Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama polls essentially irrelevant (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sure you're proud to show that you know the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    difference between Afghanistan and Germany, or maybe Afghanistan and South Korea or Afghanistan and Kuwait and  other countries where many thousands of US troops remain. You haven't added anything of substance here. Just the usual comment on behalf of your continuing anti-Obama preoccupation. It's obvious you derive a great deal of pleasure from it. But, you do apparently know the difference between Germany and Afghanistan. Yeahhhhh!

    •  The point was that the military stationed in other (4+ / 0-)

      countries for decades are not mounting combat missions to invade private homes to capture or kill someone the U.S. PTB have determined to be a "bad guy."

      •  Now I hope you can show me where it is stipulated (0+ / 0-)

        that the remaining troops are to be there for the purpose of mounting combat missions. Perhaps you could show me that?

        •  Why are they seeking immunity for US troops (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, DeadHead, Clever Handle

          and to conduct night raids?   They're obviously going to continue counterinsurgency operations and they will continue the drone attacks into Pakistan from at least 8 bases.  

          "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

          by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:48:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your own cited article stated: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            A Dari-language statement from Karzai's office said Kerry asked the president to allow U.S. troops on counter-terrorism missions to conduct operations that might require entering Afghan homes in "exceptional" circumstances.
            Some of the same people who are criticizing the administration for wanting a small number of troops to remain in Afghanistan for training and security purposes, will be criticizing the President if all troops are pulled out and the country is overrun by Al-Qaeda and Taliban troops.

            I don't pretend to like the prospect of remaining in Afghanistan but if a small number of troops will help to ward off Al-Qadea and the Taliban from once again oppressing women and murdering individuals who have worked with US troops over the years, I think it would be a prudent move.

            But I understand, most people want to be able to criticize the President if he keeps some troops in place and criticize him if he pulls out and the country collapse. This is not an easy decision, except for the people who do not have to make it.

            •  I'm not criticizing the President as much as I'm (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Victor Ward

              criticizing U.S. foreign policies.  Remember, this war was started by a Republican president and his neocons.  And they said the same things you're saying now and Obama and Kerry are saying now.  I would say you need to understand why we've been in Afghanistan for the last ten years and why they want to stay another ten, but it appears you're mind is made up.
              And you wanted evidence that night raids and drone attacks would continue, now you can believe Kerry on the exceptional part.

              "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

              by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:22:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You provided information (0+ / 0-)

                indeed, and thanks, but you have misinterpreted the information.

                Number 1: I asked for information to show that the:

                remaining troops are to be there for the purpose of mounting combat missions.
                This is not their main purpose. According to your cited material:
                The U.S. wants to keep as many as 10,000 troops in the country to train and mentor the Afghan national security forces and go after the remnants of al-Qaida.
                The issue is this: While US troops are there to train and mentor Afghan security forces, if they are engaged by Al-Qaeda they need to know that they are able to pursue these individuals and not just remain as sitting ducks.

                Their primary purpose is to remain and provide the Afghan military continued training.  They have to have permission to engage the enemy militarily from the Afghan government, if they need to. This is a reasonable request and sensible one.

                Number 2: The US government is seeking permission to hold night raids because this is a major advantage possessed by US troops:

                Al Qaeda soldiers may know the terrain better and they may be able to navigate hidden networks of underground tunnels. But once night falls, any American troops in Afghanistan will have at least one advantage:
                They can see in the dark.

                The Afghan government is asking US troops to stay and train their soldiers who are not yet able to defend themselves but, out of internal politics, the government is attempting to stop the US from having a military advantage should they need to fight back. Do you believe this is fair?

                As I stated earlier, this is a very difficult situation it is not as easy as some might pretend it is.  And in anticipating your response.... You might say the US should pull out every single troop out of Afghanistan, period!

                As President, however, this is what you would have to consider: You pull out all troops and 10 years of war could go down the drain in a short time due to attacks by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.....

                Can you imagine what that would mean? The Republicans would blame the President for bumbling and losing the Afghan war and allowing thousands of Americans to be killed and injured in vain. And trust me on this.... The entire media would do the same.... In fact, the entire nation would do the same before long.

                You might not care about that, but I do. The President has three more years to accomplish big things for this nation, and I want to see him accomplish them, including winning back the house from the tea critters. An issue like this would totally neuter his strength at home, and with his allies abroad who also lost many of their own people in their engagement of this war. You think the media is obsessed with the Obamacare website now? You ain't seen nothing yet.  

                Nope... This President is quite intelligent, he will look at this issue carefully. If it is possible for him to leave a few thousand troops behind, in order to continue to ready the Afghan military, this is what he will do.  

                If the Afghan government decides that it will take its chances with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and decides that it can do without US assistance; let it.... In this case, the world won't have this President to blame.

