October 22, 2017
Contributors Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Bald Eagles | Medicaid Expansion

Comments for: Obama stoops, doesn’t conquer

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Romney didn’t quarrel because he hasn’t got a clue!

    • Anonymous

      He has no clue in your view.  He has a huge clue in most everyone elses view.  Mitt Romney will be the next president.

      • Sherman2

        As much as I hate to say it, Romeny likely will win!  It will be a short term horror for America, but it will allow the Dems to regain the house in two years and the Presidency in four.
        … and you Mittens people here who are on welfare of any sort and dependent on public paid for health care, better stock up on beans and band aids…. you’re gonna need ’em.

        • Anonymous

          Either the kool aid has hit you hard or you are over tired.  “Mittens People’.  wtf/  think it adviseable you go take a nap.

          • Sherman2

            Iz you cussing at me in online-code!?  Ah fah!!!!  I am shocked HB!  Shocked!  I just wish I could be as clever…., maybe I just need to watch Fox and friends more to reach your level of obvious clarity and depth of wit….

            …nah 

  • Anonymous

    I wish there was a shred of honesty in these pieces. When it’s Obama who doesn’t quarrel and instead speaks softly, he is painted as failing to show up to the debate and loses the thing in an epic fashion. I agree! His first debate performance was awful — he let Romney get away with way too much. But when Romney does the exact same thing? Oh, that’s just him taking the high road!

    Come on. I really don’t know how these writers do it, how they can even stand themselves. The attacks are so petty and inconsistent.

    • Anonymous

       Eh, it’s Krauthammer, what do you really expect?  He isn’t exactly known for his consistency or his intellect.

      • Anonymous

        Do you live on this planet/  Charles has a great mind and is a highly accomplished man.I sure do not know what you read but surely you don’t understand a word that Charles states.

        • Anonymous

          Yes  I would suggest these people read Dr. Krauthammer’s history.  One of the most brilliant men who’s ever graced the editorial pages or news shows.

        • Anonymous

          One of Mr. Krauthammer’s accomplishments is his willful disregard of the fact that the U.S. Navy is more than twice the size of China’s. No other country even comes close. His article above contains scant few factual analyses on which to base any “great mind” accolade.

      • Anonymous
        • Anonymous

          You left out that he is also extremely partisan in his political views.

          • Anonymous

             Charles is willing to call it as he sees it and speak bluntly. 

            As for being partisan, I remember how disappointed I was when Obama was running the first time and Charles gave him a complete pass.  Charles gave Obama a fair chance to deliver on his promises and only turned against him when it became obvious what kind of president Obama really is.

          • Anonymous

            Krauthammer is just a more articulate version of Rush Limbaugh. There is no substance to what either one of them says.

          • Anonymous

            only in your view.  Charles wheels circles around Rush.  There is no comparison. none.

          • A complete pass? He was one of the most vocal Ayers and Wright ranters. He made an Obama/Hitler comparison back in 2008 (before it was cool) and lambasted Obama for his narcissism (though he had a point there.) Fair chance? You’re funny. :D

            Highly intelligent perhaps, though an ideologist to the core. His biggest disappointment with Obama, no doubt, lies in Obama not attacking Iran and continuing on with the neoconservative agenda.

          • Anonymous

            Just think how disappointed your going to be when Obama gets re-elected.

          • Anonymous

            My only disappointment is in  the ignorance of the American public that would vote for anyone like Obama and what that says about how the US is headed for failure.

          • Anonymous

            No.  do some homework.  He has worked on both sides of the political parties.

          • Anonymous

            I do my homework. I suppose the next thing your going to tell me is that Fox News is Fair and Balanced. Before answering remember ,they donated $2.5 million to the Republicans ,they have employees who are on Romney’s campaign staff, they produced two Republican campaign ads,they have numerous employees who are fund raisers for the Republicans,and many of their staff are Republicans who have run for public office. 

          • Anonymous

            Charles has writtend for the WSJ for years michaela 47. I would definately say that FOX is more Fair and Balanced than the other newtorks. Thanks for providing the money numbers, it saves me time of research. Really does not surprise me as it is also fact that Obama has already raised ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Hollywood Elite gave generously and so did MANY HUGE CORPORATIONS. You may want to see How much GE gave. Enough said. I already voted.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve already voted also but I must say that, just like a true conservative,you missed the whole point by a country mile. Corporations and the Hollywood Elite don’t try to pass themselves off as credible news agencies. By the way if you check your facts you’ll find out that corporations are giving much more generously to Republicans than they are Democrats because they know they’ll be much more sympathetic to their agenda of screwing the poor and middle class.

    • Anonymous

       Petty, inconsistent, and woefully weak.

    • Anonymous

      You should have a conversation with Charles.  He has worked for both parties.  He is an accomplished man who DOES know what he is talking about.

