Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
Again, you aren't getting specifics on the internet forums, but you are also quick to dismiss the specifics that I did mention. Being at a fundraiser reflects a lack of concern, could he have resolved the issue by skipping the fundraiser, maybe - maybe not, but he could have demonstrated to the parties involved that it was a serious incident to shoot down a civilian jet. He could have used that time to meet with national security and congressional national security representatives. Perhaps they sit on their thumbs and twiddle their fingers, but Russian and separatists would have to at least believe they were going over possible responses at the US could take, including, coordinating having FAA, Malaysian, and international crews on the ground in Ukraine controlled territory and waiting impatiently for the separatists to allow them onsite. We could have announced that we will seek permission from Kiev to allow AWAC overflight of West Ukraine. Going to a fundraiser, and not speaking publicly (not press releases that G1 referred to), sends a message to world community.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the President could have held a national telecast, instead of a fundraiser, and brought the shooting of a civilian aircraft, operating along a known civilian route, under the shining light of US auspices, or discussed how that act brings a new and dangerous dimension to the fight in Ukraine. He could have highlighted the peaceful election and the high percentage support for the new Kiev government and directly call on the separatists to lay down their arms and meet with Kiev. He could have been working with Merkel, and the other European national leaders, to craft a proposal that would entice the separatists to the table, or crafting a UN resolution to create a UN sponsored peace talks under UN auspices.
All of this is to say that there are specific and substantive acts that a US President can, and should, take when a hostile force attacks a civilian aircraft with reckless abandon, and these acts should be immediate, obvious, and carry the full weight and stature of the office of the President and the power and force of the US world status. Instead, this President chose to release a meaningless release saying we don't even know if any US citizens were on board (so the other 270 or so human beings aren't important?, or the free and safe passage of civilian airlines aren't important), and attend a fundraiser that does nothing to unite the nation, or bring this to the nation as a whole under the seal of the President of the United States of America.
It's easy to do nothing (hell I try and get away with it every day LOL) and it's safer to sit back and offer platitudes to international leaders. It's incumbent on the US President though to be a national LEADER of actions, and not a middle management zombie going through motions of a political hack.
and G1- this is how CBS reported the President's statement:
Again, that's a Hallmark condolences card with a statement of American ignorance (why say we don't know if there were US citizens on the aircraft, it's a useless sentence and a silly first priority, whether or not US citizens were killed should be secondary to assuring safe passage of civilian aircraft at heights of 33,000 feet). That's NOT a US President acting as a leader on a world stage. If that and the condolences to Poreshenko and the Malaysian leader is all the US President needs to do, then we should just vote in the owner of Hallmark in the next election.
|
That's fair.
It just irks me when you see criticism with no real alternative suggested, especially in a situation like this. You want UN Peace Keepers on the ground? well... they're having a meeting about that today, I honestly don't know what you or anyone else could have done differently in that regard. You want sanctions? We're already doing that...
If the criticism is that he went to a fundraiser, then so be it. We have plenty of examples of other presidents doing similar things. It irked me just as much when people criticized Bush for continuing to read to the children after finding out about 9-11... it seems like shallow criticism from people without a clue as to what is actually going on in totality in that situation. As if the entire arm of military, foreign policy, and intelligence of the United States is temporarily disabled and on standby because the President went to a fundraiser; or chose to continue to read to the children.
If your additional criticism is that he gave a lackluster speech on the issue, or that he missed an important opportunity to be a leader, then I get that. It's ironic... the president that's known for being a great speech maker and not much else, can't seem to make a meaningful speech when it matters
I have no idea what the right response to this situation is... I'd like to see the people responsible put on trial for high crimes and put to death if found guilty, but I don't know how we can do that if Russia decides to protect them (Maybe some of them are in Russia's military/political offices???)
In fact... if the interest is in punishing those responsible (assuming they were terrorists, or someone that made a mistake in the war going on in the area [on either side]) then we need Russia to cooperate and grandstanding and using this as a chance to take shots at them isn't going to help at all...
But it seems like every time something like this happens we hear a lot of crowing from whatever group is opposed to the sitting president when things like this happens, when the truth is majority of the people crowing don't have a clue of what is actually going on, much less what should be going on.
The idea of finding out all the facts before demanding action seems to be a lost virtue these days... it's always hurry up and do something, then criticize whatever that something is.