Obama wrong, Romney right

A different view from another Russo:

While Rome is burning President Barack Obama is playing the fiddle, and his minions continue to support a president with the worst foreign and domestic policy in the history of the country. How on Earth could anyone be happy with Obama’s foreign policy of appeasement?

While our embassies were being attacked, and our ambassador and three others were murdered, the mainstream media and graduate student Peter Russo of Baton Rouge (Sept. 26 letter, “Diplomacy correct in Mideast”) seems obsessed with what Romney said.

Obama was really concerned so he went to a fundraiser in California. The attack on our embassies had nothing to do with a video trailer (as Obama and company would have you believe). The fact is, this was a well-planed terrorist attack.

In my humble opinion, Mitt Romney was absolutely correct in criticizing his majesty (Obama) for apologizing for our First Amendment right of freedom of speech. Rather than continuing to blame everything on George W. Bush, how about someone asking the president why the State Department did not listen to the warnings prior the attack taking place. Why was security not in place?

Romney did not add fuel to the fire, these nuts have been murdering people for thousands of years and they’re not going to change now. When will we learn, as opposed to continue trying to appease the radical Muslim terrorist. I would rather see the Ronald Regan dogma: Peace through strength.

Roder Russo

oil and gas industry

Youngsville

Comments

1) Comment by gvm - 03/10/2012

@speakthe truth: Because I have the sense that you’re trying to be sincere and that you really do believe that you are speaking the truth, I will try to patiently explain exactly why I feel the way I do. To begin with, you seem to think that it’s within the power of the presidency to regulate the price of gas, food and seemingly everything else. That is simply not true. That notion conveniently disregards the fact that major reason food is higher today is due to the effects of the drought that much of this country is experiencing. Bad crops lead to scarcity and that leads to higher prices. Similarly, the drought has had an adverse impact on grain prices, corn in particular. That has increased the cost of ethanol and, by extension, gas prices. It is unfair to blame this on the president. I find it just a little strange that many of the president’s detractors weren’t raising similar concerns when the previous resident occupied the White house. You said you would’ve voted against Bush II if he had been eligible to run again based on the bailouts. From this I infer that you voted for him in 2004 - even though his first term performance was mediocre at best. You also speak of how democracy is supposed to work but then forget that a functioning Congress is also a necessary part of that mix. As much as Democrats despised Bush, I never witnessed the amount of opposition directed at him rise to the level this president has had to put up with. Additionally, I suspect that you are a dyed-in-the -wool capitalist and, therefore, if a worker can earn $75/hr, why would you have a problem with that? That is a cost, apparently, the market can bear. Regarding your thoughts on this country becoming divided, how much blame are you willing to put on the GOP for steadfastly refusing to work with the president –on anything? I can’t help but believe that if they would just put aside their hurt feelings and bruised egos to do what’s best for the country, we would all be better off. Honestly, I think that these guys are guilty of treason. The emergence of the Tea Party was a giant step backward as far as unity goes in this country. To have self-described “patriots” campaign and be elected on their stated opposition to compromise is completely insane and it points to a democracy that is sick. On this blog most of the people on the right are quick to point to “studies” done by hyper-partisan hacks whose only goal is to misinform and inflame the GOP base. I have yet to see any of you guys presenting conclusions drawn from your own research based on data obtained from non-partisan sources. Either you are too lazy or merely incapable of doing so. My dad taught me that a “thinking man” can live well and that philosophy has worked for me so far. I am not a fan of everything the president has proposed or done, but given the fact that he’s been able to accomplish anything in the face of unrelenting GOP/Tea Party obstructionism speaks volumes. It took GWB years to take a perfectly healthy economy and drive it into the ground. Why do you suppose it’ll take less time to restore it? Early in life I realized that I had to remove the blinders in order to see things clearly. I think it’s time you and the rest of the mob do the same.

2) Comment by speakthetruth - 03/10/2012

This is an attempt to not attack Republicans or Democrats, but to stop people from thinking of "sides" and think of what is best for America. Are we better off than we were 3 years ago? Each person will have a different answer depending on their situation. If you are fortunate enough to have mutual funds and they are doing well, that is great for you. But lets look at the basic needs to live. Food prices are higher, gas prices are higher, the dollar is worth less, we are in more debt, there are more people than ever before on welfare, more people on food stamps, higher medical costs, higher higher....everything is higher. It doesn't matter how much money the IRA's and stocks are making if the aren't keeping up with the cost of living. We can blame Bush, Clinton, Obama, Congress, the world etc. The bailouts, Bush started them and Obama continued them. But are they working, that depends on if you can afford to buy a new car, or if you can afford to pay the additional fee's banks charge. If you can't then they aren't working for you, if you can then you can say they are working. We (the people) have gotten away from looking at reality and instead pick sides. Some past presidents did a horrible job and were voted out after their first term, both democrat and republican. I voted against Carter and Bush 1. I would have voted against Bush 2 if he ran for re- election due to the bailouts. Chevy would not have gone out of business if the government didn't bail them out. Look at Chrysler. Instead there would have been a correction in their business. I cannot afford a vehicle built by a company that pays its employees $75 per hour. I look a Obama, do I see things changing? Do I see us paying less for gas, for food? No I don't. Do I see higher taxes coming to keep up with government spending? Yes I do. Do I see a divided country? Yes I do. Whether Democrat or Republican you have to point to the leaders of the county for dividing us so. I will vote for Romney only because I have not seen Obama say anything other than what is wrong. If Romney makes it and there is no change in 4 years I will vote to get rid of him too. That is the way its suppose to work, but instead we are headed towards a divided country because ALL politicians prey on the people that don't keep open minds and pick sides. I didn't intend to offend any person or party, but would hope people vote without thinking of party lines. @GVM - you really need to take the blinders off, or stick you head back in the sand.

3) Comment by Protean - 02/10/2012

@brwank: Thanks for catching the typo. Seriously. If you find more, and I'm sure you will, don't hesitate to point them out. I can handle it. I'm comfortable with mirrors, and the next time I choose to condescend, I'll keep you in mind. Now, if you or one of those you so gallantly defend would answer the question: is it too much to ask for at least a fifth grade level of communication skill? Wouldn't your points be more convincing if they required less deciphering?

4) Comment by gofigger - 02/10/2012

It could be that some people know they are on a runaway train headed for doom, but the ride is so much fun they hate to jump off.

5) Comment by brwonk - 02/10/2012

@Protean: The correct spelling is grammar, not "grammer. Next time you are going to be condescending take a look in the mirror.

6) Comment by Warp7 - 01/10/2012

Typical letter from the side that is filled with hate and anger. These people actually believe the fiction they create, and that is scary!

7) Comment by Protean - 01/10/2012

I don't expect doctoral theses on comment sites, but is really too much to ask of writers that they give a bit of help to readers, some of whom may actually be interested in what you're trying to say? Don't tell me you're not educated. Lazy, perhaps, but sufficiently intelligent. As the grammer police I declare you under arrest for run-on sentences. You have the right to a spelling checker. You have the right to remain indignant. Anything you say can and probably will be misunderstood.

8) Comment by krl777 - 01/10/2012

The argument for the liberal bias of the mainstream media was crystallized in Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias" (Goldberg's books tend to be eponymous -- "Bias," "Arrogance." "100 People who are Screwing Up America.") Goldberg wrote his book on the basis of his experience as a CBS reporter. Oddly, the book never mentions the main function of commercial media -- to sell audiences to advertisers. Read his book carefully, and you will find that almost everything he attributes to liberal bias can be more plausibly explained on the basis of this central fact about the purpose of commercial media. There is, indeed, some bias in mainstream media. They tend to be staffed by middle and upper-middle class college graduates, for example, who work for one of the world's major corporations (Disney, GE, Fox, the Dow Jones Company, ...). That's why they can sound condescending to those not in urban centers, with ties to corporate power. That's why you won't find any Marxists among them.

9) Comment by krl777 - 01/10/2012

nimby has self-identified as being of Native American heritage on this site. I thought it odd that he would parrot the line patented by people who take triumphalist glee in the decimation and subjugation of Native Americans by Europeans -- or, as Mitt Romney might put it, a case of a superior culture supplanting an inferior one. I tend not to join people who denounce other people's comments on this site as racist since I usually find that those dismissals are issued by people who don't have, or won't produce, reasons for their views.

10) Comment by jedleland - 01/10/2012

fair play to you though my writing aint the best and neither is his although to be fair i dont claim to be an educated or literate man and if its literate debate you want then an online message board probably isnt the right place for you. ill scale back my offer can anyone come up with only 5 currently imprisoned or detained US journalists right here today who are persecuted by the state controlled media such as that in the example of eritrea i cited? just 5? c'mon that should be a cakewalk i bet if you use the foxnews search engine they can find you no end of obama crimes against the free press

11) Comment by jedleland - 01/10/2012

you know what makes me indignant? the grammar police so consider this my protest

12) Comment by Protean - 01/10/2012

What a treat! Dueling illiterates. Isn't it reassuring to see critiques of communications media from people who can't grasp even the simplest elements of punctuation and structure. Is the "."mark really that intimidating? Yeah, I can already see the indignant protest about the grammar police. So be it. Consider this: if you really have a point to communicate, shouldn't you make even a minimal effort to help the suffering readers?

