- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The President's Unnerving Happy Talk
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:58 pm
quote:
President Obama is not worried. And that is unnerving.
British Prime Minister David Cameron presented to Parliament on Monday the alarming conclusions of European leaders who had met in Brussels over the weekend: “The European Council believes the creation of an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria and the Islamist extremism and export of terrorism on which it is based is a direct threat to every European country.”
quote:
But three days earlier — the day Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” — Obama delivered a very different message when he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in New York’s Westchester County. “Yes, the Middle East is challenging, but the truth is it’s been challenging for quite a while,” he said. “I promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20?years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. This is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War.”
Speaking to another group of contributors that same day in Newport, R.I., the president said that the post-9/11 security apparatus “makes us in the here and now pretty safe” and that the threat from ISIS “doesn’t immediately threaten the homeland.”
I hope Obama’s chillax message turns out to be correct, but the happy talk is not reassuring. It’s probably true that the threat of domestic radicalization is greater in Europe than in the United States (hence the British plan to confiscate some passports) but Obama’s sanguinity is jarring compared with the mood of NATO allies Obama is meeting in Europe this week.
quote:
Obama has been giving Americans a pep talk, essentially counseling them not to let international turmoil get in the way of the domestic economic recovery. “The world has always been messy,” he said Friday. “In part, we’re just noticing now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through.”
So we wouldn’t have fussed over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine if not for Facebook? Or worried about terrorists taking over much of Syria and Iraq if not for Twitter? This explanation, following Obama’s indiscreet admission Thursday that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for military action against the Islamic State, adds to the impression that Obama is disengaged.
In short, Americans would worry less if Obama worried more.
LINK
3
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:10 pm to DeltaDoc
There is a certain leadership philosophy, and one to which I subscribe, that dictates that a leader should remain calm.
But, calm in a crisis should at least imply some sort of focus and affirmative measures taken to counter it. "Calm" should not be masked as indifference or apathy. Calm, like it's evil twin, Panic, is contagious. If the boss is calm, then it is okay for you to be calm, so it goes.
In this case, however, it just comes across as what many of us have long suspected, that he is a dilettante, amateurishly playing at being president. And the world is far, far too dangerous for that.
We've had a lot of that, lately. Since JFK (who performed better than his background would have suggested - other than his time in the USN) - LBJ seemed wholly unprepared for the international demands of the job - and that would have been fine if he hadn't wanted to pursue the discretionary military action in Vietnam. Nixon was "ok" - perhaps even a little better than "ok" with his rapprochement with China. Ford lost a war with North Vietnam that had already been won. Carter was a generational failure in foreign affairs. Reagan was hit and miss - great on some issues (Cold War), hot and cold on terrorism (Libya v. Lebanon). HW was solid. Clinton was a boy - not ready for the big stage - his failures set up what was to come.
W. was great...at first. Then he let the advisors go wild - from 2004 on - he just seemed more and more lost.
We're seeing a combination of the worst of Carter and the worst of W right now - a very dangerous combination, I might add. Weakness and indecision seem to overshadow some of his more solid actions and successes (Somali pirates, OBL) - our enemies are emboldened by his milquetoast presentation, real or affected, and right now, as we sit here in September 2014, our enemies are getting stronger while we're getting weaker. Of that, I am certain.
But, calm in a crisis should at least imply some sort of focus and affirmative measures taken to counter it. "Calm" should not be masked as indifference or apathy. Calm, like it's evil twin, Panic, is contagious. If the boss is calm, then it is okay for you to be calm, so it goes.
In this case, however, it just comes across as what many of us have long suspected, that he is a dilettante, amateurishly playing at being president. And the world is far, far too dangerous for that.
We've had a lot of that, lately. Since JFK (who performed better than his background would have suggested - other than his time in the USN) - LBJ seemed wholly unprepared for the international demands of the job - and that would have been fine if he hadn't wanted to pursue the discretionary military action in Vietnam. Nixon was "ok" - perhaps even a little better than "ok" with his rapprochement with China. Ford lost a war with North Vietnam that had already been won. Carter was a generational failure in foreign affairs. Reagan was hit and miss - great on some issues (Cold War), hot and cold on terrorism (Libya v. Lebanon). HW was solid. Clinton was a boy - not ready for the big stage - his failures set up what was to come.
