BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

by Alexander Nevsky Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:27 pm

President Barack Obama's supporters believed that he had the vision to transform America
Friday March 18,2011
By Anna Pukas

INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honor pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...

Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerizingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.
Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention. Even the Arab League, a notoriously conservative organization, has declared support for sanctions. But from the White House has come only the blah-blah of bland statements filled with meaningless expressions and vague phrases. Of decisive action and leadership – even of clearly defined opinion – there is precious little sign.

What is the Obama administration’s position on the protests in the Gulf island state of Bahrain, which the authorities there are savagely suppressing with the help of troops shipped in from Saudi Arabia? What is the White House view on the alarming prospect of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia itself? Who knows? Certainly not the American people, nor the leaders of nations which would consider themselves allies of America.

The President has not really shared his views, which leads us to conclude that he either doesn’t know or chooses, for reasons best known to himself, not to say. The result is that a very real opportunity to remove an unpredictable despot from power may well have been lost. Who knows when or if such an opportunity will come along again?

Every day for almost the last two months our television screens, radio broadcasts and the pages of our newspapers have been filled with the pictures, sounds and words of the most tumultuous events any of us can remember in the Arab world. The outcome of these events, once the dust has settled, could literally change the world. Yet Obama seems content to sit this one out. He has barely engaged in the debate. Such ostrich-like behavior is not untypical of the 49-year-old President who burst through America’s color barrier to become the first African-American to occupy the White House.

Two days after taking office in January 2009, he pledged to close down the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, which has become notorious for holding detainees for years without trial. Obama promised to lose the prison within 12 months and to abolish the practice of military trials of terrorism suspects. It was an important promise. America’s reputation had been severely tarnished by revelations about the conditions at Guantanamo, by reports of water boarding and extraordinary rendition (transporting prisoners to a third country for torture) and by the appalling treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Closing Guantanamo was a redemptive gesture. Two years on, not only is the prison still in use but its future is as assured as ever. Ten days ago, the President signed an executive order reinstating the military commissions at the island prison. Human rights organizations were outraged. “With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law,” said Amnesty International while Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, declared the President’s action to be “unlawful, unwise and un-American.”

White House spokesmen insisted the President was still committed to closing Guantanamo, which currently has 172 detainees in custody. It was Congress, they said, that had refused to sanction the transfer of the prisoners to the US mainland for trial, leaving no option but to keep the prison open in Cuba. Very little has been achieved in the quest to secure peace in the Middle East. Under Obama, US foreign policy is founded on extreme caution. At first this cool-headedness was a welcome change from the naked aggression of George W Bush and his henchmen Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is also true that the President is constantly stymied by a hostile, Republican-ruled Congress. But Obama’s apparent reluctance to engage with momentous events is starting to look like more than aloofness. Some tempering of America’s role as the world’s No1 busybody may be no bad thing but under Obama the US appears to be heading towards isolationism. He is hardly doing much better at home. Economically, the US is in big trouble but the national debt is not shrinking.

Ditto the country’s ecological health; the American love affair with the car and oil remains undiminished despite any alleged commitment. But the White House appears to shy away from any tough action. The energy with which Obama entered the White House seems to have all gone in the push to bring in health care reform, which many Americans didn’t want (or still don’t realize they want).
All of which means that it is starting to look as if Obama and the Democratic Party have but one aim in mind for the rest of this presidential term: to get elected for a second. That means not doing anything that might upset any number of special interest or niche groups, which in effect means not doing very much at all. So, not too many harsh but necessary measures to tackle the financial deficit; no clear direction on where America goes with Afghanistan, even though the war there is going nowhere except from bad to worse.

The Obama government can’t even give clear direction on whether the American people are in danger of exposure to nuclear fallout from Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami. The US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin advised San Francisco residents to stock up on radiation antidotes, prompting a run on potassium iodide pills, while the President said experts had assured him that any harmful radiation would have receded long before reaching the Western shores of the US.

Yes we can was a noble and powerful mantra which secured for Barack Obama the leadership of the free world. Those than can, do. It is time he started doing.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-#ixzz1GzNw0IeA

by 911Dispatcher Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:43 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_libya_obama

by Alexander Nevsky Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:06 pm

by 911Dispatcher Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:11 pm

Yes and he attempted the same thing with Bush and the Iraq war and guess what, he failed at trying to impeach him also. Ronald Regean also did the exact same thing to Lybia in the 80's without getting a vote from congress, and just like Obama seeked council from members of congress before moving forward. Funny how a man so hated by Republicans has done the exact same thing as a President that was viewed as a legend to the Republican party. You need to try harder Wink

by 911Dispatcher Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:19 pm

I'll help you a little bit. Google the direct link between the 1986 bombings by Regean and the terriots bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Use that history to show a possible outcome of Obamas actions today.

by Chuck Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:34 am

I don't think anyone is thrilled to be in another military action. I know I'm not.

However, Obama went into this military action with the support of NATO and most of the world.

George Bush went into Iraq based on lies that he told the American people and without the support of the rest of the world or NATO. He just simply stood up and said "You're either with us or against us, bullying the entire world and turning world sympathy into world contempt.

I'll take Obama any day.

by 911Dispatcher Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:16 pm

On a side note this is a excellent documentary to watch. Beware though as it is extremely graphic and real life. You will see soliders killed in a gun fight and language is strong. I would not watch it with kids around. It shows what our men are up against in the middle east. http://movies.nationalgeographic.com/movies/restrepo/

by Alexander Nevsky Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:54 pm

Hey Chuck thanks for the comments, there appreciated! I don’t mean to come off being “Kevinish” but would like to clarify your input. First of all President Clinton enacted the “The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq”. President Bush merely followed thru with it.

After our countries experience on September 11th 2001, and a significant threat from the nation of Iraq under Saddam Hussein regime, President Bush pursued. However, unlike the current administration under President Obama did not seek the United States Congress’s approval, as did President Bush. Which was granted by a vote of 77-23.

As for the support of the world, President Bush assembled a coalition twice the size of the Presidents Obama’s Coalition; I do understand and “get it” if Eritrea, Azerbaijan, Ethiopia and Slovakia don’t qualify as “the rest of the world” and after reading some of the countries that are listed below. It is somewhat laughable. However facts are facts. Also the United Nations is irrelevant and has ZERO influence on our nation security issues. Our national security remains in our nation and not subject to others outside of it. Hence the term “national security”.

Last but not least, for “911Dispatcher” your scat photo is extremely sexy!!! You are correct about President Reagan’s right to bomb Libya without the approval of The United States Congress. However as you pointed out it was in direct response to a terrorist act on American civilians. But still unconstitutional! So, which unconstitutional act would you support, the one protecting Americans or the one protecting Libyans?

Final: My point to this: Is the absolute hypocrisy of left wing bombs good and right wing bombs bad.

We all vote for the ideology of what we want and support…….Sadly what we get is the American military industrial complex. All I intend to do is point that out, how you and I justify the actions comes down to common sense, which is not so common anymore!

President Obama, and America was pressured into this war because of his lack of leadership, it’s a sad day when the French have an upper hand on world affairs and an even sadder day when our President falls for it. Our President has NO country and thankfully has lost his future as one!

The Iraq War Resolution
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

The War Powers Resolution
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Coalition Forces / Iraq vs. Libya

Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003
Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
[Source: US State Department]

Coalition - Libya - 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate

GOD HELP US ALL!!!

by 911Dispatcher Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:59 am

First thank you for the compliment. I always wondered what a Russian lover would be like. Although politically I think we would strangle each other within a year.

I agree with Chuck about Bush getting into war with Iraq and Saddam based on lies and fear that he pushed on the American public. There were no weapons of mass destruction found. It has been found (although argued by conspiracy theortist) that the true person behind the 9/11 attacks was by a man named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who worked closely with Osama Bin Landen and was the third or fourth in the chain of command for Al Queda. He was never in Iraq, but instead both men were in Afghanistan. Bush rushed into a war either without having hard intelligence in front of him or he had a hidden agenda.

Saddam was an ass and deserved to be taken out for his actions against his country, surrounding countries, and its people. How is that much different than the actions of Gaddafi? Actions that have caused his people to revolt and call out for help from the UN and any allies it has? In all truth the reason for almost every war we have been involved in is either the guise or true efforts to rid the world of a sadistic ruler or government that insists on surpressing and harming its citizens.

I will note here that personally I take issue with us getting directly involved in any countries uprising when we have our own issues at home to deal with. Also I would like to state that if we continue on this path we will literally depleat our home defense. The National Guard was never intended to fight wars not on US soil. If you have ever played the game Risk you know you have to fortify your country. Especially if you are going to piss on other players and try to take them out.

I do agree with you 100 percent that the reason Obama sent orders to bomb Lybia was because he was pressured by other countries, the UN, and even his own citizens. The same citizens who are now jumping down his throat for getting involved in Lybia. He has shown a lack of leadership when it comes to foreign affairs. Being the first black president I think the man is under extreme and often unrealistic pressure to preform miracles. A pressure that he has not been able to move past and make the correct decisions for our nation. A great leader would be able to tone out the nay sayers and keep a clear and focused head.

I would like to have you read this link pertaining to the debate over the decision to bomb Lybia as unconstitutional. It speaks volumes especially coming from one of his main critic. http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/mark-levin-defends-constitutionality-of-obamas-libya-policy-dont-listen-to-ron-paul-and-dennis-kucinich/

Thats all for now. It was nice to see you actually use your own voice instead of copying and pasting others opinions. You should do it more often. Intellegence is more sexy than any silly picture

by Alexander Nevsky Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:40 pm

For god’s sake women! You had me then you lost me! Two words “Spell Check”! What is Jason Thompson dictating for you? Who the *u#k is “Osama Bin Landen”?? Sorry! However that was a horrible reply and it said nothing! I take back my complement, go back to making fun of JSN and stick to what your good at! Intelligence is not sexy it’s brutal!
All I want to do is point out the hypocrisy!!!
How’s the Bush Lite tasting now??

by 911Dispatcher Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:07 pm

Wow that was an educated response. Hypocrisy is every where in government. Can I offer a suggestion........next time wear big girl panties, either that or buy a helmet. Oh and my point was YOUR talking points are weak and hypocritical. Obama could find the cure for cancer and you would some how find fault with it. Maybe if you learned to restrain your emotions a little bit and actually formed a factual debate, more people would agree with your posts. Sorry if it offends you that I tend to be a realist. It comes from having been out in the world, instead of living in my mothers basement in Rumford.

by 911Dispatcher Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:04 pm

Also at what point in my response did you not get that I was agreeing with you? Again take some emotion out of the equation and read the post again.

by Alexander Nevsky Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:01 pm

BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY? Thinke12

This is getting tiresome, you really need to get Jason Thompson to use spell check before you click the submit button!

Now let’s talk about restraint.

Nevsky waits 8 days 17 hours and 41 minutes to reply to your post, it takes 911Dispatcher 27 minutes to reply with irrational gibberish and personal attacks. Then you have the gall to say I’m being emotional and not forming a factual debate.

As far as “people” agreeing with me, that is completely irrelevant. I wouldn’t for the slightest of seconds believe that the “River Valley Free Press” users would ever agree with me. That is not my “end game” or my ambition.

If I’m weak and hypocritical, then why do you agree with me? Isn’t that weak and hypocritical in its self as yourself?

I truly wish President Obama, would find the cure for cancer (I love that! It’s like invoking the Hitler bit), balance our budget, close Guantanamo, end the Patriot Act, stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and enact windfall profits tax for oil companies. However we got clash for clunkers, higher taxes and more government control over our everyday personal lives.

Let me help you out on your next post, just call me a racist and a bigot, because I don’t believe in what our President is doing.
You might as well continue the talking points now that you realize that the hope and change is a lie.

Admitting fault is very humbling, also very becoming and soothing to the soul. I wish I was wrong! Sadly it is all too factual. Please humble me and prove me wrong!

It is so much easier to point fingers and lambast then to actually think!!

Or you can just continue to watch the shiny spoon……..

by RiverValleySun Sun May 08, 2011 4:13 pm

Got to love Obama's complaint that Pakistan isn't doing it's job in securing its borders. Nation #1 for unsecured borders is the US and Obama had done everything in his power to make sure it is and stays that way. Serious case of pot calling the kettle black, man.

by Sponsored content

BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

OBAMA’S ANTI-WAR RHETORIC ( More Fox News Lies! ) ?????

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Our President has NO country and thankfully has lost his future as one!

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Shiny spoon……..

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Re: BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?