes and try to broker another peace accord. In the meantime, the more militant peoples of both will continue to lob bombs at each other and try to stir up trouble. It's been that way for decades.

 

[MaggieMae]

idiot.

This is not about fear. It's about our national security. But nice try simply picking one out of context sentence from my rather lengthy post.

Why don't you offer your own analysis of the WSJ piece and tell me why you believe it is a good thing for the US to be weak in the face of China, Russia and NK?

The US is not "weak" in the face of China. The US, China's biggest importer, is far more interested in good relations with us than North Korea. Are you kidding? China needs to save face, but I'm sure they would love to have the albatross Kim Jung Ill simply vanish into smurfdom (pun intended). As for Russia, have you looked at a map? Russia has no interest in providing Iran with nuclear material to build their bombs. If a nuclear holocaust were to occur in that region, the southern part of the Russian frontier could be wiped out.

then why are Russia and china blocking tighter restrictions and sanctions?

Iran, the United Nations, and Sanctions - Council on Foreign Relations

After North Korea abandoned the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 2003, Russia and China blocked U.S. efforts to have the Security Council issue a tough resolution, and no punitive measures were taken

I

n the case of Iran, Russia has close commercial contacts with Tehran and has sought to broker a deal in which Iran's uranium would be enriched in Russia and then returned as fuel to Iranian reactors. China imports a large amount of its oil from Iran and both sides have recently reached a major deal on natural gas supplies. Russia and China have also been important arms suppliers to Iran in recent years.

That CFR publication is two years old. I listen carefully to Richard Haas, who has given no indication that Obama's foreign policy with regard to either China or Russia poses any potential danger to the United States. After all, it isn't as though Obama has simply rolled over for either country, but he also knows that the old adage keep your friends close and your enemies closer is never more true than now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The US is not "weak" in the face of China. The US, China's biggest importer, is far more interested in good relations with us than North Korea. Are you kidding? China needs to save face, but I'm sure they would love to have the albatross Kim Jung Ill simply vanish into smurfdom (pun intended). As for Russia, have you looked at a map? Russia has no interest in providing Iran with nuclear material to build their bombs. If a nuclear holocaust were to occur in that region, the southern part of the Russian frontier could be wiped out.

then why are Russia and china blocking tighter restrictions and sanctions?

Iran, the United Nations, and Sanctions - Council on Foreign Relations


I

n the case of Iran, Russia has close commercial contacts with Tehran and has sought to broker a deal in which Iran's uranium would be enriched in Russia and then returned as fuel to Iranian reactors. China imports a large amount of its oil from Iran and both sides have recently reached a major deal on natural gas supplies. Russia and China have also been important arms suppliers to Iran in recent years.

That CFR publication is two years old. I listen carefully to Richard Haas, who has given no indication that Obama's foreign policy with regard to either China or Russia poses any potential danger to the United States. After all, it isn't as though Obama has simply rolled over for either country, but he also knows that the old adage keep your friends close and your enemies closer is never more true than now.

you obviously did not read my posts. i said that we do not have to worry about a direct attack on the US but rather aggression towards other nations by China, Russia and NK, to which we will respond by doing nothing further weakening our stance in the world.

 

[MaggieMae]

I would expect nothing less coming from the Wall Street Journal and John Bolton. After all, Ambassador Bolton needs to protect his own legacy. Obama, however, is trying to repair the damage done by Bolton and the other neocons who made enemies out of our allies. .

If that were the case, why did pro-America Blair retain his position during the Bush years?

Why did the French throw out anti-American Chirac and replace him with pro-American Sarkozy?

Why did the Germans throw out anti-American Schroeder and replace him with pro-American (but not pro-Obama) Merkel?

Why is it the facts don't fit your theory?

Because your "facts" have nothing to do with American politics. Each of those countries have their own elections and don't look to the west for their sole guidance. But using your logic, why did a leftist like Gordon Brown replace Tony Blair? Chiraq was getting old and feeble; Sarkozy was not, and IS not, a true right wing conservative but more moderate. Schroeder was never anti-American; he simply opposed the invasion of Iraq, as did Merkel (who despised George W. Bush, by the way).

 

[Yurt]

Wow tough stance by Obama....I bet NK is just scared silly.

The politics of fear are over.

Deal with it.

really....why did obama run around telling everyone if his bailout spendulus plan didn't pass we were headed for financial apocalypse?

 

[MaggieMae]

you obviously did not read my posts. i said that we do not have to worry about a direct attack on the US but rather aggression towards other nations by China, Russia and NK, to which we will respond by doing nothing further weakening our stance in the world.

Well...I think at this point in time you're doing a lot of projecting over things that might not even happen. I don't see China invading anyone. The only country they get nervous about is Taiwan which occasionally makes waves about its independence. Russia got smacked down over its incursion into Georgia, so it may think twice about trying to assert its old power again over one of the new territories. Plus Medvedev doesn't appear to be the sneaky bastard Putin turned out to be. As for North Korea, I've already stated that I think their huffing and puffing is simply laughable. Every time they threaten with some "new" missile test, it just goes plop plop fiz fiz. They don't have the capability (and never will) to do any serious damage anywhere. I think the US should stop giving any credence at all to their perceived military strength, which simply keeps them in the spotlight which is what Kim Jung really wants.

 

[Jon]

Wow tough stance by Obama....I bet NK is just scared silly.

The politics of fear are over.

Deal with it.

Really? So what did Obama use to sell the stimulus plans? Fear. Now get your foot out of your mouth and say something that makes sense.

 

[Peejay]

Wow tough stance by Obama....I bet NK is just scared silly.

The politics of fear are over.

Deal with it.

Really? So what did Obama use to sell the stimulus plans? Fear. Now get your foot out of your mouth and say something that makes sense.

Blah, blah.....Obama didn't create that fear. Read the financial section. People were scared all on thier own.

 

[Peejay]

Wow tough stance by Obama....I bet NK is just scared silly.

The politics of fear are over.

Deal with it.

really....why did obama run around telling everyone if his bailout spendulus plan didn't pass we were headed for financial apocalypse?

Ummm....where have you been lately?

 

[Yurt]

Obama's fear-mongering
The president and his aides say they don't want to waste a crisis. That's a cynical way to exploit a national emergency.

...

Well, now we have the president, along with his chief aides, admitting -- boasting! -- that they want to exploit a national emergency for their preexisting agenda, and there's no scandal. No one even calls it a gaffe. No, they call it leadership.

It's not leadership. It's fear-mongering

Obama's fear-mongering - Los Angeles Times

OBAMA THE FEAR MONGER

Obama painted a bleak picture if lawmakers do nothing.

In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the president argued that each day without his stimulus package, Americans lose more jobs, savings and homes. His message came as congressional leaders struggle to control the huge stimulus bill that's been growing larger by the day in the Senate. The addition of a new tax break for homebuyers Wednesday evening sent the price tag well past $900 billion.

"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece.

Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

 

[PoliticalChic]

Chiraq was getting old and feeble; Sarkozy was not, and IS not, a true right wing conservative but more moderate. Schroeder was never anti-American; he simply opposed the invasion of Iraq, as did Merkel (who despised George W. Bush, by the way).

"The fact that Schroeder has consistently played up anti—American rage rather than anti—French or anti—Semitic feelings is not as important as the simple fact that he has reopened Pandora's Box. Anti—Americanism has kept Schroeder in power for his entire term of office, and future generations of politicians have now learned that blaming sinister foreigners is again acceptable and extremely successful."
American Thinker Blog: Germany's regression under Schroeder

"With France's rejection of the EU constitution, however, the domestic and international political utility of Chirac's slimy, shallow anti-American schtick enters the dustbin of current history. "
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/2005531.aspx

More pro-American: Sarkozy than Chirac, and Merkel than Schroeder.

That being said, it is probably true that these politicians used the anti-war fever to their advantage.

Not having seen you before, welcome to the board. There are very few here who have an interest in other than domestic issues. Look forward to your posts.

 

[Sinatra]

Obama has NEVER been about fear.

NEVER.

 

[Meister]

What is botherning me is that Obama is over at the G 20 meetings, and he is still blaming Bush. This is just showing that he isn't ready for "prime time." He can say what he wants over here...which in my opinion is still wrong, but to go to another country and pull a Dixie Chick stunt is just a lack of maturity for the job.

 

[JimCo]

Obama's fear-mongering
The president and his aides say they don't want to waste a crisis. That's a cynical way to exploit a national emergency.

...

Well, now we have the president, along with his chief aides, admitting -- boasting! -- that they want to exploit a national emergency for their preexisting agenda, and there's no scandal. No one even calls it a gaffe. No, they call it leadership.

It's not leadership. It's fear-mongering

Obama's fear-mongering - Los Angeles Times

OBAMA THE FEAR MONGER

Obama painted a bleak picture if lawmakers do nothing.

In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the president argued that each day without his stimulus package, Americans lose more jobs, savings and homes. His message came as congressional leaders struggle to control the huge stimulus bill that's been growing larger by the day in the Senate. The addition of a new tax break for homebuyers Wednesday evening sent the price tag well past $900 billion.

"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece.

Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

LOL ... and the use of fear to sell policies, bothers you why?

Statement on Congressional Approval of Bailout
Friday 03 October 2008

by: Dean Baker | Visit article original @ The Center for Economic and Policy Research


President Bush sought to provoke a financial panic to push legislation for the bailout through Congress. (Artwork: Edvard Munch)
This is the first time in the history of the United States that the president has sought to provoke a financial panic to get legislation through Congress. While this has proven to be a successful political strategy, it marks yet another low point in American politics.

It was incredibly irresponsible for President Bush to tell the American people on national television that the country could be facing another Great Depression.