President Obama on Putin: “I Thought It Was Important to Listen”

So who played the Marlon Brando roll???

So long as he didn’t look into Putin’s soul…

“Ultimately, …”
The word “Ultimately” can only mean that the US is currently implementing foreign policy by proxy. We are relying on Russia, China, Europe, etc… to act as mediators when US to resolve international disputes.
Please ask Obama why the US is “ultimately” subservient to other nations in resolving international disputes. My only explanation is that this outsourcing of US foreign policy is necessary because it is above Obama’s pay grade.

What Obama thinks is important, what Obama thinks we should view as important and what is actually important are all quite different things.

Still cleaning up the mess of the Bush administration. The last eight years of uncoporation,no communication, aggressive agendas and fear mongoring has taken it’s tole on our reputation around the world. The United States is a country amoung many. We are not the rulers of the world. That was a point lacking in the previous administration. We need to be respected again and to earn respect you have to be humble and recognize past mistakes. It’s a fine line to walk.

President Obama is truly brilliant with this stuff. I think we’re very fortunate to have a man of his class and intelligence at this point in time.
Do I think he’s perfect, nope. Do I think anybody is perfect, nope.
Carry on Mr. President.

So, Obama, you think it’s important to “listen”? How about listening to the American people? Notice the tens of thousands of protesters out over the weekend? No, you weren’t “listening”…too bad. You’ll hear us in ’12.

mary .. .
I think you meant ‘ten’ of thousand . ..

Danita,
You’re quickly turning into a one man show for Obama here. You should consider pacing yourself.

jennert . .. .
You missed the point, you had said . . .
“The world laughs at us while our economy is in shambles’ – the point is the entire world economy is in shambles and people are not laughing about it. That includes the United States.

I understand the point of my post–it was mine, afterall. If I was trying to make the point you’re claiming I was, I would have said the world is laughing at us BECAUSE our economy is in shambles. That’s not what I said. Then, you take it out of context from the entire post. Why? Who knows.
You have a good evening.

danita:
And I was one of them. And your point is?

And I don’t recall ANY single protest with “hundreds of thousands” perhaps you can back that up with a city and month/yr, so I can verify?
Or perhaps you meant “hundred” instead.
how’s that fit, danita?

Why he is so insistent on always distancing himself not only from the immediately previous administration but past US administrations in general is a mystery to me. What a massive ego the man appears to have.
==================
moderate, I do believe he considers himself to be Year One.
He believes the force of his personality (certainly he can’t point to any particular experience, so that isn’t it) will make other nations believe he has no ties to the US of the past, and only seeks to bring the world together as equals.
Does he really believe the past international problems all came about because he wasn’t there to *listen*?
I’d love Jake to ask Obama how he thinks we got to this point with Russia.

mary . . . .
does something about this confuse you?
“Hundreds of thousands marched against the attack on Iraq. . . .. hundreds of thousands.”
So you see it say ‘in a single march’ or anything similar?
Anyhow, good luck with your protests . .

Posted by: talmag | Jul 7, 2009 6:15:55 PM
“Iran need other countries and their products. If the United States and their allies sanction Iran it could be difficult for them to obtain certain things that they do need.”
Ever hear of the black market. Sanctions don’t work unless everyone plays by the rules. Russia won’t nor other countries. You and Obama are naive.
“now that the United States has condemned their recent actions against the people of Iran during the recent elections, they are quite aware that the rest of the world will follow our lead.”
Condemned? You mean the scowling look Obama gave sorta kinda in the direction of Iran. Please. The leaders laughed.

danita:
Oh, so I see, hundreds of thousands protests but that includes ALL of the protests in the entire world through out the entire six years of the war….Gee.
And how does that compare to tens of thousands of AMERICANS on one day?
Good luck with your anger. or obama love or something…

mary . …
“hundreds of thousands protests but that includes ALL of the protests in the entire world through out the entire six years of the war….”
No Mary, if you included all of the protests in the world it would be MILLIONS of people.

mary . . .
p.s. – I do actually like Obama lots. He’s light years ahead of the last guy.

good luck with your dancing Mary . . .
And by the way President Obama is light years ahead of Rommney too, and the Bush brothers waiting in the wings . . ..

