Syria

The Red Ranger: So we have a country that has used chemical weapons on its citizens and the world fails to take quick and decisive action.  I would have thought that a Nobel peace prize winner like Obama would have been able to quickly pull together a bilateral coalition to extract some payback on Assad.  I guess that he does not really have the confidence of the world leaders like everyone thought he would get when he was elected.

In fact, Obama seems to be totally fumbling US foreign relations.  Other than getting Bin Laden which if you believe some accounts Obama wasn’t too interested in following what has he done.  Our relations with Russia are probably at their lowest level since the pre-Reagan years, the Benghazi attackers have gotten away unscathed and even Britian, our former strongest ally, will not fall in line with us.  Let’s not forget his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the coup that ousted Mubarak in Egypt.  How many Christians have the Brotherhood murdered or how many churches have they destroyed since their ouster in Egypt.

Looking back the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to Obama when they did makes the committee look pretty foolish.  The award shouldn’t have been given based upon hope but on actual results.

 

Nattering Naybob: First, am I to believe that you are still adhering to that Sean Hannity nonsense that Obama “didn’t really want to get Osama bin Laden”? You’re joking, right? From Day 1 in office, Obama informed his National Security team that catching bin Laden would be a priority. Unlike George W. Bush, who replied in a press conference on Marsh 13th, 2012, LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS, and I quote: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority”.

Every President has foreign policy mis-fires, it’s part of the cost of doing business. Stop reading columns by John Bolton.

The Red Ranger: I did not mean to imply that Obama did not want to get Bin Laden, I was just referencing the fact that there were reports that he wasn’t too interested in watching the actually taking down of Bin Laden.

I would classify a mis-fire as something that happens on a rare occasion.  It seems like other than Bin Laden all of Obama’s foreign policy moves have been mis-fires.

Nattering Naybob: Oh. You are only saying that there are “rumors” (source: unknown) that he did not want to actually watch the video of bin Laden being taken down. Frankly, I don’ think it’s important whether he did or not. All I know is that he was there, watching intently. Or, you may have been seeing those internet reports from the usual Right-Wing nuts, that claim Obama’s image was somehow CGI’d or Photoshopped into the official photographs of the “war room” during the raid.

I find it truly, profoundly, pathetic that so many people waste so much time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of this President’s life. Over two years after we successfully captured and killed the perpetrator of the worst carnage ever inflicted on this country’s soil from outside forces, Republicans are still scraping, scratching, clawing, biting, and in some cases, chewing, to find any possible way to criticize Obama’s role in it. Sad.

And still, The Red Ranger always wonders: “What is happening to our country?”

The Red Ranger: Did you find it as profoundly, pathetic that so many people wasted time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of Bush’s life?  Or were you just part of the mindless Democratic horde partaking in this sport?

Nattering Naybob: No, I was not, if you want to know the truth. I thought George W. Bush  was an incompetent Chief Executive who listened too much to people who were giving him terrible advice (read: Dick Cheney). However I actually gave him credit for the way he handled the aftermath of 9/11. His “bullhorn moment” at the top of the debris pile at Ground Zero was a stroke of leadership genius, and one of the iconic moments in the history of the American Presidency. I thought he was unfairly criticized for continuing to listen for a few minutes to the reading of the students whose class he was visiting, before he started to take direct action on the news given to him on that morning.

I think Bush did a good job in imploring the nation to not take individual vengeance for 9/11 on Muslims in their neighborhood, or who they came across during their day. I think it was disgusting that someone threw shoes at him during a press conference in Iraq late in his Presidency because I think that could conceivably have been deemed an assassination attempt, and it was horrible that anyone would laugh at that and praise the show-thrower.

Bush was and is a devoted and faithful husband, father, and son, and I think his wife was an excellent and dignified First Lady. I think that any suggestion that he would have taken part in a “plot” to help facilitate 9/11 is outrageous and utterly contemptible because for all his management deficiencies, I think he is at heart a patriot and loves his country.

These are all positive comments that Republicans and the Right-Wing lunatic fringe, would never in a million years consider bestowing on Obama.

Is it “Jimmy Obama” or “Barack Carter”?

The Red Ranger: The presidencies of Obama and Carter are really becoming strikingly similar. Both have proven to be inept at managing the US economy and now just like Carter, Obama is facing a crisis in the Middle East. Carter’s presidency ended with an economy in recession or at least on its way there and hostages in the Middle East. Obama leads an economy with a persistent 8%+ unemployment rate and US citizens murdered in the Middle East and our embassies under attack in multiple countries.

In contrast to one of your prior posts the attacks in Libya were part of a planned assault not part of some random protest. I watched your favorite, Rachel Maddow, last night for a little bit before I got nauseous and even he admitted to that fact.

Now there are reports that Hillary may have actually gotten some intelligence about these possible attacks but did not act upon the information.  Remember when under Bush we had threat levels and they varied based upon either upcoming events or “chatter” heard in the intelligence community. Those threat levels were too much for the Obama administration to handle so I believe they were done away with. Probably because someone felt they were offending our Muslim friends. These threat levels were routinely raised on the 9/11 anniversary and at least reminded everyone to be extra vigilant.

One of the “changes” hoped for under Obama was improved relations in the Middle East. Obviously, this is an abject failure on his part. Even he admits that Egypt is no longer an ally of the US. This leaves the US with only Israel and Saudi Arabia as stated allies in the Middle East. Nice job by Obama.

Please do not come back with some illogical rant about Romney. An illogical rant about how wonderful Obama’s policies in the Middle East are would be much more enjoyable

Nattering Naybob: I have noticed that Republicans enjoy comparing President Obama to Jimmy Carter. I guess that is understandable since so many observers rightly contrasted the administrations of George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover. I suppose there is no “expiration date” to the comparisons of current Presidents, to past Presidents, such as comparing say Harry Truman to James K. Polk, or perhaps the George H.W. Bush to Chester Arthur. The possibilities are endless.

The Obama-Carter comparison is factually correct only in that the most recent US Ambassador to have been killed took place under Jimmy Carter’s term in 1979. I only hope that no future President has to be compared on a like-for-like basis to our most recent (Republican) President, under whose administration over 2,000 people were killed on US soil due to a report that may have been ignored.

To say that Obama is “soft” on Muslims, or afraid to hurt their feelings, is patently ridiculous. Why would have Obama ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden, if he were worried about the reaction of Muslims? Wouldn’t this act have had the most potential for violent backlash against the U.S. or its Western allies? I don’t know how you or any another Republican can logically think that the almost simultaneous conversion of several Middle Eastern nations from totalitarian rule, to a more democratic model, would be seamless and without bloodshed or unrest of any kind.

I think The Red Ranger’s conduct and his view in this post, are a mirror to the conduct of his Republican candidate, who likewise tried to score political points (and failed miserably) by exploiting an international tragedy without first gathering all the facts.