Is There Nothing That Obama Can't Do?

And it only took him 16 hours to decide!

The political cost of mission failure would have stuck to Obama just as he claims political credit for mission success. That you don't like it or find it politically inconvenient in your attempts to frame his FP for electoral reasons doesn't change that basic fact.

gray at April 29, 2012 5:07 AM,

You missed the point. This reads, Obama wanted to have it both ways. Heads he wins, tails the lackey loses. We all know the type and it's not a good look.

That you cannot see this would suggest you'd follow this man to hell.

No, that sort of behaviour makes him a politician.

The fact that he made a decision that any commander in chief would have made is commendable.
The fact that his arm is strained from patting himself on the back over it, is what grinds my gears.
Now about his economic decisions.....

And Obama was so quick to take credit for the raid that intelligence gathered at the site was rendered useless.

The commercial with Bill Clinton (of all people) saying Romney wouldn't have done such a raid is a disgrace.

No, Gray, it makes him Obama. This is not exactly the stuff of "The buck stops here."

Nicola,

It is a distasteful ad. especially coming from the man who wouldnt make the decision to capture or kill Bin Laden on his own watch (Clinton).

Sadly we all fall into the trap of discussing what the Obama campaign wants to talk about based on his issuing the audacious lie. Obama is in for one huge psychic shock come November. Once that happens, possibly before, the discipline of power will break and America and the world will be shocked to hear all that has and hasnt gone on.

This will be a dirty campaign, already the lines are clear, from the dems
1) GOP War on women, they will steal your ladyparts
2) Obama killed Bin Laden, so he is a leader
3) The Rich are to blame and Romeny is rich
4) Romeny is a Mormon, therefore he is weird and different.

None of those attack lines are laudatory, this isnt morning in America kind of stuff, or even reagan and the Bear. Its disjointed, negative and nasty. GOP sticks to the economy and Obama's lack of leadership, long game will win.

As I said, the psychic shock to the self aggrandizing Obama will be quite large. His final state of the union will be painful and bitter, and his final pardons will be jaw droppingly shocking.....Bill Ayres will be pardoned.

I think the dems will run on:

1. Hate the rich, it's all their fault
2. Another quantitive easing.
3. Fiddled economic numbers.
4. Promises of loadsa-dough to key sectoral groups.

rd - it wasn't 16 hours....you have to subtract the five hours he spent on the golf course that day. If you look at the photos of Obama in the war room that day, he is wearing golf attire.

I'm sure Churchill and Roosevelt had the same sort of disclaimers typed in when they sanctioned various WWII actions. Yeah, right.

Now MacKenzie King, that's a different story.

Re the 16 hours to decide. Yes Obama went and slept on it, the went and played golf. Does anyone doubt that GWB would have said yes and then gone to bed and slept like a baby?

I am sure Obama's thoughts went something like this.

"What if it fails....yeah I could blame the military....what if it leaks, hmm I would be blamed for letting him go, that would be bad. I could blame the military again, that might work....but this lets me look tough, I wold be untouchable at election time...ok think I'll do it...now, 300 yards dog leg right, better lay up. Reggie, would you pull out the 3 wood....no reggie not hat 3 wood, the secret service is around, the one I hit the ball with....no the GOLF ball.

Carter mounted a rescue attempt?!?! With all the materiel left behind, I thought it was a bungled arms deal.

Don't underestimate the Obama Gang.

They won the 2008 election for a number of reasons. The nation was tired of war and associated war with the GOP; the GOP offered a war veteran as president. The Democrats offered a totally new path - a self-image of the US as tolerant, open, healing, (rather than engaged in war) ie, electing a 'black' president.

And this president offered himself up as a cocooned being, existent in some unreal world of separate powers and emotions. Obama offered the electorate a realm made up only of words, a totally fictional realm where the oceans would cease to rise and peace would exist on earth.

This is vital. Obama has set himself up as a mythical agent who is untouched by any accountability from the real world. This is how he's behaved all his life. He refuses to accept responsibility and - people allow him to get away with this.

Note that the people rejected the Democratic Party in the 2010 election, when they returned the House to the GOP. BUT, this election was for Real People not for the Hero Fictional person who is Obama.

Obama, being Obama, utterly ignored the electoral will of the 2010 election.

He's campaigning the only way he knows: via emotional manipulation, filled with misinformation, innuendoes, divisive tactics. He's done this to get ahead all his life.
And it could work.

Note that the NDP won Quebec, with people voting for NDP candidates that had never even campaigned, never visited the riding, couldn't even speak French. People don't necessarily vote based on the candidate's record.

Obama can't campaign on his record. He'll blame all problems on others - that's how he operates. So, he'll campaign only as Himself. Charming, telling jokes, singing, setting up Romney as stuck in the mud-of-reality, while He, the Great One, is the White Knight on the Magic Horse.

Don't assume because this is all nonsense that it can't work. If the American people didn't reject him for his oceans ceasing to rise, and Canadians didn't reject NDP candidates who never campaigned, then, the electorate could continue to vote for a charming, singing manipulator.

People don't always want reality; sometimes they prefer fiction.

ET,

All fair points and a reasonable rexplaination of why he won in 2008. The 2010 election shows the American electorate wont just accept fiction....understanding that mid terms arent presidential elections, they are "safer"

We agree on his tactics for 2012 and yet I have more confidence that the US electorate, or enough of them wont buy into the song and dance. The reality of life is a little too clear to enough of them. While Obama can now claim to be experienced, the experience isnt positive for many many Americans.

Obama is trying to borrow a number of tactics from the past...he was hoping to run on the morning in America, but that isnt going to work because the economy isnt recovering fast enough. He is now on the Bill clinton path, celebrity...think clinton on Arsenio Hall playing sax...but dont think that plays well in diffcult times, Clinton had a boom going on so he was partier in chief.

He seems to be trying a bit of GWB, I am the commander in chief and the other guy isnt (think Kerry)...i.e. dont change horses in mid stream.

right now I see the Dems as trying a number of different strateies to see which works, but at some point that degenerates from experimentation into confusion.

Agreed he likes to live in a world of words, but the GOP has got his game nailed by this time. They should hang onto their economic message and the Obama record with all efforts. No matter what comes their way, these are the messages.

W ehave yet to see romney and Obama on a stage toegther, is there even a picture od the two together? Don't underestimate that photo, we will see who looks like the pretender in that photo.

ET,"People don't always want reality; sometimes they prefer fiction." Would that apply also to the recent election in Alberta?

Jamie, MacKenzie King would have discussed it with his dead mother first.

stephen - very good comments.

My concern is that since the people are worried about the economy, jobs, the debt, that the GOP focus on this, though rational and realistic will contrast with Obama's focus on his 'sunny smile and laugh'.

The GOP, I think, are now very aware of Obama's pathology, his narcissism, his manipulative tactics but are being realistic in leaving his personality alone. They are essentially saying 'he's a nice guy, isn't he, but we need more than this now'. That is, they can't chastize the American people for having chosen Obama in 2008.

As you say, the Democrats are trying every image they can: the saviour of women, the saviour of hispanics, the one-who-got-Osama, and so on.

I think these are fleeting images, but, the GOP have to come up with some positive images. That's my concern. Focusing on the problems and coming up with solutions is realistic - and the GOP have to articulate these solutions more and more. But they also have to offer emotional 'hope and change'! Romney seems to be on his way in both these areas.

Ken - no, I think the Alberta election was simply that change is always incremental. It took Harper two elections to get his first minority and then, two more elections before a majority. It was too much to expect that the WR would overturn a generation of voting habits in one election. I suspect that they will get a majority in the next election. This phase, they must show themselves as serious, capable and - get good candidates.

