• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Takes Heat For Skipping Bilaterals

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
News anchors Monday weighed in on President Barack Obama’s decision to appear on “The View” but not schedule any one-on-one meetings with world leaders during the United Nations General Assembly, with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd dubbing the move “odd” and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer calling it a “missed opportunity.”

On MSNBC, Todd noted the president “won’t have a single one-on-one meeting with a world leader on his schedule. Not anybody.”

“The White House also argues that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice will hold meetings,” Todd said after airing a clip of Fox News’s Chris Wallace pressing Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs about the president's schedule. “But folks it is odd to have a president come to the United Nations and not have any bilaterals. Granted it is a campaign year, but still odd considering what’s going on in the Middle East.”

And Blitzer told CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield that appearing on "The View" offers the president the chance to speak to millions of viewers and his campaign “determined that is an important thing for the president to do only six weeks before an election. Same reason why Mitt Romney the other day went on Kelly Ripa’s show.” But skipping bilateral meetings may be a mistake, Blitzer said.

“I do think that there potentially is a missed opportunity this week for the President of the United States to meet with some world leaders, but he’s made the decision that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with those world leaders, not him” Blitzer said.

Banfield replied, “And I think he’ll be taking it on the chin for it too, without question, with the critics.”

Obama knocked for skipping bilaterals - POLITICO.com

30 minutes later:

White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday dodged questions about why President Obama is not meeting bilaterally with any world leaders at this week's United Nations assembly in New York.

Carney, pummeled repeatedly on the subject at the White House briefing, said the president would see leaders at a reception he is hosting Monday night and when he addresses the General Assembly Tuesday morning. He also suggested Obama has enough interaction with leaders in his daily routine.

"The president has just in the last few weeks had extensive consultations with foreign leaders, including the leaders of Egypt, Israel, Yemen, Turkey, Libya and those consultations will continue, not just with leaders in the region but with leaders around the world," Carney said. "It is part of the job of being president."

But, as CBS News' Mark Knoller calculated, Obama participated in 13 bilateral meetings during last year's General Assembly. When pressed on why this year is different, Carney gave a lengthy preview of the president's planned address.

When asked if Obama's schedule was too tight for bilateral meetings, Carney would not say.

"The president obviously has got a busy schedule," Carney said. "He has a busy schedule all the time. It is a fact that he has in recent weeks, been intensively engaged in matters of foreign affairs, and that is part of being president."

W.H. dodges on absence of bilateral meetings - POLITICO.com

the thrust, by the way, of obama's un address tomorrow, carney telegraphs, is gonna be another apology for that dumb video he and his boss talk so much about

that'll do it, that'll put out the fires

what's a presidential apologist to do?

y'know, in a campaign year?

he won't meet bibi

and he can't meet morsi

this morning: Obama cancels election-season meeting with Mohamed Morsi | The Daily Caller

it's a good thing, the president from the brotherhood would only make more demands

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/w...terms-for-us-arab-ties.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

for which obama would have do more apologizing

and he's not even sure if egypt is an ally (or an enemy)

so carney counters, "the president has just in the last few weeks had extensive consultations with foreign leaders---egypt, israel, yemen, turkey"

well, jay, things have kinda changed since then

bilaterals aint all obama skips

Obama skips his intelligence briefings - The Complete Las Vegan - ReviewJournal.com

President Obama's jobs council missing in action - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

carney---the president obviously has a busy schedule

he sure does!

The View | Week of September 24

he's a hit!

President Barack Obama: I'm 'eye candy' for women of 'The View' - POLITICO.com

on univision last week, obama said the most important lesson he's learned is "you can't change washington from the inside"

Obama pressed on failures at Univision forum - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

true, if you really wanna change washington you gotta go on the view
 
Last edited:
abc's jake tapper, monday:

"Their basic answer when asked about this -- and we've been asked about it for quite some time -- is the one that you just heard Jay Carney explain. The idea that the schedules do no align -- President Obama's in New York, Monday, Tuesday, and then going back. Prime Minister Netanyahu will be in New York later in the week," ABC News' chief White House correspondent Jake Tapper said to FOX News' Greta van Susteren about President Obama's decision not to meet with world leaders.

"But it is true that last year, when President Obama was here for the U.N. General Assembly he had at least a dozen meeting with world leaders. And having covered President Obama since he took office, this is an anomaly, this idea that you come here and not have meetings with world leaders. There really isn't a full explanation that's been forthcoming, other than the president has a busy schedule," Tapper said.

