jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (12 posts)

Considering President Obama was elected on an anti-war mandate, has he been a di

  1. Joe Cook profile image60
    Joe Cookposted 6 years ago

    Considering President Obama was elected on an anti-war mandate, has he been a disappointment?

    President Obama was elected in rebuttle to the aggressive war warmongering of the Bush administration.  He was heavily in opposition to the very existence of Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre, advocated a less American-centric global foreign policy and pledged the return of troops from two messy wars. 

    Now that he has sent more troops to conflict in Libya, not returned troops from Afghanistan, not closed Guantanamo Bay and failed to protect peoples union rights in Wisconsin, has Obama, all things considered, been a trifle disappointing?

  2. Zubair Ahmed profile image78
    Zubair Ahmedposted 6 years ago

    YES.  He most certainly has been a disappointment.  I guess I expected that considering that no president ever makes his own decision in isolation.  Even though Obama may not want war his henchmen & women in the house have other agendas and I do not think Obama is strong enough to disobey.

  3. zduckman profile image61
    zduckmanposted 6 years ago

    He has broken or done an about face on nearly every campaign promise. Total disappointment!!!

  4. bigeddie06385 profile image57
    bigeddie06385posted 6 years ago

    The idiots who voted for him are now getting what they deserve for believing him in the first place. What were you expecting, "hope and change"?
    I can't wait to see what Obama's 2012 re-election campaign slogan will be.

  5. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 6 years ago

    Not really. He was practically forced into Afghanistan by the mutinous US military. Libya is the great test as so far as it is UN-directed. Hopefully it goes no further than than our small contribution. The US is financially broke and cannot afford to go to war anymore.

  6. Dexter Yarbrough profile image82
    Dexter Yarbroughposted 6 years ago

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007.

    I think this sums it all up.

  7. someonewhoknows profile image72
    someonewhoknowsposted 6 years ago

    This is not a surprise when it comes to politics and politicians who only want to get elected and hope people will forget what they said to get elected.

  8. capncrunch profile image77
    capncrunchposted 6 years ago

    What was the question?

    Seriously though, if you put too much trust in man, you will experience disappointment.  At the end of the day, no matter which man or woman we have as president, the human factor cannot be escaped.  Name a president who did not provide a disappointment.

  9. point2make profile image81
    point2makeposted 6 years ago

    President Obama is an ideologue and as such he has strong personal positions on policy both foreign and domestic. What the general public, especially those on the left, seem to forget is Barrack Obama is the President of the United States and as such must reflect the will of the American people even if he may personally disagree with that will. His personal positions will, of course, shape his policy positions but as President he does not have the luxury of championing his own causes but must instead compromise for the good of the country even if that means putting his own personal opinions in check. As President he is the leader of all the citizens  of the United States not just a segment with a particular political point of view.

    Most Presidents govern from the center because that is where most of the country, philosophically, resides. He must be President of all or he will be President of none.  Presidents are, first and foremost, politicians and for many accepting the fact that Barrack Obama is a politician first and not some long sought deliverer is a difficult and traumatic bridge to cross.

  10. TinaTango profile image67
    TinaTangoposted 6 years ago

    Nothing has changed since the former president was in office.  So in my opinion, yes - it is a disappointment.

  11. profile image52
    Andy the Greatposted 6 years ago

    On some things, yes, on others no. Guantanamo Bay was a principle over practical decision and he went with practical, which I disagree with. He's never been aggressively anti-war. He was aggressively anti-Iraq War. He always wanted to continue the Afghan War. On the unionization issue, while I'm pro-union, I don't think the president had any reason to jump into a state issue on that one. The bigger let-downs for me have been the extension of the Bush Tax cuts for the upper percentile, GITMO, and not pushing harder for a progressive HCR bill. On the whole, I'd still vote for him again, but he hasn't been the golden boy of the progressive movement. In all fairness, he never claimed to be. If there were another viable option, I'd consider it. If there isn't, I'll stick with Obama.

    The most disappointed in him seem to be people that had nothing invested in him in the first place. I'm speaking of people that never would have voted for him anyway. In that case, they aren't really disappointed. They didn't have their hopes up about him to begin with, so technically, they couldn't be disappointed. They're actually just dissatisified with him in general.

  12. profile image0
    Fay Paxtonposted 6 years ago

    If you go back and listen to the President speak, you will hear hi speak against war, always conceding that "sometimes war is necessary".  He could have not been clear than when he spoke before the Nobel committee.  Besides, I seem to remember that during the campaign he referred to the Afghanistan War as the "right war"  promising to change the focus from Iraq and everyone cheered.

    Troops are scheduled to start returning in July as he said...we'll see.  As for Guantanamo, once the Congress defunded the closing and passed laws halting the transfer of prisoners, what would you have him do? 

    Finally, how would he protect the rights of union workers.  He's the President, not a Dictator.  Congress legislates, remember?