President Obama is light years ahead of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld . … . all of those neo-con believers who rigged up the attack on Iraq killing hundreds of thousands including many of our own. The intelligence was thin and cherry picked for purpose, there were no weapons of mass destruction, no germ labs, no nuclear weapons or precursors to nuclear weapons. Iraq couldn’t even get a plane in the air.
There was no connection with 9/11.
Those men have the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis (many, many civilians) on their hands. And the blood of many tens of thousands more maimed and injured.
President Obama stands light years above them.

President Obama stands light years above them. Posted by: danita | Jul 7, 2009 11:12:48 PM
I think we all know what blood stains President Obama’s hands. And it runs in the millions.

Timmy . …
“Well, no. They were all moved to Syria.” Timmy you still believe in Santa?
Bush and his neo-con think tankers deceived the American people into believing ‘the mushroom cloud’ was almost over their heads and then proceeded to attack Iraq killing tens of thousands of people. This was a travesty.
I really get the impression you live in a fantasy world Timmy. The economic crisis can be solved in a FEW SHORT MONTHS, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have all been found and identified in Syria, Iraq really was behind 9/11, bombing everybody is the best answer to everything, Obama is the antichrist . ..
Amazing

Sorry, I meant to include the link for the clinton quote. This site also includes a bunch of videos of some of these people pushing for us to invade Iraq.

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again
Weapons of mass destruction and 9/11 were very closely woven into the Bush administrations publicity campaign to bring the American people on side for an attack on Iraq – it would have failed totally without it!
Members of the Bush cabinet were mentioning ‘the mushroom cloud’ all kinds of things to frighten Americans into supporting the attack. Americans would never have supported an attack for ‘regime change’, it took the lies and the deceptions to bring them on side. Many resent this terribly.
And what came out of the unprovoked attack was the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis and the maiming of tens of thousands more. Plus the loss of thousands of American lives and the maiming of many more.
This was a war of choice, not of necessity.
As more and more information comes out, we find that both the American and British governments suppressed any information that would provide evidence that might deter the attack Iraq, flimsy evidence was propped up and exaggerated.
I dont’ really care what Hillary Clinton thought – I do know that the propaganda machine was put in full swing stirring up fear, and that anyone who opposed the attack on Iraq was being branded unpatriotic or a traitor. Remember – “You’re either with us – or against us”. War fever was pushed and manipulated.
There was a tremendous outpouring of goodwill towards the United States after 9/11, that was destroyed by the attack on Iraq.
Talk about ‘meddling’ in another country. Killing tens of thousands of their citizens is a little more than meddling.

Danita wrote:
And what came out of the unprovoked attack was the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis and the maiming of tens of thousands more. Plus the loss of thousands of American lives and the maiming of many more.
==================
I’m not arguing one way or the other with regards to if we should or shouldn’t have gone to war with Iraq.
I was never all that keen on Bush myself, but that doesn’t mean its fine to go around saying things that simply aren’t supported by the facts of the situation, and the historical timeline of how these things occurred.
I’m arguing against the misinformation that is being posted. Its easy to say “Bush Lied” but the facts simply don’t support this, especially when one considers that calls for Saddams ouster and claims that he was known to have WMD started BEFORE Bush was even elected — and those strident statements were being made by the most liberal democrats in existence too.
Bush deserves credit – or censure – for what he actually did or didn’t do, based on the information available at the time the decisions were being made. NOT based on emotions, myths, or judgments made in hind site. This is true for ANY president, regardless of party.
I already posted the information with links. If Bush lied, the so did virtually our entire congress, including the most liberal Democrats among them.
As to the civilian casualties — the estimates of how many were killed or injured vary widely. One also has to remember the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam himself, along with his depraved sons, cousins, etc. One might also want to recall that hundreds of thousands in Africa also owe their lives to Bush for making AIDS medicine available to them.

Talk about ‘meddling’ in another country. Killing tens of thousands of their citizens is a little more than meddling. Posted by: danita | Jul 8, 2009 1:07:51 AM
______________________________
There’s a reason the Coalition forces were called the Coalition of the Willing. They were the only ones willing to stand up to this brutal dictator who continued to refuse to adhere to the myriad of resolutions that were passed by the U.N.
Many countries like France and Russia were unwilling because they were doing business with Sadaam. The U.N. leaders were in the corruption up to their eyeballs. So while thousands of innocent people were being tortured and killed year after year, the unwilling world stood by, did nothing and made money off their suffering. So who has blood on their hands?
The same thing is happening with the UN in other parts of the world. Open your eyes, danita. See the world for what it is.

