Biden was Correct - Obama being tested early

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

By all metrics Obamas doing a good job for someone in office less than 3 months

You can't be serious? Obama has been an abysmal failure in regard to many things, from the economy to foreign policy.

@Woiyo9,

I did have a comment. Your molehills are not mountains.

You whined about N Korea testing a rocket and I pointed out the test pales in comparison to N Korea's testing a NUKE when Bush was office. North Korea's rocket test is a molehill compared to what they have done in the past. They purposely shot a rocket in the direction of Japan when Bush was in office. This time the rocket failed miserably. There isn't much to talk about when it comes to the recent test. North Korea tried to play a game and then failed at the game. You only want to concentrate on Obama rather than the reality of the situation in historical context.

As for the piracy incident. It is just started. It's not like Obama making a comment is going to change the situation. Meanwhile we see action in that the FBI and the US Navy, both of which Obama is in charge of, are on the scene dealing with the situation. I think actions speak louder than words, don't you? Obama doesn't have to PEEP about the incident since we can see action taking place. You however, seem to prefer Obama say something rather than do anything. Again, you are trying to make something of an incident which isn't there.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

By all metrics Obamas doing a good job for someone in office less than 3 months

What metrics would those be?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

You can't be serious? Obama has been an abysmal failure in regard to many things, from the economy to foreign policy.

sez you

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Quote:

The "Global Financial Crisis' has given Obama an opportunity to meet with International Leaders. So far, his grade is incomplete yet there is not much optimism internationally he can be successful.

I don't think this represents the test Biden predicted, but no matter what sort of test it amounted to, the president hardly passed it
with flying colors.

The Europeans failed to join in him stimulating their economies, or sending more fighting troops to Afghanistan.

I'm sure there are any number of people who believe there was some measure of triumph in the size of the crowds he drew for his perpetual campaign, but it's pretty easy for an American president to win fans in Europe by admitting on behalf of the nation, to our being arrogant, dismissive and derisive.

[To be fair, he was even handed in his criticism, but it seems to me that whenever Obama criticizes the US, he is exempting himself. The American malfeasance for which he feels compelled to apologize, is always the fault of the Bush administration and/or those desperate clods who cling to their guns and religion. He bears no responsibility of course, quite the contrary. He's here to change the ways of the arrogant, dismissive and even derisive folks whom he serves. I'm never very comfortable with someone apologizing for me, particularly when they clearly exclude themselves from the sinful behavior that they believe requires an apology. I don't like it any better when it is the president.]

I'm also not sure that NK's missile launch was the test of which Biden spoke, but here again no great success can be perceived.

Many of his supporters will argue there was nothing he could have done or that he can't be criticized for any lack of response because Bush didn't do much when NK tested a nuclear weapon.

Unless the people now criticizing Obama for inaction praised Bush for wise restraint, what Bush may or may not have done is pretty much irrelevant. As for what he could have done, shooting the missile down was a pretty obvious response and much less complicated or risky than any aggressive response Bush might have dealt NK after the nuclear test.

Finally there is the Somali pirates and their attack on a merchant freighter flying the American flag. Again, the argument consists primarily of "What did you expect him to do?" (I've haven't run across them yet but I'm confident that there are even arguments being made that the increase of pirate attacks in international waters is a result of one or more Bush policies.)

In any case, here's an interesting article on three past hijackings of US ships and how the presidents of the day responded.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/09/three-presidents-and-a-hijacki/

The test is yet to come, but despite the lack of response to NK and the Somali pirates, I honestly don't believe Obama's response to it will be timid. Barrack Obama is not George McGovern or Jimmy Carter (much to the growing chagrin of some of his anti-war supporters) and is no milk-sop. He may fail miserably due to poor judgment, or overly political rationale, but I doubt it will be because he wimps out.

1 Reply

@rabel22,

It's probably evident that I am not the biggest fan of our new president, but the fact that he bowed to the Saudi king doesn't bother me half as much as the way the White House has tried to spin it. Yet another example of some buffoonery that either signifies something troubling or is a revelation of administrative incompetence on the part of Obama's staff.

First of all he bowed. It is obvious to anyone with eyes that he bowed. The White House denying this fact and trying to suggest that due to his height he very often has to bend down when he shakes someone's hand is absurd and insulting. This from the ultra-transparent, completely honest cadre of New Politicians come to Washington to provide Change.

Secondly, I'm not real keen about a US president bowing to any monarch let alone one who is a dictator, but if there was a reason why he felt it was the way to go, let's hear it and not denials that it ever happened. Assuming it had the desire of demonstrating, symbolically, Obama's (and by extension America's) "respect" for the Muslim world, publically denying it ever happened can't make Muslims, Saudis, and the Saudi king, in particular, feel much respected.

BTW: I'm also not too keen about a sitting president appearing on the Tonight show to yuck it up with Jay Leno.

Finally, how can we believe it was anything but blunder that resulted in images of Mr. and Mrs. Obama flaunting the protocol associated with the Queen of one of our staunchest allies, and the president bowing before the ruling tyrant of one of our most ambiguous "friends."

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

farmerman wrote:
By all metrics Obamas doing a good job for someone in office less than 3 months

Obama has been an abysmal failure in regard to many things, from the economy to foreign policy.

+1

It's nice to see more intelligent thinkers here.

This country has never looked weaker or more pathetic than it does with PrezBO in charge.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As for what he could have done, shooting the missile down was a pretty obvious response and much less complicated or risky than any aggressive response Bush might have dealt NK after the nuclear test.

The missile was launched, without prior warning, from the Korean peninsula, dropped the first stage west of Japan, crossed Japan and then dropped into the Pacific. According to North Korea, it transported a satellite into space - but it's rather unlikely that that really happened.

However, it's highly unlikely that the current National Missile Defense shield is capable of shooting down an ICBM under real-world circumstances. The only successful tests so far involved test-ICBMs that sent a beacon signal to the interceptor, and shooting down a satellite in a precisely known position.

I think deciding to intercept a North Korean missile with a system that is only partly operational and consequentially failing to shoot down the missile would be a rather devastating result for American foreign policy.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Finally, how can we believe it was anything but blunder that resulted in images of Mr. and Mrs. Obama flaunting the protocol associated with the Queen of one of our staunchest allies, and the president bowing before the ruling tyrant of one of our most ambiguous "friends."

Ah, the "Michelle Obama broke the protocol" charge. Again.

I'm all for criticising any President for things he actually does, but it should be noted that Mrs. Obama, according to the Buckingham Palace, didn't flaunt the protocol. I've posted this elsewhere earlier, so here's just a re-post:

Quote:

Michelle Obama has frequently displayed a down-to-earth approach during the trip.

On meeting the Queen, she followed formality by curtseying, but later, during a reception, she showed her more casual, affectionate side by putting her arm around Her Majesty to hug her.

It is reported that the Queen was so taken by Mrs Obama she even said: "Now we've met, will you please keep in touch?"

(source)

Quote:

A spokesman for Buckingham Palace tells Inside Edition that "it's obvious that it was a mutual sign of affection and appreciated between the queen and Michelle Obama. There is no offense. The reception was an informal occasion. There's no breach of protocol."

(source)

1 Reply

Who really gives a **** about Michelle Obama?

0 Replies

@old europe,

Well then I guess I have to reconsider my supposition

It wasn't a blunder because Mrs Obama did not violate any protocol.

It wasn't a blunder to give the UK Prime Minister and his family embarrassingly tacky gifts. It was intentional.

It wasn't a blunder to give the Queen an I-pod containing Obama's Greatest Hits, it was pretentious intent.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Well then I guess I have to reconsider my supposition

Maybe.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It wasn't a blunder because Mrs Obama did not violate any protocol.

Pretty much.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It wasn't a blunder to give the UK Prime Minister and his family embarrassingly tacky gifts. It was intentional.

I was wondering about those gifts, too. I guess they weren't quite as bad as giving him an unrequested shoulder rub, but, yes, a bit tacky.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It wasn't a blunder to give the Queen an I-pod containing Obama's Greatest Hits, it was pretentious intent.

Obama did not only give the Queen a personalized iPod, he also gave her a rare songbook signed by Richard Rodgers. Considering that, reportedly, Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma is one of the Queen's favourite musicals, I'd say that's quite a thoughtful gift.

And not only did the iPod, which came with 40 songs from popular Broadway productions, accompany the songbook - it seems that the Queen specifically requested it. This is from the April 1 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

Quote:

CHIP REID (CBS News chief White House correspondent): The grueling day began early this morning at 10 Downing Street, where the president and first lady were welcomed by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife, Sarah. At a press conference, Mr. Brown heaped praise on his American guest.

BROWN: Your first 70 days in office have changed America, and you've changed America's relationship with the world.

REID: Despite policy differences with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Sarkozy today expressed confidence in Mr. Obama, who insisted that their differences have been vastly overstated.

OBAMA: I am absolutely confident that this meeting will reflect enormous consensus.

REID: This evening, the president visited Buckingham Palace for a private audience with the queen and husband Prince Philip. Mr. Obama's gift for the queen? A video iPod with footage of her 2007 trip to Washington -- a gift that officials say she requested.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Well then I guess I have to reconsider my supposition

It wasn't a blunder because Mrs Obama did not violate any protocol.

It wasn't a blunder to give the UK Prime Minister and his family embarrassingly tacky gifts. It was intentional.

It wasn't a blunder to give the Queen an I-pod containing Obama's Greatest Hits, it was pretentious intent.

The Blunder, Finn, was your erroneous belief that any of your lame-ass criticisms matter one iota. You are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel here, embarrassingly so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Finn, there's no Blunder on your part.

Rock on with your bad self!

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I think deciding to intercept a North Korean missile with a system that is only partly operational and consequentially failing to shoot down the missile would be a rather devastating result for American foreign policy.

Absolutely.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

old europe wrote:

I think deciding to intercept a North Korean missile with a system that is only partly operational and consequentially failing to shoot down the missile would be a rather devastating result for American foreign policy.

Absolutely.

Not nearly as devastating as Michelle Obama touching the queen.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

The missile was launched, without prior warning, from the Korean peninsula, dropped the first stage west of Japan, crossed Japan and then dropped into the Pacific. According to North Korea, it transported a satellite into space - but it's rather unlikely that that really happened.

This from the Sat., 4/4/09 edition of the Dailey News:

Quote:

SEOUL - U.S., Japan and South Korea deployed warships Friday to monitor a rocket launch by North Korea to test its long-range missile technology.

The planned launch, which could come as early as today, has sparked alarm because North Korea has admitted it has nuclear weapons and has repeatedly broken promises to shelve its nuclear program or halt rocket tests.

The missile was launched on Sunday, April 5th with clearly enough "warning" to provide the US, Japan and South Korea time to deploy their warships.

Quote:

However, it's highly unlikely that the current National Missile Defense shield is capable of shooting down an ICBM under real-world circumstances. The only successful tests so far involved test-ICBMs that sent a beacon signal to the interceptor, and shooting down a satellite in a precisely known position.

I think deciding to intercept a North Korean missile with a system that is only partly operational and consequentially failing to shoot down the missile would be a rather devastating result for American foreign policy.

It is certainly not generally accepted that our missile defense system would have failed in bringing down the North Korean missile. Tests have been successful and while you are correct that there have always been some element of known location in all of these tests, the general vicinity of the NK missile launching was known, and the missile itself was not thought to have been equipped with any counter-measure defenses.

It would have been problematic if our missle defense had been unsuccessful but more so, politically, for the proponents of the system than for our foreign policy. Whatever impact it would have had on the latter, describing it as "devastating" would be a great exaggeration.

In any case, unlike with North Korea's testing of a nuclear bomb during the Bush years, there was a possible military response to this tes that would not have involved launching an attack on North Korean soil.

The decision not to attempt to take out the missile might have been the correct one if there was a high probablity that the effort would fail, but we don't know that to be the case nor the actual reason for not taking action, and so it is entirely legitimate to question whether not taking action was appropriate. We do know that the test was anything but a failure for North Korea; advancing the perverse game they are playing, and that a credible argument can be made that taking the missile out would have advanced our interests.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

My question there is, did Barack bow lower to the queen he did the king?

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

My question there is, did Barack bow lower to the queen he did the king?

he was just adjusting his socks.

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

Maybe he was offering the king a tug job.

0 Replies

Biden was Correct - Obama being tested early

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know