"This Has Been one of the Most Humiliating Episodes in Presidential History"

[Annie]

This Has Been one of the Most Humiliating Episodes in Presidential History

Honestly, I don't think it's even one of the most humiliating in Obama's own administration.

- Benghazi - after allowing the murder of several people for political purposes covered it up
- Fast and furious - his administration sold guns to criminals, he said he didn't know then used executive privilege which is only possible if he did know
- Race baiting in the Zimmerman case
- Race baiting in the Crowley case
- Ran to be President of the United States by against capitalism, particularly financial services, energy and medical industries, twice
- Chosing a corrupt product of the corrupt Clinton administration to be Secretary of State
- Chosing a guy who perjured himself and called Vietnam soldiers baby killers and war criminals to be Secretary of State
- Blowing off our closest ally, the PM of the UK
- Taking a "Peace prize" which was in their explanation based on his wanting to reduce the power of the country he leads.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges and kumquats. Benghazi certainly was a foreign fiasco, but the answers are to the US, so far anyways. If it was being used in an Iran-Contra way? Who knows.

Ah now how he's smacked around our allies and kowtowed to those that aren't. That's getting real close. It's also part of his leading from behind, thus so far, culminating in the last few weeks of insane statements and threats. We mustn't forget that the real start of this was his drawing a 'red line' with the rest of the world not joining in. He didn't even realize what he'd done-as there seemed to be no plan in place of how to react if the line were crossed. He seemed to think that words alone would work-more leading from behind.

Hillary wasn't a great choice, but she more or less kept her mouth closed with two exceptions, "Reset" and "a video caused this and the maker will be punished"

Obama is a racist, I don't know anyone of honesty that would dispute that. It doesn't mean he can't hang with white friends, but alas he is more or less a separatist and has been since I've heard of him.

He was actually quite easy to understand where he was coming from on campaign trail, folks heard what they wanted to hear. In 2012 they elected him because they 'really, really liked him, though they didn't agree with his policies. They really hated Obamacare.' He didn't care, still doesn't, but it's going to be a very long 3 years for him and the US.

This has been the 'crisis' that has most humiliated him, thus US on world stage. Never since Wilson at Versailles has there been such an example of ineptitude in one man, at home and abroad.

 

[kaz]

This Has Been one of the Most Humiliating Episodes in Presidential History

Honestly, I don't think it's even one of the most humiliating in Obama's own administration.

- Benghazi - after allowing the murder of several people for political purposes covered it up
- Fast and furious - his administration sold guns to criminals, he said he didn't know then used executive privilege which is only possible if he did know
- Race baiting in the Zimmerman case
- Race baiting in the Crowley case
- Ran to be President of the United States by against capitalism, particularly financial services, energy and medical industries, twice
- Chosing a corrupt product of the corrupt Clinton administration to be Secretary of State
- Chosing a guy who perjured himself and called Vietnam soldiers baby killers and war criminals to be Secretary of State
- Blowing off our closest ally, the PM of the UK
- Taking a "Peace prize" which was in their explanation based on his wanting to reduce the power of the country he leads.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges and kumquats. Benghazi certainly was a foreign fiasco, but the answers are to the US, so far anyways. If it was being used in an Iran-Contra way? Who knows.

Ah now how he's smacked around our allies and kowtowed to those that aren't. That's getting real close. It's also part of his leading from behind, thus so far, culminating in the last few weeks of insane statements and threats. We mustn't forget that the real start of this was his drawing a 'red line' with the rest of the world not joining in. He didn't even realize what he'd done-as there seemed to be no plan in place of how to react if the line were crossed. He seemed to think that words alone would work-more leading from behind.

Hillary wasn't a great choice, but she more or less kept her mouth closed with two exceptions, "Reset" and "a video caused this and the maker will be punished"

Obama is a racist, I don't know anyone of honesty that would dispute that. It doesn't mean he can't hang with white friends, but alas he is more or less a separatist and has been since I've heard of him.

