Why is Obama going to Brazil in a time of crisis?

We're about to put troops in harm's way and he's leaving the country? Not a smart move.

I expect my President to focus on more than 1 thing, as should you.

My bet is it wont be US.

their factories in South America, India, and China.

It's about money for sure. Jobs? Not so much.

I don't have current statistics, but in 1999 Honda had more American made parts, labor, and manufacturing done within US borders than any of the big 3.

Today a majority of Ford products are actually Mazda or built in Mexico. Chevrolet cars are now built on a Saab drivetrain.

No politician of either major party will be serious about jobs until they call for a revision (at minimum) of NAFTA.

Our president has incredible communications systems and people with him at all times. He's able to do as much out of the WH as he can in the WH.

For heaven's sake. The OP is a troll, for sure.

Setting up false "talking points".

As Gilda Ratner said, "It's always something."

on the part of some posters here at DU and also a lack of thinking outside the box. I think Obama needs to go to South America, Brazil in particular. It speaks well of his advisers. If this is where the action is and will be in the foreseeable future, he needs to go there and do what he can for our economy.

I applaud Obama for doing this...

How will they know what his orders are?

I don't watch Fox. But I guess you do, so I'll take your word for it!

...and the droids certainly raised this issue
with us as rebuttal.

Tesha

are intentionally in a support role. The President
can do two things at the same time. He is being constantly
briefed, you better believe.

We can expect the Right to be apoplectic because the
French President came out in the lead. Of course,
we are avoiding having this give the Middle East
an opportunitiy to once again point their finger at
America. The Operation is Multilateral and includes
Arab Countries.

Wish the UN got its act together sooner but did not expect the US to go it alone against Gadhafi (or however you spell his name).

while war is getting underway.....and the trip is totally unrelated to what's going on. It looks callous and he's going to receive a ton of criticism for it, as he should.

I can't recall an American president taking off on an unrelated trip while sending the country to war and not addressing the American people about what the hell is going on.

Go sit in a corner and calm down. You're off on a whole other trip.

Please replace every use of the word "war"' in my posts with "military hostilities"

There. Feel better?

:eyes:

I do not see these as acts of war and they are not stated as such. This is a method to prevent war---especially on the leader of said country on it's own citizens who HE'S BOMBING WHILE THEY SLEEP!

It is unclear, as some of the abstaining nations purport, how limited in scope the use of force will be.

but the president has addressed the issue to the American people.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not to mention, Obama made a speech yesterday - that you obviously failed to listen to.

He's not going on vacation. He's going to pay the first visit to Brazil (a huge economy, BTW) by a US president ever, and there will be discussions about trade and whether Brazil should be on the UN Security Council, among other things. Relations between the US and many Latin American countries have been strained for years; Obama is trying to fix that.

You know, sometimes more than one thing happens at a time in a complex world, and sometimes attention must be paid to those things. If you are the president of the US you had better be damn good at multitasking. Obama can sit at his desk in the Oval Office and talk to his advisors and communicate on the phone. Or he could be on Air Force One or in Brazil and do exactly the same thing. He can't personally fix the reactors in Japan but he can communicate with people who can from anywhere in the world (they also have phones in Brazil). He can monitor the situation in Libya, and anything else that needs monitoring, from anywhere in the world.

So he is going to keep doing his job, which includes handling things that are occurring in places besides Japan and Libya. The existence of a crisis somewhere does not mean everything else has to be ignored. And, of course, he will be there only for the weekend -- it's not like he's going to be clearing brush in Texas for six weeks.

And, finally, I don't give a crap what it "looks like." He needs to do his job regardless of what Fox News and the other rightwing blowhards think -- not to mention the whiners at DU who seem to think the guy ought to be wearing a Superman cape and personally fixing everything, and, even worse, who cringe in terror at the criticisms of the right. You know what? Fuck Fox News and Pat Buchanan. I don't care what they think.

But NOTHING is more important than an imminent war in which American lives might be lost. Thats probably why i cant recall any other President doing something like this. If you're abroad, you come back to the country. You cut short your trip and return home before shit starts. And then you address the American people from the white house before or shortly after hostilities commence.

It sends a horrible message.

Can't defend the President on this. Who is giving him advice? Sheesh

You are just making shit up as you go.

The French are enforcing the no-fly zone. The UN's declaration of a no-fly zone over Libya is a long, long way from having US troops in harm's way. What may happen in the long run is hard to predict, but this is nothing like the attack on Iraq. Not even close. The only people this doesn't look good to are the goons at Fox News, but they'd probably also criticize him if he canceled the Brazil trip. Because that's all they do.

of the news and should not be. To the Obama-obsessed, he ought to be thinking about only what they are thinking about.

