Barack Obama: The Weakest President In History?

Barack Obama: The Weakest President In History?
By Anna Pukas
Express.co.uk
Friday March 18, 2011

INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...

Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House.

It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot.

JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious
minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and
very white.

Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president.
The world would change because obviously America had changed.

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.”

His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we
won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about:
“Maybe we can… do what, exactly?”

The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision.

What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one.

What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and
pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description.

This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya:
“Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.

Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention. Even the Arab League, a notoriously conservative organisation, has declared support for sanctions.

But from the White House has come only the blah-blah of bland statements filled with meaningless expressions and vague phrases. Of decisive action and leadership – even of clearlydefined opinion – there is precious little sign.

What is the Obama administration’s position on the protests in the Gulf island state of Bahrain, which the authorities there are savagely suppressing with the help of troops shipped in from Saudi Arabia?

What is the White House view on the alarming prospect of the
unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia itself? Who knows? Certainly
not the American people, nor the leaders of nations which
would consider themselves allies of America.

The President has not really shared his views, which leads us to conclude that he either doesn’t know or chooses, for reasons best known to himself, not to say.

The result is that a very real opportunity to remove an unpredictable despot from power may well have been lost. Who knows when or if such an opportunity will come along again?

Every day for almost the last two months our television screens, radio broadcasts and the pages of our newspapers have been filled with the pictures, sounds and words of the most tumultuous events any of us can remember in the Arab world.

The outcome of these events, once the dust has settled, could
literally change the world. Yet Obama seems content to sit this
one out. He has barely engaged in the debate.

Such ostrich-like behaviour is not untypical of the 49-year-old
President who burst through America’s colour barrier to become
the first African-American to occupy the White House.

Two days after taking office in January 2009, he pledged to close down the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, which has become notorious for holding detainees for years without trial.

Obama promised to lose the prison within 12 months and to abolish the practice of military trials of terrorism suspects. It was an important promise.

America’s reputation had been severely tarnished by revelations about the conditions at Guantanamo, by reports of waterboarding and extraordinary rendition (transporting prisoners to a third country for torture) and by the appalling treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Closing Guantanamo was a redemptive gesture.

Two years on, not only is the prison still in use but its future is as assured as ever. Ten days ago, the President signed an executive order reinstating the military commissions at the island prison.

Human rights organisations were outraged.

“With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any
lingering hope that his administration would return the United
States to the rule of law,” said Amnesty International while
Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil
Liberties Union, declared the President’s action to be “unlawful,
unwise and un-American.”

White House spokesmen insisted the President was still committed
to closing Guantanamo which currently has 172 detainees in custody.

It was Congress, they said, that had refused to sanction the transfer of the prisoners to the US mainland for trial, leaving no option but to keep the prison open in Cuba.

Very little has been achieved in the quest to secure peace in the Middle East. Under Obama, US foreign policy is founded on extreme caution.

At first this cool-headedness was a welcome change from the naked aggression of George W Bush and his henchmen Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is also true that the President is constantly stymied by a hostile, Republican-ruled Congress. But Obama’s apparent reluctance to engage with momentous events is starting to look like more than aloofness.

Some tempering of America’s role as the world’s No 1 busybody may be no bad thing but under Obama the US appears to be heading towards isolationism.

He is hardly doing much better at home. Economically, the US is
in big trouble but the national debt is not shrinking.

Ditto the country’s ecological health; the American love affair
with the car and oil remains undiminished despite any alleged
commitment. But the White House appears to shy away from
any tough action.

The energy with which Obama entered the White House seems to have all gone in the push to bring in health care reform, which many Americans didn’t want (or still don’t realise they want).

All of which means that it is starting to look as if Obama and the Democratic Party have but one aim in mind for the rest of this presidential term: to get elected for a second.

That means not doing anything that might upset any number of
special interest or niche groups, which in effect means not doing
very much at all.

So, not too many harsh but necessary measures to tackle the financial deficit; no clear direction on where America goes with Afghanistan, even though the war there is going nowhere except from bad to worse.

The Obama government can’t even give clear direction on whether
the American people are in danger of exposure to nuclear fallout
from Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami.

The US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin advised San Francisco residents to stock up on radiation antidotes, prompting a run on potassium iodide pills, while the President said experts had assured him that any harmful radiation would have receded long before reaching the Western shores of the US.

Yes we can was a noble and powerful mantra which secured for Barack Obama the leadership of the free world.

Those than can, do. It is time he started doing.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-
The-Weakest-President-in-history-