Obama should set a red line.

That usually works.

You should stop making troll posts that make you look dumb.

That usually works. 😛

Never mind how it made Obama look.

I was talking about you and your buddy, not Obama.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

_________________________________________________________________

Big difference.

President Reagan is considered the greatest President of the modern era.
Obama is considered the worst.

Now that would depend on who is doing the considering. I'm sure if you poll the typical Fox News comment section they would agree Obama is worse than the bubonic plague. Poll a group of smarter people and you'll probably find a very different answer.

Obama should set a red line.

That usually works.

You should stop making troll posts that make you look dumb.

That usually works. 😛

Never mind how it made Obama look.

I was talking about you and your buddy, not Obama.

You waste a lot of time doing that.

Obama should set a red line.

That usually works.

You should stop making troll posts that make you look dumb.

That usually works. 😛

Never mind how it made Obama look.

I was talking about you and your buddy, not Obama.

You waste a lot of time doing that.

It is my time to do as I wish.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

_________________________________________________________________

Big difference.

President Reagan is considered the greatest President of the modern era.
Obama is considered the worst.

Now that would depend on who is doing the considering. I'm sure if you poll the typical Fox News comment section they would agree Obama is worse than the bubonic plague. Poll a group of smarter people and you'll probably find a very different answer.

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

It was a Quinnipiac poll and a Gallup poll that ranked President Reagan the greatest President of the modern era and Obama the worst.
Both polls were posted here in the WP and long discussed.

Of course you would know this if you didn't use Salon.com (an admitted tabloid) for information.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

_________________________________________________________________

Big difference.

President Reagan is considered the greatest President of the modern era.
Obama is considered the worst.

Now that would depend on who is doing the considering. I'm sure if you poll the typical Fox News comment section they would agree Obama is worse than the bubonic plague. Poll a group of smarter people and you'll probably find a very different answer.

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

It was a Quinnipiac poll and a Gallup poll that ranked President Reagan the greatest President of the modern era and Obama the worst.
Both polls were posted here in the WP and long discussed.

Of course you would know this if you didn't use Salon.com (an admitted tabloid) for information.

And that same poll calls Obama the 4th best president. How can that be?

http://www.discussionist.com/1015118772

And I don't think I've ever used Salon.com for a source of anything.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

_________________________________________________________________

Big difference.

President Reagan is considered the greatest President of the modern era.
Obama is considered the worst.

Now that would depend on who is doing the considering. I'm sure if you poll the typical Fox News comment section they would agree Obama is worse than the bubonic plague. Poll a group of smarter people and you'll probably find a very different answer.

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

It was a Quinnipiac poll and a Gallup poll that ranked President Reagan the greatest President of the modern era and Obama the worst.
Both polls were posted here in the WP and long discussed.

Of course you would know this if you didn't use Salon.com (an admitted tabloid) for information.

And that same poll calls Obama the 4th best president. How can that be?

http://www.discussionist.com/1015118772

And I don't think I've ever used Salon.com for a source of anything.

________________________________________________________-______________

You refer to a blog site?
Man you are desperate.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

_________________________________________________________________

Big difference.

President Reagan is considered the greatest President of the modern era.
Obama is considered the worst.

Now that would depend on who is doing the considering. I'm sure if you poll the typical Fox News comment section they would agree Obama is worse than the bubonic plague. Poll a group of smarter people and you'll probably find a very different answer.

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

It was a Quinnipiac poll and a Gallup poll that ranked President Reagan the greatest President of the modern era and Obama the worst.
Both polls were posted here in the WP and long discussed.

Of course you would know this if you didn't use Salon.com (an admitted tabloid) for information.

And that same poll calls Obama the 4th best president. How can that be?

http://www.discussionist.com/1015118772

And I don't think I've ever used Salon.com for a source of anything.

________________________________________________________-______________

You refer to a blog site?
Man you are desperate.

Says the person who references blog sites more than anyone else on this forum. Fact is that same poll you refer to lists Obama as the 4th best president. Do you dispute that?

How can a poll measure performance? Don't polls measure opinions?

