Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

this seems like a silly semantics spat. Obama is the president, his admin is ignoring a court order for what most certainly is a political reason, therefore he and his administration are acting unethically. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the ruling, when a judge makes a ruling, the rule of law applies and in this country we agree to be governed by it. When we choose not to, we are acting unethically at best.

Even semantically, it really is a stretch to consider this unethical. Let's take another example: the United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and considers it a solemn treaty enforced by United States law. Several aspects of our base at Guantanamo is in direct violation of this treaty, including the holding of prisoners for lengthy periods without trial, the use of harsh interrogation techniques, etc. Yet both Bush and Obama have violated these very clear laws. Does that make them personally unethical? Some would argue so, but I doubt you would Tommyboy, and I would agree with you. When you can a president unethical you should be referring to some real charge- selling the Lincoln Bedroom, or lying under oath, or receiving a vicuna coat, etc. This was a political policy decision, and not a matter of ethics.

Did the Senate ratify that treaty?

It's not a treaty. The Senate ratified the Charter of the United Nations, and then the United States government voted for the Universal Declaration within the General Assembly, and based on this we recognize it as bindling law. Had we been opposed to it at the time we could have demanded a vote within the Security Council and used our veto power. But we did not, so although it's not a treaty we consider it to be a treaty with equal binding effect.

 

[bueno]

this seems like a silly semantics spat. Obama is the president, his admin is ignoring a court order for what most certainly is a political reason, therefore he and his administration are acting unethically. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the ruling, when a judge makes a ruling, the rule of law applies and in this country we agree to be governed by it. When we choose not to, we are acting unethically at best.

Even semantically, it really is a stretch to consider this unethical. Let's take another example: the United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and considers it a solemn treaty enforced by United States law. Several aspects of our base at Guantanamo is in direct violation of this treaty, including the holding of prisoners for lengthy periods without trial, the use of harsh interrogation techniques, etc. Yet both Bush and Obama have violated these very clear laws. Does that make them personally unethical? Some would argue so, but I doubt you would Tommyboy, and I would agree with you. When you can a president unethical you should be referring to some real charge- selling the Lincoln Bedroom, or lying under oath, or receiving a vicuna coat, etc. This was a political policy decision, and not a matter of ethics.

Did the Senate ratify that treaty?

It's not a treaty. The Senate ratified the Charter of the United Nations, and then the United States government voted for the Universal Declaration within the General Assembly, and based on this we recognize it as bindling law. Had we been opposed to it at the time we could have demanded a vote within the Security Council and used our veto power. But we did not, so although it's not a treaty we consider it to be a treaty with equal binding effect.

I would like a legal opinion on this as I am not entirely certain this is correct.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Where Did All the Anti-War Protestors Go?The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009. What did they find?… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.The protesters have remained silent over Libya.And I’m struck by the hypocrisy of the supposedly “anti-war” politicians who voted against Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi. Since Obama was elected, she has voted to continue the war in Afghanistan … and supported the attack on Libya.

And why are we killing children and grandchildren in Libya???Imagine if another country targeted our leaders families the same way we do...

 

[bueno]

Where Did All the Anti-War Protestors Go?The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren't really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009. What did they find?… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.The protesters have remained silent over Libya.And I'm struck by the hypocrisy of the supposedly "anti-war" politicians who voted against Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi. Since Obama was elected, she has voted to continue the war in Afghanistan … and supported the attack on Libya.

And why are we killing children and grandchildren in Libya???Imagine if another country targeted our leaders families the same way we do...

Why it would be just like Iraq.

 

[Fensalk]

I don't think democrats are anti-oil, either. I think its a proxy for being anti-corporation. If the government swooped in and took control of the oil industry, eliminating the oil corporations in the process, I think the democrats would probably stop pushing green fuel technology. Democrats trust government to do the right thing, so once government controlled the oil sector 100%, then the environment would be safe in their view. They feel we have oil spills and pollution because the corporations just seek profit. Democrats feel if we eliminate the profit motive, then humans would be responsible with oil.

Democrats aren't protesting Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003-2009 because they are antiwar. They are doing it because they are anti-corporation. They believed Bush was fighting these wars to give corporate interests sweet deals behind the scenes, either via oil contracts (Halliburton) or reconstruction and security contracts (Blackwater). With Obama in charge, they aren't worried about corporations controlling these wars, so the protests die down. Every other reason democrats used, from not finding WMDs to being lied to or whatever, really doesn't matter to them.

It boils down to a luddite fear of the corporation. They want government in charge instead. Which is funny since the definition of a corporation is a partnership between government and business anyway. There's not really much difference.

What we've learned from all this is that democrats won't be satisfied until government controls all sectors of the economy. Until that happens, the threat is from evil corporations.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't think democrats are anti-oil, either. I think its a proxy for being anti-corporation. If the government swooped in and took control of the oil industry, eliminating the oil corporations in the process, I think the democrats would probably stop pushing green fuel technology. Democrats trust government to do the right thing, so once government controlled the oil sector 100%, then the environment would be safe in their view. They feel we have oil spills and pollution because the corporations just seek profit. Democrats feel if we eliminate the profit motive, then humans would be responsible with oil.Democrats aren't protesting Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003-2009 because they are antiwar. They are doing it because they are anti-corporation. They believed Bush was fighting these wars to give corporate interests sweet deals behind the scenes, either via oil contracts (Halliburton) or reconstruction and security contracts (Blackwater). With Obama in charge, they aren't worried about corporations controlling these wars, so the protests die down. Everything other reason democrats used, from not finding WMDs to being lied to or whatever, really doesn't matter to them.It boils down to a luddite fear of the corporation. They want government in charge instead. Which is funny since the definition of a corporation is a partnership between government and business anyway. There's not really much difference.What we've learned from all this is that democrats won't be satisfied until government controls all sectors of the economy. Until that happens, the threat is from evil corporations.

Interesting thesis which has merit. Liberalism is largely driven by corporphobia.

 

[Fensalk]

I don't think democrats are anti-oil, either. I think its a proxy for being anti-corporation. If the government swooped in and took control of the oil industry, eliminating the oil corporations in the process, I think the democrats would probably stop pushing green fuel technology. Democrats trust government to do the right thing, so once government controlled the oil sector 100%, then the environment would be safe in their view. They feel we have oil spills and pollution because the corporations just seek profit. Democrats feel if we eliminate the profit motive, then humans would be responsible with oil.Democrats aren't protesting Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003-2009 because they are antiwar. They are doing it because they are anti-corporation. They believed Bush was fighting these wars to give corporate interests sweet deals behind the scenes, either via oil contracts (Halliburton) or reconstruction and security contracts (Blackwater). With Obama in charge, they aren't worried about corporations controlling these wars, so the protests die down. Everything other reason democrats used, from not finding WMDs to being lied to or whatever, really doesn't matter to them.It boils down to a luddite fear of the corporation. They want government in charge instead. Which is funny since the definition of a corporation is a partnership between government and business anyway. There's not really much difference.What we've learned from all this is that democrats won't be satisfied until government controls all sectors of the economy. Until that happens, the threat is from evil corporations.

Interesting thesis which has merit. Liberalism is largely driven by corporphobia.

Yes. And by that definition of liberalism, the definition of an extreme liberal is one that has nothing good to say about corporations, and cannot name some corporations they trust and believe in.

 

[HellToupee]

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Obama > Osama

 

[Clayton Gray]

Probably need an updated pohl.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

Goooooooooooooodniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight Republicans!

 

[Native]

Obama > Osama

 

[tommyboy]

my opinion of obama just went up about 25 pts

 

[Sarnoff]

Probably need an updated pohl.

Timchochet's in the other thread making the point Obama should be sent to the Hague for war crimes.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

If this happened closer to election time it would be a slam dunk re-election. The bloodlust will die down soon enough and his crappy Presidency will gain attention once more. Still could go either way. But this surely helps the anti-war democrat stereotype.

