Obama the Invisible

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...tf15MAr9DYAORK

The opinion piece caught my eye. In recent days I've been wondering "where is Obama?" Excerpts:





Now, it goes without saying I am no fan of the President. It's no secret I think he's anti-business, pro-big government and, well, wrong on nearly every issue I consider to be important. But the topic of this thread goes way beyond me disagreeing with his policies, his tactics, etc. This comes down to two things for me: Demonstrated incompetence and failure to lead. Leave the rest of the disagreements on the table, because these are the true problems. The following is listed in chronological order:

Exhibit A: The Healthcare Debate

Obama promised competent, smart leadership. Instead of taking the reins, he allowed Congress to fight it out (almost literally in some cases). He shutdown Republican ideas even while saying he was open to them. His sole act of "leadership" was to help facilitate the ramming-through of the bloated, unconstitutional (my opinion) bill. The result was a law that is likely worse than single payer or a public option.

Exhibit B: The BP Spill

Obama responded by killing thousands of jobs in the Gulf Coast region during the worst recession since WWII through the moratorium on offshore drilling. He appeared feckless, frustrated and outright angry at times. His administration uttered the famous "boots on throats" line and focused on getting the public to blame BP instead of focusing on the government's pathetic response. Where was "the speech?" Where was the national address where he confidently stated "We will do whatever it takes. We will overcome this disaster and make drilling safer going forward. We will protect jobs. Most importantly, we will offer the full resources of the federal government to assist BP in the cleanup operation. We will have time for blame later. It is now time to act." Answer: Despite doing many of the things I reference above, leadership can be as much about words as it is about action.

Exhibit C: Egypt

One term best describes Obama's response: "Ho-hum." He waffled and equivocated and clarified. We don't want to meddle, but the outcome is important. It's none of our business, but in a way it's our business. We support freedom around the globe, but we shouldn't be...you know, supporting freedom around the globe. Some advice, Mr. President: If you're not getting involved, say that. If you believe the Mubarak government is oppressive and needs to change or surrender power, say that. But you can't have it both ways.

Exhibit D: Libya

Ghadaffi (who, after a quick Google search, apparently spells his name several ways) is a brutal dictator that is now turning his military against his people. This man is slaughtering his own people. Making matters worse, he's doing so in a critical and unstable part of the world. Because of Libya's oil-producing status, he's even affecting the global economy. Where is Obama? He's nowhere. Hillary Clinton has show more leadership on the issue than he has (yes, I really just wrote that). Every day, we hear and see that Ghadaffi is attacking "the rebels." Hmmm. Has anyone noticed that Obama and the Obamaite Media are calling them "rebels" instead of "Freedom Fighters?" Funny enough...MS-OBAMA and ONN (The Obama News Network) had no trouble using the latter term when it came to terrorists attacking American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where is the term now? These people are LITERALLY "Freedom Fighters." Once again, where is Obama? Here again, get involved or don't. In fact, let's just get involved. Why wouldn't we? The United States is supposed to promote freedom throughout the world, correct? Isn't that one of the ideals Mr. Obama talked about promoting in order to make America "more respected in the world?" Secondly, doesn't Libya affect our national security? Doesn't it affect oil...the lifeblood of our economy? Forget the No-Fly. Get on TV and state that he has 48 hours to surrender power. Then show news footage of the 1986 Reagan-ordered raid on his country. Then ask a simple question: "Mr. Ghadaffi, do you think we've gotten better or worse at bombing since then?....Your call." And Mr. Obama, guess what? The world doesn't respect America when she stands on the sidelines and lets brutal dictators attack their own people. Would attacking Libya earn us enemies? Absolutely. But not dealing with this madman will earn us a lot more.

Exhibit E: The Final Atrocity: Japan

Unfortunately for the President, "E" doesn't stand for "excellent." The way the President has handled (read: not handled) the nearly unthinkable devastation in Japan quite literally sickens me. Nothing short of a prime-time national address and the presentation of a plan to rebuild the quake and tsunami-stricken areas is acceptable. The US should announce a major and nationwide effort. We should send any military resources we can spare without affecting our own security. The President should visit Japan immediately. He should coordinate with other world leaders as they develop the international response effort. Is he doing some of this now? I'm sure. But he, as the article states, is invisible. During one of the most grave crises in the history of human civilization, the leader of the world's most powerful nation is nowhere to be seen.

President Obama is not fiddling as Rome burns. He is fiddling as the world burns.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek.


Yeah, that's another one. Obviously there are different views of the situation, but there is no leadership from him on that issue, either.


Totally agree there. I would add that his worldview and overall governing philosophy make things much worse.



At least that president was working at the time. Obama is on ESPN picking his bracket. WTF?


Agreed. I can't imagine the pressure that any President must face.


