« "Nothing anymore is feared and loathed so much as a baby" | Main | The Change which Hope has brought us »

The MBA versus the MIA

The MBA versus the MIA

 

 

It's easy to make fun of President Obama; the guy's whole career since taking office bears no resemblance at all to the job he promised while running for election.  Even his own party has been murmuring that Obama will not get support for a 2012 run.  It is true that President Obama has plenty of time to turn this around, and it's also true that just about every President gets hammered for mistakes, whether real or imagined.  But given the strong support Obama has always received from the media - shoot, most of the celebrity news types were shameless shills for Barack - even the mild criticisms coming his way indicate a much deeper discontent. 

 

Which reminds me of the way his predecessor was treated by the media, and how he chose to handle the matter.  Democrats tried their hardest to pin every conceivable kind of blame on W, and the shameless fount of rage against Bush spewed by the media for most of his two terms still echoes in many people's minds.  Many people also noticed Bush's grace in staying out of the spotlight for two years to avoid creating a rift between Republicans and Democrats in criticizing the new President, a courtesy Obama never once attempted to return. Instead, Obama blamed every hardship or mistake on the predecessor for well over a year into his Presidency, until his attacks on Bush became laughable.  As did the man.

 

During the present series of gaffes by Obama, I wondered more than once why Obama seemed to be handling things so poorly.  After all, there was not really anything he could have done to prevent the earthquake in Japan, there are few direct actions the U.S. can take militarily in Libya without risking costs in lives and unexpected consequences that would make the decision foolish, and the price of oil is seldom something a politician can control by himself.  What's more, the U.S. has already sent the Navy to help Japan, dozens of fire departments and nuclear experts have already gone to Japan, so it's not as if the U.S. is just standing around.  So why does Obama come across as a hapless neuf, who has no idea what to do?

 

For comparison, let's go back to Bush.  Now, as much as I respect Bush and applaud many of his decisions and policies, even I have to admit that he made mistakes.  In general, though, Bush was the kind of leader who looked at a situation or a crisis,  decided what his plan would be, and then he put it into motion.  Sometimes the plan needed to be adjusted or changed as things went along, and some of his actions were criticized.  But there's really no doubt that Bush was a man of determination.

 

That may seem a bit of an exaggeration.  The decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, took quite a while after the 9/11 attacks, more than a year in fact, in stark contrast to the lie slung by liberals that Bush 'rushed to war'.  Yet Bush clearly gave the impression that he knew what he planned to do, and that his actions were in line with that plan.  Personally, I think that's what set off the liberals; they caught the tone of Bush's determination, and mistook it for assumption.  What it actually was, was a leadership tactic.  When you have to wait, make sure people know why you are waiting, and that when you have your answer, actions will immediately follow the decision.

 

That comes from Bush's MBA degree from the Harvard Business School, I think.  George W. Bush was the first President of the United States to have earned an MBA, and I think most people did not understand how that shapes your thinking.  MBAs are expected to be leaders, especially from schools like Harvard, and MBAs are trained to create a plan - a plan which develops over time and will change as conditions change (like supporting Petraeus' Surge in Iraq), but which has a clear theme and goals.   Whether dealing with the economy, terrorism, or any other significant issue, President Bush made initial decisions quickly, and made clear that he had policies and plans for everything that came across his desk.

 

Barack Obama, on the other hand, tends to delay public remark and official reaction, sometimes to the point that his delay is remarked upon by other leaders, such as the Prime Minister of Japan or allies in the United Nations.  There is an unfortunate but apt word for this behavior when it begins to appear the President's habit - dithering.  Presidents in the past tagged with the 'dithering' label included Jimmy Carter during the Iran Hostage Crisis, Lyndon Johnson during the early years of the Vietnam War, and Herbert Hoover after the 1929 Stock Market Crash and subsequent banking crisis.  As a result, a leader should be very careful to avoid acquiring such a label, though for President Obama the situation is one of getting himself unstuck from the tag.  Of course, Carter, LBJ, and Hoover also tried to get unstuck.  History provides a sad commentary on how those attempts worked out.

