President Barack Obama/Vice-President Joe Biden Re-elected to 2nd Term Thread

[Burgold]

Shame on Gingrich. He's not only insulting the office of President, but disparaging the country in the eyes of the world.

It's cool to say you disagree with his decisions, you can even call him bad, but "fake?" Come on.

[visionary]

Gingrich is a bizzare man.
And it's sort of funny that he's calling anyone false.

[Larry]

Most places cite a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...-and-funerals/

Never heard of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism before.

But I've been reading the article, and what it SAYS is that the US has attacked Taliban, while said Taliban were engaged in rescuing other Taliban.

Which ill admit, I have a moral problem with. But I also find myself wondering. Hypothetical: the US army is in a battle. Some Soldirs gt wounded. Other soldiers come running out, to try to pull the wounded soldier to safety.

Is it morally wrong to shoot those other soldiers?

They're combatants. Military personnel. In uniform. Probably armed. They aren't furring those weapons right that instant. But they haven't taken a vow of non-violence, either.

----------

That said, though. Yeah, at least the impression I'm getting is that, at least the authors of this article seem to be saying that yeah, we're killing a lot more people than most Americans appreciate.

And I'm not at all sure that this is helping Our Cause.

[mistertim]

Gingrich is a bizzare man.
And it's sort of funny that he's calling anyone false.

Newt definitely comes out of the woodwork occasionally with some either completely bizarre or ridiculously bombastic statements. Gotta agree with you...Newt calling anyone else a fake or "false" is pretty much the height of absurdity. I have no clue whether he is just trying to keep himself relevant and part of the discussion or if he really just relishes saying crazy, stupid **** to see how people react. I have a feeling its more the latter; the guy really does seem like a complete troll.

[visionary]

Here's an informative look at some of the administration's diplomatic struggles in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/wo...ewanted=1&_r=2

In U.S. Exit From Iraq, Failed Efforts and Challenges

The request was an unusual one, and President Obama himself made the confidential phone call to Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president.

Marshaling his best skills at persuasion, Mr. Obama asked Mr. Talabani, a consummate political survivor, to give up his post. It was Nov. 4, 2010, and the plan was for Ayad Allawi to take Mr. Talabani’s place.

With Mr. Allawi, a secular Shiite and the leader of a bloc with broad Sunni support, the Obama administration calculated, Iraq would have a more inclusive government and would check the worrisome drift toward authoritarianism under Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

But Mr. Obama did not make the sale.

“They were afraid what would happen if the different groups of Iraq did not reach an agreement,” recalled Mr. Talabani, who turned down the request.

Mr. Obama has pointed to the American troop withdrawal last year as proof that he has fulfilled his promise to end the Iraq war. Winding down a conflict, however, entails far more than extracting troops.

In the case of Iraq, the American goal has been to leave a stable and representative government, avoid a power vacuum that neighboring states and terrorists could exploit and maintain sufficient influence so that Iraq would be a partner or, at a minimum, not an opponent in the Middle East.

But the Obama administration has fallen frustratingly short of some of those objectives.

[JimboDaMan]

Shame on Gingrich. He's not only insulting the office of President, but disparaging the country in the eyes of the world.

It's cool to say you disagree with his decisions, you can even call him bad, but "fake?" Come on.

I'm amused by his critique of Obama as a great speaker but unmotivated president. This is precisely the criticism levelled at Gingrich by his staff when they bailed on him saying the wife wouldn't let him loose to fully participate in the campaign. The gentleman seems to be looking in the mirror.

And yeah, this business of Obama as "fake" this and "false" that. C'mon Newt, at least have the stones to own up to that none-too-subtle subtext. Go full metal birther. At least say, "He's not like real Americans, his name is funny and his skin is dark".

[Thiebear]

They downgraded the 3rd quarter - not looking all that great leading up to the debates.

[Buford]

They downgraded the 3rd quarter - not looking all that great leading up to the debates.

You confused me with Q3. I think this is what you were talking about.

GDP report: Economic growth revised lower



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. economy grew even slower than initially reported in the second quarter, as both consumers and businesses spent less than originally thought.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic health, grew at an annual rate of 1.3% from April to June, the Commerce Department said Thursday, slower than the 1.7% rate the government last reported in August.

The government typically revises its GDP reports twice, and Thursday's data marks the final revision to the second quarter figures.

The changes were minor and make little difference to the overall economic picture of the country. Growth is still frustratingly slow, and economists often say the economy needs to expand at least 3% a year to bring the unemployment rate down significantly. To top of page

I guess I look at this and think "Man, in 2008 things were falling apart and now even though its been slow....why would I want to go back to the policies that led to all this?"

then again, I'm not voting for Obama.....so it doesn't matter what I think in that regard.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Y'know, I've seen that claim made before. (I assume in this thread.)

Could you provide me some kind of link to information that says that the US is intentionally targeting first responders, who respond to US drone attacks? Cause frankly, I have a lot of trouble believing that.

(I don't have trouble believing that somebody, somewhere, says that. I have trouble believing that it could possibly be true. Or that any honest person could even honestly believe it.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cuers-pakistan

US drone strikes target rescuers in Pakistan – and the west stays silent

The US government has long maintained, reasonably enough, that a defining tactic of terrorism is to launch a follow-up attack aimed at those who go to the scene of the original attack to rescue the wounded and remove the dead. Morally, such methods have also been widely condemned by the west as a hallmark of savagery. Yet, as was demonstrated yet again this weekend in Pakistan, this has become one of the favorite tactics of the very same US government.

Link for rest

In 2010, when WikiLeaks published a video of the incident in which an Apache helicopter in Baghdad killed two Reuters journalists, what sparked the greatest outrage was not the initial attack, which the US army claimed was aimed at armed insurgents, but rather the follow-up attack on those who arrived at the scene to rescue the wounded. From the Guardian's initial report on the WikiLeaks video:

There isn't any doubt this terrible tactic has been used

A different UN official, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, this weekend demanded that the US "must open itself to an independent investigation into its use of drone strikes or the United Nations will be forced to step in", and warned that the demand "will remain at the top of the UN political agenda until some consensus and transparency has been achieved". For many American progressives, caring about what the UN thinks is so very 2003

The reason for the silence about such matters, and the reason commentary of this sort sparks such anger and hostility, is two-fold: first, the US likes to think of terror as something only "others" engage in, not itself, and more so; second, supporters of Barack Obama, the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, simply do not want to think about him as someone who orders attacks on those rescuing his victims or funeral attendees gathered to mourn them.

That, however, is precisely what he is, as this mountain of evidence conclusively establishes.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/04/obam...ombs_mourners/

U.S. again bombs mourners

In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that after the U.S. kills people with drones in Pakistan, it then targets for death those who show up at the scene to rescue the survivors and retrieve the bodies, as well as those who gather to mourn the dead at funerals: “the CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals.” As The New York Times summarized those findings: “at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile” while “the bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals.”

This repellent practice continues. Over the last three days, the U.S. has launched three separate drone strikes in Pakistan: one on each day. As The Guardian reports, the U.S. has killed between 20 and 30 people in these strikes, the last of which, early this morning, killed between 8 and 15. It was the second strike, on Sunday, that targeted mourners gathered to grieve those killed in the first strike:

Link for rest

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-net-positive/

New Data Show Obama Net Positive For Job Creation Since He Took Office


According to new revisions released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy created 386,000 more jobs between March 2011 and March 2012 than shown by previous estimates. As economist Justin Wolfers noted, this means that President Obama is now net positive for job creation over his term in office, even taking into account the massive losses in January 2009:

The Economist’s Greg Ip noted that the revisions mean that Obama’s net job creation number is now 125,000:

The new numbers — which are based off of unemployment insurance reports that employers submit to the federal government — show that 453,000 more private sector jobs were created than shown by previous estimates, meaning Obama’s net private sector job creation total is now 868,000. Government jobs, meanwhile, shrank by an additional 67,000.

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,3644872.story

Revised Labor Department figures find an extra 386,000 jobs

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's an informative look at some of the administration's diplomatic struggles in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/wo...ewanted=1&_r=2

So Bush broke the vase and Obama is to blame because it is impossible to put back together again?

[Buford]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-net-positive/

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,3644872.story

So, basically this goes back to the whole "Worse Recovery Ever" because its not actually getting worse.

That was the worst win ever. I'd rather have that team that kept losing.

[twa]

So, basically this goes back to the whole "Worse Recovery Ever" because its not actually getting worse.

.

unless you consider the trillion plus yearly deficits piling up, which we just hit again with months to go.....trending towards a double dip even with the govt spending

we would have been better off dropping the money out of helicopters

[visionary]

So Bush broke the vase and Obama is to blame because it is impossible to put back together again?

I think the important thing isn't who's to blame, but what went wrong, what are the consequences, and whether or not things could have been done better.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think the important thing isn't who's to blame, but what went wrong, what are the consequences, and whether or not things could have been done better.

Right, but when one side is going to blame the other for the state of Iraq it is entirely at issue.