Jump to content


Photo

Why was there no poll bounce for Obama


  • Please log in to reply
216 replies to this topic

#1 Fensalk

Fensalk

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5,789 posts
  • Joined 09-March 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:21 AM

Newsweek looked at why Obama's poll numbers stayed exactly the same - 48% approve, 49% disapprove - in the two days before and two days after the killing of Bin Laden.

Spoiler


Gallup has him gaining 8%, from 42% approve to 50% approve, which is still below the 52.9% of the popular vote share he won in the 2008 election. When Gallup releases numbers for today, I'll add them in. Gallup released today's numbers - 52%-40%. Still below his 2008 share.

Edited by Fensalk, 05 May 2011 - 09:11 AM.

Pickles

Roberts is a Supreme Court justice, not a politician.


The biggest example of trickle-down economics is in the decision to make internet commerce largely tax-free. That encouraged the wild growth of internet commerce, which has led to lower and middle class people gaining unheard of access to products and services on the web at reduced costs.



#2 timschochet

timschochet

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79,353 posts
  • Joined 17-September 07

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:24 AM

Obama is a very polarizing president. The key will be to see how much he went up among independents.
Unless otherwise stated, any comment or statement I make is strictly MY OPINION, and should not be taken as an implication of fact, no matter how definitive it sounds. I speak for no one but myself.

#3 LHUCKS

LHUCKS

    Footballguy

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 46,267 posts
  • Joined 20-June 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pac12 = Conference of Champions

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:25 AM

Americans care about jobs first and foremost..."it's the economy, stupid"
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
- Winston Churchill

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
- Cicero - 55 BC

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
- Ben Franklin

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
- Gandhi

"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
- Thomas Jefferson

#4 Fensalk

Fensalk

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5,789 posts
  • Joined 09-March 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:26 AM

Obama is a very polarizing president. The key will be to see how much he went up among independents.

If he went up among independents in the Newsweek poll, then he had to drop among either republicans or democrats, and with his ratings so low for republicans to begin with, it would almost have to be a drop among democrats to compensate.
Pickles

Roberts is a Supreme Court justice, not a politician.


The biggest example of trickle-down economics is in the decision to make internet commerce largely tax-free. That encouraged the wild growth of internet commerce, which has led to lower and middle class people gaining unheard of access to products and services on the web at reduced costs.

#5 rolyaTy

rolyaTy

    You're Heinous

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9,635 posts
  • Joined 24-July 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hither and Yon

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:28 AM

This article seems to dispute your premise

For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid
By JAMES DAO and DALIA SUSSMAN

Support for President Obama rose sharply after the killing of Osama bin Laden, with a majority now approving of his overall job performance, as well as his handling of foreign policy, the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The glow of national pride seemed to rise above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent last month.

But euphoria was tempered by a sense of foreboding: more than six in 10 Americans said that killing Bin Laden was likely to increase the threat of terrorism against the United States in the short term. A large majority also said that the Qaeda leader’s death did not make them feel any safer. Just 16 percent said they personally felt more safe now.

Though there has been talk in some quarters that the United States military can now leave Afghanistan, the poll showed that public sentiment on the issue seems more complicated.

Nearly half said the nation should decrease troop levels in Afghanistan. But more than six in 10 also said the United States had not completed its mission in Afghanistan, suggesting that the public would oppose a rapid withdrawal of all American forces.

One Democrat polled, Richard Olbrich, 68, said in a follow-up interview that Bin Laden’s death was not sufficient reason to remove all American forces.

“The Taliban needs to be defeated,” said Mr. Olbrich, a lawyer from Madison, Wis. “I have no idea how long it will take to complete that mission. And we can’t leave until Afghanistan is back on its feet a little bit.”

The Obama administration has said it plans to begin a gradual drawdown of troops from Afghanistan this summer, with a complete withdrawal to be completed in 2014.

It is common for presidents to see their poll numbers shoot up after major military or foreign policy successes. But they usually do not sustain the ratings.

Mr. Obama’s job approval rating rose 11 points, compared with an 8-point increase for President George W. Bush, to 58 percent, after the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003. Mr. Bush’s bump evaporated within a month.

The increase in Mr. Obama’s ratings came largely from Republicans and independents. Among independents, his approval rating increased 11 points from last month, to 52 percent, while among Republicans it rose 15 points, to 24 percent. Among Democrats, 86 percent supported his job performance, compared with 79 percent in April.

But in an indication that anxieties about unemployment, gas prices and the national debt have not withered with Bin Laden’s death, good will toward Mr. Obama did not extend to his economic policies. More than half said they disapproved of his handling of the economy, similar to the result last month, the poll found.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, addressed those worries on Wednesday, saying, “The country is still emerging from the worst recession since the Great Depression.”

“I think that gas prices have weighed heavily on Americans as they try to make ends meet,” Mr. Carney said. “And it’s entirely understandable why that sentiment is out there, because people are struggling.”

Mr. Obama received higher marks in several major areas of foreign policy. Slightly more than half said they liked the way he was handling foreign policy generally, up from 39 percent in April. About six in 10 approved of his handling of Afghanistan, up from 44 percent in January. And more than seven in 10 supported his handling of the terrorism threat, up from about half in August 2010.

