No strategy given, no leadership shown

[Angry Irishman]

Cop out AKA I've got nothin'.

Not a cop out....not dealing with him as experience (or a select few) has shown to be not worth the time or certainly the effort.

 

[dank69]

So a leader is a good public speaker that acts tough? You realize that David Cameron is under fire in the UK, and guess what people are saying there? He isn't showing leadership.

Like I said earlier, these are just broad platitudes. Tell me specific things you think he should do differently other than give better speeches. This line of criticism is so vacuous.

We all know that when Obama gives a good speech OP and Mr. Scissors will be right there saying Obama is all talk and/or Mr. Teleprompter.

 

[Angry Irishman]

We all know that when Obama gives a good speech OP and Mr. Scissors will be right there saying Obama is all talk and/or Mr. Teleprompter.

He can be a good speaker given the situation like a campaign speech or fund raiser just not the pesky times that the world is waiting for and needing leadership. Unfortunately, he just failed at his last press conference and many times before. He is very charismatic given the right environment....I'll give him that.

 

[dank69]

... Your a very intelligent person judging by your posts but common sense goes a long way in this world. ...

Common sense defined as platitudes that sound good until you think about them for more than one second.

 

[dank69]

Not a cop out....not dealing with him as experience (or a select few) has shown to be not worth the time or certainly the effort.

Yes, I can understand you don't want to look like even more of an idiot than you already do.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That doesn't really make sense as you seem to be saying get used to the same ineffective leadership with Clinton?

You read into that all you will.....no Republican will get into the White House unless its as a tourist....

 

[DominionSeraph]

If McCain or anyone from either party was this ineffective as president I'd have the same opinion and as shown a large portion of this country does currently. Obama isn't the devil and he's done some good things but in the end he's just in above his head. Leadership is what's what is expected and needed and not just by me and according to the article I'm not alone in this expectation. I certainly understand leadership isn't a one style concept, that said, results are what matter.

Holy shit what a mess.

>leadership is following expectations
>it's the results that matter

If it's the results, how are you criticizing Obama for a lack of leadership here when the future results don't exist to judge?
If it's following expectations, what's the expectation here? And don't say, "To do something."

Face it, you're in love with the weasel room of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Take charge? "No TRUE leader would have to bully!"
Compromise? "A TRUE leader would find his way through to the results!"
Decisive? "A TRUE leader would know the wisdom of caution!"
Cautious? "A TRUE leader takes charge and shows the way!"
Which is neatly tied up with, "A TRUE leader does what is expected of him!"

You could find fault with McCain with that? Really? Wow, tell me more about how this amazing system works!

 

[Moonbeam]

Conservative brain defectives are a lot like goats. They like to butt, they have very hard heads, and very little brain that isn't already damaged.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Conservative brain defectives are a lot like goats. They like to butt, they have very hard heads, and very little brain that isn't already damaged.

That was a real discussion point....and typical. 🙄

 

[Angry Irishman]

Holy shit what a mess.

>leadership is following expectations
>it's the results that matter

If it's the results, how are you criticizing Obama for a lack of leadership here when the future results don't exist to judge?
If it's following expectations, what's the expectation here? And don't say, "To do something."

Face it, you're in love with the weasel room of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Take charge? "No TRUE leader would have to bully!"
Compromise? "A TRUE leader would find his way through to the results!"
Decisive? "A TRUE leader would know the wisdom of caution!"
Cautious? "A TRUE leader takes charge and shows the way!"
Which is neatly tied up with, "A TRUE leader does what is expected of him!"

You could find fault with McCain with that? Really? Wow, tell me more about how this amazing system works!

Your thought patterns are strange to say the least....it is a mess. He just SHOWED his LACK of leadership for potential upcoming events and has SHOWN it many times before.

 

[Angry Irishman]

You read into that all you will.....no Republican will get into the White House unless its as a tourist....

Is a political party more important than a person's merits or experience? It would seem you think so....that's a shame.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Yes, I can understand you don't want to look like even more of an idiot than you already do.

And you are amongst the select crowd of folks on here who are best at jumping on bandwagons and not engaging in adult conversations.