He can't let our relationships with Latin America go into the trash and ignored, either. The Obama-obsessed refuse to see the importance of anything other than what the media is concentrating on right now.

at the same time.

:rofl:

:mad:

:hi:

:hi:

Because it sounds like the kind of dumb shit those people say.

WTF?

But why not just reschedule? Wait until a couple of weeks after things have settled down. This is poor leadership.

The president is able to be in constant contact with the White House, and to be briefed every step of the way. It's called technology! He does not need to be IN the White House to lead effectively. Oh, and he has made at least two statements to the American people.

I know it is frowned upon by some, but sometimes I just like to "go rogue"!!!! :evilgrin:

(no offense to Poland, but it's not known for its beaches), he probably would be getting a little less flak -- though there would still be some who would insist that he stay in DC, preferably running around in circles with his hair on fire -- but since he's going to Brazil, and his hosts will probably want to show off their beautiful beaches for an hour or two, the usual suspects will screech about how he's HAVING FUN WHILE THERE ARE CRISES IN THE WORLD!!! OH NOES!!!

that, but also complaining about his sports choices, his decision to wait until the UN vote before committing to the no-fly zone in Libya, and so many other things that are just diversions

Our troops are already in harms way, and have been so in that region since bush and congress put them there

Taking a trip to Brazil does not detract from business as usual.

You can disagree with the administration on policy issues, and that is fair, but this criticism is a myth perpetuated by the right wing machine the permeates our country

I don't watch fox and barely watch CNN or msnbc anymore. American cable news annoys the hell out of me. So i couldnt tell you what the GOP talking points are. Nor do I care if some of my opinions overlap with GOP "talking points" I thought they favored intervention?

I prefer BBC and al jazeera English.

are

I haven't seen any threads or posts on this topic. Then again I'm not on DU much. I tend to post in bursts.

You think my posts are good enough? I'm flattered. Thank you!

networks all the time.

People need to get themselves elected President so they can decide what to do.

The President is the big picture person. If there are troops out there, we have these people called generals who know what they are doing.

I think there is never a time not to second guess.

But, the poster has previously said we aren't to second guess the President, I am seeking clarification on their position.

this thread would look entirely different.

without the approval of the UN and Arab League. But that's not the case. FRANCE is taking the lead, for god's sake. Apples and oranges. Sorry.

But that doesn't mean that what he's doing here is right.

Either by saying there's "no comparison" and completely dismissing any attempt, or by finding some special exception as to why THIS is different from THAT. In the end, I don't think people really cared where * was physically located at all (on a trip, on the ranch, at an event), it just provided a reason to criticize him. That's what makes it so easy for those people to give Obama a pass for the same thing.

to help the Libyan people has no relation to what Bush did or where he did it. You're saying we made excuses to criticize Bush. All that means is that you don't believe Bush deserved criticism. I disagree. He deserved all the criticism he got for mishandling Iraq, Katrina, etc. Obama, on the other hand, has NOT mishandled everything on HIS plate.

A presidents travel agenda doesn't affect their ability do to their job. Bad presidents can make bad decisions from anywhere. Good presidents can make good decisions from anywhere. I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL criticizing the decisions a president makes, but people would simply complain that the * was traveling and suggesting that somehow impacted his ability to do his job. Now, I'm seeing plenty of people essentially saying that traveling has no impact on a presidents ability to do their job. That's the hypocrisy. You can try to paint this all you want as suggesting that I don't think "* deserved criticism" but that doesn't make it so.

Some people say that * didn't get criticism for his traveling so there's no hypocrisy, others say that Obama's traveling is different from *'s traveling so there's no hypocrisy, and still others leave it at "there's no comparison between the two", so there's no hypocrisy here.

"people would simply complain that the * was traveling and suggesting that somehow impacted his ability to do his job." I don't know ANYONE who felt that way, so all of your charges of hypocrisy don't hold water. Obama is doing things that are right (no matter where he is) and Bush did things that were wrong (no matter where he was). Period.

you're saying that people did not criticize bush for being somewhere else when he SHOULD have been "working" (or at the very least, appearing to work). You're also saying that people didn't suggest that if he were "at work" (in washington) that things would have gone better. At the least, as far as you know. Therefore I'm mischaracterizing the previous sentiment toward * and thus there is no hypocrisy.

Would you say I'm accurately portraying what you're saying?

I'm saying that people did NOT criticize Bush for "being somewhere else," but for not DOING any work WHEREVER he was. Whether he was at his "ranch" NOT making statements about Iraq or in the WH not even KNOWING what was going on in New Orleans during Katrina, it wasn't the point of where he was. It's that he didn't know or didn't care about what was going on. Didn't he celebrate McCain's birthday with him without saying one word about Katrina? The point is what he didn't DO-not where he WAS.

