Options

Barack Obama: The Weakest President In History?

JamesC81JamesC81 Posts: 14,792
Forum Member
✭✭
INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-

It's a bold claim, any thoughts?
«13

Comments

  • Options
    grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    On the other hand he has recently taken a clear, unambiguous and decisive position on the outcome of the NCAA basketball championships, so this whole idea that he is a hopeless ditherer is not completely correct. When something interests him, he can be quite passionate about it.

    And don't let's forget that Obama's ineffectiveness was not just predictable but actually was predicted - by Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Melanie Philips, most prominently. And yet somehow no-one ever gives them any credit for it.
  • Options
    thorrthorr Posts: 2,153
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think he is already looking towards the next Presidential election - which gets up and running in just 18 months. He has got to keep his eye on domestic approval - especially considering the mid-terms. Must US presidents are bolder in their second terms (if they get one) knowing that they won't be fighting another election. But he has been quiet of late...
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,383
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    People complained about Bush being too quick to get involved in other countries' affairs. Now Obama waits for the UN to decide. Suddenly he's weak?

    Strange world we live in.
  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    JamesC81 wrote: »

    Yes, passing judgement on him in advance of the end of his term in office is stupid especially since the history that we will judge him on hasn't happened yet.
  • Options
    BrooklynBoyBrooklynBoy Posts: 10,595
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's a bit ironic to hear a voice from the UK accusing Obama of letting Gadaffi off the hook.
  • Options
    Biffo the BearBiffo the Bear Posts: 25,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Leanna1989 wrote: »
    People complained about Bush being too quick to get involved in other countries' affairs. Now Obama waits for the UN to decide. Suddenly he's weak?

    Strange world we live in.

    Very strange indeed; there's always this hypocrisy from some quarters.

    I say well done to him for waiting for the UN to make its decision. It's about time the UN started grasping the nettle with international issues rather than the procrastination that we've seen over the last 15-20 years.
  • Options
    GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    It's a bit ironic to hear a voice from the UK accusing Obama of letting Gadaffi off the hook.

    I read this without reading who it was from and I thought "BB"!

    I'm right! I'm right!

    Do I get my $64,000, please?:)
  • Options
    BrooklynBoyBrooklynBoy Posts: 10,595
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I read this without reading who it was from and I thought "BB"!

    I'm right! I'm right!

    Do I get my $64,000, please?:)

    I could so often say the same about many of your posts except i don't usually because it would be tedious, tired and predictable. :)

    ..and no you don't get your large sum of cash because it would then need to shared out among everyone else. Can't have such capitalist yearnings for money now can we.

    Did you have a point about the subject itself to make?
  • Options
    Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Leanna1989 wrote: »
    People complained about Bush being too quick to get involved in other countries' affairs. Now Obama waits for the UN to decide. Suddenly he's weak?

    Strange world we live in.

    Indeed. I do wonder though if being seen to be the opposite of the "shoot first, ask question....when we get around to it" approach of the previous administration means he be a little too cautious at time ?
  • Options
    The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    Leanna1989 wrote: »
    People complained about Bush being too quick to get involved in other countries' affairs. Now Obama waits for the UN to decide. Suddenly he's weak?

    Strange world we live in.
    Libya is different to Iraq. This time it was a race against time to stop Gaddafi slaughtering more of his people. Its right imo that we intervened this time.
  • Options
    mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Wasn't it Obama who proclaimed that Cameron is a "lightweight"?

    What has Cameron done in less than a year? Quite a lot - abolished ID cards, started to roll back Labour's surveillance state, and is in the process of (rightly or wrongly) initiating budget cuts in the hopes of getting us out of our poor financial situation, and that is not an exhaustive list.

    Meanwhile, Obama still hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay (despite promising to do so), and his healthcare bill is nothing more than a cop out for the insurance companies. Despite his party holding control of both the Congress and Senate, he/his party was unable to implement the original bill for fear of annoying a few Republicans.

    Obama seems to be all about style but not substance. Yes we can? It seems not.

    I see a lightweight, but it isn't Cameron.
  • Options
    GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    I could so often say the same about many of your posts except i don't usually because it would be tedious, tired and predictable. :)

    ..and no you don't get your large sum of cash because it would then need to shared out among everyone else. Can't have such capitalist yearnings for money now can we.

    Did you have a point about the subject itself to make?

