PDA

View Full Version : Obama checks out - works on BB Bracket while world in turmoil!



huntinman
03-15-2011, 04:10 PM
President Obama’s Trivial Pursuits
by Keith Koffler on March 15, 2011, 12:10 pm, White House Dossier

The Middle East is afire with rebellion, Japan is imploding from an earthquake, and the battle of the budget is on in the United States, but none of this seems to be deterring President Obama from a heavy schedule of childish distractions.

The newly installed tandem of White House Chief of Staff William Daley and Senior Adviser David Plouffe were supposed to impart a new sense of discipline and purpose to the White House. Instead, they are permitting him to showcase himself as a poorly focused leader who has his priorities backward.

This morning, as Japan’s nuclear crisis enters a potentially catastrophic phase, we are told that Obama is videotaping his NCAA tournament picks and that we’ll be able to tune into ESPN Wednesday to find out who he likes.

Saturday, he made his 61st outing to the golf course as president, and got back to the White House with just enough time for a quick shower before heading out to party with Washington’s elite journalists at the annual Gridiron Dinner.

With various urgencies swirling about him, Saturday’s weekly videotaped presidential address focusing on “Women’s History Month” seemed bizarrely out of touch.

Obama Friday took time out to honor the 2009-10 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks. Thursday was a White House conference on bullying – not a bad idea perhaps, but not quite Leader of the Free World stuff either.

Obama appeared a little sleepy as he weighed in against the bullies, perhaps because he’d spent the night before partying with lawmakers as they took in a Chicago Bulls vs. Charlotte Bobcats game.

Meanwhile, the president has been studying for weeks whether to establish a No Fly Zone over Libya, delaying action while the point becomes increasingly moot as Qaddafi begins to defeat and slaughter his opponents. And lawmakers from both Parties are wondering why he seems to be AWOL in the deficit reduction debate.

The Libya indecision follows an inconsistent response to the protests that ousted former Egyptian President Mubarak and seemed to catch the White House off guard. The perfunctory response from the White House Monday to Saudi Arabia’s dispatch of troops to Bahrain suggested the administration wasn’t prepared for that one either.

But the fun stuff won’t end anytime soon. On Thursday, the Taoiseach of Ireland will be in town to help the president celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. And then Friday it’s off to Brazil for the start of a three-country Latin American tour.

Oddly, he’ll be missing Carnival, which went down last week.

Roger Perry
03-15-2011, 04:27 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It took me only 5 minutes to pick out the teams in the NCAA tournament brackets. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:BIG::BIG:

starjack
03-15-2011, 05:00 PM
President Obama’s Trivial Pursuits
by Keith Koffler on March 15, 2011, 12:10 pm, White House Dossier

The Middle East is afire with rebellion, Japan is imploding from an earthquake, and the battle of the budget is on in the United States, but none of this seems to be deterring President Obama from a heavy schedule of childish distractions.

The newly installed tandem of White House Chief of Staff William Daley and Senior Adviser David Plouffe were supposed to impart a new sense of discipline and purpose to the White House. Instead, they are permitting him to showcase himself as a poorly focused leader who has his priorities backward.

This morning, as Japan’s nuclear crisis enters a potentially catastrophic phase, we are told that Obama is videotaping his NCAA tournament picks and that we’ll be able to tune into ESPN Wednesday to find out who he likes.

Saturday, he made his 61st outing to the golf course as president, and got back to the White House with just enough time for a quick shower before heading out to party with Washington’s elite journalists at the annual Gridiron Dinner.

With various urgencies swirling about him, Saturday’s weekly videotaped presidential address focusing on “Women’s History Month” seemed bizarrely out of touch.

Obama Friday took time out to honor the 2009-10 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks. Thursday was a White House conference on bullying – not a bad idea perhaps, but not quite Leader of the Free World stuff either.

Obama appeared a little sleepy as he weighed in against the bullies, perhaps because he’d spent the night before partying with lawmakers as they took in a Chicago Bulls vs. Charlotte Bobcats game.

Meanwhile, the president has been studying for weeks whether to establish a No Fly Zone over Libya, delaying action while the point becomes increasingly moot as Qaddafi begins to defeat and slaughter his opponents. And lawmakers from both Parties are wondering why he seems to be AWOL in the deficit reduction debate.

The Libya indecision follows an inconsistent response to the protests that ousted former Egyptian President Mubarak and seemed to catch the White House off guard. The perfunctory response from the White House Monday to Saudi Arabia’s dispatch of troops to Bahrain suggested the administration wasn’t prepared for that one either.

But the fun stuff won’t end anytime soon. On Thursday, the Taoiseach of Ireland will be in town to help the president celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. And then Friday it’s off to Brazil for the start of a three-country Latin American tour.

Oddly, he’ll be missing Carnival, which went down last week.

I'll say it once i'll say it again The boy is in way over head and to think we might have another 2 to 6 years of this boob.( OBAMA I MEAN) NOT ROGER

Cody Covey
03-15-2011, 06:25 PM
What are we supposed to do about Libya? Would you suggest we invade? That worked out well with the other two countries we are still at war with. It is not the US' job to make sure the rest of the world stays in line, and with our debt we can't afford to do much of anything anyway. We have our own problems lets deal with those. Obama obviously isn't doing that either but lets focus on that instead of shit happening else where.

Roger Perry
03-15-2011, 09:27 PM
What are we supposed to do about Libya? Would you suggest we invade? That worked out well with the other two countries we are still at war with. It is not the US' job to make sure the rest of the world stays in line, and with our debt we can't afford to do much of anything anyway. We have our own problems lets deal with those. Obama obviously isn't doing that either but lets focus on that instead of shit happening else where.

If Obama does nothing, the right will complain that he is not doing anything. If he does something the right will say he did not do the right thing. It's a no win situation.:rolleyes:

huntinman
03-15-2011, 09:36 PM
If Obama does nothing, the right will complain that he is not doing anything. If he does something the right will say he did not do the right thing. It's a no win situation.:rolleyes:

No... when he leaves office, we will say he did just right:cool:

dnf777
03-15-2011, 09:45 PM
What are we supposed to do about Libya? Would you suggest we invade? That worked out well with the other two countries we are still at war with. It is not the US' job to make sure the rest of the world stays in line, and with our debt we can't afford to do much of anything anyway. We have our own problems lets deal with those. Obama obviously isn't doing that either but lets focus on that instead of shit happening else where.

Codey, you have it all backwards. FIRST, you commit troops to battle, put them in harm's way, THEN figure out what to do from there. Oh, but first massage the intel and lie to the UN, Congress, and the American people. And don't worry about funding, just ask for supplemental bills "off the budget". Its like free money--you can just spend, spend, and spend....then leave office and let the next guy worry about how to pay for things.

I hope that helps.

Oh, and in case RK accuses me of not having any original thoughts....in this case, I must admit he's right. The republicans masterminded that whole plan.

Hew
03-15-2011, 11:43 PM
What are we supposed to do about Libya? Would you suggest we invade?
Exactly. Because there's no other reasonable courses of action available for the President take that fall in the spectrum somewhere between invading and not doing a GD thing.

Cody Covey
03-16-2011, 12:06 AM
Exactly. Because there's no other reasonable courses of action available for the President take that fall in the spectrum somewhere between invading and not doing a GD thing.

You must have missed it. There was a question there, if you think there is something we can do please tell me what it is...I can think of nothing that we can do that I also believe we should do...

M&K's Retrievers
03-16-2011, 12:15 AM
If Obama does nothing, the right will complain that he is not doing anything. If he does something the right will say he did not do the right thing. It's a no win situation.:rolleyes:

Finally!! You got it right. With Obama, it's a no win situation.

JDogger
03-16-2011, 12:18 AM
Exactly. Because there's no other reasonable courses of action available for the President take that fall in the spectrum somewhere between invading and not doing a GD thing.

You used to be so much more amusing and erudite. What happen? You stop dating your ghost writer?
Or you just get a bad sammich?

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/imagesCA6MWC0D.jpg

JD

Hew
03-16-2011, 12:34 AM
Sorry for the sarcasm, but given the responses of two other posters who agreed with your post I'm apparently not the only one who interpreted your remarks as more of a comment than a question.

For better or worse, the United States is the leader of the world. By extension, whoever the President is, whether he's a liberal or conservative, loved or hated, can have a HUGE influence on world events simple based on what he says. Obama could simply announce that he backed the Libyan rebels thereby bringing ENORMOUS pressure upon Khadafi, and it wouldn't have cost the United States one thin dime. Or Obama could have said, "Look, Khadafi sucks, but he has renounced his WMD program and is a lot less dangerous than before and he is therefore preferable to the rebels" and it would have had an ENORMOUS impact and not cost the US one thin dime. I'll concede that doing nothing, which has basically been the United States response re: Libya, might just be the best course of action...maybe we're hedging our bets. But I find it hard to believe that limp-wristed and tepid American responses have been the right course of action on nearly every global issue/crisis that Obama has faced...Libya, Egypt, Iran, now Bahrain, etc. And I find that given Obama's past history of voting "Present" instead of casting a vote, it is very possible/likely that our current foreign policy is a reflection of that same lack of conviction.

Cody Covey
03-16-2011, 03:02 AM
Sorry for the sarcasm, but given the responses of two other posters who agreed with your post I'm apparently not the only one who interpreted your remarks as more of a comment than a question.

For better or worse, the United States is the leader of the world. By extension, whoever the President is, whether he's a liberal or conservative, loved or hated, can have a HUGE influence on world events simple based on what he says. Obama could simply announce that he backed the Libyan rebels thereby bringing ENORMOUS pressure upon Khadafi, and it wouldn't have cost the United States one thin dime. Or Obama could have said, "Look, Khadafi sucks, but he has renounced his WMD program and is a lot less dangerous than before and he is therefore preferable to the rebels" and it would have had an ENORMOUS impact and not cost the US one thin dime. I'll concede that doing nothing, which has basically been the United States response re: Libya, might just be the best course of action...maybe we're hedging our bets. But I find it hard to believe that limp-wristed and tepid American responses have been the right course of action on nearly every global issue/crisis that Obama has faced...Libya, Egypt, Iran, now Bahrain, etc. And I find that given Obama's past history of voting "Present" instead of casting a vote, it is very possible/likely that our current foreign policy is a reflection of that same lack of conviction.
Given your last sentence maybe I am being a bit naive about Obama doing nothing. BUT then again you say he should at least say something about it and he has said multiple times that Khadafi needs to step down. With the culture of the middle east and what we have seen in the past regarding other countries, harsh words and sanctions do absolutely nothing. How many sanctions and harsh words has Iran received and still they have not changed their course whatsoever. Khadafi is a totalitarian dictator and I'm sorry but the things you suggest have both been tried and will NOT work on someone like him. I firmly believe that only military force will stop him. He is air raiding his own people for God's sake, is Obama saying stop going to change his mind?

dnf777
03-16-2011, 05:55 AM
Sorry for the sarcasm, but given the responses of two other posters who agreed with your post I'm apparently not the only one who interpreted your remarks as more of a comment than a question.

For better or worse, the United States is the leader of the world. By extension, whoever the President is, whether he's a liberal or conservative, loved or hated, can have a HUGE influence on world events simple based on what he says. Obama could simply announce that he backed the Libyan rebels thereby bringing ENORMOUS pressure upon Khadafi, and it wouldn't have cost the United States one thin dime. Or Obama could have said, "Look, Khadafi sucks, but he has renounced his WMD program and is a lot less dangerous than before and he is therefore preferable to the rebels" and it would have had an ENORMOUS impact and not cost the US one thin dime. I'll concede that doing nothing, which has basically been the United States response re: Libya, might just be the best course of action...maybe we're hedging our bets. But I find it hard to believe that limp-wristed and tepid American responses have been the right course of action on nearly every global issue/crisis that Obama has faced...Libya, Egypt, Iran, now Bahrain, etc. And I find that given Obama's past history of voting "Present" instead of casting a vote, it is very possible/likely that our current foreign policy is a reflection of that same lack of conviction.

Most of the time, action has bigger consequences of inaction. Especially when talking potential military options. Sometimes if you're not sure of what to do, the best thing to do is NOTHING. In this case, at least up to now, by delaying, he has allowed the Arab League to come to our way of seeing things. If a no-fly zone is now implemented, we can proceed with reasonable assurances that it won't pizz off the rest of the middle east. FWIW.

Hew
03-16-2011, 08:07 AM
my text is bold...


Given your last sentence maybe I am being a bit naive about Obama doing nothing. BUT then again you say he should at least say something about it and he has said multiple times that Khadafi needs to step down. Not to get all weasel wordy with you, but I didn't necessarily say that he should pick a side; I was simply offering that as a requested example of something he could do that was less than invading but more than doing nothing. Yes, Obama has recently said that Khadafi needed to step down, but as I recall that was AFTER a whole bunch of Euro leaders stepped out in front and made similar proclamations. And even as Obama's saying Khadafi must go, his Director of National Intelligence is saying that Khadafi will win, and the UN is passing a resolution calling for other countries to arrest Khadafi for war crimes if he flees to their country. Brilliant. :rolleyes: But in the early days/weeks of Libya, Obama basically dithered and didn't do jacksh!t. With the culture of the middle east and what we have seen in the past regarding other countries, harsh words and sanctions do absolutely nothing. How many sanctions and harsh words has Iran received and still they have not changed their course whatsoever. There were a lot of posts/thread here last year during the Iranian uprisings bemoaning Obama for not being forceful enough. Harsh words and a strong, definitive stance that America stands on the side of freedom, etc, et al. might have emboldened the Iranian opposition or the Libyan opposition. We'll never know because instead of FDR, Kennedy or Reagan rhetoric we got wishywashy and indecisive from a Willy Loman-esque President who wants to be liked...and hopefully well-liked, by the rest of the world. Khadafi is a totalitarian dictator and I'm sorry but the things you suggest have both been tried and will NOT work on someone like him. I firmly believe that only military force will stop him. He is air raiding his own people for God's sake, is Obama saying stop going to change his mind?

Hew
03-16-2011, 08:14 AM
Most of the time, action has bigger consequences of inaction. Especially when talking potential military options. Sometimes if you're not sure of what to do, the best thing to do is NOTHING. I don't disagree with you one bit about that. Doing nothing, however, seems to be Obama's strategery for EVERY foreign policy crisis. In this case, at least up to now, by delaying, he has allowed the Arab League to come to our way of seeing things.If a no-fly zone is now implemented, we can proceed with reasonable assurances that it won't pizz off the rest of the middle east. Or, as I would argue, delaying/dithering has gotten us to a point where a no-fly zone isn't needed because the rebels are f'ing DEAD. What's a no-fly zone going to protect now...rotting corpses? FWIW.

...................

BrianW
03-16-2011, 09:37 AM
Most of the time, action has bigger consequences of inaction. Especially when talking potential military options. Sometimes if you're not sure of what to do, the best thing to do is NOTHING. In this case, at least up to now, by delaying, he has allowed the Arab League to come to our way of seeing things. If a no-fly zone is now implemented, we can proceed with reasonable assurances that it won't pizz off the rest of the middle east. FWIW.
Yes, actions generally DO have consequences. Such is the plight of being the President, not just doing the Presidency.

PBO is "not sure what to do" because of his core principles that conflict with 'what the American President is supposed to do/stand for".
He was taught his whole life that people like "Daffy" are the good guys, what he should strive to emulate. A heroic anti-colonialist standing up to the evil exploiters/oppressors of the people. Now that the mask of Muammar is off and the world is seeing, again, the true "person", it isn't quiiiite what Barack wants to show he's really supported all these years.

So he was for Gaddafi before he was against him. Sounds par for the course (Pun intended). And now he can conveniently hide behind Sarkozy, Merkel, Hu Jintao, etc which may be a good thing overall, since Italy, France, China, Germany and Spain are the largest buyers of Libyan oil, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Let them get some skin in the game.

Julie R.
03-16-2011, 10:14 AM
If Obama does nothing, the right will complain that he is not doing anything. If he does something the right will say he did not do the right thing. It's a no win situation.:rolleyes:

Refresh my memory again why the opinons expressed on a dog board are an excuse for this or in fact any POTUS to dither and hand wring instead of assuming a leadership role? Because regardless of how weak and ineffective a leader he's proving to be, one thing you can take to the bank is the favorable treatment your boy gets from the mainstream media, so you surely aren't referring to the court of public opinion.


And let's not forget Khadafi's outspoken support for Candidate Obama in the last election, either. After all it's obvious the POTUS spends more time worrying about his re-election than about world peace & harmony and he may need that endorsement again. LMAO.

Nobel Peace Prize regards

road kill
03-16-2011, 10:54 AM
Morning Bell: Obama Dithers While American Credibility Burns


"President Barack Obama invited ESPN into the White House yesterday so that The Worldwide Leader In Sports could tape his picks for the 2011 NCAA basketball tournament. The President picked all frontrunners. Good for him. Meanwhile, 5,000 miles away, a Libyan rebel defending the town of Ajdabiya from Muammar Qadhafi loyalists told The Washington Post: “These politicians are liars. They just talk and talk, but they do nothing.” One hundred miles north, in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, rebel spokeswoman Iman Bugaighis told The New York Times that Western nations had “lost any credibility.”

President Obama cannot be blamed for the failure of the rebels to hold off advances by Qadhafi’s army. But he can be blamed for raising expectations for U.S. military action beyond what he was prepared to commit. On March 3, President Obama said: “With respect to our willingness to engage militarily, … I’ve instructed the Department of Defense … to examine a full range of options. I don’t want us hamstrung. … Going forward, we will continue to send a clear message: The violence must stop. Muammar Gaddafi has lost legitimacy to lead, and he must leave.” Heritage Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes writes: “This is the worst of all worlds. People in the Middle East (not to mention Americans) are rightly confused by the mismatch between the Administration’s rhetoric and actions.”

The tragedy unfolding in Libya is just another example of why the Obama Doctrine was destined to fail. The Obama Doctrine is ill-suited to dealing with the world as it is. It assumes that big problems can be solved with big words while the messy details take care of themselves. It places far too much confidence in international entities, disregards for the importance of American independence, and fails to emphasize American exceptionalism.

Diplomacy is fundamental to the conduct of American foreign policy. That is why the Founders removed the conduct of diplomacy from the states of the Union and placed its practice under the President of the United States. But the Obama Doctrine misunderstands how diplomacy ought to be practiced. Heritage Senior Research Fellow Ted Bromund explains:

The purpose of American diplomacy never changes: It is to secure the national interests of the United States. … Irresponsible diplomacy comes in many forms. Diplomacy without strength does not even merit the name of diplomacy. Treaties that fail to respect President Ronald Reagan’s dictum of ‘trust, but verify’ are reckless. Treaties that are negotiated merely to encourage foreigners to think better of the United States are unwise.

Far too often, President Obama has hoped that fancy words, grand apologies, and supplicant treaties would strengthen our security by making the world think better of us. They do not. This does not mean that the Obama Administration should do something rash, like implement a no-fly zone in Libya, just so it looks like it is doing something. It does mean that to save his presidency and protect the interests of the nation, business as usual in the White House has got to stop."
______________________________________________

RK

huntinman
03-16-2011, 11:39 AM
POTUS...Putz of the United States

Roger Perry
03-16-2011, 12:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU

Nuff said.

road kill
03-16-2011, 12:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU

Nuff said.

Roger,

2 things.

#1---Obama is the topic.

#2---More plagerism!!!:shock:

Nuff said..........

RK

Roger Perry
03-16-2011, 01:48 PM
Roger,

2 things.

#1---Obama is the topic.

#2---More plagerism!!!:shock:

Nuff said..........

RK
What did I plagerize????? I submitted a link.:confused: I thought doctrines were brought up.:confused:

dnf777
03-16-2011, 05:45 PM
Yes, actions generally DO have consequences. Such is the plight of being the President, not just doing the Presidency.

PBO is "not sure what to do" because of his core principles that conflict with 'what the American President is supposed to do/stand for".
He was taught his whole life that people like "Daffy" are the good guys, what he should strive to emulate. A heroic anti-colonialist standing up to the evil exploiters/oppressors of the people. Now that the mask of Muammar is off and the world is seeing, again, the true "person", it isn't quiiiite what Barack wants to show he's really supported all these years.

So he was for Gaddafi before he was against him. Sounds par for the course (Pun intended). And now he can conveniently hide behind Sarkozy, Merkel, Hu Jintao, etc which may be a good thing overall, since Italy, France, China, Germany and Spain are the largest buyers of Libyan oil, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Let them get some skin in the game.

Amen to that!

I think Obama is getting heat for not doing anything......because that's what he did. Had he enacted a NFZ, the very same critics would be singing the opposite song. Its a partisan politics thing. Frankly, its a good thing we're not spending yet MORE money we don't have policing the world. We're doing too much of that already for the benefit of Europe.

road kill
03-16-2011, 05:48 PM
"One of the things I wanted to do on the show was, as people are filling out their brackets -- this is obviously a national pastime; we all have a great time, it’s a great diversion. But I know a lot of people are thinking how can they help the Japanese people during this time of need. If you go to usaid.gov -- usaid.gov -- that will list all the nonprofits, the charities that are helping out there. It would be wonderful for people to maybe offer a little help to the Japanese people at this time -- as they’re filling out their brackets. It’s not going to take a lot of time. That's usaid.gov. It could be really helpful."

President Obama
__________________________________________________ ________
Totally disconnected.

RK

dnf777
03-16-2011, 07:46 PM
"One of the things I wanted to do on the show was, as people are filling out their brackets -- this is obviously a national pastime; we all have a great time, it’s a great diversion. But I know a lot of people are thinking how can they help the Japanese people during this time of need. If you go to usaid.gov -- usaid.gov -- that will list all the nonprofits, the charities that are helping out there. It would be wonderful for people to maybe offer a little help to the Japanese people at this time -- as they’re filling out their brackets. It’s not going to take a lot of time. That's usaid.gov. It could be really helpful."

President Obama
__________________________________________________ ________
Totally disconnected.

RK

Maybe I need to borrow a ladder....but I don't get your point. He pointed out an easy way to donate to the Japanese disaster through private charities and relief organizations. Did I miss something? And life goes on here. I think there was even someone asking about starting a bracket or fantasy or whatever on POTUS.

M&K's Retrievers
03-16-2011, 08:06 PM
"One of the things I wanted to do on the show was, as people are filling out their brackets -- this is obviously a national pastime; we all have a great time, it’s a great diversion. But I know a lot of people are thinking how can they help the Japanese people during this time of need. If you go to usaid.gov -- usaid.gov -- that will list all the nonprofits, the charities that are helping out there. It would be wonderful for people to maybe offer a little help to the Japanese people at this time -- as they’re filling out their brackets. It’s not going to take a lot of time. That's usaid.gov. It could be really helpful."

President Obama
__________________________________________________ ________
Totally disconnected.

RK

Obama just trying to do damage control by telling people to donate. His handlers must be telling him to quit being such a clown by hiding in the White House or golf cart.:rolleyes: