Syria

The Red Ranger: So we have a country that has used chemical weapons on its citizens and the world fails to take quick and decisive action.  I would have thought that a Nobel peace prize winner like Obama would have been able to quickly pull together a bilateral coalition to extract some payback on Assad.  I guess that he does not really have the confidence of the world leaders like everyone thought he would get when he was elected.

In fact, Obama seems to be totally fumbling US foreign relations.  Other than getting Bin Laden which if you believe some accounts Obama wasn’t too interested in following what has he done.  Our relations with Russia are probably at their lowest level since the pre-Reagan years, the Benghazi attackers have gotten away unscathed and even Britian, our former strongest ally, will not fall in line with us.  Let’s not forget his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the coup that ousted Mubarak in Egypt.  How many Christians have the Brotherhood murdered or how many churches have they destroyed since their ouster in Egypt.

Looking back the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to Obama when they did makes the committee look pretty foolish.  The award shouldn’t have been given based upon hope but on actual results.

 

Nattering Naybob: First, am I to believe that you are still adhering to that Sean Hannity nonsense that Obama “didn’t really want to get Osama bin Laden”? You’re joking, right? From Day 1 in office, Obama informed his National Security team that catching bin Laden would be a priority. Unlike George W. Bush, who replied in a press conference on Marsh 13th, 2012, LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS, and I quote: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority”.

Every President has foreign policy mis-fires, it’s part of the cost of doing business. Stop reading columns by John Bolton.

The Red Ranger: I did not mean to imply that Obama did not want to get Bin Laden, I was just referencing the fact that there were reports that he wasn’t too interested in watching the actually taking down of Bin Laden.

I would classify a mis-fire as something that happens on a rare occasion.  It seems like other than Bin Laden all of Obama’s foreign policy moves have been mis-fires.

Nattering Naybob: Oh. You are only saying that there are “rumors” (source: unknown) that he did not want to actually watch the video of bin Laden being taken down. Frankly, I don’ think it’s important whether he did or not. All I know is that he was there, watching intently. Or, you may have been seeing those internet reports from the usual Right-Wing nuts, that claim Obama’s image was somehow CGI’d or Photoshopped into the official photographs of the “war room” during the raid.

I find it truly, profoundly, pathetic that so many people waste so much time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of this President’s life. Over two years after we successfully captured and killed the perpetrator of the worst carnage ever inflicted on this country’s soil from outside forces, Republicans are still scraping, scratching, clawing, biting, and in some cases, chewing, to find any possible way to criticize Obama’s role in it. Sad.

And still, The Red Ranger always wonders: “What is happening to our country?”

The Red Ranger: Did you find it as profoundly, pathetic that so many people wasted time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of Bush’s life?  Or were you just part of the mindless Democratic horde partaking in this sport?

Nattering Naybob: No, I was not, if you want to know the truth. I thought George W. Bush  was an incompetent Chief Executive who listened too much to people who were giving him terrible advice (read: Dick Cheney). However I actually gave him credit for the way he handled the aftermath of 9/11. His “bullhorn moment” at the top of the debris pile at Ground Zero was a stroke of leadership genius, and one of the iconic moments in the history of the American Presidency. I thought he was unfairly criticized for continuing to listen for a few minutes to the reading of the students whose class he was visiting, before he started to take direct action on the news given to him on that morning.

I think Bush did a good job in imploring the nation to not take individual vengeance for 9/11 on Muslims in their neighborhood, or who they came across during their day. I think it was disgusting that someone threw shoes at him during a press conference in Iraq late in his Presidency because I think that could conceivably have been deemed an assassination attempt, and it was horrible that anyone would laugh at that and praise the show-thrower.

Bush was and is a devoted and faithful husband, father, and son, and I think his wife was an excellent and dignified First Lady. I think that any suggestion that he would have taken part in a “plot” to help facilitate 9/11 is outrageous and utterly contemptible because for all his management deficiencies, I think he is at heart a patriot and loves his country.

These are all positive comments that Republicans and the Right-Wing lunatic fringe, would never in a million years consider bestowing on Obama.

Is it “Jimmy Obama” or “Barack Carter”?

The Red Ranger: The presidencies of Obama and Carter are really becoming strikingly similar. Both have proven to be inept at managing the US economy and now just like Carter, Obama is facing a crisis in the Middle East. Carter’s presidency ended with an economy in recession or at least on its way there and hostages in the Middle East. Obama leads an economy with a persistent 8%+ unemployment rate and US citizens murdered in the Middle East and our embassies under attack in multiple countries.

In contrast to one of your prior posts the attacks in Libya were part of a planned assault not part of some random protest. I watched your favorite, Rachel Maddow, last night for a little bit before I got nauseous and even he admitted to that fact.

Now there are reports that Hillary may have actually gotten some intelligence about these possible attacks but did not act upon the information.  Remember when under Bush we had threat levels and they varied based upon either upcoming events or “chatter” heard in the intelligence community. Those threat levels were too much for the Obama administration to handle so I believe they were done away with. Probably because someone felt they were offending our Muslim friends. These threat levels were routinely raised on the 9/11 anniversary and at least reminded everyone to be extra vigilant.

One of the “changes” hoped for under Obama was improved relations in the Middle East. Obviously, this is an abject failure on his part. Even he admits that Egypt is no longer an ally of the US. This leaves the US with only Israel and Saudi Arabia as stated allies in the Middle East. Nice job by Obama.

Please do not come back with some illogical rant about Romney. An illogical rant about how wonderful Obama’s policies in the Middle East are would be much more enjoyable

Nattering Naybob: I have noticed that Republicans enjoy comparing President Obama to Jimmy Carter. I guess that is understandable since so many observers rightly contrasted the administrations of George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover. I suppose there is no “expiration date” to the comparisons of current Presidents, to past Presidents, such as comparing say Harry Truman to James K. Polk, or perhaps the George H.W. Bush to Chester Arthur. The possibilities are endless.

The Obama-Carter comparison is factually correct only in that the most recent US Ambassador to have been killed took place under Jimmy Carter’s term in 1979. I only hope that no future President has to be compared on a like-for-like basis to our most recent (Republican) President, under whose administration over 2,000 people were killed on US soil due to a report that may have been ignored.

To say that Obama is “soft” on Muslims, or afraid to hurt their feelings, is patently ridiculous. Why would have Obama ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden, if he were worried about the reaction of Muslims? Wouldn’t this act have had the most potential for violent backlash against the U.S. or its Western allies? I don’t know how you or any another Republican can logically think that the almost simultaneous conversion of several Middle Eastern nations from totalitarian rule, to a more democratic model, would be seamless and without bloodshed or unrest of any kind.

I think The Red Ranger’s conduct and his view in this post, are a mirror to the conduct of his Republican candidate, who likewise tried to score political points (and failed miserably) by exploiting an international tragedy without first gathering all the facts.

What are these people thinking?

Nattering Naybob: A recent national poll by Public Policy Polling has revealed the frightening level of ignorance demonstrated by many voters who control who is our next President. The question was “Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?” The results showed that 62 percent of Republicans in Ohio, and 71 percent of Republicans in North Carolina, believe that Romney deserved more credit, or that they were not sure who deserved more credit between Obama and Romney. 

Please note that the other choice than Obama, was not George W. Bush, but Romney. Although I would not agree with the theory that George Bush deserved more credit (especially since he famously once said in a press briefing, “I don’t really worry that much any more about Osama bin Laden”), there at least is a rudimentary rationale for choosing “Bush” over “Obama”, perhaps by virtue of the perceived planning or groundwork supposedly previously laid by the Bush administration. But Mitt Romney had absolutely no connection whatever to any arm of Government, the CIA, or the Defense Department during the time that the raid on bin Laden’s compound was being planned. 

Red Ranger, I know you are a stickler for documentation, so below are the exact results of how Republicans answered:
 
Ohio
Obama: 38%
Romney: 15%
Not sure: 47%
 
North Carolina
Obama: 29%
Romney: 15%
Not sure: 56%

I submit that if a Republican President had taken the same action, and under that President”s overall command, the Navy SEALs had achieved the same success, that Republicans in Congress and on Fox News would be clamoring for an additional head to be carved onto Mount Rushmore. Check out this article from the New York Times  that discusses these poll results

I cannot help but be reminded of the classic segment that Rachel Maddow did during the 2010 Senatorial race between Lisa Murkowksi and Joe Miller (remember him?) when she asked some Miller supporters why they were supporting Miller. The two people she spoke to were absolutely convinced that Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama were out to get their guns, except for one small detail: They could not explain what evidence they based this on. This exchange typifies the brand of mis-information that continues to be propogated by Americans who hate Obama. Your reaction.

The Red Ranger: The level of ignorance is equal on the Democratic side.  Please view this video and go to the last couple of minutes to see where these people get their information from. [Note: Some of the user comments contain adult language, as they, regrettably, frequently do on YouTube]

It is truly unfortunate that the vast majority of voters in this country do not take the time to educate themselves on the issues at hand. It is amazing how little people know about basic facts of this country and how it operates.

Nattering Naybob: Nice try, these “Obama voters” were all obviously actors recruited by Andrew Breitbart before his death, and paid for by Karl Rove’s SuperPAC.

“Convention”-al wisdom (or not)

Nattering Naybob: Some (overdue) reflections on the recently-concluded Republican and Democatic National Conventions…

Admittedly, I saw more of the Democratic Convention as compared to the Republican’s. I did watch some of the Republicans’ shindig, but I quickly tired of their game plan, which consisted basically of four elements: 1) saying that President Obama apologizes for America 2) continuing the ridiculous, out of context “We Built It” attack (accompanied by a nauseating song performed by a prototypical, cowboy-hatted, no doubt pickup-truck-drivin’, country singer right out of Central Casting), 3) legislators and governors (most notably serial bully Chris Christie) who talked more about themselves and their alleged accomplishments, than about the Romney / Ryan plan, 4) an empty chair (to go along with, I assume, the Republicans’ empty rhetoric).

By most accounts, the Democrat’s Convention was much more effective and memorable. I know that this is not the most authoritative indicator of electoral success, but it did my Progressive / Liberal heart good to finally see an unequivocal defense of Obama’s record, and the beginnings of a long-overdue response to the distortions, exaggerations, and “mis-rememberments” (I am trying to be polite, Red Ranger) that have been coming from the Republicans. Just about the only misstep of the entire three days was, in my view, not including the moving address given by John Lewis, the Georgia congressmen who is one of the true heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, in prime-time.

Otherwise, below are some of my favorite lines delivered by Democatic speakers, acknowledging that some were designed as “red meat” for the Democrats in the arena…still, they were funny:
 
John Kerry: “Ask Osama bin Laden whether he is better off than he was four years ago.”
 
Fomer Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm: “[Romney] loves cars so much, they even have their own elevator…[but] in Romney’s world, the cars get the elevator, and the workers get the shaft!”
 
John Kerry, again (why couldn’t he be this funny in 2004?): “It isn’t fair to say Mitt Romney doesn’t have a position on Afghanistan. He has every position. He was against setting a date for withdrawal — then he said it was right — and then he left the impression that maybe it was wrong to leave this soon. He said it was ”tragic” to leave Iraq, and then he said it was fine. … Talk about being for it before you were against it! Mr. Romney — here’s a little advice: Before you debate Barack Obama on foreign policy, you better finish the debate with yourself!”

President Obama (on the Romney /Ryan plan): “…All they have to offer is the same prescription [that Republicans] have had for the last thirty years: ‘Have a surplus? Try a tax cut. Deficit too high? Try another. Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning.’ ”
 
Ted Strickland (former Ohio governor): If Mitt was Santa Claus, he’d fire the reindeer and outsource the elves.”
 
But by far the most memorable moment, for me, had nothing to do with partisanship or electoral politics. It was when Gabrielle Giffords, a year-and-a-half removed from a bullet to the head delivered by yet another mentally unstable, socially mal-adjusted person with too-easy access to a gun, recited the Pledge of Allegiance (assisted by DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz). Democrat, Republican, or Independent, I defy anyone to have watched that and not gotten a lump in his or her throat.

The Red Ranger: I did not watch much of the conventions so I do not have much to say about them, however, I will make a few comments:

It is great that Giffords is recovering from her gunshot wounds.  One thing that bothers me is that the Dems seem to be using this little known (at least before she was shot) representative who barely got re-elected in 2010 and portraying her as the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Her shooting was certainly tragic but let’s not make her out to be more than she actually was.  I wonder if the Dems keep trotting her out trying to keep their ill -informed masses thinking that this is what the Tea Party caused since the first reports about the shooter were trying to link him to the Tea Party.  We all know that radical left-wingers have a short attention span and are allergic to the facts so the only thing they remember about the incident is the first thing they heard about it.  I actually think Giffords called herself a closet Republican or something like that one time.

