We can always arm chair our leaders and criticize what they say , but I cant help imagining how I would have framed his speech to the EU.

1. Recognition of the EU for there successful growth of industry and advances in technology. Mention actual programs and advances .

2. Highlight our industrial cooperation .... A380 , B787 industrial cooperation , supply chain cooperation , military program cooperation. Automotive industry cooperation , science , space , medical technology advancements . Highlight these as effects of free-market enterprise and the shared commitment too advance the well being of mankind. And most of all how this cooperation is the worlds engine of high tech job creation and economic power.

3. Speak of the cooperative alliance against terror and mutual support of democratic ideals and freedom . Give examples of our bravest and best , fighting on battlefields together.. dieing and bleeding so that other's may join us. Speak of the growth and prosperity of our coalition and the effects that it has throughout the world. How the nations once under oppresive regime are now heading towards peacful stability and market expansion.

4. Bring it home .... talk about our shared love of the arts ... movies ... music and the great works of our entertainers who do so much to help people all over the world. Speak of our great cooperation at our universities. How our universities perform research and how the great collaboration of our educated classes push the frontiers of science , arts and creativity .

I just got more of a feeling like ... "for the first time I am proud of my country" from my President . That somehow he is dilluted into the idea that his administration is all he thinks it is ... and that it is the new dawn of our nations.

Quoting AGM100 (Thread starter): I just got more of a feeling like ... "for the first time I am proud of my country" from my President . That somehow he is dilluted into the idea that his administration is all he thinks it is ... and that it is the new dawn of our nations.

He didn't come across as self-obsessed at all, and both the public and the media echo reflected a very warm, positive and open image he and his wife projected with their appearances over here in all three countries (Britain, France and Germany). People primarily see him as a most welcome representative of a change for the better in almost every respect, and at least at this (early) point he does seem to justify it, too.

Obama did in fact present most of the ideas you've mentioned above, if maybe not exactly in the same words you might have used.

Especially under the difficult circumstances I doubt he could have made an even better impression if he tried. His visit made a huge step forwards in reconnecting Europe and the USA in positive and constructive ways, especially in terms of mutual attitudes.

I know it doesn't come easy to you, but you could just as well try to be a little proud of your President. He (and his wife) really made you guys look good again! And believe me, it's a lot more fun to cheer for and with you than to complain and criticize!   

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): His visit made a huge step forwards in reconnecting Europe and the USA in positive and constructive ways, especially in terms of mutual attitudes.

Sure, it's easy for Europeans to agree with a person who bascally blames the United States for everything over the past 8 years and yet doesn't mention any faults he finds in European actions. There are so many positive things he could have said but unfortunately passed on Nice to know we have a President who is willing to go USA bashing on foreign soil.   

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): President. He (and his wife) really made you guys look good again!

No personalities are required to make us look good. And that is all they really offer at this point ... Some of us do not subscribe to the cult of personality ... we prefer reality.

Our nations have been forces for good in this world ... period. We don't need slick acceptable personalities to ingratiate us to anyone, the deeds of our nations speak louder than this.

As a citizen of the US , I am glad that you like our President and first lady. I understand that it may also be simply a veiled final insult to our past administration. That is more likely the intention of all of this blushing and pandering.

Quoting DXing (Reply 2): Sure, it's easy for Europeans to agree with a person who bascally blames the United States for everything over the past 8 years and yet doesn't mention any faults he finds in European actions. There are so many positive things he could have said but unfortunately passed on Nice to know we have a President who is willing to go USA bashing on foreign soil.

You must have been watching a different event, apparently.

Obama didn't sugarcoat problematic areas, he just managed to speak about those without becoming offensive (and ineffective).

If you think that listening to others and admission of your own (obvious!) problems was a sign of weakness you're quite mistaken. Done right it can be a very effective base to promote one's own interests by motivating others to cooperate in good faith. And especially considering that this was Obama's first major summit it was done exceptionally well — not ceding ground where it would have hurt, but building bridges where bridges will be sorely needed in the years to come.

He was clearly gathering public support on this side of the Atlantic to make it easier for our governments to lend support to the US which could be much harder and more expensive to come by in a climate of suspicion and resentment as we've had it for years by now.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): No personalities are required to make us look good.

Thank god you're not vain in the least! That would really put a blotch on your otherwise totally and completely spotless reputation!   

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): And that is all they really offer at this point ... Some of us do not subscribe to the cult of personality ... we prefer reality.

The closing of the horrendous Guantanamo gulag and the abrogation of torture by the Obama administration are very much and extremely important reality!

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): Our nations have been forces for good in this world ... period.

"Period" would suggest that there was absolutely nothing objectionable in the respective histories. And that is unfortunately not the case, as much positive as there is.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): We don't need slick acceptable personalities to ingratiate us to anyone, the deeds of our nations speak louder than this.

I don't know about "slick", but you do indeed need "acceptable" personalities to recover from the nightmarish perception the previous administration has earned you through the years.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): As a citizen of the US , I am glad that you like our President and first lady. I understand that it may also be simply a veiled final insult to our past administration.

As you should really know by now, I most certainly wouldn't need to "veil" any well-deserved insults to the former administration. Good riddance!   

But I also recognize and acknowledge the positive where I have the chance. And even though you have not voted for him, President Obama does indeed make you look good again to the world. And whether you like it or not, you will still share the benefits of the improving american image in the world. I fear you'll have to suffer through this, as hard as it is!   

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): That is more likely the intention of all of this blushing and pandering.

Or maybe you just can't bring yourself to acknowledging anything positive outside of your own slice of the political spectrum.

What a pity!

Quoting AGM100 (Thread starter): , B787 industrial cooperation , supply chain cooperation ,

"787" and "supply chain" is an oxymoron  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): He was clearly gathering public support on this side of the Atlantic to make it easier for our governments to lend support to the US

I have a problem with a President that says we are now operating under a differnt set of rules and then continues to bash the former President. Eisenhower didn't do it to Truman, Kennedy didn't do it to Eisenhower, Nixon didn't do it to Johnson, Carter didn't do it to Ford, Reagan didn't do it to Carter, Clinton did do it to Bush41, Bush 43 didn't do it to Clinton, but now Obama feels the need to bash Bush both above and below the board. Either take responsibilty and say, what happened before is over and this is now or don't, but don't expect to have it both ways. Seems like whenever he wants to rev up the crowd he reverts to campaign mode no matter what the cost to the entire nation.

Look at what he said on Pakistan. He completely let Europe and NATO off the hook if he decides to go into Pakistan after AQ and not one European country said, whoa, let us help! Now that is support we can count on right?   

Quoting DXing (Reply 7): European country said, whoa, let us help!

Here is one:

""We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan," Sarkozy told a joint news conference. France will contribute to the new U.S. approach with development assistance and more training for police, Sarkozy said."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...FXCuDhHGhjd0MDv_TA2TOcdPAD97B2QPG0

Quoting DXing (Reply 2): Sure, it's easy for Europeans to agree with a person who bascally blames the United States for everything over the past 8 years and yet doesn't mention any faults he finds in European actions.

Is there an alternative Obama speech being aired on the right wing circuit? He specifically called out certain arms of European anti-Americanism as unfounded and, direct quote, "insidious". Again partisanship knows know limits when it comes to omitting inconvenient facts!

And did not Mr. Sarkozy mention in his joint conference with Obama yesterday that he'd like to remind French citizens of the American blood spilled in France, just in case anyone is skeptical of providing additional help in Afghanistan? Again, just an oversight or a casual omission?   

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9): Is there an alternative Obama speech being aired on the right wing circuit?

Apparently. It must be the same circuit that's been missing the aggressive attacks of ex vice president Cheney on Obama having "made the USA less safe" with his decisions, despite his obvious lack of access to current intelligence information.

Talk about classless!

Quoting DXing (Reply 7): I have a problem with a President that says we are now operating under a differnt set of rules and then continues to bash the former President.

If he's doing that so frequently, how about you providing four or five literal quotes of Obama allegedly "bashing" the Bush administration unfairly?

It's your own challenge, now step up!

Quoting DXing (Reply 2): Sure, it's easy for Europeans to agree with a person who bascally blames the United States for everything over the past 8 years and yet doesn't mention any faults he finds in European actions.

You must not have seen this passage:

"So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years, we've allowed our alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship.

In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad. [emphasis mine]

On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.

So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems.

So let me say this as clearly as I can: America is changing, but it cannot be America alone that changes. We are confronting the greatest economic crisis since World War II. The only way to confront this unprecedented crisis is through unprecedented coordination."

So yes, he did call Europe out on their going over the top with anti-Americanism. And rightly so.

-Mir

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9): Is there an alternative Obama speech being aired on the right wing circuit?

As Klaus got in first, there must be. This thread is hilarious. One of the funniest yet.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9): And did not Mr. Sarkozy mention in his joint conference with Obama yesterday that he'd like to remind French citizens of the American blood spilled in France, just in case anyone is skeptical of providing additional help in Afghanistan? Again, just an oversight or a casual omission?

Now there IS a serious topic, what charmed Sarko down off his tree? A couple of days ago he was threatening to to attend.

On the subject of which, why did the Canadian PM go AWOL and then Berlusconi likewise from the photograph?. But Sarko was there.

There seems to be a contrast (so far) between the London conference of the 30s and this one. Wonder if that means that Obama rates ahead of FDR already.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11): So yes, he did call Europe out on their going over the top with anti-Americanism. And rightly so.

Funny, this was the speech that was reported here too. Perhaps bits were edited out in some places????

To the critics, you missed out on Michelle "handling" Her M.

Can we agree that perhaps it was in poor taste to give the Queen the equivalent of a mix tape, though?  

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 13): Can we agree that perhaps it was in poor taste to give the Queen the equivalent of a mix tape, though

The question is what can you give a Queen who have everything? The Ipod was a great idea.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 13): Can we agree that perhaps it was in poor taste to give the Queen the equivalent of a mix tape, though?

Can we also agree that nobody in charge gives a damn about the "gifts" they get just because protocol requires them?  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): He (and his wife) really made you guys look good again! And believe me, it's a lot more fun to cheer for and with you than to complain and criticize!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5): President Obama does indeed make you look good again to the world. And whether you like it or not, you will still share the benefits of the improving american image in the world.

Honestly, I don't expect anything to change in terms of European criticism of Americans. (Note I said "Americans" vs. "America".) I fully expect that Obama will continue to be viewed favorably, but I'm afraid the disdain for the "ugly American" will persist.

While our nation has no shortage of small minded jerks (AS DOES EVERY COUNTRY), the broad brush that I have seen painted on these forums by EU members seems to be rooted in something deeper than who is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Or am I just overly sensitive?

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 16): While our nation has no shortage of small minded jerks (AS DOES EVERY COUNTRY), the broad brush that I have seen painted on these forums by EU members seems to be rooted in something deeper than who is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or am I just overly sensitive?

I'm not sure. I had a mixed welcome to Brussels recently. As long as you spoke french, they were very friendly, but once you broke that and spoke english, they seemed to get annoyed with you. The problem I noticed is really more with politics, not the people from my trips there, as long as you don't act like the stereotype, you aren't treated like one.

That being said, we also have perceptions of the "euro-trash" here in the US, but in all honesty, I think the welcome to the US is a little more warm from some people than from others.

But, each side has their assholes I suppose. It comes with the region, education, background, and a multitude of different things.

I think the association of Americans with Bush has been damaging and talk to anyone in Europe, and they all seem to really detest the man. It makes them get VERY hot under the collar once his name is mentioned....which I really tried not to do, but I think in Europe there is a HUGE appreciation still that we elected Obama, and many people In encountered varified this to me.