                •  This post is about 10 paragraphs too long (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BigAlinWashSt, Victor Ward

                  Your own quote says:

                  The U.S. wants to keep as many as 10,000 troops in the country to train and mentor the Afghan national security forces and go after the remnants of al-Qaida.
                  Anyone not in willful denial can tell the troops Obama wants to leave behind include JSOC kill teams. This isn't just a training force.
                  •  the post is ten paragraph too long because you (0+ / 0-)

                    want to ignore it and jump to Obama want to kill people!!! Thankfully Obama will listen to your opinions before making his decisions!

                    •  Obama does want to kill people (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Victor Ward

                      He likes killing people. He brags about it to his staff.


                      Anyway, no, I didn't ignore your post. Your point was that the troops aren't going to be there for combat operations, but that's not true according to your own source. The other ten paragraphs where you wax poetic about how much smarter and gooder He is than us isn't relevant after pointing that out.

                      •  The Washington Times. It makes sense. Anyone who (0+ / 0-)

                        claims that Obama "likes" to kill people. Would make sense showing an article in the Washington Times. By the way, do you know that he was "caught" admitting that he was born in Kenya too?

                        This "murderous"  Obama guy is really some business huh? Too bad you'll have to endure 3 more years of his "murderous" reign. The Washington Times couldn't influence enough people to get him out of office.... Must be tough to take.

                        •  The quote is from Double Down, not the WP (0+ / 0-)

                          That was just the first link I found.


                          You can find plenty of other places it was reported. Your President is proud of being a war criminal.

                          •  You're saying that my President is a war criminal (0+ / 0-)

                            makes being a war criminal to me not so bad. That doesn't hurt me, but he being President really hurts you, and there is nothing you can do about it. Makes me smile.

                            Still, don't worry, Ted Cruz will have a chance to run in 2016. But if Obama could run again Teddy wouldn't stand a chance. Even with the Washington Times backing him.

                          •  Yes, I know you don't think being a war criminal (0+ / 0-)

                            is bad. I know his being a war criminal doesn't hurt you. It hurts the people who are killed in signature drone strikes because they commuted the crime if being a "military age male", or the family that gets shot up in a night raid because they're suspected of being Taliban. But they're brown, and not American, so they don't matter to you.

                            So no, it doesn't surprise me that you smile when you think about the President's history of extra-legal killings (AKA murder). I already knew you were a bad person.

                            Also, sorry, not everyone who dislikes Obama is a right wing Republican. You'd have a hard time explaining his polls numbers if that were true.

                          •  Not everyone, just most of the people who read the (0+ / 0-)

                            Washington Times. And the issue of my not considering Obama being a war criminal a bad thing after an Obama hater describes Obama as a war criminal?

                            You Obama haters have referred to Obama as a Kenyan, as a Terrorist, as destroyer of American values.... I mean really, whatever you all say is really just the opposite of who Obama really is.... Your pronouncements have no validity to it whatsoever.... Your Obama hatred is not shared by the majority of the country if that were the case, he would not have been elected to the presidency twice.

                            In terms of his poll numbers, you can take comfort in that, it's probably the only thing you have, but just remember that poll numbers had him losing to Mitt Romney too.... Ask Fox about that. This President will go down in history as one of the greatest President the nation has ever known, I'm sure you don't believe that, but it's good, if you did I would be quite concerned.

                          •  Can you honestly not distinguish (0+ / 0-)

                            between left wing and right wing critics of the President? Do you assume that if someone thinks Obama is a neoliberal, they must also think he's a Marxist Kenyan? You have trapped yourself in a realm of entomological closure, where anyone who says anything bad about the President can be dismissed because they said something bad about the President.

                            Facts have been laid out in the comment section to this diary. You continue to ignore them.

                            Fact: Obama is seeking to keep US troops in Afghanistan.

                            Fact: He is also seeking immunity for US troops engaged in combat operations, and for permission to continue night raids.

                            Fact: He brags about his prowess at murder (unless you are saying Mark Halperin is a liar) to his staff.

                            Obama has always been pro-war. Even his opposition to the Iraq War was couched in pro-war language ("I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars"). He has always been in favor of "winning" the Afghan war, even though a "win" has never actually been defined. He has engaged in assassination and torture, EVEN OF US CITIZENS (personally I think drawing a distinction between murdering a US citizen and murdering a non-US citizen is morally repugnant, but it's something that should really cause you to pause and reexamine your assumptions.)

                            Continue to plug your ears and whine about haters all you want. In the real world, Barack Obama is an enemy of peace, and his Prize from the Nobel Committee would have killed irony if they hadn't already performed a drone strike (or, in the equivalent of the day, a carpet bombing) on it in 1973.