Perhaps least surprising, more than eight in 10 said they supported his handling of the pursuit of Bin Laden.

Diane Bottum, 63, a Republican from Lafayette, Ind., said she thought that the commando operation to kill Bin Laden was a “macho thing” that would encourage many Republicans to vote for Mr. Obama next year.

“Wiping out Bin Laden has been almost 10 years in the making, so it’s really significant,” Ms. Bottum, a retired university professor, said. “I’m convinced he’s nailed the next election.”

The government placed military bases and diplomatic offices on higher alert after Bin Laden’s death, and those concerns about retaliatory attacks by Qaeda supporters are reflected in public opinion. About seven in 10 said they thought a terrorist attack in the United States in the next few months was somewhat or very likely, the highest percentage since 2004.

“When I first heard the news, I thought, ‘We’d better watch it,’ ” said Monica Byrne, 48, an independent from Paramus, N.J. “Attacks could be anywhere, but I feel the New York metropolitan area is a target because they want to disrupt our lives, especially in the financial and business sectors.”

In the long term, Americans were divided over the impact of the Qaeda leader’s death, with about a quarter saying the threat of terrorism would increase, about a quarter saying it would decrease and about 40 percent saying it would stay the same.

Americans were less ambivalent about whether the killing was a success, with nearly 90 percent calling it either a major or minor victory in the war on terrorism.

More than four in 10 Americans, 44 percent, also now think that the United States and its allies are winning the war on terrorism, up from 36 percent in 2006. But a significant minority, 45 percent, say the war is a draw.

The poll found opinion divided about whether the death of Bin Laden had brought a sense of closure about the Sept. 11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. Half said it had, while 45 percent said it had not. Majorities of Northeasterners and Westerners said they did not feel closure.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted May 2 and 3 with 532 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.


Do justice, love kindness, and be humble.


#6 Statorama

Statorama

    gangster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 29,346 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:30 AM

Just wait until the pictures of him doing a victory lap today hit the nightly news. You'll see a bounce.

well then, no need to consider my thoughts on this policy any longer...i'll take the opposite of what FBG's greatest fisherman (aka Stat) is having.


the only fishing he does is getting people to believe he is only fishing.


Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.


#7 HellToupee

HellToupee

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 25,391 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:30 AM

OBama has a lot of goodwill points. Unless gas is $6 and things aren't trending upward he'll cruise

#8 Jewell

Jewell

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8,938 posts
  • Joined 14-August 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badstreet, USA
  • Interests:Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:32 AM

The only poll numbers that matter will be released in November 2012.

#9 GroveDiesel

GroveDiesel

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26,180 posts
  • Joined 24-February 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Jersey

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:37 AM

Most polls I've seen show a small overall bounce and a large bounce in how well people think he handles foreign policy. Perhaps it would even be larger if his new Press Secretary wasn't so terrible. The guy seems totally in over his head. You would think that somebody that had ascended to that position wouldn't seem so flustered all the time, keep repeating himself over and over again, say "ah/uh/um" all the time, etc. The guy makes the White House look even more disorganized and amateurish than whatzi already think they are.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

#10 NCCommish

NCCommish

    Footballguy

  • Members.
  • Pip
  • 76,127 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:42 AM

My guess is if he can come off as very Presidential in the 60 minutes interview he'll get more of an overall bounce.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

Woody Allen

#11 jonessed

jonessed

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21,196 posts
  • Joined 25-October 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sacramento, CA

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:48 AM

He got a bounce for attacking Libya as well, but it went away pretty quickly. A poll bounce is only useful to him if he can leverage it. I think everyone is aware that these movements are temporary. It's still all about the economy and our short-term and long-term economic outlooks are not good.

But to me security is primary, and has to come before all freedoms.

I don't think I have worked more than 45 hours in a week ever. And most of the time it is a 37 hour week.

I have been saying for some time there was no nuclear weapon program in Iran. How did I know this? Do I have a crystal ball? Do I get insider info from the CIA? No I actually look at what is happening and what people in the know are saying. It's really easy with this new fangled innerwebs thingy. I do the google.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

#12 Cunk

Cunk

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3,890 posts
  • Joined 22-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quincy, MA

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:48 AM

There is no way the killing of Bin Laden doesn't bump him up in the minds of the anti-Obamas, but they would never admit to it. My father is an anti-Obamamite. I'm sure if I asked him if this did anything to change his mind on Obama he'd go into some shmeel about Bin Laden's killing having nothing to do with Obama or some crazy conspiracy theory.

#13 Getzlaf15

Getzlaf15

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5,148 posts
  • Joined 05-February 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boise

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:53 AM

You, me, or anyone else would have made the same decision. How could anyone possibly say, "no thanks, I'll wait."

 

 


#14 squistion

squistion

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6,576 posts
  • Joined 26-July 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:10 AM

You, me, or anyone else would have made the same decision. How could anyone possibly say, "no thanks, I'll wait."

Jimmy Carter might have offered a contrary view along the lines of "I wish I had waited." If this action had failed the critics would have used that as proof that Democrats can't be trusted to fight the WOT. It was a risky call that if it went wrong would have doomed his reelection chances in 2012.

QUOTE (Marvin @ Apr 25, 2012 12:45 AM)

squistion is going to come in here and start reporting people. Then you'll really be sorry.