13) Comment by jedleland - 01/10/2012

the committee to protect journalists is an international organization that tracks media abuses including imprisonments dissapearances exiles and executions worldwide in places that dont even let you take a 2 week vacation this is from their website today about Eritrea "At least 15 journalists have been jailed or otherwise deprived of their liberty. Most are held incommunicado in secret detention centers. When CPJ sought information about the imprisoned journalists in fall 2005, Information Minister Ali Abdou told Agence France-Presse, "It's up to us what, why, when, and where we do things." now can anyone who ISNT insufferably smug and actually has a clue about this topic give me the names of 15 US journalists imprisoned today right now in the USA for their views in secret detention centers? we have a whole lot more reporters than tiny eritrea so it should be easy to find just 15 or heck even just 10 go ahead and google it look forward to what you can come up with

14) Comment by jedleland - 01/10/2012

extended visit you mean a vacation try something in the last few decades and if you cant see the difference between soviet news agencies in the 1980s and the modern corporate us version then a mindless mouthpiece for the white man is a generous description glad you dropped the elippses though cause that was turning into charicature please continue fatuousness turned up to 11...

15) Comment by nimby? - 01/10/2012

two tours of SE Asia in the 60's , an extended visit to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the early 80's ; I can recognize a media on a short leash . funny you should mention the BBC , I will agree with you on that . it seems a natural inclination that to disagree with anything leaning towards the left is "automatically parroting" Fox news , Glen , Shawn , Rush , O'reilly or any of the other right wing boogie men . yep , already got your answers . I've always enjoyed your colorful assumptions and volume of work under an assortment of pens , please continue .

16) Comment by jedleland - 01/10/2012

man why do i get sucked into caring what some strangers with nothing more to do say on the internet heck im one of those strangers myself looks like! i remember in school years ago having teachers who would talk down to you and were insufferably smug and its been my bugbear ever since especially when sometimes they were just shovelling manure and didnt have a real clue but you know what im not a young man now and i need to get over it cause internet message boards are just sewers arent they and im wallowing in the detritus just like everyone else so im gonna try again...

17) Comment by jedleland - 01/10/2012

Sorry for going on but seeing guff like that from cranky old men sitting in their lazyboys wasting their lives on comment sites just burns me up add to that smug self satisfaction, you could even call if fatuous, and well my hand was forced. State controlled media what a total crock that needs to be called out every time for the ***** it is

18) Comment by jedleland - 01/10/2012

Ill answer it for you none at all is my bet so you have three options to avoid sounding like a complete fool on the topic one is to actually sell up and go and spend some time in a few places with real media control by the state say I don’t know maybe Eritrea or Uzbekistan or even closer to home you could have tried pinochets chile or el Salvador in the 1980s but time change. Maybe Burma or who know swhere there are loads of places. A few months is what you need not just a week long grandpa package vacation. Second option I recommend is to read Eric Altermans seminal book ‘what liberal media’ which is just chock full up of graphs data trend lines analysis historical progressions citations research and whatnot you know all that stuff they never cite over on fox when they grumble about the media like fools. The last option which might be the best is to do what everyone should do when they obviously are speaking from their behinds even me, and that’s to shut yer yap.

19) Comment by jedleland - 01/10/2012

but the idiotic point about state controlled media was just that as idiotic as it gets and straight from the laziest fox news.com columnist even down to the Pravda reference in fact the whole post looks like the left overs from a week of O’reilly monologues I still cant believe it. You could have cited the KCNA to look like youd done some homework but I guess a flick through your copy of Goldbergs Bias which foxnews loves would have led straight to the lazy Pravda example. Why do people with obviously no idea what they are talking about keep shooting themselves in the foot ill give you a chance though and let me know if you have experienced any actual countries with actual state run media? I lived for a time in mugabes Zimbabwe and before that in prewar Syria and even the UK where the sate run BBC is tyrannical. A close associate of mine has spent shorter periods in pre Raoul cuba and post soviet Kazakhstan and even modern day china and all those places have state run media for better or usually worse but if I was a reactionary doofus I would gripe about the us media and how its state run cause o’reilly said so even though fox is the number one news channel. What a load of total baloney. Ive been to these places and lived it unlike people on fox who its so easy to parrot when you hand out ammunition like that then no assuming is necessary but I digress which countries have you lived in to compare to the us model of state media control? I cant wait to find out man.