Tapper: Really No Explanation For Why Obama Is Not Meeting With Foreign Leaders | RealClearPolitics
 
A few things:

The claim that Obama skips his intelligence briefings is bogus. He prefers to read the briefings himself and then ask questions afterward. Bush liked to have them read to him, which is why he had more of the in-person briefings.

Having sat in on some of these high-level bilateral meetings they are rarely productive. The underlings do all the real work before hand and then sometimes the big wigs “seal the deal” and have their photo-op. But maybe I just feel that way because I am one of the underlings. ;)

That said, I don’t think a President should be wasting his time campaigning which is why I think it should be changed so a President serves a single 6-year term and cannot run for re-election. But that isn’t the way it is.
 
The claim that Obama skips his intelligence briefings is bogus

he's resumed them---after the middle east exploded in his misinformed face on 9-11

After Libya Attacks, Questions About Presidential Briefing Habits - NYTimes.com

He prefers to read the briefings himself and then ask questions afterward

LOL!

according to whom?

I don’t think a President should be wasting his time campaigning which is why I think it should be changed so a President serves a single 6-year term and cannot run for re-election

why would you presume anyone cares about your mere opinions?
 
he's resumed them---after the middle east exploded in his misinformed face on 9-11

After Libya Attacks, Questions About Presidential Briefing Habits - NYTimes.com



LOL!

according to whom?

Just do some basic due diligence on the internet and you can find this information out for yourself.

The bogus claim that Obama 'skips’ his intelligence briefings - The Washington Post [/QUOTE]


why would you presume anyone cares about your mere opinions?

Because I am sexy like that.
 
a wapo factcheck?

LOL!

from the january 16 pincus article cited by kessler:

About 9:30 a.m. on Friday, President Obama held his daily national security session in the Oval Office. He was joined by Vice President Biden, national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon, Chief of Staff William M. Daley, deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism John O. Brennan, and a deputy representing Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James R. Clapper.

Also usually included in the sessions are deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough; Anthony Blinken, Biden’s national security adviser and one or more intelligence community briefers.

The Obama morning meeting involves two parts. The first deals with the latest important intelligence, with the president leading the questioning. The second part generally is an extensive policy discussion, which is led by Donilon and focuses on how to handle immediate national security issues that require the president’s attention.

This approach differs somewhat from those of Obama’s predecessors and illustrates his way of doing business: He holds regular, open discussions with top policy advisers based on current facts, designed to try to stay ahead of issues before they become problems.

One regular participant in the roughly 500 Oval Office sessions during Obama’s presidency said the meetings show a president consistently participating in an exploration of foreign policy and intelligence issues.

In contrast, a former senior adviser to former presidents said the system sounded more like a morning “seminar” where other stakeholders, such as Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are not present.

It also is used to remind Obama about decisions that are needed and sometimes leads to a National Security Council (NSC) meeting, where the president will directly ask Clinton, Panetta and other members for their departments’ views on the subject.

Obama reads the PDB ahead of time and comes to the morning meeting with questions. Intelligence briefers are there to answer those questions, expand on a point or raise a new issue. Clapper may be present once or twice a week, but most often one of his deputies is in attendance in case an intelligence community issue arises.

pincus concludes:

"process tells you something about an administration"

"how a president structures his regular morning meeting on intelligence and national security is one way to measure his personal approach to foreign policy"

just look at the results

blackberry, anyone?
 
just look at the results

If we are talking about intel and foreign policy then looking at the results leads to the conclusion that Obama has been a huge improvement over the past. Granted, that is the field in which I work so my perspective is different but I would think it would be obvious to laypeople as well. It is probably best for the right to limit its criticism to the economy and jobs because at least in that area their arguments have some plausibility.
 
Typical whining and grasping at straws by the increasingly desperate GOP. First of all, most conservatives consider the U.N. a waste of time and money and now they are complaining that Obama isn't devoting enough time to it? As is even alluded to in the OP's snide commentary, if he did hold the bi-laterals they would turn around and accuse him of kow towing to dirty foreigners again. Then we dredge up the non issue of how Obama conducts his intelligence briefings. All I can say is no matter how he has been doing it the results have been far superior to his predecessor. The events of this past 9/11 cannot even be compared to those of 2001, we haven't entered any 3+ trillion dollar wars based on inaccurate or fraudulent WMD claims, and Osama is no longer an issue since he has been found and killed. Perhaps it was the method of "W" that was flawed. On the other hand, in order to understand intelligence you probably have to possess some.
 
Typical whining and grasping at straws by the increasingly desperate GOP

LOL!

tell it to tapper, todd, knoller, blitzer, banfield...
 
Ignoring profs ridiculous temper tantrum and focusing on the actual article, I would have to agree that Obama made a poor decision to go on "The View" and skipping meetings with world leaders.

This is why I have said that Obama is a lousy leader. He has chosen to be a celebrity rather than a leader.

IMO as a veteran, I look at the presidency as prestiges and to me it lowers that prestige by appearing on talk shows and night shows. A president is supposed to meet with world leaders.
 
If there was ever a time for face to face meetings with world leaders it is now, obama is to busy campaigning for president and not busy enough being president. He finds time to go on the view but can't find time to meet with the president of Israel. This is like something out of a bad movie.
 
He probably wants to make sure their schedules are cleared so Romney can meet with them to make himself look like more of a fool...:lamo
 
He probably wants to make sure their schedules are cleared so Romney can meet with them to make himself look like more of a fool...:lamo

I think he's making a smart choice by sending Hillary in his place. That way HE won't look like a fool.
 
I think he's making a smart choice by sending Hillary in his place. That way HE won't look like a fool.

Hillary IS awsome, I'll give you that.
 
Hillary IS awsome, I'll give you that.

LOL!!!

Oh, I don't know if I would go so far as to use the term "awesome"...I really don't think she's been a very effective SecState. But she IS smarter and more capable than Obama so if someone has to deal with all of these Prime Ministers and Presidents, Obama is doing a good thing by going on the View instead.
 
Typical whining and grasping at straws by the increasingly desperate GOP. First of all, most conservatives consider the U.N. a waste of time and money and now they are complaining that Obama isn't devoting enough time to it? As is even alluded to in the OP's snide commentary, if he did hold the bi-laterals they would turn around and accuse him of kow towing to dirty foreigners again. Then we dredge up the non issue of how Obama conducts his intelligence briefings. All I can say is no matter how he has been doing it the results have been far superior to his predecessor. The events of this past 9/11 cannot even be compared to those of 2001, we haven't entered any 3+ trillion dollar wars based on inaccurate or fraudulent WMD claims, and Osama is no longer an issue since he has been found and killed. Perhaps it was the method of "W" that was flawed. On the other hand, in order to understand intelligence you probably have to possess some.

Yeah... how dare those desperate Republicans attack the president for his mis-steps as president...

We should be far more concerned with stuff like what vacations he took in the 70s, or how his tax returns stack up from a decade ago, or what color his face looked on television...

Republicans ought to be ashamed for the substantive approach to politics and get back to the national enquirer approach... :roll:


No one is comparing the events of the past 9/11 to the results of September 11, 2001... when in a time of peace, we were attacked in a way that had never occured before in the history of mankind...

What happened this 9/11 was that the president, who was fully aware that we were attacked on 9/11 and by a people who are notorious for attacking on anniversaries and other significant dates, had just overthrown pro-US and anti-terrorist leadership in Egypt and Libya in favor of Muslim Brotherhood membership elected leaders in Egypt and Hamas and Hezbollah influenced leadership in Libya... So he should very well have had those locations extra staffed with security...

What I think most Dems want to pretend, is that this very same thing didn't occur just last year as well in Afghanistan... where the US embassy in Kabul was bombed on the 9/11 anniversary, in part of a larger offensive being carried out by the Taliban to regain power... which was promptly followed up by an anouncement that the president intended to draw down troop strength, and not wait until the violent seasons that have been experienced in every fall and spring in the region, when the weather is most receptive to it...

This was an act of gross negligence on the part of the president... because he was far more interested in paying attention to his re-election, than his actual duties as president... and he continues to make it worse...
 
Hillary IS awsome, I'll give you that.

Huh?

hillary.jpg


I understand that liberals might be willing to look the other way about Hillary's past... you know, the whole, pro-communist, anti-US protests in Hungary...

Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer - The New York Sun


But, it's funny how the liberal narrative of Hillary has changed since 2006-2008...
hillary.jpg


or even during the Monica scandal when she stood by Billary... when it came out that he was blatantly embarrasing her and undermining their marriage...

clintoncry.jpg


but yeah... Hillary would never do anything embarrasing or shocking behavior... that would put the US in harms way...

hillary_clinton_picking_nose.jpg


Can you tell me, Jerry... is that a pick or a scratch?


Please don't tell me you think this woman is "awesome" or worthy of representing the US as either Secretary of State or President...
 
LOL!

tell it to tapper, todd, knoller, blitzer, banfield...

Sorry but the Republicans have no credibiltiy on national security anymore and no one is listening to them. Giving Bush a pass when he dropped the ball on 911 blew any cred they may have had in the past.
 
Haha. Cool, can I get a bunch of bad pictures of Romney and post them too?

Or maybe I can talk about how romney started Bain using money from wealthy latin-american families tied to drug syndicates and death squads. Or about how Romney dodged the draft using his family's wealth and connections.
 

Attachments

  • mitt-romney-sdfsdfsdfsddumb-face-via-washington-times.jpg
    mitt-romney-sdfsdfsdfsddumb-face-via-washington-times.jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 34
I have to agree with an earlier poster-

'Conservatives' have castigated the UN for decades. I recall with holding the rent check one year as a symbolic act of 'defiance'.

It is as rare as hen's teeth to find 'conservatives' demanding ANY US leader attend UN functions.

I do enjoy the pronouncement that 'now more than ever' our President NEEDS to have face to face meetings of what? 30 minutes tops with World leaders- it is ALWAYS a period of strife, tension, terrorism, economic uncertainty... just how terrifying it is to the average person seems more about the intestinal fortitude of the citizen than any change in the 'threat'.

Course those in the media who trill over President Obama skipping the UN, have no real love for Willard's appearance on TV either. Seems these reporters are having a Mydol moment on everyone.

What maybe the burr under 'conservative' saddle blankets is how effective the appearance on 'The View' was for a friendly place to contrast Willard and Barak, show the common man touch and the middle class connection they have with people-(Michelle's plans for a long drive retracing their Honeymoon once they leave the White House was most endearing)

Willard stumbles to connect and Barak is hooked up, ready for prime time. Barak speaks of building this nation from the middle out and Willard says 47% of the Citizens see themselves as victims.

Barak sees people wanting opportunities and Willard sees Corporations as people too my friends.... :peace
 
I have to agree with an earlier poster-

'Conservatives' have castigated the UN for decades. I recall with holding the rent check one year as a symbolic act of 'defiance'.

It is as rare as hen's teeth to find 'conservatives' demanding ANY US leader attend UN functions.

I do enjoy the pronouncement that 'now more than ever' our President NEEDS to have face to face meetings of what? 30 minutes tops with World leaders- it is ALWAYS a period of strife, tension, terrorism, economic uncertainty... just how terrifying it is to the average person seems more about the intestinal fortitude of the citizen than any change in the 'threat'.

Course those in the media who trill over President Obama skipping the UN, have no real love for Willard's appearance on TV either. Seems these reporters are having a Mydol moment on everyone.

What maybe the burr under 'conservative' saddle blankets is how effective the appearance on 'The View' was for a friendly place to contrast Willard and Barak, show the common man touch and the middle class connection they have with people-(Michelle's plans for a long drive retracing their Honeymoon once they leave the White House was most endearing)

Willard stumbles to connect and Barak is hooked up, ready for prime time. Barak speaks of building this nation from the middle out and Willard says 47% of the Citizens see themselves as victims.

Barak sees people wanting opportunities and Willard sees Corporations as people too my friends.... :peace

lol...no, Barak sees people as "voting blocs", as he stated in the FULL CONTEXT of his 1998 Loyola University speech. You know, the one that surfaced about a week or so ago.....

Is it just irony that for the last decade, our federal government has drastically increased entitlement spending, increased welfare spending, increased the number of people on food stamps, elongated unemployment benefits, created loopholes in work requirements for welfare, increased Medicaid payments, increased Medicare Payments, and increased ALL federal assistance on every level......but the number of people on welfare and using federal assistance has skyrocketed?

Think about it. The liberal approach is creating MORE dependency, more entitlement, more poverty. Is this just irony???? I think not.....

Read Benjamin Franklin on this issue, he had it right. The more comfortable you allow people to become in their poverty, the more poverty you create.....

Thanks liberals.....
 
Barak sees voting blocks and Willard seeks ways to block their votes... got it

one of the biggest mistakes 'conservatives' make is seeing the social safety net having to catch more and more people due to a train wreck of a financial sector coupled with a change from industrial to service economy as making more people dependent on handouts. Our nation is facing large internal and external stresses that the invisible hand seems unconcerned about.

These people didn't leave middle class jobs for the joys of welfare, they got a sharp shove. Ben would not have approved, but then again corporations were not people too in his day.

The constant whine over welfare to work- first 'conservatives' claim President Obama ended welfare work programs, now it is 'loopholes'.

Most who complain don't investigate the programs, just cite other whiners.

Many of the jobs created simply don't pay enough for the welfare recipient to succeed without some sort of continued assistance- generally child day care or housing assistance. The amount is determined on income and family size but with out it the dental hygienist can't keep roof overhead or food on the table.

But it is more fun to complain than think about the entire issue
 
Back
Top Bottom