Yesterday, after the announcement that a Malaysian passenger plane crashed in Ukraine, President Obama had spoke these words: "Before I begin, obviously, the world is watching reports of a downed passenger jets near the Russia-Ukraine border and it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy. Right know we're working to determine whether there were any American citizens were on board....that is our first priority......." May be a tragedy? The reports were out hours before this speech, there were no survivors and that bodies were scattered all over the ground. Wasn't the man with the NSA and CIA at his finger tips brief that this was a tragedy? And what difference does it make if there were American citizens on board or not? Does that make it less of a tragedy? Sure, the US will need to find this out so that family members can be notified in a timely and compassionate method, but is that really the first priority? Incidents such as this are how world wars are started. I would think insuring that does not happen would be a very high priority. By telling the world that this may be a tragedy and that the first priority was to see if Americans were on board only supports the beliefs, that other country's have, that American's are arrogant and pompous. Everything is not about the US and our President should not be giving the world the impression that is the case. His comments were rude and lacked compassion to the world. The wording of his comments were uncouth and showed a lack of class. Granted, I am not an Obama supporter, but I do not go out of my way to find things about him to complain about. If this is how it came across to me, think of how it came across to those in the world that already hold our President and/or our Country in disdain.
You'd have had a better point if you hadn't felt the need to edit your post five minutes after writing it.
The edits were mainly to clean up spelling and grammar mistakes (as I do for all my posts).....how does that change the point?
People make mistakes all the time. The meaning of what Obama said came across so there's really no good reason to obsess over a single poorly chosen word. He had no option to go back and clear up his spelling and grammar.
He is the fricking President of the US.....not some forum poster. He has people that help him write speeches and rehearses them (or at least he should).....he doesn't just shoot from the hip (or at least he shouldn't). His words has much more meaning and power than mine will ever have. The whole world listens to his words.....not so with mine. Or maybe you just want to attack the poster and not the post. It is a great way to avoid the issue or to admit that it was very poor judgement on his part.....or to demand much better from our President.
First, I'm not attacking you. I don't want to admit is was poor judgement because I don't think it was poor judgement, it was just unfortunate though you're blowing it out of all proportion. I doubt anybody outside America is talking about it. Your alternative is that no President should ever speak in public without a pre-written and carefully prepared script, in other words exactly the kind of thing that gets leaders condemned for being artificial and out-of-touch. They can't win because the criticisms of them aren't about identifying actual issues if they exist but are based on a predetermination to attack for political reasons and seeking out the best way to do so. Whether you've just been dragged along or are instigating I don't know but either way, regardless of the target, it's frustrating.
I am not taking it as a personal attack, I was just curious about the motives of your responses. You have since explain yourself well and I do not believe you are just trying to avoid the issue. I do not see how a prepared speech can come across as being artificial or out-of-touch. The way it is delivered might come across that way, but not the speech itself....unless it was poorly written. I understand that people sometimes mis-speak and include words that change the emotional context of a message.....and yes, even Presidents do this at times. However, this is not an isolated incident with this President. He often shoots-from-the-hip and it makes him appear very incompetent. Yes, it is just one word, but the whole world listens to those words and their opinions of our nation are based on those words.....and the person. I assume you are a residence of the UK based on your flag. Even though he is not YOUR President, you should be just as concerned about the image he portrayed as much as I am....after all, his image and our image does shape your country in part as well. My whole point was not to chastise him for a mis-speak, but to chastise his lack of being Presidential (i'll define the term if you like, but I think you know what I mean). Our country has not had someone that has been Presidential for awhile. I remember a time when the image of the President was important and that image was maintained. After all, the person does not represent the position or the person, but represents our nation. How our President is perceived is how, we as a country, are perceived by people from other countries. If he comes across as an uncaring. egocentrically, baboon, that is how our country is perceived. As I said, if it came across as it did to me, I know it came across to other the same....especially to those that do not hold our country is high esteem. Just because it is not being talked about in other countries does not mean that if was not noticed. Edit: not sure what you are referring to with "dragged along or instigating". I am just expressing my disgust with his choice of wording and his "priority". It is a disgust that I felt the minute I heard it. It is not something that someone convinced me was inappropriate.
Obama, was using proper grammar in his speech! Something past Republican presidents had a problem with. I am not surprised in the least bit that Republicans have a problem with Obama over this. The have a problem with the man sneezing.
Well, I'm not speaking for Republicans, as I am not a Republican. I am also not complaining about his grammar. It is his choice of words that alluded that this may or may not be a tragedy.....and that his #1 concern was whether Americans were on board instead showing concern for the loss of life, no matter which country the passengers were from.
what do you expect from a president who thinks its OK to mutilate and murder helpless children in the womb? I tried to warn voters that if someone can't even get that basic issue right, he is not worthy of office, the highest in the world but no one would listen to me... actually one person (or maybe more?) did listen and voted against his party... ___ so... yeh, what do u expect? The only life he values is his own... _____
My core point isn't about the reality of what he does. Most people have already decided if they'll like what he does or not (whether they realise it or not). Those who have decided to complain will find something to complain about. If there isn't anything really significant, they'll pick out something minor. A heavily scripted speech about something emotive would be an example of that, just as misspeaking in a free speech is. I agree, but I see it more as an "Isn't it a pity that..." rather than the national disaster it's being portrayed as (not necessarily by you but you're playing a part in the avalanche). That's probably true but it's a systematic problem rather than a personal one. You're not voting for presidential candidates (even at the early stages) so you can hardly blame your Presidents for not being presidential. Trust me, a brief speech by the President to an American audience isn't a major factor in why your country is held in such low esteem. It's not going to help but it's a bucket in the ocean.