QUOTE (JerseyToughGuys @ Apr 20, 2012 03:45 PM)
No one expects the spanish squistion!~@@


#15 guderian

guderian

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7,337 posts
  • Joined 22-April 03

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:30 AM

It is amusing that everything bad that happens is Bush's fault yet Obama wants 100% of the credit for this. I was willing to give him some props for this, but his "it was all me, me, me" speech turned me off.

#16 kupcho1

kupcho1

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18,534 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:30 AM

There is no way the killing of Bin Laden doesn't bump him up in the minds of the anti-Obamas, but they would never admit to it. My father is an anti-Obamamite. I'm sure if I asked him if this did anything to change his mind on Obama he'd go into some shmeel about Bin Laden's killing having nothing to do with Obama or some crazy conspiracy theory.

I'm clearly not a fan of Obama's policies. I do recognize that he did the right thing wrt Osama. It took some guts as there was clearly a risk of failure. The likelihood that I'll vote for him in Nov 2012 didn't increase one iota though.
"Lets get things nice and sparkling clear. This sarcasm, if I might call it such, does not become you, O my Brothers. As I am your droog and leader I'm entitled to know what goes on eh? Now then, Dim. What does that great big horsey gape of a grin portend."

#17 squistion

squistion

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6,576 posts
  • Joined 26-July 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:38 AM

It is amusing that everything bad that happens is Bush's fault yet Obama wants 100% of the credit for this. I was willing to give him some props for this, but his "it was all me, me, me" speech turned me off.

And if this mission had gone completely wrong and was viewed as a total failure, he would have gotten 100% of the blame, wouldn't he? He did actually invite Bush to be present at the ground zero ceremonies today, but Bush declined.

QUOTE (Marvin @ Apr 25, 2012 12:45 AM)

squistion is going to come in here and start reporting people. Then you'll really be sorry.

QUOTE (JerseyToughGuys @ Apr 20, 2012 03:45 PM)
No one expects the spanish squistion!~@@


#18 Bronco Billy

Bronco Billy

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3,665 posts
  • Joined 26-January 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:48 AM

Maybe it's because this isn't the incredibly heroic decision that some are trying to portray it to be. Maybe the predominace of Americans see this as the military doing its job before and after the hit, and Obama simply making a no-brainer decision on it. Note - that this was a no-brainer does not diminish my admiration of Obama for making it.
The only people who don't wanna disclose the truth are those with somethin' to hide - President Barack Obama

#19 Death Bytes

Death Bytes

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5,407 posts
  • Joined 14-November 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Purgatory

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:48 AM

When Americans are shocked by gas prices, there's not much a President can do to improve his approval numbers. He could find away of bringing a consistent 365 days of 70 degree sunshine during the daylight hours and soft rainshowers for the plants 3 nights a week, but if Americans are paying too much to fill up their 4 doors, it wouldn't make a difference in his approval numbers. Unless gas costs change, Obama's presidency will mirror Carter's.

#20 The Commish

The Commish

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38,966 posts
  • Joined 19-May 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rock Hill, SC

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:48 AM

He didn't get a bounce because people don't believe OBL is dead....you guys are over thinking this.

Romans 14: 1-10

1 Peter 3:15-16

You play to win the Big Ten championship, and if you win it and go to the Rose Bowl and win it, then you've had a great season. If they choose to vote you number one, then you're the national champion. But a national champion is a mythical national champion, and I think you guys ought to know that. It's mythical." - Bo Schembechler


#21 BigSteelThrill

BigSteelThrill

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15,891 posts
  • Joined 29-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:51 AM

And if this mission had gone completely wrong and was viewed as a total failure, he would have gotten 100% of the blame, wouldn't he?

Correct. And they lost 1 helicopter... had they also lost the 2nd he would have taken a massive and possibly politically fatal hit. And no freaking republican hacks would be clamoring for some of that "bad credit".

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

 

~John Galbraith~


#22 NCCommish

NCCommish

    Footballguy

  • Members.
  • Pip
  • 76,127 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:52 AM

And if this mission had gone completely wrong and was viewed as a total failure, he would have gotten 100% of the blame, wouldn't he?

Correct. And they lost 1 helicopter... had they also lost the 2nd he would have taken a massive and possibly politically fatal hit. And no freaking republican hacks would be clamoring for some of that "bad credit".

Yeah if it went south how much credit would Palin be giving Bush then?
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

Woody Allen

#23 BigSteelThrill

BigSteelThrill

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15,891 posts
  • Joined 29-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:52 AM

When Americans are shocked by gas prices, there's not much a President can do to improve his approval numbers.

Can't he start sending out stimulus checks, regardless of the mounting debt, to appease people? That seemed to make a few people happy previously.

Edited by BigSteelThrill, 05 May 2011 - 09:03 AM.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

 

~John Galbraith~


#24 timschochet

timschochet

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79,353 posts
  • Joined 17-September 07

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:56 AM

Maybe it's because this isn't the incredibly heroic decision that some are trying to portray it to be. Maybe the predominace of Americans see this as the military doing its job before and after the hit, and Obama simply making a no-brainer decision on it.

Note - that this was a no-brainer does not diminish my admiration of Obama for making it.

The more I read about this action, the more I become convinced that this was a very difficult decision, and quite a risk.

