President Obama is intelligent, thoughtful and engaged. He is not a warmongering moron.

[Nye Bevan]

Exhibit A was the hunt for Bin Laden. I read the book about this and was extremely impressed at how President Obama handled the operation, taking all opposing views into account at every step, getting everybodys' opinions, and thoughtfully and carefully making decisions that were oftem tough but turned out to be correct. A screw-up here would have ruined his re-election chances, so the stakes were high, but he got the job done cleanly and professionally.

If the White House was occupied by a Huckabee, a Gingrich, or (God forbid) a Palin, I would be scared shitless about what is to come in Syria. We are very fortunate, however, that a grown-up is running things.

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. The US does what the insane government of Israel tells it to (for some unrevealed,

unholy reason). Israel wants war with Iran; Syria is Iran's #1 ally. Figger it out.

[Nye Bevan]

2. I think Helen Thomas would have concurred with that.

She believed that Zionists controlled the White House.

So you clearly have a very, very low opinion of President Obama.

[cali]

6. ridiculous. the theory that a country of 7 million million people

controls the U.S. is absurd. Interesting that you can't even think of a reason that this could be true- just that's it"s "unrevealed and unholy. The same false rumors were floated about Iraq.

the shit you spew is much the same as the age old "Jews control the world" crap that's been spewed for ages, tarted up to being "Israel controls the world".

Maybe Israel does want the U.S. to attack Syria as a proxy for Iran. Maybe they don't. Maybe the government is divided on it. But to to assert that the U.S. is following Israeli dictates? Insane.

[Scootaloo]

10. I agree for the most part

The US will do what the Us wants to do and Israel can back it, pan it, or stand in the corner eating boogers. Theyr'e a client state, as is Saudi Arabia, and the control only flows from, not to Washington.

In fact the case of Iran proves this... ISrael has been constantly drumming for attacks on Iran for the breadths of two two-term administrations, over the span of a decade. Israel sees Iran not as an existential threat, but as a threat to regional control and dominance, and wants the US to beat Iran down (since Israel itself lacks the ability to do so. And even Bush was happy to go "Yeah, we're not doing that, go away." if Israel held the reins, we'd have been in Iran back in 2005.

That said, Israel is a favorite "fig leaf" for our bullshit policies in the Middle East. We were going to do this stuff anyway, but if you tape on an excuse of "doing it for Israel!" a surprising number of Americans will support it

[cali]

13. Exactly.

well put, Scootaloo.

[Little Star]

84. +1

[reusrename]

120. They (the shadow government) tried to have a nuclear first strike under Cheney.

Failed both times. The first was when the Joint Chiefs threatened to resign, as reported by Sy Hersh in his article about Bush being the "Messianic" president.

In the second attempt the nukes were spotted already loaded onto a B-52 and illegally transported to Louisiana outside the military chain of command.

Don't kid yourself, they think that there's money to be made there. Real money if it goes nuclear.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. It's not Israel. It's the Saudis you should worry about.

[LeftishBrit]

25. That is daft

Israel doesn't control the world. It is a much smaller country than the USA, and is financially dependent on the USA, not the other way around. The USA has a symbiotic relationship with Israel, as it does with the UK. In neither case does this always work in the best interest of either country involved, but the USA does not do what the Israeli government tells it to, any more than it does what the British government tells it to.

In any case, what earthly advantage would Israel have in supporting the Syrian rebels, who are no more pro-Israel than the existing government, and could move the country in a more Islamist direction?

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. frankly if there is a major outside instigator it is the Saudis - Israel may very well support an

attack on Syria - but I'm sure they are not completely enthusiastic about it under the current circumstances anyway. IN spite of all their mutually hostility - Syria under Assad and Israel had a certain degree of predictability in their relationship. Even during the Lebanon civil war there were times when Israel and Syria were for all practical purposes - although they both would have denied it - on the same side fighting the same enemies. I am a very strong critic of the state of Israel. I am not one of those who will say, "Oh, I actually love Israel and think it was great that it was established in 1948." In fact I morn the establishment of the State of Israel and I don't believe it is a positive influence in the region or capable of becoming a positive influence in the region. However, just because someone is the enemy does not mean that they are the cause of all evil in the world. There was plenty of evil in the Middle East and in the world long before the State of Israel and there is plenty of evil in the Middle East and in the world apart from the state of Israel.