Well, I think the problem is the head of the snake...pardon the expression. The man's arrogance and ego I think prevent him from really relying on knowledgable people.


Unless the economy turns around quickly, he's doomed. His approval rating is nearing 40 percent. His negatives are exceptionally high. There are literally millions of Americans that think he's a Muslim who was born in Kenya. There is no evidence of those whatsoever, but politically speaking, that doesn't matter (then again, I am getting to the point where I'm asking the question: Why not show the birth certificate?).


Appreciate the honesty from someone that voted for Obama. It's not a question of effort, though. He's just a terrible President. His policies are all wrong for the country. America is less respected in the world. He's clearly the most liberal/progressive president we've ever had. On top of this, he's arrogant, egotistical, thin-skinned, indecisive and inexperienced as an executive. It's a recipe for disaster...and dinner is nearly done.



For the life of me I don't see the obsession you have with this issue. Could you explain it? Putting the POTUS or VPOTUS apart from each other in secure, undisclosed locations seems to make sense when the nation is under attack. Hmmm?


That's overstated. There's really no evidence that he's a "primary confidant." He's an advisor. Now, there is the odd quote from James L. Jones that he "takes his daily orders" from Kissinger. I don't think anyone really knows what that means, nor how it would even be possible without being widely known. Here is the quote:

Jones:
(emphasis added)

That could mean any number of things. Kissinger may be in that chain of command. It doesn't mean he's at or near the top. In any case, even if Kissinger were a primary advisor, that doesn't mean Obama's view of the world is any different than he has demonstrated. That doesn't make him any more right on government spending, healthcare, or the failures of leadership I mentioned.

Good points. It's funny...as much as I disliked Obama prior to his election, I am honestly surprised at what I've seen from him in most if not all areas. It's like he is the polar opposite of everything he was portrayed to be in the campaign. I mentioned it earlier: During the campaign he was mostly VERY positive (some exceptions, but not many I can recall). His speeches were soaring and inspirational. He projected confidence, reason, level-headedness, transparency, competence, bipartisanship and empathy in almost all cases. But from nearly the moment he took office, he's governed in exactly the opposite of those terms and with seemingly the exact opposite personalty. His speeches are flat and uninspired. Confidence has become indecisiveness. Reason has been supplanted by ideology. Level-headedness has been replaced by feckless anger. Transparency is worse than ever. Competence has become utter incompetence. Empathy has become complete disconnection. What the hell? It's just..odd. It's hard to believe any campaign team could have been that good at creating a false image. Or, did he just change? Perhaps it all came from him to begin with (e.g. he fooled everyone). I just don't know. I do know this is about much more than policy at this point. Early on, it wasn't for me. I just disagreed with him...strongly. I now add the items in this thread to the pile.

LET THE CONSPIRACIES......BEGIN!


So...Obama is a "Washington insider" now...or at least he embraces them? Really?



I'm not here to defend Kissinger. But, I do think that him being a "war criminal" is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. We've heard that nearly every President since Nixon was a "war criminal" according someone for some reason. It seems that every time someone does something controversial with the military, he's a "war criminal." Again, I don't have any great love for the man, but I think your perspective is somewhat skewed.

It wasn't a conspiracy. The lone nuts are the ones that think otherwise.


Got it. He's a Washington insider. Right. \


First, suspected by whom? This is what I'm saying. One country's butcher is another's hero, and so forth. Secondly, the issue is that there's very little evidence pertaining to actual war crimes by any recent President (save perhaps Johnson and Nixon re: Vietnam). In conjunction with point one, that is why not many have taken up the mantle of prosecuting "war criminals."

Now, let's assume a US President committed an actual war crime. Say he ordered the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Say he dropped a nuclear bomb on Tripoli for no reason other than Gadaffi "getting the message". What then? He would first be impeached here, then tried in the US or elsewhere for said war crimes. He sure wouldn't just continue on because he happens to be powerful.

War crimes are genocide, deliberate slaughter of civilians, etc. War crimes are not collateral damage, accidents, or launching missiles into dictator's houses. The problem you have here, sammi, is that you and others have cried wolf too many times. Everything you don't like is a "war crime." Yet you ignore true war crimes, such as Gadaffi is committing now and such as the brutal dictators we know and despise have. I don't see you posting rants tantamount to your Kissinger-inspired one concerning the crimes that Saddam, Jong-Il, Mugabe, even Chavez and Castro committed. Where are those threads, sammi?

I think Hillary is going to run, no matter what she says. And I think she would win. Liberals and moderates loved Hillary. Conservatives didn't, but they also see her (I think) as a lot better than Obama. I confess to changing my view of her after the last two years. At least she doesn't share Obama's view of the world and the US's place within it. At least she's competent.