I saw this opinion piece and thought it was an interesting take on what someone outside the partisan bickering in the US thinks about what is going on.

I don't agree with the premise Obama is the weakest president in history and I actually applaud his decision not to unilaterally intervene in Libya.

It seems others aren't so understanding.. Imagine that.. haha


BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...

Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.

Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention. Even the Arab League, a notoriously conservative organisation, has declared support for sanctions. But from the White House has come only the blah-blah of bland statements filled with meaningless expressions and vague phrases. Of decisive action and leadership – even of clearly defined opinion – there is precious little sign.

What is the Obama administration’s position on the protests in the Gulf island state of Bahrain, which the authorities there are savagely suppressing with the help of troops shipped in from Saudi Arabia? What is the White House view on the alarming prospect of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia itself? Who knows? Certainly not the American people, nor the leaders of nations which would consider themselves allies of America.

The President has not really shared his views, which leads us to conclude that he either doesn’t know or chooses, for reasons best known to himself, not to say. The result is that a very real opportunity to remove an unpredictable despot from power may well have been lost. Who knows when or if such an opportunity will come along again?

Every day for almost the last two months our television screens, radio broadcasts and the pages of our newspapers have been filled with the pictures, sounds and words of the most tumultuous events any of us can remember in the Arab world. The outcome of these events, once the dust has settled, could literally change the world. Yet Obama seems content to sit this one out. He has barely engaged in the debate. Such ostrich-like behaviour is not untypical of the 49-year-old President who burst through America’s colour barrier to become the first African-American to occupy the White House.

Two days after taking office in January 2009, he pledged to close down the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, which has become notorious for holding detainees for years without trial. Obama promised to lose the prison within 12 months and to abolish the practice of military trials of terrorism suspects. It was an important promise. America’s reputation had been severely tarnished by revelations about the conditions at Guantanamo, by reports of waterboarding and extraordinary rendition (transporting prisoners to a third country for torture) and by the appalling treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Closing Guantanamo was a redemptive gesture. Two years on, not only is the prison still in use but its future is as assured as ever. Ten days ago, the President signed an executive order reinstating the military commissions at the island prison. Human rights organisations were outraged. “With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law,” said Amnesty International while Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, declared the President’s action to be “unlawful, unwise and un-American.”

White House spokesmen insisted the President was still committed to closing Guantanamo, which currently has 172 detainees in custody. It was Congress, they said, that had refused to sanction the transfer of the prisoners to the US mainland for trial, leaving no option but to keep the prison open in Cuba. Very little has been achieved in the quest to secure peace in the Middle East. Under Obama, US foreign policy is founded on extreme caution. At first this cool-headedness was a welcome change from the naked aggression of George W Bush and his henchmen Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-#ixzz1GxjMFuuC

This is what we get with people voting in Knee Jerk reactions. There is a lot Obama WON'T say because he know the outrage against him it would cause. Obama IS worst than Jimmy Carter and that says a lot!

and the uk was doing WHAT about any of these things the writer is so disenchanted about ,,,exactly?


respect for opinions, my mom says, 'like buttholes, everyones got one'


I am sure there are no shortage of opinions around the world, some supporting american leadership and some not, and many not exactly well versed in what the president of the us actually has AUTHORITY to do. Sounds like this person wants the president to do more posturing so they can SEE and HEAR what he is doing. I think it will be history to record what accomplishments and/or failures he has actually CONTRIBUTED to.

I, as a student of history, always believe that history repeats itself and it has happened many times over.Mr Obama is doing what he has to do in light of events going on. I was taught to respect the President no matter who they are. I don't agree with their views, but I have respect for them because I could never do that job myself. a Lot of responsibilty on that person's shoulders.!!!!

I agree. I respect the office and mostly see the person as a spokesperson for the country. I believe most do the best they can and I dont hold them personally or solely responsible for ANYTHING that doesnt fall under their (very limited) exclusive authority. I do hold them responsibe for the reputation and relationships they keep as 'spokesperson for the US' with other countries and governments.

the only thing i heard he was doing is going on a vacation...lots of responsibility on the shoulders there...

well, five days in another country where (vacation or not) he will be there as the US PRESIDENT. Very little true privacy and relaxation under those circumstances, plenty of meetings and appearances , I guess, which will strengthen ties with that part of the world for at least that moment.

yea....let them eat cake...

So the Press Secretary is the spokesman for the spokesman?

LMAO

Yes, just as a press agent speaks for the SPOKESPERSON of a pageant(pageant winner).

sounds silly, but thats precisely right in terms of REAL AUTHORITY.
The president is limited in his REAL AUTHORITY, he is mostly a mouthpiece for certain issues in government and a mediator/representative between governments.

He is the chief executive and commander in chief of the armed forces.

Comparing the president to a pageant winner is VERY silly..

its the simplest analogy I can come up with

yes , he is commander in chief of the armed forces, BUT

even to make treaties or wars, he needs the approval of CONGRESS

because of the checks and balances of our constitution,

CONGRESS IS THE REAL POWER IN THE US

When was the last time congress declared war?

Executive orders bypass Congressional approval.

upon research, it looks as if it was 2003, operation iraqi freedom

technically, thats a 'military engagement',.,.. the last FORMAL war appears to be 1941

I thougth the US dispensed a long time ago with declaring war.

What's the difference? In countries we bomb, the people won't notice the explosions in the soup bowl, or bullets throughout the night, unless we tell them first, this is what's goint to happne?

It's like saying the weather. WE have to check the skies. The rain won't go on national television and say it's going to hail us with bullet-size ice particles, unless we satisfy its demands, and then list the demands.

Declaring war is for sissies.

Lybia may even seek for an ally, like Japan, Russia or China! Or send its citizens to the shelter-proof bunkers, if it's going to know ahead of time when the marines would come.

They used the war powers resolution in 2003..

There hasn't been a formal declaration of war since world war 2.

Its always a good idea to dispense with the constitution whenever you feel the need to go to war..

It has worked out so well, hasn't it?

History does not always repeat itself. Not at all. For instance, there had never been a Black African American Caribbean Muslim Islamic Reasonable Smart president in the United States. If one thing fits, some others won't.

In fact, I am now not even sure if Obama is making anything in his presidency into a repeatable paradigm. He is lying, he is not standing up to his promises.

Sounds familiar?

Yes, I eat my words, Mr. Hartfeld, Mr. Obama is doing the same thing as all his predecessors did, over and over again.

Funny how you respect the presidents... even though you don't agree with their views.

If a prez says in his election promise to do something, or in his term, and worse, gives a date by which he commits to now to accomplish that task by, AND the date comes and goes and nothing happens, then bang, he's a liar. I am not a religious man, but morals end ethics I believe in, and making 142 terribly suffering men get disappointed, after having given them hope and a definite promise to others, that their extreme suffering will end, AND the date comes and goes, and nothing changes in the torture routine, then f him, sorry, this is not something a man with a soul could or should do to other living men with souls.

My mother survived the holocaust, and even the f nazi guards did not say to the prisoners in Auschwitz, "next Tuesday everyone who wants to, can go home", onlyu to say mext Wednesday, "sorry, girls, we were joking. Back to work, starvation and turture."

This is sub human.

You're right, absolutely.

When you go to the can after a good meal, you don't take your dessert there with you to nibble on while you grund out a big one.

Sorry, I replaced one word in your post with a better meshing one. I am alerting you to it so you won't sue me for inordinantificated misquoting prurience.

I don't think you've ever sued me, but never mind, it's always better to be safe than sorry.