Who Is Obama's President?

Brenda ~Wonderful post. Liberals cannot be honest at all anymore. They always have an answer when rebuffed for the unpatriotism. Gone are the days when we Americans act like Americans and love their country.

They rather go to other countries an say their Canadians because that is what they have in their heart, a hatred and embarrassment for this country.

Even though it is the best country God has put on the face of the earth that has and is helping every country secure freedom and democracy.

Go to France, after we helped free that country from Nazi occupation, and afraid to say you are an American.

And on a national Presidential debate, disrespecting the sitting President to which office you want to occupy.

My how the mighty have fallen.

Well said Brenda, what a great observation. To answer your question, I don't know if our country will ever be united again like when the Constitution was revered. I agree with Hugh - we want to make our country better. Nobama '08.

Hi Brenda -- enough said...and you said it.  Who is Obama's president?  We are really perplexed with how much attention he gets with little more than a lot of intellectual ideas.

Don't worry when Obama gets elected, he will show us all the new way.  After all he is the second coming isn't he?

Hi Brenda:  UNFORTUNATELY Bush is the President of the United States.  Outside of a few, anyone remotely paying attention would agree that his leadership has been an outrage. 

Obama's point was quite simple - Obama and people such as myself never voted for President Bush.  If it were our decision, he never would have been our President and are disgusted by this lack of leadership.  Amongst many other issues domestic and foreign affairs, I don't want to be associated with his outrageous decision to choose the war in Iraq (Democrats and Republicans both to blame yet Bush's cry was the loudest and it was his policy set forth) when it was quite clear where the war should have been waged.  Needless to say, the effects of this war is devastating and far reaching outside of the obvious harm to our Soldiers and innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.  President Bush and those who helped put his administration there should be accountable for their poor decisions/judgment (Democrats and Republicans alike) just as I would be held accountable for decisions that fail my company.

My family lives in an American country that is not what it should be because of the poor decisions made by many.  Blame is to be spread to both parties and those American people who were asleep at the wheel allowing all this to happen in their silent complicity.

Blind patriotism does no favors for anyone.  Simply supporting our commander in chief because he/she is the commander in chief is dangerous.  This blind support, the lack of critical thinking / assessment / discussions even with those you disagree with ideologically speaking is, amongst many other reasons, what dumbs-down our society and eventually allows for a country to get to where we are today.

Lastly, when you have people like Hugh Krone Sussex make the disgusting statement:

"Conservatives love their country and want to make it better Liberals hate their country and want to change it."

You now have your answer as to why this country remains divided.  I'm calling out Hugh because I've listened to this nonsense for nearly eight years from countless individuals (Nicholas' comments make this point quite clear too).

I'm Catholic, I go to church, I'm married, I have a 1 year old baby girl with another baby on the way, and share many of the same "moral" and "family values" as the rest of us here but to be told that I'm unpatriotic because I didn't support this war, I didn't and don't support this President, and don't think that what we have been offered under this administration is anything remotely close to TRUE "family type values" is ludicrous.

If we want to wrap ourselves in the bastion of patriotism than I would suggest that I love this country more because I never would have supported a leader like Bush who has lead the American people down this road.  Please!  Part of loving this country is knowing when to make a stand and hold those accountable for their mediocrity not just the mediocrity from leaders of another country.

Again, we have a failed administration of immense proportions and you have people such as myself who never supported this President, have been stuck under this administration and their myriad of poor decisions, all the while being repeatedly called unpatriotic by people like Hugh because I expect better.  Next, I'll probably be told to go to Canada ... you're either with us or against us ... again, mindless and simplistic intellect at best which continues to divide the country and ignore the countless substantive debates that need to be had.

You can't unite a country when you can't bring people to a point where they can discuss important issues without name calling and pretending that somehow they hold the key to patriotism.  When our leaders are constantly telling us to fear our neighbors and to defend your country against those who don't agree with you, you end up with the contrived cultural divide that we now have.  Leaders like Bush are not held accountable while we argue amongst ourselves on who holds the better virtues and who is the most patriotic.

There are many grave issues affecting ALL of us in this country, rich or poor, and we need to put intellectual minds together to call upon the best to bring this country to where it should be.  We could settle for what we've become or we can demand better because the American people have much more to offer than this if true leadership can bring it out.

