Everything you posted, Wayne, can be explained a different way, as you probably know. I do not accept your comments as truths, or facts, and see things completely differently. No surprise, I'm sure. To explain, though...
not initially Chad--all the sucking up--and the appologie tour will takes its toll--trust me.
I look at what he's done as repairing damage done by a ignorant, dismissive brute, who ran roughshod over most anyone he could, either backed up or led by Cheney. It's the dismissive part that bugged me the most, and I can assure you that he did plenty of damage in most conversations he attempted to have with any foreign leader. If people take Obama's moves as being weak, that's their choice, but he doesn't strike me as being weak, and I'd suppose the military power he wields would have some backup power, wouldn't you? even Bush's own father realized that consistent sabre rattling builds hatred and distrust in friends and foes alike, and maintained some semblance of balance.
Think about it--his entire rhetoric has been trying to put blame on someone else--his prob is at some point in time he will have to take responsibilty for his actions.
This is the point you continue to make, and since the subject here is comparisons to previous regime (the perfect word for what it was), I can't help thinking back to Bush not being able to come up with one single mistake he thought he'd made during his Presidency when asked in that famous interview. Clearly, this was his character, thinking he and Dick were the only ones ever right about anything, and blaming others for not seeing it the way they did, or at least how he was told to see things by his puppet masters. Much of what Obama has had to deal with - war, the economy, increased hatred and mistrust of the U.S. abroad, CAN be blamed on the previous administration, and Clinton was (and still is) blamed for plenty when it comes to the Bush ratings. I agree that someday his moves will be measured, and should be. But you and others here never once gave him a chance, and seriously never will. You measured his success or failure weekly after taking over, and blamed him for everything early on - while in the past never holding Bush to such a standard. Not surprising, but also not fair. Not that fairness enters into much these days, when it comes to politics.
--as far as his generals--did we forget about him siding with moveon/huffers in their Patraeus defimation--I get guarantee you our military did not--and I can guarantee you --FBI-CIA and the rest of the alphebet soup have this punk/grifters # also.
I've always found it appropriate to challenge Patraeus' motives for giving his opinions, as did Obama and other non-republicans. Of course he's going to spin a positive company line, beneficial to his leader, which he held fast to most of the time under Bush. You call it defamation, I think it was fair and understandable questioning of motives and the true picture. I hardly think you can take credit for knowing the thoughts and feelings of the entire military, but that's more of the Bush "mentality," I suppose, thinking you know what everyone thinks or should think. I'd guess there are plenty of soldiers that never wanted to go to Iraq, and most would prefer to have come home long ago. And there's always been that ever-changing, evolving mission statement for that war, that changed whenever Bush needed to present things in a more beneficial light. That can't have rung true, honestly, to his soldiers, but you'd never hear about that. That's the nature of the soldier, to follow orders and keep their mouths shut. We've heard plenty from former generals and security people in general that found fault with plenty over those years, after leaving the military.
I think it's pretty despicable, actually, that you refer to our President as a punk/grifter. But, to each their own. I can certainly remember when people called Bush different kinds of names how supporters bristled and said we should just support our president.
I have plenty of issues about what Obama and company have chosen to do. A few things bother me a lot, and I'll remember these things when it comes time for the next campaign. Looks like Pawlenty may be a front runner, and there's things to like about him for me personally. And economically, it might be time to look at a different way to move forward in 3 or 7 years from now, I don't know. A lot can happen in that amount of time.
ffice
