ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I totally disagree with your assessment of the events.

As of at least two and a half hours before Obama made his initial remarks, the crash had been officially acknowledged by the governments of Ukraine and Malaysia.  Obama would not be breaking the news.  It was already official and verified.

See here. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
But then he wouldn't have an angle to play on "worst president ever".  Or maybe he would have defaulted to the "why oh why are we getting involved in foreign affairs that don't involve us, our soldiers will die for nothing, why does he hate America so?". Either way I doubt there is a track that he would have failed to ind fault with. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Yes. He could have. But then he would have been the news rather than commenting on it. At the time, while it was clear what was going on, no official statements had been made. Officially, there was no plane crash. You see the difference? Until there was some verification and not just "reports," and until these reports were verified by someone in an official capacity (a Ukraine government official or an airline flack), it would be irresponsible to verify the downing of a plane. Because not only is it not his news to deliver, it would also tip our hand that we had some inside knowledge of the event. Please stop pretending you don't understand this.

 haresfur wrote: 
My main focus has been on Obama's initial reaction and remarks, shortly after the plane was shot down.  It was a take on his first impressions.  As we all know, first impressions matter, a lot.  I stand by my thoughts I have mentioned regarding his first comment.

Having said that, I did find the speech, of which I had only seen some edits until now.  It was a good speech.  It was an appropriate response to the event and the circumstances known at the time of the WH speech.  It was presidential, calm and even reassuring in the sense that he was projecting concern and involvement.  It has satisfied my need to see our POTUS stand up and speak appropriately.

Obama could have avoided a lot of blow back on his initial statement had it been worded and presented a little differently, imho.  He could have easily said that this is an unfolding tragedy (not it may be a terrible tragedy ) and asked for a moment of silence for the victims, before moving on to the rest of his speech that was prepared for the event he was speaking at.  Instead he made his shallow  remarks and kept on going to the rest of his speech without stopping to take a breath.  The blow back is legitimate, again, imo.  Where we go from here, who knows.  I've offered my thoughts on what's next.  I hope that I am wrong, but we'll see.

To rd.  

There are no buts in my words above.  Could someone filled with so much primal hate as you accuse me of made such statements freely and openly ?   I gave credit where credit is due.  Said that it was a good  Said that it satisfied my needs as a citizen of the US to see our President stand up and say the right things.  If Obama does change, I'll let him, in the areas where he does change and be happy for it.  On the areas where he refuses to change, such as the crisis on our border, the IRS and all the rest on the list, I will not hold back.

Lastly on the subject of hate.  What can be said of Obama and all of his supporters who after 6 years in office are still blaming Bush for all that is wrong and failed.  That is 14 years of hate to date.  To those pointing out the hate, while one finger points forward, there are 3 fingers pointing back at the accuser. 

 haresfur wrote: 
4 days. KAL plane shot down September 1, 1983; Reagan addresses nation on September 5.

 kurtster wrote: 
I just don't get it, Kurt.  Obama, "called the deaths of the 298 people aboard the plane "an outrage of unspeakable proportions." Are you saying that he didn't say this? That he doesn't believe this?

I just listened to the whole press conference from the day after the tragedy on the Washington Post website.  At no time did he say anything different or to make me suspect his motivation.  Furthermore he made it clear that Putin has influence and holds responsibility for the ability of the separatists to shoot down airplanes.  He clearly set out the actions that he considers necessary for the Russians, the separatists and the Ukrainian government to take. Furthermore he made it clear that the US position was that thus far the Russians have not taken necessary actions. He has talked directly to Putin and other leaders involved. My interpretation of his statements is that he is working to move the European governments toward taking a stronger stance with respect to the Russians and the Ukrainian situation (obviously there was some necessary diplomatic wording there).  He also said that it was still early and he didn't want to get out in front of the facts as they come out.

So yeah, he ticked off all the leadership and compassion boxes as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, do you know how long it was between when KAL was shot down and the Reagan speech you posted?

 Red_Dragon wrote:Seconded.  What concerns me is that you seem to be a nice guy and all, but you do not recognize your own irrationality towards Obama, and then the poorly considered points that follow your bias. e.g. Comparing the situation of the MH to KAL and Reagan's actions to Obama's. The comparison falls apart on so many obvious points.  And in doing this fool's errand you fail to make any rationally compelling points, imo. In the end you make a mistaken argument and appear foolish in doing so.
Get a grip, man.  Read your own posts to consider RD's point.

 haresfur wrote: 
And what if Obama was POTUS during 9/11 and initially said that it "may be a terrible tragedy", instead of calling it a blatant atrocity ?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is the POTUS, whoever he or she is, is the defacto leader of the free world.  As POTUS and leader of the most powerful country on this planet comes the responsibility to react to major events one way or the other in clear terms.  I don't care who shot down the plane or if it was an accident or not, it is still an atrocity.  Firing a weapon of the kind used is in itself no accident.  How hard is it to call it an atrocity and what harm is done if he declares it so ?

As leader of the free world, he has an obligation to state the obvious and call this an atrocity.  Where that leads to isn't determined solely by such a statement, but at least he goes on record and appears confident and plugged in.  The world at large has taken Obama to task over his initial statement.  I am not the only one.

Obama appears to not want to be the leader of the free world in both word and deed.  Am I getting that wrong ? 

I'm not trying to debate whether or not the US should lead the world, but to deal with things the way they are.  I would say presently that the way I see things playing out, Ukraine will be to Obama what the Iran hostage crisis was to Carter.  Nothing will be done until we get a new POTUS, that is if something can still be done.  I agree with your options for Ukraine as there are really few to none.  Putin has the EU over a barrel cuz of oil and nat gas.  It won't stand up to Putin, especially with the winter heating season coming very quickly.  Putin owns Obama after Syria.  Putin ends up with Ukraine or at least the part that he wants.  Its only a matter of time.

Right or wrong, Obama has clearly reduced the role of the US to follower instead of leader.  He has created a power vacuum.  People are taking advantage of the projected weakness and uncertainty and unreliability of the US.  Down the road, Ukraine will be the least of all of our problems.  There are two years left till the 2016 election and two years of a weak lame duck presidency.  All the bad guys have the next two years to do as they please. Who is capable of stopping anyone ?  The way things stand right now, Putin is in charge for the next two years.  These are fascinating and dangerous times to be alive.  Also pretty predictable from here on in.  And I haven't even mentioned the loose cannon, Israel.  ... or China ...

 

 kurtster wrote: 
I stand by my statement: your posts speak for themselves.

 kurtster wrote: 
As near as I can tell, after listening to this, your main objection to Obama's reaction is that he was more succinct. Reagan's response accomplished nothing - he didn't get any of the actions he was demanding from the SU. That isn't a question of how I regard Reagan, that's a question of the outcome.  It's fair to argue that Reagan's policies had been increasing tension with the SU long before the incident and the US did have a plane in the area so it was appropriate for him to immediately get the facts together on whether that had a part in the tragedy.  That isn't the case for the Ukraine. Personally, I think it is a bit of a joke when any politician makes a big point of canceling a vacation or flying out to see a disaster unless they are actually going to take some concrete action to guide the immediate response - or at least figure out if there is some action they need to take.

The response options in the Ukraine are pretty limited.  A very strong response would possibly lead to a ground invasion by the Russians.  And the European/US response to that would likely be the same as to the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 i.e. nothing.  I think we all agree that Putin is a jerk and using Russian nationalism to increase his position internally.  This may indeed result in a resumption of the cold war. I have some slim hope that he will decide that this bunch aren't worth his trouble.  I also have some slim hope that the Europeans will reverse their hard line economic policies to help bring prosperity to the Ukraine - that probably could have prevented this whole mess and ultimately been cost-effective. 
 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I'll just add one more thought that I left out.

Yes, I no longer respect Obama as POTUS.  Respect is earned and lost.  Disrespect does not equal hatred.

Obama has earned my disrespect.  

 

 kurtster wrote: 
Your posts speak for themselves.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
That's mighty strong.  I don't hate anyone.  I strongly disagree with people, mostly politicians, yes.  But hate no.

That I repeatedly disagree equals hate ?  How does one talk about politics and current events and not discuss leaders and their roles ?

My bluntness at times is bluntness, not hate.  I will admit disgust but disgust is not hate.  Hate is a personal condition that poison's the mind and body.  It cheapens the value of life and tries to drag everyone and everything down with it.

I didn't shoot down a plane, but I'm talking about it, the players and the circumstances surrounding it. Two thirds of the country believes that Obama is taking this country in the wrong direction.  I recognize the fact that some don't think he is going far enough and others think he is going too far.  But the take away I get is that if you disagree with Obama, the only reason is because of hate.

Just how much of this country actually hates Obama ?  I don't know.  But be sure to know that I could not live with myself if my thoughts were born from hatred.  

Feel free to illustrate examples of my primal hatred.  I will consider your thoughts.  Maybe you're right and someone needs to point it out in no uncertain terms.  This is not a setup for a flame war, just a serious question.

Kurt, your primal hatred of the current occupant of the white house is quite beyond the pale.

it's really quite disturbing. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
If the POTUS won't stand up to Putin who will ?

Our Ambassador to the UN said what needed to be said.  But it should have been the POTUS who said it, not a water carrier.  I infer no disrespect to our UN Ambassador.  I am just speaking in terms of roles and hierarchy.

I did see Zep's post while I was on the road today and he made some good points.

One point he raised was the difference between criticism of Obama driven by hate and legitimate criticism of Obama.

I see many attempts to equivocate certain terms with the term hate.  Outrage being one.  Outrage ≠ hate.  Hate is a codified crime.  How does outrage compare ?

What is legitimate criticism of Obama ?  Who is entitled to criticize Obama ?   Based upon the discussions, there doesn't seem to be any or any possible.  All's I have seen are people making excuses for him.

Lead from behind, right ...  What country / leader is going to be stupid enough to stand in front of Obama and believe him when he says I got your back ?

 Again ...  If the POTUS won't stand up to Putin who will ?   Who should ?  Who can ?   

Hint: the UN is not a correct answer.

The US has been totally exposed for what it now is, a feeble, toothless tirebiter on the world stage.   All because of a single plane shot down.  Peace through strength worked well for a long time, better than anything else, at least.  Now the US is about peace through weakness.

I'm not advocating a hot war with Russia at all.  I agree with you, it ain't our problem.  I had to read your comment about our military twice to get it.  Yes our military is worn down and humiliated.  Officers are getting layoff notices in the field during combat.  I'm with Ron Paul, bring our troops home, all of them, and assume a defensive posture on our borders and buy what we need from whoever has it and pay for it, not aim guns at the vendor nor judge them.  They can shoot down any plane but ours.  Shoot down one of ours ?   We'll just nuke you and say better not do it again.  Of course, I exaggerated some things a bit, but I hope you can sort through this and see my drift.

 steeler wrote: 
if only we had semantic precision in the social sciences

 miamizsun wrote: 
Always true.

 steeler wrote: 
that depends on how one would define outrage

Obama: "an outrage of unspeakable proportions"