|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 23, 2016 14:42:28 GMT
I will have to respectfully disagree with the majority of posters. I remember the absolute vitriol aimed at W after 9/11 for his immediate reaction to the terrorist attack. It was completely mind boggling to me. While comparing Brussels to 9/11 might be a stretch, I see Genny's point. I also think that the President yucking it up at a baseball game in Communist Cuba distasteful, but I also don't agree with the Cuban nation bonding deal so there's that. It's often hard to see other viewpoints when there is a big bias for one particular party.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 23, 2016 14:48:10 GMT
I get the point GaJenny is making. Obama went golfing when James Foley was beheaded, he went golfing the day 6 American soliders were killed after a terrorist attack in Afghanistan. I just don't think he's ever understood the optics associated with being president. I don't think ANYONE truly understands what decisions the/any president has to make on a moments notice. Every minute of their day is planned, with security concerns, logistics, fall out, etc. I think that a president is not always the one calling the shots of if they are to stay, go, do this or do that, say this, say that. I think that quite a bit has to do with advisers, handlers, etc. I think it's a job that would really suck, because no matter what they do someone is always going to come in and criticize and second guess them for everything they do, including blinking at the wrong moment. I blame a lot on the media/they rage on for a story and rarely ever dig to find out why a decision was made before reporting their story.
|
|
|
Post by ilikepink on Mar 23, 2016 14:48:56 GMT
You can't control where you are or what you are doing when bad news comes. I am so not a Bush supporter, but I was proud of him for keeping his composure and finishing the book. The children shouldn't have been alarmed. Handled well.
As for Obama, unless there was something specific that he could have done, leaving Cuba probably would not have been appropriate. Two countries trying to make peace after so many years of difficulties is a step toward world-wide peace.
Has everyone forgotten "We need to continue to live our lives normally, or the terrorists win?"
|
|
valleyview
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,816
Jun 27, 2014 18:41:26 GMT
|
Post by valleyview on Mar 23, 2016 14:52:48 GMT
Barack Obama is President of the United States of America. Until the EU dissolves and its members become states, our president is not in charge of Europe. Good grief, he was on a diplomatic visit, and there was nothing he was required to do other than complete that trip. I'm sure that the State Department and intelligence communities were in contact with our European allies, but to think that the president needed to man a station seems to be a bit of a stretch. Let's compare with other countries - where wer the Queen, Justin Trudeau, David Cameron, and Putin? Did any of them rush to Brussels? Remember, our governments are working 24/7, and irregardless of where the president is at any given moment. Why on earth would The Queen be involved in this. She is not a political head of the UK Government though she is Head of State. Big difference! She will have been in contact but Belgium has it's own King and Queen! This obviously wasn't reported in the US, and you very obviously didn't follow any of the news reports from international news sources regarding the terrorist attacks in Belgium, but all of those people you mention personally spoke about the terrorist attacks very soon after they occurred at 8.00am European time! As did all the European Heads of Government. Belgium would not have welcomed personal visits from any government adding to the security threat there already. David Cameron, Putin and all other Government leaders on this side of the Atlantic also immediately offered whatever help the Belgians needed as did all the other heads of Government in Europe! The truth is that President Obama was actually one of the last to speak about the terrorist attacks in Belgium though your State Department was in touch earlier. Just to clarify things! That was my point. We are way too critical of our presidents. There was no reason not to visibly continue his day. On 9/11, the attack was continuing, and on US soil, that's a reason to change a day. I do not believe that President Bush behaved inappropriately either.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 23, 2016 14:54:58 GMT
Barack Obama is President of the United States of America. Until the EU dissolves and its members become states, our president is not in charge of Europe. Good grief, he was on a diplomatic visit, and there was nothing he was required to do other than complete that trip. I'm sure that the State Department and intelligence communities were in contact with our European allies, but to think that the president needed to man a station seems to be a bit of a stretch. Let's compare with other countries - where wer the Queen, Justin Trudeau, David Cameron, and Putin? Did any of them rush to Brussels? Remember, our governments are working 24/7, and irregardless of where the president is at any given moment. Why on earth would The Queen be involved in this. She is not a political head of the UK Government though she is Head of State. Big difference! She will have been in contact but Belgium has it's own King and Queen! This obviously wasn't reported in the US, and you very obviously didn't follow any of the news reports from international news sources regarding the terrorist attacks in Belgium, but all of those people you mention personally spoke about the terrorist attacks very soon after they occurred at 8.00am European time! As did all the European Heads of Government. Belgium would not have welcomed personal visits from any government adding to the security threat there already. David Cameron, Putin and all other Government leaders on this side of the Atlantic also immediately offered whatever help the Belgians needed as did all the other heads of Government in Europe! The truth is that President Obama was actually one of the last to speak about the terrorist attacks in Belgium though your State Department was in touch earlier. Just to clarify things! I think your kind of proving her point!!!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 23, 2016 15:02:54 GMT
I guess I missed the people who had issues with President Bush's initial response to 9/11. Comments on the old board years after 911 were still making fun of President Bush for continuing to read to these little children.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Mar 23, 2016 15:04:48 GMT
I think Bush's aid should have never whispered into his ear. He would have finished reading in 5 minutes and then they could have just said he needed to leave immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Mar 23, 2016 15:08:26 GMT
Here is my take on the situation. I think our President was tacky and tasteless to make his comments about Brussels while at a baseball game. He does an interview on ESPN for goodness sakes...not the best world news source. He spends less than a minute offering his thoughts and prayers and then goes back to the business of doing the wave with a communist dictator while smiling and having the time of his life. This incident wouldn't really be a blip on my radar except that this is his MO. He spends a minute out of his day to comment on the brutal beheading of an American citizen then hits the links with some sports star (can't remember which one), we lose 4 Americans including the Ambassador and he flies out to a fund raiser in Vegas the morning of the incident, his lack of response to the Paris terrorist attack just shows me how either out of touch he is or how little he cares about what is happening in the world. It is as much about so called optics as it is about the symbolism. I dunno, I think he lacked any kind of awareness at all about the state world right now and I guess I just don't get the pass he gets from many that support him (including the media). Yes, papercrafteradvocate, you are correct. I think this trip wasn't in the best interest of the US and so that does color my judgement which is why I mentioned it. I will counter that by saying there are many that can't seem to admit that President Obama might have made an error in judgement by staying at the baseball game.
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Mar 23, 2016 15:13:54 GMT
Why on earth would The Queen be involved in this. She is not a political head of the UK Government though she is Head of State. Big difference! She will have been in contact but Belgium has it's own King and Queen! This obviously wasn't reported in the US, and you very obviously didn't follow any of the news reports from international news sources regarding the terrorist attacks in Belgium, but all of those people you mention personally spoke about the terrorist attacks very soon after they occurred at 8.00am European time! As did all the European Heads of Government. Belgium would not have welcomed personal visits from any government adding to the security threat there already. David Cameron, Putin and all other Government leaders on this side of the Atlantic also immediately offered whatever help the Belgians needed as did all the other heads of Government in Europe! The truth is that President Obama was actually one of the last to speak about the terrorist attacks in Belgium though your State Department was in touch earlier. Just to clarify things! I had to catch myself at "Putin offered help". He did not. He offered condolences and then he and his top officials spent the rest of the day blaming the leaders of Brussels for spending too much time antagonizing Russia to notice the terrorists under their noses. If you're going to criticize Obama, I wouldn't recommend trying to pretend PUTIN did a better job. Maybe pick someone with less of a dictatorial personality so it will blend better into your argument and possibly go unnoticed. I was in no way criticising Obama. He's not my President so I wouldn't dream of criticising him on one of these threads. And Putin did respond, even though you disagree with how he dealt with it, and I was just stating that he did respond as a fact - nothing more. What I was doing was correcting that statement about The Queen and just giving a timeline as to when things happened here and also agreeing that your State Department had been in touch with Belgium before President Obama spoke!
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Mar 23, 2016 15:22:00 GMT
Why on earth would The Queen be involved in this. She is not a political head of the UK Government though she is Head of State. Big difference! She will have been in contact but Belgium has it's own King and Queen! This obviously wasn't reported in the US, and you very obviously didn't follow any of the news reports from international news sources regarding the terrorist attacks in Belgium, but all of those people you mention personally spoke about the terrorist attacks very soon after they occurred at 8.00am European time! As did all the European Heads of Government. Belgium would not have welcomed personal visits from any government adding to the security threat there already. David Cameron, Putin and all other Government leaders on this side of the Atlantic also immediately offered whatever help the Belgians needed as did all the other heads of Government in Europe! The truth is that President Obama was actually one of the last to speak about the terrorist attacks in Belgium though your State Department was in touch earlier. Just to clarify things! That was my point. We are way too critical of our presidents. There was no reason not to visibly continue his day. On 9/11, the attack was continuing, and on US soil, that's a reason to change a day. I do not believe that President Bush behaved inappropriately either. I was just correcting your statement about The Queen, saying what happened for clarity because you had mentioned Leaders of other Governments - and agreeing that your State Department were in touch with Belgium before President Obama spoke.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Mar 23, 2016 15:23:31 GMT
I guess I missed the people who had issues with President Bush's initial response to 9/11. Comments on the old board years after 911 were still making fun of President Bush for continuing to read to these little children. It is entirely possible that I just missed it, or read it and dismissed it as 'crazy talk.' I don't know anyone in 'real' life that had a problem though-I think I would have remembered that? I guess I just don't see this situation as the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Mar 23, 2016 15:26:39 GMT
Here is my take on the situation. I think our President was tacky and tasteless to make his comments about Brussels while at a baseball game. He does an interview on ESPN for goodness sakes...not the best world news source. He spends less than a minute offering his thoughts and prayers and then goes back to the business of doing the wave with a communist dictator while smiling and having the time of his life. This incident wouldn't really be a blip on my radar except that this is his MO. He spends a minute out of his day to comment on the brutal beheading of an American citizen then hits the links with some sports star (can't remember which one), we lose 4 Americans including the Ambassador and he flies out to a fund raiser in Vegas the morning of the incident, his lack of response to the Paris terrorist attack just shows me how either out of touch he is or how little he cares about what is happening in the world. It is as much about so called optics as it is about the symbolism. I dunno, I think he lacked any kind of awareness at all about the state world right now and I guess I just don't get the pass he gets from many that support him (including the media). Yes, papercrafteradvocate , you are correct. I think this trip wasn't in the best interest of the US and so that does color my judgement which is why I mentioned it. I will counter that by saying there are many that can't seem to admit that President Obama might have made an error in judgement by staying at the baseball game. I'm curious, just based on these comments, how you perceived Bush playing guitar with a country music star while an entire American city drowned after Hurricane Katrina. I think it's common to critique what the President is doing while something bad is going on. It's my opinion that one good gauge of whether the response is appropriate or not is what comes out of it. Bush fiddled, and continued his vacation and then stayed in his jet watching people suffer from the air, and the relief to the Gulf Coast was delayed due to systemic ineptitude. I thought Obama sitting through the baseball game was fine. The American intel community already has boots on the ground in Brussels - IMO an entirely proper response from a President, to send intel support and to remain on a diplomatic visit to a country he is trying to figure out how to have a relationship with. Had it been an incident on American soil I might have thought he should have altered what he was doing. But it isn't even something that he has jurisdiction over. I think it's high time to deal with ISIS but I think that is a separate matter from the immediate response to yesterday's events. The difference between Obama's staying the course on a state visit and Bush's remaining on vacation strikes me as significant. I thought Bush's response to 9/11 was actually quite good. Katrina, on the other hand, I thought was a dismal failure.
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Mar 23, 2016 15:40:34 GMT
Honestly your OP would have been stronger if you'd just left Bush out of it. This incident is in no way comparable to 9/11 - particularly those early hours where we truly had no idea how many planes were in the air and which landmark would be hit next. I think President Obama's heading off to a baseball game and wooping it up while our European allies were dealing with their own terrorist attack was a bit much. I would have appreciated a bit more sensitivity to the people of Brussels - and frankly the greater international community. But by comparing it to 9/11.... that's beyond a reach. Personally I think it's a bit much to imagine that anyone in that situation gives a second's thought to what someone else's president is doing at the time. Have they reached out to offer support, have they made a public statement - I'm glad to know about those things. But beyond that, I just don't see why I would care. Maybe those who were in NY on 9/11 - or perhaps more comparably in Boston when the marathon bombing happened - might have a different perspective but from mine I haven't a clue what any world leader except my own was doing during the 24 hours after the 7/7 London attacks. One thing Anericans do not completely understand is the absolutely astounding numbers of murderous tragedy that occurs around the world every single day. There is no possible way for our leaders to acknowledge each and every instance. It would be a constant performance. We stop and pause when the victims are in predominately white countries. Our media likes Paris, but it does not like Sudan. What goes down in certain African countries on an hourly basis would render a President immobilized to his podium, unable to take even a bathroom break. So so true. I know I am aware of only a tiny fraction of the horror of the world and although I sometimes feel guilty that I don't pay more attention, it would overwhelm me, so I pretty much live in a very comfortable bubble and I'm okay with that. But at least I know I'm in a bubble.
|
|
|
Post by 5peanutsnana on Mar 23, 2016 15:42:23 GMT
Apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Mar 23, 2016 16:05:51 GMT
I happened to be watching Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning when this exact topic came up. Even Mika Brzezinski just shook her head at Obama's actions on this attack. For those who are unfamiliar with the show, Mika is a dedicated Obama supporter.
Some of you keep asking, well what could he have done? There is a bigger problem than just his reaction over this particular attack. If you watch the segment you will see that the prevailing feeling is that he simply doesn't take terrorism and terrorist attacks seriously enough judging by his reaction/lack of action. (Don't attack me, I'm only reporting what the participants on the show said.)
Rudy Giuliani suggested he should be back in Washington doing a deep review of strategy on fighting ISIS since what he is doing now is clearly not working. We all know more attacks are coming, there is a certain "time is of the essence" element here.
When I heard about how the different countries don't seem to have a method for the free exchange of intelligence information I was thinking that might be an area where the U.S. could offer concrete help. The U.S. was in the exact same situation before 9/11 and we had to learn how to open up those lines of communication.
During the interview Obama said:
" ... but the whole premise of terrorism is to try to disrupt people’s ordinary lives.” I submit that the president does not lead an "ordinary life" by definition and he does need to disrupt his plans for attacks this significant.
I can't isolate the video, you will need to go to the MSN page to see the entire segment.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 23, 2016 16:08:12 GMT
then stayed in his jet watching people suffer from the air, I really don't care what someone's political leanings or beliefs are. Criticizing Bush for continuing to read to the children and for not landing into absolute devastation are among the top criticisms that I find to be done in poor humor. Ok. Got that off my chest. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Mar 23, 2016 16:16:55 GMT
Not to mention which disasters like hurricanes and tornados are considered to be a state level issue, with only auxiliary help from the feds. That's how Florida and Louisiana have always handled hurricanes and flooding. Suddenly the mayor put it in the Feds' lap. I guess because he had not done his job in preparing. The mayors in nearby parishes didn't do that and recovered much faster as a consequence.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,973
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Mar 23, 2016 16:19:40 GMT
I think the vitriol was only in a Michael Moore documentary but somehow all liberals and the Democratic party get blamed for it. Posts like this are why I am afraid that our system of government is not going to come back from the brink.
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Mar 23, 2016 16:22:10 GMT
I get the point GaJenny is making. Obama went golfing when James Foley was beheaded, he went golfing the day 6 American soliders were killed after a terrorist attack in Afghanistan. I just don't think he's ever understood the optics associated with being president. American service people are killed and injured abroad almost every day. By this standard he should never leave his home.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 23, 2016 16:30:03 GMT
I think the vitriol was only in a Michael Moore documentary Not hardly. I refuse to see Michael Moore's movies and I've heard this vitriol repeated for years.
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Mar 23, 2016 16:32:31 GMT
I think the vitriol was only in a Michael Moore documentary but somehow all liberals and the Democratic party get blamed for it. Posts like this are why I am afraid that our system of government is not going to come back from the brink. No, it was all over the Internet. I was really into four different message boards at the time and there were multiple threads, several pages long each, about Bush's immediate reaction. Each one with multiple outside links complaining too. It was much more than one idiot's film. I remember it very well because I was a "parent reader" in my dd's room and had it happened the next week I could have been in the middle of a book at the same time. I wasn't a big bush supporter but still admired how well he held it together at that moment.