20) Comment by jedleland - 01/10/2012

Ha Ha fatuous according to one definition is 'smug and self satisfied' so i guess if the shoe fits seems to me a reputation is harder to shed than to earn even if it is online and anonymous but i had to laugh when i saw that post about the media and i also thought man this is straight from fox news and what a pity you know why? The poor guy has spent what looks like years trying to be above the fray and post partisan and with pretences to the advocates own philosophy professor who’s simply superior to everyone else and their right or left talking points and then in just one post the whole façade burns although to be fair it was always pretty flimsy and what we’re left with is what we already knew just one more aging reactionary grumbling about black people and the media and swearing youre not going to take it anymore state controlled media I couldn’t believe it and I figured you must have been drinking to write that one but they say a drunk man says what a sober man thinks still its about time you let up on the silly pretence of superiority and joined the early morning curmudgeon paw paw crowd phil and jdk will have dough nuts waiting for you.

21) Comment by caucajun - 01/10/2012

When the press tells you what truths you may or may not know, they have become a threat to democracy

22) Comment by Whatnow - 01/10/2012

@krl777, what a racist statement! Maybe he's American. What race is that?

23) Comment by krl777 - 30/09/2012

nimby? -- The White Man has made you their mindless mouthpiece. So sad.

24) Comment by nimby? - 30/09/2012

no need to , you already have your answers . lotta three or more syllable words in your assumption , cool .

25) Comment by krl777 - 30/09/2012

Really, nimby? Your fatuous self-indulgent diatribe speaks of familiarity with nothing but the prattling of a certain television network owned by a cynical and fundamentally anti-American Australian. Even the Pravda line is borrowed from them. Do you have any original thoughts about freedom of the press? Do share.

26) Comment by palefire - 30/09/2012

A very simple solution: STOP voting the same jokers in!

27) Comment by nimby? - 30/09/2012

yes I do ; Pravda could learn some valuable lessons .

28) Comment by gvm - 30/09/2012

@Palefire: so what do you propose? I'm choosing the lesser of two evils: the system is broken yet there are those who stupidly want to embark upon the same path that helped bring us to this point. Stop pointing fingers and propose a solution.

29) Comment by gvm - 30/09/2012

@ArtVandelay: according to the Labor Department the number of jobs created in the year ended in March was revised upward by 386,000. That means a net of 125,000 jobs since Obama was inaugurated. http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesprelbmk.htm

30) Comment by krl777 - 30/09/2012

State controlled media? Really?? Do you have ANY familiarity with countries in which the media really ARE state controlled?

31) Comment by nimby? - 30/09/2012

the obvious bias of the state controlled media and there attempted predication to decide the race before the election does not sit well with me . this president is constantly "misunderstood" only to be explained later by the white house press corp . priorities have been partisan peeves , in which the presidents most ardent supporters have been disappointed yet will continue to follow , over the cliff if necessary . the HCA is a great idea , to finance it with creative math similar to a ponzi scheme isn't . there are too many options , loopholes making it a not so universal health care . Mitt may not be the answer , but I can't foresee my next four years any better under the current administration ; my costs have increased higher than inflation , profits are down . my taxes have risen over the last two years . seeing drastic changes in my health insurance policies . I know this sounds a lot like me , mine , but 'm gonna look after those closest to me , do what's best for them . everybody else can do the same . insurance companies , businesses large and small , investors aren't too positive as to the future , so they are keeping their cards hidden . I base my decisions on my own observation as a taxpayer , small businessman , investor , senior citizen , a father/grandfather , what is best for these rather than any media bias , right or left . that the search for the most important job in the world has been reduced to a partisan popularity contest doesn't bode well . whatever happen to the best , most qualified ? I prefer the election be decided by the people , not the press . I hope they choose wisely ....

32) Comment by gvm - 30/09/2012

@Dawson: it's not that I think I’m so smart it's just your arguments generally have holes in them big enough to drive a truck through - and I can't resist. The debt has been a legitimate issue for years but only since President Obama has been elected, that groups like the Tea Party and others have sprouted up howling about the debt. To your point, and others, that government is the "contaminate" I disagree, somewhat. Government has played a role in reducing unemployment in the recent past. I dare you to trend annual average unemployment rate against average federal tax rates for all households from the period 1972 through 2009 (the latest data available when I did it). You will see that, in general, unemployment trended down as tax rates trended up and it is especially easy to see during the Clinton years. On the other hand, tax rates stayed essentially flat during the Bush I and Reagan years but the average unemployment rate also trended up during the Bush I years. Unemployment trended lower during the Reagan years but this was the result of unbridled deficit spending. Now, if you look at the Bush II years you'll note a marked decrease in the tax rate but the unemployment rate remained flat. What does all of this mean? 1) Responsibly raising revenues (taxes) combined with prudent cuts can repair this country's fiscal health. 2) Tax cuts do not result in more jobs. Most employers simply "do more with less" and pocket the savings. 3) Many in the GOP simply ignore the fact that the cornerstone of their party's economic message is based on a failed premise, thus are a hindrance to progress on the economic front. 4) Of the two candidates; only President Obama is advocating a course of action that has been shown to work. Until you guys can prove otherwise, I will continue to vigorously confront your lame arguments until Nov. 6 - and maybe beyond.

33) Comment by Art Vandelay - 30/09/2012

"a net positive record on job creation over the past 3.5 years"? Oh really? According to the Department of Labor there were 159.3 million Americans employed in 2008, in 2011 that number has shrunk to 140.5. Simple arithmetic tells us that is a DECREASE of 18.8 million. Emotion cannot trump facts.

34) Comment by Dawson - 30/09/2012

GVM you are so smart. Can you name one, just one, economic model that has built more wealth than the US Capitalistic model that Obama and your Democratic friends hate so much? At this point it doesn't matter how bad a president Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama have or haven't been. What matters is righting the ship and having a 17 trillion dollar deficit by the end of this year with government dependence at an all time high, record levels of unemployment and the weakest dollar in history is not the way to do it. Government is the contaminate, not the answer.

35) Comment by palefire - 30/09/2012

zealer99, neither will. Just look at all the comments below. It is amazing how divided we are as a nation when it comes to politics when both parties are virtually indistinguishable from one another when it comes to actual policies. Lobbyist run this country, and they are in the party of self-interest. We will all pay as long as the idiots below continue to squabble over which puppet is best for this country.

36) Comment by zealer99 - 30/09/2012

We have a $16 trillion Nation Debt and the US Government borrows 50 cents for every dollar that it spends. Neither candidate has offered his plans to deal with this problem and this is going to sink the boat.

37) Comment by krl777 - 30/09/2012

If I were in the Obama Administration, I might want to hide the discovery that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was carried out by particular al Qaeda operatives for the craven partisan purpose of protecting the Administration's otherwise quite well-supported claim to be effective against al Qaeda, going into the election. On other other hand, I might want to hide that discovery in the hope that the perpetrators could be tracked in secret and taken out by covert action or drones. Sometimes, more important things are going on than our self-absorbed political squabbles. And I granted this benefit of the doubt to the Bush Administration, although in retrospect, it's not clear the Bush Administration deserved it since it was notably weak in countering al Qaeda, from the spring of 2001 when it tried to pretend that the major threat to our security was from China, through the ignored warnings of Summer 2001, to the abandoned effort to track bin Laden at Tora Bora, right up until it gave al Qaeda the opportunity for a new incarnation in Iraq, as al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

38) Comment by wadep66 - 30/09/2012

So why did Timothy McVeigh blow up a US government building? Was he a muslim-terrorist "nut"? No one is advocating going after 30-something white boys. Why not? If one is bad, they all are, right? Good thinking.

39) Comment by Whatnow - 30/09/2012

And Dems cry when they have to hear it. Wah, wah, wah. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

40) Comment by DMJ - 30/09/2012

Republicans don't like that Romney is losing so they write garbage letters about how they don't like it. Blah, blah, blah...

41) Comment by MBW - 30/09/2012

The Republican desire for a far-right partisan as their nominee has forced Romney to pretend to be someone he is not. This is why he will lose....and will blow the biggest opportunity for victory that the GOP has had in a long time. And all because the GOP is shooting itself in the foot.

42) Comment by MBW - 30/09/2012

More negativity and whining from Republicans....all while they utterly fail to offer a credible alternative candidate.

43) Comment by MBW - 30/09/2012

*YAWN*

44) Comment by [e-mail] - 30/09/2012

gvm seems to feel a need to defend Obama's presidency, but who can believe any of the "statistics", "news", or anything else released by bureaucrats during this administration? Any unwary dupe who criticizes them or dares to say the truth is immediately cut out of the herd and fed to the hyenas.

45) Comment by gvm - 30/09/2012

@Dawson: your posts are always entertaining, but they never make much sense. If the USSR's economic model was as bad as you say, then how were they able to compete with the US for so long? I think the Reagan years accelerated the decline of our economy. Deficit spending was the norm under his regime. You state: "Capitalism is BOSS and is the only form of economy ever discovered by man to build wealth in ANY class." What research have you done that bears this out? Until you guys are willing to be fair and acknowledge that the damage done by the previous rogues in office darn near killed this economy and that the GOP during President Obama's term has done NOTHING to help make things better, then your arguments will always seem pathetic and unsubstantiated.

46) Comment by gvm - 30/09/2012

@Whatnow: I think he is running on his record. The Dow closed at 13, 437.13 on Friday - quite a difference from where it was performing when the president came into office. He has a net positive record on job creation over the past 3.5 years, operations in Iraq have wound down, the ACA is law, and OBL is dead. I could go on, but you get the point. If the president is re-elected the state the economy is in today beats what he inherited from Bush by almost any measure. Your suggestion that the bar has been lowered for President Obama is laughable considering the best candidates the GOP has been able to forth recently were McCain-Palin and Ryan-Romney. You also, obviously, have forgotten about ole' GWB - perhaps the worst president in American history. One can only assume either the Republicans really don't want to win or that they are so arrogant they think they can run anybody and win. You just might want to rethink that position. To the GOP's credit, I have not had as much fun watching political debates as I had watching Bachmann, Perry, Cain and the rest of that ragtag bunch's tragic attempts to appear presidential. They should really consider getting together and going on tour.

47) Comment by agagent - 30/09/2012

The Obama administration could not even acknowledge “the war on terror.” They wanted to label the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence instead of a terrorist attack. It is difficult for Obama supporters and much of the media to understand that we still have a potent enemy capable of more terrorist attacks. In addition, Obama and Biden celebrated their victory lap against terrorists at their national convention just prior to the deadly Benghazi attack. Obama supporters have difficulty acknowledging a terrorist attack just like 85% of Democrats believe the economy is not so bad because Obama said he has fixed the economy.

48) Comment by palefire - 29/09/2012

The current state of Democrats and Republicans are both the death of this country. You guys can argue all you want. Both parties suck. Betting one over the other is like betting over which cancer is better to die from.

49) Comment by Whatnow - 29/09/2012

@gvm, you still didn't answer why Obama doesn't run on his own record, and why his lies are okay to you. You obviously didn't like them when Republicans told them. Why do you accept lies now? Why have you lowered the bar for this guy? Never mind. You won't answer. Lying is okay when you're a Democrat.

50) Comment by Whatnow - 29/09/2012

If Obama wins he will inherit the worst economy since, well...Obama.

51) Comment by Dawson - 29/09/2012

GVM...Even though you are mostly wrong in all the "facts" that you post, ask this: why did the USSR "run out of money first"? Because communism and socialism have never been able to build wealth within the societies they are implemented. Capitalism is BOSS and is the only form of economy ever discovered by man to build wealth in ANY class. Say what you want about Obama, but what you can't say is that his form of economic vision is working, will work or has ever worked in the history of mankind. One poster mentioned "getting corporations under control", well if anemic growth, record unemployment, monumental debt and destroying the value of our currency is what gets them under control then Obama is the man for the job.

52) Comment by gvm - 29/09/2012

@Whatnow: "...tenure has been nothing BUT a compilation of prefabricated lies." If you would have began that sentence with Reagan or GWB, then that would've been one tiny step in the right direction. The Republican messiah, Reagan, was asleep at the wheel for 8 years and GWB was an unmitigated disaster. On the heels of those GOP stalwarts, it is impossible for President Obama not to shine. The only thing that saved Ronnie was that the USSR ran out of money first - but it could've gone either way.

53) Comment by agagent - 29/09/2012

Of course you would not find the truth from the networks which are part of the Obama re-election campaign. CNN broke ranks and gave the story a short flash.

54) Comment by Whatnow - 29/09/2012

@gvm, Obama's tenure has been nothing BUT a compilation of prefabricated lies. Otherwise he would not be paying to hide his records. His words and actions are what counts. His lies about Obamacare are coming to roost already. And so far I haven't found a redeeming quality of his to be proud of. Why are people's standards in this President and his administration held so low as to excuse the lies? And AT THAT TIME is just that. This is the here and now, but the Progressives, liberals and Dems seem blind to his lies and socialist agenda and constantly blame Bush and holler racism with every fact that they can't back up. Why doesn't he run on his exemplary performance record to date? If he wins this time, and wants to blame the past administration, he will have to blame himself for the first time. Well, unless he finds a fall guy.

55) Comment by nimby? - 29/09/2012

the president has made his share of gaffes which have either been excused or misinterpreted to be later explained by the white house press corps . 'your sources are partisan and unreliable' .....

56) Comment by gvm - 29/09/2012

@Whatnow: I guess the emphasis I sought to place on those three words escapes you. Let me break it down. I meant that Bush and Co. committed this nation to a war based on prefabricated lies designed to offer some sort of justification for their ill-advised foray into Iraq. I am not concerned about president Obama's image per se, but I feel compelled to at least offer defense of his performance to date. That is because those on the right are quick to point out what he hasn't accomplished but forget to add that they've done nothing to assist him. They can't separate partisan politics from what's good for the country. I think hindsight will show that policy did you guys more harm than the president.

57) Comment by Whatnow - 29/09/2012

@gvm, AT THAT TIME? That's a good one. LOL! Obama lies all the time, but that' s okay. Bill Clinton "Did not have sexual relations with that woman" and it's okay. Harry Reid lied that Romney didn't pay any taxes, but that's okay, etc. All Democrats. This attack was a blatant example of the total incompetence we have in the Obama administration and they tried to cover up how bad things are in the Middle East by blaming it on a few protesters and a video. Lies and blame when people asked for Hope and Change. And don't blame Fox for telling the stories that the MSM won't. The MSM doesn't want Obama's image tarnished. Though, even now CNN is coming down on him for this one.

58) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/09/2012

krl777, you might as well give up. Agagent and his "sources" at foxnews made a claim. And they are never wrong and clearly fair and balanced.

59) Comment by gvm - 29/09/2012

Fox News???

60) Comment by agagent - 29/09/2012

"US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm: Intelligence sources said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The sources said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike."--Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge, Fox News

61) Comment by krl777 - 29/09/2012

Hey, don't knock the Iraq war. It had the obvious and predictable (and predicted) consequence of strengthening Iran by giving it a friendly Shiite-dominated regime right next door. We hadn't done anything good for the mullahs in Iran in quite a while, not since Reagan's arms-for-hostages deal, so it was time to do them a favor again. And in case Iran had any questions about developing nuclear weapons, we resolved that for them too -- by invading Iraq, not North Korea, we demonstrated that nuclear weapons are the best deterrent to US attack. They have obviously taken that to heart. Way to go Bushies and neocons!

62) Comment by krl777 - 29/09/2012

The Cairo embassy statement was designed to distance the US government from the insulting anti-Muslim video and thus to dissuade the majority of Egyptians from joining the small minority who were idiotically protesting. For Roder Russo and Mitt Romney, this counts as "appeasement" of the protesters. Note the implicit premise -- there is no need to distinguish the majority of more reasonable Arabs, who were dissuaded from protesting when it was made clear that contempt for Islam was not official US policy, from the minority of irrational protesting ones. Evidently, Russo and Romney think that all A-rabs are the same -- irrational swarthy people who speak in jibber-jabber, all of them caught up in excitable protest against the US.

63) Comment by gvm - 29/09/2012

@agagent: "The Obama daughter’s spring break had security detail of 25. It is a shame that the Obama administration did not give our slain ambassador as much protection in Benghazi, Libya." Dude, you really need to come up for air. That comparison is so weak that it very nearly merits no response. Your hatred of the president seems to be affecting your mental faculties.

64) Comment by gvm - 29/09/2012

@whatnow: it was unlawful because the justification for going to war was based on evidence known, AT THAT TIME, to be largely fabricated and erroneous. If that doesn't constitute illegality, then what does?

65) Comment by krl777 - 29/09/2012

Countering agagent's toxic emissions: For a fuller range of German opinion about US policy in the Middle East, not just the part trumpeted by Fox News, see Der Spiegel's collection at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-press-review-on-middle-east-violence-against-us-embassies-a-855835.html. Clearly Die Welt and agagent agree that the US should have helped keep the military dictatorships in place, so that our children or grandchildren would have to deal with the blow-ups that were inevitable when the lids were take off of these societies and they are forced to mature. Why deal with a problem ourselves when we can fob it off onto the next generation?

66) Comment by Whatnow - 29/09/2012

@gvm, "The unlawful invasion of Iraq?" How was it unlawful if Congress passed it? Hmmm? www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ Wanna talk lies about who started what? It wasn't Bush who started Iraq. Care to read some facts? And @ Spudaroonski, drones killing innocents provide the same incentive. Perhaps most telling are the President’s various remarks on the Constitution. A Constitutional scholar himself, here he is on the Constitution and founding documents. PRESIDENT OBAMA: That generally the constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you but it doesn’t say what the state government or the federal government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power about which you bring redistributive change. It’s safe to say that the founders purposely made sure the Constitution didn’t mention what the state or federal government “must do on your behalf,” and anyone who has studied the Constitution should probably know that. But then again, this is the same man who said, “I think [the Constitution] is an imperfect document, and I think this is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture.” Too bad the majority of Americans have no idea Obama has said these things, since the media fails to report it. And if he wins reelection in November, you can probably bet we will hear a lot more of the same from the President.

67) Comment by agagent - 29/09/2012

The Obama daughter’s spring break had security detail of 25. It is a shame that the Obama administration did not give our slain ambassador as much protection in Benghazi, Libya.

68) Comment by agagent - 29/09/2012

Within 24 hours of the attack, intelligence thought it was a planned terrorist attack. Obama and his surrogates spread the “spontaneous mob in repose to an obscure video” lie. They also lied that there was no evidence of a terrorist attack. Most of the US media conspired with the lie but the international media thought it was a terrorist attack all along.

69) Comment by twinkie1cat - 29/09/2012

America has excellent foreign policy under Obama and the guidance of Hillary Clinton, but you cannot stop everything. He ended a war and got rid of Bin Laden. That should be enough. And as for domestic policy, he is doing his best to get big business under control and ensure equal rights for minorities. Remember, GM is hiring. How could anyone but the most selfish Republican ask for more? He had a lot of dirty mess to clean up. Romney would not be the worst Republican we could have because, hopefully, he would revert to his former, moderate stances. However, were he to become unable to serve we would have a real nut case in the office, an intelligent version of Sara Palin. That would destroy America.

70) Comment by Spudaroonski - 29/09/2012

Yeah Whatnow and I'd think that if we start wars based on lies and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people we should expect a little blowback.

71) Comment by gvm - 29/09/2012

"...worst foreign and domestic policy in the history of the country.." Surely, you jest. The results stemming from the disastrous foreign policy debacles of the previous administration will take decades to repair. The unlawful invasion of Iraq set in motion a string of events that have given rise to the Arab Spring. The genie has been let out of the bottle and the only thing we can do is to try and craft policies that take into account this new political reality. The threat of military force doesn't even carry much weight anymore. It appears that the days of undue American influence in the region (perhaps the world) are past.

72) Comment by Spudaroonski - 29/09/2012

When you say facts do you mean like , "they hate us for our freedoms"?

73) Comment by Whatnow - 29/09/2012

@8point6, these "Progressives" don't want to know facts. They can't believe facts. Yeah, blame Bush when Obama fails. Blame, the new word for liberal.

74) Comment by Whatnow - 29/09/2012

@Spudaroonski, did Bush know who, what, where and when like Obama did? If you are going to use a kill list, you'd better protect your embassies. There are going to be some ticked off al-Qaida wanting some payback. Duh!

75) Comment by agagent - 29/09/2012

Our ambassador died and Obama lied.

76) Comment by agagent - 29/09/2012

US President Barack Obama's Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world . . . Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It's a bitter outcome for Obama." "Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. . . Washington has provided the image of a distracted superpower in the process of decline to the societies there. This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali." "One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America's deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check."-Die Welt

77) Comment by Spudaroonski - 29/09/2012

Anyone remember 9/11? Now who was president when that happened? I'm trying to think.... Don't tell me, it'll come to me. I do remember that whoever that guy was he was given warnings and decided to ignore them. I seem to remember vaguely that there was more than 4 americans killed on 9/11. Whatever administration was in charge at the time I recall it was doing quite a bit of its own covering up. Now who were those people in charge at that time? Don't tell me, it'll come to me. All I know is I sure as heck don't want those clowns in charge again. Ever.

78) Comment by agagent - 29/09/2012

Security assessments for the State Department recommended the use US forces and not depend on hired security and host country protection in unstable locations such as Benghazi, Libya. There had been a string of attacks in the city, including one on the consulate. Libyan officials warned of an attack. Our ambassador was sent one of the most violent places in the world, housed in a “non-hardened” interim facility, without U S Marine protection, and with rules of engagement that severely limited its defense. The terrorist attack that killed 4 Americans was preceded by violence in Egypt, and it occurred on a day we knew the terrorist wanted to strike back. Now Obama is engaged in a cover-up. Liberals want to blame Bush.

79) Comment by Attila - 29/09/2012

How many of you people have returned the money you saved in taxes because of the Bush tax cuts???? None of you? That's exactly what thought. Can you say hypocrite's? Just another example of why if not for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

80) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/09/2012

Nothing new here, just more right wing talking points with no substance.

81) Comment by Mr. T - 29/09/2012

Hey Russo, the reason everybody blames George Bush is because he was the one who got us into two wars and engineered the demise of our economy with his tax cuts and stupid policies. Romney would be just as bad, which is why he is losing.

82) Comment by 8point6 - 29/09/2012

www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

83) Comment by postscript56 - 29/09/2012

Reagan called Osama Bin Laden a "freedom fighter" and shipped arms to him in Afghanistan. How did that work out for America?

84) Comment by Bighug - 29/09/2012

I agree with you, gary. And don't blame Bush for starting wars. Blame the president in office when they were started, Oh, yeah, that was Bush.

85) Comment by gary - 29/09/2012

Don't worry Roder, if your man is elected, prepare for a couple of more wars in the middle east. The necons have ole Mittens by the nads, he owes them for their support and advice.