The main reason that Osama was able to elude us for so many years was that we didn't want to interfere too much in Pakistan. Every action we take or don't take with regard to Pakistan has both short and long term security risks. If this mission had failed, it would not simply have resulted in a blown opportunity, it also might have seriously jeapordized our relationship with the Pakistani government. There were several considerations here that could not be made on a military level.

So I reject your interpretation of this event.
Unless otherwise stated, any comment or statement I make is strictly MY OPINION, and should not be taken as an implication of fact, no matter how definitive it sounds. I speak for no one but myself.

#25 IvanKaramazov

IvanKaramazov

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 46,659 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:02 AM

I agree with tim. People who describe this decision as a no-brainer are looking at it with 20-20 hindsight. This had the potential to be a complete debacle, and there were other possible options on the table (e.g. a cruise missile strike). Edit: There had to be at least one or two thoughtful, well-regarded people with solid national security credentials involved in this decision who said "Wait -- You mean we're going to send a small ground of special forces troops to raid a compound literally right down the block from a Pakistani military base? Really?" That's not a no-brainer at all.

Edited by IvanKaramazov, 05 May 2011 - 09:12 AM.

 

 


#26 Bronco Billy

Bronco Billy

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3,665 posts
  • Joined 26-January 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:06 AM

So I reject your interpretation of this event.

:lol: I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
The only people who don't wanna disclose the truth are those with somethin' to hide - President Barack Obama

#27 Jewell

Jewell

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8,938 posts
  • Joined 14-August 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badstreet, USA
  • Interests:Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:07 AM


Maybe it's because this isn't the incredibly heroic decision that some are trying to portray it to be. Maybe the predominace of Americans see this as the military doing its job before and after the hit, and Obama simply making a no-brainer decision on it.

Note - that this was a no-brainer does not diminish my admiration of Obama for making it.

The more I read about this action, the more I become convinced that this was a very difficult decision, and quite a risk.

The main reason that Osama was able to elude us for so many years was that we didn't want to interfere too much in Pakistan. Every action we take or don't take with regard to Pakistan has both short and long term security risks. If this mission had failed, it would not simply have resulted in a blown opportunity, it also might have seriously jeapordized our relationship with the Pakistani government. There were several considerations here that could not be made on a military level.

So I reject your interpretation of this event.

The mission was highly successful yet it appears it has still jeopardized our relationship with the Pakistani government over calls that we violated their sovereignty. What's the difference? I get it could have been worse had their been numerous Pakistani civilian deaths, but we're talking degrees of contempt rather than contempt vs. no contempt because there was always going to be contempt regardless of the outcome.

NOTE: I've heard interesting perspectives from ex-military men questioning whether the Pakistan government knew about the mission in advance. If they did, that would also bring the Pakistani claims that America violated their sovereignty into question unless they feel like they were strong-armed into complying.

EDIT: And I agree Obama made a tough yet great decision. Anytime you run the risk of civilian or American military casualties it's a tough call. Obama even had to consider the risk of alienating Pakistan. The above was just to say that any alienation that may occur would occur because of the decision to go in. Not whether it was successful or not.

Edited by Jewell, 05 May 2011 - 09:49 AM.


#28 Bronco Billy

Bronco Billy

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3,665 posts
  • Joined 26-January 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:17 AM

I agree with tim. People who describe this decision as a no-brainer are looking at it with 20-20 hindsight. This had the potential to be a complete debacle, and there were other possible options on the table (e.g. a cruise missile strike).

Really? You don't think the military put all the pieces together for Obama and gave him a plan that was laid out succinctly with all consequences clearly established? Maybe they just said - "Hey, that's Bin laden! Quick, go tell the boss and maybe he can cook up a plan for us to go get him!" The assets were in place The target was identified The mission was small and carried out by elite forces There was virtually no resistance The risk of collateral damage was extremely low The mission looked to be extremely high reward/low risk What were the possible snafus? That Pakistan would be pissed off? Hell, Bin laden was lolling literally undefended in an estate in their country and they were doing nothing about it - they got caught neck deep in a barrel of #### on this one. That the military would screw up what was a relatively straight-line covert mission against minimal to no resistance? Well, they did manage to lose a helicopter, but thankfully pulled it off otherwise. People want to give this guy a whole lot of credit for something that had the earmarks of missions that the special ops teams train specifically for under conditions that they anticipate completely and recreate extensively in training. Damn, here we go again. I don't want to denegrate Obama in any way on this. He did the right thing and the bad guy met an appropriate end as a result, and best of all there were no US losses other than the helicopter. Again, more power and Bravo! for making that decision.
The only people who don't wanna disclose the truth are those with somethin' to hide - President Barack Obama

#29 Ksquared

Ksquared

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 623 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:23 AM

I agree with tim. People who describe this decision as a no-brainer are looking at it with 20-20 hindsight. This had the potential to be a complete debacle, and there were other possible options on the table (e.g. a cruise missile strike). Edit: There had to be at least one or two thoughtful, well-regarded people with solid national security credentials involved in this decision who said "Wait -- You mean we're going to send a small ground of special forces troops to raid a compound literally right down the block from a Pakistani military base? Really?" That's not a no-brainer at all.

I think the point people are making is not being explained properly. The decision was a no brainer because if it ever came out (which it likely would at some point) that Obama passed on a chance to take out OBL, he would be done politically and could never recover. Now was the actual detailed decision an easy one, no it was not and I have realized in the last couple of days there was a lot more to it than my first instincts. But still political reality is he had to try to take out OBL and really need physical interaction to verify OBL's death.

#30 Sabertooth

Sabertooth

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22,879 posts
  • Joined 06-May 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North of You

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:27 AM

You, me, or anyone else would have made the same decision. How could anyone possibly say, "no thanks, I'll wait."

Jimmy Carter might have offered a contrary view along the lines of "I wish I had waited." If this action had failed the critics would have used that as proof that Democrats can't be trusted to fight the WOT. It was a risky call that if it went wrong would have doomed his reelection chances in 2012.

So put another way, he gambled his election chances on the elite Seal 6 team being able to carry out a badass mission. Not a bad gamble really.

Kiss the Rings.  All 13 of them.  


#31 BigSteelThrill

BigSteelThrill

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15,891 posts
  • Joined 29-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:28 AM

The decision was a no brainer because if it ever came out (which it likely would at some point) that Obama passed on a chance to take out OBL, he would be done politically and could never recover.

That's not true at all. Considering the target was within another sovereign country.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

 

~John Galbraith~


#32 The Commish

The Commish

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38,966 posts
  • Joined 19-May 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rock Hill, SC

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:28 AM

I agree with tim. People who describe this decision as a no-brainer are looking at it with 20-20 hindsight. This had the potential to be a complete debacle, and there were other possible options on the table (e.g. a cruise missile strike). Edit: There had to be at least one or two thoughtful, well-regarded people with solid national security credentials involved in this decision who said "Wait -- You mean we're going to send a small ground of special forces troops to raid a compound literally right down the block from a Pakistani military base? Really?" That's not a no-brainer at all.

:goodposting: Political hackers at it's finest. It disappoints me that people are this beholden to "their side" that they can't see this stuff for what it really is.

Romans 14: 1-10

1 Peter 3:15-16

You play to win the Big Ten championship, and if you win it and go to the Rose Bowl and win it, then you've had a great season. If they choose to vote you number one, then you're the national champion. But a national champion is a mythical national champion, and I think you guys ought to know that. It's mythical." - Bo Schembechler


#33 Charlie Frown

Charlie Frown

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined 19-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:KY

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:30 AM

I agree with tim. People who describe this decision as a no-brainer are looking at it with 20-20 hindsight. This had the potential to be a complete debacle, and there were other possible options on the table (e.g. a cruise missile strike). Edit: There had to be at least one or two thoughtful, well-regarded people with solid national security credentials involved in this decision who said "Wait -- You mean we're going to send a small ground of special forces troops to raid a compound literally right down the block from a Pakistani military base? Really?" That's not a no-brainer at all.

I agree with this.
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of the infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.”
― H.P. Lovecraft

#34 Da Guru

Da Guru

    Fair & Balanced

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 29,492 posts
  • Joined 28-June 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:33 AM

The Navys SEALs got a huge bounce.

#35 The Commish

The Commish

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38,966 posts
  • Joined 19-May 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rock Hill, SC

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:34 AM

I agree with tim. People who describe this decision as a no-brainer are looking at it with 20-20 hindsight. This had the potential to be a complete debacle, and there were other possible options on the table (e.g. a cruise missile strike). Edit: There had to be at least one or two thoughtful, well-regarded people with solid national security credentials involved in this decision who said "Wait -- You mean we're going to send a small ground of special forces troops to raid a compound literally right down the block from a Pakistani military base? Really?" That's not a no-brainer at all.

I think the point people are making is not being explained properly. The decision was a no brainer because if it ever came out (which it likely would at some point) that Obama passed on a chance to take out OBL, he would be done politically and could never recover. Now was the actual detailed decision an easy one, no it was not and I have realized in the last couple of days there was a lot more to it than my first instincts. But still political reality is he had to try to take out OBL and really need physical interaction to verify OBL's death.

In short: politically = no brainer ; real life = tough choice to make. This is the crap I am talking about....put away the political hackery for just a second and reflect on the real life part of this. That's much more important. It's nice to sit in the ivory tower from time to time, but this isn't one of those times.

Edited by The Commish, 05 May 2011 - 09:34 AM.

Romans 14: 1-10

1 Peter 3:15-16

You play to win the Big Ten championship, and if you win it and go to the Rose Bowl and win it, then you've had a great season. If they choose to vote you number one, then you're the national champion. But a national champion is a mythical national champion, and I think you guys ought to know that. It's mythical." - Bo Schembechler


#36 Saints-Man

Saints-Man

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16,727 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, TX area (Flower Mound)

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:36 AM

I agree with tim. People who describe this decision as a no-brainer are looking at it with 20-20 hindsight. This had the potential to be a complete debacle, and there were other possible options on the table (e.g. a cruise missile strike). Edit: There had to be at least one or two thoughtful, well-regarded people with solid national security credentials involved in this decision who said "Wait -- You mean we're going to send a small ground of special forces troops to raid a compound literally right down the block from a Pakistani military base? Really?" That's not a no-brainer at all.

+1 It always looks easy when it works out the best way. President Obama made a courageous, well-thought decision and it worked out the best way possible.