Here's a link to an interesting Georgia Tech study that actually uses facts.

http://www.news.gatech.edu/2012/10/31/georgia-tech-study-grades-presidents-economy

Reagan ain't number one. Obama isn't last.

[Edited on 6/14/2015 by BillyBlastoff]

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

_________________________________________________________________

Big difference.

President Reagan is considered the greatest President of the modern era.
Obama is considered the worst.

Now that would depend on who is doing the considering. I'm sure if you poll the typical Fox News comment section they would agree Obama is worse than the bubonic plague. Poll a group of smarter people and you'll probably find a very different answer.

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

It was a Quinnipiac poll and a Gallup poll that ranked President Reagan the greatest President of the modern era and Obama the worst.
Both polls were posted here in the WP and long discussed.

Of course you would know this if you didn't use Salon.com (an admitted tabloid) for information.

And that same poll calls Obama the 4th best president. How can that be?

http://www.discussionist.com/1015118772

And I don't think I've ever used Salon.com for a source of anything.

________________________________________________________-______________

You refer to a blog site?
Man you are desperate.

Says the person who references blog sites more than anyone else on this forum. Fact is that same poll you refer to lists Obama as the 4th best president. Do you dispute that?

_________________________________________________________________________

Do you really need to lie to make your point?

I rarely ever quote a blog.
The “Obama 4th” was in one small bracket within the full poll which gives it no merit.

Propping up Obama the Failure is tough ain’t it?

And this is why talking to this guy is a waste of time. He uses sources like Breibart and Fox while he dismisses anything from any sites that he considers as from the left. He doesn't want discussion or a level playing field. His opinions are facts and your facts are wrong. What is the point of discussion, other than to poke the snake with a stick and watch his reaction?

The liberals here love to talk about anything that has nothing to do with the thread.

Almost two years ago, Obama, in an address to the nation, said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.

Last week he admitted on international TV that he had no plan to do so.

Obama fails again.

The liberals here love to talk about anything that has nothing to do with the thread.

The anti freedom, right wing zealots here can't keep up with an evolving conversation.

Oh! Of course! You reject evolution. How can a conversation evolve if evolution doesn't exist?

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

_________________________________________________________________

Big difference.

President Reagan is considered the greatest President of the modern era.
Obama is considered the worst.

Now that would depend on who is doing the considering. I'm sure if you poll the typical Fox News comment section they would agree Obama is worse than the bubonic plague. Poll a group of smarter people and you'll probably find a very different answer.

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

It was a Quinnipiac poll and a Gallup poll that ranked President Reagan the greatest President of the modern era and Obama the worst.
Both polls were posted here in the WP and long discussed.

Of course you would know this if you didn't use Salon.com (an admitted tabloid) for information.

And that same poll calls Obama the 4th best president. How can that be?

http://www.discussionist.com/1015118772

And I don't think I've ever used Salon.com for a source of anything.

________________________________________________________-______________

You refer to a blog site?
Man you are desperate.

Says the person who references blog sites more than anyone else on this forum. Fact is that same poll you refer to lists Obama as the 4th best president. Do you dispute that?

_________________________________________________________________________

Do you really need to lie to make your point?

I rarely ever quote a blog.
The “Obama 4th” was in one small bracket within the full poll which gives it no merit.

Propping up Obama the Failure is tough ain’t it?

The Obama 4th was on the main poll of who is the best president. Not sure how that is a small bracket poll. You are right about one thing, and that is that that entire poll has no merit. Aly poll that comes to the conclusion that the 4th best president is the worst president has no merit whatsoever.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

_________________________________________________________________

Big difference.

President Reagan is considered the greatest President of the modern era.
Obama is considered the worst.

Now that would depend on who is doing the considering. I'm sure if you poll the typical Fox News comment section they would agree Obama is worse than the bubonic plague. Poll a group of smarter people and you'll probably find a very different answer.

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

It was a Quinnipiac poll and a Gallup poll that ranked President Reagan the greatest President of the modern era and Obama the worst.
Both polls were posted here in the WP and long discussed.

Of course you would know this if you didn't use Salon.com (an admitted tabloid) for information.

And that same poll calls Obama the 4th best president. How can that be?

http://www.discussionist.com/1015118772

And I don't think I've ever used Salon.com for a source of anything.