[SidDithers]

43. Offensive, anti-Semitic bullshit..,

You exposing your true self?

Sid

[Katashi_itto]

48. Amazing how anything against Israel, automatically gets the "anti-Semitic" label tossed at it....

[RevStPatrick]

49. Yep... I caught that one too...

I live in New York City and probably have more Jewish friends than everyone on this thread combined.
Yet, I can't stand much of what the GOVERNMENT of Israel does.
And neither can many of my NYC Jewish friends.

Does that make all of them Anti-Semitic as well?

Ridiculous.
Sid, you're often one of the good guys.
Don't be a knee-jerkoff...

[Katashi_itto]

55. +100

[SidDithers]

50. If the shoe fits...nt

Sid

[Katashi_itto]

54. Naw more like your motives are suspect.

It's about the Govt. Not the people. But you do come across as Pro-Govt regardless of what the govt does.

[SidDithers]

61. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=167827&sub=trans

Sid

[geek tragedy]

100. Who would have thunk that the person calling President Obama

"a domestic terrorist" would have gotten themselves tombstoned?

[SidDithers]

102. Yup...

and some Mondays are better than other Mondays.

Sid

[sheshe2]

128. Oh Sid!

Thank you for that link!!!!

You made my day.

[dionysus]

122. he called Israel a "Zion death cult".

[NuclearDem]

57. You clearly don't know the difference between

anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist.

[SidDithers]

58. 'The Jooz control America' meets my definition...

The claim of Israel dictating the policy of the American government has long been an anti-Semitic dog whistle.

To deny it is to bury your head in the sand.

Sid

[darkangel218]

66. Israel did try to coerce US into doing things several times in the past year.

The line has been crossed, now its time for action! Now or never!!

It hasnt worked too good for them thus far, has it.

[SidDithers]

69. You agree with FWWM?...

That "The US does what the insane government of Israel tells it to"?

Sid

[darkangel218]

70. No, i dont.

Israel is has been trying to get US to do things.

Unsuccessfully, so far.

[SidDithers]

71. Saying that Israel is trying to influence US policy is one thing...

saying the US is controlled by Israel is something else entirely.

Sid

[darkangel218]

72. Gotcha there.

All it would take though is a weaker president.

I give POTUS that. he has stood his ground.

[NuclearDem]

75. Which is where the confusion with my comment was

I didn't intend to come off as a ZOGer. Given the power of AIPAC, the millennialist ideology in Christian circles, and the desperate need for allies in the region, the US has a history of bending over backwards for Israel.

[geek tragedy]

104. Of course they tried to persuade the US into doing some things.

They have a much weaker track record on getting us to do stuff like bomb Iran than they do at getting us to be their rubber stamp in negotiations with the Palestinians.

[darkangel218]

63. So anyone who disagrees with Israels international policies

Is an antisemite??



I'm of Jewish descent and I disagree with how eager they are to start new wars and push US into it too.

Gah...

[SidDithers]

68. The poster was claiming that Israel directs US policy...

Which is significantly different from what you're claiming they said.

Sid

[Dawgs]

73. Oh Jesus.

[SidDithers]

74. Well, it's all moot now...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=167827&sub=trans

Sid

[Dawgs]

77. What does that link have to do with MY comment about YOUR post?

The answer is nothing. n/t

[SidDithers]

81. I don't know...

What were you trying to say with YOUR comment about MY post?

Sid

[Kolesar]

107. A clink of the coffee mugs was heard in cube-rat-land

Nice to scrape so much doggie-do from the Vibram lugs of the sole of DU

[cali]

119. Not at all but if you make the comments that

that poster has on a consistent basis, that's the only logical conclusion to come to and that's why Skinner banned him: For being a bigot- an anti-semitic one.

[MotherPetrie]

46. Yup.

[Octafish]

56. Blackmail.

They've got NSA contracts. Who knows what beans get spilled cough October Surprise.

