Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

OBAMA: President takes credit for taxpayers’ payouts

Letter by Brianne McKay, Tacoma on March 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm with 60 Comments »
March 26, 2012 1:52 pm

Once again, I bow my head in shame that I actually voted for Barack Obama. The man not only bows to terrorists, he takes taxpayer dollars and gives payouts to the families of the Afghans who were killed.

It’s not the money that upsets me, it’s the fact they are told the money is “from President Barack Obama” (TNT, 3-26), like he’s the great hero. That payout did not come from Obama’s pockets; it came from the taxpayers and should have been given “from the people of the United States of America.”

What a disaster of a president we got with him. I hope people see him for the arrogant dictator he really is and vote him out in November.

Leave a comment Comments → 60
  1. More sour grapes.

  2. The real story is that US Representatives said nothing. What is being quoted is what the Afghans said themselves.
    “U.S. official confirmed on Sunday that payments had been made to victims but refused to discuss specifics.”

  3. Amen to that. Sadly there are some people that are still blinded by his lies of hope and change.

  4. darlin likes lies. Who would have guessed?

  5. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    What is being quoted is what the Afghans said themselves.

    Pub, have you bothered to read any of the numerous reports on this? All say “the families were told that the money came from President Barack Obama.”

    We’re talking about the New York Times, BBC, msnbc, AP, and many more. Are these usually reliable left-wing sources wrong?

    Heck, even the Christian Science Monitor is reporting the same thing.

    The real story is that US Representatives said nothing.

    LOL, would that include democrats? Nancy Pelosi? Geez, talk about the price of tea in China.

  6. Canadian Indians were told gifts came from their Great White Mother Across the Sea.

    American Indians were told gifts came from their Great White Father in the East.

    So what if the Blood Money paid to the Afghans was said to come from Our President, the results is that the Afghans no longer are calling for SSgt Bales to be handed over for Afghan Style Justice.

    A leader, any leader, is responsible for what those under him do or don’t do.

    So you civilians can go cry in the corner but this is one vet who knows Obama is a real leader, unlike the chicken hawks who dance and sing about bombing Iran.

  7. The president is a symbol of the US; most intelligent people understand the funds were from the American public

  8. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    The president is a symbol of the US…

    Oh… that’s why his image is on the 5-Trillion-dollar-bill. His proudest accomplishment… in only 3 years.

    That is, proudest accomplishment now that you never hear him talk about 0bamacare (which is probably because Americans disapprove of it 47% to 30%).

  9. LornaDoone says:

    “That payout did not come from Obama’s pockets; it came from the taxpayers and should have been given “from the people of the United States of America.”

    Obama isn’t a taxpayer?

    Since we are playing “stupid rhetoric games” I thought I’d contribute.

  10. aislander says:

    Judging by what the Obama was overheard to have said to Medvedev about disarming the US after being safely re-elected and no longer responsible to the electorate, people can show their intelligence by not believing a word this liar says. About anything.

    Congressman Wilson was right…

  11. old_benjamin says:

    If he would only take credit for the gift that keeps on giving, a gazillion dollar healthcare bill to your kids, grandkids, and great grandkids.

  12. aislander, yes that is really scary. Too bad some here don’t realize that when and if “the great one” takes away our guns we will be up a creek without a paddle. I just hope and pray Mr. hope and change, the liar neither gets elected nor holds any government office for that matter, he is scary as hell.

  13. Brianne – you really expect us to believe you voted for Obama, please! This extreme right wing spin and lies.

    It never ceases to amaze me why the need to lie, can’t you make argument as to why you disagree with Obama or whoever, but I guess that would be too much trouble when it’s so much easier to lie.

  14. So the letter writer is upset that an Aghani official told families of the victims that the money was from Obama and is blaming Obama for that. She isn’t upset that payments were made, she just wanted them to be in the name of the USA instead of Obama.

    The NYT, Boston Globe and others all quote the same Reuters report that said Haji Agha Lalai, a member of the Kandahar provincial council reported the story that the council gave the money on behalf of the United States and told the families the money was from Obama.

    In a tribal society, the tribal leader is the embodiment of the tribe. I can see why officials would use understandable and simple terms to the villagers. Obama no more ordered that wording than he ordered the killings themselves. (Or is that the next conspiracy theory we will hear from the loonies on the right?)

    In the articles Lalai was quoted as: “We are grateful to the United States government for its help with the grieved families,’’ so they were told by American officials that it was from the USA.

    Ah, anything to try to attack Obama in this crazy election year. The right has so little ammunition against Obama it must make up pretend outrage on issues like this.

  15. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    The NYT, Boston Globe and others all quote the same Reuters report that said Haji Agha Lalai, a member of the Kandahar provincial council reported the story that the council gave the money on behalf of the United States and told the families the money was from Obama.

    Except… that’s not exactly how they reported it:

    The payments were made on Saturday by American military officers at the office of the governor of Kandahar Province, where the killings took place. The people wounded in the attacks were each given $11,000, said Hajji Agha Lalai, a member of the Kandahar provincial council.
    Hajji Jan Agha, who lost cousins in the killings, said he and other relatives were invited to the governor’s office by foreign and Afghan officials, according to Reuters. “They said this money is an assistance from Obama,” Mr. Agha was quoted as saying.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/world/asia/us-compensates-afghan-villagers-for-soldiers-attack.html

    “We were invited by the foreign and Afghan officials in Panjwai yesterday and they said this money is an assistance from Obama,” Haji Jan Agha, who said he lost his cousins, told Reuters, referring to U.S. President Barack Obama.

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82O0BA20120325?ca=moto

    Oh those darn “commenter(s) on a conspiracy theory site(s) (that) made this ignorant rant”.

  16. Aislander – I know you, unlike most neocons, have a URL that you forgot to include in your 3-26-123:50 pm.

  17. Aislander – I know you, unlike most neocons, have a URL that you forgot to include in your 3-26-12 3:50 pm.

  18. The official US stance was to make no comment. The comments being quoted did not come from any US source. The right’s grasping for straws here is an indication of how desperate they are.

  19. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    “The shadow knows, LOL.

    Pub – the proverbial fly-on-the-wall.

    You would have a point if you simply stated that no one knows exactly what was said, how it was said, or by whom. All we have to go by is the reportage, and it doesn’t look so good for the 0bama apologists right now.

    I smell a rash of walk-backs coming.

  20. “have you bothered to read any of the numerous reports on this? All say “the families were told that the money came from President Barack Obama.”

    Did Obama say it? No. He isn’t trying to “take credit” for the payments. End of story.

  21. CT7,
    Took me about 15 seconds to find the same links.

    FYI: Obama may have more room to negotiate but it will still be up the Senate to approve any Treaty before it can be enforced.

  22. Vox, the articles clearly state the payments were given to the families by the council, not Americans and the council told the families that it was from Obama. The council acknowledged that it was from the United States because that is what American officials told them.

    How much twisting can you give a story to fit a conspiracy theory?

    As ehill stated, whatever version you want to make of it, Obama didn’t tell the families anything, so this letter and all the conspiracies around it are a crock of Obama hate.

  23. Frankenchrist says:

    Brianne, we’ve been paying off the families of “collateral damage” since your hero Bush invaded Iraq.

  24. aislander says:

    xring writes: “…Obama may have more room to negotiate but it will still be up the Senate to approve any Treaty before it can be enforced.”

    You know how President Obama likes to do things without bothering Congress about them, don’t you? Such as going to war with Libya and making recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess. Why not treaties, too.

    I remember a previous Democrat admin treating Kyoto as if it had been ratified…

  25. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Xring, if you had the link from multiple, reputable sources why ask? Very petty.

  26. Seriously? You are upset because of this? Brianne….do us all a favor and stop voting, your decision making process is obviously based upon superficials.

  27. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Tuddo, please read the New York Times piece, above, that you referenced and I linked. What it does “clearly state” is the “payments were made on Saturday by American military officers….

    So, while it doesn’t say they physically put the money in the victim’s relatives hands, it does “clearly” say that US military officers made the payments. I am simply taking the articles that I’ve read literally and, unlike you, not reading anything more into them.

    As I said, I have a feeling there’ll be a huge walk-back on this one.

    But it seems to me you’re trying to prove something that simply can’t be supported by the stories and quotes out there at this juncture.

    And while I am merely bemused by all of this, it’s also true that in as much as 0bama loves to take credit for anything he deems politically beneficial to his carefully contrived image, it isn’t really that much of a stretch to believe his handlers made sure the victims were led to believe the payments came directly from 0bama.

  28. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Darn autocorrect!

    That should read “And while I am merely amused by all of this…

  29. Such as going to war with Libya and making recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess

    aislander – when was the last time Congress declared war before a President sent troops in?

    Recess appointments…..wanna show me just how many appointments Congress has approved in the regular fashion – if we want the President to play by the rules, Congress has to stop trying to obstruct EVERYTHING, even mundane appointments.

  30. You didn’t vote for President Obama Brianne, stop making things up.

  31. “Judging by what the Obama was overheard to have said to Medvedev about disarming the US”

    Why does the rightwing lie so much?
    Are they really dumb enough to think no one knows they are lying?

  32. “Too bad some here don’t realize that when and if “the great one” takes away our guns”

    Well maybe they are dumb enough…..

  33. “How much twisting can you give a story to fit a conspiracy theory?”

    As much as it takes, haven’t you read anything the birthers are putting out?
    These conservatives know no bounds and will do or say ANYTHING to try and make the President look bad.

    They truly are deranged.

  34. Vox,
    Your March 26 post attribute Afghan officials as the source of the ‘Obama Money’ quotes not American Officials.

    The issue is not who paid the money, but who said it was from Obama.

    IMO: I would be surprised if the American Officials understood, let alone spoke the local Afghan dialect.

    Aislander,
    Congress could have ended the Libya Operation with a simple majority vote. They did not.

    Recess appointments are covered in the Constitution. Where you upset when Bush used recess appointments. As of Jan 2012 – Obama has made 28 recesses appointments. At the same point is his first term Bush had made 61.
    I found the stories about nuclear disarmament but could not find any about ‘taken our guns’.

  35. Another Obama voter has finally awaken from a trance. I am one who never felt that “thrill” up my leg. Welcome to the world of reality. (how do like the crease in my slacks)?

  36. pantomancer says:

    Obama is waaay over his head. We checked the “hope and change” box. Time to send him packing.

  37. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Vox,
    Your March 26 post attribute Afghan officials as the source of the ‘Obama Money’ quotes not American Officials.

    Uhh… no it doesn’t.

  38. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    IMO: I would be surprised if the American Officials understood, let alone spoke the local Afghan dialect.

    Good thing we don’t put things like military action and diplomacy in the hands of your “opinion”, x.

    You can’t be serious. You sincerely do not believe we have military officials who speak Pashtu or Dari? Wow, x, your opinion of the military is even lower than I had suspected.

  39. Vox – 17 years of military service and never knew a single officer who could speak any Asian language except enough japaneses to get by in a bar or brothel (where one did not really need to speak anything but english).

    PS – at the risk of patting myself on the back – on an another post I predicted that the US would pay Blood Money.

  40. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    How long have you been out, x? Having only had a cup of coffee in the Coat Guard in the 70’s, I had no real foreign experience, but I know that the military was a whole different animal back then. Now we have a professional armed services, and I would think (given the disastrous experiences of SE Asia) they would place a high priority and value on liaison at every level.

    PS – at the risk of patting myself on the back – on an another post I predicted that the US would pay Blood Money.

    You know… the practice is not new. But given the current administration, I suppose we should also not be surprised at the amounts, just as I won’t be surprised if the story of where it came from proves true.

  41. aislander says:

    I miswrote: President Obama made at least one “recess” appointment when the Senate was NOT in recess.

    I didn’t say anything about “declaring” war. Most wars in which we have been involved have been undeclared. BUT, Congress has always been consulted, and a vote taken in which Congress grants approval, before larger hostilities are begun. Bush did that before engaging Iraq, for example…

  42. “President Obama made at least one “recess” appointment when the Senate was NOT in recess.”

    Which is a lie.

  43. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Kluw-less, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are-unconstitutional/2012/01/05/gIQAnWRfdP_story.html

    You lie, are uninformed, and are nothing more than a wisea..

    Vox- chances are the officer know hello and good bye. Maybe a few conversational phrases, but not the language.

  44. aislander says:

    xring: I am not a “neocon.” That word is used to describe former liberals or even lefty radicals who have come to their senses and moved far to the right while retaining the zeal characteristic of their former political orientation. These are loathed by their erstwhile comrades.

    Neocons often retain their fondness for large, intrusive government that animated their former dogma, but repurposed to suit their new one. However, I know limited government is best, since it is less capable of damaging freedom.

    Most of all, though, I have never, ever, been anywhere near the left on almost any of its signature positions…

  45. averageJoseph says:

    LMAO… 4:37 SO true.

    Pass the broccoli.

    Cell phone please….

  46. LornaDoone says:

    The conservatives are really striking out.

    They can’t make hay on this subject, they are trying to make an issue out of Dick Cheney getting government paid health care and that is blowing up in their faces and despite their attempts to demonize a teenaged dead kid, the homicide investigator came out today and said he wanted to charge the shooter with manslaughter.

    Maybe they’ll return to the birth certificate/Kenya bit.

  47. LornaDoone says:

    As usual, aislander went for the cheap definition (from wiki, where the Heritage folks can santitize it)

    Try this:

    Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because “they were mugged by reality,” but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation.

    They were associated with Irving Kristol’s journal, the Public Interest, that had a lot of social-science pieces poking empirical holes in liberal theory. These people were former liberals, former Democrats, and in some cases former communists, but gradually over 30 years they really merged into the conservative mainstream, and the difference was very difficult to tell.

    In fact, one of the foremost neoconservatives, Norman Podhoretz, wrote an obituary for this distinction several years ago because it just seemed to no longer matter. We’ve seen the rise of it again, first of all, with John McCain’s candidacy in 2000, where the segment of conservatives that supported Sen. McCain tended to have more neo-kind of tendencies and tended to sort of self-consciously describe themselves as “neoconservatives,” foremost among them Bill Kristol and David Brooks.

    Neoconservatives are less skeptical of government than other conservatives. They are less worried about reducing the size of government, less enthusiastic about tax cuts, more concerned about forging national crusades that can tap either the American public’s patriotism or its desire for reform. You saw this in McCain with his campaign finance proposal and a little bit in his foreign policy.

    And with the war on terror, you saw neoconservatives emerging as a distinct tendency within conservatism, mostly on foreign policy; its hallmarks being extreme interventionism, extremely idealistic foreign policy, and emphasis on democracy building and spreading human rights and freedom and an overestimation, in my view, of how easy it is to spread democracy and liberty to spots in the world where it doesn’t exist currently.

    Read more: So, what is a ‘neocon’? – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html#ixzz1qO7hMQrl

    This ain’t 30 years ago.

  48. concernedtacoma7 says:

    The Casio player, king of the cut & paste, wallpaper off topic and without substance.

    30 years ago, before the Palind were famous and BHO was in Pakistan, k_nos was still hating America, burning flags, and trying to compensate for his racist heart.

  49. LornaDoone says:

    late at night….when the 42 cocktails have kicked in…..

  50. ‘The Casio player, king of the cut & paste, wallpaper off topic and without substance.”

    … he wrote, once again ignoring the topic. ROFL

  51. aislander says:

    “Neocon” is also used as camouflage for antisemitism and is, therefore, often heard in tandem with attacks on our having stood with Israel…

    As for 10:55: so f***ing WHAT?

  52. ““Neocon” is also used as camouflage for antisemitism”

    ROFLMAO

  53. aislander says:

    …and there’s the proof.

    Thanks, reflexive lefty!

  54. [Bush Era or current] Neoconservatism is a political philosophy which uses conservatism as a cover for power-oriented unprincipled and quite non-conservative political maneuvering.

    Neoconservatives (often called “neocons”) claim to be conservative, and heavily emphasize largely irrelevant issues which tend to sway conservative votes in their favor (such as gay rights and abortion) as well as doing and saying things which tend to appeal to the authoritarian follower mindset (which predominates among conservatives), while actively pursuing radical non-conservative goals.

    To the extent that neoconservatives actually have an ideology beyond the acquisition of personal power, it appears to be based in the Straussian school of thought that rule by elites is necessary in order to provide restraint to human sinfulness.

    http://issuepedia.org/Neoconservatism

  55. aislander says:

    So…xring…how is that different from what I posted? So-called neo-cons bring to a leftist agenda conservative cover. They may jettison certain aspects of socialism, but they certainly retain the coercion–as do the lefties who stay left…

  56. Aislander,

    Have someone read and explain the last paragraph of my post and all shall be reveled.

  57. “…and there’s the proof. “

    ROFLMAO – that was a good one!

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0