Though, I also think it has to do with Europeans following American politics vs. Americans following European. We still think of Europe as separate countries, and indeed it is, but they are continually progressing toward acting together, so Americans tend to ignore those politics, and honestly, they aren't really headlines here in the US. I guess blame it on the media, but we don't get the same news about the Europeans that the Europeans do about the US. Therefore, they have more to base and form their criticisms on than we can on them, just to lack of information.

UAL

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 16): Or am I just overly sensitive?

Perhaps so.

When I first moved overseas I was very sensitive to what seemed like built-in criticism of Americans here that came in various shapes and forms I didn't expect. What you learn after some time is that real experiences have shaped those opinions, akin to living with a person for a long time and uncovering their many annoying small faults and habits.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 16): Honestly, I don't expect anything to change in terms of European criticism of Americans. (Note I said "Americans" vs. "America".) I fully expect that Obama will continue to be viewed favorably, but I'm afraid the disdain for the "ugly American" will persist.

There are some people who actually don't like the USA for a variety of reasons.

There are some people (probably a larger number) who like the USA as such, also for a variety of reasons.

And, of course, there are many people who are indifferent or neutral to the USA as a country.

The veritable firestorm of criticism and resentment during the past eight years, however, was a separate phenomenon. It consisted of a much broader coalition of people who reacted to the way the Bush administration has treated the rest of the world. And these people mostly separated their attitude towards the USA as a country from the resentment they had towards the Bush administration.

I am one of these people.

Many Bush supporters in the US always refused to believe that there was a separation between attitudes towards Bush and towards the USA, as much as people abroad attempted to explain it.

And right now we see the effect of the anti-Bush resentment dissolving and only the much smaller number of actual US-phobes remaining. This would not be happening if people had viewed Bush and the USA as an indivisible unit, but it obviously happens as we speak.

The only conclusion can be that it was in fact Bush and his administration who stirred up the massive wave of resentment around the planet and not some accidental anti-americanism.

Obama approaches the world in a completely different way — and the world responds in kind.

Yes, it does matter!

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 16): While our nation has no shortage of small minded jerks (AS DOES EVERY COUNTRY), the broad brush that I have seen painted on these forums by EU members seems to be rooted in something deeper than who is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or am I just overly sensitive?

No, you are just wrong about this aspect, as you can easily observe. President Obama makes a huge difference for the rest of the world, and he hasn't come into office a minute too soon.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9): Is there an alternative Obama speech being aired on the right wing circuit?

Nope, but then only the pandering parts are being played on the major media.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10): If he's doing that so frequently, how about you providing four or five literal quotes of Obama allegedly "bashing" the Bush administration unfairly? It's your own challenge, now step up!

Sure, although "unfairly" is quantative depending on the particular persons viewpoint. The first two are direct assaults on President Bush's administration as a whole.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...obama-in-strasbourg-town-hall.html


"We are ushering a new era of responsibility, and that is something we should all be proud of."

"We just emerged from an era marked by irresponsibility, and it would be easy to choose the path of selfishness or apathy,"

The second two are the usual assualts on the war on terror.


"But after the initial NATO engagement in Afghanistan, we got sidetracked by Iraq,


One last point I will make. In dealing with terrorism, we can't lose sight of our values and who we are. That's why I closed Guantanamo. That's why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices."

Engage in certain interrogation practices? Now that is a bald face lie since his own team did not rule out anything if the government felt it was necessary. Just that it would be reviewed prior to implementation. Now on to some other parts of the speech.

"So it can't just be a military strategy and we will be in partnership with Europe on the development side and on the diplomatic side. But there will be a military component to it, and Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone. We should not because this is a joint problem and it requires joint effort. "

Sounds all well and good, shame the Europeans told him to shove it when it came to more combat troops. As usual the United States will shoulder the bulk of the fighting and the bulk of the cost.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...009apr05,0,2215744.story?track=rss

BTW, hey Falcon:

"It is a revolutionary world that we live in, and thus, it is young people who must take the lead."

"It is a revolutionary world that we live in, and history shows us that we can do improbable, sometimes impossible things."

Should we just charge him with treason now?   

Finally,

"The second way that we can turn challenge into opportunity is through our persistence in the face of difficulty. In an age of instant gratification, it's tempting to believe that every problem can and should be solved in the span of a week. When these problems aren't solved, we conclude that our efforts to solve them must have been in vain.

But that's not how progress is made. Progress is slow. It comes in fits and starts, because we try and we fail and then we try something else. And when there are setbacks and disappointments we keep going. We hold firm to our core values, and we hold firm to our faith in one another."

Shame he and some other democrats couldn't have applied the same philosophy to battle in Iraq. Instead the surge was a mistake, we were defeated, and that all the combat troops should have come home immediately 3 years ago. I guess bad mouthing the U.S. overseas becomes a way to get some instant gratification since this is his second time around at it.

Now Klaus, turn about is only fair play so here is a challange for you.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11): In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.

What leading role?   

Also, can anyone name a President that has gone overseas and bad mouthed not only the previous administration or the country as a whole?

Quoting DXing (Reply 20): Sure, although "unfairly" is quantative depending on the particular persons viewpoint.

Which is no different with your criticisms of Obama's comments on Gitmo and Iraq. What you call pandering is actually re-stating things that are accepted as facts by the VAST majority of the world. It would only be pandering if the truth were somehow warped in a way that the speaker doesn't actually believe to be true for the benefit of the audience. Success of the surge or not, Iraq was a stupid misdirection, and most, including our allies, see it that way. Tough kitties.

If you want to go after Team Obama for pandering, try their Israeli policy on for size. After the events of the last several months, there are legitimate questions being posed before the UN on discriminatory practices by Jerusalem, but his UN envoy, Susan Rice, is out there saying we're back to the UN rights council to fight "all that anti-Israel crap". Is that what she really believes?? This is the same Susan Rice who was once John Kerry's policy advisor and suggested appointing longtime Israel foes James Baker and Jimmy Carter as special envoys to force Jerusalem's hand. What gives??

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 21): What you call pandering is actually re-stating things that are accepted as facts by the VAST majority of the world.

