The Best President
Forums:
Obama Believing He Is "The Best President" He's Ever Been Is A "Pretty Low Bar"
Krauthammer: Obama Believing He Is " Is A "Pretty Low Bar"
Charles Krauthammer reacts to President Obama's exit interview with 60 Minutes in which he said, "I'm the best president I've ever been right now."
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I am the best president I've ever been? That's a pretty low bar. I'm sure all presidents on the week they are leaving office delude themselves into thinking they were a great, historic success. I'm sure it happens in all walks of life. And you wonder whether Obama believes it. I'm convinced he does.
I think what he doesn't quite understand is yes, he did a lot of things but they are all built on sand. And the reason is he never brought in the opposition. He never brought in the country. He wins the election when he's on the ticket and he gets crushed in all the elections when he's not because, as he said himself, I'm not on the ballot by my policies are.
He completely overshot the mandate. The mandate in '08 was to reassure a very nervous, apprehensive country and to govern sort of in a moderate way. He understood it as a mandate for his sort of social democratic -- he was Bernie Sanders before Sanders was Sanders. And he tried to govern that way and you can't for a country that is 80% non-liberal.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/16/krauthammer_obama_beli...
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dead Dead
Obama: No Regrets on Syria
Obama: No Regrets on Syria ‘Red Line’
During the Sunday airing of his interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” President Barack Obama said he has zero regret for using the phrase “red line” in 2012 when he promised to retaliate against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime if it used chemical weapons.
The death toll from Syria's five-year civil war has reached 300,000 victims, devastating Syrian villages and cities and fueling a refugee crisis that has confounded political leaders in Europe and the Middle East. More than 86,000 civilians were among the 301,781 people killed in the conflict between the regime of President Bashar Assad and rebels seeking to overthrow him, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said this week.
The new death toll represents an increase of about 9,000 people since the monitoring group released its previous count in August. Humanitarian groups sent 20 trucks filled with food, children's clothes and toys into northern Syria from the Turkish border town of Cilvegozu to try to provide some relief, Sky News reported Tuesday.
Of the nearly 5,000 deaths recorded in July, 1,289 were civilians, including 263 children and 191 women, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported. Hundreds of people were killed by airstrikes from Russian and Syrian warplanes, while 14 people were executed by the Islamic State group, which calls Syria and Iraq home. Other victims were killed by rebel groups, poor health conditions, booby trapped vehicles and various circumstances, such as "unidentified gunmen, explosions, landmines and sniper fire," the human rights group said. In all, Assad's violent regime has been linked to about 75 percent of the casualties since the war began in March 2011.
No Regrets..not a single one
yes we can
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
>Of the nearly 5,000 deaths recorded in July, 1,289 were civilians, including 263 children and 191 women, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported. Hundreds of people were killed by airstrikes from Russian and Syrian warplanes
Russian warplanes? Sounds like war crimes. Thought Putin was a great leader? Given Russia's willingness to bomb schools and hospitals, why is Donald thinking of weakening NATO and removing Russian sanctions?
Still no comment on the mouthpiece of the racist right, the Chief strategist/propagandist Steve Bannon?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dead Dead
Iran, Russia Have Filled
Iran, Russia Have Filled Vacuum Created by American Retreat from Mideast
Obama’s failure to back up his “red line” following Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s deadly chemical weapons attack on a residential neighborhood in 2013 made it “clear that the power vacuum that existed in Syria was not going to be filled by America,” Arens wrote. Having signaled that the United States would not get involved in Syria, Obama “completely misread the situation, and in response to the Russian bombing campaign warned Moscow that it would be sucked into a ‘quagmire,’ and offered to work with Russia to bring peace to Syria. But at this point Putin did not need Obama. Russia and Iran were going to settle the matter and shore up Assad’s rule in Syria.”
https://www.bridgesforpeace.com/2017/01/former-israeli-dm-iran-russia-fi...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Russia bombed hospitals and
Russia bombed hospitals and schools, yet Donald publicly complements Putin.