Well I can't agree with much on this thread except that it will be a dirty election. It is close and the GOP is starting from behind with a "not strong " candidate. They won't play nice very long.

As to the whining about "who started it". Well grow up. Thats one snivel you won't hear from me. Big boy games, big boy rules.

And if you pretend the GOP won't fight dirty as well, stop lying to yourself.

ET,

Valid concern re the GOP....you cant just complain. But part of laying the case out will be to hold Obama "accountable". As you point out Obama has never let anyone pin accountability on him. Right now the defence is, I am still dealing with the mess from 4 years ago, its Europes fault or you want to go back.

The MSM wont hold Obama accountable but the GOP will have to early and often. We will see what reaction of Obama is to being held accountable....it will be a relatively fine line to tread between accountability, blame and demonization.

The nice guy line is to prevent the charge that the GOP is demonizing or blaming Obama for everything, many Americans wont want to go that far. Partially as you point out, because they voted for him. However, saying he is ineffectual and wring headed is a way to go after Obama, the "we can't afford 4 more years" finds some fertile ground.

The positive side of the GOP message is "getting things done, unleashing the spirit of America, better America" That was the hope and change message of 2008, it is just that what happened didnt turn out the way most American imagined.

Obama has very little to point to as a general domestic accomplishment. All accomplishements are in wins in narrow constituencies. Most US elections dont turn on foreign policy.

The GOP looks to have a strategy, the Dems are counting on go out with a beer strategy, or more importantly you wouldnt go out for a beer with the other guy. 1) Romney doesnt drink beer (this could play multiple ways good and bad) 2) Obama is "nice" but not clear that he is deeply liked. GWB was LOVED by a large number of people in 2004, he was hated to. Obama is definitley disliked by a large constituency, liked by many....but as I said, the words, failed experiemtn, ineffectual and theorectical pop up often with Obama.

What the Dems raise as fears about Romney, a cutter, trimmer and "businessman" are positives at this point in time with a large group of people.

Us elections are called campaigns for a reason, right now both armies are positioning for terrain advantage and trying to shape the field of battle with skirmishes on the edge.

If I am correct I think the Dems may get very desperate when they find their broad mud against the wall strategy isnt working. October may be a very cruel month for Obama if the knives come out.

I still say he will find a defeat very very difficult to accept psychologically.

Stephen.. Not so sure about the shock in November.. American blacks will vote en-mass for Stupid.. They don't care what kind of job he is doing as long as he is at least part black.. You can see the change in the American culture already.. far more blacks featured on mainstream media.. Not such a bad thing if that is the culture you care about. Black culture is not my culture, and in my opinion a hugely inferior culture, based on hip-hop, crime,sports...etc. Also white liberals who haven't learned will vote for this guy as well. So the republicans are in for a fight, especially with a fairly non charismatic candidate like Romney.

I've never understood all the kleptocrat and obama preening over the OBL mission. Obama would have had zero input into mission planning (it was a SEAL op all the way), and per above, Maobama was more concerned with arse-covering than anything else.

Ask yourself this: what President worthy of the title would pass on taking a shot against the most wanted murdering terrorist in US history? They had reliable info for months perceding the raid, and Zero dithered until the last minute before authorizing "Mission Cover-Me". His biggest fear was how he'd be painted if it became public that he made the decision to stand down and let OBL escape during the obama regime's watch.

Some gutsy leadership, all right.

mhb23re

stephen - I agree, completely, with all your points; very nice post.

As for Obama being unable to handle a defeat psychologically - yes indeed; he's a pathological narcissist and cannot accept or allow others to reject Him. He has to feel that he controls others or he'll feel threatened. He's not a rational person; he's pathological.

The way he usually deals with people or issues that reject His control, is that he denies their existence. So, he effectively denied the results of the 2010 election, and informed everyone that Congress was a 'serious problem' within the US and was preventing 'good government'.