[Coyotl]

65. I called the fire department

to put out the flame

[MineralMan]

80. No, not really.

But, that appears to be what you believe, for whatever reasons.

[tabasco]

83. LOL

You're funny!

[wild bird]

93. More Israeli bashing?

Nice, real classy.

[bhikkhu]

110. Israel wanted us to go to war against Iran years ago

bush stalled, mostly because Iraq was going so well (:sarcasm . If Obama weren't president we probably would be at war with Iran.

[leveymg]

3. Getting drawn into a war in Syria between the Shi'ia and the Sunni Jihadis is not grown-up.

It inherently disproves your point about Obama's competence and intelligence. Sorry, I, too, had wished for and expected far, far better things from him.

It is not enough that he's not a moron in how he approaches decisions; method is important but not sufficient - what is essential is that he makes the right choices. This isn't a good choice, no matter how you frame it.

[stevenleser]

53. Since that hasn't happened yet, it remains to be seen. Unless you are going to tell us you can

predict the future.

[leveymg]

62. Steve, the point of activism is to effect policy outcomes not to be quiet until the decision is made

To do that, one must anticipate the course of events and advocate accordingly. Surprised you haven't learned that yet.

[stevenleser]

67. Then you used the wrong tense in your comment. I would agree that if Obama goes to war, it's

indicative of extremely flawed thinking. You presented it as a fait accompli.

[darkangel218]

76. Did i ever tell you that

Even though I completely disagree with alot of your positions and detest that you go on Fox,

You are a handsome guy :p

[darkangel218]

82. Aww you have me on iggy!

Sorry

[stevenleser]

85. No I don't. ;-)

[darkangel218]

87. Well, Cheers then!!

You're having a Coors with me.

[tridim]

95. Thank you for pointing this out..

It is, IMO one of the main reasons why neo-DU is so annoying and pathetic. They don't care at ALL about accuracy.

[madokie]

4. I have to agree

[Gravitycollapse]

5. It would be foolish to believe that one man could stop the historical US war machine.

[Ed Suspicious]

7. One man who is the commander in chief of the U.S. military. He just might be able to do something

about it, foolish as it would seem.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. The US military is almost exclusively a corporate venture at this point.

The role of Commander in Chief is more symbolic than anything else at this point.

[tblue]

16. So it doesn't matter who the POTUS is?

As CIC? I think that may be truer than many of us want to believe. But it's not because the President can't make a difference. It's more because he won't. I want a POTUS willing to take on the MIC, even if he failed. I'd do anything for that POTUS.

[Scuba]

40. +1

[Maedhros]

20. I'd be really happy with the Commander in Chief if he stood up to the Corporate Venture

and refused to bring the United States into another pointless war in the Middle East. Hell, I'd hit the streets to defend any man who would take on significant professional and personal risk to avoid war. We've been waiting for a leader like that for 50 years.

[LearningCurve]

30. Some would say it's been that way for a while

"There is people so excited over this election that they think the President has something to do with running this country."

Will Rogers

[Summer Hathaway]

9. As I posted in another thread ...

No matter what Obama does in this matter, it will be the wrong decision.

If he announces doing A, there will twenty OPs within as many minutes yelling that he should have done B. And if he does B - well, you know the drill.

Regardless of his stance, he will be castigated for being spineless and lacking leadership skills at the same time as being decried as an overly-aggressive warmonger who allows no one to stand in his way.

No matter what Obama decides to do, within a week there will endless OPs about how it was the worst decision ever made by any president in the history of the nation.

No Nostradamus here. When it comes to DU, this predictin' stuff is easy.

[cthulu2016]

11. And no posts supporting his action?

Whatever he does, there will be posts saying it is awesome.

So your point, offered to preemptively bemoan the existence of people who disagree with you, really boils down to, "Some people will disagree."

[Summer Hathaway]

14. Never said there wouldn't be posts

supporting his action, did I? (Of course, those OPs will be full of "go back to the BOG" replies, but whatever.)