________________________________________________________-______________

You refer to a blog site?
Man you are desperate.

Says the person who references blog sites more than anyone else on this forum. Fact is that same poll you refer to lists Obama as the 4th best president. Do you dispute that?

_________________________________________________________________________

Do you really need to lie to make your point?

I rarely ever quote a blog.
The “Obama 4th” was in one small bracket within the full poll which gives it no merit.

Propping up Obama the Failure is tough ain’t it?

The Obama 4th was on the main poll of who is the best president. Not sure how that is a small bracket poll. You are right about one thing, and that is that that entire poll has no merit. Aly poll that comes to the conclusion that the 4th best president is the worst president has no merit whatsoever.

______________________________________________________________________

Almost two years ago, Obama, in an address to the nation, said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.

Last week he admitted on international TV that he had no plan to do so.

Obama fails again.

ISIS continues to grow, operates in 7 countries now and many thousands are being murdered by ISIS.

The Obama administration has failed in the war on Islamic Extremist Terrorism.

How dare he not jump into a war until a strategy is complete? What a loser. Did he not learn anything from Bush - attack first and then figure out a strategy later!

He's been in the war for over a year already. And how long does it take to complete a strategy? He has no strategy because his aims are incompatible with the means hes willing to use but he won't admit it so he simply passes the blame to others. It's disgraceful and more disgraceful how his die hards continue to defend this naked emperor.

So what exactly do you propose he do Doug? Other than putting boots on the ground again what creative strategy is going to defeat this enemy that really will never be defeated by America?

We created this trainwreck when we deposed Saddam and destabilized the whole region
Do you actually believe the U.S. can solve the ISIS threat? IMHO this is now unfortunately an Arab problem now and the only ones who have a chance to control this is the Arab nations we screwed by creating this mess.

[Edited on 6/10/2015 by Bill_Graham]

Piss or get off the pot and stop the bs. If we are going to stop ISIS (which we easily can) thenstop them but you have to go to war and do it. Or get out and forget about it. Don't do it half assed and then blame the Military for not giving you a strategy. There is no strategy where we stop ISIS without actually doing it.

You want another war?, send YOUR kids!.

First of all that's total bs. Second of all I said piss or getoff the pot. Don't pretend to fight a war while blaming it on others. If stopping ISIS is not worth it then step forward and SAY SO.

You still did not answer the question. Criticizing Obama for not begin aggressive is easy to do when you have no viable solution. So what do you think he should do? put more U.S. troops in harms way for another unwinnable war?

You are really fair. It's like asking a witness "So when did you stop beating your wife?" I reject the absurd idea that ISIS cannot be stopped. Reminds me of 1991 when Democrats like Ted Kennedy insisted that going to war to stop Hussein from keeping Kuwait would lead to thousands and thousands of dead American kids in the desert. Nonsense.

That aside. When you go to war you fight to win. If you think Obama is fighting to win you are delusional. He is following the EXACT strategy that led to the debacle in Vietnam. Doing it half assed and piecemeal and counting bodies killed as a measure of victory. Either win it or get out entirely. Can you disagree with that?

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

Bush may have made stupid mistakes but to say he didn't lead is nonsensical. He took total ownership and responsibility at all times. Reagan is not and has never been my hero. But what he did in Lebanon is an example of assessing the situation (a debacle) and recalculating. He decided (no doubt by listening to advice) that there was no point in staying in Lebanon one day longer. I know Obama does not believe that or he would have cut and run from the Middle East. So he is just hanging out wasting U.S. prestige and treasure while the enemy gets stronger and stronger. How can anyone possibly defend this?

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

Bush may have made stupid mistakes but to say he didn't lead is nonsensical. He took total ownership and responsibility at all times. Reagan is not and has never been my hero. But what he did in Lebanon is an example of assessing the situation (a debacle) and recalculating. He decided (no doubt by listening to advice) that there was no point in staying in Lebanon one day longer. I know Obama does not believe that or he would have cut and run from the Middle East. So he is just hanging out wasting U.S. prestige and treasure while the enemy gets stronger and stronger. How can anyone possibly defend this?