 

[Moonbeam]

That was a real discussion point....and typical. 🙄

Butt butt

 

[Angry Irishman]

For all the clan here who would follow Obama to hell and back what is good leadership to you? Tell me how our current POTUS is displaying it. Tell me why a large portion of the American public have the same critical opinions as I do? I'll keep it simple and back to the original article.....should he have said we don't have a strategy now? How about a red line? Should he declare another one of those?

 

[Angry Irishman]

Butt butt

And another.....D:

 

[JEDIYoda]

As I had no idea what your response meant. I assume you'd rather not have any presidents, kings, pharoahs or leaders at all given your response.

If you meant we should have a POTUS that relies solely on extending an open trusting relationship with our adversaries without considering the consequences; well, that hasn't worked out so well.

as usual all we get from you is complaining....
Why don`t you lay out in detail how you would handle things.....this ought to be good....

pulls up a chair and a bowl of popcorn...

 

[runzwithsizorz]

So a leader is a good public speaker that acts tough? You realize that David Cameron is under fire in the UK, and guess what people are saying there? He isn't showing leadership.

Like I said earlier, these are just broad platitudes. Tell me specific things you think he should do differently other than give better speeches. This line of criticism is so vacuous.

NO acting, NO platitudes, NO white washing, but concrete actions now, and moving forward. All politicians come under fire, however, FACTS are, David Cameron is actually UP in favorability since 2012. Not much mind you, (2%), but contrast that to how much Obama has gone down.
I would ask you sir, please look at the two speeches side by side, and honestly tell me who is a better leader.

 

[Angry Irishman]

as usual all we get from you is complaining....
Why don`t you lay out in detail how you would handle things.....this ought to be good....

pulls up a chair and a bowl of popcorn...

Eat your popcorn. As the article I posted was regarding the following: I would not have told the world that the United States of America doesn't have a strategy yet to deal with ISIL....how's that? You can call it complaining but then I guess the majority of the American public are just complaining. Also, one key difference, I'm not the president. If you don't see the trend or still blame Bush for all our problems then there's nothing else to say. Now a question for you as you eat your popcorn....is he doing a good job....can you honestly say that he is? How would you like him as your commander and chief if you wore a uniform?

 

[fskimospy]

NO acting, NO platitudes, NO white washing, but concrete actions now, and moving forward. All politicians come under fire, however, FACTS are, David Cameron is actually UP in favorability since 2012. Not much mind you, (2%), but contrast that to how much Obama has gone down.
I would ask you sir, please look at the two speeches side by side, and honestly tell me who is a better leader.

Maybe that's the difference between us: I don't look at speeches to to tell me if someone's a good leader or not.

 

[fskimospy]

Eat your popcorn. As the article I posted was regarding the following: I would not have told the world that the United States of America doesn't have a strategy yet to deal with ISIL....how's that? You can call it complaining but then I guess the majority of the American public are just complaining. Also, one key difference, I'm not the president. If you don't see the trend or still blame Bush for all our problems then there's nothing else to say. Now a question for you as you eat your popcorn....is he doing a good job....can you honestly say that he is? How would you like him as your commander and chief if you wore a uniform?

I can truthfully say that of all the presidents that have been in office in my adult life, as a former man in uniform Obama would be my choice. Clinton was a bit too disengaged yet somehow reckless, and GWB was incompetent, incurious, and reckless. Obama has used American forces cautiously despite inheriting an awful situation.

I also would have liked GHWB, but he was out when I was 12.

 

[alzan]

Showing weakness as the POTUS is never a good strategy....period.

As POTUS, it's sometimes prudent and wise to publicly say one thing while saying another in private.

Works for Putin, right?

 

[trenchfoot]

The perception of how Obama is handling our national interests in the middle east and elsewhere is, IMO, based upon predisposed notions and agendas that (dis)color and distort the facts of the matter at hand.

Saying something like "we have no strategy at the moment" can be viewed from all kinds of angles, ranging from a dispassionate sense of apathy to the ridiculously absurd notions driven by extremist political bias.

So here's Obama attempting to lay out in as few words as possible the extreme difficulty of mapping out a strategy irt Islamic State and Ukraine <--(at the moment) that is fluid, quickly evolving and rife with unforeseen consequences the likes of which can impact millions of lives. And there's those folks that are gliding like buzzards over his head, waiting for him to say some thing they can drop down and feed on. So funny. Ask G. W. Bush about that. He laughed right along with us every time he pooped his favorite jeans.

Obama has tons of developing and evolving intel to digest and form a response to that none of us have a clue about, yet we have folks, yes, especially so for the Obama haters, that harp on about his "lack of action" and "lack of leadership".

What gives me a sense of amazement is how these folks can say these kinds of things from such an uninformed point of view and not even realize how ignorant and agenda driven they make themselves look by behaving in that manner. I wonder what these very folks would do if they were to trade place with Obama. I'm sure the majority of them would immediately get overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of the matter, hit the panic button and lead us into WWIII or get us nuked into oblivion given their lack of foresight and depth of experience/knowledge in handling foreign affairs. Yet these same folks can somehow make what they think to be an accurate assessment of the situation from the media and the rumor mongering floating around to come up with garbage like "eh, he's no leader, he just swings a pretty good golf club every chance he gets".

Guess how much credence I give to comments like that? Small, agenda driven minds at work is all I see there.

Given the kinds of sniping and spinning Obama's every word receives from his detractors, from their point of view, he should never choose his words more carefully. Yet, in sum total, it's only his detractors that find any kind of value in the Obama word and picture coloring book they made for themselves. Sure, they can influence opinion of him one way or the other, but given that he is in the sunset years of his presidency, does anyone really think that the kind of negative commentary they spread about him is really going to affect his decision making processes? Useless words falling on deaf ears is what it all amounts to.

He's trying to do his job of keeping us from tap dancing in the minefields of Eastern Europe and the Middle East is what I see at the moment. And of course he realizes that he may appear to be hesitant to the folks that hate him or to those that want to advance the neocon agenda. But do these folks really think they can have their way with him by making these empty accusations that Obama doesn't even give a half a smirk to?

He's too busy for that.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Your thought patterns are strange to say the least....it is a mess. He just SHOWED his LACK of leadership for potential upcoming events and has SHOWN it many times before.

Try to keep up: If you are defining "leadership" by the results, you can't label something "leadership" or lack thereof until the results are in.
You alter your definitions to suit your needs. You require a negative perspective of Obama so you pick and choose whatever definition will get you there.

He takes charge? "No TRUE leader would have to bully!"
He compromises? "A TRUE leader would find his way through to the results!"
He's decisive? "A TRUE leader would know the wisdom of caution!"
He's cautious? "A TRUE leader takes charge and shows the way!"

 

[shortylickens]

With regards to actually getting real-world results, Obama hasn't done well at all.

He cant even end the war and pull out in a timely manner.


Of course Bush was still the worst.

 

[ivwshane]

NO acting, NO platitudes, NO white washing, but concrete actions now, and moving forward. All politicians come under fire, however, FACTS are, David Cameron is actually UP in favorability since 2012. Not much mind you, (2%), but contrast that to how much Obama has gone down.
I would ask you sir, please look at the two speeches side by side, and honestly tell me who is a better leader.

Ah so a good leader to you is someone who's poll numbers are rising? Or is it someone who talks a good talk?

The problem with the OP and many people like him is that they are intellectually lazy, they don't mind and even prefer a president/politician who states things in black or white terms, they prefer speeches that have a clear enemy in them, a leader to them is someone who makes them feel good. The wizard of Oz comes to mind.

"Gorbachev! Tear down that wall!", ignoring the fact that it was Gorbachev who was the one trying to transform his country.

"The smoking gun may come in the form of a mushroom cloud!", another hate the enemy speech with no factual basis behind it, but it sounded good which was enough for most people.

"They are part of the axis of evil!", another appeal to emotion with little if any substance behind it but it made it clear who are enemies were. How did that turn out?

I'd rather have an honest president who tells it like it is rather than blowing smoke up our ass.

Could you imagine what would have happened if the bush admin was honest? If the American people accepted his honesty and believed in his cause do you think we'd be waging a war where it seems like the only people interested are those with some skin on the game?

The Middle East is a shit storm right now, the last thing we need is a cowboy thinking he has all the answers with no thought given to the repercussions.


But please continue on and tell us more about how you hate the president because he didn't make you feel good. I'm sure if you guys keep crying loud enough we will get a president who'd be willing to kiss your boo-boos and rub your tummy.