hey tweety and howard....stfp..you are the stupiist humans on the planet

I really love pithy, substantive comments. Thanks, jomama. This made my day.

no joe,

Guess you will have to just wait and see like the rest of the world, eh? :o)

No Jo i had no problem understanding what he said, here read it,

Obama answered a reporter's question on the timetable by saying that an assessment of the war's progress -- to be held in December,

So what he is saying is there will be a assessment in December 2010. if you need a follow up question, why.

what i get from that, is in december they are going to assess how things are going and then a decision will be made from that point going foward.

Now No Jo i must ask, and please give me a straight answer, the war in afgan has been going on for almost 10 years. George Bush screwed this up going to iraq, when do you think enough is enough ?

before you answer you a former teacher, and you are better at history than me, but in afgan has any army ever been able to stabalize that place?

Alexander the Great did a pretty fair job, after his death it became part of his Cavalry Commander's (Seleucus) part of what was Alexander's empire. This has left a lasting Hellenistic culture within Afghanistan. After the Seleucid Empire fell to the Romans, Afghanistan became the Bactrian Empire where it remained stable until it fell to the Sassinid Empire in the fourth century.

yeah-and he has the poll numbers to prove it.

Fear not-soon, there will be groups to aid in recovery from Obama delusion syndrome.

lol

I am so not worried about President Obama's poll numbers. I have full confidence in him to do the job he was elected to do with this first term he has been given.

I pray for your sanity once he is re-elected! :o)

Nice Nashville!!

But you took upon yourself to speak for the "American People", who you believe share you opinion. Let me say, I dont share your opinion.

I like to think I'm open minded and try to see issues from all angles, but this President has done nothing to earn my trust or support. If this debacle with McChrystal has shown anything, it's that even hios top level officials don't support him. That outside of his immediate circle there is little cohesion in his adminstration.

So you tell me, why should anyone have faith in this man until he does something to earn our trust, something positive, that is good for ALL of the people, not just his base.

Actually Nashville fan, the media has been very kind to this administration.

What do think his poll numbers would be if people knew that:

More American lives have been lost in 17+ months under the Obama's command than were lost in 87 months of the Bush administration.

While Obama "dithered" before announcing his strategy for Afghanistan the 4 deadliest months occurred consecutively, that when he finally announce his plan in December, by the end of the month losses for his first year would double the previous record. (That's before the surge even began)

Our rate of losses for the first 5 months of this year is EIGHT TIMES the averaged loss rate for the same January thru May period under his predessor.

Instead of hoping Obama ignores the media, you need to actually hope the media keeps ignoring the fiasco in Afghanistan.

Brutus,

I'm an American and I am a person, so what more is needed. I am speaking for me and mine. You speak for you and yours.

bob,

There is a reason why war should be a last resort. After being in Afghanistan for 8 years, the President is attempting to win what we can and leave the country.

While the loss of life is horrific, sitting in Afghanistan with not enough troops just to save face did not prove to be a winning strategy for the previous Adminsitration.

You call it dithering, I call it deliberation.

I trust President Obama to do what is best for this nation. I am announcing that because there seems to be a bunch of folks who express a different view.

Sorry if the positivity rubbed you the wrong way.

"America is behind you and appreciates your efforts to implement and stick with a strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thank you."

That rubbed me the wrong way. You made a declaration on behalf of America that it would seem, America doesn't support. Speak for yourself and don't make generalizations.

That was my point, you dont speak for everyone, I'm sure we are all more than capable of expressing ourselves, even if you are just posting to get your ego stroked by your buddies on here.

Brutus,

Judging by the last election, there are more Americans with the President than against him.

Judging by recent polling, it's pretty close to 50-50.

So MY AMERICA is behind OUR PRESIDENT.

P.S. Sorry if my having "buddies" bugs you too . . . you are welcome to be one if you are so inclined.

Dude,

Are you 12? "Oh thank you mister president, we love you so much!!!!!kiss kiss!!!"

He's a politician, not the freaking Jonas Brothers. Blind devotion is ok in a 12 year old teeny-bopper who loves the guy from twilight, but it is embarrassing when that kind of hero worship comes from a supposed adult on a politics site.