The struggle between good and evil is the human condition fully distilled, on both an individual and collective basis.

I must believe truth will win because I project that for myself, and hope that for the world I inhabit.

But it is not predestination - it is an ongoing battle.


#37 NCCommish

NCCommish

    Footballguy

  • Members.
  • Pip
  • 76,127 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:37 AM

I agree with tim. People who describe this decision as a no-brainer are looking at it with 20-20 hindsight. This had the potential to be a complete debacle, and there were other possible options on the table (e.g. a cruise missile strike). Edit: There had to be at least one or two thoughtful, well-regarded people with solid national security credentials involved in this decision who said "Wait -- You mean we're going to send a small ground of special forces troops to raid a compound literally right down the block from a Pakistani military base? Really?" That's not a no-brainer at all.

I think the point people are making is not being explained properly. The decision was a no brainer because if it ever came out (which it likely would at some point) that Obama passed on a chance to take out OBL, he would be done politically and could never recover. Now was the actual detailed decision an easy one, no it was not and I have realized in the last couple of days there was a lot more to it than my first instincts. But still political reality is he had to try to take out OBL and really need physical interaction to verify OBL's death.

In short: politically = no brainer ; real life = tough choice to make. This is the crap I am talking about....put away the political hackery for just a second and reflect on the real life part of this. That's much more important. It's nice to sit in the ivory tower from time to time, but this isn't one of those times.

I'm not sure I concede even the political ease of the decision. This was a huge gamble politically and had a lot more chances to go wrong than to go right. I don't think any part of this was a no brainer really.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

Woody Allen

#38 BobbyLayne

BobbyLayne

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21,362 posts
  • Joined 21-November 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hell's Kitchen

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:39 AM

Obama is a very polarizing president. The key will be to see how much he went up among independents.

Clinton wasn't? How about Dubya? Pretty sure the current state of polarization has little to do with Obama.

Tom Ricketts, a member of the family that owns the Chicago Cubs is often approached by elderly fans who ask, “Will the Cubs win the World Series before I die?”

His reply? “Are you taking good care of yourself? Do you eat right? Are you getting your exercise?”


#39 Statorama

Statorama

    gangster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 29,346 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:43 AM

So put another way, he gambled his election chances on the elite Seal 6 team being able to carry out a badass mission. Not a bad gamble really.

:goodposting:

well then, no need to consider my thoughts on this policy any longer...i'll take the opposite of what FBG's greatest fisherman (aka Stat) is having.


the only fishing he does is getting people to believe he is only fishing.


Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.


#40 timschochet

timschochet

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79,353 posts
  • Joined 17-September 07

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:52 AM



Maybe it's because this isn't the incredibly heroic decision that some are trying to portray it to be. Maybe the predominace of Americans see this as the military doing its job before and after the hit, and Obama simply making a no-brainer decision on it.

Note - that this was a no-brainer does not diminish my admiration of Obama for making it.

The more I read about this action, the more I become convinced that this was a very difficult decision, and quite a risk.

The main reason that Osama was able to elude us for so many years was that we didn't want to interfere too much in Pakistan. Every action we take or don't take with regard to Pakistan has both short and long term security risks. If this mission had failed, it would not simply have resulted in a blown opportunity, it also might have seriously jeapordized our relationship with the Pakistani government. There were several considerations here that could not be made on a military level.

So I reject your interpretation of this event.

The mission was highly successful yet it appears it has still jeopardized our relationship with the Pakistani government over calls that we violated their sovereignty. What's the difference? I get it could have been worse had their been numerous Pakistani civilian deaths, but we're talking degrees of contempt rather than contempt vs. no contempt because there was always going to be contempt regardless of the outcome.

NOTE: I've heard interesting perspectives from ex-military men questioning whether the Pakistan government knew about the mission in advance. If they did, that would also bring the Pakistani claims that America violated their sovereignty into question unless they feel like they were strong-armed into complying.

EDIT: And I agree Obama made a tough yet great decision. Anytime you run the risk of civilian or American military casualties it's a tough call. Obama even had to consider the risk of alienating Pakistan. The above was just to say that any alienation that may occur would occur because of the decision to go in. Not whether it was successful or not.

The reason it didn't jeapordize our relationship with Pakistan more is because we won. You have no idea how important that is diplomatically. Pakistan will live with it because the plan worked. Had the plan failed, there would be anti-American riots in Pakistan right now, increaased public support for the Taliban, and a uniting of moderate elements within the Muslim world at large against "American imperialism."

This really was a huge gamble and very difficult decision for the President. I can't believe people are discounting it.
Unless otherwise stated, any comment or statement I make is strictly MY OPINION, and should not be taken as an implication of fact, no matter how definitive it sounds. I speak for no one but myself.

#41 timschochet

timschochet

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79,353 posts
  • Joined 17-September 07

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:54 AM

Obama is a very polarizing president. The key will be to see how much he went up among independents.

Clinton wasn't? How about Dubya? Pretty sure the current state of polarization has little to do with Obama.

I never said it did. The level of polarization continues to increase with each president. I think Obama is the most polarizing president since Richard Nixon.
Unless otherwise stated, any comment or statement I make is strictly MY OPINION, and should not be taken as an implication of fact, no matter how definitive it sounds. I speak for no one but myself.