Timmy . …
It was all done with continual lies to the American people. It was on the neo-con agenda before 9/11 – it was not on the agenda of the American people. 9/11 was abused in order to justify the attack on Iraq and persuade people. The discussion began immediately after 9/11 because the sleazy neo-cons knew they could fool this attack through. Slimy.
It slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis, it maimed tens of thousands more. Thousands of American soldiers were killed, thousands more injured or maimed.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but 9/11 was used by the Bush administration to justify their WAR OF CHOICE not of necessity. It drove the United States into huge debt. It killed thousands.
You go ahead and justify this slaughter to yourself in anyway you want. It is a fantasy.
By the way, none of us forget the picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands when the Republicans were making deals with the devil. Looking forward to the ideologues on here puffing themselves up more over negotiations (not dealings!) with Iran.
It’s such a treat to see the revisionist history making going on. I’m sure you would love it if some other country attacked america to get rid of the ‘tyrant’ Obama, bombing and killing tens of thousands of Americans, throwing thousands more in jail and keeping their military on the streets for years and years. Welcome to your America.

Do you deny the U.N. resolutions existed and that Sadaam ignored them, danita?

Timmy …
and what about this?
“The attack on Iraq was on the neo-con agenda before 9/11 – it was not on the agenda of the American people. 9/11 was abused in order to justify the attack on Iraq and persuade people. The discussion began immediately after 9/11 because the sleazy neo-cons knew they could fool this attack through. Slimy.”

“Do you deny the U.N. resolutions existed and that Sadaam ignored them, danita?”
Israel has ignored resolutions as well?
Should we invade?
I do find the right’s obsession with “legal” war rather disturbing.

“Is that why Obama has continued virtually all of Bush’s foreign policies?”
Bush advocated shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, the closing of Gitmo, the end of torture?
If Obama was continuing virtually every Bush policy, Darth Cheney would not be out there hoping for a terrorist attack so he could say I told ya so.
Because after all his reputation is far more important than American lives.

It is up to reasonable people to point out the good he has done and is doing.
Posted by: MaryE | Jul 8, 2009 2:17:23 PM
What exacly has he done?????????????

Timmy . …
“I’ll give you a hint – look up nationwide polls about Iraq taken PRIOR to 9/11.”
Heh! You’re the one claiming that Americans supported an attack on Iraq before the Bush administration twisted 9/11 into an attack on Iraq.
Show me ALL the polls you have showing Americans supported a military attack on Iraq before 9/11.

I do find the right’s obsession with “legal” war rather disturbing.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jul 8, 2009 3:15:19 PM
————————-
As opposed to what? What are you suggesting instead?

“Many countries like France and Russia were unwilling because they were doing business with Sadaam.”
Or they realized that Iraq had no WMDs and that invading the country would cause massive civilians casualties, create a huge refugee crisis, drive up the cost of oil to obscene levels (ok maybe Russia was privately happy with that) and lead to more instability in the region. Posted by: Ryan C | Jul 8, 2009 3:29:23 PM
____________________________________
And ruin their sweet deal doing business with Sadaam. You forgot that part – or ignored it.

“Is that why Obama has continued virtually all of Bush’s foreign policies?”
Bush advocated shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, the closing of Gitmo, the end of torture?
—————-
Yes, Bush plans, which were public knowledge for anyone who bothered listening, included draw down from Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan – Obama hasn’t changed ANYTHING there, the changes that have occurred were plans Bush put in place. Only difference is Obama keeps announcing hard deadlines, where Bush, AND ALL THE MILITARY LEADERS, have said what winds up being done ought to be based on conditions at the time rather than a pre-set deadline.
Obama hasn’t closed Gitmo either, so where’s the change there? Other than his misleading rhetoric, which you’ve drunk right up. As of a week ago, Obama had started seriously considering NOT closing Gitmo either. Reality bites, and Obama is getting a taste of it.
As to torture – what has Obama changed there? I’m assuming you’re meaning actually changed, and not just rhetoric?

Danita posts:
Timmy . …”I’ll give you a hint – look up nationwide polls about Iraq taken PRIOR to 9/11.”
Heh! You’re the one claiming that Americans supported an attack on Iraq before the Bush administration twisted 9/11 into an attack on Iraq.
Show me ALL the polls you have showing Americans supported a military attack on Iraq before 9/11.
————–
Um, Danita, I believe that was my comment, not Timmy’s.
YOU started the issue of American viewpoints prior to 9/11 – not Timmy, not me. Danita: “It was all done with continual lies to the American people. It was on the neo-con agenda before 9/11 – it was not on the agenda of the American people. ”
You find yourself caught again, having made a ridiculous claim, unable to provide any evidence, wrong again.

Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | Jul 8, 2009 5:32:24 PM
Show me ALL the polls you have showing Americans supported a military attack on Iraq before 9/11.

Is there a broken record in here?
Danita ducks the ball, not once, but twice in a row, then swings, and misses again.
Its clearly an obsurd request to post ALL, but here’s just a few polls showing the American People’s view of Iraq pre-9/11:
CNN/Time Poll conducted by Yankelovich Partners. Dec. 17-18, 1998. N=1,031 adults nationwide.
.
ALL Rep. Ind. Dem.
% % % %
“Thinking about the bombing of Iraq, do you approve or disapprove of the decision to attack Iraq?”
Approve 69 67 70 73
Disapprove 21 25 24 16
Not sure 10 8 6 11
.”Do you favor or oppose using military force now to remove Saddam Hussein from power?”
Favor 76 82 71 79
Oppose 18 15 22 14
Not sure 6 3 7 7
———-
Pew Research Center Dec. 19-21, 1998. .
“Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. military strikes against Iraq?”
Approve 75%
“Do you think the military strikes will be effective in reducing Iraq’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or not?”
Will be effective 50
Will not 41
Don’t know/Refused 9
————
The Gallup Poll. Feb. 19-21, 2001.
“Now thinking back to the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991: All in all, do you think the situation in the Persian Gulf region was worth going to war over or not?”
2/01 2/92 1/92
Yes, worth it 63 66 59
.
“Would you favor or oppose sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?”
2/01 6/93 4/92
Favor 52 70 55
————
CBS News Poll. Feb. 10-12, 2001.
.
“”What about at the end of the Persian Gulf War? Do you think the United States should have stopped fighting when Iraqi troops left Kuwait, or should the U.S. have continued fighting Iraq until Saddam Hussein was removed from power?”
ALL Rep. Dem. Ind.
Stopped 27 31 26 25
Removed Hussein 64 62 66 64
Don’t know/No answer 9 7 8 11
———–
The Gallup Poll. Feb. 4-6, 2002.
.
“Next, I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. Is your overall opinion of Iraq very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?”
Very or Mostly Unfavorable
%
2/02 88
2/01 85
11/00 88
5/99 91
2/99 87
3/96 86
———-
Newsweek Poll Dec. 17-18, 1998.
“Do you approve or disapprove of President Clinton’s decision to take military action against Iraq at this time?”
%
Approve 70
Disapprove 24
Don’t know 6
“Which one of the following statements best describes what you think about current U.S. military action against Iraq? It will solve the problem of Iraq for the foreseeable future. It will be a temporary solution to the problem. It will only make things worse by provoking continued warfare.”
%
Will solve problem 13
A temporary solution 60
Will make things worse 22
Don’t know 5
———-
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Dec. 17, 1998.
“As you know, President Clinton ordered air strikes against Iraq in response to that country’s noncompliance with the United Nations weapons inspections. Do you support or oppose President Clinton’s call for military action against Iraq?”
%
Support 78
..
“Do you think the United States should attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein?”
12/17/98 11/11-12/98 11/97
% % %
Yes 51 40 33
———
ABC News Poll. Dec. 16, 1998.
“As you may know, the United States launched air strikes against Iraq tonight, after United Nations weapons inspectors there reported that Iraq was interfering with their work. Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. attack on Iraq?”
%
Approve 73
.
“Clinton said the purpose of the attack was to interfere with Iraq’s ability to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Do you think the attack will or will not accomplish that goal?”
%
Will 41
Will not 46
No opinion 14
..
———-
CBS News Poll. Dec. 16, 1998.
ALL Rep. Dem. Ind.
% % % %
“Do you favor or oppose the United States using its Air Force to bomb targets in Iraq after Iraq failed to comply with its agreement for United Nations weapons inspections?”
Favor 79 74 81 82
.
“Do you think getting Saddam Hussein to comply with United Nations weapons inspectors is worth the potential loss of American life and the other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?”
Worth costs 62 61 58 65
Not worth it 25 29 27 20
Don’t know/No answer 13 10 15 15
———-.
Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. Dec. 16, 1998,
“As you may know, the United Nations chief weapons inspector has reported that Iraq has not complied with its agreement to allow United Nations inspections of possible weapons facilities. In response, the United States and Britain have launched an air attack against Iraq this evening. Do you approve or disapprove of this attack?”
%
Approve 74
Disapprove 13
No opinion 13
———–
ABC News Poll. Nov. 20-22, 1998.
.
“If Saddam Hussein does not keep his promise to allow inspectors full access to look for weapons of mass destruction, would you favor or oppose the United States immediately using its Air Force to bomb targets in Iraq?”
Favor 80 83 78 78
Oppose 14 11 14 15
Don’t know/No answer 6 6 8 7
.
“In the current situation, do you expect the United States to end up taking military action against Iraq, or do you think the current situation will be resolved without military action?”
Military action 57 59 55 57
Resolved without action 31 30 34 30
Don’t know/No answer 12 11 11 13
———–
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 13-15, 1998.
.
“Which one of the following possible goals do you think should be the specific goal of any U.S. attack on Iraq at this time: to pressure Iraq into complying with United Nations weapons inspections, OR, to remove Saddam Hussein from power?”
%
Pressure Iraq 25
Remove Saddam 70
Other (vol.) 3
No opinion 2
———–
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 11-12, 1998. N=904 registered voters nationwide.
.
“Do you think the United States should use prolonged military force in response to Iraq’s refusal to allow weapons inspections?”
%
Yes 61
No 24
Not sure 15