      • Anonymous

        I read every piece of his that is published here and I’ve never not found one to be absurd and dishonest. 

  • Guest

    How ridiculous.
    ●~*

    • Anonymous

      Yes, ridiculous that you do not understand what Charles is saying. 

      • Sherman2

        The guy is a Murdock/Ailes shill!  Always has been and always will be!  But hey… that’s why you and him are on a first name basis…LOL!

        • Anonymous

          Hey Sherm, apparently you do not know about Charles. I suggest you use your free time to read about him. His background just may surprise you. He is a highly educated man who expresses his education in the most intelligent manner. May be you could take a lesson from him.

          • Sherman2

            Oh come on hammie, climb down off your elitist high horse for minute…He’s one wink and a brown shirt short of Goebbels…. he’s a right wing propagandist who happens to share your viewpoints…  so please don’t nominate him for sainthood or as one of Americas greatest thinkers,  ok?   The guy is a right wing dubbah-head!  :-)

      • Guest

        —–troll——^^^

  • As usual, excellent commentary by Charles Krauthammer, a very intelligent and articulate man.

    • Anonymous

      Except for the fact that Obama has proposed a force of 300 ships by 2019 and that we will still have the most powerful navy on earth. A time honored GOP tactic against Democrats is to label them soft on national security. Obama’s continuation of nearly the exact same foreign policies as his predecessor has left press agents like Krauthammer scrambling.

  • Anonymous

    Chuck nails it.

    • Sherman2

      …you love pandering  and being pandered to, must be a mitt supporter trait.

  • Anonymous

    I would’ve taken a baseball bat to Obama’s second-debate claim that no one in his administration, including him, had misled the country on Benghazi. (The misleading is beyond dispute. The only question is whether it was intentional, i.e., deliberate deceit, or unintentional, i.e., scandalous incompetence.)

    THE NEW YORK TIMES)

    Abu Ghraib

    47 days on front page of the NY Times.
    32 days in a row on the front page.
    Nobody killed.
    Story moved to Page 7 when revealed that no orders from above – rogue soldiers.

    Blame:  Bush’s fault!

    Benghazi

    2 days on front page of the NY Times.
    1 day in a row on the front page.
    4 killed including U. S. Ambassador.
    3 days warning – nothing done.
    Obama informed of attack – went to bed.
    Ambassador concerned about attack/security.
    No U. S. Marines for security.
    No armed guards were sent despite warnings.

    Blame:  NOT Obama/Hillary’s fault!

    • Obama’s earned some lumps. His phoniness regarding the whole issue has been disappointing. Though your account of Abu Gharib is incredibly intellectually dishonest. It exposed the ugliness of our (top down) indifference to torture. The resulting backlash most certainly resulted in many deaths – many being US soldiers. Did Cheney order Iraqis sodomized and paraded around like dogs? No, though his policies helped create the environment that made it possible.

      I suppose a several trillion dollar war with deaths in the six figures based on lies and deception = 4 deaths whose circumstances were spun and misrepresented in your mind? Or are you the slightest bit capable of perspective and objectivity? I find most partisan hacks aren’t, and you certainly sound like one.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, putting panties on a terrorists’ head and humiliating him is EXACTLY the equivalent of what the Obama administration did in Benghazi.  Four brave and honorable Americans are dead because of him.

        And here’s a clue, George Bush isn’t President any more.  Your feverish regurgitation of the usual tiresome lefty canards is irrelevant to the issue of Benghazi. 

        Try to keep up, will you? 

        The insults are a nice touch, though.  Real towering intellect you’ve got there. 

        • Abu Gharib is by far a bigger stain on the reputation of the US, even today, than is Benghazi -which while tragic, will have minimal long term ramifications. Soldiers dying and the circumstances of their deaths being covered up /spun happened almost weekly between 2002-2006. Obama and Hillary may be liars, though compared to their predecessors, they are minor leaguers.

          That you choose to diminish the torture (panties on heads) shows your cards plainly. Seriously, if you think that panties on heads is all that has been done in our names, you need to do a little deeper research.

          Now, you’re the one who made the comparison to Abu Gharib, and now it’s me who needs to keep up? Please. I acknowledge Obama’s failings freely. Though try to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

          Free Republic eh? Lots of objectivity here! The question is, is this your original work, or are you a regurgitator? ;)
          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2934225/replies?c=1

          • Anonymous

            Try as you might, the Benghazi affair isn’t going away.

            The Ambassador was pleading for extra security months before he was killed, and what did Obama’s administration do?  They actually reduced the inadequate security he already had.  For 7 hours Obama and his administation watched in real time while heroes fought to their death and saved at least 30 other people who were under attack.

            Every day, the scandal grows and grows and the incident will go down in history as the most infamous dereliction of duty ever committed by a  Commander-in-Chief.  This isn’t over, it’s just starting.

