Correct. Doesn’t make Obama look less weak and ineffectual.
Well, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad once did, more or less . . . that’s rather a special case.
Doesn’t make him look weak or ineffectual at all, to be making exactly the right responses, as he is doing.
Good. You keep thinking that…
So you are asserting that Americans expect and approve of aggressive responses to these kinds of situations, no matter how impractical? If not, what sort of response do you think they expect that does not look ‘weak and ineffectual’?
What would you be doing in his place, then?
Nothing different. And I would look as weak and ineffectual as he is looking right now.
Maybe you think we should go balls out and attack Iraq once we close that “barn door?” Would that be something you would consider “presidential?” We get hit by terrorists and then attack Iraq, mission accomplished. There is precedence for this line of thinking amongst conservatives, after all…
But I’m probably not alone in really, honestly wondering what you think Obama could do in this specific situation right now, today, that would be better than what he’s doing? What, in your eyes, in this situation, in response to this terrorist attack, should the president be doing to make himself look less “weak and ineffectual?” You just saying something over and over doesn’t make it so.
Terr has already said that there’s nothing Obama can do BUT look “weak and ineffectual.” That’s why I asked about expectations of what the voters would think, in Terr’s view.
Surprised?
So, if there’s no non-embarrassing way for a POTUS to handle this situation, it should be a perfect gimme to his challenger.
And, yet, Romney already managed to use it to make himself look worse.
It is.
Don’t believe your own propaganda.
Congratulations, you’re the first person to mention Bush in this thread.
I would be surprised if this was any more than a small percentage of Americans, subsisting primarily of mouth-breathing morons with a little too much testosterone, and a tendency to drink beer until they fall down into their own vomit.
What he can do is send a few drones, kill a few Libyans, claim that those were the ones responsible. It would be stupid and counterproductive in terms of foreign policy, but it would be politically savvy for home consumption and make him look less weak and ineffectual.
I actually expect him to do just that. Just wait a few days.
Actually, taking out a few terrorist camps would be rather prudent and productive in preventing them from effectively exploiting the situation. Since I’m not privy to the full intel on the situation, I can’t predict whether or not the administration will identify targets confidently enough to proceed.
The Romney campaign apparently does; they’re already desperately flailing for damage-control.
“Chamber”
Of course people have already posted links and cites indicating that some Republicans think Romney is blowing it here and that others are not stepping out on this particular ledge with him.
My only thought on this is that those links and cites are to mainstream media and left-wing media outlets, so they’re just propaganda, actual quotes be damned.