Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
May 24, 2016, 10:24:21 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Author Topic: Obama incompetence  (Read 2352 times)
Soul Crusher
Getbig V
Posts: 12174

Doesnt lie about lifting.

« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2014, 05:28:47 AM »

Obama, the Virtuoso Manager-Why criticism of the president’s “incompetence” is wrong.
Frontpagemagazine ^  | 10-21-14 | Caroline Glick

Posted on ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2014‎ ‎8‎:‎05‎:‎40‎ ‎AM by SJackson

Since he assumed office nearly six years ago, US President Barack Obama has been dogged by allegations of managerial incompetence. Obama, his critics allege, had no managerial experience before he was elected. His lack of such experience, they claim, is reflected in what they see as his incompetent handling of the challenges of the presidency.

In everything from dealing with the Congress, to reining in radical ideologues at the IRS, to handling the chaos at the Mexican border, to putting together coordinated strategies for dealing with everything from Ebola to Islamic State (IS), Obama’s critics claim that he is out of his league. That he is incompetent.

But if Israel’s experience with him is any guide, then his critics are the ones who are out to sea. Because at least in his handling of US relations with the Jewish state, Obama has exhibited a mastery of the tools of the executive branch unmatched by most of his predecessors.

Consider two stories reported in last Friday’s papers.

First, in an article published in The Jerusalem Post, terrorism analyst and investigative reporter Steven Emerson revealed how the highest echelons of the administration blocked the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office from assisting Israel in finding the remains of IDF soldier Oron Shaul.

Shaul was one of seven soldiers from the Golani Infantry Brigade killed July 20 when Hamas terrorists fired a rocket at their armored personnel carrier in Gaza’s Shejeia neighborhood.

As Emerson related, after stealing his remains, Hamas terrorists hacked into Shaul’s Facebook page and posted announcements that he was being held by Hamas.

Among other things it did to locate Shaul and ascertain whether or not he was still alive, the IDF formally requested that the FBI intervene with Facebook to get the IP address of the persons who posted on Oron’s page. If such information was acquired quickly, the IDF might be able to locate Oron, or at least find people with knowledge of his whereabouts.

Acting in accordance with standing practice, recognizing that time was of the essence, the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office began working on Israel’s request immediately. But just before the US Attorney secured a court order to Facebook requiring it to hand over the records, the FBI was told to end its efforts.

In an order that senior law enforcement officials told Emerson came from Attorney General Eric Holder’s office, the FBI was told that it needed to first sign an “MLAT,” a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Israel, a procedure that would take weeks to complete, and is generally used in cases involving criminal prosecutions and other non-life threatening issues.

In other words, facing a bureaucracy acting independently, Holder – reportedly Obama’s most trusted cabinet secretary – acted quickly, decisively and effectively. And thanks to his intervention at the key moment, although Israel was able – after an exhaustive forensic investigation – to determine Oron’s death, today it is poised to begin negotiations with Hamas for the return of his body parts.

Then there was the unofficial arms embargo.

In August, The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House and State Department had stopped the Pentagon at the last minute from responding favorably to an Israeli request for resupply of Hellfire precision air-to-surface missiles. The precision guided missiles were a key component of Israel’s air operations against missile launchers in Gaza. The missiles’ guidance systems allowed the air force to destroy the launchers while minimizing collateral damage.

In keeping with the standard decades-long practice, Israel requested the resupply through European Command, its military-to-military channel with the US.

And in keeping with standard practice, the request was granted.

But then the White House and State Department heard about the approved shipment and spun into action. As in the case of Oron’s Facebook page, they didn’t reject Israel’s request. They just added a level of bureaucracy to the handling of the request that made it impossible for Israel to receive assistance from the US government in real time.

As State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf put it at the time, “We’re not holding anything. A hold indicates, technically, that you are not moving forward on making a decision about a transfer…. These requests are still moving forward; there’s just additional steps in the process now, and there’s been no policy decision made to not move forward with them…. They’re just going to take a little while longer.”

The Hellfire missiles, along with other ammunition Israel requested during the war, arrived in September – a month after the cease-fire went into effect.

On Friday veteran military affairs reporter Amir Rappaport reported in Makor Rishon that the hold on the Hellfire missiles was only one aspect of the White House’s decision to stop arms shipments to Israel during the war. Shortly after Operation Protective Edge began, the administration stopped all contact with the Defense Ministry’s permanent procurement delegation in the US.

According to Rappaport, for the first time since the 1982 war in Lebanon, “The expected airlift of US ammunition [to the IDF] never arrived at its point of departure.”

The difference between Obama’s actions during Operation Protective Edge and Ronald Reagan’s partial arms embargo against Israel 32 years ago is that Reagan made his action publicly. He argued his case before the public, and Congress.

Obama has done no such thing. As was the case with the FAA’s scandalous ban on flights to Ben-Gurion Airport during the war, Holder’s prevention of the FBI from helping Israel find Oron, and Obama’s arms embargo were justified as mere bureaucratic measures.

As Harf claimed in relation to the embargo, there was no hostile policy behind any of the hostile policy moves. Obama and his senior advisors are simply sticklers for procedure. And since during the war Obama insisted that he supported Israel, policymakers and the public had a hard time opposing his actions.

How can you oppose a hostile policy toward Israel that the administration insists doesn’t exist? Indeed, anyone who suggests otherwise runs the risk of being attacked as a conspiracy theorist or a firebrand.

The same goes for Obama’s policy toward Iran. This week we learned that the administration has now offered Iran a nuclear deal in which the mullahs can keep half of their 10,000 active centrifuges spinning.

Together with Iran’s 10,000 currently inactive centrifuges which the US offer ignores, the actual US position is to allow Iran to have enough centrifuges to enable it to build nuclear bombs within a year, at most.

In other words, the US policy toward Iran exposed by Obama’s nuclear offer is one that enables the most active state sponsor of terrorism to acquire nuclear weapons almost immediately.

But Obama denies this is his policy. For six years he has very deftly managed Congressional opposition to his wooing of the Iranian regime by insisting that his policy is to reduce the Iranian nuclear threat and to prevent war.

Opposing his policy means opposing these goals.

Consistent polling data show that Obama’s policies of harming Israel and facilitating Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear arsenal are deeply unpopular. His successful advancement of both policies despite this deep-seated public opposition is a testament to his extraordinary skill.

On the other hand, Obama’s virtuoso handling of the federal bureaucracy and Congress also reveal the Achilles heel of his policies. He conceals them because he cannot defend them.

Obama’s inability to defend these policies means that politicians from both parties can forthrightly set out opposing policies without risking criticism or opposition from the administration.

How can Obama criticize a serious policy to support Israel when he claims that this is his goal? And how can he oppose a serious policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons when he says that he shares that goal? At least as far as Israel is concerned, Obama’s mastery of the federal bureaucracy is complete. It is not incompetence that guides his policy. It is malicious intent toward the US’s closest ally in the Middle East. And to defeat this policy, it is not necessary to prove incompetence that doesn’t exist. It is necessary to show that there are far better ways to achieve his declared aims of supporting Israel and blocking Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Getbig V
Posts: 12174

Doesnt lie about lifting.

« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2014, 01:50:41 PM »
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Getbig V
Posts: 12174

Doesnt lie about lifting.

« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2014, 06:24:47 AM »

Twinkle, twinkle little czar

The nation waits for Ron Klain to fix Obama's Ebola policy

Tuesday, October 28, 2014, 3:46 AM



















Share this URL    .


Paging Dr. Klain.

Highest priority question for President Obama: What the hell is your Ebola czar doing, anyway?

After hesitation, confusion and flubs, Obama on Oct. 17 named Ron Klain to ride herd on the U.S. response to the deadly virus. The White House advertised Klain as the ultimate political and bureaucratic fixer.

All would be better, the administration promised in the throes of criticism that the President’s performance testified to governmental incompetence. Since then, hesitation and confusion still prevail, presaging flubs to come.

The latest milestones in incoherence:

Anonymous White House sources spread word that the administration is none too pleased by the quarantine orders issued by Gov. Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Christie.

Then, federal health official Dr. Anthony Fauci says on television that he “would not have recommended” mandatory quarantines for health-care workers returning from West Africa, asserting that science dictated a less restrictive policy.

Then, America, if not the world, waits and waits and waits for the Centers for Disease Control to issue protocols for dealing with Ebola health-care workers and people who travel to the U.S. after contact with someone carrying the disease.

Then, the Army quarantines the commander of U.S. Army Africa and about 10 soldiers who are returning from duty in West Africa — even though they show no symptoms and are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus if they carry it.

Just as Cuomo’s protocol directs, the Army staff will be monitored for 21 days.

Finally, the CDC issues standards for monitoring, but not isolating, people who were exposed to Ebola sufferers and do not show symptoms.

And the White House put out word that, pre-czar, Obama had seethed at his staff’s failure to take command of the Ebola response. What’s beyond seething?

The federal government could barely design a more discombobulated message about how it intends to reduce the risk that the virus will reappear on domestic soil.

While the CDC rolls its eyes at Cuomo and Christie — branding them politically driven alarmists — the military wisely followed Cuomo’s abundance-of-caution route. When consequences can be disastrous even though risks are small, it is better to avoid the possibility of grave harm.

What’s suitable for members of the armed forces — whose service we honor, just as we honor that of health-care volunteers — ought to be suitable for American civilians.

Included among them, of course, would be nurse Kaci Hickox, who was sent home to Maine after testing negative for Ebola. She had accused Christie of violating her rights by placing her in mandatory quarantine at University Hospital in Newark. The governor of far less densely populated Maine is now left to set the rules for protecting his citizens.

And where is the czar as his country calls? He’s behind the scenes in Washington — and behind the curve as well.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Getbig V
Posts: 12174

Doesnt lie about lifting.

« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2014, 10:11:49 AM »

Ex-Administration Official Sums Up The Obama Administration's Insularity In One Brutal Sentence
BI ^  | 10-27-2014 | Brett LoGiurato

Posted on ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2014‎ ‎12‎:‎38‎:‎50‎ ‎PM by blam

Brett LoGiurato
 October 28, 2014

Politico Magazine editor Michael Hirsh asked on Monday whether the Obama administration was full of a "team of bumblers" on the foreign policy and national security sides.

At the heart of the criticism is the charge that the Obama White House is too insular and often doesn't have a strategy.

According to House Armed Services Committee staffers who spoke to Hirsh, there is often a lack of coordination among the White House, Capitol Hill, and the Pentagon. And the general feeling is that the administration's National Security Council, which has beefed up to 300 members from 50, is reacting to a series of crises, rather than being proactive with a coherent strategy.

"There is a sense that the NSC is run a little like beehive ball soccer, where everyone storms to wherever the ball is moving around the field," one former administration official said.


(Excerpt) Read more at ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!