But by Muleman's definition, all three presidents failed to lead. That's not my definition, that's his. And I don't think what Obama is doing is that different than what Reagan did. Reagan cut and ran. Obama hasn't cut and run, is still waiting for a plan that will work. Both evaluated the situation and are using the best available option instead of blindly jumping into a debacle with no possible positive outcome.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

Bush may have made stupid mistakes but to say he didn't lead is nonsensical. He took total ownership and responsibility at all times. Reagan is not and has never been my hero. But what he did in Lebanon is an example of assessing the situation (a debacle) and recalculating. He decided (no doubt by listening to advice) that there was no point in staying in Lebanon one day longer. I know Obama does not believe that or he would have cut and run from the Middle East. So he is just hanging out wasting U.S. prestige and treasure while the enemy gets stronger and stronger. How can anyone possibly defend this?

But by Muleman's definition, all three presidents failed to lead. That's not my definition, that's his. And I don't think what Obama is doing is that different than what Reagan did. Reagan cut and ran. Obama hasn't cut and run, is still waiting for a plan that will work. Both evaluated the situation and are using the best available option instead of blindly jumping into a debacle with no possible positive outcome.

________________________________________________________________________

Obama already cut and ran.
That failure to lead and get the job done allowed ISIS exploding onto the scene.

For every U.S. President you could create your own scenario but Obama is the President now and it is his responsibility to do what he told the American People he would do; degrade and destroy ISIS.

“is still waiting for a plan” – what crap.
Numerous senior military members have publically said Obama has been given plans that would degrade and destroy ISIS and Obama has rejected every one of them.
What Obama says and reality are rarely one in the same with this Commander 'n Liar.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

Bush may have made stupid mistakes but to say he didn't lead is nonsensical. He took total ownership and responsibility at all times. Reagan is not and has never been my hero. But what he did in Lebanon is an example of assessing the situation (a debacle) and recalculating. He decided (no doubt by listening to advice) that there was no point in staying in Lebanon one day longer. I know Obama does not believe that or he would have cut and run from the Middle East. So he is just hanging out wasting U.S. prestige and treasure while the enemy gets stronger and stronger. How can anyone possibly defend this?

But by Muleman's definition, all three presidents failed to lead. That's not my definition, that's his. And I don't think what Obama is doing is that different than what Reagan did. Reagan cut and ran. Obama hasn't cut and run, is still waiting for a plan that will work. Both evaluated the situation and are using the best available option instead of blindly jumping into a debacle with no possible positive outcome.

________________________________________________________________________

Obama already cut and ran.
That failure to lead and get the job done allowed ISIS exploding onto the scene.

For every U.S. President you could create your own scenario but Obama is the President now and it is his responsibility to do what he told the American People he would do; degrade and destroy ISIS.

“is still waiting for a plan” – what crap.
Numerous senior military members have publically said Obama has been given plans that would degrade and destroy ISIS and Obama has rejected every one of them.
What Obama says and reality are rarely one in the same with this Commander 'n Liar.

And I'm sure that Bush was given plans from the military that said we would have the war on terror complete by the time he left office. How did that work out? Leadership is knowing when a plan you are presented with will accomplish the goals at a reasonable price.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

Bush may have made stupid mistakes but to say he didn't lead is nonsensical. He took total ownership and responsibility at all times. Reagan is not and has never been my hero. But what he did in Lebanon is an example of assessing the situation (a debacle) and recalculating. He decided (no doubt by listening to advice) that there was no point in staying in Lebanon one day longer. I know Obama does not believe that or he would have cut and run from the Middle East. So he is just hanging out wasting U.S. prestige and treasure while the enemy gets stronger and stronger. How can anyone possibly defend this?

But by Muleman's definition, all three presidents failed to lead. That's not my definition, that's his. And I don't think what Obama is doing is that different than what Reagan did. Reagan cut and ran. Obama hasn't cut and run, is still waiting for a plan that will work. Both evaluated the situation and are using the best available option instead of blindly jumping into a debacle with no possible positive outcome.

________________________________________________________________________

Obama already cut and ran.
That failure to lead and get the job done allowed ISIS exploding onto the scene.