                            Barack Obama is the second coming of Richard Nixon.

                          •  Mark Helperin???? Mark Helperin???? Are you (0+ / 0-)

                            absolutely kidding me? You read the Washington Times and you are quoting Mark Helperin for kitchen's sakes. And yet you are pretending you hate Obama from the Left?? I don't know too many people from the Left who subscribe to Mark Helperin.

                            Mark Helperin who lied that there are death panels in the healthcare law?

                            One of the Beltway's best-known pundits gave credence this week to perhaps the fringiest of all Obamacare conspiracy theories.

                            In an interview on Monday with the conservative Newsmax, Time's Mark Halperin said that so-called "death panels" are enshrined in the Affordable Care Act.


                            Now this fraudulent quote:

                            In the real world, Barack Obama is an enemy of peace
                            If Barack Obama is an enemy of peace in the real world, the real world certainly hold him in high approval:
                            Though his popularity is down from its peak in 2009, President Obama remains the world’s most popular leader among the world’s citizens as the G20 gathers for a summit in Russia, according to Pew Research.

                            “Only Angela Merkel comes close to the breadth of Obama’s popularity,” writes Pew’s Andrew Kohut. However, Obama inspired more confidence than the German chancellor in seven out of eight major German countries polled last year.

                            “A global median of 54 percent across the 39 countries surveyed by Pew Research in 2013 express confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, while just 47 percent approve of his international policies,” Kohut notes. “The gap between people’s trust in the American president and their support for his policies is particularly large in Canada (+16 percentage points) and some Western European nations, such as Britain (+11).”

                            President’s Obama’s median popularity of 42 percent is more than double that of G20 summit host Vladimir Putin’s 19 percent. The only country where Putin inspires more confidence than Obama is China.

                            Both abroad and at home, Obama’s popularity seems much higher when compared to other politicians. The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows his approval at 44 percent and disapproval at nearly 51 percent. Congress, however, has a 15.5 percent approval rating and 76 percent disapproval rating.


                            I'll repeat your ridiculous statement once more:

                            Continue to plug your ears and whine about haters all you want. In the real world, Barack Obama is an enemy of peace
                            All talk all nonesense. See what I mean? There is no validity to the stuff you say. Your Obama hatred is not only not shared by the majority of people in this nation, it is not shared with the majority of people in the world. I guess because the majority of people in the world understand that he is fighting a war in a country that was responsible for the launched attack that killed 3000 people in the United States. A war he has been fighting with drones instead of carpet bombing whole areas like what happened in Iraq that resulted in hundreds of thousands dead.

                             Al-Qaeda declared War against the United States and he is fighting them. He is not viewed as a war criminal by the overwhelming majority of the world as is evidenced by the cited poll.

                            By the way, this poll was taken in September of this year. Three months ago.

                            Whose the one plugging his years now????  You run around calling Obama a War Criminal and you quote Mark Helperin..... You and Mark Helperin, who defended the Bush administration,  know quite well who the war criminal is.... The world is rejecting the notion, loud and clear, that this war criminal is Barack Obama.

                            I have no doubt you'll say this is too much to read. Because as we all know...facts burn the eyes....

                          •  Being popular in Europe does not disqualify him (0+ / 0-)

                            from being a war criminal. Take a look at what Pakistan, one of his main victims, thinks of him. 10% approve of him there.

                            Indiscriminate drone bombing, which so called "signature strikes" are, is a war crime. If your criterion for who you can bomb is "any military age male in a 'combat zone'" you are a war criminal. If you murder a 16 year old American citizen because of who his father was, you are a war criminal.

                            Amnesty International agrees with me here.

                            Re: Halperin, that's not what he said. He said there was rationing built into Obamacare, which is true and nobody disputes. The person interviewing him used the word death panels. Moreover, the incident doesn't call his trustworthiness into question: he didn't lie about anything.

                            It's funny you bring up Bush. You are indistinguishable from someone apologizing for his war crimes. Doesn't that fill you with any shame? I'm guessing not; that part of your brain had probably atrophied.

                          •  Bush was also a popular President for much of Iraq (0+ / 0-)

                            Does that mean he also couldn't have been a war criminal?

                          •  I have concluded you are from the Right (0+ / 0-)

                            a long time ago. This statement in defense of Mark Helperin confirms it:

                            He said there was rationing built into Obamacare, which is true and nobody disputes.
                            Unbelievable.... As mediaite puts it:
                            Time magazine scribe and Obama dick-whisperer Mark Halperin took to the airwaves Monday to troll Obamacare by agreeing with Newsmax TV‘s Steve Malzberg that “death panels” (remember those?) are definitely coming, and that President Obama is a big fat liar. I’m paraphrasing, of course, but if you look a little deeper into Halperin’s puddle-shallow commentary, it sounds more like Mark Halperin supports death panels, not President Obama.

