Yeah, the first thing I do is describe Obama as "black lawyer". Like I always mention about McCain off the top, "white Senator".

I'd guess it's because of what I posted about the AQ the US has killed there in the past year.

You saying so doesn't make it so. Perhaps you choose to believe that somehow the public has 100% knowledge of what is going on in these places. I would think that you would realize that we are only told what they want us to know.

he is white

you really are clueless but in common with the chief?

this Pres relied solely on his intelligence and 7 days after it was common knowledge knows the undy pants bomber was Al Qaada?


PS so happy the idiot who had "a deep understanding of the mid east" as you say, "similar to Obama" finally apologized for being an anti-Semite :D :D

Where is the connection between them and where is the comparison to the previous years? Just posting a few stories about some terrorists being taken out or arrested doesnt prove anything except the military and intellegence people over there are still doing thier jobs.

Strange you mischaracterize me as a "bleeding heart" when I've never posted anything but positive and complete support for our killing terrorists and aggressively pursing them overseas.

Obama is going after AQ aggressively, in places Bush didn't go, and with some good success. He absolutely deserves credit for both not being a "bleeding heart" in the least, and credit for his directing US efforts to other places in pursuit of AQ, with that success.

:zz: LOL - What part of, "going by public knowledge" didn't you understand? I'm not talking about anything secret. I'm talking about what is public knowledge in the press about where both Presidents placed troops, reports of AQ killed, etc.

First, the middle line in what you quoted attributed to me wasn't written by me.

Secondly, we are talking about the AQ that were killed in August and September.

I am just wondering why a President who has dwindling favorable ratings and is taking a hit on a area where he was perceived as weak wouldn't be talking about all these successes? The WH has bragged about successes that hardly were and yet you seem to be the only person who knows about all this success against terrorism. Especially in light of the recent security failure.

it does not bother me ..he used the race card to get in office. no big deal
one of my sons friends who is black ships out on the 8th to afganistan..
you really like the 'nutz' part..or not,, not that its wrong.. just pay taxes.

So perhaps Obama's team is more willing to release news of these reports than Bush was? You are making assumptions based on bits of released information, not on the true data. Maybe we know 99% of what has happened. Maybe we know 9%. There is know way to know.

I wonder, too, why it's not highlighted. I think it's a huge mistake politically for the Dems not to talk that up. But I think it's obvious the August recess - health care debate - teabaggers anger was far better TV at the time.

Obama's popularity ratings went up 6-10 points (depending upon poll) when healthcare made it through the Senate, last I saw.

I guess I'm "the only person who knows" because I read newspapers and newsites other than Fox News? As you can see if you simply google those names, those incidents I posted (the AQ terrorists taken down) were all over multiple news sites, evening news, etc.

According to what I see - which is why I brought it up in the first place - the perception that Obama is weak in this area certainly doesn't match the reality so far in his administration.

As far as the recent security failure goes, as I've said, I would think there are plenty of inter- and intra- agency screwups to go around.

C'mon, Matt, he really didn't, nor did his campaign. He specifically, and most notedly by the historians, completely avoided "the race card" and talking about race during his campaign.

However, many others in the general opposition and fringe did not. One can't call a person "n-----" nowadays, but plenty of opposition called him "the other", "Muslim", "not one of us" , "not really an American", "Kenyan", and brought up Rev. Wright, etc.

us policy in afganistan is a joke..they are putting lipstick on a pig..he shouldent send anyone if hes only putting 30k in the region.. oh and thats not
going into the 'other ' country right below it..where they will hide at will...

media blackout and some good old fashond black water Inglorious Bastards
action..

Perhaps it isnt highlighted because it simply isnt true? That is what logical people might assume.

Riot FYI
a guy who was at a pay-cash only Dr.'s office today heard the poor Nigerian was just trying to get to Boston to see an Obama cougar w/free digs. And he brought fire in his pants as he heard global warming hasn't hit beantown yet.

:rolleyes: I am not making assumptions. I am saying that, only according to the AQ listed as killed during Obama's year so far, and what and where Bush pursued AQ, Obama is doing a good job, and in places Bush never went to.

If you recall, there was great discussion and debate by all candidates about how and where to continue to pursue AQ. Iraq - Iran - everywhere else.

Bush-Cheney was never shy about claiming credit for military success, most certainly not success against AQ. "Mission Accomplished" ;) Nor should they be. Every AQ kill is a credit to America against the scum of the world. We're not the only nation that suffers at AQ hands.

Do you really think the last administration hid any vast secret success against AQ? Secretly killed major AQ operatives and didn't publicize it?

My point is that the characterization of Obama as inactive or ineffective against terrorism is most obviously not true, based upon what has been accomplished to date. He's doing fine. He deserves credit for what he's done so far.

Ah they old "They didnt use the race card" theory. Actually they played it perfectly by accusing anyone who criticized him, of possibly having racial motives. The idea that race wasnt used by the Obama campaign is just missing the point. While there is no doubt that a certain segment of the population is racist, the blanket implication of racism in general terms that was done and continues to be done by the left is also deplorable.

I completely agree. What we should have done to bin Laden back when we had the chance. Blow the hell out of all of them.

You are making assumptions. You dont have all the facts therefore must assume things.

Seriously - are you saying, all those press reports, in August, about specific, named AQ killed in Somalia, Pakistan, etc, and not just from our country - are a lie?

And that's what "logical" people might assume?

:zz:

Google those names. Let's see what comes up in the general press. Post it here.

But we arent debating the job Obama has done. We are debating your statement. And you have yet to make a post that would convince anyone that your statement was accurate.

they missed one that has same middle name..

And to think, that in my misguided yet fun youth, I used to have to use 'outside influences' to obtain the same mindset you have now ;)

The guy with the American Michael name, also has Islam as an alias ....

No one said the news reports werent true. What isnt true is that Obama has done some bangup job against Al Queda or has made some giant breakthroughs that you are saying he has.

It is like posting a couple of boxscores and saying that is evidence of why one team is doing well or not.

It is all relative to the big picture and obviously the media doesnt believe that what they know constitutes some big achievement.

Seriously - show me where his campaign ever discussed that in response to opposition. Even his campaign PR people.

There were plenty of accusations of racial motives, but they weren't from the Obama campaign. If you have one, post it, because they were notoriously mute on this.

your boy clinton missed that chance..

:wf

i have a hard time believing that a president who goes against what his general in charge asked for troop wise is somehow more serious than the previous president about afganistan. obama has no military background at all, but he's supposed to think he knows better than a west point grad with years of experience about what's needed in a war? then there's the supposed expiration date for the war as well. it's hilarious. obama too busy trying to keep everyone content-he will end with making no one content. the libs wanted us out, the pentagon wanted it fought right, so he took the middle ground. what a way to fight a 'war'.

I posted seven important AQ people and domestic terrorists killed or arrested during Obama's first year. The AQ kills were very notable in my book. Especially getting "the most feared AQ terrorist in Somalia" guy.

You dismiss these accomplishments - well, that's your opinion. Not mine.

I think so far, Obama's "big picture" against AQ terrorism is just fine :tro:

Didn't vote for Clinton, didn't support him.

Don't tell Dell ;) I already have, but he can't deal with anything other than black-white.

when bill clinton referred to obama's campaign as a fairy tale, the obama campaign attempted to turn that into a racial issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...n_n_81205.html

Must be why he and all his generals and advisers completely (notoriously slowly) reviewed American Afghan policy for three months before agreeing and committing 30,000 American lives over there.

He's not fighting a "war" in Afghanistan. That's where his policy differs from Bush.

Agree, the "go both ways" on the "we'll start to withdraw on this date" was silly.

The Obama campaign did not publically turn that into a racial issue, according to what that article says. It talks about an internal memo that later came to light. The Obama campaign never confronted Clinton publically saying, "that's a racial issue Clinton is bringing up".

Did I miss something?

I always knew you were really smart :tro:


Okay, I owe you one in the future.

Thirty thousand more troops is 10,000 fewer than Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, requested, reports CBS News correspondent David Martin. The president hopes to make up at least some of the difference with contributions from NATO allies.

"I think NATO will come through with a couple thousand and so I think we'll still be somewhat short of what Gen. McChrystal proposed," Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution told CBS News.

when reading the thread above, it jarred my memory on the obama campaign getting angry with the clintons and it turning into a racial thing. now, i haven't done a lot of searching, but if i remember it being mentioned, it had to have gone public somewhere-right? that's why i started a search with the huffington blog being the first thing that came up.