When they can vote for the President of the United States then their concerns will be valid ones. I may not agree with several European leaders views on things but those countries have the absolute right to choose who they wish to represent them.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 21): It would only be pandering if the truth were somehow warped in a way that the speaker doesn't actually believe to be true for the benefit of the audience.

So tell me, where are the Gitmo detainees going after Gitmo closes? Will their confinement situation change appreciably? If not, if it is not called Gitmo does it make a difference?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 21): Success of the surge or not, Iraq was a stupid misdirection, and most, including our allies, see it that way. Tough kitties.

Then perhaps you can explain what no one else has been able to. Short of invading Pakistan, exactly what would all those extra boots on the ground in Afghanistan have accomplished other than to make it really look as if we were occupying the country to the residents there?

Partisan?

"So I've made a commitment to Afghanistan, and I've asked our NATO partners for more civilian and military support and assistance. We do this with a clear purpose: to root out the terrorists who threaten all of us, to train the Afghan people to sustain their own security and to help them advance their own opportunity, and to quicken the day when our troops come home.

We have no interest in occupying Afghanistan. "

So what is the difference between the Bush policy and the Obama policy? Because the way it is presented now when Bush wanted to do it it was bad, now that Obama wants to do it it's good.


What he totally missed saying, this time and last, is that the United States is a special nation. There are things that only we can do since we are the worlds pre-eminent superpower. As such people are going to throw rocks and your have to get used to that fact or cede you position. To blindly throw out the charges that we have been irresponsible or that we won't defend our security concerns with or without them is just pandering. To say that you're going to close Gitmo, when you know full well you're just shuffling the prisoners to a different location, to say you won't use certain interrogation techniques, when you know full well you have an executive order on the table that say "unless it is reviewed and deemed proper" then you are pandering to your audience plain and simple.

Obama's visit to Europe has been 100% success. Previous US Presidents could only dream of the support and affection that was afforded to him and his wife.

He has left a feel good factor not seen in decades from a US President. He is being called the New JFK !!

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): No personalities are required to make us look good. And that is all they really offer at this point ... Some of us do not subscribe to the cult of personality ... we prefer reality.

Is "reality" to you a president who shoot from the hip? One who favors the rich over everyone else? One who started a war based on trumped up evidence? One that spent 7 years trying to scaring the American people into supporting him? One that hid everything about what he was doing behind an Iron wall of paranoia and secrecy?

That's the "reality" of what when on the last 8 years, AGM. If it's what you call "the good old days", then you can have them. I'll take this president, every single day over that.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): I understand that it may also be simply a veiled final insult to our past administration.

ROTFL. The past administration doesn't need "veiled" insults, and the world won't veil it's loathing of the past 8 years under Mr. Bush. Neither will most Americans, who aren't blinded by ideological purity.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 16): Honestly, I don't expect anything to change in terms of European criticism of Americans. (Note I said "Americans" vs. "America".) I fully expect that Obama will continue to be viewed favorably, but I'm afraid the disdain for the "ugly American" will persist.

As personofied by the right-wing crybaby act we've been witnessed to since Obama was elected? As they should. Many Americans share that same disdain, 767Lover.

Quoting DXing (Reply 22): What he totally missed saying, this time and last, is that the United States is a special nation.

Isn't this sort of talk good for election-time "domestic consumption" only?
Almost every nation has this sort of mythology which is part of national identity and self-peception, but rarely gets it dragged onto international stage as it is just that... a mythology.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 25): Almost every nation has this sort of mythology which is part of national identity and self-peception, but rarely gets it dragged onto international stage as it is just that... a mythology.

Unfortunately, some Americans feel they are more special than everyone on the planet-which is why they see nothing wrong with ordering the rest of the world around, and don't mind when we have arrogant, self-centered leaders, like Mr. Bush was. They still believe in the "manifest destiny" of the U.S., and that we simply have a right to everything in the world, and to hell with others.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26): They still believe in the "manifest destiny" of the U.S.

Well there must be some hope as the MD syndrome is at least getting some criticism.

If Obama wished to see his stocks fall, he should follow the DX strategy esp in Germany where it might see him arrested as a neo you know what. No, just for now Obama seems to be doin fine.

The chosen people line does not go over well in International relations.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 23): He has left a feel good factor not seen in decades from a US President.

Ooohh boy, more style of substance, just what we need!

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26): Unfortunately, some Americans feel they are more special than everyone on the planet

It's not that Americans feel more of anything. Name another country that can project power the way the United States can. Which other country on the face of the planet has landed men on the moon and brought them back again as you so fondly like to point out? Which country came to Europes defense not once but twice last century when freedom was under attack and then rebuilt entire countries? Which country is engaged in Afghanistan, supplying the lions share of the troops, and when we ask for a little more help get the cold shoulder? Heck, he should be out there today saying if you can't come help then get the f--k out and we'll deal with the situation ourselves.

Quoting DXing (Reply 22): So what is the difference between the Bush policy and the Obama policy? Because the way it is presented now when Bush wanted to do it it was bad, now that Obama wants to do it it's good.

The Obama policy establishes winning over the people to get them to turn on the terrorists in their midst as the goal from the outset rather than loftier ambitions that are without merit. Karzai, despite being corrupt and ineffective, will not be removed. Critical infrastructure, drinking water, educational and other improvements are essential elements of the plan, as advised by the DoD. (Incidentally, those type of things were already in existence under the Baath party in Iraq until we created the need to rebuild it all.) Bush's policies involved nary a citizen component except for limited military outreach and civilian officials gleefully ran roughshod against the military's advice thanks to Rummy's boneheaded gameplay. From all appearances, Obama is running this thing the way the experts on the ground think it should be.

We're essentially to finish what was left hanging the first time we put our hands in the Afghan pie 25 years ago - except that all these non-military tasks critical to flushing the Taliban out could have begun in much more meaningful ways and with far more support than we have now a full EIGHT years ago, but it's wrong to complain about that now, right?  

Quoting DXing (Reply 28): It's not that Americans feel more of anything. Name another country that can project power the way the United States can.

Therein lies the rub. Not all of us think power is something to be projected so much as held and dispensed only as necessary. The manner in which American power has evolved in the post-WWII era has epitomized the snowball effect in terms of everything from realpolitik to cultural imperialism, for better or worse.

Bottom line it that nothing in my starter post was untrue . The US , EU and western Allies are in fact allies not only on the battlefield .

We are joined in cooperation at many levels , most of them we never even here about. And this cooperation has led to the betterment of the lives of our people.

Is it perfect like some on here fantasize about ...no .. but I am sure glad that I was born as a citizen who can live under the western social economic system.

What I meant by " No personalities are needed to make us look good " was. If as a citizen living under the western system you need someone to tell you that you have it good... it is a problem. Too many of our citizens do not understand how good we have it. They constantly complain ,agitate and bring up past perceived injustices meanwhile the many opportunities we have go right by them.

I like some of the things the President said while on his trip. But as a business man who works extensively with our partners in the EU and western world ... I just wanted to here a recognition of it.

"" PS I really love the Presidents comments about NK missle launch .... especialy " UN Resolutions matter !, Words matter !" He was spot on .

Quoting DXing (Reply 20): What leading role?

Their leading role in renewable energy and energy conservation, their leading role in establishing international cooperation and reaping the benefits thereof, etc. There are plenty of instances where the US could take a page from Europe's playbook (and vice versa).

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): Not all of us think power is something to be projected so much as held and dispensed only as necessary.

   The sooner the US gets off of the idea that we can, and should, use our strength to make everything go our way, the better off we will be. For some peculiar reason, people in other countries don't like being pushed around.  

-Mir

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): The Obama policy establishes winning over the people to get them to turn on the terrorists in their midst as the goal from the outset rather than loftier ambitions that are without merit.

By sending in another 17K troops? If the people of Iraq thought they were being occupied, what do you think the people of Afghanistan will think? And we already know how they react to foreigners in uniform running around their country with guns. Of course winning the civilian population over was always part of the Bush polices but why bother to bring that up.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): Critical infrastructure, drinking water, educational and other improvements are essential elements of the plan, as advised by the DoD.

We have been sending billions of dollars in aid there every year since 2002. Comparing Afghanistan to Iraq in infrastructure is a complete case of apples and oranges. Even before the Soviets invaded in Afghanistan it was one of the most poorest and backward in terms of infrastructure countries in the world.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): From all appearances, Obama is running this thing the way the experts on the ground think it should be.

And from the direction the Bush administration was moving too. Wars are nothing if not fluid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/wa...d&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg


BTW, President Bush consistently said that he would follow the advice of his commanders on the ground and ordered comprehensive reviews of policy in Afghanistan. The situation was turned into a NATO project in 2006. Perhaps President Obama should have said that if you want this conflict over sooner you need to put more "skin" in the game. Instead he settled for temporary troops and trainers,

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): We're essentially to finish what was left hanging the first time we put our hands in the Afghan pie 25 years ago -

On this we agree. We dropped the ball from 1989 on.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): but it's wrong to complain about that now, right?

When you can answer how more boots on the ground roots out the Taliban and AQ on the Pakistan side of the border without cross border raids or an outright invasion of Pakistan then you can complain we should have done it long ago. BTW, if you are going to complain, why not complain about this? Had to use the Huffington Post here which galls me to no end but it gets the point across the most efficiently:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...s-refusal-to-reverse_n_168952.html

"Less than a month after signing an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, President Barack Obama has quietly agreed to keep denying the right to trial to hundreds more terror suspects held at a makeshift camp in Afghanistan that human rights lawyers have dubbed "Obama's Guantanamo".

In a single-sentence answer filed with a Washington court, the administration dashed hopes that it would immediately rip up Bush-era policies that have kept more than 600 prisoners in legal limbo and in rudimentary conditions at the Bagram air base, north of Kabul."

So I guess we can, for now, consider the argument that President Bush was wrong to detain terror suspects overseas without benefit of legal consul, closed!  

And what about those complainers that go so much press and everyone looked to as authorities without question, some right here on this forum? Where are their voices now?

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45325

President Barack Obama’s war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are criminal and worse than those of former President Bush, according to Adam Kokesh, who serves on the board of directors of the anti-war group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW).

So maybe the President should have said, "Hey, I know I ran on how irresponsible the Bush administration was in many respects, but now that I'm in charge, well, heck, gosh, some of those policies actually seem to make sense now!"

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): Therein lies the rub. Not all of us think power is something to be projected so much as held and dispensed only as necessary.

You either show those that would do you harm that you are ready for them or you accept their domination. That is how the world works like it or not. As much as anyone would like to think that everyone has everyone elses best interests at heart, only the naive truly believe it to be so. So, if the United States is not going to be the one to project military power to disuade those that would run roughshod over the world, who is? What country do you wish to cede military, and economic authority too? There will always be one country that is out in front, whom do you choose to replace the USA?

Perhaps the President should have said, "We have reached the end of being the military leader of the free world. As of today I have ordered all our carrier groups and nuclear subs of all types back to port. I have ordered the immediate withdrawl of all troops and equipment in foreign lands back to the United States. We will look to the EU to take the lead in projecting military power to keep those that would take advantage of this situation from doing so. We will protect our borders and nothing more." I bet that would have gotten a less than favorable reaction from European leaders. I wonder what their reacton to the very spectre of having to increase their defense budgets many times over would have been?

Quoting Mir (Reply 31): Their leading role in renewable energy and energy conservation

Or how about Frances use of nuclear power? Right now less than 20% of Europes power comes from renewables, is that leading by example?

http://www.euro-correspondent.com/cl...alysis/smart-grids:-totally-wired/

Political targets are key, such as the EU's aim, declared in March 2007, for 20 percent of energy demand to be met from renewable supplies by 2020. For this to happen, the period between 2010 and 2020 will need to see substantial structural change, says Teske.

