Are we less safe under Obama?

omej · May 22, 2009

I'm sure all of you reading this have heard Dick and Liz Cheney stating time after time that Obama has made the country "less safe". Any of you actually believe that crap? I mean, it's ridiculous, the man just doesn't keep his mouth shut. Just by the simple act of him leaving office has made us twice as safe.

Closing Gitmo? Republicans seem to think that we are sticking them in Disneyworld. No, we are putting them in super maximum security prisons. It's a shame on our law enforcement if they cannot keep a prison secure here. Hell, put them in a military prison here then if you need to.

The Parakeet · May 23, 2009

Can't see how we'd be less safe. He took a tough stance against Iran in that speech awhile back (a little too tough even, if I remember). Our Homeland security department is still well funded. He's withdrawing from Iraq at a reasonable pace and freeing up soldiers to secure Afghanistan.

We're closing Gitmo (eventually...maybe) but we're just moving them to other prisons. It would actually be illegal to put them into civilian prisons, so it will just be brigs and other military facilities while they await their trial.

Just standard Cheney rhetoric. I'm guessing that he's trying to hold on to his publicity long enough to get a good book deal.

deanhills · May 25, 2009

The only part where I think there is a question of less safety is the inexperience of Obama. Like at the beginning of his presidency when his candidates were disqualified and had to withdraw their candidacy. But so far I've noticed that he does listen to his advisors, and he is learning, so hopefully he will become less trusting and more realistic. But spontaneously even with Bush being so unpopular I would feel more safe under Bush than Obama. Obama wishes to impress his audience, Bush was not as focussed on impressing audiences.

The Parakeet · May 25, 2009

I don't think Obama feels too indebted to his audience. He's only really thrown them a few token bits (promising to close Gitmo being the only big one). Everything else has been business as usual for a president. He dropped a number of their big concerns right at the beginning so he could "focus on the economy".

deanhills · May 26, 2009

The Parakeet said:
I don't think Obama feels too indebted to his audience. He's only really thrown them a few token bits (promising to close Gitmo being the only big one). Everything else has been business as usual for a president. He dropped a number of their big concerns right at the beginning so he could "focus on the economy".

I'm not that confident in his ability to "focus on the economy". Wish he would have left that to the economists to do.

DodgeFB · May 29, 2009

omeythehomie said:
I'm sure all of you reading this have heard Dick and Liz Cheney stating time after time that Obama has made the country "less safe". Any of you actually believe that crap? I mean, it's ridiculous, the man just doesn't keep his mouth shut. Just by the simple act of him leaving office has made us twice as safe.

Closing Gitmo? Republicans seem to think that we are sticking them in Disneyworld. No, we are putting them in super maximum security prisons. It's a shame on our law enforcement if they cannot keep a prison secure here. Hell, put them in a military prison here then if you need to.

Yeah I "believe that crap".

I would not trust Obama to run the local animal shelter.

As for Gitmo, when they get here some "liberal federal judge" may cut one or more of them loose.

Our judges may help them escape quicker than they ever could on their own.

porsteamboy · May 30, 2009

deanhills said:
The only part where I think there is a question of less safety is the inexperience of Obama. Like at the beginning of his presidency when his candidates were disqualified and had to withdraw their candidacy. But so far I've noticed that he does listen to his advisors, and he is learning, so hopefully he will become less trusting and more realistic. But spontaneously even with Bush being so unpopular I would feel more safe under Bush than Obama. Obama wishes to impress his audience, Bush was not as focussed on impressing audiences.

How could you feel more safe with Bush, remember 911 happened on his watch. I remember saying, just after 911, wow, Bush makes me feel safe!

DodgeFB · May 30, 2009

porsteamboy said:
How could you feel more safe with Bush, remember 911 happened on his watch. I remember saying, just after 911, wow, Bush makes me feel safe!

I would feel safer with Bush now! It looks like North Korea wants to see what Obama is made of. They must think he is all bark and no bite too.

McSwift · May 30, 2009

We are a lot less safer considering Obama is a lot less knowledgeable on foreign affairs to the point where he sometimes seems downright foolish.

repblue · May 30, 2009

McSwift said:
We are a lot less safer considering Obama is a lot less knowledgeable on foreign affairs to the point where he sometimes seems downright foolish.

Because we were already so safe under those Bush years.

deanhills · May 31, 2009

porsteamboy said:
How could you feel more safe with Bush, remember 911 happened on his watch. I remember saying, just after 911, wow, Bush makes me feel safe!

Perhaps Bush is unlucky and Obama lucky that it happened on Bush's and not Obama's watch?

The Parakeet · May 31, 2009

9/11 is a little unfair to hoist on Bush. His response actually was quite decisive and professional. He did fairly well (or his advisers did at least).

We didn't exactly blame the embassy bombings on Clinton.

deanhills · May 31, 2009

The Parakeet said:
9/11 is a little unfair to hoist on Bush. His response actually was quite decisive and professional. He did fairly well (or his advisers did at least).

We didn't exactly blame the embassy bombings on Clinton.

I feel the same about the decisive part. I still feel safe with those. If I have to choose between the Obama I know today and Bush, I would say Bush. But would like to give Obama some slack as it is still early days. Have a feeling though that it is going to get much worse, spending money-wise and creating regulations wise, and not really moving ahead-wise.

The Parakeet · May 31, 2009

That said, he's at least as competent as Bush. Probably more so.

He just really isn't doing much with all his power though. He's got a Democratic Congress and a basically Filibuster proof Democratic Senate. Hasn't done anything that impressive though. In fact, most of it was surprisingly bland and basically just him listening to his economic advisers.

His spending is actually right in line with Bush (if we don't count the special TARP style stuff...which is a whole different animals that the Republicans would have probably pushed through too). Just more of the same really.

deanhills · May 31, 2009

The Parakeet said:
That said, he's at least as competent as Bush. Probably more so.

He just really isn't doing much with all his power though. He's got a Democratic Congress and a basically Filibuster proof Democratic Senate. Hasn't done anything that impressive though. In fact, most of it was surprisingly bland and basically just him listening to his economic advisers.

His spending is actually right in line with Bush (if we don't count the special TARP style stuff...which is a whole different animals that the Republicans would have probably pushed through too). Just more of the same really.

Do you think we can really compare the spending though? Bush's was for war. Obama's is different. If he had started to act as though money is precious and that people should not be bailed out left right and centre I would have been more impressed. From working in billions of debt during Bush's time we're now into trillions for the asking.

The Parakeet · May 31, 2009

The spending is basically the same though. Obama's (non-bailout) spending is the same as Bush. The only difference is that he's declaring the war spending in his budget. Bush never declared it. He just pushed it through as emergency spending when they needed it.

The deficit is just larger due to decreased tax revenues from the downturn. He also has a plan to counter that and make some serious repayments at the end of his term (estimates are beautiful like that though...we'll see how it goes when we get there).

The bailout is also sensitive. Theoretically, we'll get it all back and maybe even a profit. We'll just have to wait that one out to see how it goes.

deanhills · Jun 1, 2009

The Parakeet said:
The spending is basically the same though. Obama's (non-bailout) spending is the same as Bush.

How do we know that the bail-out spending will only be used for bailouts? Some of the banks like Citibank said that it would not need any funding. So will what is not needed be subtracted or would it just be used for programmes under the title of getting the economy going again? That should really come under the heading of normal spending. I don't trust the system of accounts, especially when it gets as complicated as that.

porsteamboy · Jun 1, 2009

DodgeFB said:
I would feel safer with Bush now! It looks like North Korea wants to see what Obama is made of. They must think he is all bark and no bite too.

After Bush declaring North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil" 2002, the Bush administration reversed course and lifted trade sanctions and removed the nation from the terrorism blacklist. I think North Korea thinks the U.S. is all bark and no bite. North Korea has been a presistent threat for decades.

porsteamboy · Jun 1, 2009

McSwift said:
We are a lot less safer considering Obama is a lot less knowledgeable on foreign affairs to the point where he sometimes seems downright foolish.

Since the key element of foreign Affairs is diplomacy and war is failure of diplomacy, then I would say Bush's Foreign Affairs expertise was lacking.

deanhills · Jun 1, 2009

porsteamboy said:
Since the key element of foreign Affairs is diplomacy and war is failure of diplomacy, then I would say Bush's Foreign Affairs expertise was lacking.

Looks as though a key in foreign diplomacy is combating terrorism and it took quite a strong position from the President to go to the length of war about it. I feel safer as a consequence, even if it looks as though he has failed at diplomacy. I would rather that he fail at diplomacy than fail at safety and security for the country any day.

Are we less safe under Obama?

Similar threads