President Barack Obama said the worst mistake of his presidency was a lack of planning for the aftermath of the 2011 toppling of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Do you agree?
He has lessened the the presidency. If Reagan showed up at a foreign country he was met by the leader of that country, not some lacky. Most foreign countries don't respect him. Hillary will get less respect if elected. Our country is doomed unless we get a conservative in office.
Or at least it goes on his long list of equal blunders.
The worst mistake in his presidency was running for office in the first place
The biggest mistake of his presidency was running for office to begin with.
The worst part of his presidency was his presidency
You guys are so good at articulating your arguments! I'm smarter after reading all of these posts!...
What a joke of an answer he gave, just like everything else he does.
The immigrants he just let in the country not to long ago
Though that was one of his many blunders; the worst was being Sworn In (both times)!
I would say obamacare or the nuclear deal which basically funded terrorists
I don't know yet if that was his worst mistake,but it's certainly in the top 10.
I understand your struggle. There's just too many to choose from.
the executive branch has too much power. the president should not have the ability to conduct wars and kill people on his orders.
Obama can say it's a mistake all he wants but he shouldn't have been able to do that if he wanted to.
Shouldn't have happened at all
SOMETIMES.... MOST OF THE TIME I WANNA KILL HIM
That trade agreement he is drawing up now is pretty bad. What's it called? TPP?
I would agree it's one of the worst though.
TPP has been in the process for a long time, I think since before Obama, and it involves way more people than just him. It's not his brain child.
His worst mistake was running for office.
His whole presidency has been one big mistake. One sad, nightmare of a mistake!
I think the biggest mistake was failing to establish a coherent and non-corrupt government in Iraq before getting out. It, along with the stupidity of a certain Bush, allowed for ISIS to take Iraqi territory. Hopefully his new plan to help the Kurds and Jordanians will help fix this.
Iraq has/had a democracy. How would we fix their government without committing a coup d'état?
They had a provisional democratic government that we set up. Provisional meaning temporary for a crisis. But now that I think about this, everything we could have done without a coup de-tat needed to happen under the bush administration. I suppose the only thing he could have done better there is stay in Iraq to keep out ISIS while putting Iraqis who can understand the differences in regional dialects in charge of border security, but Obama would have needed a clairvoyant in his administration to think to do all that.
Agh! Autocorrect messed up "coup d'etat". I don't even know where their corrections come from.
His whole Presidency has been his worst mistake...our worst mistake.
I said the same
It's only one of his largest mistakes. At least he admitted to one of the many
He's right on this one. I didn't know he was capable of regret until now.
His whole presidency is a mistake. Americans have become too complacent and poorly educated.
Lol his worst mistake was getting elected and we shouldn't have intervened with Libya in the first place.
It is so hard to pick just one.
Worst mistake= becoming president in the first place.
That's his fault? Ok go back to your govt class...yikes!
Um yeah, it was his choice to run lol
Ha has made so many bad choices, it's hard to pick his worst.
Picking Obama's biggest mistake is like picking the least smelly porta-potty at the Indy 500.
I could name several more but there isn't enough time or space!
So many bad mistakes it is hard to pick one of them as the worst.
His worst mistake is the decision to not declare war on ISIS.
His worst mistake overall was deciding to run for office... Any office.
He started off strong with the Cambridge police disaster, left tens of thousands of Iranian protestors without support following a stolen election, shoved Obamacare down the throats of all Americans while lying about people keeping their doctors and coverage, his foreign policy has been virtually undefinable and he thinks side-stepping Congress is constitutional. Did I mention economic recovery has been the slowest in nearly a century?
The need for and speed of economic recovery can easily and appropriately blamed on Republicans
Oh, so if everything "skips an administration" ...
Bush 41 can be credited with the Internet/Tech boom of the 90s
& Bill Clinton deregulated the housing markets to cause the bubble of the 2000s
I'm not suggesting things skip administration's, I'm suggesting that Bush Jr wreaked the economy, and a do-nothing Congress kept the recovery going slower than it would have
Bush's biggest problem economically was the magnitude of his spending. Sadly, Barack Obama has doubled down on that practice and has spent more than every other president combined.
From his perspective that is probably true.
His worst mistake (disclaimer: I'm a life-long Republican) was failing to give the speech he was born to give after the Ferguson cop shooting incident. He could have delivered the 21st Century "I have a Dream" speech and taken race relations to a whole new level, instead, he whiffed. Punted. Dropped the ball. Flagrant, epic fail.
His biggest mistake was being petty and not being a leader when he first took office. He couldn't wait to be a petulant child once talking office.
He's so modest. There are lots of other things he's screwed up. I would say his hamfisted handling of American race relations has been abysmal, for instance. Or trading five dangerous terrorist leaders for one scrawny, cowardly deserter who got American soldiers killed.
The one time he acts like he supports our military.
I know, right? The husband's active duty, a very straight-laced Boy Scout kinda dude. When that exchange happened, I heard words out of his mouth I normally only hear out of, well, mine.
Absolutely. You can't just go around toppling governments without a plan for the aftermath.
One of many. But the first step in admitting you have done a lot of damage is good.
The tail end of his lame duck year is kinda late for a Come-to-Jesus moment.
No, it was running for president.
Well you could always run...that's be worse!
Don't think so
You can have your opinion...I like mine!
Maybe allowing the patriot act become the freedom act (patriot act 2.0)..
The worst mistake of his presidency was his presidency
There are several things that haven't gone ideally under Obama, having said that I'm not sure that would be my choice for his biggest shortcoming.
There are two things that have to be factored in when evaluating his time in office. First being that he inherited an epic mess from Bush Jr. Second is the historically unprecedented level of obstructionism that he's received basically throughout his time in office. Politics is often the art of the possible and the level of obstructionism he's faced has made several things that should have been easy almost impossible.
Having said that, I think one of the bigger shortcomings was bailing on the "public opinion" during the ACA debate, it's still not the universal construction that many other industrialized nations have, but it might have made the difference on that bills troubles.
I think he could have had less obstructionism if he had done more as far as holding the previous administration accountable for its vast failures.
brent, I would only offer that the obstructionism you reference was due in large part to the will of a vast majority of the American People to keep President Obama in check. In spite of even President Obama's stated certainty to the contrary, Republican's were voted into the House and Senate, in a historic wave in 2010. This included historic levels of Republican's voted into State Houses and Governorship's across the continent. This was then expanded on in the 2014 midterms. As popular as it's been to characterize Congress as obstructionist, I would say it was also a mandate of The People that power in Government be decentralized, IMO...
Gonzoboy I disagree. There have been many polls on a variety of topics that showed that over 50% (in the case of better background check capability between 80 and 90%) disagreed with what the Republicans were doing. Even now with the Supreme Court nominee...the majority of people say there should be a vote on the nomination. Many things that have been blocked by Republicans were things that Republicans supported under Republican presidencies. When Republicans try to stop one president because they don't want him to look good at the expense of what is good for the economy or the people...it hurts everyone.
Gonzo: I'd agree, except that I wouldn't call it a majority of Americans, seeing as the majority elected him twice. And in those congressional elections, democratic turnouts were very low.
Brent: I totally agree- I think one of the biggest failures tho was the auto and bank bailouts, being handled with tarp and taxpayer dollars in the way they were was bad. There was a better option on the table in each case.
And it certainly marked an unfortunate point in history, having a considerable number of republicans in congress signing a vow to obstruct obamas actions, before he was even sworn in. That's just bad politics.
schoolmom, I can't disagree that Republican's were and continue to be staunchly (stubbornly?) opposed to this President, also including as you suggest, items that they themselves agreed with. I'm less sure on SCOTUS. Certainly this has as much to do with raw politics, as philosophical difference. What I see most, though, is a government much like the FF's likely envisioned it. Were still a work-in-progress, schoolmom!
Ah yes JHawk, perhaps you're right on the Americans, and I should substitute Republican's for that. It's also true that Democrat's are historically less likely to vote midterms.
JHawk ... MrO never -- not once -- received a vote from a "majority of Americans". There's a huge difference between a majority of Americans and a small majority of those who voted.
The fact is that MrO is far from a consensus president. His choice to divide from the beginning has made America worse. Democrats want to look past the "elections have consequences" nonsense and the locking of Republicans out of all negotiations on ObamaDoesntCare, and talk about obstructionism. Yet the fact is MrO has been -- from the beginning -- the divider no the uniter in chief.
Gonzo, I can't agree,
Having the alternate party gain seats in Congress is not new, but those years didn't have the level of obstructionism that Obama has dealt with
He must have a pretty bad memory, haha.
Caught mad cow from Hillary.
Pardon my cynicism here, but I'm always suspect when ANY President begins remarking on their mistakes, particularly a sitting President. Please note this is not my attempt to 'Obama-bash'. My initial thought, is that this might be one means Obama as the head of the Democratic Party might be using to whitewash ONE aspect of Clinton's foreign affairs decisions as Secretary of State. One thing that positively CAN NOT be argued, is there is NO politician seeking the Office of President that would preserve President Obama's legacy more than Hillary Clinton. The more he can do to remove or shield her from blame, the greater her chance at election, the greater his legacy has a chance to remain intact. In theory.
This is PURE conjecture. It doesn't escape me I could be 100% wrong. Surely, dyed-in-the-wool Party loyalist's will let me know...
It's an interesting idea. Though at first I thought you were talking about bill Clinton - he certainly had his screw ups, but overall, he turned things around, much like Obama did, though I'd certainly say O did better.
Yes, the debt is thru the roof, but the deficit is the big one here. Also, I think Obama continuing our military involvement to the degree we have is less than ideal, because we keep getting pulled in deeper. He should have
Put tighter limits on our involvement, and closed a bunch of our unneeded bases around the world.
As long as there is a deficit, even if it declines every year, the debt goes up and becomes more and more difficult to pay down. There's a point where we won't produce enough GDP to ever be able to pay it off. We're quickly moving that way.
My point is that the deficit is at a point where with what some might call drastic spending cuts, not to things like welfare/public services etc, but to military/ and other pointless spending, and have progressive policies that
Pay off in the long run by stimulating economic growth from the bottom up (not by cutting taxes), we could continue the downward trend in the deficit and get to a surplus all the faster.
Once again a liberal makes no economic sense. This is why we can't fix our country. The military is absolutely necessary for the protection of our citizens. It is also an actual enumerated power of the fed Gov't in the Constitution. Could we decrease spending on it? Sure. Close some bases and stop buying too many aircraft.
How do you propose to cut spending (on military and other "pointless things") and then use progressive spending policies to cut the deficit? Progressives NEVER reduce spending. It's an oxymoron.
The need of our ever expanding military prowess is not as necessary as you'd think, and we could easily and safely cut military spending in half and still have the strongest military in the world. The progressive spending leads to more
Tax revenue down the road. Tax cuts for the rich obviously don't work, and they're not job creators. If we support ourselves from the bottom up, money is spent, revenue is generated, business grows. It's the perfect economic stimulation
That so far, only a few cities and states have taken the initiative on (not enough to make a real impact). That and if course closing tax loopholes. I'd say we should try to work more on exports, but with how big globalization is, we are good
At just exporting jobs. You have corporate greed and shareholders to thank for that..
Gov't gets money from the taxpayers. By raising taxes you are taking more money out of American's pockets which means they have less disposable income. Gov't only grows itself. And they send the money to those very same greedy corporatists that you despise so much. I truly wish people would wake up to the crony capitalist system we have now. Then, maybe, you'd understand that growing Gov't is a bad thing. You're only enriching the very people you claim to hate.
It's ironic how you believe that we need to save the world then bitch when large corporations move overseas, thereby improving those countries' lives at the expense of Americans. Greed can't be eliminated. The rules have to be made with that understanding.
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. We have a huge conflict of interest problem with revolving door jobs of former politicians becoming lobbyists etc for huge companies. Sure, you get taxed more, but it's only a marginal difference
But the gov can generate more as more people have more spending power- our economy is driven by demand, so we should absolutely cater to that. And we cant necessarily eliminate all greed forever, but we can certainly mitigate
Many of the negative side effects of it. It's not difficult to create disincentives for companies to move abroad, and keep jobs here. Of course this means more diplomatic work with other countries, as they're often hurt by those
Companies as well (apple in Italy).
And I'm not suggesting that we should grow the government. And we should by all means limit, or in many cases, eliminate, large corporate subsidies to companies that clearly don't need it. We absolutely do have a problem, but
It comes back to the revolving door, and politicians having connections to large businesses. I'm mostly agreeing with you, but I think with enough transparency, and a more well educated/informed public, the democratic
Process should weed out much of the problematic individuals, and vote in more politicians who can introduce legislation to limit these types of conflicts within our government. I don't believe it to be unattainable
The only way to incentivize businesses to stay here is to make the COGS less here than abroad. That means lower corporate taxes and keeping the min wage where it is or lower. Keep in mind those same companies provide the jobs people need so demonizing them is counterintuitive. As for politicians, they're all on the take. And those that had a legitimate desire to do right by the people get corrupted by the dirty ones in Congress or just by the money and power itself.
It's a con man's game. In order to get onto one of the best committees you have to essentially sell your soul. They make sure to dig up every bit of dirt possible to threaten you with. Why do you think that every election brings up cheating spouses or whatever?