            Your seem to be operating under the delusion that you’re a competely objective observer of events.  How entertaining.

          • I’m not trying to make it go away. Are you reading? :D

            Obama has compounded his problem by not being straight forward from the get go, though the most infamous dereliction of duty ever committed by the potus? In the past 4 years, I’ll grant you.

            Complete objectivity doesn’t exist, everyone has bias – some have a bit, some have much more. Some are biased to the point of delusion. They’ve taken their objectivity and locked them in the dungeon of their minds – some for a life sentence. Tragic really.

          • Anonymous

            They’ve taken their objectivity and locked them in the dungeon of their minds – some for a life sentence. Tragic really.

            Well,, this is just a wild guess, drama queen, but I’ll bet you except yourself from the above. 

            You’ve grown – well – tiresome.

          • Haha, the dude that makes claims about the most infamous dereliction of duty ever by the potus, is saying I’m the drama queen! Classic. I like your style.

            Having far right wing sycophants and freepers patting you on the back is certainly less tiresome than debating your absurd claims, so I’ll leave you to it. Carry on! :D

          • maineiac123

             I won’t straighten your facts out for you but let’s just say that you’re ability to tell the truth from what you want to hear in this matter is greatly compromised.  I suggest futher reading of things other than right-wing rags and Faux.

      • Anonymous

         The problem was not the war.  We lost few soldiers and the cost was a small part of the total spent.

        The problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the nation building after winning the war.  Ignorance and hubris on both the left and the right.  The left demanding that if we broke it we have to fix it and ignoring the fact that it was essentially broken before we even got involved.  The right thinking we could somehow create a democratic based government and society where none had existed before.

        • While I agree with your second paragraph, Iraq was not a smart war to enter into from the get go. Hussein’s military was in shambles, and was effectively contained. The ties to Al Qaeda were minimal at absolute best. WMD claims were bogus. Taking out the Husseins was a definite pro, but the cons far outweighed them, in all but the most naive predictions (cake walk, out in a few months and for a few hundred million or less, oil revenues will pay us back, etc.) Those who predicted a far more costly and long term commitment, even to decapitate the leadership, were scoffed at. Being wrong was rewarded with promotion and medals.

  • Sherman2

    Krauthammer!?  Really?!  Krauthammer!!?   Does he PAY the BDN to get his opinion printed?  He is to print what Rush is to Radio, halftruths? he misquotes people to support his opinion, he rambles on Fox News like his mouth is full of marbles while maintaining his smug aristocratic half asleep glare…
    Stewart and Colbert expose his lies at least once a week!  Why doesn’t the BDN staff?

    • Anonymous

      does that kool aid have booze in it too?  If Stewart and Colbert are your source of news, well, by Golly,.  that Certainly explains your views…………….

      • Sherman2

        Well hammy, my sweet babboo….  Stewart and Colbert point out the obvious nonsense from either side, granted they skewer the right more…  cuz yur boys say some wacky stuff!  Women can’t get pregnant when raped (Aiken), weapons of mass destruction (Cheeenie), making the moon the 51st state(newt), what recession? (McCain), destroy Madicare to save it (Ryan), Mahcacah (Allen), corporations are people too (Romney) and so on…  but you know what I’m talking about, that’s why denial is such a wunnerful thang for some!

        • Sherman2

          AND!  one more thing; given my choice of Krauthammer, Hannity, Maddow, Mathews, Stewart or Colbert.  I guess I’d have to take the last two, at least their “insight” is based in fact and not some disingenuos and slanted representation of the “news”.

  • Anonymous

    Dr. Krauthammer, after a tragic accident became a parapalegic. He rose to become the head of Mass General’s Psychiatric Wing. After that he worked for Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Ronald Reagan. So it’s fair to say he’s lived on BOTH sides of the political spectrum…..and that depth of experience, brought him to realize the fallacy of the left. He has also received numerous, journalistic awards from both left & right, publications.

    • Anonymous

      Your 100% correct. How anyone could be critical of Charles Krauthammer, (if, and, or after they’ve educated themselves about his carreer(s), confounds the mind).  The left would be well advised to do their research on the man, before they start throwing insults at him. They would discover that he shares many of their views on a myriad of topics.

      • maineiac123

         Perhaps it’s his uncontrolled pure hatred of Obama that makes us “liberals” throw insults at him.  Does he share my view on some topics, sure he does but almost everyone of those topics is dealing with science: abortion, evolution, stem-cell research.  Early in his career he was pretty much moderate, but after Reagon he became ultra-right and only conservatives could possibly be right.  Thanks but no thanks.  When and if he ever decides to write a real piece on Obama, one not filled with his hatred, then perhaps he’ll be worth reading.

      • Anonymous

        Perhaps if Mr. Krauthammer did not wish to have U.S. foreign policy mimic that of Israel he would be criticized less. 

  • Anonymous

    Great piece…Well done…

You may also like