 

[timschochet]

Probably need an updated pohl.

Timchochet's in the other thread making the point Obama should be sent to the Hague for war crimes.

You can't bother me tonight, Sarnoff. I'm too happy.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Where Did All the Anti-War Protestors Go?The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009. What did they find?… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.The protesters have remained silent over Libya.And I’m struck by the hypocrisy of the supposedly “anti-war” politicians who voted against Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi. Since Obama was elected, she has voted to continue the war in Afghanistan … and supported the attack on Libya.

And why are we killing children and grandchildren in Libya???Imagine if another country targeted our leaders families the same way we do...

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=589536&st=0&p=13076635&fromsearch=1entry13076635

 

[Fensalk]

If this happened closer to election time it would be a slam dunk re-election. The bloodlust will die down soon enough and his crappy Presidency will gain attention once more. Still could go either way. But this surely helps the anti-war democrat stereotype.

How does this help the anti-war democrat stereotype? That stereotype is of democrat voters, not of democrat presidents. Democrat voters turn against war much more quickly than republicans, which makes it very difficult for democrat presidents to fight wars. I don't see how killing OBL changes this.The classic example is LBJ. His base deserted him by 1968 because they turned against his Vietnam war, and he was forced to not seek re-election. If LBJ was a republican, his base would have stayed with him, and he could have run again.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

If this happened closer to election time it would be a slam dunk re-election. The bloodlust will die down soon enough and his crappy Presidency will gain attention once more. Still could go either way. But this surely helps the anti-war democrat stereotype.

How does this help the anti-war democrat stereotype? That stereotype is of democrat voters, not of democrat presidents. Democrat voters turn against war much more quickly than republicans, which makes it very difficult for democrat presidents to fight wars. I don't see how killing OBL changes this.The classic example is LBJ. His case deserted him by 1968 because they turned against his Vietnam war, and he was forced to not seek re-election. If LBJ was a republican, his base would have stayed with him, and he could have run again.

I gave up trying to equate logic, facts, and reason with stereotypes and the voting public. I think the public will eat this up. Could easily be wrong.

 

[Fensalk]

If this happened closer to election time it would be a slam dunk re-election. The bloodlust will die down soon enough and his crappy Presidency will gain attention once more. Still could go either way. But this surely helps the anti-war democrat stereotype.

How does this help the anti-war democrat stereotype? That stereotype is of democrat voters, not of democrat presidents. Democrat voters turn against war much more quickly than republicans, which makes it very difficult for democrat presidents to fight wars. I don't see how killing OBL changes this.The classic example is LBJ. His base deserted him by 1968 because they turned against his Vietnam war, and he was forced to not seek re-election. If LBJ was a republican, his base would have stayed with him, and he could have run again.

I gave up trying to equate logic, facts, and reason with stereotypes and the voting public. I think the public will eat this up. Could easily be wrong.

Obama's antiwar base will probably quickly forget this and go back to being upset about Libya.

 

[bueno]

Obama gets major kudos for authorizing the raid. Not 25 points worth but still kudos.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

Republicans must have some mixed emotions.

Yes! We got him!!!...............On the watch of a black, non-birth certificate having, Democrat!

Do you like apples?

How do you like them apples!!!!

See you in 2016

 

[Sarnoff]

See you in 2016

With the success of the first Gulf War, GHW Bush's approval rating hit the high point of 89% at the end of February 1991. 20 months later, he lost re-election. We've got 18 months to go 'til Election Day 2012, don't start celebrating just yet.

 

[Fensalk]

I'd guess this will be similar to the capture of Saddam Hussein. A major event but didn't alter anyone's feelings about the president in the long term. Bush's approval jumped from 54% to 63% upon news that Saddam had been captured in December 2003. It took a few months for the spike in Bush's approval rating to erode, and that was that.

Some may argue this news is bigger than the capture of Saddam, but this is probably the best comparison to draw. We'll see how Obama's bump in the polls compares in the coming months.

Obama is currently at 46.5% approve and 48.3% disapprove in the RCP average. If he got the same 9 point bump Bush got for capturng Saddam, he'd be at his best number in over a year, but still only 55%.

Obama will probably be under 50% again in July.

Spoiler

Poll: Saddam's capture boosts Bush's ratings

December 17, 2003

President Bush leads Howard Dean and other Democratic candidates in hypothetical matchups among registered voters, a new poll finds.

Saddam Hussein's capture caused a sharp spike in President Bush's approval ratings, according to the results of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Wednesday.

The president also had a lead of more than 20 percentage points over Democratic front-runner Howard Dean in a hypothetical matchup among registered voters, the poll found.

Among poll respondents interviewed Monday and Tuesday, 63 percent said they approved of Bush's job performance, while 34 percent disapproved. The approval rating is Bush's highest since June and is a significant gain over his rating of 50 percent a month ago.

By contrast, in a poll done Thursday to Saturday, before news of the capture broke, Bush's approval was 54 percent, with 43 percent expressing disapproval.

 

[scottybo]

So Obama single-handedly killed Bin Laden? Or am I missing something here? If this had happened January 21, 2009 would you still feel like Obama deserves credit?

Ridiculous.

 

[Abraham]

He's unbeatable now. See you in 2016

 

[Fensalk]

He's unbeatable now. See you in 2016

I'm sure this gets him a third term. See you in 2020.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

So Obama single-handedly killed Bin Laden? Or am I missing something here? If this had happened January 21, 2009 would you still feel like Obama deserves credit? Ridiculous.

Maybe, but he is the CIC right now and gave the order. In a publicly traded company the little people do all the hard work but when it's time to address the shareholders the CEO gets the credit for the good and the bad, ala Steve Jobs. Do you think he's really responsible for every bit of the iPhone? No, but he gets the credit.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

So Obama single-handedly killed Bin Laden? Or am I missing something here? If this had happened January 21, 2009 would you still feel like Obama deserves credit? Ridiculous.

Maybe, but he is the CIC right now and gave the order. In a publicly traded company the little people do all the hard work but when it's time to address the shareholders the CEO gets the credit for the good and the bad, ala Steve Jobs. Do you think he's really responsible for every bit of the iPhone? No, but he gets the credit.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Let's start the Mount Rushmore construction...

 

[bostonfred]

Greatest president in a generation.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So Obama single-handedly killed Bin Laden? Or am I missing something here? If this had happened January 21, 2009 would you still feel like Obama deserves credit? Ridiculous.

So you are totally discounting Obama's contribution? Amazing that people are always saying how unpresidential he is and then he conducts this operation with great planning an care, and it's "ridiculous" to give him credit. Oof.

While he publicly downplayed the importance of capturing or killing bin Laden, on June 2, 2009 President Obama had signed a memo to the director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, stating “in order to ensure that we have expanded every effort, I direct you to provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice Usama Bin Ladin…”Beginning in September of 2010 the CIA began to work with the president on a set of assessments that led him to believe that in fact it was possible that bin Laden may be located at that compound. The president was was told it contained “a key al Qaeda facilitator appeared to be harboring a high-value target.”The president directed action to be taken “as soon as he concluded that the intelligence case was sufficient.”By mid February, though a series of “intensive” meetings at the White House and with the president, administration officials determined there was a “sound intelligence basis” for pursuing this “in an aggressive way” developing course of action in pursuit of bin Laden at this location. By the middle of March the president began a series of national security meetings that he chaired to pursue again the intelligence that had been developed and a course of action.The president chaired no fewer than five national security council meetings on this topic – on March 14th, March 29th, April 12th, April 19th and April 28th.“When a case had been made that this was a critical target we began to prepare this mission in conjunction with the US military,” a senior administration official said.At 8:20am on Friday, April 29th in the Diplomatic Room, President Obama met with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, White House chief of staff William Daley, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan and deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough and gave the order for the operation.Officials said only a very small group of people knew about the operation beforehand. “That was for one reason and one reason alone, we believed that it was essential to the security of the operation and our personal,” an official said. “Only a very small group of people inside our own government knew about this operation in advanced.” Shortly after the raid, U.S. officials contacted senior Pakistani officials to brief them on the results of the raid. They also contacted a number of close partners and allies in the world.