President spends 40%of time out of the office(not taking his job seriously
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1393705

President spends 40%of time out of the office(not taking his job seriously
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x498975

Two threads on the same article.

Two threads with about 9 responses total! :rofl: Not to mention, Bush was on vacation clearing brush and IGNORING the Aug. 6th PDB about bin Laden determined to strike within the U.S. Obama, on the other hand, is criticized in this OP for WORKING-being in S. America to try to improve our economy while also talking about Libya among other things.

since you said "as far as I know". You didn't know about these threads, and I didn't feel it was worth my time to dig up the other ones. So now I'm talking about an argument that you are admittedly ignorant of. That's fine, I certainly don't hold you personally responsible for knowing everything that's posted on the DU, nor do I hold you personally responsible for everyone else's opinions.

Are you suggesting that if Bush were in washington instead of "on vacation" (which I contend no president ever really is), he would have been paying attention to the PDB?

I see that now you've moved on from "it never happened" to "This is different". You've already used the "There's no comparison between * and Obama" which means you've already used the 3 defenses I've outlined.

I said, "I don't know ANYONE who felt that way..." And again you missed the point: Whether or NOT Bush was in the WH, he ignored the PDB. He told Harriet Miers, who showed him that PDB while at his ranch, "OK, you covered your @ss now." I am betting he would've said the same thing if it happened in the WH. Everything I have said since my first post on the subject still stand. I'm just responding to your claims. You want to call people here "hypocrites," go right ahead. But it's not true-for ALL the reasons I listed.

ANY president, has to deal with many things and just because there's a crisis in one part of the world doesn't mean he can't continue with other business as well. A president, any president, is never "out of the office". If * went to anywhere, there would be plenty of people here to criticize him "How can * go to X, when Y is going on". Now, its completely different.

People always complain about the freeper's hypocrisy, and I 100% agree that it's there, but...

3 years ago, the repukes were saying that the president is always working, and many of us were complaining that when he went somewhere that he was not paying attention to the important things because of it.

3 years later, the repukes have completely changed sides and are now saying what many us were saying back then and THEY are a bunch of hypocrites.
3 years later, many of us have completely changed sides and are now saying what the repukes used to say back then.

Agree he can monitor the situation in brazil. But it's wrong to leave the country just as military action is commencing. You just don't do that. He needs to address the country from the oval office just before or just after hostilities commence explaining what were doing there.

If you're out of the country as president this is something you cut your trip short for and return back to the white house

Agree also that a lot of these posters are hypocrites.

but IMHO, his need to physically be here for this is political not practical. He can do everything he needs to do from Brazil, it's just better to be here for it from a political standpoint. I think the repukes are making a big deal of this because they'd rather have Obama spending the next year dealing with foreign affairs than fixing the economy, which is the thing that will make-or-break him in 2012.

Brazil is the biggest economy in South America, and the eight largest in the world. It is seventh largest in terms of purchasing power parity. The more American goods and services they import, the more jobs there are for American citizens. THAT is part of "fixing the economy". We are their biggest source of imports, and the President wants to keep it that way. The reason the republicans are making an issue of this is not because they want him seen as being more concerned about foreign affairs. It's that they know his going down there WILL help our economy, and they don't want any "wins" for him whatsoever--even if our economy gets screwed if he "loses".

I don't have an issue with him going to Brazil. I understand it's for economic reasons. The argument one might make to cancel the trip is that from a political standpoint, addressing the american people on missile strikes from a foreign country might be considered "bad form" but if he brings jobs back from Brazil, eventually, people will forget about where he gave the address from. I agree that he should make a public statement on this subject, though, regardless of where he makes it from.

U.S., England, all of the other countries who voted for it in the UN, and, MOST importantly, the Arab League. He gave a statement from the U.S. about Libya yesterday. There will be NO ground troops, this was NOT based on lies or scare tactics. It's an operation to help the PEOPLE of Libya get rid of Quddafi. Obama is not Bush. And he is very busy with trying to fix our economy along with everything else. That's why he's in South America now.

It is not a matter of being able to multi-task...It is a matter of communicating with the American people.

-PLA

out-of-touch with what was happening around him or even CARING about what was happening. Obama has been working on getting a UN resolution for a while re: Libya, and he's been reaching out to Japan from day one. He doesn't WANT the U.S. to be the face of the Libya action. So he got it done, made a statement about it yesterday and again today, while he's in S. America. He's multi-tasking-not ignoring world events.

because of where he was located. He could have been chained to the desk in the oval office and would have been out of touch and wouldn't have cared. Bush absolutely deserved to be criticized for this attitude, but it didn't have anything to do with the coordinates on his GPS.

criticized BUSH for leaving the country at this time. That's not true. We would've, and did, criticize him for ignoring/mishandling problems WHEREVER he was.

one was absolutely warranted, the other was is where the hypocrisy comes into play.

problems, no matter WHERE he was.

be different.

when he went to John McCain's birthday party - a social/fund-raising event - while New Orleans was drowning. In that case he very clearly was not paying attention to a crisis that was occurring in his own country. Seems to me this is very, very different.

That's my point.

It's different because the President was blowing off a disaster in his own country to go to a fund-raiser. If Obama had done something like that I'd be all over his ass. But that isn't what he's doing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with Obama traveling, but from a logistical standpoint I don't think * would have handled the Katrina crisis any better if he had been sitting at his desk, and he certainly wasn't any less accessible to the people who would need to talk to him. I'm certainly not going to convince YOU how YOU would have felt, but I still see a decent bit of general hypocricy on this.

and now this UN thing in Libya are over with? Seriously? Think about it for 10 seconds.

I never said anything like that.

Sheesh, I so rarely post anymore that I seem to have lost the hang of it.

Other than it hurting him politically, I don't see any reason why Obama can't do what he needs to do from Brazil while on his trip. If the trip brings jobs to the US, people will quickly forget that he was out of the country when he addressed the american people.

When is there not a crisis? He gets blasted for golfing, NCAA brackets, DOING HIS JOB, why not just sit in the WH and twiddle his thumbs? Come on!!

Best post ever! :loveya: I always wanted to say "DUzy!"

And I'm really just sick of it.

Although Obama is out of the country, he is not cut off from communications. He does have the ability to keep tabs on whatever is going on inside or outside of the U.S. Plus we do have a VP Biden in the USA. Obama still has many responsibilities and can't just sit in the Oval Office 24/7. There always seems to be a "crisis." It would be interesting for some who are critical of every move he makes to have to "be in his shoes" just for a day.

WTF is going on here that DU tolerates RW bullshit?

elsewhere.

Scary.

I can't believe so many are against UN action. Dems are supposes to be for the UN.

There are no ground troops in Libya and the initial air power is from France, not the US. Any decisions that need to be made by the President can be made from where ever he is.

This is an important trip to an area in the world where we greatly need to improve relations. Brazil is an increasingly important country.

It is an action carried out by the French with US support and a UN Resolution. Obama doesn't need to put everything on hold.

we don't need to be so involved, and so he can go to Brazil.
The French have it under control, it would seem.....
this is a UN affair, as it should be,
and since France were against going into Iraq,
this is exactly how it should be.

Perhaps you are upset that Pres. Obama is being intelligent about this,
that the strategy thus far appears well thought out,
and that Pres. Obama is about as far removed in his approach
to that dictatorial asshole bush, till you can't stand it. :shrug:

rest assured my fair haired righty, reliable sources have disclosed the President did not take a copy of My Pet Goat on his Brazil tour. in other related news story's, fox continues to mislead with gobs of misinformation.

Information travels at near the speed of light.

Does that mean that the President shouldn't have gone anywhere since he was inaugurated?

:shrug:

It lets Sarkozy take the lead.

in any manner close to the troops who are in Iraq and Afganistan. And Libya's unrest is a not in any way a "crisis" for the U.S. We are simply involved in a coalition military action, led by France, to keep that madman from murdering his countrymen.

If a President had to cancel a pre-planned trip every time there was a "crisis," somewhere in the world, he'd never leave the White House and he'd be a pretty lame and ineffectual President.

:eyes:

This is a time of crisis? Basically, Obama shuts it all down?

Wasn't he not supposed to do anything during WI either? or the Oil Spill? the economy?

Newsflash kid... everything's a crisis!

for once again reminding me that the president is supposed to cancel all planned events because in this world....everyday, there's some shit happening somewhere.

How many times on MSNBC last week did I hear about failure of leadership...should he be going, blah, blah, blah.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why not just go on vacation, start a new war based on a supposed humanitarian crisis, when a real humanitarian crisis is already happening in Japan.

Might as well be eating cake at a McCain birthday party.

Someone's gonna be disappointed. :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.theobamadiary.com/

And they don't unrec photos. And there are LOTS of photos. And lots of updates that aren't obsessed with reasons to primary the President. Great site.

Time to get those right-wing talking points out there.


Good for you.

Good for you.

(Pats wooldog on head)

Good boy, now, roll over.

:rofl: