For the BOG~ Trust Vindicated

[sheshe2]

I don't mind being called an Obamabot that much. Just like the President decided to embrace the label "Obamacare" that was initially meant as a slam, I suspect history will vindicate that supporting this administration was the right call.

What I've typically reacted to negatively is the idea that I blindly trust President Obama because the fact is - I have my eyes wide open and am watching a fascinating presidency unfold. Over time what has happened is that when I don't see the whole picture yet, I've learned to slow down my reactions and wait until I get more information. I also remind myself of who this man is that we've elected twice and how he's handled things in the past.

All of this came into play when it became clear that President Obama was considering a military strike against Syria because the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against his own people. I knew from watching him closely that he had rather boldly stood up to his own national security team when they united last fall to propose that the US intervene in the Syrian civil war. And so I was pretty confident that he had come to this position both reluctantly and thoughtfully. As I've said previously, my concerns were more about the efficacy of strikes rather than the ridiculous notion that this man was some kind of warmonger. And so I reminded myself of the process President Obama used when he made the decision to intervene in Libya and assumed he'd done the same thing this time.

snip

There is still a lot of work to be done on Syria, but this morning I can see demonstrated proof that my trust in President Obama is vindicated. SoS Kerry has brokered a deal with his Russian counterpart to identify and destroy Assad's chemical weapons. What is specifically vindicated is not just that this administration had always been working behind the scenes on the "carrot" of diplomacy as an alternative to the "stick" of military intervention. If this deal goes through, it also proves that dealing with Assad's chemical weapons was ALWAYS the President's motivation in all this. That is a critical point because it shows that he is ushering in a new approach to US foreign policy.

Read More

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/09/trust-vindicated.html

Once again, smartypants has hit the nail on the head. Trust Vindicated. Eyes wide open.

**********************THIS IS POSTED IN THE BARACK OBAMA GROUP**********************

[Walk away]

1. Amen!...nt

[freshwest]

2. Yes, he does, Sheshe. Thanks for bringing that here! K & R.

[sheshe2]

3. Hey sweetie~

You are so very welcome!

[Cha]

4. The President needed to start negotiations from a position of

strength, she. The two years of talks weren't working.. and then on August 21, 2013 Assad attacked his own people including children and that was it. It was obviously time to finally let them know.. this is not okay.

"As I've said previously, my concerns were more about the efficacy of strikes rather than the ridiculous notion that this man was some kind of warmonger."

Exactly, smartypants.

Thanks for bringing this to the BOG, she~

[Thinkingabout]

5. I had a feeling something was working when Cool Handed Luke Obama went golfing. He has done

This before when big things was happening like the Bin Laden hit. He has surrounded himself with quiet capable staff and cabinet, I expect great things from great people.

[stupidicus]

6. all I see is someone supporting a "credible threat" being used

that included a claim to being able to take it outside of the "threat" category and make it real without the support of the electorate, their reps in congress, or the UN.

Given that all that was the starting point for all the complaints from us anti-war folks, the aftermath of it notwithstanding, it seems to me that all those "singing the praises" for "credible threats" of that kind really need to step up and give their stamp of approval on the illegal warmaking that "credible threat" represented.

How long have you supported http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CFUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftv.msnbc.com%2F2013%2F09%2F03%2Fun-suggests-american-attack-on-syria-would-be-illegal%2F&ei=qQg1UrrqCoTOrQGf1oGwDw&usg=AFQjCNFswdL2gnoCAnhxLtbfj5b2mLwYqg&bvm=bv.52164340,d.aWM such things?

smartypants appears to follow the "the ends justify the means" rationale, which is very common with rightwingnuts.

And their support for illegal warmaking seems pretty apparent based on the "my concerns were more about the efficacy..." remark.

Tell the smartpanted "moran" BHO had UN support for his actions in Libya, and that he had the horse behind the cart this time.

None of this BS undermines a damn thing anybody posted in disagreement with his "credible threat" when it was issued.

[sheshe2]

7. You do realize that this is posted in the Barack Obama Group.

We are a group and not a forum, stupidicus.

This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group.

The mission of the Barack Obama Group is to discuss information and news about the life, career, accomplishments, and presidency of Barack Obama; to provide a haven for those members of Democratic Underground who support the president and his policies; to discuss President Obama's policy positions, speeches, interviews, and other public appearances; to discuss President Obama's political campaigns; and to discuss the causes which President Obama has championed, including health care reform and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those who have a generally negative view of President Obama and his administration, support his defeat in the 2012 presidential election (in primaries or the general election), or who are generally supportive of those who do, are not welcome in the Barack Obama Group.

You clearly did not read or did not understand the Op.

Fair warning!

[Cha]

9. Hey stupididcus.. It was posted in the OP that this is the Barack Obama

Group. You do not come in here and insult the OP with your "BS".

You have the whole board to whine and call others "moran".. just not here.

[DevonRex]

10. AFAIC, common courtesy dictates the offending poster

deletes his rude post after 2 such replies. JMHO but it's clearly no mistake that the rude post is left once he's aware it's not welcome in this group.

[Cha]

11. That's a good thought, Devon. And, it just so happened on another

thread today. Whereas the poster graciously deleted his post without being asked after he was reminded this was the Barack Obama Group.

[bearssoapbox]

8. I like the way President Obama handles situations.

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2013, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a more thinking, calculating way of doing things.

As opposed to the unthinking, knee-jerk reactions of the criminals that were in power before President Obama.

The way he's handled the birthers, trump, the teabaggers, CONgress, Libya and bin Laden has been nothing short of masterful.

He keeps putting it to them again ad again.

You would think that the right would get a clue...eventually.

While I don't agree with him on everything, until he shows me different...

I trust him.

[Cha]

12. I know what you mean, bearssoapbox..

Thank you!