Obama Faulted in Terror Fight, New Poll Finds

[alp227]

Source: NY Times

For the first time in his presidency, more Americans disapprove of President Obama’s handling of terrorism than approve of it, as discontent about his management of foreign affairs and the fight against Sunni militants in Iraq and Syria weighs on an anxious and conflicted public, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

As Mr. Obama broadens the military offensive against Islamic extremists, the survey finds broad support for United States airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, but it also demonstrates how torn Americans are about wading back into battle in the Middle East. A majority is opposed to committing ground forces there, amid sweeping concern that increased American participation will lead to a long and costly mission.

With midterm elections approaching, Americans’ fears about a terrorist attack on United States soil are on the rise, and the public is questioning Mr. Obama’s strategy for combating the militant organization calling itself the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Most respondents say the president has no clear plan for confronting the group, and that he has not been tough enough in dealing with it.

“He is ambivalent, and I think it shows,” Jennifer Shelton-Armstrong, a 45-year-old Democrat in Mission Viejo, California, said in a follow-up interview. “There is no clear plan.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us/politics/for-first-time-most-americans-disapprove-of-obamas-handling-of-terrorism.html

[still_one]

1. Well if the NY Times says it, it must be true, just like Judith Miller

[karynnj]

8. This is just reporting a poll, which may well be correct

However, I suspect the reason is that with the ISIL actions on the horizon, a portion of those people who do not support the President here are well represented on this board. This is not a criticism of those people - they are taking the position that their values lead them to. I assume that many here would say they are NOT behind the President's call to lead a coalition against ISIL. I don't know how anyone here would reply to a survey question that forces a yes/no answer.

In addition, how much coverage has been really given to Obama's speeches or the statements of his administration. What seems clear reading some accounts in international papers, Obama and top people in his administration are given more respect and clearer coverage abroad. Look how little coverage was given to the minor, but necessary, success of the Iraqis in forming a more inclusive government. Look at the cynical coverage of what seems a genuine effort to form a real coalition - written by people who backed Bush.

Bush had a small isolationist wing in 2003 (think Pat Buchanan ), but the vast amount of the Republican party was lock step behind him. In addition, after 2001, the country rallied around Bush as the President when we were attacked. Obama, to his credit, has NOT essentially terrorize the American people with images of terror and the positioning of himself as having stood between them and the American people.

In addition, Obama is taking a middle position that he believes in - knowing that he will be attacked by those more hawkish as too weak, while being eviscerated by those angry that he is increasing military action. (Like last year, for many past experience (even if it was Bush) makes trust impossible when a President speaks of something that is more limited than the previous war.) As a result, Obama's choices will NOT be approved by either Code Pink or John McCain. Obama is not taking a position that ANY politically active segment is behind. No moderate, middle position is likely to get the exuberant support that either extreme will.

[madokie]

2. Listening to the M$M I'm not surprised

he's not ambivalent about this, in fact he has a clear plan of action no matter what they say.
If we don't get this supposedly free press under control we lose our democracy, if we haven't already that is. Operative words being supposedly free press

[blkmusclmachine]

3. MSM to America: Be SCARED, be very very SCARED. All the time. Are you SCARED yet?!?! SCARY, SCARY!!!

[Major Hogwash]

4. Well, this wasn't reported on the local news station broadcasts tonight, so I do not believe it.

Because the news is infallible.

[hedgehog]

5. How do Americans rank foreign affairs in importance against say,

jobs, minimum wage, income inequality, etc. ?

[truthisfreedom]

6. He's way on it. This issue will ultimately get us congress.

He's Obama.

[Historic NY]

7. If he'd only bomb someone.........

never mind.

[pangaia]

9. “There is no clear plan," says Jennifer.

Jennifer doesn't know her ass from her elbow.

" Most respondents say the president has no clear plan for confronting the group, and that he has not been tough enough in dealing with it. "

Most Americans are ignorant, uneducated morons.

[busterbrown]

10. Yea... Isis must be bombed...

Shock and Awe would be a good start...Then bring our Delta Force X Team in and track em down..

[Amonester]

11. Yep. They'd rather prefer a mc$ame approach of bomb, bomb, bomb 'em...

better, nuke them all in a sec so we can go back watching our Thursday Night F00tballl circus.

[pangaia]

14. Speaking of which...

Falcons 7 zip.. took 'em 3 minutes.

[Amonester]

15. Now 56 zip.. took 'em 3 quarters...

That's not a circus, it's a walk in the park!

[CJCRANE]

12. ISIS was nurtured by a whole bunch

of countries.

I'm not sure he had much choice but to go along with the plan.

I'm disappointed because I hoped he was building up to a break with neocon policies but the opposite happened and the neocons popped up as though they had never left.

[elleng]

13. Of.course,littleW.did.so.much.better.

'BombIran'DEEP.
His.'ambivalence,'Ms.Shelton-Armstrong,is.his.patience.and.studiousness.

[Orsino]

16. Because of all those extremist Muslim attacks on America...

...that stubbornly failed to occur?

Stupid push-pollees told they should care what happens in our Mideast states.