For every U.S. President you could create your own scenario but Obama is the President now and it is his responsibility to do what he told the American People he would do; degrade and destroy ISIS.

“is still waiting for a plan” – what crap.
Numerous senior military members have publically said Obama has been given plans that would degrade and destroy ISIS and Obama has rejected every one of them.
What Obama says and reality are rarely one in the same with this Commander 'n Liar.

And I'm sure that Bush was given plans from the military that said we would have the war on terror complete by the time he left office. How did that work out? Leadership is knowing when a plan you are presented with will accomplish the goals at a reasonable price.

_________________________________________________________________________

You are “sure that Bush was given plans”?

Would you be so kind and enlighten us as to how you know that?

Why is it that the liberals have to lie when they can’t support Obama’s failure to lead?

Just making it up as you go sounds more like no-plan Obama.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

Bush may have made stupid mistakes but to say he didn't lead is nonsensical. He took total ownership and responsibility at all times. Reagan is not and has never been my hero. But what he did in Lebanon is an example of assessing the situation (a debacle) and recalculating. He decided (no doubt by listening to advice) that there was no point in staying in Lebanon one day longer. I know Obama does not believe that or he would have cut and run from the Middle East. So he is just hanging out wasting U.S. prestige and treasure while the enemy gets stronger and stronger. How can anyone possibly defend this?

But by Muleman's definition, all three presidents failed to lead. That's not my definition, that's his. And I don't think what Obama is doing is that different than what Reagan did. Reagan cut and ran. Obama hasn't cut and run, is still waiting for a plan that will work. Both evaluated the situation and are using the best available option instead of blindly jumping into a debacle with no possible positive outcome.

My definition of a leader is someone who takes ownership. Do you realize how LUDICROUS it sounds to say that he is "still waiting for a plan" years after this thing got going. He could have a plan in 30 days if he demanded it. That is a bizarre and ridiculous excuse. I have NEVER heard a president EVER publicly declare he didn't have a plan. It's insane.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

Bush may have made stupid mistakes but to say he didn't lead is nonsensical. He took total ownership and responsibility at all times. Reagan is not and has never been my hero. But what he did in Lebanon is an example of assessing the situation (a debacle) and recalculating. He decided (no doubt by listening to advice) that there was no point in staying in Lebanon one day longer. I know Obama does not believe that or he would have cut and run from the Middle East. So he is just hanging out wasting U.S. prestige and treasure while the enemy gets stronger and stronger. How can anyone possibly defend this?

But by Muleman's definition, all three presidents failed to lead. That's not my definition, that's his. And I don't think what Obama is doing is that different than what Reagan did. Reagan cut and ran. Obama hasn't cut and run, is still waiting for a plan that will work. Both evaluated the situation and are using the best available option instead of blindly jumping into a debacle with no possible positive outcome.

________________________________________________________________________

Obama already cut and ran.
That failure to lead and get the job done allowed ISIS exploding onto the scene.

For every U.S. President you could create your own scenario but Obama is the President now and it is his responsibility to do what he told the American People he would do; degrade and destroy ISIS.

“is still waiting for a plan” – what crap.
Numerous senior military members have publically said Obama has been given plans that would degrade and destroy ISIS and Obama has rejected every one of them.
What Obama says and reality are rarely one in the same with this Commander 'n Liar.

And I'm sure that Bush was given plans from the military that said we would have the war on terror complete by the time he left office. How did that work out? Leadership is knowing when a plan you are presented with will accomplish the goals at a reasonable price.

Leadership is taking ownership and responsibility for everything that happens on your watch. Never one single time did Bush say the "war on terror" would be complete when he left office. To the contrary, he said it would be a long twilight struggle that could take decades.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

Bush may have made stupid mistakes but to say he didn't lead is nonsensical. He took total ownership and responsibility at all times. Reagan is not and has never been my hero. But what he did in Lebanon is an example of assessing the situation (a debacle) and recalculating. He decided (no doubt by listening to advice) that there was no point in staying in Lebanon one day longer. I know Obama does not believe that or he would have cut and run from the Middle East. So he is just hanging out wasting U.S. prestige and treasure while the enemy gets stronger and stronger. How can anyone possibly defend this?

But by Muleman's definition, all three presidents failed to lead. That's not my definition, that's his. And I don't think what Obama is doing is that different than what Reagan did. Reagan cut and ran. Obama hasn't cut and run, is still waiting for a plan that will work. Both evaluated the situation and are using the best available option instead of blindly jumping into a debacle with no possible positive outcome.

________________________________________________________________________

Obama already cut and ran.
That failure to lead and get the job done allowed ISIS exploding onto the scene.

For every U.S. President you could create your own scenario but Obama is the President now and it is his responsibility to do what he told the American People he would do; degrade and destroy ISIS.

“is still waiting for a plan” – what crap.
Numerous senior military members have publically said Obama has been given plans that would degrade and destroy ISIS and Obama has rejected every one of them.
What Obama says and reality are rarely one in the same with this Commander 'n Liar.

And I'm sure that Bush was given plans from the military that said we would have the war on terror complete by the time he left office. How did that work out? Leadership is knowing when a plan you are presented with will accomplish the goals at a reasonable price.

Leadership is taking ownership and responsibility for everything that happens on your watch. Never one single time did Bush say the "war on terror" would be complete when he left office. To the contrary, he said it would be a long twilight struggle that could take decades.

Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?

Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.

ISIS is winning.

Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?

Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.

ISIS is winning.

Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.

Leadership is doing what you say you are going to do.

Since I already pointed out an example of Reagan not doing what he said he was going to do (failing to lead by your definition), how can we forget another one of your heros doing the same. Just 6 months after Bush said he would not rest until we killed or captured Osama Bin Laden, he had this to say:

I guess by your definition both Bush and Reagan failed to lead as well. Yeah, I know, just because all our past Republican presidents failed to lead doesn't give Obama a free pass to do the same.

Bush may have made stupid mistakes but to say he didn't lead is nonsensical. He took total ownership and responsibility at all times. Reagan is not and has never been my hero. But what he did in Lebanon is an example of assessing the situation (a debacle) and recalculating. He decided (no doubt by listening to advice) that there was no point in staying in Lebanon one day longer. I know Obama does not believe that or he would have cut and run from the Middle East. So he is just hanging out wasting U.S. prestige and treasure while the enemy gets stronger and stronger. How can anyone possibly defend this?

But by Muleman's definition, all three presidents failed to lead. That's not my definition, that's his. And I don't think what Obama is doing is that different than what Reagan did. Reagan cut and ran. Obama hasn't cut and run, is still waiting for a plan that will work. Both evaluated the situation and are using the best available option instead of blindly jumping into a debacle with no possible positive outcome.

________________________________________________________________________

Obama already cut and ran.
That failure to lead and get the job done allowed ISIS exploding onto the scene.

For every U.S. President you could create your own scenario but Obama is the President now and it is his responsibility to do what he told the American People he would do; degrade and destroy ISIS.

“is still waiting for a plan” – what crap.
Numerous senior military members have publically said Obama has been given plans that would degrade and destroy ISIS and Obama has rejected every one of them.
What Obama says and reality are rarely one in the same with this Commander 'n Liar.

And I'm sure that Bush was given plans from the military that said we would have the war on terror complete by the time he left office. How did that work out? Leadership is knowing when a plan you are presented with will accomplish the goals at a reasonable price.

Leadership is taking ownership and responsibility for everything that happens on your watch. Never one single time did Bush say the "war on terror" would be complete when he left office. To the contrary, he said it would be a long twilight struggle that could take decades.

First of all, Bush NEVER said the War onTerror was over. This was referring to Iraq. Second, Bush has acknowledged many times that this speech and this sign was an error. Obama has never acknowledged error or accepted respoinibility for anything which is what we are talking about here. Third, this was referring to major combat operations involved inthe overthrow of Hussein and his removal from office. The insurgency was not anticipated and not adequately dealt with until after 2006 when it was properly handled and dealt with because Bush recognized error and altered course, something Obama has never done.

Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?

Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.

ISIS is winning.

Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.

It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.

Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?

Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.

ISIS is winning.

What a shocker. America not winning a war.