Benghazi, Putin. How's Obama doing?

@JPB,

Quote:

What was pathetic was the way Romney marched onto a stage in the middle of the night politicizing a tragedy. Also pathetic was the way the media on the right tried to influence an election cycle using the tragic deaths of public servants. It was beyond pathetic, it was disgusting. What, precisely, would you have suggested be a more appropriate response? Mine would have been to stay away from the Sunday news shows entirely and get the facts straight before making any statements, unlike that idiot Romney. But, then, it was weeks before an election and they felt they had to respond to his charges. THAT was what was pathetic.

They put your brain on the long wash cycle.

http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/sheep.gif

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I just want you to know that even though there are players on both sides who absolutely use critical world events for nothing more than piling on the "other" party, I want my president to succeed. Always. When he/she doesn't, I will say so.

I think Benghazi embarrassed us, people died needlessly, and that failure was calculated around the world.

Obama isn't finished with Ukraine by a long shot - and I hope he acquits it well.

2 Replies

@JPB,

It's disappointing that you only bring up a non-player for political expediency. Can you speak to the sitting president's decisions?

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

I think we have ample evidence that everyone here brushes it off - as did our government and the media. Bringing it up is roundly shouted down - and that is the primary failing. It smacks of a cover-up. Bush was held responsible for m'effing Hurricane Katrina. Who was responsible for what happened to our embassy?

I have more specific questions. Will return. I am actually gratified that people are at least entertaining the topic.

3 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Bush was held responsible for m'effing Hurricane Katrina.

Nobody held Bush responsible for Kathrina. Some people --- not nearly enough if you ask me --- held Bush responsible for packing FEMA with incompetent cronies, who then screwed up FEMA's response to Kathrina, which Bush then praised. ("Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job.")

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

incompetent cronies,

Obama has quite a few of those.

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
incompetent cronies,

Obama has quite a few of those.

Past presidents have not put political hacks in charge of something as important as FEMA.

BTW, Obama is doing an amazing job, especially when you consider that the Rep leaders decreed that the Reps must oppose everything proposed by Obama and the Dems. He will go down as one of our greatest presidents. Deficits and unemployment are way down, we are close to getting out of two horrible wars started by Blush, he reformed our horrible healthcare system, etc.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

Past presidents have not put political hacks in charge of something as important as FEMA

No, he puts hacks in charge of the DOJ, the Treasury, and DHS. Not to mention Susan Rice as the Security consultant. And Samantha Powers the UN ambassador is an anti-Semite.

As far as history it depends on who prevails, power hungry assholes like Obama or people who wish to preserve liberty.

0 Replies

What has been Obama's most meaningful foreign policy success?

Really, I cant think of much. Maybe that Iran is thinking about a nuke deal? Some say getting Osama but that was not foreign policy, that was a success of the defense apparatus...DOD and the spooks.

Nothing has happened with the Israel Palestine problem

Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Libya are a mess

Africa is now mostly under the control of China no longer us

India/US relations are souring fast

Afghanistan and Pakistan are pretty much a lost cause now

North Korea is no better

China and Japan are getting into conflict that might break into war

Mexico is not getting any better, and in fact seems to be getting worse

Europe pretty much ignores us now

We are now back into conflict with Russia

He lost an Ambassador
.
.
.

The big thing about Obama is that he sometimes talks like he cares about global problem spots, but there is little evidence of this in his actions. He will send Hillary and Kerry globetrotting around the world constantly but it is never articulated what they are supposed to be working on, and there is little to show for it.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I just want you to know that even though there are players on both sides who absolutely use critical world events for nothing more than piling on the "other" party, I want my president to succeed. Always.

If you tell yourself that enough times you might actually believe it.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Most negative things are a result of Bush's legacy. Obama has a lot to do just to get back to where America was prior to 9/11.

1 Reply

@Lash,

You still have yet to articulate the steps Obama could have took which would have avoided the tragic deaths of the ambassadors other than spending more money for extra security? I say other than, because I have already acknowledged that as a failing, however it is a failing which has a long history. One senator even said (he was a GOP) that when there are budget problems, you got to pick your priorities.

The reason that the hollering of the GOP over the fake scandal of the Benghazi tragedy is shouted down is because the charges have proven to have little bases in the reality. If there is any embarrassment, it is the hundreds of hearings with little to show for it in the end other than more money should have been spent in providing for extra security in the Benghazi compound. Another embarrassment is the blatant obstructionist GOP who from day one made it a be all duty to vote down every single idea the democrats and Obama puts forward. (Proof of that is the famous meeting McConnell had in which they discussed that very thing.)

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

honest opinions about Benghazi.

The ambassador and his security details screwed up and he died as a result. He should have stayed put in his residence. Why jump right into the fire?

0 Replies

@engineer,

Could not agree more.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

.

Quote:

Obama has a lot to do just to get back to where America was prior to 9/11.

He has. We are more prone to a terror attack.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
incompetent cronies,

Obama has quite a few of those.

The worst I have seen Obama do in this regard was giving ambassadorships in friendly countries to people who had demonstrated no competence about the country, but had been successful contributors to Obama's election campaigns. Caroline Kennedy was the most famous one. There were a few others whose names I don't remember right now. I don't approve of that. Perhaps something will blow up in US relations to these countries, and these fundraiser-ambassadors will fail at handling it. If and when that happens, Americans should hold Obama accountable. But so far it hasn't happened; this is only speculation. Kathrina, by contrast, was real --- and so was Brownie's heckuva job.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

The worst I have seen Obama do

So you have no problem with Holder picking and choosing what laws to enforce, who to prosecute, and who to investigate? I do. He has done zero to investigate the IRS. He refused to enforce federal immigration laws. And now is telling States attorneys to ignore state laws opposing gay marriage.

2 Replies

I was thinking whilst doing other things, that if any US president has an influence on Putin, emboldened him to invade Ukraine, it has to be the previous one who trumped up fake reasons to invade Iraq, and no one did a thing in the rest of the world. Not to mention the torture of Abu Ghraib, still no in the rest of the world did a thing. And now it has learned that US has been spying, and no really does a thing. So, countries kind of know if you are a big shot, you get away with anything because no one wants a big war with huge loss of lives. What I am getting at, it is not the weakness of the US that might be a bad influence, but when we do things like changing the meaning of torture that has a bad influence and has set a bad precedent.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

Quote:

So you have no problem with Holder picking and choosing what laws to enforce, who to prosecute,

Good point, Obama does this all the time....guys who routinely give the concept of the rule of law the finger look pretty silly arguing that they are right about something because the rule of law says so (in this case Russia taking back Crimea).

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

So you have no problem with Holder picking and choosing what laws to enforce, who to prosecute, and who to investigate?

No, I do not. In the United States, the attorney-general has always reported to the president, and the decision which cases to prosecute has always been a political one. How the executive uses its prosecutorial discretion is part of what voters decide when they vote for a new administration, and voters can disagree on the right priorities to set. But the prosecutor's rightful power to use discretion at all has been undisputed since at least the 19th century.

To be sure, there are limits. If the attorney general applies the law in ways that discriminate or mess with fundamental rights (neither of which you are asserting), you can sue him in federal court. If it messes with the constitutional power of a state, the state can sue him in federal court. If you simply don't like his priorities, you can persuade your fellow citizens, vote the bums out, and vote in a new administration that's more to your taste. But if these attempts fail, you just have to suck it up --- just as we liberals did when Bush was in power. Elections have consequences; this is one of them.

2 Replies

Benghazi, Putin. How's Obama doing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know