 

       

             


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41285.

Comments (18)

DJWho said the fol... (Below threshold)
retired military:

DJ

Who said the following:

“The first time around it’s like lightning in a bottle. There’s something special about it, because you’re defying the odds. And as time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States,” XXXXXX said. “But we should never take it for granted.”


Answer : None other than Obama himself.

"Even his own party has bee... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Even his own party has been murmuring that Obama will not get support for a 2012 run. "

Even Jimmy Carter got support for a 2nd run. Tells you a lot about BHO.

An MBA is trained to analyz... (Below threshold)
Poole:

An MBA is trained to analyze a business entity, evaluate its effectiveness, formulate a plant to correct deficienscies and build on its strengths and implement a plan to correct problems and improve the operation.

A community organizer is trained to find a group, convince members of the group that they have a grievance against society/government/business, identify a member of the group who can become a leader of the group, and to guide the group's leader against society/government/business. If the organizer takes a leadership role,then he is an community activist.

BHO has never been a leader. He is most compfortable among a group of like-minded people. He has never been willing to place himself into a position where he can be responsible for any action he has advocated. He always maintains plausible deniability.

IF BHO was a leader, then he would have acted when the first country was threatened by uprising. He would have transferred at least one Carrier Battle Group to the Sixth Fleet, together with an Marine Amphibious Unit. Air Force units would have been moved to Italy or Malta.

By the time the unrest hit Libya, there would have been enough assets in place to make a diffrence on the gound. The night following thet Libya AF pilots escape to Malta, a mission package of F-22s, F/A-18s, Awacs, Jstars, and Tankers could have flown over Libya. If the Libya AF did dare to take-off, they would have been shot down. After that, no Libyan pilot would take off. You don't have to defeat the plane if you can defeat the pilot in his mind.

Once the Libyan AF was grounded, the rebel's momentum would have continued and the Colonel's elite all-female Praetorian Guard would now be wearing burkhas to escape from Tripoli.

"It is true that President ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"It is true that President Obama has plenty of time to turn this around,...."

Don't think so. That would imply that he has the knowledge and ability.....which he's demonstrated that he does not possess.

The next campaign, he'll have to run on his record. How do you run on "nothing"?

Bush was the most active fo... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Bush was the most active fool ever to occupy the presidency. Obama is just weak and mediocre.

Many people also n... (Below threshold)
Many people also noticed Bush's grace in staying out of the spotlight for two years to avoid creating a rift between Republicans and Democrats in criticizing the new President, a courtesy Obama never once attempted to return.

This used to be the tradition. The out-of-office president would stay out of the political fray and never publicly criticize his successor. This tradition was thrown out out the window by the hapless fuckwit Jimmy Carter who cried like a little girl at every Reagan policy decision that he disagreed with, which were, like, all of them.

Bush is bringing back the tradition. Good for him.

Obama has received some sou... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Obama has received some sound political advice.

Presidents are reelected almost exclusively based upon the economy's performance in the year of their reelection campaign. Other factors have minor effects, at least since WWII.

Obama understands that any positive actions he could take on the economy would so alienate his base as to be counterproductive (from his goal of being reelected), so he is reduced to watching and waiting and hoping the economy recovers on its own - which it typically does, in recent history.

So if there is nothing he can really do, why not just have a good time and party down like it's 1999 while he waits? In his view, the worst case scenario is he isn't reelected and takes the pension, makes millions selling books and giving speeches to the moonbat left, and lives the wealthy lifestyle without the bothersome requirements of a job.

To him, there is no downside. It isn't as if he gives a rip about the country or anything.

Unfortunately for the count... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Unfortunately for the country, the teatards will probably nominate a circus clown like Palin, Trump or Huckabee, or a phony like Romney or Pawlenty, instead of an intelligent leader like Daniels, Bloomberg, or Huntsman.