Get real Danita and stop changing the goalposts after the fact. Its like beating your head against a stone wall — you could have an elephant sitting on you, and you’d still claim repeatedly there was no elephant anywhere nearby.
You claimed that Iraq was not an agenda of the American people prior to 9/11 and Bush lies after 9/11.
You refused entirely to provide anything supporting your claim. I gave you nationwide polls from EVERY YEAR from 1998 thru 2002 which show quite clearly that Iraq WAS very much an ‘agenda’ of the American people prior to 9/11 – and the majority supported military action. You’re trying now to claim that Clinton, or someone, attacked Iraq every year from 98 to 2002?
Furthermore, as best I know, Iraq was NEVER in compliance with the relevant UN Security Council sanctions/resolutions. To be in compliance they had to stop interfering with the inspections, and they never did.
In the last few weeks prior to the start of the war, they came much closer to compliance, but still weren’t there. Some WMD and more conventional proscribed weapons had been declared or found, and were being destroyed under the inspectors. Hans Blix said “If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 (1991) – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if “immediate, active and unconditional cooperation” with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.”
IF COOPERATION WERE FORTHCOMING.

Well said William Klepzig!!I am not an American citizen (atleast not yet), but you are more than 100% right on America and her virtues.
There is no place in this world like USA, and only if ppl go and live and experience what it is outside, they will appreciate what America has to offer.
I am not a republican or a Bush supporter. Not even an American but I am a legal immigrant. But anytime anybody says bad things about America, I feel bad.
As for the POTUS apologizing for America, I dont know what is he thinking. Perhaps not having enough Nicotine everyday does things to a person’s head??!!! I dont know.

Posted by: Rihanna | Jul 9, 2009 7:57:40 AM
——————
Rihanna, welcome!! Anyone who thinks America is a good place to be overall, wants to assimilate, and wants to uphold our constitution is certainly welcome. I hope you’re able to get your citizenship soon.

Its certainly a valid point/concern to note that I might have cherry picked polls, but actually I didn’t. I can’t swear my source didn’t, but I strongly prefer facts and accuracy over ‘being right’ — so I looked for (and provided info from) ‘global listing’ type sources that appeared to provide ALL the info, not one sided info. Then I took a block from within the info solely for length considerations — and I did NOT omit any poll results from within the block that had anything to do with perceptions toward Iraq in the few years preceding 9/11.
Heck knows why I bothered taking the time, I even removed the “disagree & don’t knows” for easier reading for you folks — pretty much EXCEPT in ones where it was close.
Couldn’t look at myself in the mirror if I cherry picked. I’m a scientist — B.S. in biochemistry, M.S. in engineering both from top 10 university. Cherry picking is anathema.

“Meeting with Russian opposition leaders in the afternoon, President Obama said, “I think it’s very important that I come before you with some humility. I think in the past there’s been a tendency for the United States to lecture rather than to listen.”
And he’s been kissing the ass of every malefactor on the planet siince he took office. The Russians are in no position to give lectures. Obama sure does a lot of apologing on our behalf.