A bomber jacket? Really? At least Bush had actually served and flown in our military.
Obama traveled to Afghanistan on a “surprise” visit.
President Obama personally thanked U.S. troops for their service during a surprise trip to Afghanistan on Friday as casualties mount since the president escalated the war last year.
In a speech to several thousand troops inside a hangar at Bagram Air Field, Obama declared that the troops are making important progress in the country and will succeed in the U.S. mission.
“We’ll never left Afghanistan be a safe haven for terrorists to attack America,” he said, adding that he didn’t need to tell them it was a tough fight and difficult days are ahead.
That “surprise” had been planned for a month, and occurred on the very day the new unemployment figures were released showing a rise in unemployment. Quite convenient for him to be out of the country on this day seeing as how those numbers are released on the same day every month and a visit like this will knock the bad news off the front pages.
Allah doesn’t think this to be the reason tho, he believes its because there is going to be a lot of bad news coming out of Afghanistan soon.
Between then and now, we’ve had Karzai call for Petraeus to abandon his battle plan and learned that peace talks were being carried on with a Taliban impostor. So, yeah, the troops probably can use a little pep talk. Especially since next month’s Pentagon strategy review is almost certain to show less progress than hoped for when Obama first ordered the surge a year ago.
I think it’s a little of both. Time it for bad economic news and try to show support for a war that desperately needs that support. Given all that I am glad he paid the visit tho. Our troops deserve it.
He said during the speech the following:
As we do, we continue to forge a partnership with the Afghan people for the long term. And we will never let this country serve as a safe haven for terrorists who would attack the United States of America again. That will never happen.
So that begs the question…if the strategy does look like it’s going to fail, as it does so far, will he do what is needed to turn it around? Bush had the courage to back a new strategy when the old one didn’t work out. I don’t have much faith Obama will however. Does anyone believe he will order an escalation of the war? Nope. He will most likely steer the US towards turning tail and running, ensuring our paper tiger status in the world. Especially seeing as how he is on record saying victory isn’t our goal in Afghanistan.
Exit note...check out this part from Obama’s speech:
When so many other institutions seem to be shirking their responsibilities, you’ve embraced your responsibilities.
See author page
Aye Good morning Ref. article basically says Govt. will REQUIRE we buy govt. bonds as portion of our 401K portfolio.
I don’t believe it.But then I’m one of your readers who doesn’t believe BHO is a Kenyan,Muslim,Communist,etc.etc.
Have a great day.i know it’s very early but any thoughts on 2012 Repub. standard bearer?
@rich wheeler: #49
Obama isn’t ASKING for your 401(k) money. He is trying to get legislation through so he can just TAKE it.
http://teaparty.freedomworks.org/forum/topics/the-obama-administration-is?xg_source=activity
Did you forget ‘”King Obama” was democratically elected with an 8.5 MILLION vote plurality.
Did you know that one reason he won was because he opened up his donation web site so that any person and any COUNTRY could give any amount they wanted, and that he isn’t releasing information about the money that he received like he is supposed to? What if George Bush would have done that?
Since I don’t belong to a political party I don’t care if a republican gets in office as long as a democrat doesn’t. For years I have said we need non-politicians in office. I would have no problem voting them all out.
I don’t blindly follow anybody. It takes me a long time to settle in on something new. It took most of my over 60 some years to figure out that every time democrats get in office they raise taxes and the economy goes down.
In Feb 2010 the Department of Labor and Treasury asked for public comments about making it easier for 401(k) participants to access annuities and other guaranteed income products.
The language in the DOL’s request seemed like the usual bureaucratic banal fare, noting mildly that DOL and Treasury wanted “to determine whether, and, if so, how, the Agencies could or should enhance, by regulation or otherwise, the retirement security of participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans and in individual retirement arrangements (IRAs) by facilitating access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide a lifetime stream of income after retirement.”
By May 2010 John Boehner and seven other Republicans had sent a letter to Labor Secretary Hilary Solis and Treasury Secretary Geithner expressing strong opposition to any move that would “dismantle or nationalize the private 401(k) system in favor of a government-run retirement security regime,” including guaranteed retirement accounts (GRAs).
Whether Obama has designs on taking our 401k s or not is debatable.
But many companies are being herded , sheep-dip style, down a shute that only allows a very small number of 401k plans to be offered to employees.
And those plans are pretty bad.
Most assume you know nothing about saving and/or investing so they are extremely risk-averse.
(Fine if you’re older, but what a waste for the young employee!)
Others are so politically correct as to be stand-ins for Obama’s Green agenda.
(Always a bad bet to subsidize wind or to buy renewable energy contracts.)
You really have to know your stuff to pick the right plan for yourself, especially if you are young.
Be careful out there, folks.
Smorg Over 60 years means you’ve seen Kennedy,Carter.Clinton,Obama.”All raised taxes and the economy went down”.Wild accusation.Proof please
2008 election”.Obama opened up his donation web site so that any person and any Country could give any amount they wanted”. WOW Proof please
I see your Tea Party ref above calls BHO a Communist.Do you believe that?
On a happier note.How goes the search for a great lady?
Semper Fi Richard
#54
Before I sent my last reply to you I couldn’t find the chart that showed the employment of the USA under democrat and republican congresses. I found it, but it only goes back to 2003, but someone else might have one that goes back further. You try to learn from the past so you don’t make the same mistakes in the future.
http://lgstarr.blogspot.com/2010/09/job-gains-losses-by-congressional.html
Keep in mind that this is during the Bush tax cuts. What you didn’t here from the liberal media is that the Federal revenue actually went UP after the Bush tax cuts.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/03/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/
Be sure to read these two items from the above story very slowly to allow plenty of time for them to sink in. I didn’t know that the rich paid a HIGHER percentage of income tax AFTER the Bush tax cuts.
From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.
And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.
I’m guessing they paid more because of them earning more and going into a higher tax bracket. Who could have guessed that letting the public have more of the money they earned to spend the way THEY wanted to would actually INCREASE tax revenue? Oh,,,,,,,,,,,,Wait a minute,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I think I know this one. Let me answer it. Can I, can I, can I, please, can I?
I see your Tea Party ref above calls BHO a Communist.Do you believe that?
I believe Obama wants the USA to be some kind of dictatorship or socialist country, and he wants as high a rank as he can get in it. If you haven’t figured this out after all of the tzars and department heads that have communist or socialist histories, then you are like the story about an uppity man constantly telling someone else to do different things. Someone else asked the uppity man what he was doing and he answered, “I want to see how far I can lead this jackass without a leash.” Obama is leading you and the other liberals wherever he wants you to go, and he isn’t even using a leash.
On finding a “great lady,” I probably will be single the rest of my life because I don’t want to marry the wrong woman again. She has to be VERY honest, non-smoker, non-drinker, non-cusser, looking for a guy to spend the rest of her life with, and very nice looking, even though I ain’t. All of them got their guy a long time ago.
The ex was WAY above me in looks. She could have been a model for cosmetics even though she didn’t wear any. She didn’t need it, but she is the one who asked me out, so I can still hope for a woman like that.
My main problem is that I really don’t want to go out with a woman that is so desperate that she would go out with me.
Smorgasbord
55Reply to this comment
#54
Before I sent my last reply to you I couldn’t find the chart that showed the employment of the USA under democrat and republican congresses. I found it, but it only goes back to 2003, but someone else might have one that goes back further……
http://alpipkin.com/blog/?p=71
Here’s one that goes back to 1983.
But it only represents control of the SENATE, not all of Congress.
Notice that the same pattern exists on it.
Under Republicans (the RED parts) unemployment numbers DROP.
Under Democrats (the BLUE parts) unemployment numbers RISE.
http://www.americanthinker.com/Hoven%209%2010%2009.JPG
@Nan G: #56
The blue lines would make great ski slopes for skiers. If you take the blue lines out and connect the red lines so they make one solid line, it would stop about the 3.5% mark. If the democrats let the republicans have their way from now on, how long would it be before the red line touches the 0% line and we had full employment?
It kind of makes an open minded person wonder why the democrats don’t want full employment. Maybe even having more jobs than there are people to fill them.
Oh,,,,,,,Wait a minute! I think I know this one too. Could it be that with full employment that:
(1) Wages would be higher because there wouldn’t be a line of people wanting jobs? No line means the employers would pay more to keep the good employees they have.
(2) Good wages means a person can earn enough to support his or her family with one income.
(3) Since the wage earner can survive on their own, they don’t need government assistance.
(4) Since they don’t need government assistance, they will vote for politicians that they think will help stimulate the economy even more.
(5) With more and more people voting for politicians who HELP the economy grow, that means that democrats will get fewer votes.
(6) Fewer votes for democrats mean fewer of them in congress.
(7) Fewer of them in congress means more politicians who want to help the economy grow.
If this cycle would keep going like this, how long would it be before there are no democrats in office? Not soon enough!