Well, I wouldn't put too mu... (Below threshold)

Well, I wouldn't put too much stock in Bush's MBA being the cause of Bush's Presidential policies, even if you **like ANY** of his policies...

Seeing as Bush failed at every single business his father gave him. Literally ran them straight into the ground.

Also, the record is rather clear that Bush:

a) wanted to invade Iraq before he even got into office.

b) started drawing up plans to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/24/iraq-war-chilcot-inquiry

Finally, you're also conveniently dismissing the Bush administration's complete and utter lack of policy attention towards North Korea - the direct result of which was their aged fruitcake getting 6 nukes. Which I think we can all agree is a massive increase in the amount of WMD's in the hand of ruthless insane totalitarian dictators.

Once again, just keeping it real.

Jim XNot bothering... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

Not bothering to respond to your other garbage as I really dont have time.

" the direct result of which was their aged fruitcake getting 6 nukes"

This was a direct result of Clinton and ALbright's actions. Not Bush. NK had them before Bush was in office, we just found out about it after Bush was in office.

As for the rest of your crap. Next time leave it in the toilet.


I would add that trusting a... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

I would add that trusting anything you read in al-Guardian is the height of folly.

from #2, up above: "Even Jimmy Carter got support for a 2nd run."

Barely. In the general election, Carter faced a man who was already viewed as the Devil Incarnate by the left -- at least as bad as the Bitch Queen was viewed by the Right in 2008. Also remember that Carter faced one of the most serious primary challenges ever faced by a sitting President. When Ted Kennedy can give you a run for your money, you got problems, boy.

I don't expect a serious primary challenger to Barry Lackwit for the same reason I don't expect to see a strong Republican opponent in the general election: there isn't anyone who can do it. Unless the Bitch Queen decides to run again, the D-side bench is as empty as the R-side bench.

Hapless neuf?He's ... (Below threshold)

Hapless neuf?

He's hapless it's true, among Europe's narcissists, some had actually held jobs! Even Hitler had made Corporal and could hang paper and paint houses.

But our narcissist's so bloody ego-maniacal as to surely be at least a soixante-neuf?

So far up himself he doesn't know if he's coming or going!

.... Harvard MBAs are expec... (Below threshold)

.... Harvard MBAs are expected to be leaders ... and are trained to create plans ...

And to develop contingency trees.

The anally retentive Billy Bubbah Blythe knew what a contingency tree was but was both too arrogant and ever only as many steps ahead of the Law, to ever put anything on paper, let alone a plan.

But the narcissistic dumb-cluck, O'Zero, barely knows the term exists - let alone what it means. Way out of his own, he has however jumped on to one of the branches on Mr Bush's tree and has made it his own.

The Afghanistan War branch.

And his ego won't let him come down.

"My fellow citizen... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:


"My fellow citizens, the American Presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.In this world of threats and dangers, it's not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer."

Sarah Palin, 2008

Retired military, North Kor... (Below threshold)

Retired military, North Korea had its nuclear programme closed down as of 2001. It was a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty until it withdrew in 2003.

Please read the words of actual history as they occurred:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2007/0717north%20korea/20070717nkorea.pdf

In early 2001 the North Koreans' plutonium program was essentially under the Social Security lock box. Nobody was getting at it. The IAEA was monitoring. We had Department of Energy technicians in and out of North Korea. KEDO had an ongoing dialogue with North Korea. .... where we take stock today is the North Koreans in a short period of time as you are all well aware kicked out the IAEA monitors, turned off the cameras, unsealed the facilities, restarted their 5 megawatt reactor, withdrew from the NPT, took their spent fuel out of the pond, unsealed the Department of Energy canisters, and reprocessed those spent fuel to create about six bombs' worth of plutonium, all of which they told us in advance they were going to do. And they did it not once, but they did it twice. So by all measures, we have failed in our policy toward North Korea to make the United States safer and to improve on the situation that we had in 2001.

If you can prove this is wrong, please do so. Since you can't, please acknowledge this. If you truly are retired military, I'm sure you possess the maturity to face facts as they exist, and not angrily respond that things you don't like must come out of the toilet.

Lead. Or someone else will.... (Below threshold)
LiberalNitemare:

Lead. Or someone else will.

Jim X<a href="http... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

On March 12, 1993, North Korea said that it planned to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and refused to allow inspectors access to its nuclear sites. By 1994, the United States believed that North Korea had enough reprocessed plutonium to produce about 10 bombs with the amount of plutonium increasing.[15] Faced with diplomatic pressure after UN Security Council Resolution 825 and the threat of American military air strikes against the reactor, North Korea agreed to dismantle its plutonium program as part of the Agreed Framework in which South Korea and the United States would provide North Korea with light water reactors and fuel oil until those reactors could be completed. Because the light water reactors would require enriched uranium to be imported from outside North Korea, the amount of reactor fuel and waste could be more easily tracked, making it more difficult to divert nuclear waste to be reprocessed into plutonium. However, with bureaucratic red tape and political obstacles from the North Korea, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), established to advance the implementation of the Agreed Framework, had failed to build the promised light water reactors because the United States failed to uphold their end of the agreement by providing energy aid, and in late 2002, North Korea returned to using its old reactors.
,...
With the abandonment of its plutonium program, U.S. officials claimed North Korea began an enriched uranium program. Pakistan, through Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, supplied key technology and information to North Korea in exchange for missile technology around 1997, according to U.S. intelligence officials. Pakistani president General Pervez Musharraf acknowledged in 2005 that Khan had provided centrifuges and their designs to North Korea
...

On April 25, 2009, however, the North Korean government announced that the country's nuclear facilities have been reactivated,[35] and that spent fuel reprocessing for arms-grade plutonium has been restored.[36]

On May 25, 2009, North Korea confirmed to have performed a "successful" underground nuclear test. It was the second such test and it was said to be much more powerful than the first. The same day a successful short range missile test was also conducted. The confirmation came little more than an hour after the U.S. Geological Survey reported a magnitude 4.7 seismic disturbance on the proximity of the site of North Korea's first nuclear test conducted in October 2006, other agencies such as the International Data Center of the CTBTO, and the Japanese Meteorological Center, also registered the seismic variations. North Korea's Korean Central News Agency said the test was conducted as part of the measures to bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defense in every way.[37]
...
In May 2010, the Rodong Sinmun announced in an article that North Korea had successfully carried out a nuclear fusion reaction. The aforementioned article, referring to the alleged test as "a great event that demonstrated the rapidly developing cutting-edge science and technology of the DPRK", also makes mention of efforts by North Korean scientists to develop "safe and environment-friendly new energy", and made no mention of plans to use fusion technology in its nuclear weapons program.[38]

They had the plutonium to build the bombs back in the 90s. in addition, they got the technology to deliver them during that time frame as well.

did they have the bombs in the 90s? No. But the majority of the heavy lifting was done under Clinton. Not Bush as you ascertain.

Also they started back testing in 2009. Under Obama. They also apparantly have succesfully accomplished Nuclear Fusion. Also under Obama.

Please stop with the left wing talking points.
They get old after awhile.

did they have the ... (Below threshold)
did they have the bombs in the 90s? No. But the majority of the heavy lifting was done under Clinton. Not Bush as you ascertain.

The question is not whether North Korea **could have** made the bombs before the Administration. Clearly they could have.

The question is, **when did they** make the boms? When did they decide to take those steps?

Since as you show, they could have easily done that under Clinton - why do you think they did not?

Since I'm sure we both agree that an armed and assembled missile is far more dangerous than a bunch of scattered parts.

If you sincerely think that Bush had a better policy with North Korea than Bill Clinton did, I would love to hear why this didn't happen under Bill Clinton.

If my "left-wing talking points" are so clearly wrong, that should present no difficulty at all correct?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy