Monday, January 12, 2015

Obama's Big Blunder...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

On Sunday, leaders representing Europe, Israel, Africa, Russia, and the Middle East linked arms and marched together down Place de la Concorde in Paris.

Unfortunately and most conspicuously our own president chose not to attend.

The decision by the President of the United States of America to not be present, or at the very least send his Vie President, has been most troubling.

Obama may have had his reasons but in politics and governance perception can be everything. Certainly the perceptions of many, if not most on this important issue is not a positive one. The White House belatedly recognizing the error in judgment has acknowledged the mistake while at the same time spinning to put the best face possible on the snafu.

On this issue Rational Nation USA finds itself behind Senator Ted Cruz. At issue is the growth of, and the threat radicalized extremist Islam present the civilized world.

President Obama should have been there. Our president ought to have known this instinctively. It is of course now water under the bridge.

Mistakes happen. This one never should have.


  1. Yes, PBO should have attended the demonstration, or at the least sent VP Biden. So it was a blunder, but I wouldn't call it a "big" blunder. We've seen countless times what it takes when the POTUS visits a foreign country. It's gotten out of hand vis-a-vis security demands and issues (plane loads of black SUVs, etc.). I don't know if that's what was behind the decision not to go to Paris. Perhaps the Secret Service and those in charge of security need to rethink what is necessary for security when an unplanned worldwide demonstration calls for the POTUS to attend..

    1. Shaw, this was important to the American people and our allies against terror. Sorry, but I must vehemently disagree. It WAS a big blunder.

  2. I think you just insulted your progressive friends

    1. Perhaps, but I call it as I see it, ALWAYS.

      I'm not made of polyester and plastic like the screeching loons that regularly dump panty loads of BS on your site Lisa.

      It was a big blunder for Obama not to lock arms with other world leaders in Paris on this and if the progressives I call friends have a problem with my statement I am sure they are mature enough no to really let it bother them. Unlike my ex conservative friends that expected me to walk in lockstep with them even when they were full of s*it.

    2. Unlike you, Lisa, and your toxic sock puppets, Les and I can disagree without acting like 3-year olds, throwing tantrums and calling people vile names. This is how grown-ups deal with each other when they disagree. And despite what you and your sock puppets think, having a disagreement with someone is not equal to an insult. But why waste my time pointing out simple concepts to someone who believes in "false facts."

    3. Here's a perfect example of the unhinged adolescents who populate Lisa's Smut Hut. This is the sort of conversation one can regularly find there when someone disagrees with a commenter:

      Not in MY name::

      "What a prick you are Dsvid Muller, the President of the United States has ALWAYS been known and called "The Leader of the Free World"
      But maybe you're right, he NO longer is!

      Not in MY name

      January 13, 2015 at 11:44 AM

      And by the way, nothing has changed , I still dislike the French because of the reason you state above. However you stupid hypicritical asshole, this is an entirely different case. This is about defending Free Speach.

      I think that the French did a pretty good job hunting down and killing those murderous bastards, without any of our help.

      Now go crawl back in that slime pit where you hang out. Shitbags like you are not welcome here."

      That is the sort of "speach" an underdeveloped 10-year old mind makes.

    4. Constant verbal abuse is the reason why I do not participate in discussion threads at rightwing weblogs. There is no excuse for this level of bombast and sociopathy. Nor can I understand why ostensibly mature and civilized people even bother going there. For the adrenaline hit? Over some misguided sense of mission?

      Enabling verbal abuse makes no sense to me.

    5. As much as I can't believe it, Legs and I agree on this. No excuse to attack someone because of what they believe. This should apply to the leftists as well but it is commonly accepted if it is a leftist attacking a conservative.

      BHO is known for making statements without thinking especially if it concerns a person of color. He will not condemn these acts as Muslim extremists when the rest of the world and the perpetrators say they are. I guess killing children, bombing papers and beheading Americans are performed by rational people who are Muslim not Muslim extremists, at least in his mind.

      They quickly walked back the statement that it was a security issue no one from the administration attended the march. With Holder being in France at the time, guess he was far to busy being on talk shows to show US support.

    6. With all due respect skud your tilting (O)CT(O)PUS's statement in such a way as to imply the left is guilty across the board of accepting the behavior (O)CT(O)PUS addresses (with respect to right wing blogs and some of their followers) and yet accepts it among their own is what?

      Your gratuitous remark with respect to President Obama simply shows your hand (real intentions), leaving no doubt about your motivation.

      As I stated many times, IMO it was a huge political blunder for the President to not be in Paris with other heads of sate. I stand by that statement for reasons I have stated. What you are saying is nothing more than conjecture based on assumptions for which you have little to nothing of substance to back them up with.

    7. I have assiduously avoided scud-the-crud in this forum due to his unrelenting dishonesty. Fair criticism does create fiction, deny events that actually occur, or smugly distort the truth. This, however, is not what scud does:

      Scud: “He will not condemn these acts as Muslim extremists when the rest of the world and the perpetrators say they are.”

      THE FACTS: Obama has condemned this act of terrorism, links and quotations as follows:

      Reported in the Wall Street Journal: “a terrible terrorist attack” and “The fact that this was an attack on journalists, an attack on our free press, also underscores the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press

      Reported by Fox News_: "France is America's oldest ally, and has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against terrorists who threaten our shared security and the world."

      Reported in the Washington Post: Obama expressed solidarity and pledged help to the French government to "identify, apprehend, and bring to justice the perpetrators and anyone who helped plan or enable this terrorist attack."

      Reported by Reuters News Service: “We are in touch with French officials and I have directed my administration to provide any assistance needed to help bring these terrorists to justice.”

      And how does scud-the-crud justify this remark:

      scud: “With Holder being in France at the time, guess he was far to busy being on talk shows to show US support.”

      Reported by the London Guardian: “Speaking to NBC from Paris, where he was attending a counter-terrorism summit [my bold] and the march, Holder said: “That is the thing that I think keeps me up most at night, this concern about the lone wolf who goes undetected.

      Last, but by no means least, why has scud-the-crud specifically targeted me in three consecutive comments? Does he have some personal agenda here? Or perhaps some personal vendetta?

      One need not necessarily be crude and verbally abusive to be offensive and obnoxious. Stealth stalking is also harassment and equally repugnant. Maybe this is an issue I should address IN PRIVATE with the manager of this space.

    8. skud is less interested in actually disproving falsehood than he is in attempting to advance fiction he wants to believe.

    9. Legs and Less,

      Nothing I said was untrue and I did not accuse all leftists of being one sided on the way they treat conservatives. I treat people with respect even a female from beantown who does not attack me the way some do. She does call me silly but that is expected because we have different views.

      Even the administration said they were in error by not sending someone of status to the march. The WH press mouthpiece has been trying to explain why obama will not refer to the terrorists a radical Muslims and even the press does not buy it. Mr legs distorted the truth in my statement and did not acknowledge the fact that obama did not refer to the terrorist as radical Muslims which the other Leaders of the word did. So which one of us is not truthful?

    10. The correct spelling of my name skudrunner: Les.

      Reread your entire statement(s) and get back to me.

    11. Sorry for the misspelling purely an oversight, like skud the crud is an oversight from legs, like I stated different standards for conservatives.

      I reread my posts and I should have said radical Islamist not radical Muslims. Other than that it is correct and honest.

    12. Decrying verbal abuse by sophomorically engaging in it is typical liberal hypocrisy and the fact that it reared its ugly and barely sentient head here is hardly surprising.

  3. It's not that important. Optics do not make the world go 'round.


    1. Perhaps Jersey. Leadership occasionally requires exclamation points. Obama missed an opportunity.

      We shall agree no disagree on this?

  4. Why Obama did not attend the demonstration in support of Charlie Hebdo is a matter of conjecture. Perhaps it was over concerns of security. Perhaps his presence would have overshadowed the event. Perhaps the President and all hands on deck were simply too busy attending counterterrorism meetings (much preferred, IMO, over street theater).

    Am I offended with this commentary? Hardly! You see, a reasoned opinion without bombast and harangue does not offend people. Only immature people engaged in sandbox bullying and Romper Room tactics offend me … which is why civil adults prefer to visit this discussion room instead of that cesspool of sniping and backbiting that would bring shame upon anyone's daddy.

  5. RN... I think we should have sent at least the Sec of State... that said, the Pres of France seems less miffed than us...

    French President Fran├žois Hollande said Obama had been “very present” in the response to last week’s attacks on the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish market.

    That's from Milbank's recent column in the WAPO on the hypocrisy of the GOP... a party that purposely insulted the French, calling them weasels and worse, and changing the name French Fries to Freedom Fries...

  6. Missed opportunity, yes...big blunder? That seems the media consensus. We recognize Jersey's
    observation about 'window dressing', exemplified perhaps by:
    "As Nigeria was attacked again on Sunday, hundreds of thousands of people around the world took to the streets in solidarity with millions in France to protest against Islamist attacks that left 17 people dead in Paris last week." - "Over 2000 people were killed by Bok Haram fighters during the massacre, according to reports." Apples & Oranges? Is fighting terrorism denigrated to the who's
    who of the world parading? BTW, at least one of the French terrorists was trained in Yemen by Anwar al-Awlaki, who was shortly terminated by US drone. Can we give Obama credit for actually
    doing something other that parading for photos?

  7. my ten cents worth?! had he gone the criticism would have was just a wasteful political gesture...he wasted money...using Air Force One to go to Paris!!! Why wasn't he at home taking care of biz, supported cops, taking care of pressing legislation!!?? "France did NOT support us in Iraq, why should we support them?" Sheesh, the Radicalists on the right would have found something to scream about...if Obama ate a banana...they would decry him for not eating fruit from Florida.

  8. Probably, but the sane rational conservatives and libertarians would not have. here are more of them than you might think. I know several :-)

  9. Great Map, Les.
    Source please.

    The total lack of attention to the march in Paris (whether the march was useful is immaterial, perception, as you say) is the problem. Politically, Barry could have gone, sent Joey or the his erstwhile Sec of State (Francophile that he is). Failing those choices, even old 42, Bill Clinton and/or GWBush would have taken a little ride on Air Force One and done a great job. The two of them would represent a unified approach from the USA and two presidents (ex thought they are) would be impacting.

  10. One event missing from the map - the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl on February 1, 2002. He was kidnapped by Pakistani militants and later murdered by Al-Qaeda member Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan. R.I.P.

  11. This is a great website, so many people need this information, thanks for providing it. I love your color scheme too!



As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.