I will give them credit in one respect. Seems that unlike here in the United States where we are in the midst of a government takeover of private industry on an unprecedented scale outside of total war, the EU has figured out a primary component to innovation even if France and Germany are resisting as would be expected.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/EU_map..._energy_priorities_l_01102007.html

"Without effective separate of networks energy production from
energy transport and distribution we will not achieve the competition
required," warned Barroso, adding that he favoured "unequivocal
ownership unbundling" of energy suppliers and operators.

If adopted by EU governments, the commission's proposals will
force energy companies to sell off gas pipelines and electricity
grids to independent operators.

Several EU governments, however, including France and Germany, are
expected to insist on a softer option under which such infrastructure
operations are only put under separate management, not sold off
completely.

Perhaps the President should have said, "We will learn from you on how the private markets can do far more than giant government owned entities."

Quoting Mir (Reply 31): their leading role in establishing international cooperation and reaping the benefits thereof, etc.

You mean like oil for food and the other under the table deals they have made with supposedly "embargoed" countries? You mean like actually supplying Saddam Hussien with a nuclear reactor? Do those benefits include terrorist attacks?

Perhaps the President should have said "Even though you have stabbed us in the back, and bitten the hand that fed your security needs for decades, we will still work with you, but will keep a closer on on what your right and left hand are doing at the same time."

Quoting DXing (Reply 28): Ooohh boy, more style of substance, just what we need!

How many times have we heard about detainees being treated well then turning around and telling their captors exactly what they wanted/needed to hear as opposed to being tortured until they will say anything to make it stop? Could it be that Obama (and by extention, those under him) know and understand this so they turn around and are nice and cordial with people knowing one can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Think about it. When someone is nice, others tend to let down their guard and be more open and hospitible. As opposed to eight years of "Do it my way or else."

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 33): When someone is nice, others tend to let down their guard and be more open and hospitible.

Sooo...how many more combat troops did the EU nations committ to Afghanistan? As I said....

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): President Obama should have said that if you want this conflict over sooner you need to put more "skin" in the game. Instead he settled for temporary troops and trainers

BTW, they don't seem to be to hospitible to his call for Turkey to be allowed to join the EU if you go by the comments in another thread. Perhaps the President should just have said nothing about that.

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): Right now less than 20% of Europes power comes from renewables, is that leading by example?

Considering that the US percentage is 2.5, I would say so.

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): You mean like oil for food and the other under the table deals they have made with supposedly "embargoed" countries? You mean like actually supplying Saddam Hussien with a nuclear reactor? Do those benefits include terrorist attacks?

Get into a dirty laundry contest if you wish, but remember that the US has no shortage of that.

-Mir

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): Right now less than 20% of Europes power comes from renewables, is that leading by example?

20% is a good theoretical limit. If you go over you start hitting all kinds of technical problems.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35): Considering that the US percentage is 2.5, I would say so

I would say its about 1%

Quoting Mir (Reply 35): Considering that the US percentage is 2.5, I would say so.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 36): 20% is a good theoretical limit.

But that is just the thing, it's not 20% today nor even close to that. 20% is the target and some nations won't even make that.

http://www.teriin.org/opet/articles/art11.htm

In some countries it will be achieved thru guess what, taxation! Now is that leading by example? If it is it's an example I can live without.

I guess the President should have said, "When we can engineer systems that make renewable energy as cost efficient as oil and nuclear, we will then mandate their use."

Quoting Mir (Reply 35): Get into a dirty laundry contest if you wish, but remember that the US has no shortage of that.

Just keeping the field of vision clear.

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): BTW, President Bush consistently said that he would follow the advice of his commanders on the ground and ordered comprehensive reviews of policy in Afghanistan.

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): Of course winning the civilian population over was always part of the Bush polices but why bother to bring that up.

Except that so long as Rumsfeld was running the show, input from commanders on the ground had to run through his filter of arrogance first. I think President Bush did want to win over the Afghan population, he just didn't have the right people on hand to get it done until the damage was already done. He spent nearly his entire war-era tenure fighting the State Dept over jurisdiction on reconstruction in both Iraq and Afghanistan and in the end, was too arrogant to listen to obviously vital data on core reasons Taliban support wasn't waning.

One major reason for the dismal nation-building in Afghanistan was the international failure to curb cultivation of opium. Riding on Washington's theory that the "war on terror" "had nothing to do with counter-narcotics", the CIA befriended mafia dons. The drug epidemic fueled government criminality and inter-clan feuds that opened the door to the Taliban as adjudicators. This tectonic shift happened while Rumsfeld was smugly arguing that eradicating opium was "an unimportant social issue unconnected to fighting terrorism"

Rumsfeld's other critical mistake was to pull out US troops from southern Afghanistan in 2005-2006, just as the largest Taliban assault was about to be unleashed. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's)slow deployments, riddled with caveats, boosted the Taliban's morale...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JH09Df01.html

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): We have been sending billions of dollars in aid there every year since 2002.

See above.

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): So I guess we can, for now, consider the argument that President Bush was wrong to detain terror suspects overseas without benefit of legal consul, closed!

You can search, but you won't find a single quote of me saying that to be the case. I'm in total agreement with detaining terror suspects - just not in the manner that eventually unfolded. The military had it right before all the civilian neocon "leaders" stepped in with their power-grab nonsense.

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): You either show those that would do you harm that you are ready for them or you accept their domination. That is how the world works like it or not. As much as anyone would like to think that everyone has everyone elses best interests at heart, only the naive truly believe it to be so. So, if the United States is not going to be the one to project military power to disuade those that would run roughshod over the world, who is? What country do you wish to cede military, and economic authority too? There will always be one country that is out in front, whom do you choose to replace the USA?

