Personal assaults on Obama

Babbylonian said:
I'm struggling to understand why - apart from an attempt to make the issue partisan - you skipped over GWB in your post. He was called stupid on a daily basis, and there were and are quite a large number of people who believe that he ordered the destruction of the WTC.

As has been stated, these sorts of baseless attacks are nothing new and have been leveled at every US President.
Click to expand...

I suspect that those "truthers" who actually think that Bush was responsible for 9/11 (rather than merely looking like a deer caught in the headlights when he got the news) amount to a small minority of U.S. citizens. By contrast, apparently nearly 20%, i.e. one fifth, of Americans actually believe Obama's a secret Muslim.

ETA: Well this kinda sucks: While 46% of the American public think AlQaeda was responsible for 9/11, 25% (1/4) of Americans say they don't know who caused 9/11. While the 15% who think the U.S. government (thus, W.) was responsible, is smaller than the 18 to 20 % of Americans who see Obama as a secret Muslim, it's disturbingly high. Of the remainder of Americans, 7% blame Israel (!), and 7% believe some other party than those already mentioned did it.

Forgive me for underestimating the irrationality of my fellow Americans. Mea Culpa!
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
...So, I'm wondering what the cause of all this is. Is it just the steadily devolving nature of the religious right producing ever more shrill and irrational statements, or is it sub rosa racism? Does anyone have any ideas?
Click to expand...
Civility and self-restraint are rare from anyone in a contest with stakes as large as those at issue in national politics. Remember "MacBird!" and "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many boys have you killed today?" More recently, the calumnization of Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin?

It's not incivility that's unusual and needs explanation, but civility.
 
Last edited:
Augustine said:
Prior to giving credit, count the number of times he says "I" or some variant.
The timing of the announcement was intended for his own benefit, not the nation's. He gave no credit whatsoever to the previous administration who laid the groundwork. Military people saw the announcement for what it was, which was self-serving. Like I said, leadership 101.
Click to expand...
Please.
 
Augustine said:
Prior to giving credit, count the number of times he says "I" or some variant.
The timing of the announcement was intended for his own benefit, not the nation's. He gave no credit whatsoever to the previous administration who laid the groundwork. Military people saw the announcement for what it was, which was self-serving. Like I said, leadership 101.
Click to expand...
Please see this article and let me know your thoughts about the timing.

Also I'm sure you can count as many "I" or some variant as you want to count and it will mean exactly what you want it to mean. Confirmation Bias 101

Also, you apparently are a spokesman for "Military people", what's your official title?
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's getting all that worse, but rather it comes in and out over the decades like a tide. While people did mock GW Bush for seeming like a moronic lovable simplton at best, and a sinister liberty robbing oil stealing genocidal warmonger at worst who bombed his own country, I find Obama's accusations are a lot more far fetched and weird and they seem believed by people I once would have assumed were more moderate and too level headed to have bought into such crap.

Like, how could an illegal alien seriously hide his past enough to get elected as a senator and as President of the United States while secretly being a Muslim who wants to secretly turn the country into a communist caliphate. Even Avalon thinks Obama is only pretending to be a Christian. :D

Obama's accusations just seem sillier to me and harder to believe, even as silly as Bush's accusations often were.

It seemed the "moderate" hate Bush got was just mockery for his poor public speaking skills and for dodging the draft, with young hip lefties claiming Iraq was about oil. It was the real loonies who started accusing Bush of bombing the trade centers.

So I guess if there's something I see different, it's the level of crazy the usually moderate critics are buying into today.
 
Babbylonian said:
I'm struggling to understand why - apart from an attempt to make the issue partisan - you skipped over GWB in your post. He was called stupid on a daily basis, and there were and are quite a large number of people who believe that he ordered the destruction of the WTC.
Click to expand...

He also raped Margie Schoedinger.
 
Halfcentaur said:
...Even Avalon thinks Obama is only pretending to be a Christian...
Click to expand...
That's the explanation for his decades-long association with Jeremiah Wright, that his attendance at Wright's congregation was for cosmetic or instrumental purposes, not out of belief in the Christian faith.
Halfcentaur said:
...Obama's accusations just seem sillier to me and harder to believe, even as silly as Bush's accusations often were.
Click to expand...
Why is this silly?
 
TimCallahan said:
I suspect that those "truthers" who actually think that Bush was responsible for 9/11 (rather than merely looking like a deer caught in the headlights when he got the news) amount to a small minority of U.S. citizens. By contrast, apparently nearly 20%, i.e. one fifth, of Americans actually believe Obama's a secret Muslim.

ETA: Well this kinda sucks: While 46% of the American public think AlQaeda was responsible for 9/11, 25% (1/4) of Americans say they don't know who caused 9/11. While the 15% who think the U.S. government (thus, W.) was responsible, is smaller than the 18 to 20 % of Americans who see Obama as a secret Muslim, it's disturbingly high. Of the remainder of Americans, 7% blame Israel (!), and 7% believe some other party than those already mentioned did it.

Forgive me for underestimating the irrationality of my fellow Americans. Mea Culpa!
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

Reading stuff like that almost makes me lose hope for humanity...
 
Halfcentaur said:
I don't think it's getting all that worse, but rather it comes in and out over the decades like a tide. While people did mock GW Bush for seeming like a moronic lovable simplton at best, and a sinister liberty robbing oil stealing genocidal warmonger at worst who bombed his own country, I find Obama's accusations are a lot more far fetched and weird and they seem believed by people I once would have assumed were more moderate and too level headed to have bought into such crap.

Like, how could an illegal alien seriously hide his past enough to get elected as a senator and as President of the United States while secretly being a Muslim who wants to secretly turn the country into a communist caliphate. Even Avalon thinks Obama is only pretending to be a Christian. :D

Obama's accusations just seem sillier to me and harder to believe, even as silly as Bush's accusations often were.

It seemed the "moderate" hate Bush got was just mockery for his poor public speaking skills and for dodging the draft, with young hip lefties claiming Iraq was about oil. It was the real loonies who started accusing Bush of bombing the trade centers.

So I guess if there's something I see different, it's the level of crazy the usually moderate critics are buying into today.
Click to expand...

You know, this post got me to thinking... as far down the rabbit-hole things have gone with the birther nonsense, have we actually reached the bottom of the barrel, or will the radical right-wing go even further with their lunacy if President Obama wins re-election? What sort of craziness could top birtherism?
 
DavidJames said:
Please see this article and let me know your thoughts about the timing.

Also I'm sure you can count as many "I" or some variant as you want to count and it will mean exactly what you want it to mean. Confirmation Bias 101

Also, you apparently are a spokesman for "Military people", what's your official title?
Click to expand...

I have explained that good leaders give credit to subordinates. "Oh, but Obama gave credit to the military team that did this." "Yes, after he made sure he told everyone what he did first." "B..b..but he gave them credit!" It's poor leadership. If you can't see that, or don't want to admit that, it doesn't change it.

My thoughts on timing are the same. If you are asserting that the timing of our announcement was dictated to us by Pakistan, you may want to rethink that, or flesh that concept out a little. It doesn't speak well to our competency in diplomacy if you're basically saying "Pakistan made us tell". You're also forgetting domestic politics at the time.

I never said I was the spokesman for military people. However, at the time of the speech, I was preparing to return to Afghanistan for a second tour and was surrounded by active duty and reserve military for the speech and reaction to it. Even Obama supporters were disappointed in the first part of the speech and the "I" "my" wording of it. (While it may be all fun and games on this forum to pretend people who hold opposing political beliefs are idiots or call them names or wish them dead, in the military you serve side by side with them and have conversations with them - and they may be your battle buddy or best friend in the unit. Obama's speech and the giving of credit after claiming it first disappointed some of his supporters - the news was great, the way it was delivered left an aftertaste. Whatever, call me a right-winger and dismiss me - have fun :rolleyes:)
 
MattusMaximus said:
You mean like the U.S. military, arguably the most socialist institution on the planet?
Click to expand...
No. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). The absurdity is the idea that membership in that organization confers any other specialized expertise, such as education or medicine.
 
Last edited:
Augustine said:
I have explained that good leaders give credit to subordinates. "Oh, but Obama gave credit to the military team that did this." "Yes, after he made sure he told everyone what he did first." "B..b..but he gave them credit!" It's poor leadership. If you can't see that, or don't want to admit that, it doesn't change it.
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the transcript. Please quote me what you find so offensive. Yes, he used "I", BFD, he was laying out the context and history of how we got to this point. Sorry, but the reality is he did have to make that decision and it was fair to do so contrasting his decision compared to his predecessor's "I don't care about OBL" attitude.

Maybe you thought he should have started right in praising the military. I think that's a legitimate topic for discussion, but to hang the guy cause he didn't is not fair.
 
Augustine said:
I have explained that good leaders give credit to subordinates. "Oh, but Obama gave credit to the military team that did this." "Yes, after he made sure he told everyone what he did first." "B..b..but he gave them credit!" It's poor leadership. If you can't see that, or don't want to admit that, it doesn't change it.

My thoughts on timing are the same. If you are asserting that the timing of our announcement was dictated to us by Pakistan, you may want to rethink that, or flesh that concept out a little. It doesn't speak well to our competency in diplomacy if you're basically saying "Pakistan made us tell". You're also forgetting domestic politics at the time.
Click to expand...
You did not read the linked article, and your version of events do not match the historical record, so one is left to
call [you] a right-winger and dismiss [you]
Click to expand...
, but it is not fun.

Daredelvis
 
DavidJames said:
Here is a link to the transcript. Please quote me what you find so offensive. Yes, he used "I", BFD, he was laying out the context and history of how we got to this point. Sorry, but the reality is he did have to make that decision and it was fair to do so contrasting his decision compared to his predecessor's "I don't care about OBL" attitude.

Maybe you thought he should have started right in praising the military. I think that's a legitimate topic for discussion, but to hang the guy cause he didn't is not fair.
Click to expand...

Who said anything was offensive? Poor leadership doesn't offend me, it's just poor leadership. And where did anyone say anything about hanging?:confused:

Why the necessity to "contrast his decision with his predecessor" in the speech announcing the news prior to crediting the military anyways? Think about it.
 
Last edited:
Augustine said:
He gave no credit whatsoever to the previous administration who laid the groundwork.
Click to expand...
That's false. Here's the transcript of his speech. He makes clear that efforts to get OBL started on September 11, 2001. He said, "Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort," even though everyone knows Obama only assumed the office of POTUS 3 years prior.

And the fact is that he did make a fairly bold campaign promise to do exactly what he did in getting OBL. So why shouldn't he get credit for this success?

Here's a guy with pretty good information who debunks this latest "Swift Boat" style attack on Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/opinion/bergen-obama-swift-boat/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
That's false. Here's the transcript of his speech. He makes clear that efforts to get OBL started on September 11, 2001. He said, "Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort," even though everyone knows Obama only assumed the office of POTUS 3 years prior.

And the fact is that he did make a fairly bold campaign promise to do exactly what he did in getting OBL. So why shouldn't he get credit for this success?

Here's a guy with pretty good information who debunks this latest "Swift Boat" style attack on Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/opinion/bergen-obama-swift-boat/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Click to expand...

Article has already been linked. So he as Commander in Chief gets the credit for his decisions, directions, and authorizations (and makes sure to point them out), but the previous CinC gets no credit for his? Huh...poor leadership...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom