Obama: The weakest president in history?

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Hmmm...he was the savior of the world. He had the respect of the foreign leader all over the world and the media lead his parade. He was given a "Noble Peace Prize" on the "if come", based on all of the hype and nothing else..we even had people here telling us 9the doubters) that he was going to fix it all, make america a repsected nation again...He was and is a phony and he starting to be shown for all of that is isn't and his total inablilities to deal with the job that he starting to think is no fun and in his worrds, "It would be easier to be the president of China"...yea then he could be the dictator he really wants to be and then he wouldn't have to answer for his decisions he could just do what he wants and run the whole show...but he can't make thise decision here, because he has to answer for them..and with that..his inablilites show through......When it is all said and done, I believe he will be shown as the most corrupt and worse president in history.....and a failure, as a president....


BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Friday March 18,2011
By Anna Pukas
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-

INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...

Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.

Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention. Even the Arab League, a notoriously conservative organisation, has declared support for sanctions. But from the White House has come only the blah-blah of bland statements filled with meaningless expressions and vague phrases. Of decisive action and leadership – even of clearlydefined opinion – there is precious little sign.

What is the Obama administration’s position on the protests in the Gulf island state of Bahrain, which the authorities there are savagely suppressing with the help of troops shipped in from Saudi Arabia? What is the White House view on the alarming prospect of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia itself? Who knows? Certainly not the American people, nor the leaders of nations which would consider themselves allies of America.

The President has not really shared his views, which leads us to conclude that he either doesn’t know or chooses, for reasons best known to himself, not to say. The result is that a very real opportunity to remove an unpredictable despot from power may well have been lost. Who knows when or if such an opportunity will come along again?

Every day for almost the last two months our television screens, radio broadcasts and the pages of our newspapers have been filled with the pictures, sounds and words of the most tumultuous events any of us can remember in the Arab world. The outcome of these events, once the dust has settled, could literally change the world. Yet Obama seems content to sit this one out. He has barely engaged in the debate. Such ostrich-like behaviour is not untypical of the 49-year-old President who burst through America’s colour barrier to become the first African-American to occupy the White House.

Two days after taking office in January 2009, he pledged to close down the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, which has become notorious for holding detainees for years without trial. Obama promised to lose the prison within 12 months and to abolish the practice of military trials of terrorism suspects. It was an important promise. America’s reputation had been severely tarnished by revelations about the conditions at Guantanamo, by reports of waterboarding and extraordinary rendition (transporting prisoners to a third country for torture) and by the appalling treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Closing Guantanamo was a redemptive gesture. Two years on, not only is the prison still in use but its future is as assured as ever. Ten days ago, the President signed an executive order reinstating the military commissions at the island prison. Human rights organisations were outraged. “With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law,” said Amnesty International while Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, declared the President’s action to be “unlawful, unwise and un-American.”

White House spokesmen insisted the President was still committed to closing Guantanamo, which currently has 172 detainees in custody. It was Congress, they said, that had refused to sanction the transfer of the prisoners to the US mainland for trial, leaving no option but to keep the prison open in Cuba. Very little has been achieved in the quest to secure peace in the Middle East. Under Obama, US foreign policy is founded on extreme caution. At first this cool-headedness was a welcome change from the naked aggression of George W Bush and his henchmen Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is also true that the President is constantly stymied by a hostile, Republican-ruled Congress. But Obama’s apparent reluctance to engage with momentous events is starting to look like more than aloofness. Some tempering of America’s role as the world’s No1 busybody may be no bad thing but under Obama the US appears to be heading towards isolationism. He is hardly doing much better at home. Economically, the US is in big trouble but the national debt is not shrinking.

Ditto the country’s ecological health; the American love affair with the car and oil remains undiminished despite any alleged commitment. But the White House appears to shy away from any tough action. The energy with which Obama entered the White House seems to have all gone in the push to bring in health care reform, which many Americans didn’t want (or still don’t realise they want).

All of which means that it is starting to look as if Obama and the Democratic Party have but one aim in mind for the rest of this presidential term: to get elected for a second. That means not doing anything that might upset any number of special interest or niche groups, which in effect means not doing very much at all. So, not too many harsh but necessary measures to tackle the financial deficit; no clear direction on where America goes with Afghanistan, even though the war there is going nowhere except from bad to worse.

The Obama government can’t even give clear direction on whether the American people are in danger of exposure to nuclear fallout from Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami. The US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin advised San Francisco residents to stock up on radiation antidotes, prompting a run on potassium iodide pills, while the President said experts had assured him that any harmful radiation would have receded long before reaching the Western shores of the US.

Yes we can was a noble and powerful mantra which secured for Barack Obama the leadership of the free world. Those than can, do. It is time he started doing.
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I agree with the article to a point, I also agree with you to a point but he is neither the worst president or the weakest we have had ... yet.

Carter still holds that honor.

Why?

Because if he was the weakest, he would also be the most insignificant president but isn't. He still has a lot of support from his party, from a large percentage of people (maybe even more than 15%) and from the media.

If he was the worst, then we would see a lot more Carter like programs forced on us and a lot more issues being decided in his office and not the congress.

It is great that a few in the international media see what we already know and see the cause and effect of his inactions. It is also great to see the world say "hey wait a minute, where's Obama standing on this issue... oh he isn't, he's golfing"

The one thing that was pointed out the other day by of all things a San Fransisco liberal was a simple observation; when we made Obama a Nobel winning saint, we lowered the bar of excellence that we expect our leaders to reach. Our problem now is we accepted him as he was and told everyone in the world he is far above us but he really has no where but down to go.

BUT if we are going to bestow a title on him for his actions or rather inactions, it has to be the Most Indecisive President we ever had.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
He is doing FAR better than I ever expected. I thought he would have run away by now!

I don't know why anyone would be surprised by his inability to make a decision. He had NO prior experience in making them. He is just another useless, "theory man" Lot's of spoon fed ideas that he learned from those who only know what they read in a book. NO idea in the world how to DO anything.
 

scottm4211

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
From the outside looking in he certainly seems to have been ineffective. It also seems he was blown up to be something he could never come close to being, by the media as well as I'm sure by his own party.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
From the outside looking in he certainly seems to have been ineffective. It also seems he was blown up to be something he could never come close to being, by the media as well as I'm sure by his own party.


Gee whiz 2 Canucks in the soaps.....:D
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
From the outside looking in he certainly seems to have been ineffective. It also seems he was blown up to be something he could never come close to being, by the media as well as I'm sure by his own party.

He is a good "lackey" for who ever is pulling his strings. He job is to be ineffective. He was "type cast".
 

Poorboy

Expert Expediter
He is doing FAR better than I ever expected. I thought he would have run away by now!

I don't know why anyone would be surprised by his inability to make a decision. He had NO prior experience in making them. He is just another useless, "theory man" Lot's of spoon fed ideas that he learned from those who only know what they read in a book. NO idea in the world how to DO anything.

The pant load in chief isn't going to run away, He's too narcicistic to do that. I actually believe that he's going to stay in office until he's voted out in 2012 showing us all his nose hairs on his belief that he is better than everyone all the while collecting his bribe money from the unions and taking all these "Free" tax payer funded vacations anytime he gets the urge! :mad:
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I've revised my title for our great leader.

The Most Indecisive and Arrogant President.

"The first time around it's like lightning in a bottle. There's something special about it, because you're defying the odds. And as time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States. But we should never take it for granted." - Obama
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I agree with the article to a point, I also agree with you to a point but he is neither the worst president or the weakest we have had ... yet.
"Yet" is the magic word - he's still got about 20 months to go. He hasn't been the weakest - domestically speaking - because he's had the circumstance of serving his first two years with an extremely liberal congress of the same party. The weakest in foreign relations? He's closing fast on Carter, and the latest bumbling with Libya yesterday may have closed the gap to a dead heat. Let's not think for a minute that the Iranian mullahs aren't watching this disgraceful effort (or lack thereof) and rubbing their hands with glee.
If he was the worst, then we would see a lot more Carter like programs forced on us and a lot more issues being decided in his office and not the congress.
We've got that already. The czars, the EPA declarations, the effective ban on oil drilling, and probably quite a few more that we don't yet know about.
BUT if we are going to bestow a title on him for his actions or rather inactions, it has to be the Most Indecisive President we ever had.
Those who bothered to research his record in the IL senate and his brief tenure in the US Senate know that this is true to form for him. Incompetence breeds indecision. Even his fellow students at Harvard are saying that when he was editor of the Law Review he did nothing but show up occasionally for a little glad-handing, but actually contributed nothing - not even an occasional article. There's a good argument that he was the worst editor the Harvard Law Review has ever had.

