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

typo: apologing=apologizing

"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.

Ewe, that didn't come out sounding like I'd meant it to at all - Sorry!! Odd, the end of the post didn't post either, but I'll just leave it.

Sometimes in trying to explain things, I apparently suffer diarrhea of the fingers. I was just trying to say that I hadn't found/omitted any contrary poll results. The part that got cut basically said that even when I disagree with someone, I appreciate it when they pass along solid facts or point out logic I may have missed.

------

Rational Critical Debate Is the Path To Knowledge

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.

Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | Jul 9, 2009 1:41:44 PM

Atlas, that was nice of you to say that. Yes, welcome Rihanna.

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.

Danita, it appears to me (and I'm sure you're shocked I would disagree with you) that you are interpreting the wording of the questions to prove your point.

People always look at polls and interpret them differently for their own reasons. Yes, some are specifically talking about bombing, but some talk about a "military strike to remove Saddam" and I think this can be interpretted as an invading force of some kind considering how elusive he was with all his stunt doubles. Some of them are especially telling and clearly appear long for 9/11.

I'm impressed that Atlas took the time to compile the info, providing a broad cross-section of time, sources and questions. I'm not saying Atlas didn't pull only polling results to prove his point, but wasn't that the goal anyway?

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.

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again . . ..

It was a really nice try on your part, but those polls were about very specific targeted attacks on Iraq during a period of non-compliance with UN regulations. There was support for targeted attacks under those conditions.

In no way does that poll indicate majority support in America for an all-out military invasion and occupation of Iraq in 1998.

And during a time of Iraqi compliance with the UN regulations and weapons inspectors - there is no way the majority in America wanted an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Public opinion changed only after 9/11 was co-opted and cornered by the Bush administration and used as a recruiting tool for an attack on Iraq.

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.

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again . . .

Nice try . ..

Seems to me ALL of those polls you posted are asked around Clinton's (and Britain's) very specific targeted attacks, at a time when Iraq was being reported as NOT complying with U.N. inspectors - there was no invasion!

Those polls were all conducted when there was specific instances of non-compliance, targeted attacks - AND - those polls had nothing to do with an all out INVASION.

Surely you can see the difference between targeted attacks when U.N. inspectors are reporting non-compliance - and an all out ground invasion when the U.N. inspectors were reporting compliance?

Sorry, your 'argument' has holes all through it. Energetic effort though.

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

Come on you claimed Americans supported a military attack on Iraq before 9/11 . ..
prove it.

Show me ALL the polls you have supporting a military attack on Iraq before 9/11.

Guess what . . . you won't be able to post those polls because your facts are lies.

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.

Um, Danita, I believe that was my comment, not Timmy's. Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | Jul 8, 2009 5:32:24 PM
_____________________________

It's hard to keep track when you're slamming everyone all the time. It's easier for us neocons because there's less of them and more of us. And let's face it, danita is no Ryan_C.

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.

The O'Man acts as if ....The O'man is a shame to every American living.

Posted by: William Klepzig | Jul 8, 2009 4:02:51 PM
------------

It drives me crazy too, William!

"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?
-----

Ryan C continues: 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.
------

Can you get more absurds? I mean, just keep ignoring the facts and context of issues, instead make more unfounded character attacks.

Ryan C, how are you so certain Saddam didn't move any WMD out of the country?

On another issue -- anyone know what sort of things trigger the ABC "we're sorry, we can't accept this data" thing? It let me post this post, but NOT if I included, verbatim, Ryan C's actual post for reference...

"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.