IF he loses in November, he'll simply consider that the electorate are too stupid for him to deal with. He's already shown his contempt for the people, and, if he feels he can't own and control them, then, they too will cease to exist. He's got quite the psychological cocoon around himself.

Adding to the mix I don't think you can write-off the "O" in the upcoming election so easily. To paraphrase our own Lizzie May "voters are stupid". We can see examples of this across the Western democracies. Socialist and Liberal Governments constantly buying the election with taxpayers money. The Trudeau liberals learned from the Kennedy democrats that you can win an election by promising the 'moon'. Now the Obama democrats have learned from the Chretien Liberals that you can divide and conquer. Appeal to enough 'disenfranchised' fractions and you'll get enough of the pieces to form a majority. "Tax the Rich", "Everyone is Legal", "Pro-choice" "Yes, we Can", these are all aimed at the electorate that can't think for themselves, the people that think the government can solve all the problems. The Obama administration have chosen their targets well, and I don't think that this upcoming election will be the forgone conclusion that the Republicans think.

Antenor - exactly right.

I have to agree that this election is nothing at all like a foregone conclusion of a win for Mittens. He's by far the better man for the job but the slime that walks will have the racist support of blacks and, has been mentioned, he'll be buying supporters with taxpayer money right out of the gate.

Some do, some don't, Obama might.

There's also something else about this campaign.

Obama is aligning himself with Bill Clinton; in effect, the two of them are campaigning as one. Clinton was liked; Obama is close to being rejected, so, he's merging himself with Clinton. Notice that this isn't a campaign on policies but on emotional bonds; that's basic Obama anyway, to latch on to emotions and manipulate people that way.

The Romney campaign has to align itself with others. Unfortunately in this game, and it is a game, not with George Bush or Cheney, but with people like Rubio, West, Christie, Jindal, Perry, and others. They'll have to go emotional as well, and that might be to focus on America and patriotism.

The Obama Gang don't focus on America and patriotism; their tactic is to divide the people into adversarial blocs and focus on the emotional glue in each bloc. So, they've got the blacks as victims, the hispanics as illegal, women as repressed, and so on. It's a campaign based on resentment.

Actually, it's a campaign of 'ressentiment', which is a postmodern term for a particular master-slave relation where you set up a population as morally good victims and clearly point out the cause of their enslavement, who are morally evil.

So, Obama points out the enemies of the hispanices (white Americans, the GOP); the enemies of blacks (Greedy rich people); he sets up the 99% vs the 1% (Rich people); the enemies of women (the GOP and the church).

This also makes these people passive and dependent. And blameless, totally blameless for their own situation. We can see this in recent comments declaring that to call an illegal immigrant 'illegal' is racist speech. What? Note what it means - that the person is morally good, and no action this person takes can remove that qualification. So, coming into America illegally does not define them as doing something wrong; they are, totally, morally good.

Be careful; emotions can't necessarily be trumped by facts or reason or logic. The Obama Gang's campaign is all about Ressentiment Emotions and the Enemies of the Good Who Are Victims.

Jamie:

I'm sure Churchill and Roosevelt had the same sort of disclaimers typed in when they sanctioned various WWII actions

I'm pretty sure they didn't. They actually (for the most part) left the war to the generals. (Winnie, trading on his WWI experience, tried to stump for a few operations. Considering his rep from Gallipoli, maybe he should have stayed quiet.) But one of the things I really liked about Eisenhower was he wrote a letter on the eve of D-Day to be released in the event it was a failure. In the letter, he took full responsibility:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air [force] and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.

That's class. It's inconceivable that Bambam would ever take this kind of responsibility.

Kevin,

Nice reminder. Even reagan took responsibility for iran contra.

Oblamea?...as they say in the princess bride....inconceivable. the weasal memo shows that.

It seems with every election there are more people that fit the saying "there are more people that vote for a living than work for a living".

This defined the Alberta election in many ways as Liberals swung their votes to the PCs to keep their "entitlements" flowing as Redford promised. The Ontario urban vote follows the same mentality, huge public employee base with a growing government dependent one.

This is the US situation also as we see in California. The devastation of the economy means nothing as long as I get mine.

This is why France will go socialist again, too hard to be fiscally solvent and its unfair.

kevin - right, Obama never takes responsibility, but he does take credit.

My concern is the current Obama Gang elevation of 'victimhood' to a status of celebration. Thus, the poor, the illegals, the gangs, the sick, women, are defined as victims of Those Who are Not Them; namely the wealthy, the legal, the professionals, the healthy, and men. They are celebrated as human, as belonging, morally, to an elevated status. The opposite side are the Oppressors and are morally corrupt.

So, Romney is wealth and thus corrupt. He's a male and thus corrupt. Obama aligns himself with The Women and so, escapes this definition. Obama aligns himself with the Illegal Hispanics and is thus, morally superior to those who reject illegal entrance.

It's quite a narrative, and watch them develop it over the campaign. That is, as I see it, the campaign on the Democratic side is focusing on two themes:

First, The Good Guy, who is a merger of Obama and Clinton. This is someone who wants to do good. He may not succeed, held back as he is by Congress, by Bush, by the Europeans, by the Japanese tsunami..but all that matters is His Goodness.

And, the ideology of Ressentiment, where huge portions of the population are defined as Victims, morally superior in their victimhood, and enslaved as such by the Evil amoral Masters, who are the wealthy, men, Congress, various states, the GOP, etc.

In 2008 Obama's narrative was all about the Evils of War and Bush; he was the pure idealist who would bring Hope and Change.
In 2012, Obama's narrative is all about the pure morality of the 'dispossessed'.[Note: their problems are due to him and his economic policies but he won't admit this]. So, these people who are jobless, who are illegal, who are women, who are black, hispanic...are all morally superior and pure. He is the Good Guy, like Clinton, who will help them.

Don't underestimate these narratives.

Obama would never get caught in a “Blackhawk Down” because he only leads from behind…if it goes well he takes credit, if not…he’s not accountable. By merging with Bubba “the great triangular” Clinton, he is able to hedge many Democrat special interests, this will be hard for the GOP to contest.

This harkens back to the Chretien and Liberal days of being an “Honest Broker” on Foreign Policy; e.g. collecting poltical donations and support from the Jews while marching with Hezbollah.

Liberals see themselves as always being morally superior because they never make mistakes, because they never take a position.

In order to maintain the illusion of superiority they do not risk taking a stand on issues. When they call themselves “honest brokers” that really means that they are on all sides of an issue. Taking a stand is risky because sometimes the stand appears to be wrong…witness the case of PMSH backing the most democratic country in the ME, Israel, when sometimes the Palestinians have a legitimate beef. Also, progressives continually apologize for the West when "No Apology" (as Mitt’s book recounts) is necessary for trying to advocate liberty and sometimes inadvertently making mistakes.

But liberals don’t understand the concept of risk/reward. Therefore, because these progressives are “honest brokers” they can’t design poltical product because they can’t please everyone with one size fits all; only the markets can sort out what people want and big government progressives don’t want the market deciding, THEY want to decide. But without clear policy they have no product to sell. Hence they put all their eggs in the basket of the “celebrity-leader” or a Messiah. Then when the series of Messiahs don’t deliver the miracles the Party blows up and disappears… like the Liberals just did.

ET and others,

Omney winning is definitely not a sure thing. The shock in November is IF Obama loses, I think it will be a major shock to him.

As for the liklihood. There are many contradictions in the dem stratey and it is subject to unravelling. If it does unravel it will happen with lots of recrimination. Like many dem coalitions it relies on disparate groups coming together to be paid off....it is a transactional relationship. GOP coalitions, when done correctly are driven more by an ideological/patriot sense. A deeper drive when it, I repeat, when it works.

It looks like thats where they are headed, but 6 months to go, so lots of time for success and failure on all sides.

The report demonstrates that Obama is a weasel... not news just another footnote in the record of a person whose entire life is a story of being given a pass for no special reason.

The ony reason Obama got the nod from the Democrat establishment is because they could make him out to be whatever they chose ... making him nothing but a tool of the absolutely corrupt political establishment.

Don't be surprised at anything ... Obama the weasel will say or do anything to keep his position .... the democrats will do anything to keep their tool in the machinery.

The irony here is that Obama is so much like Nixon ... in fact he should be considered the Democrat's Nixon. An even lower mediocrity ... but still nothing but a tool.

OMMAG please take a piece of paper and divide it into two columns, in column one list all of Nixon's accomplishments that changed our world for the better. Then in column two list all the Obama's accomplishments that changed our world for the better.

Can you see a difference?

ET, Stephen, and others, some excellent posts

what also needs to be considered is that if ther GOP personally attacks, or appears to, the Zero he may be able to cash in on sympathy votes due to "white guilt"

and the posts in here demonstrate that democracy as we know it is on life support, as elections are now largely popularity contests witha large helping of mud slinging, real issues be damned

the executive order to get Obama dead or alive was signed by GW Bush, and excutive orders live on through executive (president) change So if thing had "Cartered"(failed), the zero could have tried to Oblaimbush:-)))There is also the fact that Valery Jerritt had advised the zero atleast 3 timed to not wack Osama.

I think white guilt is disappearing fast. See both the Skip Gates incident and te Trayvon Martin incident. Simple assumptions aren't being allowed anymore and people are demanding due process and facts. I dont think "white America" if such a thing exists, so willingly takes up the yoke of racism as soon as it is alleged.

The election of Obam was part of that. Why would you let yourself be accused of racism when you voted for black president. That doesnt stop the race hustlers from trying, but Obama's election did change that part of it. Now he can be defeated just like Carter, no racism involved. You don't succeed, you dont get term 2.

We have nothing to fear but Pakistani embarrassment itself.

KevinB at April 29, 2012 2:34 PM

Missed the "Yeah, right", KevinB? ;)

Obama ignores whatever he cannot control. He lost control of Congress, in particular, the House, which alone deals with finance, in November 2010. Result? Obama ignores them.

Congress voted to freeze funding to Palestine in the fall of 2011.

Congress said: “[N]o funds available to any United States Government department or agency … may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.” Obama literally waived that statutory language off yesterday afternoon."

Obama, this Friday, unfroze the funds and signed a waiver to send them 192 million. He simply ignores Congress. The White House spokesman "Vietor added that the PA had fulfilled its major obligations, such as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting the Road Map for Peace."

But this is untrue.

"In sum, everything Obama is saying about Palestinian compliance is a lie. Even if we were not broke, we should not be giving the PA a dime. To borrow money so we can give it to them is truly nuts."

My concern is the extent, the sheer arrogance, of Obama's indifference to the elected representatives of the American people. They froze the funds; Obama ignores this action and does - what He wants. On his own.

This is basic totalitarianism. What is going on?

Trying to predict this stuff is like trying to forecast the weather...

OBOZOs defiance of Congress' aid freeze to the PA should lose him the jewish vote but that bizarre constituency..largely secular is more leftist than jewish.....

As far as Getting OBL the scuttlebutt spreading rapidly is that OBL got whacked in spite of OBOZO not because of him. He was unaware the game was on and had to be rushed back from the links...Valarie Jarrette with no authority ordered a stand-down thrice and was ignored...OBOZO returned from the links and was ALLOWED to watch...if he sta down and STFU...it was a type of palace revolt....and that is out and running.

It would have been more productive to have flown
in and captured the ISI headquarters staff personnel,
kept the best story tellers and shot the rest.
.