                            Before you consider Halperin’s commentary, it’s important to remember how the conservative media, followed by the mainstream “villager” media that Halperin represents, have tried to define down Palin’s original “death panel” claim, which was that her specific baby would be forced to “stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.”

                            There was, of course, no part of that claim that was remotely true, but the media tried its damnedest to give Palin the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she meant payment for end-of-life care counseling, which is also not a “death panel” and is already a thing, yeah, that’s the ticket. Or maybe she was referring to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which the law says “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”

                            Or maybe she meant transplant committees, which are also already a thing.

                            For Halperin’s purposes, “death panels” appears to be a reference to health care “rationing,” as Malzberg tells Halperin that “I think they focus on the death panels which will be coming, call them what you will. Rationing is part of it.”

                            “I agree,” Halperin agrees. “Huge. It’s going to be a huge issue, and that’s something else about which the President was not fully forthcoming and straightforward.”

                            Just in case people might think he was pulling a fast one on Halperin, Malzber confirms “Alright, so you believe that there will be rationing, AKA death panels.”

                            “It’s built into the plan,” Halperin affirms. “It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled.”

                            Now, health care “rationing” is a very broad concept that includes the very idea of paying for healthcare, which forces patients to ration their own health care based on cost, but which also includes things like denying care that is medically unnecessary or inappropriate. After emphatically agreeing that Obamacare is a deadly death-panel lie, Halperin points out that rationing is already here, and he loves it. “We do need to do have some of that in this country, because we can’t afford to spend so much on end-of-life care. A very high percentage of our healthcare spending is for a very small number of people at the last stages of their life. I’m not saying the system shouldn’t allow that, but there’s too much cost. There are judgments have to be made.”

                            “Made by who, Mark? Mark, made by who? The government?” Malzberg asks.

                            “By individuals. No, by individuals,” Halperin replies. “And health insurance companies.”

                            Unless I’m hearing things, Halperin seems to support ramping up denials of care to cut costs, which Obamacare does not do.


                            THERE ARE NO RATIONING IN THE ACA....

                            You and your cohort on the Right have been spinning this for years and you will keep spinning it. But no worries, just like you were unable to defeat the President, you won't be able to defeat the ACA.

                            By the way, in terms of people in the world seeing Obama as war criminal but then turn around and admire him more than any other world leader..... My goodness... Would you admire a world leader who was a war criminal??? No you wouldn't and neither would the majority of people in the world.... It is clear, you will insist that pigs fly regardless of the logic behind it.... I'm spent.... Use your Right wing propaganda on  someone else.

                          •  Plenty of US Presidents in the 20th century were (0+ / 0-)

                            admired. They were all, to a one, war criminals.

                            You have ignored the majority of my points. This does not surprise me, given what we talked about RE:epistemological closure.

                            As for Halperin, you continue to harp on him and ignore the President's criminality, and you are still wrong. Howard Dean agrees with his interpretation.


                          •  Also nowhere in your quote (0+ / 0-)

                            does it say there won't be rationing.

                            Also, you should have typed "there is no health rationing". "Rationing", which is the subject, is singular, and so the verb should be singular as well.

                          •  Third of all (0+ / 0-)

                            (Sorry, a little drunk ATM) you never address my two points:

                            1) The Middle East hates Obama, and they're the target of most of his war crimes

                            2) If we follow your logic, Bush in 2003 was not a war criminal, since he had really high approval ratings at that time.

                •  ABC news? Come on man. (0+ / 0-)

                  "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

                  by BigAlinWashSt on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:03:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  What happens when... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Ward

      an Obama sycophant encounters a relatively innocuous comment intended only to point out the flaw in his comparison?

      He goes ad hominem, of course.

      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 06:34:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's O.K (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'd rather be a sycophant than an Obama hater... I've seen the Obama haters.... I've been seeing them for five years.... And in all that time the President has made them appear, by contrast, ridiculous.

        •  And I'd rather be an Obama critic when necessary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward

          than an Obama hater or sycophant, full-time.

          If you're happy, I'm happy, Ned.

          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:35:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Also (0+ / 0-)

          To me they are as destructive to progressive causes as the Tea Party is to conservative ones. They have nothing to "sell" because no one is buying their ideas.
          The hard right has damaged the GOP; and the intransigent left is doing the same to us. They chose to work out side the system and nothing will get done that way; and they smirk at working progressives as having "less bona fides". What bullshit.

          For better or wrose, we have a 200 year two-party system in America. That's the reality of politics in our country. I am not happy with all of Obama's actiions, responses orprogress -- but I had two choices in 2012 and I chose Obama. That's RealPolitik.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site