But, but, but it was Clintons fault.
Not from 2007 & 2008 under Bush, which is what this thread is about. Your conclusion is not only incorrect but opposite the facts you've presented.So yes, internationally, I think it's safe to say that Obama is considered weak and indecisive leader.
Polling data? Google is your friend:
U.S. Leadership Earning Lower Marks Worldwide
Note the trending that disapproval is up, and approval is down.
Not from 2007 & 2008 under Bush, which is what this thread is about. Your conclusion is not only incorrect but opposite the facts you've presented.
That's not what the link I quoted from your post shows. In fact, it shows graph after graph where most of the world thinks Obama is MUCH better than Bush II.Nice of you to completely ignore what you don't want to see or read.
Senior UK Defense Advisor: Obama Is Clueless About ‘What He Wants To Do In The World’
Op-Ed In London Daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Attacks Obama: The Weakest President In The History Of The U.S.
Yes, Obama is perceived as a weak and clueless leader in international circles, even steadfast US allies have come to the same conclusion.
(emphasis added)WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The image of U.S. leadership worldwide was weaker during President Barack Obama's fourth year in office than at any point during his first administration. Median approval of U.S. leadership across 130 countries stood at 41% in 2012, down measurably from 49% approval in Obama's first year. Despite these poorer scores, approval ratings for the most part remain stronger than they were at the end of the last Bush administration.
That's not what the link I quoted from your post shows. In fact, it shows graph after graph where most of the world thinks Obama is MUCH better than Bush II.
(emphasis added)
U.S. Leadership Earning Lower Marks Worldwide
He was president for 6 months when that happened and there is plenty of blame to go around for Clinton and Bush. You have to admit after that we had zero attacks.As bias and partisan you have to give President Bush credit for that.
First, I would hate to be any top military brass that acted like they were President. The President is Chief Executive Officer; it doesn't get any higher than that. And, nothing against you, Apacherat, but I wouldn't believe Alex Jones if my life depended on it. Sorry. :shrug:Bin Laden was probably out of the loop just as Obama was.
Navy SEAL's were stood down three times. Scuttlebutt is that it was Valerie Jarrett telling Obama not to do it fearing it would jepordise Obama's reelection. Eventually Obama threw the whole mess in Leon Pannetta's lap and he dumped in on Admiral. McRaven's lap. It was Adm. McRaven who ordered ther SEAL's to go in, not Obama. Obama wasn't even notified until the MH-60's were entering Pakistan air space.
» Pentagon Disputes Claim that Memo Gave Obama Cover in Case of bin Laden Raid Failure Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
The "gutsy order" and the handwritten memo.
>" The memo in question is apparently the April 2011 hand-written memo from Panetta to Naval Special Operations Cmdr. Adm. Bill McRaven -- the letter was first obtained by Time magazine, and later confirmed by Fox News. It instructed McRaven to execute the raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, only according to the “risk profile” presented to Obama and to relay additional risk-related information to the president before proceeding.
“The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands,” the memo states.
Mukasey did not back down from his claim....
“You better believe if anything else had been encountered and the mission had failed, then the blame would have fallen on McRaven,” Mukasey, appointed attorney general in 2007 under the George W. Bush administration, told Fox News on Monday night. “That’s what that is about.”..."<
Panetta drafted a letter to blame someone else, if the bin Laden mission failed - Topic
And it was Leon Panetta who acknowledge that the intelligence that led to Bin Laden was gathered during the Bush administration with the starboarding of the mastermind and the one who organized, trained and over saw the operations of the 9-11-01 attacks on America, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
At least now you know AQ is not on its heels or decimated.
First, I would hate to be any top military brass that acted like they were President. The President is Chief Executive Officer; it doesn't get any higher than that. And, nothing against you, Apacherat, but I wouldn't believe Alex Jones if my life depended on it. Sorry. :shrug:
If the military aint killing terrorist, why aint they home? Why did we ever go to Iraq?
I know that the only massive Al-Qaeda attack on the USA happened while G.W. Bush was in the White House.
Or give the terrorists credit for no new attacks. They were not looking to bombard the USofA into rubble but get our attention so we would bring the fight to them. Which we did. The WTC attack succeeded beyond their wildest dream, but they had no follow-on attacks in the works to take advantage of the fear and confusion 9-11 caused.
For all the BushII team showed us pop bottle bombs and talk of homemade saran, ricin, and crop duster spray attacks there simply wasn't any second wave of terrorists ready to attack the USofA. The anthrax scare was real but the suspects were bio-defense scientists. Been Hiding miscalculated the response time of our Military and the loyalty of the Taliban warlords.
Now when the 'near' war was hopping the terrorists coming to America were very hit and miss, the most 'effective' were set-up by the FBI. The focus on the terrorists seemed to be more isolate us from our allies, the London attacks, the Spanish train bombs and the like.
These days the wars overseas are winding down and the misguided drone attacks are creating a backlash for those thinking this is more a war on Islam than terrorists, and many in here call for just such a war, we have a few home grown terrorists, deadly but not on the scale of 9-11.
But I think many miss the focus of the Islamic terrorists, they don't want to 'destroy the great satan', they NEED a great satan. But they want the USofA to get out of the way as the terrorists work in their homelands.
He was president for 6 months when that happened and there is plenty of blame to go around for Clinton and Bush. You have to admit after that we had zero attacks.As bias and partisan you have to give President Bush credit for that.
Our military is not in Iraq, Obama pulled out all the troupes and left the country to be infested with AQ. The next new AQ hot bed.
Like I said: the President is the Chief Executive Officer; it doesn't get any higher than that.How about the Navy SEAL's who were on the mission ?
I wonder if the four Americans who were murdered in Benghazi on 9-11-12 depended on Obama as CnC ?
Who was really in charge and calling the shots when Navy SEAL's went in and got Bin Laden. The incompetent Commander in Chief or a four star admiral ?
CIA Memo: Admiral, Not Obama,
In Charge of Bin Laden Raid
>" Approximately one year after the extermination of Osama bin Laden, a memo written by former CIA Director Leon Panetta has been obtained, revealing that President Obama was not, in fact, in charge of operation strategy in the hunt for the terrorist mastermind.
Panetta received a call from National Security Officer Tom Donilon confirming that President Obama had made the decision to "proceed with the assault" on bin Laden's compound in Pakistan after assessing a risk profile. However, the memo, released by Time Magazine, states that "the timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands."
"The direction is to go in and get bin Laden, and if he is not there, get out," read the memo. It does not clarify whether the intention was to kill bin Laden or to capture him.
However, the memo also shows that President Obama was not in charge of operation strategy as the mission was being carried out. Rather, Panetta noted that, "the timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands."
“The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration," said the memo.
President Obama has said that the decision was one of the “gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory.” However, it seems that the “gutsy call,” was actually made by Admiral William McRaven, head of the Joint Special Operations Command.
Two days after the memo was written, bin Laden was exterminated by a team of Navy SEAL commandos..."<
CIA Memo: Admiral, Not Obama, In Charge of Bin Laden Raid
Like I said: the President is the Chief Executive Officer; it doesn't get any higher than that.
Oh, he understands how it works alright; he was watching the monitor.Well you should let Obama know that everyone below him has to answer to him and the buck is suppose to stop on his desk.
There is a chain of command just like there is in the military. I don't think Obama understands how it works.
Bin Laden was probably out of the loop just as Obama was.
Navy SEAL's were stood down three times. Scuttlebutt is that it was Valerie Jarrett telling Obama not to do it fearing it would jepordise Obama's reelection. Eventually Obama threw the whole mess in Leon Pannetta's lap and he dumped in on Admiral. McRaven's lap. It was Adm. McRaven who ordered ther SEAL's to go in, not Obama. Obama wasn't even notified until the MH-60's were entering Pakistan air space.
» Pentagon Disputes Claim that Memo Gave Obama Cover in Case of bin Laden Raid Failure Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Oh, he understands how it works alright; he was watching the monitor.
But Apacherat, I would like to ask you a couple of questions, since you are in to this Alex Jones infowars site, OK?
Earlier you showed me this:
But infowars.com also says that whole thing never happened. So which one of the stories should we believe from that site?
Seymour Hersh: Bin Laden Raid “One Big Lie”
I mean why would both stories walk all over one another?:mrgreen:
Well until you can find the Time story, all I have to go by is infowars.com. And that isn't much to me. :shrug:I'm not a regular visitor to Infowasr, it just happened that was just one of the links I provided. I could have posted two dozen links. It was Time magazine who originally broke the story not Infowars or some other news source that's not in the Obama camp.
All Infowars did was a copy and paste from a source of other news sources. Basically Time magazine and Fox News.
Now you weren't expecting MSNBC to being carrying the story did you ? They would be onboard with the rest of the MSM who have been giving Obama a complete pass for over six years and denying the story.
The Pentagon or the military are told what to say by the CnC. That's the way it works.
I think the memo from Panetta to Adm. McRaven that Time magazine got it's hands onto speaks for itself.
If you're going to continue attacking the messenger instead of the message you're going to find yourself in 2016 being either misinformed or uniformed when you go to the polls. And you see how that worked out for America back in 2008 and 2012.
Well until you can find the Time story, all I have to go by is infowars.com. And that isn't much to me. :shrug:
No. Really. I insist. You said it was from Time magazine. Please guide me to it, OK?Bob, you seem to be a googling type of guy, google it.
I really tought there was about 2000 in the green zone, regardless I was talking past tense at the time, note "Why did we ever"
I'm not sure I'd call that a good interpretation of the data.You should appreciate that I'm disclosing a more complete picture than many others would.
I'm not sure if I'd call 3% up in approval 8% down in disapproval a MUCH better opinion.
No. Really. I insist. You said it was from Time magazine. Please guide me to it, OK?opcorn2:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?