Why does Donald want to weaken NATO and remove Russian sanctions?
Come on, Dead2, share your thoughts on Steve Bannon. Does it comfort you that the mouthpiece of the alt Right holds such a important position in Donald's administration?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dead Dead
Who has been president for
Who has been president for the last 8 years?.. answer - obama
Who created a situation that allowed Russia and Iran to be involved with Syria? - answer - obama
What did obama do when Russia was bombing civilians in Syria? answer - nothing
What did obama do?...he did nothing..a complete and total failure..
blame obama
Obama to Russia: ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’
President Obama got caught in private conversation with a hot mic today in Seoul, South Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more "space" and that "[a]fter my election I have more flexibility."
" more flexible" what a buffoon obama is..
Russia figured obama was weak and feckless and a coward and they were 100% correct.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
The past is just that, cannot
The past is just that, cannot be changed. I've already stated that Obama bungled Syria. Place the blame where you want, but going forward it is Donald's presidency.
Why does Donald publicly complement the leader of a county that has committed war crimes, and that does not respect international borders? Why would Donald consider removing sanctions from such a county? And why does Donald want to weaken NATO?
And still nothing on the alt Right's darling Steve Bannon?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dead Dead
Why does Donald publicly
Why does Donald publicly complement the leader of a county that has committed war crimes,>
I think you are falling for the left wing propaganda..
“Russia… has chosen to be a strategic competitor. They are an adversary in key areas,” said retired Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s nominee to lead the Pentagon at his confirmation hearing Thursday.
“If Putin likes Donald Trump, I consider that an asset, not a liability,” Trump had said at his Wednesday news conference.
But he also added that he might not get along with Putin. “I hope I do. But there’s a good chance I won’t,” he said.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Johnny D
Thanks for talking about
Thanks for talking about Donald Trump, Dead2
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Propaganda?
Propaganda?
No, dead2, I've listened to Donald praise and complement Putin from the start of his presidential campaign. Putin returned the favor often, going further today.
Donald also has publicly questioned the relevance of NATO and he has said he would consider lifting sanctions against Russia.
Russia intentionally bombed hospitals and schools in Syria. That is a war crime.
Why does Donald want to weaken NATO and lift sanctions on a country that bombs hospitals?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Johnny D
>>>>>>Russia intentionally
>>>>>>Russia intentionally bombed hospitals and schools in Syria. That is a war crime.
Why are Republican Senators making such "fake" claims???
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dead Dead
Russia intentionally bombed
Russia intentionally bombed hospitals and schools in Syria. That is a war crime.>>
obama was commander in chief when hospitals and schools were bombed and civilians were being killed..What did he do?
Why does Donald want to weaken NATO and lift sanctions on a country that bombs hospitals?>>
He wants the NATO countries to pay their fair share of the cost to keep NATO going... You have a problem with that?
As far as lifting sanctions..Has Trump lifted the sanctions? I think waiting to see what really happens when President Donald Trump takes office
What are the sanctions that you speak of and what effect have they had on punishing Russia?
On February 28, Russian troops, aided by pro-Russian local militia, occupied important sites across the Crimean Peninsula under the pretext of “protecting Russian people.” Now Crimea is under Moscow’s de facto control and the Russian parliament has voted to annex the region into the Russian Federation. The failure of the Obama Administration’s Russian “reset,” the unilateral disarming of Europe, and the U.S. reduction of forces and disengagement from Europe have led Russia to calculate that the West will not respond in any significant way. The Administration can demonstrate America’s commitment to its NATO allies and support for the Ukrainian people by bolstering the defenses of NATO countries in the region, lifting restrictions on energy exports to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas, and enacting meaningful sanctions.
Regrettably, the Obama Administration has attached little importance to transatlantic relations, and Europe has barely figured in the Administration’s foreign policy. Europeans are left questioning America’s commitment to transatlantic relations.
Almost from the beginning, President Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been an empty shell masking a spectacular lack of American leadership on the world stage. This flawed approach, with a fundamental rejection of the notion of American exceptionalism, is amply on display in the Ukrainian crisis, where America’s voice has barely been heard. As the latest developments over Crimea have shown, the Russian reset has backfired spectacularly, resulting in staggering complacency in Washington over Moscow’s ambitions.
The Obama Doctrine has been a monumental failure because it fails to protect and advance U.S. interests. It is the antithesis of Ronald Reagan’s bold approach, which was based on powerful American leadership on the world stage, including a willingness to stand up firmly to America’s adversaries. Perhaps even worse, many of America’s traditional allies are questioning America’s resolve with respect to transatlantic relations and NATO’s security guarantee.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/beyond-the-crimea-crisi...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Sanctions after Crimea: Have
Sanctions after Crimea: Have they worked?
When Russia illegally annexed Crimea and started interfering in Eastern Ukraine, the West responded with economic sanctions. In July 2014, sanctions were enacted in a coordinated manner by the European Union, the United States, Canada, and other Allies and partners.These sanctions were further strengthened in September 2014. EU sanctions, which had been due to lapse in July 2015, have been extended to January 2016. The US and Canadian sanctions are open-ended.There are three types of economic sanctions. The first restricts access to Western financial markets and services for designated Russian state-owned enterprises in the banking, energy, and defence sectors. The second places an embargo on exports to Russia of designated high-technology oil exploration and production equipment. The third is an embargo on exports to Russia of designated military and dual-use goods.The justification for these Western sanctions is internationally well-understood. But to muddy the waters, Russia imposed a ban on food imports from Western nations in August 2014. That ban remains in place.After around a year of these sanctions and measures, what impacts can we see on both the Russian and European economies?For the Russian economy, the sanctions are generally assessed to have helped exacerbate the macroeconomic challenges it was already facing, notably the rapid and pronounced fall in oil prices that started in the last months of 2014.Furthermore, the combined effect of these sanctions and of the fall in oil prices caused significant downward pressure on the value of the Rouble and increased capital flight.At the same time, the sanctions on access to financing forced the Russian state to use part of its foreign exchange reserves to shore up the sanctioned entities.These developments forced the hand of the Central Bank of Russia, which abruptly ceased to defend the value of the Rouble and hike interest rates in December 2014.Russia’s ban on Western food imports had a compounding effect on this challenging picture, as it led to higher food prices and hence to further inflation. This was in addition to the effect of the fall in the value of the Rouble, which had already raised the price of imported goods and services in Roubles.Recent data confirm Russia’s entry into recession, with GDP growth of -2.2% for the first quarter of 2015, as compared to the first quarter of 2014. Recent forecasts suggest a fall in real GDP in the order of 3%-3.5% for 2015, and growth of around zero for 2016.
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Russia/sanctions-after-crimea-have-...
Don't know about the new sanctions, we will see what affect they have.
New NATO documents show that in 2016, the United States will spend about 3.6 percent of its GDP on defense. Estonia will spend about 2.2 percent, with Latvia and Lithuania setting aside just less than 1.5 percent. Estonia spent about 2 percent in 2015, with Latvia and Lithuania about 1 percent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trum...
Looks like Latvia and Lithuania are on their own.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Johnny D
Interesting interview on PBS
Interesting interview on PBS Newshour today with USA UN Ambassador Samantha Powers about Russia, Syria and what Obama should've/could've done.
Of course, you have to consider the source, but I thought that she made a good point that Obama most likely would've entered a significant conflict/war, if he pushed Syria harder after Russia jumped in on the use of chemical weapons, bombing it's own citizens, etc. For example, if USA tried to protect Syrians by taking out the Syrian air force to protect citizens of Syria, that would've most likely started a war involving Russia.
She feels that Russia is threat #1 to the USA (yes, even more than ISIS)
Easy to criticize from behind the TV set.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
^Obama most likely would've
^Obama most likely would've entered a significant conflict/war, if he pushed Syria harder...^
There was no support in Congress nor was there public support for such a military commitment.