The President doesn’t need to meet with leaders he has a phone

#1
volmaverick

volmaverick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
6,015
Likes
14
#1
Obama campaign adviser: The President doesn’t need to meet with foreign leaders face-to-face because he has a phone

Obama campaign adviser and former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended President Barack Obama’s decision to not to meet with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu or any other world leaders during their upcoming visits to the United States for the United Nations general assembly meeting, saying that the United States President doesn’t need to meet face-to-face with foreign leaders – phone calls are sufficient.

Obama campaign adviser: The President doesn’t need to meet with foreign leaders face-to-face because he has a phone


Aren’t we lucky to have this moron.

These idiots are TEENAGERS!!!!

TOP TEN THINGS YOU DON'T NEED TO DO BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PHONE..

1. # You don't need to be a real world leader or meet with world leaders because you can call them on a phone.
2. # Being a President of the United States, so all he has to do is look official in the Oval Office on the phone.
 
#2
#2
In theory, could Obama handle all his business with other world leaders via video and teleconferencing?

I fail to see how this is a critique.
 
#3
#3
therealUT said:
In theory, could Obama handle all his business with other world leaders via video and teleconferencing?

I fail to see how this is a critique.
Click to expand...

Agree with what you're saying, but the fact that he's going on "The View" during this time is what looks bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
I think it's worse that he went to bed after first learning of the assault on the Benghazi consulate.
 
#5
#5
VolFan32 said:
Agree with what you're saying, but the fact that he's going on "The View" during this time is what looks bad.
Click to expand...


Guess he just couldn't do those "important meetings" on THE VIEW and LETTERMAN via video and teleconferencing
 
#6
#6
Loved the RNC chair's comments yesterday: Obama ought to be in briefings instead if interviews with Beyonce, Jay-z, and a Miami radio dj called Pimp with a Limp.

Dude, we get it. President is black.
 
#7
#7
lawgator1 said:
Dude, we get it. President is black.
Click to expand...

Why does everything have to be about race with you? You look at Obama and see a black man. I look past the color of his skin and see a self-absorbed idiot who is in way over his head.
 
#8
#8
bamawriter said:
Why does everything have to be about race with you? You look at Obama and see a black man. I look past the color of his skin and see a self-absorbed idiot who is in way over his head.
Click to expand...


Why does the GOP continually remind us of the fact that he's black?

Obama gets all sorts of endorsements by white celebrities and you don't see the GOPers mocking him for that. No, it's ALWAYS a reference to someone with a name like Beyonce or Jay-Z.

Pretty transparent, imo.
 
#10
#10
myrobbins7 said:
I thought he was half white also?
Click to expand...


Does not serve GOP purposes to emphasize that.

Seriously, how many times did you hear this week the mocking of Obama for meeting with Beyonce and Jay-Z? I must have heard it a half dozen times.
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
Why does the GOP continually remind us of the fact that he's black?

Obama gets all sorts of endorsements by white celebrities and you don't see the GOPers mocking him for that. No, it's ALWAYS a reference to someone with a name like Beyonce or Jay-Z.

Pretty transparent, imo.
Click to expand...

They made fun of Jessica Alba, Natalie Portman, etc for the "pledge" thing. Jessica Alba is pretty tanned though, so you may have a point.

They ripped on the George Clooney fundraiser earlier in the year.

They ripped on the David Letterman appearance.

You're hearing more about the Jay-Z fundraiser right now because it just happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
I'm sure if he flew everywhere to meet with every foreign leader for every issue you would have a problem with him wasting tax dollars doing something he could have over the phone. Hell, I would have an issue with it.

What exactly is the problem with picking up a telephone?
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Why does the GOP continually remind us of the fact that he's black?

Obama gets all sorts of endorsements by white celebrities and you don't see the GOPers mocking him for that. No, it's ALWAYS a reference to someone with a name like Beyonce or Jay-Z.

Pretty transparent, imo.
Click to expand...

You left out Letterman which is usually part of the critique.

He's not black.

These are the high profile (except Pimp with a Limp which is ironic given the "war on women") events that Obama participated in since the attacks.
 
#14
#14
rjd970 said:
I'm sure if he flew everywhere to meet with every foreign leader for every issue you would have a problem with him wasting tax dollars doing something he could have over the phone. Hell, I would have an issue with it.

What exactly is the problem with picking up a telephone?
Click to expand...

I agree in principle but international diplomacy is all about
protocol. There is a diplomatic impact of not making time for a face to face meeting particularly for Israel given the Iran situation.

I don't see the "he has a phone" as a very satisfying answer to the question - it's pretty flippant
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
I agree in principle but international diplomacy is all about
protocol. There is a diplomatic impact of not making time for a face to face meeting particularly for Israel given the Iran situation.

I don't see the "he has a phone" as a very satisfying answer to the question - it's pretty flippant
Click to expand...


Do you not think that Obama has a reason to turn down the meeting? One that corresponds to national security?

All he's done is catch flack for it. Must be a thought process there that outweighs the political negatives.

I'm thinking that we are pretty sure that Israel is going to attack Iran before the election and Obama does not want to be forced into a yes or no situation. I mean, what do we do if we think that Iran can be turned, but it seems like the Israelis have made up their minds, and are going to risk a regional war that would truly burden us to be involved in?


To some degree, I have found Romney's comments on the subject to be fine, and appropriately avoiding the central issue. Its fine to say we won't let Iran go nuclear. It is quite another to say we will commit troops, weapons, etc., to defending Israel after it unilaterally attacks Iran. That puts an awful lot of our power into the hands of someone we don't control. Not a very good idea, imo. I think both Obama and Romney see it that way.
 
#16
#16
I think he has several reasons

1) Israel has called him out several times
2) His ME policy has continually been one of trying not to look like we favor Israel over others and he bends over backwards to show it.
3) He doesn't want any part of what Israel might do.
4) He doesn't like Netanyahu (sp?)

It's not about him having a phone.
 
#17
#17
volinbham said:
I think he has several reasons

1) Israel has called him out several times


They call everyone out to put pressure on them to act, should it come to that.


2) His ME policy has continually been one of trying not to look like we favor Israel over others and he bends over backwards to show it.


A matter of degree. Of course we "favor Israel." But there is a pretty big gap between we'll defend you if you are attacked, versus if you attack Iran, and there are counterattacks, we'll commit to getting involved.

3) He doesn't want any part of what Israel might do.

I don;t think its personally what he wants, I think its a difference of opinion by the intelligence estimates of the two countries about how necessary it is to attack now.



4) He doesn't like Netanyahu (sp?)

I don't think that has much to do with it. None of them are his "friends."


It's not about him having a phone.
Click to expand...



Attacking Iran risks, not just Iranian reprisals, but attacks from a half dozen + nations in the region. I think we ought to be very careful before any sort of "we got your back" type commitments.
 
#18
#18
Bottomline - a face to face meeting is a much higher level diplomatic event than is a phone meeting.

For Gibbs to imply they are equivalent is one more example of the flippant attitude this admin continually displays.
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
Bottomline - a face to face meeting is a much higher level diplomatic event than is a phone meeting.

For Gibbs to imply they are equivalent is one more example of the flippant attitude this admin continually displays.
Click to expand...


I agree that face to face is higher level and I suspect reason not to do it is calculated to distance the administration from anything Israel might do between now and 11/6.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
Attacking Iran risks, not just Iranian reprisals, but attacks from a half dozen + nations in the region. I think we ought to be very careful before any sort of "we got your back" type commitments.
Click to expand...

Risks of attacking Iran deserves its own thread.
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
Why does the GOP continually remind us of the fact that he's black?

Obama gets all sorts of endorsements by white celebrities and you don't see the GOPers mocking him for that. No, it's ALWAYS a reference to someone with a name like Beyonce or Jay-Z.

Pretty transparent, imo.
Click to expand...

this is retarded. The folks most often touting Obama's blackness are his wife, his camp and idiots like those at MSNBC. Nobody in the Libertarian or conservative mode gives a flying crap what color the guy is. People care that we have a douchebag in office who believes in government solutions OVER individual ones.
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
Attacking Iran risks, not just Iranian reprisals, but attacks from a half dozen + nations in the region. I think we ought to be very careful before any sort of "we got your back" type commitments.
Click to expand...

no it doesn't. Don't be ridiculous. It risks attacks on Israel.

The problem is that nation building isn't going to happen with cave people who believe Westernism is worse for them than cave dwelling under theological rule. At least Iraq was trying to be secular.
 
#24
#24
BigPapaVol said:
no it doesn't. Don't be ridiculous. It risks attacks on Israel.

The problem is that nation building isn't going to happen with cave people who believe Westernism is worse for them than cave dwelling under theological rule. At least Iraq was trying to be secular.
Click to expand...


You really think it ends at strikes by Israel and simple proportional response by Iran ?
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
You really think it ends at strikes by Israel and simple proportional response by Iran ?
Click to expand...

For all the countries involved, deterrence is the ability to create losses the other party does not want to accept. Iran has a long list of assets they don't want to lose in a war. It would lose its nuclear program, missile program, and anything else we chose to target. The U.S. has a few aircraft carriers. So why are we deploying carriers where they are so vulnerable to attack?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top