W. was great...at first. Then he let the advisors go wild - from 2004 on - he just seemed more and more lost.
We're seeing a combination of the worst of Carter and the worst of W right now - a very dangerous combination, I might add. Weakness and indecision seem to overshadow some of his more solid actions and successes (Somali pirates, OBL) - our enemies are emboldened by his milquetoast presentation, real or affected, and right now, as we sit here in September 2014, our enemies are getting stronger while we're getting weaker. Of that, I am certain.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:13 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
In this case, however, it just comes across as what many of us have long suspected, that he is a dilettante, amateurishly playing at being president. And the world is far, far too dangerous for that.
dil·et·tante noun \'di-l?-?tänt, -?tant; ?di-l?-'\
: a person whose interest in an art or in an area of knowledge is not very deep or serious
I second this.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 2:17 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
This explanation, following Obama’s indiscreet admission Thursday that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for military action against the Islamic State, adds to the impression that Obama is disengaged.
More misdirection.
The President said "we don't have a strategy yet" for invading Syria.
Context is everything:
Question: "Do you need Congress’s approval to go into Syria?"
Answer: "I have consulted with Congress throughout this process. I am confident that as Commander-in-Chief I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently. As our strategy develops, we will continue to consult with Congress. And I do think that it will be important for Congress to weigh in, or that our consultations with Congress continue to develop so that the American people are part of the debate.
But I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet."
Posted on 9/3/14 at 3:24 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
And I do think that it will be important for Congress to weigh in, or that our consultations with Congress continue to develop so that the American people are part of the debate.
So he wants political cover and discourse on this, but not illegal immigration?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 3:35 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
So he wants political cover and discourse on this, but not illegal immigration?
He didn't want it on Libya either. On one hand, maybe he has learned from his mistakes on Libya after receiving so much backlash from even within his own party.
I personally think he just doesn't give a shite anymore and that while foreign policy has always been nothing more than nuisance to him, he used to care what people thought. I think he no longer cares what anyone thinks.
He achieved his objective, which was to be a two-term president and icon among American liberals. He now knows he is two short years away from becoming mega-rich and living the life of George Clooney.
It was never about the country for him - it was simply about him.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 3:40 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
I personally think he just doesn't give a shite anymore and that while foreign policy has always been nothing more than nuisance to him, he used to care what people thought. I think he no longer cares what anyone thinks.
And you think it has nothing to do with the complexity of going into Syria to help out a dictator against terrorists that we had previously been arming to fight against the dictator we are now supposed to go in and support?
That should be simple, right? Can we pile on a little Russian influence left over from the old Soviet-Syria connection?
I wonder what our ever vigilant allies, the Israelis, think about our antics n Syria. You think that may be giving people pause to think ?
Of course not, it's all bull in a china shop diplomacy. Just invade, kill a bunch of people and get the frick out before the trouble starts. THAT'S foreign policy, baw.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 3:43 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
And you think it has nothing to do with the complexity of going into Syria to help out a dictator against terrorists that we had previously been arming to fight against the dictator we are now supposed to go in and support?
We should have never taken sides against Assad in the first place. Yeah, he's a piece of shite, but recent history shows that secularist dictators are the best kind of people to keep Islamic extremists at bay in the Middle East.
Assad is smart and has the savvy to play the game. You put a radical Islamist caliphate in charge and the region will be at risk of destabilizing.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 3:49 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Assad is smart and has the savvy to play the game.
While I agree with this, Syria has its own challenges - not the least of which is that their biggest ally is Iran.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 3:54 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
We should have never taken sides against Assad in the first place.
I agree.
I thought the same thing about Saddam Hussein in 2003 - and 1991.
I thought the same thing about Noriega in 1989.
But now we find ourselves in the trick bag. Small wonder there isn't a strategy RIGHT NOW to deal with it.
As far as Happy Talk, You gotta have a dream, if you don't have a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true?
LINK
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:01 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Happy is good. We need more of an isolationist stance. Our being the world's self-appointed policeman has initiated many of the problems we find ourselves in. And we need to get free from dependence on middle east oil. Corporate greed has driven much of our meddling over there and that has led to disastrous consequences.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:13 pm to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
We need more of an isolationist stance.
I disagree.
People these days equate non-intervention with isolationism - but it's NOT.
Isolationism involves markets as well as military. When you are isolationist, you impose stiff tariffs on imports to stimulate domestic demand and production. It is a fools errand.
Non-intervention says we are willing to openly trade with anyone we choose, but our defense forces are reserved for defending our borders - and NOT some idea of corporate interests transmogrified into some sort of perverted 'National Interests'.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:14 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
That should be simple, right? Can we pile on a little Russian influence left over from the old Soviet-Syria connection? I wonder what our ever vigilant allies, the Israelis, think about our antics n Syria. You think that may be giving people pause to think ?
I am in no way suggesting military action. That said, when you openly call a terrorist organization JV and then recant in less than 8 months - you look suspect. When you openly state that we do not have a strategy (even if behind closed doors that is the truth), then you look suspect.
Unfortunately for Obama, he does not get the option of not having a strategy because he was elected to ALWAYS HAVE A STRATEGY. Is that fair, not always but he wanted the job (or at least the perks thereof).
This is a very complicated issue - one without a good option and one that makes us take in strange bed fellows.
That said, the world looks to us for leadership. Right now, England is the only nation that is even remotely looking like they are doing something (even if they are not in reality).
What Obama has been doing during and after his vacation comes across more as that of a political commentator for MSNBC than that of a serious person - a president of the most powerful nation on earth.
He appears to be weak and that is evident in the polls as of late as well.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:33 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
he does not get the option of not having a strategy because he was elected to ALWAYS HAVE A STRATEGY
No he wasn't, that's just childish rhetoric.
shite happens and takes you by surprise. It's how you respond that shows your mettle.
quote:
That said, the world looks to us for leadership.
That looks like a "them" problem to me. It also seems that we can't exactly afford that station. Looking to us for it, and PAYING us for it are two separate and distinct things.
quote:
...comes across more as that of a political commentator for MSNBC than that of a serious person
I hope you wouldn't want him to actively be laying out any kind of military strategy with all of the military experts he has at his disposal. The same holds true for other forms of diplomacy. That's why he has a cabinet. Most Presidents act like spokesmen for their administrations, set general policy goals and have their people take care of the details. The last president to actively take part in the planning of minutiae was vilified (and still is by some) as the worstest evah.
quote:
He appears to be weak and that is evident in the polls as of late as well.
He IS weak. The House has basically told him to forget about any kind of cooperation on anything. In a system of checks and balances such as ours, that's a killer. Even in light of this, when he shows strength through EOs, he is threatened with law suits. The Republicans are actively trying to hamstring the President. That would weaken anybody.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:43 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Christ how many fundraisers does a guy that isn't running for office going to do?
Crises in eastern europe, crisis in the ME, crisis at home and he's fricking passing around the collection hat. Did Clinton, Bush(s), or Reagan do this as much as this nincompoop?
Crises in eastern europe, crisis in the ME, crisis at home and he's fricking passing around the collection hat. Did Clinton, Bush(s), or Reagan do this as much as this nincompoop?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:55 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
He IS weak. The House has basically told him to forget about any kind of cooperation on anything
Holy crap...that is rich. The sole reason Obama is weak on foreign policy is because of the GOP held House.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:59 pm to ironsides
quote:
Christ how many fundraisers does a guy that isn't running for office going to do?
Ask Jindal.
It seems that the way we have the system structured currently where you have to buy your way into office, money is the bottom line.
And hey, isn't money supposed to be the bottom line in this country?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:00 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
The President's Unnerving Happy Talk
What can anyone expect from the man who ran on the one word catch phrases of Hope & Change?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:26 pm to constant cough
This might be useful on this board. Even though it was created pre-ISIS, it is indicative of what a screwed up mess the ME is. The longer Obama waits, the better. There are coalitions forming now without US leadership & that is good. The Europeans are finally getting off their asses.
Optics seem to be the problem with most of Obama's critics. He doesn't "look" like a leader. He isn't "Presidential", etc.etc.etc. He was forthright and said he doesn't yet have a strategy. With our history in the ME and the resulting unintended consequences, doing nothing now is better than deepening our involvement without a good plan in a region where almost everybody hates us.
My guess is that Rand Paul would be similar were he Potus.
Optics seem to be the problem with most of Obama's critics. He doesn't "look" like a leader. He isn't "Presidential", etc.etc.etc. He was forthright and said he doesn't yet have a strategy. With our history in the ME and the resulting unintended consequences, doing nothing now is better than deepening our involvement without a good plan in a region where almost everybody hates us.
My guess is that Rand Paul would be similar were he Potus.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 5:34 pm to constant cough
Keep upvoting constant cough !
We are almost there !
We are almost there !
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News