…because he is weak. Just the way they wish all US presidents were.
Of course, that’s only when dealing with our enemies. On the home front, it’s the Chicago Way.
[Update a few minutes later]
Obama’s time warp — the US is still the bad guy.
[Late morning update]
Obama’s most naive speech ever? I don’t know, that’s a pretty high bar. But could be.
Rand,
What makes you think that your list of “our enemies” would bear any resemblance to the One’s list?
If the two lists were honestly compiled, I think there would be little to no correlation between them.
If you UN loves him, they can have him. The UN Secretary General position would be perfect for Obama. He can chatter away in front of a teleprompter all he wants on someone else’s dime and never have to produce any results.
Obama for Secretary General! Now THAT’s a campaign I could get behind – as long as we’re not left with Joe Biden in possession of the nuclear codes. Maybe in 2012?
Don’t worry Scott, according to khadafi, Israel murdered JFK. Iran will get around to blaming Israel soon enough.
It would be tough to top the naivete of his predecessor, he of:
When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women, they saw strength and kindness and good will.
Two years later, 65% of Iraqi civilians polled supported attacks on U.S. troops.
It would be tough to top the naivete of his predecessor
But he proved himself more than up to the task.
So, Jim, you’re saying that it was naive of Bush to say there is “strength and kindness and good will” in the faces of our service men and women? Or what are you saying — that the Iraqis didn’t see that and that’s why one of your precious polls (what would leftists be without polls? they’re the modern-day equivalent of reading sheep entrails for portents of the future) claims they decided to support attacks on our troops? I mean, Bush didn’t predict that they would love us 100 percent, or that there weren’t people in the world evil enough to attack someone with “strength and kindness and goodwill” in their face. Where’s the naiveté? All I see is your cynicism re Bush and our troops.
Once again, Barrack:
– insults allies and the US,
– complements and reaches out to enemies,
– Got raves from enemies
But he also pushed the idea that
– the major great alliences in the world (which would include the EU, NATO, etc) are invalid
– rejected the idea of any single nation should lead (guess the US promotion of fredom and peace for 60+ years was all a mistake).
– suggested the UN and other nations should step up and settle more things (ignoring the UN is more supportive of the problems then any solution – EXPLICiTLY supporting terrorists, genocides, etc)
– kinda suggested isreal should be choped up, and supported the seperate states for Isreal adn pallestine idea (the former would be rejected by the Isrealies, the later by the pallestinians)
– and in several places just didn’t seem to have even a basic grasp of the facts – much less have any ideas to suggest.
When Kadafi, Castro, and Irans and Venezuela’s leader all hails a US pres — and said pres and gets so friendly and admiring with some of them — we need a new US pres, and the world has a VERY big reason to be afraid.
Obama litteraly was suggesting a declining role for democracy on the world stage – given his comfort with dictator ships, he may really not grasp what hes proposing.
I’ve seen little evidence that Obama grasps much of anything.
He grasps himself . . . so to speak.
” Jim Says:
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
It would be tough to top the naivete of his predecessor”
But he did Jim, he most certainly did!!!
> Tom W. Says:
> September 24th, 2009 at 8:46 am
>
>> ” Jim Says:
>>
>> September 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
>> It would be tough to top the naivete of his predecessor”
>
> But he did Jim, he most certainly did!!!
Was this the change we can believe in we were promised? Chavez and Qaddafi are singing Obama’s praises and the Britism PM can’t get a meeting with him?
Chavez and Qaddafi are singing Obama’s praises…
Word is that Baracky stopped by the WH gift shop and picked up some region-locked copies of “Moon Over Parador” for our new ‘friends” so expect the roses to fall off those vines, too…
So, Jim, you’re saying that it was naive of Bush to say there is “strength and kindness and good will” in the faces of our service men and women?
No, I’m saying that it was naive of Bush to say that the Iraqis saw those things. He was making a classic mistake, of believing that the Iraqi people would see our invasion as an act of “kindness and good will” because that was how he saw it. I don’t know that Bush ever considered the possibility that our troops might be widely resented and hated instead — but soon enough they were.
Obama seems clued in enough to realize that how Americans see their country is not necessarily how the residents of other countries see it. Recognizing that reality is the opposite of naivete.
Once again, Barrack [sic]:
– insults allies and the US,
How, exactly, did Obama insult allies or the US?
supported the seperate states for Isreal adn pallestine idea
You do realize that support for a two-state solution has been the official U.S. position since before Obama took office, right?
And I say, all he said was they would see “kindness, etc.” — that sentence did not imply that they would accept what they saw, or that they would understand what they saw, or that if they did they would be happy with being invaded by our forces, even those who were glad to have Saddam removed from their lives. Bush could be soppy, but he wasn’t that naive and stupid. The whole “all you war supporters thought you’d get 100% cooperation from the Iraqis” is yet another leftist canard.
>Jim Says:
> September 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
>> Once again, Barrack [sic]:
>> – insults allies and the US,
> How, exactly, did Obama insult allies or the US?
Went back on the promised Polish eastern Europe anti missile system promise without consulting or informing them. Petty little insults to British envoys and royals. Visiting everyone but Israel in the mid east tour. etc etc.
I wasn’t talking specifically about the UN speach.
>> supported the seperate states for Isreal adn pallestine idea
> You do realize that support for a two-state solution has been the
> official U.S. position since before Obama took office, right?
Of course – and its been rejected by the Palestinians -but he added making the states contiguous (which is geographically impossible unless you drop Gaza or something?).