Obama: "I screwed up"

[JD50]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This 'I'm sorry' is a no brainer. Will he do it when the economy is still in the tank in 3 years? Will he do it if there is another terrorist attack? Will he do it if his call costs the lives of hundreds of troops?

Lets see what happens when he makes a REAL mistake. My guess he will point the finger at everyone but himself.

Where is Bush's apology? He got us here in the first place...

/edit - Never mind... I forget who I am dealing with... You know nothing, and understand even less.

Oh look, another "But Bush".

For the last 8 years you couldn't mention Bill Clinton's name without a bunch of liberals screaming "BUT CLINTON ZOMG HAR HAR!!!". Enjoy.

I think he is saying that Obama apologized within 2 weeks of office, and we are still waiting for all of Bush's apologies... but you didn't read that because you just want to continue the hackery.

I like the fact that Obama apologized, it shows character and it's refreshing. It's a little too early to tell if he's being genuine, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. If you would have actually read what I said, you'd notice that I was only commenting on the "but Bush" coming from the liberal crowd. And yea, you accusing someone else of hackery, that's rich.

 

[trenchfoot]

So far:

Dems: "He admits he screwed up, he's learned from it and he's moving on all the wiser for it."

repubs: "yeah, well.....that's just not good enough. He needs to know that he's an idiot and Bush Jr. is.....well, THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT! Because we all know that Bush Jr. is immaculate and never done anything wrong otherwise he would have admitted it. And besides, HUSSEIN's a Dimocrat fer cry'in out loud. You KNOW how them Dim's are, DON"T YOU? He'll keep horrendously and epically screwing up like this till he's seen leaving the White House for good with his tail between his legs just like Bus.....ummmmm, uhhhhh, wait......ahh...yeah...YEAH...just like CLINTON DID.....AND DON'T YOU FERGET IT!!! AND ANOTHER THING....BLAH Blah yada yada....ad nauseum.

This is such fun.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: bbdub333
If he screwed up, and admitted that he screwed up (only after the guy withdrew), then how is it that he didn't screw up appointing Geitner? Exact same circumstances... he backed him the whole way. What is different?

The two were under different circumstances. Geitner learned about this problems during Vetting, and immediately paid them. Daschle, not so much.

that isn't true...
He paid 2 years worth before after being told that he owed it and then didn't pay the other two years until much later even though it was for the same reason.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Dems: "He admits he screwed up, he's learned from it and he's moving on all the wiser for it."

So far all he has done is admit a mistake...can't be sure yet that he learned from it, and time will tell if he is wiser for it.

IMO, the President should be held accountable...and I understand what Obama is trying to do...but apologies don't cut it...you either recognize a mistake and rectify it with corrective action, or you live with your mistake and move on.

The President issuing an apology may give some of you a warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't address the core issue at hand.

repubs: "yeah, well.....that's just not good enough. He needs to know that he's an idiot and Bush Jr. is.....well, THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT! Because we all know that Bush Jr. is immaculate and never done anything wrong otherwise he would have admitted it. And besides, HUSSEIN's a Dimocrat fer cry'in out loud. You KNOW how them Dim's are, DON"T YOU? He'll keep horrendously and epically screwing up like this till he's seen leaving the White House for good with his tail between his legs just like Bus.....ummmmm, uhhhhh, wait......ahh...yeah...YEAH...just like CLINTON DID.....AND DON'T YOU FERGET IT!!! AND ANOTHER THING....BLAH Blah yada yada....ad nauseum.

Are you capable of making an argument without evoking Bush...what WILL be fun is seeing some of you attempt to play that card for the next four years.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Dems: "He admits he screwed up, he's learned from it and he's moving on all the wiser for it."

So far all he has done is admit a mistake...can't be sure yet that he learned from it, and time will tell if he is wiser for it.

IMO, the President should be held accountable...and I understand what Obama is trying to do...but apologies don't cut it...you either recognize a mistake and rectify it with corrective action, or you live with your mistake and move on.