That's why globalization leads to cheap foreign labor, where loads of human rights are violated, and labor conditions are terrible. Some ppl are mad that jobs are being exported, and some have the heart to hope those companies at least
Provide those cheap labored with better wages and safer working conditions. All the same, those companies are viewed very badly. Problem is, so few people have any idea where their stuff comes from
And under what conditions. I think if those companies worked to even the split, providing more Americans with jobs, while still allowing some foreign laborers to offset costs, it'd be a step in the right direction. And I think it's a bit
Ignorant, no offense, to suggest that every single politician is in on the take, like it's some all inclusive political conspiracy. It's safe to say most are invested in various large businesses, aren't most rich people with their own
Accountants bound to invest in businesses as a supplement to what they do for a living? I'm not saying this doesn't indicate greed, but it doesn't mean they're all corrupt because of it.
And if politicians know that dirt would be dug up, why would they even run in the first place? I mean, if Ted Cruz scandal is true, it would surprise me, since he's dumber than a bag of hammers, but for the vast majority, I don't
Think that it's an issue. Sure, there's rampant corruption in our government, but you make it sound like we're Mexico or something. It does need to be addressed and fixed, but it's not as all encompassing as you suggest
The impact of the corruption is far reaching, and they wield great power, but those same companies are no better for engaging in that. Problem is, these companies want high returns, regardless of the risk or bad PR, fast.
You look at companies that pay their employees well, they have lower turnover rates, which means less hiring and training costs, and more experienced employees, who are happier, and are more productive, meaning
The business runs better, and consumers take note of that. But you look at companies like Walmart that basically thrive on the desperation of the poor, while turning the value of their work into profit higher up in the company
They only survive because they have the money to open up everywhere, and get things ultra cheap from abroad, with no regard to how it impacts people here or around the world. People have taken notice, and it comes back to
A well educated/informed public / consumer base. Walmart and McDonald's have already raised their wages, and advertised the hell out of it, to try to appeal to people. And what happened? Business does better..
You make enough people mad at shady business dealings and bad business practices, things change, and we're heading in that direction faster and faster.
Does he forget that time him, and the rest of the scumbags in congress tried to sell us another War, in Syria??
Had not for (nearly) the entire country taking a shit on the idea all at once, we'd still be there "spreading democracy". Assad would be dead, ISIS would be counting the days until we left to take over all of Syria. But the Defense Contractors would be making Bank for at least another 5 years.
All of his actions lack planning.
The biggest mistake was him becoming president and destroying this country
How has it been destroyed?
Its so hard to pick just one
Benghazi, failure to close GITMO, hastily withdrawal from Iraq and subsequent return after saying "no boots on the ground", failure to remove troops from Afghanisten as promised, failure to help the Ukraine when Russia invaded Ukraine (we are bound by law to help them), a half assed healthcare bill that works for very few, failure to secure LGBT rights (SCOTUS had to do it), the list goes on.
You know that our withdrawal from Iraq was required by an agreement Bush signed with the Iraqi government, right? "This agreement is also a big reason for no boots on the ground." That was an agreement out in place by the previous administration.
Obama has asked for war authorization to assist in the fight against ISIS, but the Republican controlled Congress has refused to put it up for a vote.
It is essentially Congress saying "let's say Obama didn't do anything to fight ISIS." Most people don't pay enough attention no know it is Congress that is preventing a comprehensive fight against ISIS.
And to say the administration was not successful at getting LGBT rights is ridiculous. It was the Justice Department that argued in favor the of the Supreme Court decision. It Congress won't work with the President to odd legislation, this is one avenue the administration can pursue - and they did so quite well if you ask me.
The President has also made clear he still wants GITMO closed. It is the republics who refuse. Obama has said for the start that closing GITMO would require congressional action.
What would you have recommended we do in Ukraine?
Sorry for all the typos. I will promise not to type while I'm walking. Apparently, I'm not capable of doing both at the same time.
I can already tell that no matter what reasonable information I give to solidify my claims, you are already set in your own opinions and have made up your mind. You clearly believe the Obama administration can do no wrong. Furthermore I can very easily tell that if Obama approached you, unzipped his pants and whipped out his dick you would kneel down and start sucking it like a champ. Typical sheep.
Okay then. I don't think Obama is infallible, but I do ask that people who attack him support it with some FACTS. If you let comments are devoid of fact I will call you out. But if you insist on making childish comments like that I wouldn't expect you to have any facts to support your rant.