Obama's Failures

Tools    





Since we have a thread that's essentially just a compilation of whatever bad news there is for Romney, I figured we ought to have a thread that does the opposite: that simply lists the failings and gaffes of the Obama administration.

I'll probably go back in time to highlight some of the big ones, since those get conveniently ignored most of the time, but let's start with something both recent and ongoing: the administration was saying, for a solid week, that the attacks in Libya were spontaneous, and not planned or coordinated. They said this in forceful, repeated language. It came from the White House and, particularly, from Their Ambassador to the United Nations:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
The White House itself said the same basic thing:



The idea that this was just a riotous protest over a video that got out of hand was repeated again and again. Libyan government officials have repeatedly contradicted it.

But in keeping with all of their public communications since this happened, they're already starting to backtrack from this:

The White House on Tuesday explicitly left open the possibility that last week's dramatic attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens dead, was a planned attack.
So, for those keeping score, here's the sequence of events: video causes uproar, Embassy releases a statement, the riots start, Embassy reiterates the statement, Americans (including a diplomat) are killed, the President says Egypt isn't our ally, the State Department says they are, the President says they sort of are and sort of aren't, the Libyans say the attacks were planned, the White House says the attacks weren't planned, the Ambassador to the UN says the attacks weren't planned, and then the White House says--guess what?--the attacks may have been planned. Totally schizo.



Potentially worse than the schizo messaging is the run-up to the attack. This is delicate, for obvious reasons, but a report in The Independent claims that Libyan officials warned the U.S. of an impending attack.

The government denies it...sort of. They issued a non-denial denial, in which they said they didn't have "intelligence" indicating the same, which you'll notice does not actually deny that the Libyan government issued any kind of warning. And it's important, because one of the focuses of the questioning is why there was such scant security there in the first place.

What's more, the State Department put out a memo specifically downplaying any potential threat:

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.
I take the memo at its word, but what's damning is that they've since removed it from their site, presumably because it's existence became politically embarrassing after the attacks. As is often the case, trying to hide things makes them stand out all the more.

I also forgot to mention that, several days ago, the White House literally said it would stop answering questions about the attacks for the time being.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I have a question for you Yoda, you might have answered this for all I know.

Do you vote for the person, or the party? If Sarah Palin were up against Obama, would you vote for her because of her party positions and look past her antics? Or if someone like that was running would you decide to vote for the other person?
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Generally speaking, I vote for the ideas. I think the personality part is overemphasized and hard to discern through so many media filters, and easily faked, besides. Policy comes first, always.

There are extreme cases where someone might have much better ideas but just be so generally incompetent that they still wouldn't make a good President. In those cases I'd probably vote for a third party. Especially since, in those cases, it's probably pretty likely a third party would make more noise than usual.



Yeah, it's clear that what's spontanous are the blunders of this current administration. Even in defending their non-action they appear unco-ordinated.
I mean come on, 9/11, and there is not a comprehensive defense system in place for our Embassies in the middle east and especially in the countries of recent regime changes. It doesn't take a war strategist or a political science major to understand these vulnerabilities and take adequate precociouns.
Obama even saying that these attacks were spontanious and unplanned makes him even look less competent as it is easier to defend ourselves against a bunch of amateurs then against organized Alkaida.
So, it makes one wonder if the Embassies were intended as sacrificial lambs for some sort of retaliation that would add new spark to his re-election.



In this country we have always been a sucker for the cult of personality in choosing our leaders. What I can't understand is choosing leaders that have no clear and defined policies.
Obama's a perfect example. He came in because of his speaking ability and charisma along with a vague promise of change. The fact that he was part black didn't hurt either, as a very high percentage of our fighting forces are black and we were engaged in war and the very idea of a first time black president resonated well with the times and push for total equality. If I was given a choice, I would have rather gone with Collin Powell, certainly a hell of a lot better versed in foreign affairs and war.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Potentially worse than the schizo messaging is the run-up to the attack. This is delicate, for obvious reasons, but a report in The Independent claims that Libyan officials warned the U.S. of an impending attack.

