McGentrix
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:05 pm
Obama's lack of understanding exposed again
Thomas Lifson
Dean Barnett noticed a stunning level of ignorance by Barack Obama about the command structure he seeks to head as commander-in-chief and blogged about it at The Weekly Standard.

When Obama held his second press conference late last week to address his ever more slippery position on withdrawing troops from Iraq, he stated:

"I am absolutely committed to ending the war," the longtime community organizer declared. "I will call my Joint Chiefs of Staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war."

Barnett explains well the role of Joint Chefs as a staff unit, which provides advice to the commander-in-chief. In order to avoid conflicts within their respective services and provide clear advice, the joint chiefs are by law excluded from the command structure. The command structure (what is called the "line" part of the organization in corporate organizations) consists of people like General Petraeus, who actually run the military organization through its structure of commands. Barnett comments sarcastically:

Surely Obama knows this. Obviously he wouldn't be seeking the role of Commander-in-Chief without knowing how the job is done.

Obama has such a naive view of running organizations that he doesn't appreciate way they actually work. Just call in the guys with braids on their uniforms and give orders.

The problem goes well beyond the specifics of the basics of the military command structure. Obama has no leadership experience in large organizations whatsoever. He doesn't even know what questions an incoming executive should ask, in order to formulate effective policies.

There are serious and important benefits (as well as pitfalls) to a line/staff division of labor in business and a command/staff division in the military. People who have actually run serious organizations and accomplished something know all about working both sides of the organizational apparatus, avoiding the downsides while maximizing the effectiveness of the various tools at the leader's disposal.

Actual experience leading, changing, and accomplishing goals in large organizations ought to be an informal prerequisite for presidential candidates. John McCain hasn't run a large organization, but at least he has been a military leader, responsible for the Navy's largest squadron at the time.

Obama's understanding of the intricacies of management reflects the shallowness of a man who has gathered resume items without ever accomplishing much as a community organizer, lawyer, state senator, and US Senator. Such people tend to get into real trouble when they arrive in a job where responsibility cannot so easily be sloughed off on others after moving on to a higher position.

Obama is again and again demonstrating that he doesn't know very much at all of about the serious matter of state. Just looking and sounding good enough to garner votes seems to be the limit of his aims. Preparation for actually being president is an afterthought.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:13 pm
Borrowed from McG's post, above: "...Bush's understanding of the intricacies of management reflects the shallowness of a man who has gathered resume items without ever accomplishing much 'as governor of Texas or an oil man'..." Bush did succeed in executing more men in prison; new highs for even many third world countries.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:15 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Obama's lack of understanding exposed again
Thomas Lifson
Dean Barnett noticed a stunning level of ignorance by Barack Obama about the command structure he seeks to head as commander-in-chief and blogged about it at The Weekly Standard.

When Obama held his second press conference late last week to address his ever more slippery position on withdrawing troops from Iraq, he stated:

"I am absolutely committed to ending the war," the longtime community organizer declared. "I will call my Joint Chiefs of Staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war."

Barnett explains well the role of Joint Chefs as a staff unit, which provides advice to the commander-in-chief. In order to avoid conflicts within their respective services and provide clear advice, the joint chiefs are by law excluded from the command structure. The command structure (what is called the "line" part of the organization in corporate organizations) consists of people like General Petraeus, who actually run the military organization through its structure of commands. Barnett comments sarcastically:

Surely Obama knows this. Obviously he wouldn't be seeking the role of Commander-in-Chief without knowing how the job is done.

Obama has such a naive view of running organizations that he doesn't appreciate way they actually work. Just call in the guys with braids on their uniforms and give orders.

The problem goes well beyond the specifics of the basics of the military command structure. Obama has no leadership experience in large organizations whatsoever. He doesn't even know what questions an incoming executive should ask, in order to formulate effective policies.

There are serious and important benefits (as well as pitfalls) to a line/staff division of labor in business and a command/staff division in the military. People who have actually run serious organizations and accomplished something know all about working both sides of the organizational apparatus, avoiding the downsides while maximizing the effectiveness of the various tools at the leader's disposal.

Actual experience leading, changing, and accomplishing goals in large organizations ought to be an informal prerequisite for presidential candidates. John McCain hasn't run a large organization, but at least he has been a military leader, responsible for the Navy's largest squadron at the time.

Obama's understanding of the intricacies of management reflects the shallowness of a man who has gathered resume items without ever accomplishing much as a community organizer, lawyer, state senator, and US Senator. Such people tend to get into real trouble when they arrive in a job where responsibility cannot so easily be sloughed off on others after moving on to a higher position.

Obama is again and again demonstrating that he doesn't know very much at all of about the serious matter of state. Just looking and sounding good enough to garner votes seems to be the limit of his aims. Preparation for actually being president is an afterthought.


Um, jeez.

Obama to joint chiefs: "figure out a way to end the war, pronto."

JC to Obama: "okay, here's the best plan we can come up with."

Obama to military command structure: "execute this plan created by the JC and I immediately."

What is it about you guys that makes you so f*cking dense? That you think parsing statements equal effective attacks on someone?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:31 pm
This is bad and getting worse. Although much of the media is giving a pas to conflicting statements from Obama, it is becoming apparent this guy has more opinions than Carter has little liver pills. It depends upon what day it is and what time of day, and who he is talking to. It is becoming transparently obvious this guy does not have an underlying philosophy, or if he does, he can't divulge them. The list of flip flops is becoming embarrassing, and it is not a matter of him changing his mind for a reason, the opinions morph from one thing to another, and when questioned, he is offended.

The worst is the Iraq War, on which he rode his position to victory over Hillary, but it is becoming obvious he doesn't know what he is talking about and never did. McGentrix post illustrates that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:50 pm
okie wrote: The list of flip flops is becoming embarrassing, and it is not a matter of him changing his mind for a reason, the opinions morph from one thing to another, and when questioned, he is offended.

Who's embarrassed? You? All presidential candidates "flip flop" on issues. Maybe you just ignored all the others.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:53 pm
BTW, even congress members flip flop on issues. That's what happens to all politicians; they flip flop. Are you still embarrassed?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:58 pm
And then there's Ronnie Reagan from ronn.org:

Ronald "Shotgun Wedding" Reagan
A study in cognitive dissonance

All links were good when this was originally written, in October of 2003.

The question isn't so much why dittoheads like Ronald Reagan, the question is why do they love him so slavishly?

Ronald Reagan had major character flaws: Our only divorced president (on the grounds of "mental cruelty"), forced to marry a pregnant Nancy in a shotgun wedding, was greatly influenced by astrology in events, senility by 1983, surrounded by corruption and incompetence and found guilty of "failing to meet presidential obligations" (bottom of link), and investigated for being a Communist in 1947.

Ronald Reagan was not a good president: Campaigned for 16 years, since his Goldwater acceptance speech and won in 1980 on a balanced budget platform, yet the first thing he did was massively increase the deficit, and for wholly political reasons said his Budget Director. This is the biggest flip-flop in US political history, and it drove conservatives crazy. The corruption in his SAG term of office was reflected in massive corruption in his presidential terms (some attribution here and here and... Indeed, it's worse than reported, going so far as to terrorize church officials for their politics and having the CIA illegally infiltrate church sanctuaries. He didn't defeat "communism". The Soviet Union was less than a quarter the number of people that remain under communist regimes. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a major victory for the people in Russia and the repressed states, but Reagan's sabre-rattling kept it alive several years after it was obviously dead. Star Wars not the reason: There was no increase in the Soviet Union's military spending in response to Reagan's build-up. He screwed up at Reykjavik, proposing a deal to completely eliminate US and Soviet nukes, then backing off when it looked like Gorby would accept. Credit should go to Carter for setting exactly the right policy with a selected arms build-up, in Afghanistan, and with Solidarity. As we've seen since, the Soviet Union wasn't much of an empire and most of the people in it aren't particularly evil. Perhaps if he hadn't fired the air traffic controllers, there would have been more experienced people who would raise the alarm faster on 9/11.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:58 pm
ci, are you using the Clinton defense, everybody does it, everybody lies, etc. etc.?

I don't buy it, ci, I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 02:04 pm
okie, It's because you've already bought the wrong one.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 02:07 pm
George Walker Bush flip flops:

I'm a uniter, not a divider.
I'm a compassionate conservative.
When we do wiretaps, we get FISA approval.
We'll leave Iraq when they ask us to leave.


http://www.50bushflipflops.com/Introduction/home.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 02:10 pm
And one of his father's famous flip flops: "read my lips, no new taxes."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 02:15 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
George Walker Bush flip flops:

I'm a uniter, not a divider.
I'm a compassionate conservative.
When we do wiretaps, we get FISA approval.
We'll leave Iraq when they ask us to leave.


http://www.50bushflipflops.com/Introduction/home.html

He tried to unite, but the Dems would have none of it. Compassionate conservative, huh, that is an opinion, not a policy, no flip flop, ci. Wiretaps, they go get FISA approval, where applicable and practical. The last one, that is just now being considered, and we may well leave, but Bush is probably negotiating a few things behind the scene for when we do leave. I don't see a flip flop yet.