Not even 50 percent of democrats are behind the war in Afghanistan-and that other 50, republicans were the majority of support for Obama on the war, as repubs tend to be very supportive of military action. Do you even read a newspaper? If you are happy with the appox 47% approval the president has today, youre gonna be like Spinal Tap's manager in a bit, claiming that "it isn't that he's unpopular, it's just that his appeal is becoming more selective"

Nashville,

The point of my original comment was to note the media's "kind" handling of the Afghanistan issue under this administration and your abnegation of that fact. I actually appreciate the media's lack of critical reporting to a certain extent. If similar reporting had been extended to the previous administration, Obama's job in Afghanistan would be much easier, if not needed.

When you place a new commander in place and do not talk to him except once in a 100 day period, that is negligent, especially considering the importance of the war and the record losses occurring. When you spend more time meeting with Axelrod and Emanuel than your generals, when it takes you almost a year to come up with a plan for a war that has been going on for six years, that you had campaigned having the answers for - well - "dithering" is more than kind.

I do, in fairness though, believe much deliberating was being done. I fear it had more to do with political dynamics than battlefield dynamics. Why else Axelrod and Emanuel.

You believe and trust in Obama. I can respect your "positivity".

But, I believe Obama is the consummate politician and not a leader. I believe a leader could easily protect the Arizona border and I trust a consumate politician would refuse to execute his federal responsibility in order to achieve a political goal. I believe a real leader could protect our beaches and I trust a consummate politician would defer to his union base and their 400 million donation.

Beaches and borders aside - Afghanistan, as Biden so eloquently said, "This is a big F..king deal".

I pray Obama, in this case if no other, is a real leader that honestly honors our service men and women, listens to Petraeus and wins this war.

Odd how those who blindly believed in Bush's wars sound opposed to them now. How much did Bush value his military men and women? It's a fair question. I believe Bush did but he chose a selfish agenda by deciding Iraq was where the terrorists were.

Bob says more American lives have been lost under Pres Obama than during all of Bush's 8 years. Show me the numbers, Bob. You can't. Yes, more lives have been lost in Afghanistan this year, the most since the start of the war. But there have not been more deaths under Pres Obama than under Bush. Over 4,000 have died fighting two wars, most of those deaths occurred during the Bush years.

To use a favorite right wing term, "real Americans" support and like President Obama--Nashville has it right. I count myself with Nash.

As for the poll numbers, Ronald Reagan's numbers were worse, and Reagan did not have a second Great Depression/Recession, two unfinished and seemingly unending wars, terrorists determined to cause us harm, an oil volcano in the Gulf of Mexico and the list goes on. Sure, he had problems but nothing compared to the mess Bush left. So stuff it.

O.K. Jody,

Read the last sentence of my comment above and 1 inch below that, read your first sentence. Are you a bigot - you cannot be that obtuse. With regard to your second sentence, it probably is a fair question if you are clueless, but if you are genuinely clueless, maybe you shouldn't ask that question. Regarding your belief that Bush chose a selfish agenda by going into Iraq - I guess Congress believed it was Bush's selfish agenda too, when they voted him authorization. Funny though, I don't remember Hillary, et all, talking on and on about Bush's selfish agenda in her speech.

American fatalities due to hostile action in the Afghanistan Theatre from October 2001 thru December 2008 (Bush Administration) were 412.

American fatalities due to hostile action in the Afghanistan Theatre from January 2009 thru June 23, 2010 (Obama Administration) were 435.

I never mentioned Iraq in my comments. Thanks for the specious obfuscation though.

I don't know what "real Americans" is meant to imply. Nevertheless, I'm happy for you and Nash. I'm sure it's comforting to have someone offer support for fatuous, insipid posts. Which reminds me, are you also the one with the weather updates and farm reports?

PS: After re-reading your comments, it occurred to me that you may need to look up the actual definition of bigot, it's probably not what you think. Anyway, have a nice evening Jody, Iowa.

dangerfield,

First, I'm a woman.