The government denies it...sort of. They issued a non-denial denial, in which they said they didn't have "intelligence" indicating the same, which you'll notice does not actually deny that the Libyan government issued any kind of warning. And it's important, because one of the focuses of the questioning is why there was such scant security there in the first place.

What's more, the State Department put out a memo specifically downplaying any potential threat:


I take the memo at its word, but what's damning is that they've since removed it from their site, presumably because it's existence became politically embarrassing after the attacks. As is often the case, trying to hide things makes them stand out all the more.

I also forgot to mention that, several days ago, the White House literally said it would stop answering questions about the attacks for the time being.
Yeah, and we got the same thing from the Bush Administration about 911, there were some kind of warnings, but not specific enough to take action on. So what?

You want to play the blame game for what happened, go ahead. But I doubt you were playing that game when Bush was on the receiving end.

I haven't seen anything from Mitt Romney in the last few weeks to give me confidence he would be any better in a crisis situation. Just the opposite.

With hindsight should the Obama Administration been more diligent, yes, obviously. But we have not had another terrorist act under American soil in the years he has been in office, and Bin Laden is dead, so he must be doing something right.

Or maybe you agree with the ads, that have apparently been a big dud, that Obama doesn't deserve any credit for his death.

And Romney criticized the time and money being spent to get Bin Laden.

Get used to more failures from the Obama Administration because he is going to be around for another four years.

Because the American people have seen the alternative and they think it would be worse.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



Yeah, and we got the same thing from the Bush Administration about 911, there were some kind of warnings, but not specific enough to take action on. So what?

You want to play the blame game for what happened, go ahead. But I doubt you were playing that game when Bush was on the receiving end.

I haven't seen anything from Mitt Romney in the last few weeks to give me confidence he would be any better in a crisis situation. Just the opposite.

With hindsight should the Obama Administration been more diligent, yes, obviously. But we have not had another terrorist act under American soil in the years he has been in office, and Bin Laden is dead, so he must be doing something right.

Or maybe you agree with the ads, that have apparently been a big dud, that Obama doesn't deserve any credit for his death.

And Romney criticized the time and money being spent to get Bin Laden.

Get used to more failures from the Obama Administration because he is going to be around for another four years.

Because the American people have seen the alternative and they think it would be worse.
News flash Will, Bin Ladin was out of the game, enjoying his wives in Pakistan. His own people gave him up. They gave him to the Seals on a silver plater and Obama took all the credit.
What's telling is that for the past two years Ayman Al-Zawahiri has been running Alkeida. What I would ask is why is he only number 8 on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list.



His biggest failure was promising (essentially perhaps not in so many words) universal healthcare, then after being elected to office with a majority of his own party, he spent an entire year debating something that should have theoretically no trouble passing, then ending up passing essentially a re-worked version of a 90's Republican healthcare plan, which requires citizens who can't afford insurance to be penalized. Not to mention, it doesn't in anyway help control cost of treatment. Then again this is all assuming there was any actual intention of going the public option route, which is questionable.
__________________


...uh the post is up there...



Yes, certainly one of the economic failures.
To me his biggest failure is failing to secure US Embassies in the Middle East on 9/11 of this year.
He should have had 20 or so Special Ops guys stationed at each Embassy.
They could have held-off initial assaults at least until more help came and if the attacks were so large in scope to be able to overcome them, Delta teams could have been there in a reasonable amount of time, air dropped in, and if by God that wasn't enough, then certainly a full scale invasion by the US would have been justified.
Our Embassies are our sovereign territories. Woe be unto those who dare encroach them.
We need a leader that's ready to respond and do whatever it takes to let our enemies know the full extent of our power.