The anti-Obama OPs always outweigh the pro-Obama OPs. That's because (a) many Obama supporters left this site eons ago, and (b) the anti-Obama threads are K & R'd by all of the RW trolls, Libertarians, and shit-disturbers-for-the-fun-of-it who have infested this site.

[tblue]

19. Focus on policy.

I don't care how popular anybody is. I don't spend one minute on it. I care if this country jumps into another damn war.

People continue to argue back and forth about how we are supposed to feel about the President, and never the twain shall meet. Way too much energy spent on an issue that does not impact any of our lives. Not like a war does.

[Summer Hathaway]

22. It's not a matter of 'popularity'

The poll is about how many Dems approve of Obama's performance in governing the nation. And the vast majority of them do, and trust his decision-making as a result.

The reason posting these poll numbers is important is because many DUers hold their anti-Obama sentiments out as being reflective of the party as a whole. These kinds of polls point out the fact that those sentiments are NOT widely shared, and are in no way reflective of what Democrats think or feel in real life.

[Summer Hathaway]

28. My apologies.

I was going back and forth between this thread and another, and posted on the wrong one.

If you think my above statements (although I stand by them) were a total non-sequitar in response to your post, you're right.

It's not you - it's ME! (Duh!)

[Andy823]

103. Well put

I could not have said it better!

[byronius]

124. Now there's a clear statement of fact, that last sentence.

Lot of hysteria sloshing around in the tank, and a clear wave of All Things Baggy loving up on every bit of it.

I'm still here.

[tridim]

97. Not "some people", Neo-DU...

Neo-DU will hate his decision no matter what it is. That is a guarantee.

Just check this thread, they already hate the decisions he HASN'T made.

[byronius]

125. I just came back from an Obama Re-Education/Torture Pro-Corporate Agenda Camp

in my mind. It could have been real, I imagined it so well.

Funny how people read something on the internets, draw lines everywhere and then profess disgust about how blind the cheerleaders are.

Not really funny. I don't consider myself a cheerleader -- I just lived through Too Much Republican Crap to forget that the imperfect is not the enemy of the good.

[Progressive dog]

127. ^^K&R^^nt

[Cha]

17. Shoots.. that's just filed under ODS 101

"Nance Greggs: ODS – Obama Derangement Syndrome'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101670779

[Fumesucker]

37. The diagnosis of Obama Derangement Syndrome could be more impressive

If the right wingers hadn't remotely diagnosed me with Bush Derangement Syndrome twelve years ago.

Both diagnoses are about as accurate as Dr Frist's diagnosis of Terri Schiavo.

[Gravitycollapse]

21. What are the odds that Obama is simply wrong A LOT and there isn't some grand conspiracy...

on this site to displease you?

[Cha]

23. No "conspiracy" just simple ODS. Anything he does is wrong by

some people's standards. The poster is just going by what she's observed on DU.

It's actually amusing.

[Summer Hathaway]

27. What are the odds that

a site infested with RW trolls, Libertarians, and shit-disturbers-for-sport have turned DU into an anti-Obama hate site, replete with posts about how Obama is always wrong?

There is no 'grand conspiracy' here. It's just a bunch of suckers being manipulated by trolls, completely unaware that they're being played.

[RC]

88. So you are telling us that long time DU Liberals and Left wing Democrats are also being manipulated

by trolls, completely unaware that they're being played. Good to know.

Then this graphic is wrong somehow?

How is it wrong?

[uponit7771]

92. No, they don't represent ALL ... ALL the "long time" contributers though

[uponit7771]

91. +1, Looking at the AMOUNT and FREQUENCY of rw memes I'm leaning towards what you said

[darkangel218]

94. +1

[MADem]

36. Tell me about it! You got that right on the money! nt

[SidDithers]

45. +1...nt

Sid

[JustAnotherGen]

78. +1

And that's just among Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives. . .

[uponit7771]

90. +1

[Bobbie Jo]

106. Nailed it.

[steve2470]

12. I agree

I hope he thinks of the ghosts of Vietnam and Iraq, and the present quagmire in Afghanistan before he does anything.

