Wednesday, August 27, 2014
President Obama: America does not forget.
The American Legion cheers Mr. Obama. They know the brutality of war.
President Obama speaks to The American Legion’s 96th convention in Charlotte:
The reception that the president received at the American Legion is interesting when contrasted with the Republican reaction to Obama’s foreign policy. The people who know the horrors of war most intimately are the ones who are supporting a policy of not sending ground troops back to Iraq.
There is a reason why the president’s pledge not to send ground troops back in draws applause from each audience that it is delivered to. The American people are tired of war, specifically war in the Middle East.
Republicans and their media lapdogs have been labeling President Obama’s foreign policy a failure, but judged by the criteria of what the majority of Americans say they want, it has been a success. Most people wanted the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly what Obama has done.
The Republican definition of foreign policy success is a continuation of George W. Bush’s all war all of the time view of the world. Republicans are still trying to vindicate the invasion of Iraq.
Their claim of Obama foreign policy failure is flavored with a refusal to admit their own failures and defeats. It is telling that those who have a personal understanding of war cheered President Obama’s foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
The Bagger reaction to anything the president does is IMPEACH!
People who actually have brains see through their stupidity on the subject of impeachment. Baggers consistently look like fools.
Mistakes were made, the most glaring was the decision to go into Iraq, supported by congressional democrats one should add.
The problem and threat of ISIS as well as other terrorist organisations won't go away until the Arab and greater Muslim world acknowledges and deals with the evil in their midst, extremist Islam and jihadists.
You decide if and when you think that might happen, if ever.
My view is we will either be fighting them in their turf or our own turf. Perhaps 1933 - 1945 holds a lesson for us, or maybe not.
I fear for our grandchildren and future generations.
Carry on. The debate must continue. But, time is of the essence. It usually is.
假冒是一个“傻子/
Leadership is leading the people to what's best for the country, not making decisions based on public popularity polls. Sticking his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing would be poor leadership. That's not why I voted for him.
The military does not like this president as well as members of the American Legion.
I know a few form both who tell me so
It should be clear that our mid-east policies are a failure. We spent billions and billions of dollar, (and more than a few American lives) training and equipping hundreds of thousands of Iraqi military, and few thousand rebels (ISIS) completely over ran them.
It is time we pull our heads out of the asshole of the world.
"The military does not like this president as well as members of the American Legion.
I know a few form both who tell me so"
So the military doesn't like Obama the way they like the American Legion? Hmmm.
And because you know "a few," it must be true for EVERYONE in the military?
Well I know "a few" who DO like this president. So there!
LOL!
R.O.F. I know. Their brains must be cooked from using so much meth.
Obamamaniac, you don't hate the president and you don't think he's ruining the country and turning it soshalist?!
Obviously you're an Obama worshipper! OMG!
JC, agreed.
Thank you for the segment Shaw. We are in the presence of a truly great leader. Our nation's shame over the invasion of Iraq is not covered. Our crimson stain is not as white as snow. But no one can say that we have not been a force for peace since the ascendance of BHO. There was no other man, (or woman,) on the face of the earth that could have done it. Thank God that he was elected to lead our country out of darkness.
I agree with you, RN. It was a huge mistake. I think that I am on record eight years ago somewhere amongst the endless, forgotten grains of sand that make up the blogosphere as saying, "There is no way to end a political movement or jihad by simply killing its leadership. For every leader that is killed, ten more will spring up to take his place." It is worthy of note that today I learned that ISIS was born out of a group that was part of, you guessed it, our favorite, Al Qaeda in Iraq. So, in other words, ISIS truly is the natural grandson of Richard Bruce Cheney.
Jerry -- Unfortunately it's not feasible to disengage from the Middle East completely. We do have substantial interests there, not only related to oil. The core reasons for the jihadist/terrorist problem that culminated in 9/11 lie in Islamic theology, not in anything the West has done or been accused of doing. We have an interest in promoting relatively sane forces in the region such as the Kurds, Iran's President Rouhani, and of course Israel.
Bush blundered into a region of which he knew nothing and had no interest in knowing anything, convinced that a sufficiently awesome display of force would be enough to suppress all resistance. We've seen the results for a weary decade now. Obama, I think, has the right approach -- limited objectives, limited and judicious use of force, and working closely with local partners who do understand the complexities of the region, such as the Kurds.
Shaw,
我希望他们复制这一点,并将其粘贴到这些白痴保守派博客
Infidel,
I don't know. No doubt, however, Obama's approach has been much better but did it really work? Is it really working?
It is not our problem to solve. It can't be solved without the full involvement of the powers of the region. No matter what we do, we just piss someone off. And then they use our actions to justify their actions.
Let them solve their problems. We will deal with the consequences. If we have to blow the shit out of them at that time, so be it. But we are not doing anybody any good now, maybe with the exception of our military/industrial complex. To those people, I say "Fuck You"!
And what are those interests besides oil?
Rusty O.C., very true, very funny.
Flying Junior, see Infidel753's comment to Jerry Critter. Infidel753 knows a lot more about the history of the M.E. and its current problems than do the low-information people on certain blogs. I read what he has to report on his blog, and it's been very helpful in trying to understand "Messpotamia."
Infidel753, history will be kind to Mr. Obama.
Remember the old saying "A true prophet is never loved by his own countrymen."
FAUX NOOZ has been a divisive and destructive force in this country. They are devious and they are liars.
Excuse me for having a complaint about the president I voted for. Your post suggests it's the people who don't want something therefore it should not be done. BS, as explained by me first comment. As usual you refuse to post my reply, that's OK you have to read it to delete it, my job done. Censorship is your forte.
It is difficult to put any faith in a president of our country that has a "don't do anything stupid" as a policy, al-queda is on the run and a terrorist group is the JV team. A jump to judgement on social issues and a line in the sand creator for world issues.
You are correct that America does not forget except a lot of people forgot they voted for this president twice, or won't admit it.
We need a leader who can unify the country but another Regan hasn't taken center stage but might. How about Hunstman?
Mr. Free Thinke, you and your friends refuse to believe anything from PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and Snopes because, as conservatives have said many times, those organizations are run by liberals and have a far left liberal bias.
Why in the name of common sense would I read and believe ANYTHING reported by the Daily Mail?
Please.
The Daily Mail is a hard right publication that reports everything with a conservative bias. It's the FAUX NOOZ of British tabloids. So its report on President Obama's speech doesn't impress me one jot.
It's purpose is to denigrate, defame, and promote divisiveness among the American electorate.
I have very close friends in England who say its main use is to collect their pet birds' droppings.
Huntsmans, as qualified and reasonable as he is could not win the nomination of his off the rails shrieking republican party base. Neither could Reagan today.
One thing is certain, the r in republican does not stand for reason these days.
skud: "We need a leader who can unify the country but another Regan hasn't taken center stage but might. How about Hunstman?"
Another Reagan? How quickly your biases make you forget.
Ronald Reagan of the "Welfare Queen" meme? Which was wholly made up? Ronald Reagan of the "Strapping young 'bucks on food stamps', and IMO the worst: His kicking off his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
You mean Ronald Reagan who, on his watch, lost 240+ Marines when their barracks were bombed (no investigation there, eh skud, on why there wasn't better security). And Reagan's PROMISE to stay in Lebanon, when 3 months later he left?
You mean Ronald Reagan of the Iran-Contra scandal? Where almost all of his team was criminally indicted and he ADMITTED that he didn't think anything that happened was illegal, but since his team advised him it was then maybe it was? You mean that disengaged and clueless Reagan?
Yes, your memory is selective if you think we need another president who was involved in a REAL national scandal, and not one trumped up by partisan GOPers out to get Mr. Obama. (The GOP's own Congressional committee reported that there was NO COVER UP in the Benghazi tragedy, BTW.)
And finally the Ronald Reagan who used poor black Americans as pawns to stir up divisiveness and to make sure he got the Southern Strategy vote out.
Yeah. The Gee-Oh-Pee-ers always accuse the liberals of "worshipping" Mr. Obama, but never see their adoration of Reagan in the same way. You just gloss over all of Reagan's failures, don't you?
It's all so predictable and wearying.
LOL, Shaw. Poor GOP. They have no choice. Unfortunately, Reagan is the best they have.
That's the same one Shaw. The country was prosperous, unemployment was low and there was a congress who actually did something for the American people. Of course there was a person named Tip who actually put people before party.
skud, just as you see Mr. Obama's presidency in a negative way, we can do the same with your hero, Ronald Reagan:
"Reagan is perhaps most often invoked by those who cast him as having held the line against tax increases. Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, for example, often points to Reagan when calling for lower taxes and spending cuts; he says, by contrast, "tax hikes are what politicians do when they don't have the determination or the competence to govern." Conservatives also hail Reagan as a budget cutter willing to make hard choices to keep spending in line.
It's certainly true that Reagan entered office as a full-throated conservative vowing to cut both spending and taxes. And he quickly followed through on part of that promise, passing a major reduction in marginal tax rates. (According to author Lou Cannon, the top marginal rate fell from 70 percent when he came into office to 28 percent when he left.)
But following his party's losses in the 1982 election, Reagan largely backed off his efforts at spending cuts even as he continued to offer the small-government rhetoric that helped get him elected. In fact, he went in the opposite direction: His creation of the department of veterans affairs contributed to an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency.
And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget."
(cont.)
"Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that... offered a deficit reduction proposal.
"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."
It's important to note that Reagan's tax increases did not wipe out the effects of that initial tax cut. But they did eat up about half of it. And as Peter Beinart points out, the 1983 payroll tax hike went to pay for Social Security and Medicare. ("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today."
Reagan was not happy about raising taxes or expanding government, and we certainly shouldn't forget that he had to work within the constraints placed upon him by a non-compliant Congress. But that doesn't change the fact that Reagan both increased spending and, after the initial cut, showed a willingness to raise taxes - exactly the sort of policy prescriptions so widely condemned by today's Reagan-reverent conservatives."
