• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barack Obama’s Staggering Incompetence

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Peter Wehner
09.02.2013


It’s reported that President Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congress’s blessing, but “on Friday night, he suddenly changed his mind.” According to the Huffington Post:

Senior administration officials describing Obama’s about-face Saturday offered a portrait of a president who began to wrestle with his own decision – at first internally, then confiding his views to his chief of staff, and finally summoning his aides for an evening session in the Oval Office to say he’d had a change of heart.

In light of all this, it’s worth posing a few questions:

1. Why didn’t the president seek congressional authority before the administration began to beat the war drums this past week? Did the idea not occur to him? It’s not as if this is an obscure issue. When you’re in the White House and preparing to launch military force against a sovereign nation, whether or not to seek the approval of Congress is usually somewhere near the top of the to-do list.

And why has the urgency to act that we saw from the administration during the last week–when Assad’s use of chemical weapons was referred to by the secretary of state as a “moral obscenity”–given way to an air of casualness, with Obama not even calling Congress back into session to debate his military strike against Syria?

2. The president didn’t seek congressional approval for his military strike in Libya. Why does he believe he needs it in Syria?

3. Mr. Obama, in his Rose Garden statement on Saturday, still insisted he has the authority to strike Syria without congressional approval. So what happens if Congress votes down a use-of-force resolution? Does the president strike Syria anyway? If so, will it be an evanescent bombing, intended to be limited in scope and duration, while doing nothing to change the war’s balance of power? Or does the president completely back down? Does he even know? Has he thought through in advance anything related to Syria? Or is this a case of Obama simply making it up as he goes along?​

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Barack Obama

Of course had a Republican President done the same I'm sure Progressives would react the same and call for unity to back the President.
 
You mean a president who changes his mind about starting a war! Outrageous!
 
You mean a president who changes his mind about starting a war! Outrageous!




Once G.W. Bush made up his mind to attack Iraq which was no threat to the USA he never wavered, he kept scratching around until he scraped up enough excuses to convince other pols to join his mad rush to war.

Take a look at the results. The USA gained nothing in Iraq, but lost a lot of American troops and treasure. Iran did gain a shia government in Iraq, so I guess that we can't say that the war was a total loss-it did help Iran.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 
The United States has added Cuba, Libya and Syria to the nations it claims are deliberately seeking to obtain chemical or biological weapons.

The US Under Secretary of State said that the three nations could be grouped with other so-called "rogue states" - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - in actively attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction.

He also warned that the US would take action.

"America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror," he said, referring to the 11 September attacks in Washington and New York that killed up to 3,000 people.

"States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD (weapons of mass destruction) must stop. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort, but those that do not can expect to become our targets," he said.


Seems now that Syria has used chemical weapons, taking military action against them is U.S. policy.
 
Great thread title!

And...great deflection with your comment. Isn't it horrible how libs can't refrain from bringing up Bush whenever someone bangs on Obama!?!?

I'll bet if you look really hard, you can find another blog post claiming that our President is awful. Go ahead....try.
 
Although the efforts by the Progressive has been an attempt to obfuscate the questions being made, people still want to know why Obama:

1. Why didn’t the president seek congressional authority before the administration began to beat the war drums this past week? Did the idea not occur to him? It’s not as if this is an obscure issue. When you’re in the White House and preparing to launch military force against a sovereign nation, whether or not to seek the approval of Congress is usually somewhere near the top of the to-do list.

And why has the urgency to act that we saw from the administration during the last week–when Assad’s use of chemical weapons was referred to by the secretary of state as a “moral obscenity”–given way to an air of casualness, with Obama not even calling Congress back into session to debate his military strike against Syria?

2. The president didn’t seek congressional approval for his military strike in Libya. Why does he believe he needs it in Syria?

3. Mr. Obama, in his Rose Garden statement on Saturday, still insisted he has the authority to strike Syria without congressional approval. So what happens if Congress votes down a use-of-force resolution? Does the president strike Syria anyway? If so, will it be an evanescent bombing, intended to be limited in scope and duration, while doing nothing to change the war’s balance of power? Or does the president completely back down? Does he even know? Has he thought through in advance anything related to Syria? Or is this a case of Obama simply making it up as he goes along?

I'll even add another to the equation. Why did Obama hang Sec. State Kerry out on the limb by undercutting his statement?

Ban-Ki Moon stated yesterday, that according to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the unilateral attack on Syria by Obama without the approval of the Security Council is illegal.
 
Last edited:
Great thread title!

And...great deflection with your comment. Isn't it horrible how libs can't refrain from bringing up Bush whenever someone bangs on Obama!?!?

I'll bet if you look really hard, you can find another blog post claiming that our President is awful. Go ahead....try.

Who should you compare Obama to if not Bush 43?

Coaches who take over for other coaches get compared all the time. Quarterbacks who take over for other QBs get compared all the time as well. It certainly isn't something that is unique to the Presidents.


What bothers me is that the comparisons are usually inaccurate. Bush had 9/11 to contend with as President and we needed to spend a whole lot of money to stabilize the markets which are based on confidence as much as anything else so when you compare his spending to Obama's spending you have to account for 9/11. However, in Obama's case, we had a burst housing bubble shortly before he took office...so some extra spending was likely to be needed there. I think both men botched the spending in ways that were profoundly juvenile
 
Once G.W. Bush made up his mind to attack Iraq which was no threat to the USA he never wavered, he kept scratching around until he scraped up enough excuses to convince other pols to join his mad rush to war.

Take a look at the results. The USA gained nothing in Iraq, but lost a lot of American troops and treasure. Iran did gain a shia government in Iraq, so I guess that we can't say that the war was a total loss-it did help Iran.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.


So why is the Left rushing to war?
 
Who should you compare Obama to if not Bush 43?

Coaches who take over for other coaches get compared all the time. Quarterbacks who take over for other QBs get compared all the time as well. It certainly isn't something that is unique to the Presidents.


What bothers me is that the comparisons are usually inaccurate. Bush had 9/11 to contend with as President and we needed to spend a whole lot of money to stabilize the markets which are based on confidence as much as anything else so when you compare his spending to Obama's spending you have to account for 9/11. However, in Obama's case, we had a burst housing bubble shortly before he took office...so some extra spending was likely to be needed there. I think both men botched the spending in ways that were profoundly juvenile

First, have your sarcasm meter checked. It needs service.

Second....I agree 100% that the markets are based on confidence. Which is why one must applaud the right's attempts to undermine consumer confidence at every turn.

What the hell does "profoundly juvenile" mean when it comes to federal spending?
 
First, have your sarcasm meter checked. It needs service.

Second....I agree 100% that the markets are based on confidence. Which is why one must applaud the right's attempts to undermine consumer confidence at every turn.

What the hell does "profoundly juvenile" mean when it comes to federal spending?



As for "profoundly juvenile", municipalities across the nation bought stuff they with DHS money that they could not afford otherwise with regular budgets so what the money was intended for--DHS--was not what the money was used for. Rather, the money ended up being used to purchase stuff like normal firefighting equipment, road repairs, security upgrades at local buildings, etc.. And these are just the ones I know about. I imagine if you were to drill down further into what all of these monies were actually used for you'd find DVD players, tablet computers, etc... that were purchased with DHS funds.

When/if we get hit again, the supposedly shiny new equipment we bought will be well worn and likely obsolete.

For Obama, his handling of the TARP was botched and those who got tax money were able to pay their executives bonuses in some cases if memory serves.
 
As for "profoundly juvenile", municipalities across the nation bought stuff they with DHS money that they could not afford otherwise with regular budgets so what the money was intended for--DHS--was not what the money was used for. Rather, the money ended up being used to purchase stuff like normal firefighting equipment, road repairs, security upgrades at local buildings, etc.. And these are just the ones I know about. I imagine if you were to drill down further into what all of these monies were actually used for you'd find DVD players, tablet computers, etc... that were purchased with DHS funds.

When/if we get hit again, the supposedly shiny new equipment we bought will be well worn and likely obsolete.

For Obama, his handling of the TARP was botched and those who got tax money were able to pay their executives bonuses in some cases if memory serves.

Juvenile? Something is off in your lexicon. You imagine tablets and dvd players? Cool.

Forget I asked.
 
Nice try, but even I don't think you're that dumb.

You ABSOLUTELY were talking about Bush. The only original words in your OP pertained to Bush. You are obsessed with Bush. Bush is on your mind. Bush, Bush, Bush!
 
You ABSOLUTELY were talking about Bush. The only original words in your OP pertained to Bush. You are obsessed with Bush. Bush is on your mind. Bush, Bush, Bush!

On the contrary. All I've read from the Progressive Left is that Bush lied to the American people, while he got Congressional approval before he made any demands upon Saddam.
Obama shot his mouth off before he engaged his brain. By personally drawing two "redlines" without consulting Congress. Sure his lackeys in the Senate just pushed through a primary pass for him. The rest of the Senate still has to vote. Will Congress vote yes? That's the question. The Bush, Bush, theme as you claim is a farce on your part. It's all about Obama now and his obvious partisan hacks. Obama was caught lying about Benghazi and he's lying now.
 
No a hypocritical incompetent president bringing us to the brink of war.

oh... now that you said it in bold, that changes everything.
 
He's a spineless RINO. Please, don't get me started on that fool.

Which one? Regardless, neither are not remotely close to being liberals.
 
Peter Wehner
09.02.2013


It’s reported that President Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congress’s blessing, but “on Friday night, he suddenly changed his mind.” According to the Huffington Post:

Senior administration officials describing Obama’s about-face Saturday offered a portrait of a president who began to wrestle with his own decision – at first internally, then confiding his views to his chief of staff, and finally summoning his aides for an evening session in the Oval Office to say he’d had a change of heart.

In light of all this, it’s worth posing a few questions:

1. Why didn’t the president seek congressional authority before the administration began to beat the war drums this past week? Did the idea not occur to him? It’s not as if this is an obscure issue. When you’re in the White House and preparing to launch military force against a sovereign nation, whether or not to seek the approval of Congress is usually somewhere near the top of the to-do list.

And why has the urgency to act that we saw from the administration during the last week–when Assad’s use of chemical weapons was referred to by the secretary of state as a “moral obscenity”–given way to an air of casualness, with Obama not even calling Congress back into session to debate his military strike against Syria?

2. The president didn’t seek congressional approval for his military strike in Libya. Why does he believe he needs it in Syria?

3. Mr. Obama, in his Rose Garden statement on Saturday, still insisted he has the authority to strike Syria without congressional approval. So what happens if Congress votes down a use-of-force resolution? Does the president strike Syria anyway? If so, will it be an evanescent bombing, intended to be limited in scope and duration, while doing nothing to change the war’s balance of power? Or does the president completely back down? Does he even know? Has he thought through in advance anything related to Syria? Or is this a case of Obama simply making it up as he goes along?​

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Barack Obama

Of course had a Republican President done the same I'm sure Progressives would react the same and call for unity to back the President.

Keep one thing in mind. Beginning 2008 he has kicked the dog **** out of the two Republican candidates. One question.....what the hell is at stake for him? He's the first black president in the nation's history and after he leaves office he can pretty well name his own course. 'Course the Right might assassinate him the way they did John, Robert and Martin.
 
Once G.W. Bush made up his mind to attack Iraq which was no threat to the USA he never wavered, he kept scratching around until he scraped up enough excuses to convince other pols to join his mad rush to war.

Take a look at the results. The USA gained nothing in Iraq, but lost a lot of American troops and treasure. Iran did gain a shia government in Iraq, so I guess that we can't say that the war was a total loss-it did help Iran.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

Who was the incompetent that handed Iraq in Iran's direction...ummmmm, begins with an O...no more hints, see if you can figure it out...
 
Back
Top Bottom