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

 

[QuizGuy66]

So Obama single-handedly killed Bin Laden? Or am I missing something here? If this had happened January 21, 2009 would you still feel like Obama deserves credit? Ridiculous.

So you are totally discounting Obama's contribution? Amazing that people are always saying how unpresidential he is and then he conducts this operation with great planning an care, and it's "ridiculous" to give him credit. Oof.

While he publicly downplayed the importance of capturing or killing bin Laden, on June 2, 2009 President Obama had signed a memo to the director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, stating “in order to ensure that we have expanded every effort, I direct you to provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice Usama Bin Ladin…”Beginning in September of 2010 the CIA began to work with the president on a set of assessments that led him to believe that in fact it was possible that bin Laden may be located at that compound. The president was was told it contained “a key al Qaeda facilitator appeared to be harboring a high-value target.”The president directed action to be taken “as soon as he concluded that the intelligence case was sufficient.”By mid February, though a series of “intensive” meetings at the White House and with the president, administration officials determined there was a “sound intelligence basis” for pursuing this “in an aggressive way” developing course of action in pursuit of bin Laden at this location. By the middle of March the president began a series of national security meetings that he chaired to pursue again the intelligence that had been developed and a course of action.The president chaired no fewer than five national security council meetings on this topic – on March 14th, March 29th, April 12th, April 19th and April 28th.“When a case had been made that this was a critical target we began to prepare this mission in conjunction with the US military,” a senior administration official said.At 8:20am on Friday, April 29th in the Diplomatic Room, President Obama met with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, White House chief of staff William Daley, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan and deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough and gave the order for the operation.Officials said only a very small group of people knew about the operation beforehand. “That was for one reason and one reason alone, we believed that it was essential to the security of the operation and our personal,” an official said. “Only a very small group of people inside our own government knew about this operation in advanced.” Shortly after the raid, U.S. officials contacted senior Pakistani officials to brief them on the results of the raid. They also contacted a number of close partners and allies in the world.

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

-QG

 

[Dr. Awesome]

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

I'm damned impressed if that's how he handled things. Bravo, Mr. President.

 

[Sarnoff]

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

Serious question, what do you think he did differently than Bush, Kerry, McCain, or Gore would have done with the same intel had it come during their administrations?

 

[jamny]

He's unbeatable now. See you in 2016

It's a great day! Huge thank-you to President Obama.I just hope the general public isn't so simple-minded as to base an election on this one event. There's just a bit more involved in a presidency.

 

[Boom Switch]

He's unbeatable now. See you in 2016

It's a great day! Huge thank-you to President Obama.I just hope the general public isn't so simple-minded as to base an election on this one event. There's just a bit more involved in a presidency.

lol we'd elect Bozo the Clown if he had a nice slogan and could give a good speech, oh wait...

 

[jon_mx]

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

Serious question, what do you think he did differently than Bush, Kerry, McCain, or Gore would have done with the same intel had it come during their administrations?

Bush issued the order that he wanted to get Osama really really bad, while Obama issued the order that he wanted Osama really really really bad. Major policy change there.

 

[Red Forman]

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

CIA/Military Officials: "Mr. President, our search for OBL has taken us to a compound in Pakistan. We are

98% sure OBL is there. Do we have the green light to raid?"

President Obama: "Hey, whatever you guys are feeling. I got a pickup game with Jordan and Clark Kellog in

a few, and then an early fund raiser in the morning. Whatever you think. Gotta run"

Giving Obama a ton (or even a little) credit, is absurd.

 

[ceo3west]

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

CIA/Military Officials: "Mr. President, our search for OBL has taken us to a compound in Pakistan. We are

98% sure OBL is there. Do we have the green light to raid?"

President Obama: "Hey, whatever you guys are feeling. I got a pickup game with Jordan and Clark Kellog in

a few, and then an early fund raiser in the morning. Whatever you think. Gotta run"

Giving Obama a ton (or even a little) credit, is absurd.

So Obama gets no credit for this, but it's his fault gas is $4. Got it.

 

[Red Forman]

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

CIA/Military Officials: "Mr. President, our search for OBL has taken us to a compound in Pakistan. We are

98% sure OBL is there. Do we have the green light to raid?"

President Obama: "Hey, whatever you guys are feeling. I got a pickup game with Jordan and Clark Kellog in

a few, and then an early fund raiser in the morning. Whatever you think. Gotta run"

Giving Obama a ton (or even a little) credit, is absurd.

So Obama gets no credit for this, but it's his fault gas is $4. Got it.

Yep, anyone who is stopping us from domestic oil exploration is contributing to high gas prices. Open ANWR, for all that is good and holy!!!

 

[cubd8]

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

Serious question, what do you think he did differently than Bush, Kerry, McCain, or Gore would have done with the same intel had it come during their administrations?

Bush issued the order that he wanted to get Osama really really bad, while Obama issued the order that he wanted Osama really really really bad. Major policy change there.

If you can't give the current President credit for capturing the most wanted man in our history, that's very sad. You can still be a Republican and think something great happened under Obama's watch.

 

[Red Forman]

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

Serious question, what do you think he did differently than Bush, Kerry, McCain, or Gore would have done with the same intel had it come during their administrations?

Bush issued the order that he wanted to get Osama really really bad, while Obama issued the order that he wanted Osama really really really bad. Major policy change there.

If you can't give the current President credit for capturing the most wanted man in our history, that's very sad. You can still be a Republican and think something great happened under Obama's watch.

I'm gonna say most of "us" feel that the credit is due to our intel/military organizations, not the current POTUS. Thanks for acting predictable though.

 

[Red Forman]

6 User(s) are reading this topic

4 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users

Red Forman, BigSteelThrill, Boom Switch, jon_mx

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Kickin' Ass and taking names.

 

[jon_mx]

I just saw Obama's speech from last night. He spent half the time talking about what he did. I figured he could not resist, typical Obama. Spent too much time patting himself on the back and not nearly enough to the brave men who carried it out and the intelligence community who found Osama. At some point Obama needs to realize he is president.

 

[timschochet]

I just saw Obama's speech from last night. He spent half the time talking about what he did. I figured he could not resist, typical Obama. Spent too much time patting himself on the back and not nearly enough to the brave men who carried it out and the intelligence community who found Osama. At some point Obama needs to realize he is president.

Unbelievable. That was the best speech Obama has ever given. Can't you stop just for one day?

 

[FavreCo]

He's unbeatable now. See you in 2016

With the attention span of a 2 year old, the general public will forget all about this by mid summer. Some actually won't even know who OBL is/was. Gas prices will dominate. It's anyone's ballgame by fall.

 

[FavreCo]

This is extremely presidential, this is how it is done.

Serious question, what do you think he did differently than Bush, Kerry, McCain, or Gore would have done with the same intel had it come during their administrations?

Bush issued the order that he wanted to get Osama really really bad, while Obama issued the order that he wanted Osama really really really bad. Major policy change there.

If you can't give the current President credit for capturing the most wanted man in our history, that's very sad. You can still be a Republican and think something great happened under Obama's watch.

Impossible when someone is a true lemming. Shoe fits.

 

[urbanhack]

I just saw Obama's speech from last night. He spent half the time talking about what he did. I figured he could not resist, typical Obama. Spent too much time patting himself on the back and not nearly enough to the brave men who carried it out and the intelligence community who found Osama. At some point Obama needs to realize he is president.

Unbelievable. That was the best speech Obama has ever given. Can't you stop just for one day?

He doesn't know how.