Second, I did like your Jonas Brothers line . . . I actually like them too! :o)

Third, if standing behind the President that I voted for makes me a groupie, then guilty as charged.

It is interesting how folks try to prove how "serious" they are by their irrational criticicims of the President.

Taking everything the President says and does in the most cynical and negative way imaginable is no proof of "gravitas".

Sad that we live in a time where working together to solve our problems is viewed as an impossibility, while blind devotion to already debunked idealogies is considered a virtue.

I am a proud supporter of President Obama, and I am not ashamed of it.

At least the President is WORKING to make things better instead of just COMPLAINING and passing the buck like so many others are doing.

Spanky-theytune them out because they have stopped doing the Obama cheerleading, and begun raising questions about his competence.

There is still a minority that believes that he does no wrong, has the right policies, walks on water, bla blah blah.

there's no cure for that.

no joe,

The President is doing a good job. I'm well pleased.

Spanky,

Move On is not a person last time I checked. lol

Nash - Not a person, just a group of folk who I'm sure have, after genuine and serious thought, had a change of heart. Totally substance over spin.

If Obama continues to prevail in the battle of substance of spin at this rate I'm sure he'll be the best one term president ever.

Spanky,

President Obama is already the most accomplished "empty suit" ever . . . see you at his 2012 Inauguration!

Rethinking......rethinking again. Nope feel the same as Nashville and I know I am not alone on that. Polls once again are only 1000 people.

Nash - you are half right - but it's most expensive empty suit ever. I heard they may have to cancel all future inaugurations due to cost considerations. Sometimes 13 trillion actually means something. And it's not good.

Guess the budget director can go now. No budget, no need for a director.

Don't worry spanky, I'll chip in . . . it will be a paid for and beautiful Inauguration!

Wouldn;t that Occur in January 2013 though..... Wouldn't January 2012 be a bit premeature, considering that the election wouldn't even happen for another 10 odd months?

Just asking.

So true Brutus, so true . . .

Thanks for the correction!

That's something you will probably be saying a lot over the next couple years...

That's something you will probably be saying a lot over the next couple years...

Wow, what a great excerpt Pat . . . thanks for posting it!

Excellent reminder of why Pres Obama is CIC. The press, the right will never understand this man nor will they catch up to him.

The right talks about the media waking up. No, the media has not changed one bit. Candidate Obama and his team made few mistakes, the others made many--the media covered the mistakes. There was plenty of negative loops played over and over--Jesse Jackson's comments, Rev Wright, "bitter" to name a few. Obama never got a pass and he never got respect until he won Iowa and it was possible he just might beat Hillary. Obama wasn't black enough, he was too black, he'll never get the white vote, he can't win seniors, women aren't voting for him, men aren't voting for him, the young people will never come out and vote in large numbers, he should fight back and take swings at Clinton or McCain or whoever, the latinos won't vote for him. According to the media no one was voting for him yet he won state after state.

The media has not changed, they still struggle to find things to criticize. The media ignores the real facts about what he is doing, has done and how quickly instead focusing on the trivial. The media has not changed. Pres Obama is still the same intelligent, thoughtful, diligent and decisive man he was in 2008 but the media continues its relentless search to find fault just as it did in 2007 and 2008--today they've switched from asking if he's black enough to asking if he's angry enough.

Jody,

Actually I think the media has changed. They have gotten worse. Not only do they try and find fault with evything and anything he does they make up stuff to boot. Nice post, I voted for it. The post from Pat was great, I copied it to keep as a reminder.

Pat , Boston

Nice post. From the earlier thread today, obama's leadership moment. You took issue with your friend's position on the Pentagon strike. You mistook his potentially being "misinformed" to being the same thing as "UNINFORMED". You had always thought of him as exactly the opposite until he let you in on his secret belief. I know that it is difficult to contemplate that 9/11 could have been an inside job, but if you are unwilling to look into it, it is you who are rendered uninformed, and that ignorance leads to your being misinformed. Bill, Fairfax and I discussed this in the earlier thread, perhaps you should give it a reading. Covering your eyes won't make the evil go away

Paul, I saw v. few posts today. Busy busy day. I will look later this evening at your conversations with Bill and get back to you in AM. I don't for one minute believe 9/11 was an inside job, however since you did bring it up here, I'll take a look at what you both wrote. Thanks.

Pat, excellent post and good excerpt.

Nash, I'm with you too, I admire this man so much and how he handles himself under the most trying of circumstances.

Jody, Ia, great post too, well said. I will never forget how I felt when I heard he had won Iowa. I have always had enormous respect for Midwestern common sense thinking, especially Iowans, I knew that night, he would be OK for the rest of the campaign.

You are welcome. Give your "uninformed" friend a weekend to explain what he believes and why to you and I think you will gain a new appreciation for him and the internet. The MSM isn't going to cover this until they are forced to by some re-opened and truly independent commission with the clearances and subpoena power to get to the truth. One simple question has gone unanswered, as an example: What force could exist in a gravity driven collapse which would turn 3.75 inch thick concrete floors wrapped in steel pans and carpeting into nothing but dust? 99% of it was gone in twenty seconds. And thank you for listening.

U.S. Navy Retired Vet. You are absolutely right--the media has gotten worse and they have gotten meaner. Makes you wonder how we can ever unite when the media keeps pushing the divisive issues and creating the narrative through which any president must navigate to try to get the truth to the people.

Jody,

I agree that the President will honor the timetable he established. I love how the media continues to try and generate drama by mincing the words each time he or someone in his Administration says it . . . we've already been through this same game in Iraq . . . not as exciting this time.

I know, it's tiresome. I keep beating the drum about the media trying to create a story while ignoring the real one. Here the go again.

And the doing something you are refering to is having to fire his general for bad mouthing his VP and other high level appointees. Who chose the fired general? Who picked Biden and the others?

It is fantastic that Obama cleaned up the mess, by firing the general, but maybe if his appointees had done a better job in the fist place? Kind of like the MMS folk. He appointed one harvard lawyer, canned her, then appointed another. Now new harvard lawyer has changed the name of the department, but still has no actual Oil or mineral experience. Having just seen the cabablitiy of the first harvard lawyer, why appoint another? If Obama was a middle manager making these repetative decisions I doubt he'd last long. Thank goodness he works for the government -they never fire anybody.

Maybe some good old fashioned on the job training will help out Obama. Too bad he wasn't a little more experienced already.

Spanky, Spanky, TOOOO FUNNNNYYYY,

I suppose you could do better??? You and your corrupt repug bedfellows are the reason why we are where we are today. President Obama is trying to fixed what he can. The problem is the party on NO has stoned walled him all the way. I have been telling people all along this is what you people were going to do and then blame him for gettin nothing done, when in fact your guys are still very much the problem. . Sorry, but we are getting wise to this and only time will tell. Lets see how this pans out in November. The General resigned and he should have.

Last time I checked the military was part of the government and they just fired McChrystal and Birnbaum. Give the Harvard law thing a rest Spanky. You don't have to be part of the industry to be part of the oversight of the industry, in fact it's better that you're not. The revolving door is more than 90% of the problem in regulating bureaus.

So how does someone unfamiliar with an industry oversee it? They do not teach oil rig safety in law school. In fact they don't teach anything that has any practical applications in law school, nor are lawyer typically the practical, hands on type. Putting a lawyer in charge of anything that requires practical knowledge is dicey at best. Or in lawyer speak - reckless disregard, a form of negligence.

If Obama had put someone in charge of the MMS who was competent, and Birnbaum's firing is an admission that she was not competent, then the disaster could have been prevented. The rig would have had the required safety checks, and not gottten a pass. That was Birnbaum's call. Obama owns it.

And per the logic applied by Retired, every single democrat must be squarely with Obama on all issues. after all, until January they had super majorities. They did not need a single repulican. But it's ok Retired gets it - we will see in November. You all don't really believe it's going to go well for the Dems in November, do you? There really is no such thing as a great one term president is there?

Welcome back Mr. Carter.

They enforce the rules which are already written, they provide no waivers to the rules. Any lawyer could do it. Weeding out the corruption of the system of oversight below you and the people planted to execute it takes more time to investigate. This is why it shouldn't take a year to get an administrator confirmed.

President Obama did not put the MMS people together, that mess was left over from another administration. I personally do not always agree with my President, but I do feel he is trying to correct 8 years of corruption. He cannot correct all the corruption, fraud etc that has occurred under previous administrations in 18 months, especially when the party that caused this mess sits on their arse's and blocks everything he tries to do. Until people get over their petty bickering and stop the hate, this country is going to continue to decline. And that is a shame for all of us.

Here is the problem, CA-a timetable should never have been announced.

I, like most other people, have a pin code for my ATM card. I do not broadcast that code for all to see, for the obvious reasons.

Obama could have had a timetable known to his national security team, his generals, his mother-in-law, for crying out loud-but it should not have been announced to our enemies.

It is just one more amateurish misstep from the king of them.

I'm not changing your mind-that's not the point of my response. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the people who made the difference in the last election have changed THEIR minds. He's underwater with the general electorate, yes, but it is double digits with the independent voters who bought into the baloney that he was a moderate. He is not. He has proven that.

He is, in fact, and idealogue, and someone so unfit to be president that I wish that there were a compentency requirement in the Constitution. There is not, so we must rely on his thin skin to save us from the last two years of his mismanagement of anything more complicated than the Wednesday night socials.

Whether it is running a business or running a war--time tables, deadlines and goals are essential and must be made known to all concerned parties. Otherwise you end up in Iraq 6 years later and Afghanistan 9 years later because no one had the courage to remind those countries--we won't be here forever so get your act together. It is naive to think that establishing and announcing deadlines has any more consequences than not doing so.

Oh but Jill, the avoidance of snakiness is reserved for those who have been on the blog for a while and who have proven they can discuss isssues, agree to disagree, even get a bit frustrated and angry from time to time with another, without getting snarky. No joe lost out on that level of respect a long time ago, as you are doing with the majority of bloggers here, as have the tea baggers, and as has your hero (if she were ever brave enough to come on this blog) Sarah Palin. And oh, I forgot Dick head Cheney. Heck Jill, GW Bush could even come on the blog and I would treat him with greater respect than what you are earning here. You don't want snarky. Earn it.

Best explanation I have seen CA.

The avoidance of sna[r]kiness reserved to those who have proven they can discuss issues? I assume that you must hold a very high regard for your own ability to "discuss issues". Newday, to say this is a good explanation by CA shows your level of intelligence (it's not good news for you).

CA, none of those people are my heroes, but of course, you would generalize and state that anyone who may be critical of Obama are unable to discuss issues. Of course you would assume that those people worship Republican politicians. I think all politicians are worthless, including your hero, Obama. And I really don't want to hear about how you've been critical of Obama. Every other post your harping about how he's so far ahead of everyone that it's not even funny. Please.

Maybe people on this blog respect me, maybe they don't. Who cares? I don't know any of you. The people who know me do, in fact, respect me, and that's really all I care about. More importantly, I respect myself.

Hey Jill, you earned my respect.

I feel so good on here when I see someone make a clear informed argument without being divisive or sputing off partisan line and talking points.

Sputing?

Jill - good job

Brutus - I like your sputing too.

Good job, Jill. Also, good job by Brutus, Bob and Dangerfield. I'm in agreement. I don't like when somebody tries to sound all "patriotic" by using "we, the people", and thinks they can speak for me.

We are experiencing the same thing. Had a neighbor lose a corn field to hail down the road, and some houses were hit hard in a tiny town near us.A farm about a mile from here got hit by straight line winds, and had some damage. Strange summer. Stay safe, and I agree with you...it isn't oil.

By next year Obama will be helping the Israelis take out the Iranians' nuclear capabilities, his re-election will be a piece of cake.

"By next year Obama will be helping the Iranians take out theIsraelis, his re-election will be a piece of cake."

That's what you meant to say right? :)

Cute. But I think that would get him Impeached, maybe even convicted. Re-elected by whom? Iranian-Americans? The political calculus is fairly simple on that one.