Interesting that a POTUS would be more interested in education and children than being a "War President," isn't it? I must admit that I approve.
POTUS more interested in education than being War President?
- Thread starter chuck schmidt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- education interested potus president war
Its just another step in the expansion of the socialist agenda. It also fits Obama's background, before becoming President he had no foreign affairs experience and was exceptionally naive in international relations and security. He is surrounded by equally ill prepared people. Obama has never played in an arena where all the opponents have huge egos, their own agendas, their own power base, are willing to play tough hardball to get what they want, and have far more experience than Team Obama. As a result, he is taking a beating and is seen as a lightweight by other nations (even Sarkozy of France has quipped about Obama's weakness). Obama doesn't take criticism well, it's natural for him to retreat to issues he feels comfortable with. Soon we will all be paying the price for his inexperience.
A person doesn't have to be a politician and certainly doesn't have to be a lawyer to have related knowledge and experience.
The idea that the only people qualified to comment are people that have held that office is naive. Thats the "diversity" arguement, and it doesn't work.
Before becoming President, Obama had no foreign policy experience or exposure. Also, all of his experience is with committees and groups. He has also never been in a position of final authority in which he had to be decisive and make the final decision, and the consequences of that decision rests solely with him. He doesn't know how to deal with that type of situation.
Foreign affairs is basically a one-on-one game, its the President versus the head of state of another nation, and the President is in a position to commit the nation based on what he alone says in those meetings. What a head of state does in those face to face meetings can have huge ramifications. Its not buddy to buddy, its not an academic discussion in which Obama can carry on one of those long winded wandering pontifications. The other head of state has an agenda that suits his own political and personal needs and desires, he has his own power base to answer to, and he is interested in manipulating the US agenda. Its not limited to the two leaders sitting in the room, you need to know about his alliances, who he is working for and against. Many heads of state have played this game all of their lives, they are very good at it. Obama is smart but a novice.
That's why the idea of simply talking to any nation with no conditions didn't go over very well during the campaign. It sounds so nice to the general public, but just showed Obama's ignorance.
That's the way it worked last time you were POTUS, was it Dave?
The problem is, you just tell us "the way it is" without specifics. I'm not saying you're not the expert you sound like, just that I'm not convinced you are. What you sound like is last election's failed talking points?
What I wrote is independent of political affiliation. Just because we change leaders doesn't mean the rest of the world will change to suit our President's perceptions. The players may change, the game stays the same.
Bush had more experience than Obama in these types of situations, he had run a business and been the man in charge, but he wasn't ready. When Bush and Putin met, Bush thought he saw a man he could deal with, Putin thought he saw a man he could push around. Putin was a better judge of charachter, but Putin honed his skills by working his way up through the ranks in a tough system (the USSR) that brutally punished losers.
I tell it the way I see it, if I'm wrong or you have a different opinion, fire away.
Bush was a military loser, business loser and political loser. He is a sad comment on the ability of nepotism in America today. Reagan's administration showcased the ability of the RNC to float an actor and manage his role; with dubya they did the same for a person totally unqualified morally and intellectually for the position. Having said that, nobody is ready for that position. However some people are less so than others and some are simple failures. IMO you're still firing old campaign talking points that are totally unsubstantiated.
I think now you are the one giving political talking points.
My point in bringing up Bush is that Bush wasn't ready and was manipulated. Obama isn't ready either, and he is being manipulated.
If you think nation-to-nation discussions are not the way I described them, lets hear about it.
No doubt its my political viewpoint.
Name your example, explaining what he did/didn't do and what you think he should/should not have done?
Similar threads
