posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 03:45 PM
I wasn't sure what forum to put this under. I picked General Chit Chat for two reasons. One "chit-chat" implies conversation and conversations tend
to go where they go thus avoiding "off-topic" complaints. LOL Second, it might diffuse some of the contentiousness this may bring to the table...I
I found myself feeling sympathy towards Obama in his "damned if you do and damned if you don't" with the situation in Iraq.
The feeling persisted all day. I checked my blood sugar levels and double checked that I had taken my meds. To no avail. Compassion for Obama...I fear
my tea party membership will be revoked for this sacrilege.
Here's my excuse. If Obama didn't send in troops- at least to defend the 700 million+Dollar embassy, he'd face a potential repeat of Benghazi.
A second such event could destroy his Presidency. Yet in sending in those troops, he pisses off his own base as well as those on the right-including
myself- that figure we've done more than enough and the locals, failing to rise to the occasion in sufficient number, no longer deserve the cost in
blood and money. .I.E. screw 'em.
I thought that his situation was not dissimilar to Bush right after 9/11, at least choice-wise.
With today's technology, it's safe to assume no two sitting presidents have had to bear a more intense exposure to the public in history.
So what are the similarities and differences?
The first that comes to mind is upbringing. The Bush family, not unlike the Kennedys, have/had a strong, "in-house" set of core values instilled in
the children. Obama, apparently, more from religious and educational pundits rather than familial.
Unless completely ego driven, I'd assume anyone reaching the presidency comes to the realization that they're way in over their heads, sooner or
later. A sense of overwhelm? Who did they turn to for advice. Who became their mentors?
For that matter, who was Clinton's mentor? Reagan's?
Bush being raised by and a part of the "good old boy" crowd, strikes me a largely pro-system and less keen on breaking rules and tradition-including
the Constitution- than Obama.
I see Bush as simplistic, but fundamentally sound. Obama? Complicated and lacking those same "fundamentals". Perhaps just a completely different
Change vs continuance. Both required in a president, at the right time and place, but never has two Presidents have ever represented groups of such
While no one can know positively what motivates these two, hindsight provides clues, hints.
Have I got this right so far? Thoughts?