    No, but I didn't think you did either.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    Very strange indeed; there's always this hypocrisy from some quarters.

    I say well done to him for waiting for the UN to make its decision. It's about time the UN started grasping the nettle with international issues rather than the procrastination that we've seen over the last 15-20 years.

    If he had taken action quicker then thousands of lives would have been saved.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,718
    Forum Member
    thorr wrote: »
    I think he is already looking towards the next Presidential election - which gets up and running in just 18 months. He has got to keep his eye on domestic approval - especially considering the mid-terms. Must US presidents are bolder in their second terms (if they get one) knowing that they won't be fighting another election. But he has been quiet of late...

    I don't think that's the reason he didn't take action in Libya, I don't quite know what to think about Obama. He generally sticks to the typical left wing line in the USA. He isn't that radical, yet he rarely does anything and at this time in America, doing nothing isn't an option.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 82,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Leanna1989 wrote: »
    People complained about Bush being too quick to get involved in other countries' affairs. Now Obama waits for the UN to decide. Suddenly he's weak?


    Strange world we live in.

    America, is the strongest nation in the world who are always going on about freedom of peoples rights so I guess we just expect them to be taking more of a leading role.
  • Options
    BrooklynBoyBrooklynBoy Posts: 10,595
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No, but I didn't think you did either.

    Except that I did and my post was about the irony of the British to criticise on this subject. Your post had nothing to do with the subject and was just written because you felt like trying to annoy me.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 82,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's a bit ironic to hear a voice from the UK accusing Obama of letting Gadaffi off the hook.

    agreed, considering our recent cosy relationship with Gadaffi, for Cameron, to now be getting on his soap box dose smack of hypocracy.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,883
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    moox wrote: »
    Wasn't it Obama who proclaimed that Cameron is a "lightweight"?

    What has Cameron done in less than a year? Quite a lot - abolished ID cards, started to roll back Labour's surveillance state, and is in the process of (rightly or wrongly) initiating budget cuts in the hopes of getting us out of our poor financial situation, and that is not an exhaustive list.

    Meanwhile, Obama still hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay (despite promising to do so), and his healthcare bill is nothing more than a cop out for the insurance companies. Despite his party holding control of both the Congress and Senate, he/his party was unable to implement the original bill for fear of annoying a few Republicans.

    Obama seems to be all about style but not substance. Yes we can? It seems not.

    I see a lightweight, but it isn't Cameron.

    The democrats don't control congress anymore, and they just barely control the senate.
  • Options
    GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    Except that I did and my post was about the irony of the British to criticise on this subject. Your post had nothing to do with the subject and was just written because you felt like trying to annoy me.

    Well, coming from a person who spends most of his time on Israeli threads purely attacking the posters rather than point at issue this is a bit rich!

    And I wasn't trying to annoy - it was a lighthearted quip.

    You want to loosen up a bit, old boy.
  • Options
    Miasima GoriaMiasima Goria Posts: 5,188
    Forum Member
    So Obama can't prevent wars or tsunamis - impeach him at once! :eek:

    Shouldn't the Tory Tea Party be happy he's not turned out to be a raging leftie?:rolleyes:
  • Options
    scout35scout35 Posts: 472
    Forum Member
    I would love it if people would make up their minds.

    If you're American, you're damned if you and damned if you don't.
  • Options
    OvalteenieOvalteenie Posts: 24,169
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Obama did the right thing to look before he jumps, unlike Sarkozy & Cameron. Before you come out in support of 'the rebels'... Do we actually know who these people are?

    Look what happened the last time the Americans supported a bunch of 'freedom fighters', in Afghanistan, on the basis of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'...:o
  • Options
    mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cyberninja wrote: »
    The democrats don't control congress anymore, and they just barely control the senate.

    They used to, for at least 2 years during the Obama era. You'd have thought they could get a bit more done without having to ask the Republicans for permission to sneeze.
  • Options
    VerenceVerence Posts: 104,590
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    So Obama can't prevent wars or tsunamis - impeach him at once! :eek:

    Shouldn't the Tory Tea Party be happy he's not turned out to be a raging leftie?:rolleyes:

    According to some on the lunatic fringe of the Tea Party he is raging lefty Muslim who is constitutionally restricted from being President because he's not an American citizen
  • Options
    jammers1978jammers1978 Posts: 2,954
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Lunatic Fringe is that when you gel your hair in a crazy way?
Sign In or Register to comment.