Yes, certainly one of the economic failures.
To me his biggest failure is failing to secure US Embassies in the Middle East on 9/11 of this year.
He should have had 20 or so Special Ops guys stationed at each Embassy.
They could have held-off initial assaults at least until more help came and if the attacks were so large in scope to be able to overcome them, Delta teams could have been there in a reasonable amount of time, air dropped in, and if by God that wasn't enough, then certainly a full scale invasion by the US would have been justified.
Our Embassies are our sovereign territories. Woe be unto those who dare encroach them.
We need a leader that's ready to respond and do whatever it takes to let our enemies know the full extent of our power.
You do realize that if the US declared war for every embassy of ours that has been attacked over the decades, our national spending would be ballooned exponentially in military spending alone, right? I'm saying as a matter of practicality, invading entire nations for the actions of a few thousand citizens is like blowing up your neighbor's house because his kids killed your cat. I'm just saying, it's not a proportional act to do so.



You do realize that if the US declared war for every embassy of ours that has been attacked over the decades, our national spending would be ballooned exponentially in military spending alone, right? I'm saying as a matter of practicality, invading entire nations for the actions of a few thousand citizens is like blowing up your neighbor's house because his kids killed your cat. I'm just saying, it's not a proportional act to do so.
We would need to do it only once, after going through the above-mentioned options. Believe me, that message would be a strong preventive measure for any subsequent attack.
In the mean time, we could certainly fortify our embassies or are we just going to alow whoever to take pot shots at us unpunished?
Also, for every country that allowed an attack on our Embassy, I would withdraw all aid.
Don't you think that it's a joke, here we are in recession and we are still giving money to our enemies and those who are not helping against our enemies.



We would need to do it only once, after going through the above-mentioned options. Believe me, that message would be a strong preventive measure for any subsequent attack.
In the mean time, we could certainly fortify our embassies or are we just going to alow whoever to take pot shots at us unpunished?
Also, for every country that allowed an attack on our Embassy, I would withdraw all aid.
Don't you think that it's a joke, here we are in recession and we are still giving money to our enemies and those who are not helping against our enemies.
You mean like how the two wars in the Middleast has made Islamic extremists stop planning attacks?



Yeah, and we got the same thing from the Bush Administration about 911, there were some kind of warnings, but not specific enough to take action on. So what?

You want to play the blame game for what happened, go ahead. But I doubt you were playing that game when Bush was on the receiving end.
Nope, I want to play the "let's ask some basic questions about what happened" game. 9/11 was heavily investigated and a lot of people asked a lot of questions about it, as they well should have. That's not happening much here, and when it does, the administration is currently refusing to answer, anyway.

Given their utterly schizophrenic response to this crisis (detailed above), it's all the more important that this happen. They've completely bungled the response.

I haven't seen anything from Mitt Romney in the last few weeks to give me confidence he would be any better in a crisis situation. Just the opposite.
Sure is amazing that everything you see somehow reinforces everything you believed before you saw it.

This is a thread about Obama's record. You can't refute this stuff with your tired, predictable line about how whatever Obama's done, Romney's (surprise!) worse. You decided it'd be a good use of the other thread to post every random negative story about Romney you could find and pretend all the negative stuff about Obama didn't exist. So guess what? That works both ways. I realize it'll probably be intensely hard for you to formulate actual defenses of this stuff, but that's the thread.




The Washington Examiner has a series of articles up about some of Obama's dealings before he became a Senator. Pretty eye-opening stuff. I knew he was involved with Tony Rezko (and it's shocking how little attention that gets). But I figured that was pretty much the worst of it. Might not be so:

For the slumlord's defense, Barack Obama, Esq.

In March 1994, a year before "Dreams" was published, Obama was the lead defense attorney on an obscure case in Cook County Court that has heretofore escaped examination by the national media.

In this case, Obama defended a Chicago slumlord and powerful political ally who was charged with a long list of offenses against poor residents. The defendant was the Woodlawn Preservation & Investment Corp., controlled by Bishop Arthur Brazier, a South Side Chicago preacher and political operator.

Brazier's burgeoning real estate empire included a low-income housing project at 6223 South University. Today, MapQuest describes the Woodlawn neighborhood as "quaint and sedate." But in the winter of 1994, it was a frigid hell.

Brazier was closely allied with Obama and his firm, not least because Davis was on WPIC's Board of Directors. Davis was also the corporation's registered agent, and he received the court summons when the city filed suit on the South University apartments.

Brazier's WPIC had failed for nearly a month to supply heat and running water for the complex's 15 crumbling apartments. On Jan. 18, 1994, the day the heat went off, Chicago's official high temperature was 11 below zero, the day after it was 19 below.

Even worse, the residents were then ordered to leave the WPIC complex in the winter chill without the due process they would have been afforded by an eviction procedure.

In court documents reviewed by The Washington Examiner, Daniel W. Weil, commissioner of Chicago's Buildings Department, slammed WPIC for multiple municipal code violations, including "failure to maintain adequate heat," failure "to provide every family unit with approved heating facilities," and "failure to provide adequate" supplies of either hot or cold running water.

Things were so bad that the city's outraged corporation counsel declared that "the levying of a fine is not an adequate remedy" and asked the court for a permanent injunction against WPIC, appointment of a receiver and imposition of a lien on WPIC to pay for repairs, attorneys' fees and court costs.

But Obama did his work so well that in the end, on March 3, 1994, the court simply fined WPIC $50. Only then did Obama tell the court of the forcible removal of tenants in the bitter cold.
Of course, Chicago is notorious for its corruption, so nobody will be surprised that this kind of stuff happened. The big takeaway is not that this is special, but that it's depressingly common. And that it's apparently not very easy to rise in that Chicago political culture without tolerating and/or faciliating it at some point.



The people who are most capable of attaining power are almost always the least suitable at using it.

I've pretty much given up on politics. Human beings are too easily corrupted, and their lives are far too short and fragile. There will never be meaningful and lasting change for the better.

So call me whatever label you like, whatever suits the agenda. I'm just a human being now.

I'm going to enjoy the bread and circuses while I still can.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Nope, I want to play the "let's ask some basic questions about what happened" game. 9/11 was heavily investigated and a lot of people asked a lot of questions about it, as they well should have. That's not happening much here, and when it does, the administration is currently refusing to answer, anyway.

Given their utterly schizophrenic response to this crisis (detailed above), it's all the more important that this happen. They've completely bungled the response.


Sure is amazing that everything you see somehow reinforces everything you believed before you saw it.

This is a thread about Obama's record. You can't refute this stuff with your tired, predictable line about how whatever Obama's done, Romney's (surprise!) worse. You decided it'd be a good use of the other thread to post every random negative story about Romney you could find and pretend all the negative stuff about Obama didn't exist. So guess what? That works both ways. I realize it'll probably be intensely hard for you to formulate actual defenses of this stuff, but that's the thread.

I have news for you; but it isn't news beause you already know it. I don't repeat every negative story about Mitt Romney. Not by a longshot. You want me to list what I have left out? What I have focused on are two stories that have dominated the news and have even Republicans questioning his judgement.

If the purpose of this thread is let's change the subject and dump on Obama instead, fine. But you show me where in that thread there is some kind of rule Obama can't be criticized?

This thread wouldn't exist if the Romney campaign wasn't in a death spiral.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
The Washington Examiner has a series of articles up about some of Obama's dealings before he became a Senator. Pretty eye-opening stuff. I knew he was involved with Tony Rezko (and it's shocking how little attention that gets). But I figured that was pretty much the worst of it. Might not be so:


Of course, Chicago is notorious for its corruption, so nobody will be surprised that this kind of stuff happened. The big takeaway is not that this is special, but that it's depressingly common. And that it's apparently not very easy to rise in that Chicago political culture without tolerating and/or faciliating it at some point.
Oh, my!

What exactly is shocking?



Yeah, the "every" is clearly hyperbole, guy. What's not hyperbole is that you selectively post only things negative for one side, and ignore all the many, many failures on the other. And we both know why: when you have a terrible record, all you can do is try to change the subject. So I'm putting it out there front and center, and you are quite welcome to try to defend it if you want. Good luck with that.

Oh, my!

What exactly is shocking?
Uh, you mean with the fact that he defended a slumlord who failed to provide heating for poor people and then kicked them out? Gee, I dunno. I can't imagine why anyone would find that shocking.