And yes, he has redefined "Arrogance" - no other president was even close.
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
He's closing fast on Carter, and the latest bumbling with Libya yesterday may have closed the gap to a dead heat. Let's not think for a minute that the Iranian mullahs aren't watching this disgraceful effort (or lack thereof) and rubbing their hands with glee.

What concerns me with Iran and Libya, for that matter most of the issues with the Middle East, is what can he actually do?

If he takes the position with the rebels in Libya, he opens the door in weakening the US even more by p*ssing on other allies who are also doing the same thing Gadhafi has been doing - suppressing some bad factions within the religion and region. If he sides with Gadhafi, then he appears to be on the side of the same type of terrorism that he and the country are against. So it isn't easy to make a decision on that issue and most of the world leaders know this. I would think Bush may have done the same thing, make a few speeches, let things happen and then support who ever won.

With that, the UN should actually stay out of it, most of the support that will come from France, Germany and other countries trying to enforce a no fly zone will end up costing us both money and man hours to fill other gaps in other operations.

Iran is still a focus for many who won't take their eyes off of them, there is something to be said about the timing of all of this and how Iran may be fitting into the "revolutions" that have been taking place and their support for these revolutions may backfire on them.

Iran still is not sitting in a good position and even if we seem to be ineffective with any "negotiations" that take place, Israel is sitting there with the clear intentions that any move on Iran's part will be met with a lot of force. If there is upheaval in the region to the point that Iran may not get any assistance with their any Arab nation, then they may not be around for us to even worry about.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
He has not said anything because he is a professional "fence sitter". When you have NO CLUE on how to make a decision your best bet is always just to sit back, do or say nothing, and hope it all goes away.

He should have a policy. That policy should include an outcome that he is after. He should make that policy known in clear, concise terms. Then act based on the goals of that policy.

That is how an experienced leader acts. I don't see that in him.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
He has not said anything because he is a professional "fence sitter". When you have NO CLUE on how to make a decision your best bet is always just to sit back, do or say nothing, and hope it all goes away.

He should have a policy. That policy should include an outcome that he is after. He should make that policy known in clear, concise terms. Then act based on the goals of that policy.

That is how an experienced leader acts. I don't see that in him.

D*mn Joe, you seem to miss a lot.

What policy?

Why should he address an issue that neither effects us or we should be involved?

We had a policy with the Balkans and that was a disaster - remember?

We had a policy with Lebanon and that was a real disaster - remember?

How about Carter and Reagan's policy with Central America.

Regardless how you cut it, he is well informed about the goings on inside of Libya and he has to make a decision to either get involved without support from other countries, support a UN action or work behind the scenes in trying to calm the fear of how this will kill off our economy.

As I said in the other two threads, I would do the same thing because it is not our problem - it is a European problem IF anything. IF they want to deal with it, then I would do what he did, be non-committal for the force needed to enforce any stupid no fly zone while at the same time worrying about my NCAA picks.

BY the way, I don't know why everyone is getting into a twist about this anyway, you seem not to get that if we put troops on the ground, it would be a mess because of the idea that they, the people of Libya will feel this is an invasion and Gadafi may use that as a rallying cry to unite everyone to fight us.

OH and I keep forgetting a couple of other things;

we have far more important issues to deal with, like our congress. We are so focused on stupid stuff right now that we forget that this country is running on borrowed time - 2 weeks of it. We also forget that we need to worry about our own immigration issues and our own domestic job issues which won't solve themselves. Instead we are worried about radiation reaching 5000 miles to the west coast and forget that with the 83 or so above ground nuke tests that were done, we got a lot more radiation from the smallest detonation than we will ever get from Japan. We are worried about Charlie Sheen who can just be found in the gutter face down and no one would actually lose any sleep over it. AND we are worried about some stupid game.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Greg, I am NOT missing anything. I have NO use for someone who just says or does NOTHING.

He has NO policy on ANYTHING. He is a wimp.

I do get a kick out of all of this though. For YEARS I listened to many say that we should "stay out of things". Mind our own business, not be the worlds cops.

NOW many of those same people are saying how we HAVE to save humanity. Protect the innocent etc. Geez, which way do they want it? Involved or not? There is NO middle ground.

Past policy is not in play, this is now, this is Obama, HE SHOULD be clearly stating his goals, ideas and desires. THEN STICK TO THEM.
 
Top