#42 gollum

gollum

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined 06-January 10
  • Location:Mordor
  • Interests:The precious

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:58 AM

Maybe his pole has a little less bounce in it, but Christ with all that stress it is understandable. And he is no spring chicken! Leave the man alone, is nothing sacred???
Master of the 1/4-turn "spinning" inside-out crescent kick

#43 Rich Conway

Rich Conway

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9,307 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:59 AM

I'm baffled at the folks who say this was a no-brainer decision. There were plenty of other viable options. This was a high-risk, high-reward decision, and Obama rightly reaps the benefits of the success.

#44 Saints-Man

Saints-Man

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16,727 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, TX area (Flower Mound)

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:06 AM

... I think the point people are making is not being explained properly. The decision was a no brainer because if it ever came out (which it likely would at some point) that Obama passed on a chance to take out OBL, he would be done politically and could never recover. Now was the actual detailed decision an easy one, no it was not and I have realized in the last couple of days there was a lot more to it than my first instincts. But still political reality is he had to try to take out OBL and really need physical interaction to verify OBL's death.

I don't agree. First of all, to affect him at all, it would have to come out in less than 18 months. His run for the presidency in 2012 is most likely his last election. I don't think this info comes out in less than 18 months. Also, it would be much worse for President Obama in solely political terms for the mission to have failed. I doubt many people would have viewed him favorably in terms of "at least he tried". The failed attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran reinforced in the public mind that Carter was inept. Another thing, if it had failed, tensions with Pakistan would have greatly increased which would have made any future attempts much more difficult. This was a difficult decision both in real-life and political terms.

The struggle between good and evil is the human condition fully distilled, on both an individual and collective basis.

I must believe truth will win because I project that for myself, and hope that for the world I inhabit.

But it is not predestination - it is an ongoing battle.


#45 bostonfred

bostonfred

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39,788 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:07 AM

Bush deserves credit for starting the war(s) in the middle east, and we're starting to see the results he wanted. The problem is that he also deserves some blame for getting us involved in a war of choice that set our fragile economy back and hurt us on the world stage. Obama didn't have that choice. He picked up the wars that Bush left him. But under his watch, we got bin Laden, helped but did not pay for regime change in multiple middle eastern states, and got a real international coalition to support it. You may remember that Bush had to pay other countries to join him, and the French wanted nothing to do with helping us back when Bush was trying to get UN support for the war on Iraq. We've accomplished more of Bush's goals under Obama than we did in more than twice as many years under Bush. For those calling this Bush' third term, it's more like, the term Bush could have had if he were as good a president as Obama.
R.I.P. shiny 5/25/09

#46 The Commish

The Commish

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38,966 posts
  • Joined 19-May 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rock Hill, SC

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:11 AM

I agree with tim. People who describe this decision as a no-brainer are looking at it with 20-20 hindsight. This had the potential to be a complete debacle, and there were other possible options on the table (e.g. a cruise missile strike). Edit: There had to be at least one or two thoughtful, well-regarded people with solid national security credentials involved in this decision who said "Wait -- You mean we're going to send a small ground of special forces troops to raid a compound literally right down the block from a Pakistani military base? Really?" That's not a no-brainer at all.

I think the point people are making is not being explained properly. The decision was a no brainer because if it ever came out (which it likely would at some point) that Obama passed on a chance to take out OBL, he would be done politically and could never recover. Now was the actual detailed decision an easy one, no it was not and I have realized in the last couple of days there was a lot more to it than my first instincts. But still political reality is he had to try to take out OBL and really need physical interaction to verify OBL's death.

In short: politically = no brainer ; real life = tough choice to make. This is the crap I am talking about....put away the political hackery for just a second and reflect on the real life part of this. That's much more important. It's nice to sit in the ivory tower from time to time, but this isn't one of those times.

I'm not sure I concede even the political ease of the decision. This was a huge gamble politically and had a lot more chances to go wrong than to go right. I don't think any part of this was a no brainer really.

And that's fine, I guess.....Can't we just, for once, keep the political hyperbole out of this type of stuff? It's ridiculous and incredibly simple minded.

Romans 14: 1-10

1 Peter 3:15-16

You play to win the Big Ten championship, and if you win it and go to the Rose Bowl and win it, then you've had a great season. If they choose to vote you number one, then you're the national champion. But a national champion is a mythical national champion, and I think you guys ought to know that. It's mythical." - Bo Schembechler


#47 The Commish

The Commish

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38,966 posts
  • Joined 19-May 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rock Hill, SC

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:13 AM




Maybe it's because this isn't the incredibly heroic decision that some are trying to portray it to be. Maybe the predominace of Americans see this as the military doing its job before and after the hit, and Obama simply making a no-brainer decision on it.

Note - that this was a no-brainer does not diminish my admiration of Obama for making it.

The more I read about this action, the more I become convinced that this was a very difficult decision, and quite a risk.

The main reason that Osama was able to elude us for so many years was that we didn't want to interfere too much in Pakistan. Every action we take or don't take with regard to Pakistan has both short and long term security risks. If this mission had failed, it would not simply have resulted in a blown opportunity, it also might have seriously jeapordized our relationship with the Pakistani government. There were several considerations here that could not be made on a military level.

So I reject your interpretation of this event.