So it seems your favorite lines were for the most part negative attacks on the Republicans.  It is interesting how there are few references to actual successes of the Obama administration.  I guess when you really don’t have any successes there is nothing you can say about them.

One speaker at the Democratic convention that I really have to question is Sandra Fluke.  Who is she and why does she get to speak at the Democratic convention?  Like typical Dems you really do not need any credentials or accomplishments to get air time with the party. Do the Dems really believe that someone promoting a promiscuous lifestyle supported by others is the face that they want to present to the country?  If you cannot afford to pay for your own contraceptives then do not have sex.  However, I guess she fits in perfectly with the mantra of the Dems of denying personal responsibility and requiring others to pay for the outcomes of your actions and/or bad decisions.

Nattering Naybob: Regarding Sandra Fluke’s credentials, there is something called “Wikipedia” on the internet that gives one basic information on just about any public figure. Below is a summary extracted directly from Wikipedia regarding Sandra Fluke’s credentials and past work in the area of women’s health. if you did not take your cues from the spiritual and intellectual leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, who famously called Fluke a “slut” on multiple occasions on his show, on multiple days, you might have realized on your own that Fluke stands for issues other than “promoting promiscuity”. If you sincerely believe that her credentials below did not justify her providing testimony before Congress on issues of women’s health issues and reproductive rights, and the representation of the traditionally under-served in our society, there is little I can do at this point in your life to convince you otherwise:

 
“Fluke is a native of Saxton, Pennsylvania, and graduated from Pennsylvania’s Tussey Mountain Junior/Senior High School in 1999. She graduated from Cornell University’s Program in Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.She co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. She was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence. She worked in New York City for Sanctuary for Families, which aids victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. She is the 2011 recipient of the Women Lawyers of Los Angeles’ Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant,which supported her production of a video on how to take out a restraining order.She also “represented numerous victims of domestic violence and human trafficking” and also worked to help “child victims of domestic human trafficking” in Kenya.Sandra Fluke graduated cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2012 and served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.While at Georgetown University Law Center, she worked on issues that involved domestic violence and human trafficking.”

 
(All these citations above were fully documented with footnotes, which I have deleted for the sake of clarity here, so please don’t try to claim that Wikipedia is mis-stating or exaggerating her activities or credentials, or is a tool of the main stream media as is your wont).

Had Republicans allowed Fluke’s testimony to be entered into the record as scheduled, instead of barring her from testifying, like the reliable Fascists that they have become, she probably would not have come into public prominence to the extent she has. It was chiefly the justifiable outrage at her being banned from speaking that put here in the spotlight.

With respect to Giffords, I think that all the Democrats were trying to do was to include a member of their own party who was senselessly gunned down while attending a community town hall meeting with her constituents. I do not believe that any Democrats, either individually or as a Party, has ever tried to politicize the issue in any way other than to bring attention to the need to examine the issues of easy it is to acquire guns, regardless of one’s mental capacity or emotional balance. If there was a erroneous report in the moments immediately afterwards, that Gifford was attacked by a Tea Party member, then shame on the reporter, but please don’t extrapolate that out to the entire Democratic party. Much of the Republican Party has been erroneously claiming for years now that the President of our country was not born in the United States, yet I do not see you expressing the same outrage. Finally, if your barometer for someone making a speech at a Convention is how pertinent they are to the overall National discourse, what business did Clint Eastwood have speaking before Romney’s acceptance speech, other than making a complete jackass of himself and detracting from Romney’s presentation?

The Red Ranger: While I know you libs consider Wikipedia akin to the Encyclopedia Britannica it is hard to fully accept something as fact when anyone can post there. 

So you are not disputing her basic premise that any woman should be able to have sex with any one at any time they want and if they cannot afford contraceptives then someone else needs to provide it to them.

You can’t actually be questioning the credentials of Clint Eastwood one of Hollywood’s legendary actors and directors. Perhaps if it was George Clooney speaking at the Democratic convention you could have gotten that tinkly feeling down your leg like you Dems are known to get.