I don't deny Bush has probably changed policies from time to time, but they are for a reason, not due to daily confusion. Technically, perhaps you are right, every politician changes positions sometimes, but there is a great difference in terms of how much, how often, why, and so forth. Bush has stuck to many of his policies, and in fact he has been criticized for being too hard headed by libs. So which do you want, he stands fast, you criticize him, he changes his mind, you criticize him.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 02:16 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
And one of his father's famous flip flops: "read my lips, no new taxes."

The Dems shoved it down his throat, yes he signed off on it, but the real culprits were the Democrats if you wish to blame anyone. Besides, you like higher taxes, so whats the beef?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 02:21 pm
Yeah, okie, blame everything on the democrats. You are ignorant.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 02:22 pm
okie wrote: Besides, you like higher taxes, so whats the beef?


Please show me where I said "I like higher taxes?" Otherwise, go to hell.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 02:27 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yeah, okie, blame everything on the democrats. You are ignorant.

I blame Bush for signing off on it, but the press needs to be accurate, the Dems are the ones that ramrodded the legislation to raise taxes. So I don't blame the Dems for everything, but they are on the wrong side of most every issue. The Repubs are wrong on plenty, and Bush has screwed up alot, and I have said so many times.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 02:35 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie wrote: Besides, you like higher taxes, so whats the beef?


Please show me where I said "I like higher taxes?" Otherwise, go to hell.


That's not what I asked; see above question and statement.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 03:01 pm
I like higher taxes especially if Okie has to pay them.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 03:48 pm
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
They're juggling their books a little better than Bush.


Do you really believe that the dems can handle the finances of the entire country if they cant even handle the finances for their own convention?

Ask Bush or Cheney, where America's money is....... :wink:
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jul, 2008 03:52 pm
okie wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
okie wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
'Told who to vote for?'

You presume knowledge where you have none, Fox. How do you know these people are told who to vote for? Or that they actually vote for these people, once in the booth?

It's just another tired Republican trope, oft repeated but little verified.

FD is right - you don't know what you are talking about, in the slightest. I've done plenty of voter registration work myself, much of it in what would accurately be described as slums and ghettos, and we never told anyone who to vote for, ever. In fact, we weren't legally allowed to even talk about it with them unless they asked us direct questions about the candidate, iirc.

Cycloptichorn

Did you ask for ID's cyclops, and did you verify if they were already registered either there or somewhere else? How did you know you didn't sign up a bunch of people illegally? Or did you care?


In my precinct, you walk up to the registrar, state your name and that's it!
If you are registered, your name is in the book! Anything else is illegal!
If your name has been deleted, you can ask for a provisional ballot! That's it! Apparently no one has asked YOU to verify YOURSELF, so why should anyone else be asked? You've got a lot of nerve! These are the tactics used by "Jim Crow", throughout the South, before the Voting Rights Act was passed! Rolling Eyes

I wasn't referring to voting, I was referring to becoming registered to vote. It has been a long time since I registered, but I think I had to provide an I.D. to prove I was who I said I was, and that I was a resident of the county. Sheesh, what is so terrible about that, and unreasonable?

And providing I.D. to vote is not a bad idea as well, to show you are the person on the voter registration rolls.



#1 - You need to read the damn Constitution, then
#2 - Read the fricking Bill of Rights!

Are you so cowed that you don't know what your rights as a citizen are? Do you care? What a fool! Did you know that you can't be arrested for no reason or to be stopped for no reason? Cops are so corrupt until, they become judge and jury, while they kill people while in police custody!

Do you read the newspapers and have you heard of police brutality? That's YOUR tax dollars at work, while the "protect and serve", do everything BUT! They think they're above the law in New York. When guiliani was the mayor, the cops had tee-shirts that said, "We OWN the night", then pumped 41 bullets into an African, reaching for his wallet to ID himself and the cops claimed they thought his wallet was a gun!

Guilani and Bernard Kerik, 2 crooks with badges; "Perfect together", as we say in Jersey! Bernard Kerik; nominated for the Homeland Security chief, until they found out that he was involved in a shady "pay for play" scheme! The son of a prostitute and a philanderer! Guiliani hates Italians so much, he broke up the mafia, he was born into!

You need to read more. These are but 2 horror stories of the many that make up the NY/NJ area. If you can make it here, you can make it, anywhere! Cool

Teeny, what does Guiliani have to do with our discussion about verifying the person voting is registered or is actually a citizen or actually resides where that person is voting? Good grief! Get a life!


Go back!

Re-read #1, then #2!

No, YOU get a life! 1 and 2 explain, why I gave you 2 examples of the LACK of, or enforcing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Can you understand what you read? Cool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 973
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.25 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 07:03:22