保守的头部已满鸟粪的
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square With Reality
"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday)
But all you read on the conservative blogs and hear on FUX News is how bad a president Obama is. The conservative mind is a wonder to behold in how it selects what it wants so that it fits its mythology of Ronald Reagan who was a popular but mediocre president.
So the president who had a genuine scandal with indictments for his administration is considered a hero by the right and the president with no indictments and no scandals is considered a traitor to his country by the righties? Shouldn't those people be on some sort of medication? WTF?
Well Shaw, now that all the mutual bash and trash as well as hero worship is done, and them pols sure enjoy it too, perhaps focusing on actual resolutions to the manifest issues will occur.
Naw, not at all likely. Bash and trash is now the national pastime.
Ya, blah blah blah blah blah.....darned Mr. Reagan, just couldn't get anything right.
Except the world still had a healthy fear and respect for us.
Business was fabulous (believe me...and, oh, I did I forget to mention that's a GOOD THING..or was back then?)
Americans still believed in our country and our president.
Oh, gad...read a history book; I don't have the time to educate ...
Loved the part about using poor black Americans as pawns; are you awake? I hate to sound mean, but this list is nuts.
"No cover up"....Benghazi. I think I'd rather have a cover up than send the message to all future CIA intel people that we don't have their back. Go figure, huh? Please tell the deads' parents what really happened and why it did; it'd be good for us all to know because, it DOES matter to us.
"..darned Mr. Reagan, just couldn't get anything right."
Here are some facts about the Reagan myths, Mr. Ronnie Reagan worshipper:
1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.
It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.
During his presidency, Reagan's popularity had high peaks - after the attempt on his life in 1981, for example - and huge valleys. In 1982, as the national unemployment rate spiked above 10 percent, Reagan's approval rating fell to 35 percent. At the height of the Iran-Contra scandal, nearly one-third of Americans wanted him to resign.
cont. below
MYTH:
3. Reagan was a hawk.
Long before he was elected president, Reagan predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse because of communism's inherent corruption and inefficiency. His forecast proved accurate, but it is not clear that his military buildup moved the process forward. Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.
With the exception of the 1986 bombing of Libya, Reagan also disappointed hawkish aides with his unwillingness to retaliate militarily for terrorism in the Middle East. According to biographer Lou Cannon, the president called the death of innocent civilians in anti-terror operations "terrorism itself."
In 1987, Reagan aide Paul Bremer, later George W. Bush's point man in Baghdad, even argued that terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts. "A major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are - criminals - and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law, against them," Bremer said. In 1988, Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which stated that torture could be used under "no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever."
MYTH:
Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This rhetorical flourish didn't stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government's size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.
Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan's massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his "no new taxes" pledge.
The number of federal employees grew from 2.8 million to 3 million under Reagan, in large part because of his buildup at the Pentagon. (It took the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton to trim the employee rolls back to 2.7 million.) Reagan also abandoned a campaign pledge to get rid of two Cabinet agencies - Energy and Education - and added a new one, Veterans Affairs.
To RRW,
Nothing worse than listening to someone who is drunk on myths about someone they worship.
At least we liberals know Mr. Obama's weaknesses and mistakes. He's no saint. He's human and tries to do what is best for the country he loves, even though the conservatives and tea baggers have obstructed him in everything he's tried to do and even though an army of liars at FAUX NOOZ have spread propaganda to undermine him with every chance they get.
Mr Obama, however, has managed to pass some good laws, including the A.C.A., and he's been a prudent foreign policy president, unwilling to invade and start new wars.
He not perfect by a long shot, but considering what he's been dealt, he's done remarkably well.
I agree with you Shaw. Infidel has had some good insights into this situation. I had actually read his post from August 10th Success in Iraq. Very good information indeed. I remember gaining some respect for him back in the days of Helloooo Mr. President.
Still, as a long-slumbering anti-war hippie from the 1970s, I often prefer the simple knee-jerk liberal responses, such as blaming Cheney, blind Obama worship and hating everybody who makes money off of all of these wars.
Reagan will go down in history as the first sitting President with Alzheimer's. He thought Red China was some new dishes Nancy bought.
Dude, we in Cally already know about the Reagan myths. When's the rest of the country gonna figure it out?
okjimm, he thought Red China would look nice on a white table cloth.
Flying Junior, former President Big Dick Cheney's disastrous policies are responsible for what we're dealing with today. And we might as well "worship" Mr. Obama, since the righties have been telling us that's what we do when we refuse to label him a Commie America-hating Kenyan Soshalist Marxist Metrosexual.
Dude! Welcome back! Glad to see you got your own blogging ID. Hope to hear from you again.
Wow, such useful info on RR, DC, et al and tepid references to Obama's weaknesses.
Now, how about discussing current issues that press mightily on the nation.
Naw, bash and trash is the national pastime. Whoopee, there is so much left to B&T. History will be littered with the waste product produced by it.
Post a Comment