FORGET PARIS?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 08:13PM Just HOW ungrateful are Americans?
I mean all those smiling cheering Europeans taking to the streets for Obama - from Berlin to Paris - made it clear that they want the Messiah into the White House and now comes the news that In a sharp turnaround, Republican John mcCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released today.
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll. The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip. The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia's invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views.
I think that Obama will most assuredly win the race for the Presidency - of the European Union - were the position open. But Europeans need to understand that for all their cheer-leading and Obama frenzy - American voters make their OWN minds up.Of course there is much time to go but the lesson here is that the American electorate are not the same impressionable sheep that the Euroweenies are .... and November may yet deliver a devastating blow to the Democrats despite ALL the hype.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (74)
If they make their own minds up, we have no interest, they vote, we should shut up and you want to patronise these Europeans who apparently 'love Obama' (in France, a black man at the helm of anything, are you kidding??) why are we discussing Obama on a British blog. I'd be very happy for us to not to discuss US politics or have an opinion on it - at all. Seriously. I couldn't care less what they do. So you are right David.
What's all that crap about cheering Europeans and "Euroweenies"?
According to the last poll I saw, Obama is also Britain's overwhelmingly choice for president - five times more popular among the English than McCain. And that was even before he visited Britain.
We don't care what the Europeans think about Obama or the election, their opinions are a non-issue in our choice of president. To be honest, a majority of Americans don't care what they think about our country period.
Guess that makes us pretty darn ungrateful.
Seriously David. Unfortunately some Americans got all cross about an insignificant amount of media led "anti americanism" after Iraq - but it doesn't change the basic facts. We don't actually give a shit who they vote for. Even if it does mean British and European lives are spent helping them feel superior again after 9/11.
--We don't actually give a shit who they vote for.--
We meaning you. Many Europeans care a great deal
- British and European lives are spent helping them feel superior again after 9/11 -
Where does one begin to respond to that?
---
November may yet deliver a devastating blow to the Democrats despite ALL the hype.
Prepare for a great gnashing of teeth. The Dems won't know how to deal with this loss, this year when they should be winning via a 50 state blowout.
Alison:"why are we discussing Obama on a British blog."
How French!
Was there a handout I missed regarding topics that shouldn't be discussed on a "British" blog?
David can speak for himself, but he has never led me to believe that this should be a board only for British issues.
Exhibit A being this post. By the guy who owns the blog.
Freedom Fries Patty.
Phantom: Me thinks someone has had it up to her ears talking about Americans....what are Americans but big, fat rich people who like gun rights, anti-abortion, whispering about God with every breath? it's enough to make a hip, modern, cultural relativist's head explode.
Yeah just how ungrateful were the 10 Frenchmen who died in Afghanistan who have no right to comment on Obama or the US elections, according to David? Or the hundreds of Brits in Iraq whose lives were wiped out for 9/11 payback and your last Presidential vote, in some roadside mortar attack. Eh Patty. Talking of real explosions.
Alison
There's no need for this type of discussion.
I honor those ten French men, as I honor the Brits and others who have fought bravely and well in both Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Leave them out of this.
Patty, would you consider anyone who doesn't believe their own national cutlure superior to everyone else's on the planet so called 'cultural relativists'.
It's just that some terms are bandied about repetitively on this blogsite like confetti at a wedding, 'cultural relativist', 'moral relativist'.. etc
In fact if someone new comments on the articles, some of the regular posters are getting their knickers in a twist if the comment doesn't immediately enable them to put a label on the newcomer, and assign him/her to their designated box. :)
Btw, anyone here think Alison/Jo are really the same people. Its just that the anti-americanism and man hating themes of her posts sound very familiar :)
I think it matters who holds power in the US and in the EU and we should discuss and express our interest. I do care who is in the White House, who is in Downing Street, even who is in Elysee Palace. But Germans dancing for joy at a contrived PR event for Obama was NEVER going to do anything for the Messiah and this has now come true - to the chagrin of the Euro media. Check out the BBC coverage of the latest poll - it doesn't exist. The point of this post is the changing poll positions and how these are influenced by US domestic issues - not how many German or Parisian youth turn out chanting for the Obamessiah.
So what is the point of the post Phantom? Those men and all Euros are entitled to have an opinion on your elections given they result in the type of men at the helm who lead us all into these wars.
Hmmmmmm....so, you're angry at America because there were French and British soldiers, and citizens, who were killed by terrorists?
This is Bush's fault? Are terrorists ever responsible for their actions?
The point of Davids' post? I think he answered it with the comment that arrived at 9:42 also.
I think that the Berlin rally in particular sticks in his craw, and in that of many others. It was a little much, and it was held in a country that has sent zero troops to Iraq and who keeps their troops in Afghanistan way behind the lines, nowhere near where the Americans and the Brits are.
Alison -
Your argument is incoherent and all over the shop:
Or the hundreds of Brits in Iraq whose lives were wiped out for 9/11 payback and your last Presidential vote, in some roadside mortar attack.
They were in Iraq because of Tony Blair, a man who 'got it' according to you on islamic terror. Either he 'got it', or those lives were sacrificed in payback for 9/11, but not both.
Liam: "would you consider anyone who doesn't believe their own national cutlure superior to everyone else's on the planet so called 'cultural relativists'"
No. I consider a cultural relativist to be someone who doesn't believe in "right" or "wrong" - "good" and "evil" -- it's the philosophy which eschews value judgement and is behind the common statement "it's all good" and behind the thinking that there is no such thing as "civilization" v "barbarism"
>>who keeps their troops in Afghanistan way behind the lines, nowhere near where the Americans and the Brits are.<<
Who can blame them that they are too intelligent to follow where a Texan jackass leads.
Every European leader who did was soon put to the sword by his electorate. Even Merkel would have been leader four years earlier if she had not mouthed off about Germany possibly supporting that fool.
Alison: OK, enough of the silly anti-American v. French fry conversation.
The point is -- don't be shocked and bewildered when McCain wins.
David is reporting what the BBC isn't reporting.
Noel
So there should not have been an invasion of Afghanistan?
David Vance -
But Germans dancing for joy at a contrived PR event for Obama was NEVER going to do anything for the Messiah and this has now come true - to the chagrin of the Euro media.
Certainly it's to the chagrin of the Euro media, and that's the Euro media which grossly inflated the popularity of Obama and the attendance figures at his Berlin speech.
No sane person who saw that speech could say that hundreds of thousands of people attended. It was in the range of 20-30,000 at most, and that's with bands playing by way of warm up.
The Euro media is talking up their man and grossly inflating his perceived popularity. The peoples of the European nations are conservative, despite the decades of Left Wing activism to which they've been subjected and the media fights a total war to suppress this very idea.
Pete - any dolt knows that Blair had to convince Parliament to go into Iraq off a phoney weapons of mass destruction nonsense. And that Iraq is based on 9/11. Can you then explain to me why in the absence of such weapons Britain needed to go in with the yanks? And then why we aren't entitled to an opinion on which jackass they vote in next? Afghanistan is wholly to do with islamic terrorism. Iraq? Im not so sure. If it's incoherent its because there are two wars going on, only one of which im entirely convinced about anymore and i fully admit that. Iraq is a fucking disaster and even battled back into control has done nothing to resolve islamic terrorism. But Blair also knew that standing down and leaving the US isolated was not an option.
>>The peoples of the European nations are conservative, <<
Indeed, and that's one of the main reasons they have such problems with Bush, someone who ignores international law and convention and makes a laughing stock of diplomacy, such problems in fact that they kick out of office anyone who supported him.
Phantom, Afghanistan was a Nato led venture and Germany went along with it. Iraq on the other hand was Bush's private mistake.
Gee I thought this was an anti Paris Hilton post at first.
We share many hopes and concerns with our European friends and there is no harm in taking an interest (and even a hope for a particular outcome) in each other's elections. My fondness for the Brits doesn't ebb and flow upon who they elect.
-Afghanistan was a Nato led venture and Germany went along with it.--
As well they should have- Afghanistan is a moral no-brainer, completely justified under both international law and under the self defense provisions of the NATO treaties.
Germany, which was protected for a half century by American troops, should be doing a lot more in Afghanistan than they are.
Iraq is debatable -- Afghanistan is not. Not by serious people.
Terrible plane crash in Madrid. 150 people dead.
Alison -
You're becoming more incoherent:
any dolt knows that Blair had to convince Parliament to go into Iraq off a phoney weapons of mass destruction nonsense.
Apart from every government and intelligence agency who thought likewise, including those who supplied the WMDs to Iraq (Russia, China, Germany and France) and Syria and Iran. And the Clintons. And John Kerry.
And that Iraq is based on 9/11.
Of course it's not. The casus belli was the Baathist regime's refusal to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions. The impetus was the desire to surround Iran and Syria with hostile forces and force them into less hostile policies.
Can you then explain to me why in the absence of such weapons Britain needed to go in with the yanks?
This is logically incoherent. How would we have known that they were absent prior to invasion? In any case they weren't absent at all. They were present until moved to Syria. Two toones of them were picked up in Damascus afetr having been driven from Syria into Jordan. Oddly, the media failed to report this.
And then why we aren't entitled to an opinion on which jackass they vote in next?
Well of course we are entitled to an opinion. I thought it was David posting about it and you trying to shut everyone up.
Afghanistan is wholly to do with islamic terrorism.
I wish it were. Frankly I'm no longer certain what it's about. The Taliban and al-qaeda are puny. We could destroy them at will and ship out. Yet here were are, seven years later, building bridges, building schools, putting in traffic lights, pruning the roses and teaching children to read. In the meantime the terrorists roam the country and our governments leave our forces undermanned, underarmed and underprotected. For some strange reason, I sense our governments aren't actually that committed to getting the job done and shipping out.
Blair also knew that standing down and leaving the US isolated was not an option.
Well it was. Germany and France demonstrated that. But in early 2003 I saw why Blair chucked our lot in with Bush and I've never changed my mind. It was never about terror. It was never about 'freedomndemocracy'. With Blair it was always about Blair and his legacy. He assumed that Iraq would be a breeze. He assumed that rose petals would be strewn on the road to Baghdad. He thought he knew which way the wind was blowing and tagged along. It was always about Balir and his glory. Whether or not our forces have achieved anything is irrelevent to the question of what motivated Blair. Hundreds of British soldiers have been killed simply because of his vanity and his need to secure a reputation.
No Pete. I think you're becoming more beligerent or just like to say something silly and personal at the start of your otherwise interesting comments (re Afghanistan etc).
I should have mentioned the Nato aspect and didn't. Remiss.
Of course Iraq is based on 9/11. If it wasn't why didn't it occur before that date if Saddam was such an enormous pain in the arse? and WMD were so scary? Americans couldn't give a shit about Iraqi democracy and freedom at that point or Iraqi WMD. God knows why i bought into the bullshit afterwards.
I disagree about Blair and his legacy since it got him fired and hated. Some legacy. It could never be a legacy unless it was a reasonable shoo in and it never ever was. It was a gamble and that was obvious in his speech right up to the invasion and by the millions who turned up in London that day to tell him to get stuffed. He believed the better aspect at that point was twofold - don't leave a weak America twisting in the breeze and the same liberal interventionism that convinced Bush to do something on the basis it was 'just' and decisive. In Blair's left wing opinion it was just, in Bush's bullshit it was a useful mask.
Other than the French taking a rather horrific change in Taliban tactic head on I think we have the Taliban stitched up. Im more concerned with ensuring we don't provide any more British traitors for the cause. If that means grabbing them by the bollocks, denying them freedoms and squeezing real hard i couldn't give a shit. They ain't British to me.
Alison: God Bless America.
America. God. Church. America. Abortion = Murder. Men are awesome creatures. God bless men. In so many ways, men are stronger than women.
Women are from France and men are from America; women are weak and need protection and men are strong and have broad shoulders.
(Full disclosure: just trying to wind you up, doll...sitting back to watch the fireworks.)
To Europeans Obama is more or less perfect.
He's kinda black, maybe, sort of, halfsies
black. Plus they can support him and hope
he wins without having to ever vote for him
because he's sort of black and nobody even
remotely black could ever ever ever ever ever
ever ever get elected to anything in Europe.
So the enlightened liberal conscience is
sated without having to deal with a ( N-word)
actually running your country.
I was heartened by the fact that no one in
Germany threw bananas at Obama or did a Monkey
chant while he spoke.
Of course Iraq is based on 9/11. If it wasn't why didn't it occur before that date if Saddam was such an enormous pain in the arse?
Bush had been in office all of nine months when 9/11 happened.
Many lefties take the position that Bush was determined to invade from the day he took office, which may be true for good or not good reasons ( keep in mind that most security services believed that there were WMDs.. )
So, if that conspiracy theory is true, then Iraq was not about 9/11, though the post-9/11 mood of the country may have made it easier to sell
>>In so many ways, men are stronger than women. Women are from France and men are from America<<
specifically from California!
AC1: funny comment..
Thanks, Noel (not) How can we be sure they are actually men? I mean up is down and down is up, these days.
Men are awesome. In fact, white men are awesome. I'm tired of the women's movement always finding fault with men -- but men have "broad shoulders" and just take it. (like a man.)
They look German to me Noel.
Alison -
Of course Iraq is based on 9/11. If it wasn't why didn't it occur before that date if Saddam was such an enormous pain in the arse?
But it did! For the love of God, look at facts, not what the media tells you or even to your own mere perceptions. In 1998 Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US government (the Iraq Liberation Act). He supported it, his wife supported it, many liberals - who subsequently wished they hadn't - supported it.
They supported it because it was entirely inkeeping with liberal, Wilsonion traditions of foreign, pre-emptive intervention. They love to talk of the 'neo-con' adventure because it absolves them of labelling it honestly - a liberal intervention.
Now Lefties like to talk about these non-existent WMDs and what a lunatic thing the invasion was. Oh dear, well what were this lot on about?:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
I thought they were Irish! Noel??? That you, sweetie?
>>Men are awesome. In fact, white men are awesome.<<
Patty, you would just love me in the flesh - as white as driven snow, I am! Even after a month in the sun.
Phantom -
Many lefties take the position that Bush was determined to invade from the day he took office, which may be true for good or not good reasons ( keep in mind that most security services believed that there were WMDs.. )
Maybe many Leftists do, and I agree. But then lying comes easily to the Left. I remember the pre-9/11 Bush presidency. I remember that he was castigated for being an isolationist. He was belittled for being a little Texan, for not 'reaching out' to the world, for being interested in America only (as if THAT'S a bad thing in a President). The Left sniggered at reports he had never travelled outside of the US (remember that, Lefty retards?!) and for not knowing the capitals of this, that and the other country.
As usual, the Left is is full of crap and trying to revise history.
Noel: A real lamb, you are!...I'm sure...
Patty. You're being a silly woman. Apologies if i don't find it funny British lives were snuffed out to make you feel better about 9/11 when as David suggests we now can't apparently even comment on your next monkey in chief. Though by and large no-one cares. I don't. You could elect a black disabled blind mongoloid tranny. It would be funny. And is undoubtedly on the cards at some point. (though you were all fretting about a woman in charge. luckily her very broad shoulders sank)
God Bless China. The future.
Pete
Ill come back to your comment some of which i agree with. I should have included the part where their President was too busy getting his johnson massaged to worry about Mogadishu, much less regime change in Iraq.
McCain seems to have picked up among evangelicals/Christians - may be as a rsult of the Rick Warren interviews. I think this trend will continue to Barack's detriment.
Aison: "Apologies if i don't find it funny British lives were snuffed out to make you feel better about 9/11 "
You misunderstood me. I'm not making fun of British soldiers, or of anyone killed in war, or killed or injured by at-home terrorist attacks.
I'm making fun of you -- I'm making fun of your hyperbolic anti-Americanisms, your allergic reaction to any mention of God, of your dislike for men.
And, I am making fun of your capacity to say something really offensive about me - that I'm making fun of lost lives (because I'm American?) while, in the same breath, YOU play the victim!
Patty - I understood you. I thought you were silly. But then you are a woman.
Alison, I agree with Patty's 12:12, and if that isn't the sign you have crossed a line I don't know what is.
Apologies if i don't find it funny British lives were snuffed out to make you feel better about 9/11
God, that's such an awful, unkind, untrue thing to say. I throw up my hands.
---
Pete
Your 11:13 is tremendous. You channel our late, great, and much missed TV journalist Tim Russert, who loved to use politicians' past (some quite recent past) quotes against them.
There was a fairly solid US and international consensus that Saddam had WMD. Since Iraq, there has indeed been a "big lie" campaign among much in the left.
The quotes we see from before 9/11 are particularly damning against Speaker Pelosi, considering the way she's been carrying on in recent years.
Mahons -
You can agree with whoemever you like. Including Mccain and his circus show on human rights and conception. I don't agree with David's post that we are un-entitled to comment on your politics and need lecturing over "Obamamania".
We've (Europeans) committed troops to your stupid wars. One of which was largely all about 9/11 payback (speaking about crossing lines). It served for nothing else. We are therefore entitled to make a comment about Obama and most Europeans off the back of that idiocy that was Iraq and the current issues in Afghanistan have a vested interest in what their country's foreign policies will be like under the next US President.
That said the vast vast majority of Europeans and Brits could not care less which asshole you shoo into the White House.
Petes 11:19 simply underlines my comment about Blair's reasoning for war which Pete feels Blair simply used to create "his legacy". Nonsense. It was all about liberal interventionism. WMD was blithely chucked around as a reason for regime change and 9/11 was the cue.
Patty's bizarre interjection as a response to me on that overall subject was therefore laugh out loud funny. Ha.
Davids 9:42 doesn't clarify that at all.
It merely rips the piss out of the fact that some small noisy bunch of Europeans have an interest in US politics and rather like Obama. They know they can't vote on it. But they also know it matters in the current day and age who sits there. So they choose to like Obama who plays very much to the international crowd and visits Berlin.
Perhaps the post would be better directed at the US style of doing politics.
God knows Obama paid enough money to stage his international parties and woo the relevant media moguls.
Since those same media moguls exert influence both sides of the Atlantic, its not exactly a shock that people form an opinion.
And since some have sons brothers and husbands fighting American wars ("US Led Allies" such as we are) I think perhaps they are entitled.