That entire statement is only half-true and everything in it works both ways. Strategically, culturally, and historically, we have virtually nothing in common with the Chinese yet we have been able to foster a relationship over the last 35 years that has gradually evolved through careful listening and planning into a mutually beneficial one. We both want to make money and have the resources and structures necessary to drive growth for one another - there has been little or no military power projection to achieve this end. Nixon didn't go over there and say "look Mao and Deng, you boys are going to play ball with us or we're going to show you what the dirt smells like". All situations and actors call for different kinds of responses, measured by what the achievable outcomes are - that is how realpolitik works. The working assumption in international relations dialog is not "everyone's best interests" and never has been.

With respect to the issue of terror, as that seems to be your main talking point in that paragraph, there is no evidence (other than eight years of dead terrorists, with admittedly should make anyone feel good) that projecting military power as a be-all approach is any kind of solution. If anything, the extent it has already been done to has complicated the issue to larger levels than were previously present.

" I know there has been some difficulties in the past " - President Obama "apologizing to the Islamic world" I understand what he is trying to do ... but it only feeds the flames with this type of rhetoric.

So is 911 ,the London , Spain bombings included in this "difficulties " category.. Or is it just difficulties on our side ?


That Said ... I give the President much credit for his visit to Baghdad ... The troops need to know he is on their side.! Good stuff , and his speech to the troops which I just heard parts of sounded great . Props to President Obama ,

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 38): Except that so long as Rumsfeld was running the show, input from commanders on the ground had to run through his filter of arrogance first.

Agreed yet again, and again, and yet again, can you, or anyone, tell me how putting more boots on the ground in Afghanistan defeats an enemy that, since the beginning of the war, has had a safe haven to retire to where they can reconstitute and plan from? It makes no difference what "filter" Rumsfield was putting on any information from the commanders on the ground so long as that situation exists. That is and has been, and should continue to be seen, as the major factor in contributing to the inability to stamp out either the Taliban or AQ.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 38): was too arrogant to listen to obviously vital data on core reasons Taliban support wasn't waning.

Support for Taliban is not waning because of two key reasons. Afghans in general don't like foreigners occupying their country and the fact tht the Taliban is like the Mafia, they will use friendship when appropriate, terror if necessary, to get the support they require.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 38): Rumsfeld's other critical mistake was to pull out US troops from southern Afghanistan in 2005-2006, just as the largest Taliban assault was about to be unleashed.

Please, I say again, war is fluid. Trenton NJ 1777, South Mountain 1862, the Ardennes forest 1944, the Yalu river 1950, South Vietnam 1968 are just a few examples of wars fluidity and how Rumsfield is not the first nor will he ever be the last to make a strategic move at the exact wrong moment.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 38): See above.

Has nothing to do with sending billions of dollars in an effort to build infrastructure.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 38): You can search,

And you won't find a single sentence where I was singling you out.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 38): yet we have been able to foster a relationship over the last 35 years that has gradually evolved through careful listening and planning into a mutually beneficial one.

Do you really believe that? One thing the Chinese are the world experts at is taking the long view. They don't think in terms of administrations, or even generations. Their thinking is toward centuries. I was very impressed in my visit to China when I saw all the things they had invented for themselves, that the western world had yet to think of. But in the modern world all one has to do is bring up Taiwan, the South China Sea or the simple build up of the Chinese blue water navy. If you think they operate based on an idea of mutal benefit for anyone other than themselves, well, fool you once shame on you.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20): Quoting Klaus (Reply 10): If he's doing that so frequently, how about you providing four or five literal quotes of Obama allegedly "bashing" the Bush administration unfairly? It's your own challenge, now step up! Sure, although "unfairly" is quantative depending on the particular persons viewpoint. The first two are direct assaults on President Bush's administration as a whole.

Are you kidding? These are extremely mild declarations of a change in policy without any attack on the previous administration, let alone an "unfair" one.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20): Now Klaus, turn about is only fair play so here is a challange for you. Quoting Mir (Reply 11): In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. What leading role?

There are numerous fields in which Europe has taken on a leading role as has been explained to you above. The EU has already surpassed the USA in total economic strength and is the leading force in various political and technological areas. Acknowledging that in no way diminishes the accomplishments on the american side — quite the opposite, in fact!

What the chauvinists never understand is this: The more you're beating your own chest over your real or imaginary accomplishments, the more you're making it impossible for others to compliment you in any way.

Obama found a good balance between gracious acknowledgment of other nations' views and capabilities and the self-assured but still not arrogant proposition of american ideals and ideas.

Which has always been the most effective basis for getting anywhere in international relations.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 23): Obama's visit to Europe has been 100% success. Previous US Presidents could only dream of the support and affection that was afforded to him and his wife. He has left a feel good factor not seen in decades from a US President. He is being called the New JFK !!

I just hope he'll have a more fortunate fate than JFK did. And JFK didn't really measure up to his image when taking a closer look to many of his policies. I'd hope that Obama won't make the same mistakes.

Quoting DXing (Reply 28): Ooohh boy, more style of substance, just what we need!

Actually, his tour provided quite a bit of substance as well (G20 negotiations, NATO SG appointment...). But cleaning up the giant mess of America's image in this region of the world after 8 years of Bush was a massive task as well which will have a very substantial impact on future policies and cooperation, and Obama managed to put transatlantic relations on a new basis within just a few days. His style will in fact have very substantial positive consequences in the same way as Bush's lack of grace has cost you dearly.

Quoting DXing (Reply 22): What he totally missed saying, this time and last, is that the United States is a special nation.

Oh boy. That again.  

A few decades ago Germany declared that it was a "special nation". Yeah, indeed we are. But not exactly the way it had been intended. I would really discard this line of thinking if I were you.

The thing is that force projection by a single nation automatically means exerting power over people who had no vote about it (doesn't that remind you of something in your own history?). Under the best of circumstances it can be helpful and supportive, but if one doesn't tread very, very carefully with a huge military force like the american one, it simply turns into tyranny.

And even if it may be possible to have the domestic press sing the praises of chauvinistic military endeavours at home, it usually is a whole different deal for the people living in the places "blessed" by these interventions.

Of course it is not practical to give the global population a vote about every mission abroad the US forces will undertake, but at least making a good-faith effort to cooperate with as many of the other affected nations as possible can restore much of the otherwise missing legitimacy.

This legitimacy does not automatically spring up from the presumable good intentions promoted at home, it has a lot more to do with acting in the interest — and wherever possible with the consent — of the affected people.

The massive disconnect between the two under the Bush administration has largely pulled the rug out from under future US missions; It will take quite an effort to find a new basis for US interaction with the world. Simply feeling in the right doesn't cut it, especially when it's merely a consensus among US politicians without the affected people even being asked.

Of course the USA are special in various ways — you should just take care that the rest of the world stops translating that into challenged to an increasing degree...   

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): From all appearances, Obama is running this thing the way the experts on the ground think it should be. And from the direction the Bush administration was moving too. Wars are nothing if not fluid.

If it wasn't so sad, I could almost laugh. The Bush administration always strongly favoured ideology over competence on absolutely every level. People like Shinseki were actively silenced, general Petraeus remained sidelined until he became the absolute last resort after exhausting all ideologically favoured alternatives. It was a crying disgrace of stubborn fanaticsim.

Quoting DXing (Reply 32): I will give them credit in one respect. Seems that unlike here in the United States where we are in the midst of a government takeover of private industry on an unprecedented scale outside of total war, the EU has figured out a primary component to innovation even if France and Germany are resisting as would be expected.

Nonsense. The split your quote is about has nothing to do with nationalization, it is simply a matter of restoring market mechanisms by breaking up anticompetitive monopolies into still private separate entities.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 39): " I know there has been some difficulties in the past " - President Obama "apologizing to the Islamic world" I understand what he is trying to do ... but it only feeds the flames with this type of rhetoric.

Try listening to his entire speeches, not just to out-of-context snippets. He makes the distinction between muslims in general and the islamist fanatics which is simply factually correct and strategically essential. And he prepares the ground with apologies and compliments for challenges to his audience where necessary, which is an excellent way to get the really difficult points across.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 39): So is 911 ,the London , Spain bombings included in this "difficulties " category.. Or is it just difficulties on our side ?

Lumping all muslims together with the small number of extremists? By the same measure I could denounce all americans together with the radical neocons. Which would be just as wrong.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 13): Can we agree that perhaps it was in poor taste to give the Queen the equivalent of a mix tape, though?

I guess the Queen liked it, given her extraordinary - and quite unique - reaction to Mrs. Obama.

mariner

Quoting Klaus (Reply 41): Are you kidding?

Are you? You asked for a certain number and type. There they are. Same as they were during the campaign. I asked for something and got a one liner for a reply.

I'll say again, what the President should have said is that you can get in on the decisions when you get the same amount of skin in the game.

BTW, I'm sure he also thanks you for your support on Gitmo prisoner relocation. I think Mr. Krauthammer summed up the trip best in his column today.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6369518.html

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): Quoting Klaus (Reply 41): Are you kidding? Are you? You asked for a certain number and type. There they are. Same as they were during the campaign. I asked for something and got a one liner for a reply.

You brought nothing that any reasonable person would qualify as "unfair bashing" under the circumstances as you had claimed.

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): I'll say again, what the President should have said is that you can get in on the decisions when you get the same amount of skin in the game.

This desire for a world of simple decisions and pseudo-macho foot-stomping is certainly understandable from a certain point of view, but we've seen how badly it works in reality. There are very few people left who really want a re-run of the past eight years.

You have not addressed the point.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): You brought nothing that any reasonable person would qualify as "unfair bashing" under the circumstances as you had claimed.

You asked for four-five quotes and I provided them. They are the same ones he was using during the campaign. They are unfair as the campaign is over and President Obama is in office and President Bush is not. There is a time to stop campaigning and start governing. That time has passed and so too should the bashing.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): This desire for a world of simple decisions and pseudo-macho foot-stomping is certainly understandable from a certain point of view, but we've seen how badly it works in reality. There are very few people left who really want a re-run of the past eight years.

Some people, and in this case the majority, feel that criticism of our country, by our elected leaders stops at our shores. Going overseas and blaming the United States is not the way to win friends and influence many people here. I can't name a single person who has gotten away with it without criticism back here. He is the first sitting President I can remember in my life time to do that and that is a dubious "first". I would not expect and would be surprised if a foreign leader came here and bad mouthed his or her country.

When campaigning all is fair, but now that he is in office it's time to stop campaigning and get on with governing. I don't buy products from salemen that try to sell their products by negatively blasting their competitors which is how equate parts of that speech as well as speeches he has given here at home since being elected.

What the President should have said was nothing about past administrations or policies . He should have made it clear he is in charge now and he will deal with European leaders in his own way. That would have been acceptable to all. Given how he spoke before the election of wanting a new tone in Washington, if this is it, blaming his predecessor for everything, then that ought to wear thin before too long.

He is simply a master at weaving though the mine field . His economic speech given yesterday was frankly full of grandiose ideas.

" This budget we just passed will help those in need .. while cutting the deficit" It will do neither ... and he knows it. "Taxes will be cut for 95% of Americans " this provision was removed from the budget ... he may have forgot.

Its double speak .... "those in need " feel warm ... and conservatives "feel better" all in the same sentence. This is President Obama's true talent , and one that has gotten him to the the top of world.

Very much like the lady who apposed his bid to become Harvard law president ... she said that he has a magnetism and is able to say what every one wants to here at the same time. She is right .

This is not wholly a bad thing , don't get me wrong. But frankly he is using his talent to raise my taxes ... this is when the little cartoon hypnotized eye's suddenly open for most.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 47): But frankly he is using his talent to raise my taxes

If you're earning very good money, I don't understand what your objection is to paying a little more tax.

  

mariner

Quoting Mariner (Reply 48): If you're earning very good money, I don't understand what your objection is to paying a little more tax.

Pity there is not an afterlife or the recently late Mr Costigan could be having a chat with the Goanna (Packer K) over this very issue right now!