This country is great but we should all be working to make it better.

If this is unpatriotic ... than I'm guilty as charged.  If I want to change my country for the better and that is what a "Liberal" is, than again, guilty as charged.

Roger, I was brought up Catholic and most of my family still is so I will you the same thing I ask them. Have you asked you Pasator the Catholic stance on abortion and how they would feel about you voting for Obama, I am tolerant any religious beliefs if they are sincere.

Roger ~ You need to turn off your computer and take your Prozac as prescribed. You make no sense, if you or I don't like what the other parties say or post, you just leave, turn it off, stop your whining.  Dixie Chicks, Streisand, Sarandon, Joy, Fonda, Damien, Baldwin all take a hard line view of America and in fact a Marxists view at that, and this is a fact. Sean Penn goes out of the country like Cuba, and talks about America being a communist country, meanwhile Fidel has killed thousands in his prisons. Outrageous.

Hi Brenda:  I don't turn off the extreme channels such as FOX because it helps with getting the full story regarding how a broader spectrum of the American people are feeling regarding issues.  Whether I agree with these people or not, they are Americans and have a right to their thoughts and opinions.

When you listen to only what you want to hear you obviously run the risk of being fooled by those you listen to.  Again, look at how many of the posts you see on these blogs, could it be any more obvious that many people merely re-state what they've been hearing from their favorite talking head editorials.

You can believe whatever ever you would like and I respect your opinion.  The truth of the matter is we don't know what another President would have done but to suggest that everyone would have produced similar results to that of Bush is an incredibly sad commentary.  We do know that those who were critically thinking and analyzing the data at hand new this war was not necessary as the war that needed to be waged was in Afghanistan.  Again, Bush didn't do anything about 9/11 except fool the American people into believing (which most bought hook, line, and sinker) that Sadaam Hussein was the problem.  He went to where the war wasn't and now Afghanistan has returned to being a disastrous state as is our country.

In regards to Clinton having had the opportunity. Well, as I've posted before. FactCheck.org would argue that this assessment is as cut and dry as you would make it out to be:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

In regards to Bosnia and Kosavo, regardless of what you term "illegal", I guess we can only deduce that Clinton did a much better job fighting a war.  Again, obviously, the country didn't look like this when he left office nor did we have over four thousand troops killed.  As far as your "frivolous activities" comment.  I'm sure Bill was spending so much time, with so many different women, he forgot to run the country.  Great commentary for moralist but it holds little water or I guess many of us would be failures in our businesses as the same would hold true for someone incredibly active with their husband or wife.

In regards to Jimmy Carter, I'm not going to defend Jimmy Carter as I'm 34 years old and wasn't old enough to know any better at the time.  Obviously, there were many problems under his administration.  Regardless of whether you like Carter it is a bit disingenuous to insinuate that he has done nothing as an ex-president.  I guess all of his work with Habitat for Humanity should be ignored.

In regards to change.  We do need change desperately and if history is any indicator it is not going to get any worse unless of course we continue to do what we have been doing over the last seven plus years.  There's no safety in pursuing failure.

A true leader knows how to fight for what is right and takes responsibility for what happens on their watch.  To use your analogy I guess you would suggest that the minor Democratic majority that you refer to is failing because of the failed policies or as you would say "leftover garbage" of the Republican leadership who had FULL control over the first six years of this administration.

The Catholic comment was clear in the context that I presented it.  I'm no different than most Americans, even though countless individuals, such as Hugh, would repeatedly suggest over and over again on these blogs who choose to offer hate speak rather than any intellectual commentary (of course this is their right which I support completely).  People like Hugh are so quick to label people such as myself as UNPATRIOTIC as if I'm that different from them as if they hold the key to patriotism because staying the course is the only solution.

As for the "high profile liberals", who cares what these people have to say?  Did any of these individuals recklessly put our troops in harms way?  Is this mess their fault?  It's like giving credence to what someone like Rush Limbaugh says, Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity to name a few. You have to take what these people say with a grain of salt because most of them are pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with the best interest of the American people in mind.

Again, to speak out against what is wrong is not unpatriotic.  It's patriotism at its finest.  We can thank the loyal puppy dog approach for the Iraq war.  Remember all of the Democrats and Republicans who wrote Bush a blank check?  Remember all of the Americans waving the flag, united patriotically in defending our freedom.

Yeah, great results. Can we show a united front and do it wrong all over again?

Hugh:  I have, our pastor feels just as strongly about abortion as he does when it comes to 100's of thousands of adults being killed for a war of choice.

Nicholas:  My comments had nothing to do with not wanting to read what the other side says.  I simply don't understand people like you who do nothing but offer incredible disrespect to those who don't agree with you.  You belittle people, you call people names, all in the name of Christianity and fighting for a better America.

Your comments make for good theater.  If I couldn't take the heat, I wouldn't constantly be in the kitchen.  I can handle the comments, I just don't understand there purpose outside of again, making for good theater.

Brenda, I think this was a great and totally appropriate post. I have blogged a couple times about how much disdain the dems have for OUR President.  I believe GW has made mistakes, as have all presidents, but the 2000 election was so heartbreaking for the losing side that they have exaggerated and emboldened every little issue as a blunder.  Both sides can produce facts until the cows come home, the bottom line is one party relies on failure and negativity to gain the Whitehouse. 

I am glad Roger is on this conversation. Roger, you are an obviously bright guy that has passion about his country.  In your debate of the situation occurring in 2002 through our invasion of Iraq in 2003, what steps do you believe we should have taken?  I've never once heard Obama say what he did support at that time, only what he was against.  Was the answer 12 more years of broken promises by Hussein?  Should we have listened more to the countries that had a financial stake in Iraq like France and ignore our relationship with England?  What would you have done with Resolution 4401?   Just curious.

Regardless of who wins this November, I say we do something noble and recognize that person as OUR President. Great job Brenda.

Hi Joe:  I definitely do not have all the answers nor am I bright enough to know exactly what should have been done as I have not been privy to all of the facts.

With that being said, with what I do know, I will say that I would have continued to do more of the same when it came to the Iraq resolutions.  A commentator at the time insinuated that we may realize after the invasion that Hussein was the right leader for Iraq in consideration of the makeup of the country, his understanding of the people, and our lack of understanding regarding the Iraqi society in general.

I do not believe that we were losing international credibility by merely keeping Hussein at bay fumbling through the UN resolutions.  I don't believe that we needed to waste our time, lives of our troops, and valuable financial resources in an attempt to flex our military muscle as I believe this was nothing more than smoke and mirrors for the real agenda. 

I do not believe that spreading democracy and protecting our borders was the real mission at hand (PNAC Doctrine gives additional insight - unfortunately I do not believe that the document can now be found online as it has been pulled - I will provide a link if I can find one).  The mission was sold under this guise but the stark reality is that it makes no sense to forge an agenda to merely accomplish spreading democracy.  Additionally, there was no clear and decisive data that suggested that Hussein was coming to our shores.  The threat wasn't as grave as it was made out to be.  It's a chance we could have afforded to take because any missiles that Hussein had could have and would have been intercepted by our defense systems if there was any doubt.  We had time to figure it out.

I believe the agenda had to do with a military presence centrally located (relatively speaking) in the middle east and of course one important resource, oil.  It's pretty clear on what has happened here if one simply follows the money and looks at the corporations / defense contractors who have been made "war billionaires" by this war on no bid contracts.  KBR, Halliburton, etc.  With the global economy, oil has become theeee commodity, and money was to be made by those in power.  The Iraqi resolutions provided perfect cover and reasonable explanation on why we needed to push into Iraq.  Perhaps cynical but with what we now know, hard to deny.

There is no doubt that Hussein committed unbelievable atrocities against his enemies and his own people for that matter.  However, how many world leaders are currently doing the same?  How many of these countries have we invaded to the extent we did in Iraq?

The concentration should have been where Obama suggests it should have been, in Afghanistan.  As the leader, I would not have been telling the American people that we need to protect our homeland and fighting the "war on terror" by eliminating Hussein.  The administration had a concerted effort to prey on the fears of the American people endlessly tying Iraq to 9/11 so that more than 60% of the American people were wrongly informed/advised on who actually attacked us. 

It worked, the American people, as anyone knows we would, rallied behind our President, joined forces, and proceeded to push forward with the agenda set forth.  The good will and trusting nature of the American people to simply support our President was abused to the worst degree.  In fact, it has been said that many members of Congress supported the blank check to Bush not believing that there would have ever been this abuse of power.  I can understand the American people getting it wrong but shame on Congress (Democrats and Republicans).  Their job is to question every fact that comes across their desk to determine, to the best of their abilities, the true validity of what is being presented.  Ask the tough questions, hold those accountable, check, re-check, and then do it all over again especially before putting the lives of the American troops or any human being for that matter in harms way.  Shame on the media as well.  The war sells.  The war makes for great ratings.  Where were all of the tough questions from the media?  They were more concerned with "shock and awe" then actually letting the American people know that all was not quite what it seemed.  All the dots didn't connect.

We do need to protect our borders.  We do need to improve and enhance our nation's security systems.  However, I am not of the opinion that you mindlessly do this with your military.  Without a doubt, our military was needed after 9/11 but it is clear that their presence and services were needed in Afghanistan, not Iraq. 

Because of our complicit support, we allowed the leader of the United States to focus on the wrong leader in the wrong area.  For our troops and the lives of all of those affected, we had an obligation to demand more.  Our blind support may seem patriotic but it led to the loss of thousands of lives.

Roger, I sincerely from the bottom of my heart Thank you for being a voice for the millions of Democrats, Independents, Liberals, non-political, christian and non-christian simple every day  Americans in this country. You speak eloquently on our behalf.

I agree, that was definitely the voice of millions of Democrats, especially the 'do more of the same' and the oil conspiracy.  Hussein had choices and options that he chose not to take - he definitely, was not the right leader for Iraq. He also made grave threats and didn't allow us the option to check if he had the resources to carry those out.  It was in affect a hostage situation. The bad guy loses those.  The error of the war was not only in mis-information that the world believed, the Dems believed and the President believed, but really in the manpower. We should have gone in with 300k troops and finished it in 30 days.  Remember, Bush's ratings were high until the war dragged on, it was the execution of not sticking to known war strategies and trying to do the politically correct thing that cost us time and soldiers.  Thanks for responding Roger.  We know each others views.

Hi Joe:

I will state that I wasn't trying to present a conspiracy theory as I believe there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest otherwise.  We know how much these defense contractors have made off of this war and we do have the PNAC doctrine which was signed off on by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.

I do agree that "Hussein had choices that he chose not to take".  I disagree as to the urgency and the reality behind his "grave threats".  Hussein was not the right leader for anyone.  The point I believe the commentator was trying to make was that he felt that Hussein understood what he was dealing with but felt that we didn't know what we were in for.  If that was his point, I would say he was correct to the extent that we weren't prepared for what we were getting in to.

If we did have to go to war, again I'm certainly no expert, but I would agree that a significantly larger troop force would have helped the situation and would have worked towards preventing the reorganization of many opposing groups in different neighborhoods/cities.  No matter how large the force, I think 30 days start to finish is still a bit unrealistic.

I've enjoyed actually being able to have a civil discussion with you (that goes for Brenda as well). For that I thank the both of you!

Rog old Boy,

How can you even compare an unborn baby to a soldier? I am an ex-soldier and I made a decision to join. So do all of our current soldiers. They know that they could be killed in a war, but they continue to sign up. A bit different than the baby who has no choice.

Brenda, all I can say is Pelosi can call Republicans "unpatriotic" for a supposed no show on the financial crisis but people like herself, Harry Reid and most Liberal Democrats are the most unpatriotic lot I've ever seen in my life.

They don't have a President. They have a president.

They are disrespectful of their president, the constitution, the rule of law, the people they represent and the lot should bethrown out of office ( I HOPE!)

Kevin:  To begin with, I'm not your "old Boy".  Secondly, when was it decided that you determine which life is more important?  Because a soldier chooses to join it is okay if they die because that is the chance they have taken.  Did they choose the war?  No, they had a president who chose the war for them similar to the way you have decided to choose which life is more important.

Did the innocent Iraqi women and children have a choice too or were they at the mercy of the poor decisions of their leader and our leader who decided to go to war as the result of Hussein's defiance?  Does your argument apply here as well?

Wonderful post, Barack Obama served as the 44th President of the United States.