He was actually quite easy to understand where he was coming from on campaign trail, folks heard what they wanted to hear. In 2012 they elected him because they 'really, really liked him, though they didn't agree with his policies. They really hated Obamacare.' He didn't care, still doesn't, but it's going to be a very long 3 years for him and the US.

This has been the 'crisis' that has most humiliated him, thus US on world stage. Never since Wilson at Versailles has there been such an example of ineptitude in one man, at home and abroad.

The only standard I was using was "humiliating" regarding Presidential history. I agree the situations are different, I was just referring to that dimension.

I personally think Clinton's support of Janet Reno's murdering Americans in Waco and Ruby Ridge was more humiliating for the Presidency than anything Obama's done.

If I were a liberal, and I had intellectual integrity (OK, I know that's an oxymoron), I'd find Clinton's victimization of women from his secretary in Little Rock to groping a Democratic activist in the White House to be the most humiliating for the Presidency.

 

[Pheonixops]

This stupidity with Syria is supposed to be "one of the Most Humiliating Episodes in Presidential History" ? Give me a break!

Actually my first post in this discussion was agreeing that it was not even one of the most humiliating episodes in his administration. I don't believe anything changed here. Everyone has the same impression of him as before.

I do believe that taking down Assad would have been a tragic mistake though, and one he wanted. But not because of WMDs, the agreement stopped him. He didn't want it.

I was referring to the "one of the Most Humiliating Episodes in Presidential History" part of what some people were agreeing with.

 

[Annie]

Honestly, I don't think it's even one of the most humiliating in Obama's own administration.

- Benghazi - after allowing the murder of several people for political purposes covered it up
- Fast and furious - his administration sold guns to criminals, he said he didn't know then used executive privilege which is only possible if he did know
- Race baiting in the Zimmerman case
- Race baiting in the Crowley case
- Ran to be President of the United States by against capitalism, particularly financial services, energy and medical industries, twice
- Chosing a corrupt product of the corrupt Clinton administration to be Secretary of State
- Chosing a guy who perjured himself and called Vietnam soldiers baby killers and war criminals to be Secretary of State
- Blowing off our closest ally, the PM of the UK
- Taking a "Peace prize" which was in their explanation based on his wanting to reduce the power of the country he leads.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges and kumquats. Benghazi certainly was a foreign fiasco, but the answers are to the US, so far anyways. If it was being used in an Iran-Contra way? Who knows.

Ah now how he's smacked around our allies and kowtowed to those that aren't. That's getting real close. It's also part of his leading from behind, thus so far, culminating in the last few weeks of insane statements and threats. We mustn't forget that the real start of this was his drawing a 'red line' with the rest of the world not joining in. He didn't even realize what he'd done-as there seemed to be no plan in place of how to react if the line were crossed. He seemed to think that words alone would work-more leading from behind.

Hillary wasn't a great choice, but she more or less kept her mouth closed with two exceptions, "Reset" and "a video caused this and the maker will be punished"

Obama is a racist, I don't know anyone of honesty that would dispute that. It doesn't mean he can't hang with white friends, but alas he is more or less a separatist and has been since I've heard of him.

He was actually quite easy to understand where he was coming from on campaign trail, folks heard what they wanted to hear. In 2012 they elected him because they 'really, really liked him, though they didn't agree with his policies. They really hated Obamacare.' He didn't care, still doesn't, but it's going to be a very long 3 years for him and the US.

This has been the 'crisis' that has most humiliated him, thus US on world stage. Never since Wilson at Versailles has there been such an example of ineptitude in one man, at home and abroad.

The only standard I was using was "humiliating" regarding Presidential history. I agree the situations are different, I was just referring to that dimension.

I personally think Clinton's support of Janet Reno's murdering Americans in Waco and Ruby Ridge was more humiliating for the Presidency than anything Obama's done.

If I were a liberal, and I had intellectual integrity (OK, I know that's an oxymoron), I'd find Clinton's victimization of women from his secretary in Little Rock to groping a Democratic activist in the White House to be the most humiliating for the Presidency.

There's differences between the President being humiliated at home, that comes with the job. This thing with Syria though, that's been all over the world, including the nonsense about not going to Congress, until he decided to. But might act in spite of the vote. Then needed to address the people, who were increasingly hammering him and any supporters-from right or left.

Today the humiliation of Putin's op-ed, has to be the lowest point yet, right up there with Khrushchev banging his shoe. Then again, that eventually didn't work in his country's favor, so things change. But when the president is seen as weakened internationally, so is the country.

 

[kaz]

I think you are mixing apples and oranges and kumquats. Benghazi certainly was a foreign fiasco, but the answers are to the US, so far anyways. If it was being used in an Iran-Contra way? Who knows.

Ah now how he's smacked around our allies and kowtowed to those that aren't. That's getting real close. It's also part of his leading from behind, thus so far, culminating in the last few weeks of insane statements and threats. We mustn't forget that the real start of this was his drawing a 'red line' with the rest of the world not joining in. He didn't even realize what he'd done-as there seemed to be no plan in place of how to react if the line were crossed. He seemed to think that words alone would work-more leading from behind.

Hillary wasn't a great choice, but she more or less kept her mouth closed with two exceptions, "Reset" and "a video caused this and the maker will be punished"

Obama is a racist, I don't know anyone of honesty that would dispute that. It doesn't mean he can't hang with white friends, but alas he is more or less a separatist and has been since I've heard of him.

He was actually quite easy to understand where he was coming from on campaign trail, folks heard what they wanted to hear. In 2012 they elected him because they 'really, really liked him, though they didn't agree with his policies. They really hated Obamacare.' He didn't care, still doesn't, but it's going to be a very long 3 years for him and the US.

This has been the 'crisis' that has most humiliated him, thus US on world stage. Never since Wilson at Versailles has there been such an example of ineptitude in one man, at home and abroad.

The only standard I was using was "humiliating" regarding Presidential history. I agree the situations are different, I was just referring to that dimension.

I personally think Clinton's support of Janet Reno's murdering Americans in Waco and Ruby Ridge was more humiliating for the Presidency than anything Obama's done.

If I were a liberal, and I had intellectual integrity (OK, I know that's an oxymoron), I'd find Clinton's victimization of women from his secretary in Little Rock to groping a Democratic activist in the White House to be the most humiliating for the Presidency.

There's differences between the President being humiliated at home, that comes with the job. This thing with Syria though, that's been all over the world, including the nonsense about not going to Congress, until he decided to. But might act in spite of the vote. Then needed to address the people, who were increasingly hammering him and any supporters-from right or left.

Today the humiliation of Putin's op-ed, has to be the lowest point yet, right up there with Khrushchev banging his shoe. Then again, that eventually didn't work in his country's favor, so things change. But when the president is seen as weakened internationally, so is the country.

Fair enough on how you're thinking of it. The only dimension I care about though is when he's humiliating to me.

 

[Annie]

I look at legacy, US prestige, what the next guy will 'inherit.' Right now I feel for the next guy.

 

[Contumacious]

Granted Putin only didn't want it because he's allied with the Shiites. .

HUH?

He is allied with WHOMEVER allows him to keep the port of Tartus, home to a Russian naval facility.

At the present time is Assad.

.

That's only a piece of it. Russia also wants to block the Qatar pipeline e.

I understand that they want to help Gazprom but still that is not a reason for the US to get involved.

,

 

[kaz]

HUH?

He is allied with WHOMEVER allows him to keep the port of Tartus, home to a Russian naval facility.

At the present time is Assad.

.

That's only a piece of it. Russia also wants to block the Qatar pipeline e.

I understand that they want to help Gazprom but still that is not a reason for the US to get involved.

,

You and I have been in enough discussions that you have to know I'm against attacking Syria.

 

[Mustang]

I hate Obama ... because ... I love my country, not in spite of it.

So where were you when Dick Turbin went to Iraq and stood with Hussein, when Kerry called our troops in Iraq "terrorists," when Democrats ratcheted up the rhetoric over the Koran at Gitmo, when Democrats lied to the world and our enemies we were torturing prisoners, when Democrats pumped the propaganda we were murdering civilians in Iraq and they were better off under Hussein, when Carter, Gore and Obama got "peace" prices for their anti-American rhetoric and accepted them?

And you lecture anyone? You're pathetic.

Get the quotes and the context right, and we can talk. Kerry didn't call the troops terrorists. Here's what he said:

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

When our soldiers, armed with automatic weapons, bust into a home late at night in a country at war with god knows how many different armed groups running around engaging in indiscriminate killing, you can damn well be sure that those people felt terrorized.

So, someone who terrorizes isn't a terrorist?

The point is to quote Kerry (or anyone else, for that matter) correctly, and not twist someone's words in such a way as to give the impression they were saying something entirely different than what they clearly meant.

 

[Annie]

Get the quotes and the context right, and we can talk. Kerry didn't call the troops terrorists. Here's what he said:

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

When our soldiers, armed with automatic weapons, bust into a home late at night in a country at war with god knows how many different armed groups running around engaging in indiscriminate killing, you can damn well be sure that those people felt terrorized.

So, someone who terrorizes isn't a terrorist?

The point is to quote Kerry (or anyone else, for that matter) correctly, and not twist someone's words in such a way as to give the impression they were saying something entirely different than what they clearly meant.

Are you saying he meant it rhetorically?

 

[Mustang]

So, someone who terrorizes isn't a terrorist?

The point is to quote Kerry (or anyone else, for that matter) correctly, and not twist someone's words in such a way as to give the impression they were saying something entirely different than what they clearly meant.

Are you saying he meant it rhetorically?

If you don't know what I'm saying, you should go back to school. Kerry actually made a pretty good point which conservatives are either too ignorant or too obtuse to understand.

For one thing, it was (and continues to be) a mistake to think others should perceive American soldiers as Americans think of John Wayne, like some hero who's the embodiment of everything that is noble and good. Anyone who latches on to that notion is delusional. To that end, noting that our troops were conducting late night raids into family homes in the dead of night should have given US some insight into how we were perceived as the antithesis of how we perceive ourselves.

Yet, instead of acknowledging such, conservatives wanted to turn the statement into the complete opposite of what Kerry meant, thereby guaranteeing that we won't be able to fix what we can't even acknowledge is a flaw in our thinking.

 

[Pheonixops]

So now Syria has agreed to hand over its chem weapons. BUt only if the US agrees to call off military action.
They have effectively boxed Obama in: If he agrees he is giving Assad freehand to exert control and basically do whatever he wants. If he doesn't agree he is accused of spoiling this diplomatic breakthrough.

It is game-set-match Putin. And we still have over half the country saying "What the heck just happened??" that is, those who aren't Obama-fluffers and think Obama has brilliantly navigated this. But those people are dumber than turkeys.

I understand what you are saying, but if we agreed to not act against Syria militarily solely to enforce the "chemical weapons" issue, I hardly see that as a losing situation. I don't know about you, but I certainly think that we don't need to keep playing "bad cop" or "enforcer" in the Middle East or anywhere. How long has Syria had those chemical weapons?

I think that this is a great time to let the UN handle "the Syrian problem", if they want to strike Syria, there are plenty of other countries that have the military capability to do so besides us. In short, I see the short term outcome, a win for the American people. I will say that it's times like these that make me happy that I like the opposite party from the executive branch to have a majority in the House of Representatives.

Let's stop ignoring who was pushing for this war the hardest---Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Does everyone think that they are going to pack up their bags and go home after investing MILLIONS ?

What about Turkey----What about Syrian refugees ?

Good point, maybe those three countries should support the matter in the UN and then send THEIR troops to do the job.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Obama was in a no-win situation with Syria and he somehow pulled out a win
Call it luck, call it skill, call it whatever you want

Republicans still lost on Syria

A win? Really? You know, I still don't know how being embarrassed on the international stage, looking confused and weak, is a win? Let's look at this rationally.

Barry lays down an imaginary RED Line, "No use of Chemical Weapons." They are used once, two months ago and then again last month. The first time, he was asked, "You said this is a red line, what are you going to do about it?" His response? "Lets investigate and we'll get back to you." The second time, after having evidence that the Syrian Army used them, he says that he is going to strike Syria. When he says that it is obvious that he isn't going to use troops or manned aircraft. It's going to have to be TLAM's (tomahawks). He says he doesn't need congressional approval, that he's just going to strike. Then, the week after he says, "No, I need congressional approval." Although Kerry still says he doesn't.

Russia (Putin) is Syria's friend, an ally of Iran and a place for Russia to rest its hat in the middle east. Otherwise, Russia's got no one and really is not a player in the region. Putin doesn't want Assad gone because Putin WANTS to be a player in the middle east. But he knows that even though he's given Syria some weapons, they don't have anything to stop a tomahawk attack. If Assad had S-300 antiaircraft missles he would. Putin wants to give Assad the missles, but it would take time to ship them, set them up, and train the Syrians.

Kerry, in an off-hand remark says that the only way the strike can be delayed is by Syria giving up their Chemical Weapons. Putin hears this and thinks, "What a freakin break!!!!!" That can't be done over night and besides, the surprise and fear factor is gone which was a great reasons for using Chemical Weapons in the first place. Putin tells Assad, agree to the proposal and we'll be locked in negotiations for six months easily, probably be able to drag it out to a year or more. You'll have the missles, the tomahawks will be rendered useless without a pre-strike on the radars because the US isn't going to use manned aircraft to attack (parading a captured or dead US airmen in front of television cameras would be devastating). And in the end we can tell the US to go pound sand if we so decide because you will be strike-proof (I would debate this though).

Hearing about Kerry's remark, Barry says, "Sure, that's the ticket. That would be a way to not have to strike Syria. I thought that all along!" So he goes on to TV and talks about the video of the kids dying is really disgusting and how horrible it is, but by God we're going to negotiate the Syrians giving up their Chemical Weapons. How wonderful Barry. Your policy is now the result of off-hand comments by John Kerry who should be following YOUR directions, not the other way around.

Oh by the way, DefenseTech reported that Putin signed the order to sell the Syrians S-300 anti-aircraft batteries over the last three days.

Good job Mr. President, out-manuevered by an ex-KGB agent.

Bet your ass it was a win

Obama won, Putin won, Assad won

Republicans lost

Why is Putin winning a good thing? Why is Assad winning a good thing? Is it because more mass murderers and despots should win to prop up the democratic party?

 

[dilloduck]

I understand what you are saying, but if we agreed to not act against Syria militarily solely to enforce the "chemical weapons" issue, I hardly see that as a losing situation. I don't know about you, but I certainly think that we don't need to keep playing "bad cop" or "enforcer" in the Middle East or anywhere. How long has Syria had those chemical weapons?

I think that this is a great time to let the UN handle "the Syrian problem", if they want to strike Syria, there are plenty of other countries that have the military capability to do so besides us. In short, I see the short term outcome, a win for the American people. I will say that it's times like these that make me happy that I like the opposite party from the executive branch to have a majority in the House of Representatives.

Let's stop ignoring who was pushing for this war the hardest---Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Does everyone think that they are going to pack up their bags and go home after investing MILLIONS ?

What about Turkey----What about Syrian refugees ?

Good point, maybe those three countries should support the matter in the UN and then send THEIR troops to do the job.

Maybe they will just disappear back into the silence from which they came. Some of them got trained by our special ops so it wasn't a total loss for them.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Bush's mishandling of the Iraq War lost him his GOP congress in 2006, right in the middle of the war.

That's real humiliation, and he deserved every bit of it.

 

[dilloduck]

Bush's mishandling of the Iraq War lost him his GOP congress in 2006, right in the middle of the war.

That's real humiliation, and he deserved every bit of it.

whoa---We're in the WAYBACK machine again Mr. Peabody !

 

[rightwinger]

A win? Really? You know, I still don't know how being embarrassed on the international stage, looking confused and weak, is a win? Let's look at this rationally.

Barry lays down an imaginary RED Line, "No use of Chemical Weapons." They are used once, two months ago and then again last month. The first time, he was asked, "You said this is a red line, what are you going to do about it?" His response? "Lets investigate and we'll get back to you." The second time, after having evidence that the Syrian Army used them, he says that he is going to strike Syria. When he says that it is obvious that he isn't going to use troops or manned aircraft. It's going to have to be TLAM's (tomahawks). He says he doesn't need congressional approval, that he's just going to strike. Then, the week after he says, "No, I need congressional approval." Although Kerry still says he doesn't.

Russia (Putin) is Syria's friend, an ally of Iran and a place for Russia to rest its hat in the middle east. Otherwise, Russia's got no one and really is not a player in the region. Putin doesn't want Assad gone because Putin WANTS to be a player in the middle east. But he knows that even though he's given Syria some weapons, they don't have anything to stop a tomahawk attack. If Assad had S-300 antiaircraft missles he would. Putin wants to give Assad the missles, but it would take time to ship them, set them up, and train the Syrians.

Kerry, in an off-hand remark says that the only way the strike can be delayed is by Syria giving up their Chemical Weapons. Putin hears this and thinks, "What a freakin break!!!!!" That can't be done over night and besides, the surprise and fear factor is gone which was a great reasons for using Chemical Weapons in the first place. Putin tells Assad, agree to the proposal and we'll be locked in negotiations for six months easily, probably be able to drag it out to a year or more. You'll have the missles, the tomahawks will be rendered useless without a pre-strike on the radars because the US isn't going to use manned aircraft to attack (parading a captured or dead US airmen in front of television cameras would be devastating). And in the end we can tell the US to go pound sand if we so decide because you will be strike-proof (I would debate this though).

Hearing about Kerry's remark, Barry says, "Sure, that's the ticket. That would be a way to not have to strike Syria. I thought that all along!" So he goes on to TV and talks about the video of the kids dying is really disgusting and how horrible it is, but by God we're going to negotiate the Syrians giving up their Chemical Weapons. How wonderful Barry. Your policy is now the result of off-hand comments by John Kerry who should be following YOUR directions, not the other way around.

Oh by the way, DefenseTech reported that Putin signed the order to sell the Syrians S-300 anti-aircraft batteries over the last three days.

Good job Mr. President, out-manuevered by an ex-KGB agent.

Bet your ass it was a win

Obama won, Putin won, Assad won

Republicans lost

Why is Putin winning a good thing? Why is Assad winning a good thing? Is it because more mass murderers and despots should win to prop up the democratic party?

Did I say good thing or a win?

The only loss was by the Republicans

 

[Samson]

Bush's mishandling of the Iraq War lost him his GOP congress in 2006, right in the middle of the war.

That's real humiliation, and he deserved every bit of it.

whoa---We're in the WAYBACK machine again Mr. Peabody !

 

[dilloduck]

Bet your ass it was a win

Obama won, Putin won, Assad won

Republicans lost

Why is Putin winning a good thing? Why is Assad winning a good thing? Is it because more mass murderers and despots should win to prop up the democratic party?

Did I say good thing or a win?

The only loss was by the Republicans

Screw the country--as long as the republicans lost something it's a good thing.

 

[Rozman]

You know the Democrat's have their back against the wall and their President is in trouble
when they defend their guy by going after Bush...

I love it.