The mission was highly successful yet it appears it has still jeopardized our relationship with the Pakistani government over calls that we violated their sovereignty. What's the difference? I get it could have been worse had their been numerous Pakistani civilian deaths, but we're talking degrees of contempt rather than contempt vs. no contempt because there was always going to be contempt regardless of the outcome.

NOTE: I've heard interesting perspectives from ex-military men questioning whether the Pakistan government knew about the mission in advance. If they did, that would also bring the Pakistani claims that America violated their sovereignty into question unless they feel like they were strong-armed into complying.

EDIT: And I agree Obama made a tough yet great decision. Anytime you run the risk of civilian or American military casualties it's a tough call. Obama even had to consider the risk of alienating Pakistan. The above was just to say that any alienation that may occur would occur because of the decision to go in. Not whether it was successful or not.

The reason it didn't jeapordize our relationship with Pakistan more is because we won. You have no idea how important that is diplomatically. Pakistan will live with it because the plan worked. Had the plan failed, there would be anti-American riots in Pakistan right now, increaased public support for the Taliban, and a uniting of moderate elements within the Muslim world at large against "American imperialism."

This really was a huge gamble and very difficult decision for the President. I can't believe people are discounting it.

The other reason being "relationship" is a relatively loose term when we are talking about our interaction with them.

Romans 14: 1-10

1 Peter 3:15-16

You play to win the Big Ten championship, and if you win it and go to the Rose Bowl and win it, then you've had a great season. If they choose to vote you number one, then you're the national champion. But a national champion is a mythical national champion, and I think you guys ought to know that. It's mythical." - Bo Schembechler


#48 Sarnoff

Sarnoff

    Footballguy

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 16,524 posts
  • Joined 21-March 09
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:16 AM

NOTE: I've heard interesting perspectives from ex-military men questioning whether the Pakistan government knew about the mission in advance. If they did, that would also bring the Pakistani claims that America violated their sovereignty into question unless they feel like they were strong-armed into complying.

We'll probably never get the real side of this story either, Pakistan might have troubles with their local population if it came out they gave pre-approval, or if they didn't. Best thing for local politics is to claim their sovereignty was violated, allows them to placate both sides.

#49 Jewell

Jewell

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8,938 posts
  • Joined 14-August 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badstreet, USA
  • Interests:Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:21 AM




Maybe it's because this isn't the incredibly heroic decision that some are trying to portray it to be. Maybe the predominace of Americans see this as the military doing its job before and after the hit, and Obama simply making a no-brainer decision on it.

Note - that this was a no-brainer does not diminish my admiration of Obama for making it.

The more I read about this action, the more I become convinced that this was a very difficult decision, and quite a risk.

The main reason that Osama was able to elude us for so many years was that we didn't want to interfere too much in Pakistan. Every action we take or don't take with regard to Pakistan has both short and long term security risks. If this mission had failed, it would not simply have resulted in a blown opportunity, it also might have seriously jeapordized our relationship with the Pakistani government. There were several considerations here that could not be made on a military level.

So I reject your interpretation of this event.

The mission was highly successful yet it appears it has still jeopardized our relationship with the Pakistani government over calls that we violated their sovereignty. What's the difference? I get it could have been worse had their been numerous Pakistani civilian deaths, but we're talking degrees of contempt rather than contempt vs. no contempt because there was always going to be contempt regardless of the outcome.

NOTE: I've heard interesting perspectives from ex-military men questioning whether the Pakistan government knew about the mission in advance. If they did, that would also bring the Pakistani claims that America violated their sovereignty into question unless they feel like they were strong-armed into complying.

EDIT: And I agree Obama made a tough yet great decision. Anytime you run the risk of civilian or American military casualties it's a tough call. Obama even had to consider the risk of alienating Pakistan. The above was just to say that any alienation that may occur would occur because of the decision to go in. Not whether it was successful or not.

The reason it didn't jeapordize our relationship with Pakistan more is because we won. You have no idea how important that is diplomatically. Pakistan will live with it because the plan worked. Had the plan failed, there would be anti-American riots in Pakistan right now, increaased public support for the Taliban, and a uniting of moderate elements within the Muslim world at large against "American imperialism."

This really was a huge gamble and very difficult decision for the President. I can't believe people are discounting it.

Where did I discount Obama's decision?

I discounted your assertion that there would be a marked difference in Pakistan's reaction based on success vs. non-success.

#50 guderian

guderian

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7,337 posts
  • Joined 22-April 03

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:20 AM

It is amusing that everything bad that happens is Bush's fault yet Obama wants 100% of the credit for this. I was willing to give him some props for this, but his "it was all me, me, me" speech turned me off.

And if this mission had gone completely wrong and was viewed as a total failure, he would have gotten 100% of the blame, wouldn't he? He did actually invite Bush to be present at the ground zero ceremonies today, but Bush declined.

The next time that Obama accepts blame for something that happens during his presidency will be the first. His entire credit/blame mantra is what puts people on the defensive and why he won't get much of a long-lasting bump at the polls (besides the once again cratering job market). It's why he is so polarizing and why Bush turned more polarizing as his presidency wore on. Seriously, we're well into the 3rd year of his Presidency and everything that's bad is still Bush's fault. Obama can't use the "last 8 years" bit anymore because 40% of the last 8 years was under his term.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users