The three headlines on political news that I got from Yahoo News today were: "Are we really done with Iraq?", "1 billion for one dictator", and "Libya victory holds little promise for Obama". God forbid, I that I should look at the Fox News headlines on these topics.
Shouldn't these headlines be spun as, "Mission accomplished: peace with dignity in Iraq", "Obama achieves bargain basement regime change", and "Obama's policy goals in Libya achieved, blunting the criticism of hawks and doves on the issue"?
On the first topic my impression is that although, Obama opposed the Iraq war, he is conducting a responsible exit.
On the second topic, I remember Reagan sent a couple of F-111s to fire a shot across Gadhafi's bow, for just a little less than the U.S. contribution to the Libya liberation effort. I'd also wager that the money spent of decapitating Sadam Husain was more than what the Obama administration has spent trying to bail our economy out.
On the last, I recall Senator McCain recently griping that we should have acted faster, and that some American boots on the ground would have speed a result along. It seems to me that Obama has wisely resisted calls to intemperate action, and still accomplished a foreign policy objective. I think he should get some kudos for negotiating a difficult situation well.
People are not very happy with Obama. And rightfully so. The media is comprised of people who are just as unhappy with Iraq and Afghanistan as everyone else.
Also, I think it's a little arrogant to claim that there is peace and dignity in Iraq. Iraq is still a work in progress. And no amount of American involvement will be able to change that.
Obama is not conducting a responsible exit. He is doing this in order to position himself for the election. The timing makes it obvious. Do not trust what Obama says.
I think it might be the other way around. People aren't very happy with Obama, because people of Rupert Murdoc's ilk have spent the last three years in "swift boat veterans for truth" style finding any angle they can to criticize him.
As to "peace with dignity", Vietnam wasn't a settled issue when we left under that moniker.
In getting out of Iraq Obama is doing just what he promised during his election campaign. How much longer do you think we should stay and how much more money should we spend?
I really don't get the claim that Obama is a socialist. As far as I can tell by his actions, he is a moderately conservative.
Obama is about as close to being a moderate conservative as I am to being a black woman. He's definitely a wealth-redistribution Socialist.
Here's my issue with this idea. If he is a "socialist" so is every single president who has backed social security, medicare, VA benefits, support of American Infrastructure, Corporate "benefits" (i.e. government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations), Farm subsidies (which almost ALL my neighbors enjoy), public education etc. etc. etc.
Friend, you AND I have enjoyed these so-called "socialist" benefits. Besides, I happen to be a firm believer in Deuteronomy 15:7
Longhunter has his own definition of "socialist." Obama is a moderate, middle-of-the-road, Clintonesque Democrat.
Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Ie. redistribution of wealth.
Obama is a moderate, middle-of-the-road, Clintonesque Democrat? Thaks for the laugh, Mr. Deeds. I needed that.
I dunno, I kind of agree with most of Ralph said...
... Obama isn't a socialist, he's more of a Mercantilist.
With socialism, the money GENERALLY goes to ALL the people.
With Mercantilism, the elite get bailed out.
Evan, you do yourself a disservice saying silly things like that. How can he be a socialist AND a tool of the Wall Street banksters, oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies, electric power companies and coal companies?
Socialist = Fascist.
Surely you knew that, Ralph.
You're right, he's Mercantilist.
Which is much more evil -- with Socialism, at least the people in general receive the lion's share of the stolen wealth.
With Mercantilism, just the elite get it.
Why is Obama smeered by the media? Because they haven't anything else worthy of print or TV. Why else.
I've noticed that some of the MSM seem to be turning on Obama. For a while, some of them seemed to think Obama could do no wrong, and now those same people seem to think he can do no right. And they're not all right-wingers, either. The cards were stacked against Obama when he took office. Not only were we in a mess, there was so much hype about his election that lots of folks expected miracles. They were crestfallen when they discovered that Obama is just another politician.
I read that Bush's timeline to exit Iraq was December 2011, and most Rs agreed with that. Now that Obama is going through with it, the Rs are unhappy??
When it was Bush's timetable it was fine (also years away).
Now it's here.
And it's Obama's watch.
So it's bad.
Believe me, if Obama DIDN'T make good on this campaign promise he'd be getting even more heat. (rock/Obama/hard place).
But it seems to be mostly just knee-jerk reaction by the GOP candidates.
Kinda like: "Damn -- this is really inconvenient. Hard to be against bringing our troops home. But I sure wish he would have blown it so I could take credit for it in 2013."
We all know that there needs to be some wealth redistributed...those who publicly denounce the idea simply do not want to admit they have been wrong all these years (about politics/economics) and are hoping against hope that somehow trickle down will start working and everything will get better. We have had so-called "conservatives" in charge for more than 3/5 of my lifetime and things have steadily gotten worse and worse. So all of these lame comments about Obama and those like him fall on deaf ears in my household/world. Just as I am sure my comments will fall flat on the ears of those who made the negative remarks and ill mannered jokes. You will never change my mind, so save your fingers. No matter what you say, I will NEVER be persuaded. I'll just hope and pray that you all will see the light before it is too late, if it is not already...because we are very close to the greedy decadent state of mind which squeezed the life out of the Roman Empire. God help us all. The good book I read says, "As ye have, so shall ye give." Not "every man/woman for themselves" !!