The President issuing an apology may give some of you a warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't address the core issue at hand.

repubs: "yeah, well.....that's just not good enough. He needs to know that he's an idiot and Bush Jr. is.....well, THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT! Because we all know that Bush Jr. is immaculate and never done anything wrong otherwise he would have admitted it. And besides, HUSSEIN's a Dimocrat fer cry'in out loud. You KNOW how them Dim's are, DON"T YOU? He'll keep horrendously and epically screwing up like this till he's seen leaving the White House for good with his tail between his legs just like Bus.....ummmmm, uhhhhh, wait......ahh...yeah...YEAH...just like CLINTON DID.....AND DON'T YOU FERGET IT!!! AND ANOTHER THING....BLAH Blah yada yada....ad nauseum.

Are you capable of making an argument without evoking Bush...what WILL be fun is seeing some of you attempt to play that card for the next four years.

Reference first bolded quote - Your point is well-taken and makes good sense.

Reference second bolded quote - I was not evoking Bush as a topic of discussion on my part. I was merely loosely summarizing and bringing to light my interpretation of what I had read in this thread up to that point, of which Bush was made mention of in quite a few posts. And besides, i think it inevitable that numerous logical comparisons between Bush and Obama will be made in the coming years, especially so when periodic assessments are made regarding Obama's performance "as compared to _____".

If Obama does well, then Bush is going to get incessantly hammered for what he could have/should have been and done CIC-wise.

If Obama tanks, as his detractors would desperately like him to (from the point of view that the better Obama does, the worse Bush looks, and vice-versa), then Bush will again enter into a comparative review of the familiar "then and now" format.

I understand that it's rather awkward and irritating among Bush supporters having to constantly defend his Administration's dismal performance and the catastrophic damage that was left in his wake upon leaving office, and I also understand that a similar fate might be awaiting Obama, given what Bush left him with.

Therefore, the reality of it all is that from a historical perspective, Bush and Obama's names appearing in the same sentence will be more common than not, especially here in this forum.

 

[Overgloc]

I screw up AND? http://www.politifact.com/trut...ment-before-signing-b/

 

[Starbuck1975]

I understand that it's rather awkward and irritating among Bush supporters having to constantly defend his Administration's dismal performance and the catastrophic damage that was left in his wake upon leaving office, and I also understand that a similar fate might be awaiting Obama, given what Bush left him with.

This statement exposes your bias..."dismal performance" and "catastropic damage" are rather dramatic comments for framing the Bush Administration.

Also find it interesting "that a similar fate might await Obama, given what Bush left him with"...you are suggesting, to an extent, that if Obama were to fail, it is due to what Bush left him...the measure of a strong leader is his or her ability to deal with the realities of the moment.

Lincoln inherited the failures of his predecessors to calm a powder keg that perhaps inevitably led to the Civil War...yet he preserved the Union.

FDR had to deal with the Great Depression and the failures of European leaders in containing the insanity of Nazi Germany...yet America exited WW2 as a global leader.

Eisenhower reacted to the realities of the Cold War, essentially a byproduct of WW2, but also set the tone for American foreign policy that prevented the outbreak of another global war or even nuclear war.

Bush had to deal with an unprecedented terrorist attack on American soil, a catastrophic natural disaster and the culmination of failed economic policies that have been gaining momentum since the first Great Depression...he failed to react to the realities of his Presidency.

Obama will be judged by how he responds to these realities. No one is contending the difficulty of his task, but he won the election by promising to bring the change to Washington and address these issues...if he fails in that task, blaming Bush would be the convenient response.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I understand that it's rather awkward and irritating among Bush supporters having to constantly defend his Administration's dismal performance and the catastrophic damage that was left in his wake upon leaving office, and I also understand that a similar fate might be awaiting Obama, given what Bush left him with.

This statement exposes your bias..."dismal performance" and "catastropic damage" are rather dramatic comments for framing the Bush Administration.

Also find it interesting "that a similar fate might await Obama, given what Bush left him with"...you are suggesting, to an extent, that if Obama were to fail, it is due to what Bush left him...the measure of a strong leader is his or her ability to deal with the realities of the moment.

Lincoln inherited the failures of his predecessors to calm a powder keg that perhaps inevitably led to the Civil War...yet he preserved the Union.

FDR had to deal with the Great Depression and the failures of European leaders in containing the insanity of Nazi Germany...yet America exited WW2 as a global leader.

Eisenhower reacted to the realities of the Cold War, essentially a byproduct of WW2, but also set the tone for American foreign policy that prevented the outbreak of another global war or even nuclear war.

Bush had to deal with an unprecedented terrorist attack on American soil, a catastrophic natural disaster and the culmination of failed economic policies that have been gaining momentum since the first Great Depression...he failed to react to the realities of his Presidency.

Obama will be judged by how he responds to these realities. No one is contending the difficulty of his task, but he won the election by promising to bring the change to Washington and address these issues...if he fails in that task, blaming Bush would be the convenient response.

You are 100% correct, If Obama fails he can't blame it on Bush even if some of us will. He didn't run on being able to lead this country during good times, he ran on the promise that he'd be able to pull us out of this morass.

 

[MrDudeMan]

What did he screw up? Sorry I didn't read the thread because I don't have time and I also don't watch the news or read it online.

I don't know what he is apologizing or taking responsibility for.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
The kool-aid is strong in this thread......

It's your favorite flavor, Hannity Red

He'll be here all week folks. Try the wings!

This thread delivers.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I understand that it's rather awkward and irritating among Bush supporters having to constantly defend his Administration's dismal performance and the catastrophic damage that was left in his wake upon leaving office, and I also understand that a similar fate might be awaiting Obama, given what Bush left him with.

This statement exposes your bias..."dismal performance" and "catastropic damage" are rather dramatic comments for framing the Bush Administration.

Also find it interesting "that a similar fate might await Obama, given what Bush left him with"...you are suggesting, to an extent, that if Obama were to fail, it is due to what Bush left him...the measure of a strong leader is his or her ability to deal with the realities of the moment.

Lincoln inherited the failures of his predecessors to calm a powder keg that perhaps inevitably led to the Civil War...yet he preserved the Union.

FDR had to deal with the Great Depression and the failures of European leaders in containing the insanity of Nazi Germany...yet America exited WW2 as a global leader.

Eisenhower reacted to the realities of the Cold War, essentially a byproduct of WW2, but also set the tone for American foreign policy that prevented the outbreak of another global war or even nuclear war.

Bush had to deal with an unprecedented terrorist attack on American soil, a catastrophic natural disaster and the culmination of failed economic policies that have been gaining momentum since the first Great Depression...he failed to react to the realities of his Presidency.

Obama will be judged by how he responds to these realities. No one is contending the difficulty of his task, but he won the election by promising to bring the change to Washington and address these issues...if he fails in that task, blaming Bush would be the convenient response.

"This statement exposes your bias..."dismal performance" and "catastropic damage" are rather dramatic comments for framing the Bush Administration."

I agree that from a (your?) conservative point of view, descriptions like that can't be anything other than dramatic. However, as far as I'm concerned, what I stated was merely the facts of the matter at hand, no bias intended.



"Also find it interesting "that a similar fate might await Obama, given what Bush left him with"...you are suggesting, to an extent, that if Obama were to fail, it is due to what Bush left him."

To an extent, yes. I agree. What I failed to do in an act of laziness/ignorance is to list in detail what other factors I believe will/could contribute to the possibility of Obama suffering a similar fate as Bush. Thanks for pointing that out and allowing me to clarify my position. That being said, can we then agree that what Bush left Obama with is going to play a major role, if not the major role, among other factors, in wether he can be a crucial lynchpin in turning this Nation around and get us back on our feet, just as Bush was a major factor in getting us into the circumstances we now face?



"Obama will be judged by how he responds to these realities. No one is contending the difficulty of his task, but he won the election by promising to bring the change to Washington and address these issues...if he fails in that task, blaming Bush would be the convenient response."

In light of the good point you made to me in your post, I can agree to your above comment if the phrase "the convenient response" (which seems biased) were to be changed to "a convenient response".

edit - spl