While Obama sleeps

Taking a weekend off in the middle of an intl crisis is not good. Prior to that after a press conference about Russia/Ukraine he ran out to to a fundriser

He can take off Sundays and Holidays. If he can't handle it then he can do a staycation....Like many Americans. This luxury vacation every month sets the wrong example. We need some one who likes to work in that office. Here's an idea...maybe he could forego all political fundraisers and start working full time for all Americans. But hey...keep showing us how much Obama and Bush are alike....I'm more and more convinced you're right about that.

I never once criticized Bush for taking too many vacation days. I challenge you to find any post of mine to that effect outside the context of pointing out Hoops' partisan-hypocrisy on that topic. I never once criticized Bush for taking a soft line in Georgia. I dont believe Bush's record in either case is something to be criticized. And I certainly dont think its ok in the context of one president and not another. And thats really the difference between people like me and some of our right-wing friends on this board.

BTW - we've never had any president in our history that worked without vacation. Is it your opinion we've never had a good president? I find that a little hard to believe and more than a little ridiculous...but its a free country. Good luck finding a candidate.

Obama: Income equality is "the defining challenge of our time". Now excuse me, I have a 3 week Hawaiian vacation that needs my attention and then there's that big birthday bash for Michelle, and another 200 fundraisers on the agenda.

Being president is hard work....but explain why all these vacations are necessary to the American who is working 3 jobs. And Bush was even a bigger slacker. It's not just work ethic. It's a lack of priorities. There will be plenty of vacation time after you're no longer doing one of the most important jobs in the world....but Ok..Two Weeks...just like any other starting Government Employee. And for the record, I think Congress should work harder too.

The day one becomes president is the day he should stop focusing on the next vacation and partisan fundraising and partisan politics and focus completely on being President to All Americans. No one said it was going to be easy.

As best poor old DonDiego remembers he hasn't criticized President Obama for taking too many vacation days. In fact, he wishes the President took more time off and did less.

By the way, as of 6 March the United States is in a National Emergency because "persons . . . have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine." Aside from trying to grab some assets of the scoundrels involved, DonDiego isn't certain what powers this national Emergency grants the President, but DonDiego intends to remain indoors as much as possible for a while.
Ref: Executive Order

It might have been wise to have delayed last weekends vacation given the National Emergency, . . . or not.

You've stated on this board that Putin's Ukraine aggressions are due in some part to his understanding (shared by you) of a weak US president. Readers can see page 3 of this thread for DonDiego's entertaining editorial on this opinion.

So set the record straight for us all, DonDiego. Did these same standards also apply when Putin sent troops into Georgia under the president you voted for twice? Or do you rationalize Putin's actions differently depending on what team is in the White House?

While I generally think that presidents should be able to take time off to recharge their batteries, perhaps Lincoln should have attended fewer plays.

DonDiego opines that the Obama administration is weaker with regard to foreign affairs than the G.W.Bush administration was. And its not just weakness, it's haphazard. He supposes President Putin shares that view.

Agree or disagree with the effort, President Bush arranged a coalition to invade Iraq and got Congressional approval and deposed Saddam Hussein and saw his execution carried out. Likewise in Afghanistan; the Taliban vanished from their frontline positions and fled Kabul and Kandahar without a fight. But the occupation has dragged on and the Islamiist guerillas persist.

President Obama, fr'instance:

__When President Obama took office, Afghanistan was the "good war". Now the US is leaving Afghanistan; within months of US troop departures, . . . if not sooner, . . . if not during, DonDiego expects the Taliban and its Islamist allies to be in charge. Good thing? Bad thing? In either case, not a sign of strength.

__President Obama stated he would take military action agains Syrian President Assad if a red-line was crossed. Secretary of State Kerry stated the proposed Syrian attack would be "unbelievably small" - not a sign of strength. The red-line was crossed . Ultimately in spite of a red-line being crossed there was no attack. [DonDiego opines that had President Obama executed an "unbelievably small" attack, the effects would've been unbelievably unnoticeable. DonDiego is also not certain which side employed the chemical weapon which led to President Obama's threat; the forces opposed to President Assad are allied with Islamist extremists. Nonetheless President Obama claimed it was Assad, so the red-line was crossed. As DonDiego stated earlier sometimes there are no good choices.]

__President Obama joined with the rebels in Libya and President Qaddafi was sodomized and killed. Unfortunately, the rebels were then and are now allied with Islamist extremists. Subsequently the Country has endured a severe economic slump; leadership, to the extent there is leadership, now lies with the Muslim Brotherhood; and the country has become the main base for Al-Qaeda in Northern Africa. The Us Ambassador and 3 others were murdered; the perpetrators are known; nothing has been done - not a sign of strength. [DonDiego supposes President Obama allied himself with the wrong side. The USA would be better off with Qaddafi in Libya. But as DonDiego stated earlier sometimes there are no good choices.]

__In Egypt, President Obama again sided with the rebels and President Mubarak was deposed and the Muslim Brotherhood took over and then the military kicked them out, . . and everything remains in turmoil. [A strong Egypt under Mubarak with a military allied with the USA had been beneficial for both the USA and Israel. This has turned out badly altogether.]

Stating there would be "costs" if Russia took over Crimea is pretty weak on its face; and DonDiego expects the costs, if any, will be negligible to President Putin, . . . largely because the Europeans are not going to join President Obama in imposing any costs. President Putin knows this.
President Putin owns Crimea. Whatever else he decides to take, . . . President Obama isn't going to stop him, . . . unless/until he takes something with which the US has a defense treaty. So, he won't.

But China might.
Japan and China dispute ownership of the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea; there's oil there. The US handed the islands back to Japan in 1972. Say China occupies these islands. And Japan deploys its military to push them out. The US and Japan have a defense treaty.
What to do? What to do? Sometimes there are no good choices.

Don Diego is an expert at answering questions that weren't presented. I'm trying to figure out if DonDiego applies his scale of measuring a weak president equally. DonDiego has stated Russian aggression in a neighboring country reflects a weak president Obama. I asked if Russian aggression in neighboring country also then reflects a weak president Bush. It would stand to reason that someone who believes their own rhetoric would agree. Don Diego instead changes the subject to why he thinks Obama is a wuss.

Quoting a poster falsely is offensive in any discussion forum.

It is also a sign of weakness.