I'm not sure there needs to be wealth redistribution as a leveling of the playing field. in other words our government and its legislation is tipped in favor of big corporations, banks, wall street etc.
Corporations have the upper hand, and it has been legislated for them to have this. Both parties have contributed to this. We don;t need our government dictating any policies about who get what, we need them to keep all the players playing fairly, large and small.
Good point...what I am talking about is the slight redistribution of wealth that would come from a revised tax code...NOT the sort which took place during the Soviet period in Russia and Eastern Europe. When I was a kid, everyone knew that if you got/made a million dollars that half of it would go to the tax man. Now I see people complaining about the government taking 1/3 or less of their millions. And you are right, the corporations really are the ones who have made out like bandits. I truly believe that the middle classes (there are more than one) would have to pay very little in taxes IF the corporations would pay their fair share. Of course, the ultra-rich would have to suck it up as well. Part of what earnest said below is true. For whatever reason--ignorance, brain-washing, whatever--there are a lot of people who believe that the measly little tax cuts they received under Bush the Younger were some huge gift from the corp run "conservative" government, when in fact those tax cuts were simply a ploy to make people think they were better off under his administration and ignore the absurd cuts in taxes on the corporate/ultra-rich class. We are still paying for those cuts in the deficit which was handed over to Obama. Anyway, thanks for your comments.
Why is Obama consistently smeared by the media?
Because they have an audience of bone ignorant narrow minded religiously impaired thinly disguised racists to cater for, what else?
Obama is black, clever, well educated, articulate, worldly, good looking, and a nice decent person with a nice family.
Lot's of reasons to hate his guts if you are a red-necked yokel.
I think it's time for you to come out of your shell, earnest. Just say what you're thinking.
"Obama is black, clever, well educated, articulate, worldly, good looking, and a nice decent person with a nice family."
He's half black.
He's clever only when he reads what is on the teleprompter.
We've never seen his grades so we have no idea if he's well educated.
Again, he's only, ah, ah, ah ah, articulate only when he, ah, ah, ah, ah, reads what is on the, ah, ah, ah, ah, teleprompter.
He's good looking if you're into that whole arrogant, big eared look. He could hear a mouse piss on a cotton ball in the basement of the Kremlin with those ears.
I have no idea if he's a nice person and don't care. If he walked up to shake my hand, I'd turn my back on him.
He does seem to be a good husband and father. I'll give him that.
And, no, I'm not a redneck or a Tea Party member. I'm just honest when I say I think the man is the worst president this country has ever had and hopefully ever will have.
I've never seen a person more beloved by the Media. The media stands by ready and willing with a roll of Charmin to wipe their brown noses each time he spews forth more useless rhetoric.
You must watch and read different media sources than I do.
I've never seen a president more scrutinized and questioned.
They have to cover his press conferences -- he's the prez.
But they seem to think nothing he says can stand on its own.
There are always pundits giving their $.02. Usually 1 D and 1 R.
So they at least give the appearance of fair and balance.
Except Fox New. They don't even bother inviting opposing commentary.
MM, it's only been recently that the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN & MSNBC) has started questioning some of the things he's said and done.
Mike's right. Most of the time they're bending over backwards to kiss Obama's butt.
Weird, they even scrutinize his wife's purchases. For gods sake, it's not like she has wealth of her own, she may have been a successful lawyer or something. She behaves like her husband has accumulated wealth from a successful book he wrote. Like that ever happened.
Just think who OWNS the media. That is why President Obama gets little respect.
I don't Obama is smeared any more than any other recent president. It's just the way of the times.
by mio cid 7 years ago
President Obama's jigsaw puzzle strategy is winning him support of women,youth,immigrants and hispanics,black voters,union workers etc. Romney's strategy is based on how bad a president Obama has been and pandering to the republican base which is controlled by the tea party and the extreme right...
by Susan Reid 9 years ago
One of my biggest frustrations with the Obama administration is they are not good at promoting their achievements. Although that could be the fault of the so-called "liberal media" which is all corporate owned and anything but liberal.Anyway, I came across this article and thought I would...
by Stevennix2001 11 years ago
Okay, I know this probably isn't that big of a deal to some folks, but i thought i'd bring it up anyway. On the radio the other day, I was listening to two political analysts, and one of them still insists on labeling O'Bama a moron for how he's handled things from day one of his...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
WHAT do you think of Donald Trump's statement that Obama founded ISIS?
by mortimerjackson 10 years ago
Despite what Obama's press secretary might tell you, the only reason that America is leaving Iraq is because of a declaration signed by George Bush saying that America will leave by 2011. Obama insisted upon staying in Iraq, but the Iraqi government has refused to grant US troops immunity for their...
by Holle Abee 10 years ago
Is this true? Of course, you have to consider the source - a far right network, MSNBC. (insert sarcasm here)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … _info.html
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|