If Bush was the decider, is Obama the indecider or undecider or nondecider?

Does "Miserable Failure" still link to the White House from Google?

Because at least now it would be accurate.

Democrats: "Projection is just a river in Egypt."

'I'm not a details guy'
- Barack Obama

During his 8 years spent sitting in the Illinois state legislature, Obama distinguished himself solely by voting "Present" 129 times. On many occasions, he was the ONLY man or woman in the building who did not have the balls to vote "Yes" or "No". And now people are shocked, shocked to find that he seems rather unCommanderInChief-like?

Ponder Obamas statements and actions, given that he knew about the secret Iranian facilities from before he was sworn in as President. He has known about the facility during all of his diplomacy toward Iran.

Obama knew this when he said "We will extend our hand if you will unclench your fist".

Let's see: $1 trillion and counting to establish an Islamic-Shiite state in Iraq. Not a secular state like Turkey. A state that thinks Iran is a great friend (Maliki hugs Ahmendinejad every chance he gets).
That was Bush's folly.

So far, Obama has not topped that. He even shows up for work.

It is early yet. I just hope he pulls out of Iraqistan before we spend too much more money.

Let's be honest. The only thing that Obama could do regarding Iran to make Marty Peretz happy is to start bombing them. Yesterday.

Meanwhile, his comments totally disregard that fact that Obama appears to have totally played the Iranians by playing nice, letting them make all of their false claims, and then utterly discrediting them in front of the entire world. With the Prime Minister of the UK and President of France (!) standing by his side in full support. Even the Russian president is admitting that stronger sanctions against Iran may now be "inevitable". (whether stronger sanctions actually is a good idea is a debate to be left for another day).

I also don't see how it's un-CIC-like to take a little time making decisions on complicated issues. While I'd like to see us leave Iraq immediately, and probably Afghanistan, too, he's not acting precipitously in either theater. I know some of you all were big fans of the decider, but for me, I'd prefer the president take some time, get the additional information that the President has but a Senator running for President does not, and make careful decisions that reflect the new information.

We'll see how you talk when Iran lights off a nuke test.

Obama's known about the "secret" nuke site since before inauguration, and still was willing to talk to Ahmadinejad with no preconditions.

Obama is weak. Iran now knows this. They're counting on it.

If weakness = holding back damaging info about your enemies until you can most effectively use it against them to: 1) build support among your allies, and 2) alienate them from their supporters, then yes, Obama showed weakness by not making that info public and simultaneously being willing to talk to the Iranians.

The "Decider" was all about preconditions before talking to people. And we can all see how great that worked at discouraging the nuke programs in Iran and North Korea. Obama's approach might not work either. But the obsession with preconditions and their presence or absence indicating strength or weakness is silly. It's all about what gets the job done. And right now, Obama's doing a better job at putting international pressure on Tehran than his predecessor.

Let see: Within eight months and 11 days of Bush taking office, bin Laden was able to topple the WTC. That happened on Bush's watch. He was warned, and he was especially warned by Sandy Berger, decampping Clintonite. Bush scoffed, and said his Saudi friends would keep him well-informed.
So far, we are eight months and 29 days into Obama's watch. No successful terrorist attacks yet.
Obama has kept us safe longer than Bush did, already.

a-hole and whatever still believe that the UN is going to stand up to Iran and that swiss cheese sanctions from the security council will do the trick in Iran. Ya, like 10 years of sanctions did anything to Iraq. But you morons go ahead and sing cumbaya with borat while Iran develops nukes and a missile system to deliver them, all the while being run by religious fanatics who have already sworn to wipe israel off the map, along with us for supporting israel. You want to talk to that f-head and Iran do it yourself and prepare to glow. I love pacifism, it worked well against Japan and Germany too.

And we are counting on pressure from russia? What are you smoking? The same Russia that is selling Iran a missile system that will most likely be used to shoot down American planes in the very near future, ya we need allies like that. You are naive if you think Israel is going to stand by and let this little exercise continue unabated. And France ? I wont even mention those pussies

And we can all see how great that worked at discouraging the nuke programs in Iran and North Korea.

Yeah, I gotta admit that Clinton and Carter did a bang-up job on North Korea.

It's all about what gets the job done. And right now, Obama's doing a better job at putting international pressure on Tehran than his predecessor.

Really? He pulled missile defense from Poland in exchange for Russia saying we might support sanctions. China's laughing up their sleeves. North Korea got caught sending a boat of nuke tech to Iran. Iran's working with Venezuela on a nuke program.

And the French are talking tougher than Obama is.

But this by you is progress?

When are you going to admit that Obama's a failure? When Tel-Aviv or Rome is a smoking cinder?

He was warned, and he was especially warned by Sandy Berger, decampping Clintonite.

A lie.

Ya, like 10 years of sanctions did anything to Iraq.

Yeah, their military and WMD programs were in tip-top shape when we invaded! No effects at all, just none. Iraq was a regional powerhouse, ready to unleash destruction at Saddam's word.

But you morons go ahead and sing cumbaya with borat

Yeah, ron, yeah! Keep it up, love the incisive comments! Your penetrating intellect and deep understanding shines through in every carefully considered piece of prose. Hitchens has nothing on you.

And the French are talking tougher than Obama is.

But this by you is progress?

YES!

If you think, as I do, that we actually need our allies to sometimes be the ones who talk tough, then yes I think it's progress. Sarko isn't Chirac, and it's good to give him a chance to step up.

He pulled missile defense from Poland in exchange for Russia saying we might support sanctions.

I also think this was smart. Missile defense is a joke and the Polish people are happy it's gone.

If all you want from our foreign policy is mindless aggression and blustering tough talk, then you'll think this is weak.

whatever, Saddam's military was in shambles because of gulf war one. He had absolutely no problems selling oil during the sanctions, as evidenced by his continued palace building and large sums of cash spirited to Swiss bank accounts. He lost interest in the military other than being able to control the kurds and shiites, which he could do with his republican guards. He never had a chance to win that a war against the US and he knew it. He placed his bet on the "dont come" line by thinking that the US would just continue to pull a Bill Clinton, lob a couple of cruise missiles his way, and call it a day. He lost that bet big time

i-hole, Bush succeeded a president whose attitude was that terrorism was a legal issue and whose National Security people had been unable to prevent the first WTC attack, the Cole attack, the African embassy attacks, etc.

Clinton's anti-terrorism strategy was to investigate and prosecute after the attack. Unfortunately, that strategy did little to prevent future attacks and not enough to impede future al Qaeda operations.

So, Bush tried a new tack. Bush engaged al Qaeda and set loose the intelligence agencies to try and find al Qaeda before the attack.

Thus, Obama succeeded a president on whose watch the US military killed more terrorists and potential terrorists than on the watch of the prior four presidents.

Small wonder that it is taking al Qaeda longer to recover from Bush's policies than from Clinton's. Remember, most of al Qaeda's top leadership is dead in Waziristan or in Iraq.

What's more, intelligence agencies worldwide coordinate anti-terrorist information in ways they couldn't conceive of before 9/11 and the Madrid and London attacks. Obama is benefitting from that cooperation. Attackers are being taken down before they can put their plans in motion (witness the recent anti-terrorism arrests).

And, i-hole, Bush's people were only warned that "something was up" and that there was talk of hijacking planes. Since hijacking in those pre-9/11 days still meant flying to a friendly regime, killing a passenger or two to make a point, and demanding ransom, the method of being prepared was to have the Deltas and a large transport plane standing by.

No one, not the Clintonites nor the Bushies, foresaw the hijack and kamikaze attack the 9/11 hijackers carried out.

Yes, there were pieces that, in hindsight, should have been put together to give a clear picture of what was coming. But, then, hindsight is always 20/20.

...he was especially warned by Sandy Berger....

Maybe he was distracted by all the national secrets Berger had stuffed in his pants.

Bush established a Islamic-Shiite government in Iraq, now pally-wally with Iran. Not a secular government, such as Turkey. Explain that, again. Oh, it cost us $1 trillion, and counting, and 5,000 dead.

After 9/11, Bush went publicly, with fanfare, and prayed at a mosque in DC. Explain that. Boy, that looked strong.

Bush established an opium-narco state in Afghanistan, where now the vice-president is a drug lord, according to George Will. Problem is, the Taliban and Al Queda are benefitting from the drug trade. Explain that.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. He was asleep at the switch. Explain that. He was warned, repeatedly. Why were the 9/11 hijackers almost all Saudi Arabians? Why do Bush pals in Saudi Arabia finance an international system of schools which teach an extremist form of Islam?

Do you think Obama loves Saudi Arabia as much as Bush? Why or why not? Has a Saudi sheik come to the USA and done kissy-face with Bush? Or Obama?

Bush never got bin Laden, and then said it was not so important to get him. Explain that.

ron, your claim above was that the sanctions did not do "anything", i.e., that absent the sanctions Iraq would have been exactly the same as with the sanctions. That absent the sanctions, he would have still not rebuilt his military infrastructure. That absent the sanctions, his oil production would have still been weakened due to lack of investment. Now, if you write that the sanctions did nothing to bring Saddam closer to being removed from power, then I'd say you are being accurate. But to write that they didn't materially weaken Iraq is wrong.

Richard Cohen chimes in further on Obama's very strange behavior in the White House.