[cali]

15. He is, but thoughtful, engaged people fuck up too.

Honestly, I don't think broadcasting "red lines" is a great idea. He's kind of boxed himself in.

[Union Scribe]

18. Except I'm not sure what the job is, here.

Killing bin Laden was a popular and clearly defined act. The narrative was simple. Good guys vs. bad guy. It's not at all clear in Syria. And in killing bin Laden, the risk of toppling some major dominoes was a lot less. And all that's if we even accept that military intervention is a good choice, which itself is--imo--dubious to the nth degree.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Exactly right. If Obama was a warmonger, he'd have started a war.

He's now five years into his presidency and not only has he ended one war, he has yet to commit any troops to any new regions of the world.

Where is the warmonger? Sure...he's no pacifist, but that doesn't mean much (neither was Clinton, LBJ, Kennedy, Truman or FDR). It gets me how people slam Obama's foreign policy, then turn around and praise leaders like Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all three who were probably far more interventionist than Obama.

[HooptieWagon]

39. We still have military peep in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And drones in Yemen and Pakistan. Then theres Libya and now Syria. The Warmonger should just declare WW3 and be done with it.

[bhikkhu]

111. And Iran as well

...recalling the steady "drumbeat" for that, which has only faded since the Arab Spring began. (And which he handled just fine, imho).

[HooptieWagon]

113. Well, if Obama chooses to wage war....

...in a theatre stretching from the shores of the Mediterranean Sea to the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean, it will make his MIC sponsors very pleased. Everyone else will think hes even more stupid than Bush Cheney and Rumfilled.

[Drunken Irishman]

116. What a dumb response...

[dkf]

29. I want my money back. I thought I donated $ to a person who was opposed to stupid wars.

Getting involved in Syria is STUPID. How you can define him as "thoughtful" blows my mind. My gut tells me we are being tricked into this war by Al Qaeda types who want to destroy us by having us engaged in endless wars.

Obama is a patsy. I shake my head in disgust.

[darkangel218]

59. +1

I want my time back.

[woo me with science]

31. PNAC, moving right along.

The corporations run things, and they make billions from war. The politicians do what they are told.

[cali]

47. It's all about arms sales. It almost always is.

did you know that U.S Arms sales have more than doubled over the past 5 years?

[Fearless]

33. Drones. N/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. nothing good will come of a military attack - not in the long run - you will see

[DeSwiss]

35. Ah I see......

...so he's not a warmongering moron, but a thoughtful, considerate, careful, decisive and intelligent terrorist-hunter.

He gets rid of America's enemies in the same thoughtful and insightful manner that he got rid of Due Process, as well as getting rid of Abdulrahman Al-awlaki, the 16-year old American kid from New Mexico whose American-born and bred father Anwar Al-awlaki whom he likewise, efficiently got rid of after careful consideration.

- Thank you for clearing that up.....



It's kids and babies for goodness sake....

[bowens43]

38. tell that to civilians he has killed with drones...

we still have troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan , he is killing people, including civilians in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen with his drones. If there is an opportunity for him to start another war in the middle east he will jump on it.

Obama loves playing with his soldiers

[darkangel218]

60. Honestly, i doubt he is the one giving the orders.

IMO, he just goes along with it.

Just as bad though.

[KG]

42. a kinder, gentler machine gun hand.

[PowerToThePeople]

44. The proof is in the pudding

We have already been fed his NSA lines. So we know where he stands on protecting citizen's constitutional rights.

We have eaten the drone pudding. We know where he stands on extra-judicial killing of US citizens.

We have eaten the Manning/Snowden pie. We know where he stands on open govt.

We have seen the response to wall street bankers and we have seen the actions taken towards the prior administration. We know where he stands on bringing real criminals to justice.

We will have to see what unfolds with Syria. We will know by his actions.

[Little Star]

96. It makes me sad to read your post....

But I can't disagree.

[woo me with science]

109. It makes me angry to read your post,

and I agree.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

51. The behavior around here re Syria and CW reminds me...

...of the Watergate joke from way back, where one of the Dem Congressmen said that if the Republican elephant wandered into the hearing room, they'd say "That's not an elephant. That's a mouse with a glandular problem!"
Broke the place up at the time. Anyway, that's what it's like around here. I thought when I came here that I was going to be among people who respected facts and evidence. Apparently there's no place on the Internet inhabited mostly by such people, because of its apparent tendency to give the loudest and most outrageous folks a forum to rant away to there heart's content about whatever itch they're scratching at the moment. It's ridiculous, but there you go.

[bemildred]

52. That will not save his ass if he attacks Syria. nt

[n2doc]

64. The best and the brightest

gave us Vietnam. I hope Obama is wiser.

[JustAnotherGen]

79. Thanks for this Nye

I still haven't seen this declaration of war that folks are thinking was issued - just by reading this thread. They've already jumped to the conclusion that a full scale war effort is already under way.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. Many intelligent, thoughtful and engaged people make huge errors as you well know. To claim

otherwise is just dishonest. Do you really think intelligent people are always right? A stupid war is stupid no matter who makes the decision to wage it.

[darkangel218]

98. Wars only lead to destruction, death and dispair

And should be avoided at all costs.

I hope POTUS remembers that.

[kelliekat44]

89. No matter what the President does with Egypt or Syria is will be a "mistake" on some level.

What does "mistake" mean? Does it mean imperfection? A bad end from a good means? A good end from a bad means? Let's all be grown up and say what we mean.

[Little Star]

99. I was also impressed with how he handled Bin Laden.....

But post #44, down thread, has some valid points also.

[Arctic Dave]

101. I see him as all of the above.

If bombing people is not an act of war then what is it?

[whoiswithme]

105. It's time to stop giving people a pass because of the (D) after their name

Let's just talk about the issues for what they are and forget about fighting over the lesser of two evils. Until we do that our candidates will be more worried about securing the approval of the party than pleasing the voters.

[Kolesar]

108. Ya' know, we do have a political process called "the primaries"

That's where is gets sorted out.
Welcome to our forum!

[whoiswithme]

115. And you think this is working out well?

We (and the republicans) end up with candidates that run on a platform of being one extreme or the other, but much more moderate when it comes down to it. Does anyone remember what platform George Bush campaigned on, and then what he did? I'll point out that he is a republican, NOT a conservative. A republican president was complicit in vastly increasing the size of the government and the military. He campaigned by promising that he wouldn't do any nation building. We lost a ton of personal freedoms with the passage of the Patriot act, which you could almost expect from a republican but then Obama extended it.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/open-government/news/2004/08/09/1019/the-broken-promises-of-george-w-bush/

Now look at Obama's campaign promises:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama-whistleblower-website_n_3658815.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fineman/obama-campaign-promises_b_1930833.html

He campaigned by promising the most transparent Administration in history, shutting down Gitmo (I think this was a naïve promise), no new taxes on those that make less than $250k/year (they aren't taxes, they are fees, right?). I could go on, but I think it's a waste of time. You all get my point.

Look at what happened to him and Hillary in the primaries also. Hillary really took a bruising. I think that the only people that make it through the primaries are the folks that have too little integrity to represent us anyway.

I say it's time that we start electing politicians because they have good ideas and can implement them well. When they don't we hold their feet to the fire, not make excuses for them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. "..not a warmongering moron"? Is this the same Obama who escalated the lost war in Afghanistan?

And, is still sending drones to kill people?

[HooptieWagon]

114. Yep. The n-dimensional chess-master....

....whose every blunder is cheered by his Personality Cult.

[Maedhros]

117. Obama is definitely no moron.

However, he does appear eager to use the military arsenal at his disposal.

[Rex]

118. Obama is not a warmongering moron!

I'll drink to that!

[MisterP]

121. the OP has already made themselves forget about Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and two Surges

I'm sure they can bliss-out Syria when the time comes

[Corruption Inc]

123. No, he just lets warmongering torturers and WMD conspirators walk free

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/08/26

"Obama Gives Bush "Absolute Immunity" For Everything"

[cantbeserious]

126. Leaked Documents: U.S. Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack

&feature=player_embedded#t=0