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Mar 23, 2016 16:33:48 GMT
then stayed in his jet watching people suffer from the air, I really don't care what someone's political leanings or beliefs are. Criticizing Bush for continuing to read to the children and for not landing into absolute devastation are among the top criticisms that I find to be done in poor humor. Ok. Got that off my chest. Carry on. Lyndon Johnson managed to arrive in New Orleans after Hurricane Betsy and visit folks in emergency shelters - Jimmy Carter showed up after Katrina with his gloves on and put hammer to nail - why does Bush get a pass? If Bush had set foot in the area he would have immediately discovered that the response was inadequate. Instead, when he showed up two weeks later, he commended the work of FEMA making it clear he didn't really understand that FEMA had already botched and would continue to botch the response. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" my left foot - what nonsense. That picture of him flying overhead looking out the window just utterly exemplifies his cluelessness about what was really happening on the ground. Brownie did a heck of a job, yes - telling utility companies not to come, redirecting buses that were being sent to evacuate people, turning away truckloads of water and supplies, directing evacuees to go to the Convention Center and/or the Superdome when it was already known that those locations could not handle the people that were already there, let alone additional people. The adequate response came from volunteers from all over the country who willingly landed in absolute devastation and pitched in. The church, the nonprofit organizations, and the citizens of this country got things done that Bush preferred to avoid. The governmental response was a failure from the top down. However, I will restate that I thought Bush's response to 9/11 was quite appropriate. It's his response to Katrina that I thought was, what's the phrase that's been used in this thread? "Unaware of the optics"?
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Mar 23, 2016 16:41:04 GMT
Not to mention which disasters like hurricanes and tornados are considered to be a state level issue, with only auxiliary help from the feds. That's how Florida and Louisiana have always handled hurricanes and flooding. Suddenly the mayor put it in the Feds' lap. I guess because he had not done his job in preparing. The mayors in nearby parishes didn't do that and recovered much faster as a consequence. True enough about hurricanes. We are told that we should have at least 72 hours worth of food/supplies so that we can 'tend to our knitting' (as my grandmother always said) before any kind of relief from the state or federal government comes in. In my experience, the state shows up first. Actually, if the truth be told, it is the private agencies that show up first. And the first of those is almost always the utility workers from other states to help put us back together. Last major hurricane, Georgia and North Carolina utility workers were the first people we saw. FEMA didn't show up for at least four days. We saw the church agencies long before we saw FEMA.
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Mar 23, 2016 16:42:49 GMT
Not to mention which disasters like hurricanes and tornados are considered to be a state level issue, with only auxiliary help from the feds. That's how Florida and Louisiana have always handled hurricanes and flooding. Suddenly the mayor put it in the Feds' lap. I guess because he had not done his job in preparing. The mayors in nearby parishes didn't do that and recovered much faster as a consequence. True enough about hurricanes. We are told that we should have at least 72 hours worth of food/supplies so that we can 'tend to our knitting' (as my grandmother always said) before any kind of relief from the state or federal government comes in. In my experience, the state shows up first. Actually, if the truth be told, it is the private agencies that show up first. And the first of those is almost always the utility workers from other states to help put us back together. Last major hurricane, Georgia and North Carolina utility workers were the first people we saw. FEMA didn't show up for at least four days. We saw the church agencies long before we saw FEMA. It helps if your 72 hours worth of supplies aren't under 20 feet of water, but you know. Bootstraps.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 23, 2016 16:47:43 GMT
I really don't care what someone's political leanings or beliefs are. Criticizing Bush for continuing to read to the children and for not landing into absolute devastation are among the top criticisms that I find to be done in poor humor. Ok. Got that off my chest. Carry on. If Bush had set foot in the area he would have immediately discovered that the response was inadequate. Instead, when he showed up two weeks later, he commended the work of FEMA making it clear he didn't really understand that FEMA had already botched and would continue to botch the response. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" my left foot - what nonsense. That picture of him flying overhead looking out the window just utterly exemplifies his cluelessness about what was really happening on the ground. The adequate response came from volunteers from all over the country who willingly landed in absolute devastation and pitched in. The church, the nonprofit organizations, and the citizens of this country got things done that Bush preferred to avoid. The governmental response was a failure from the top down. Shoot.... I meant to direct that generally and not to you, specifically, Moveable. I understand what you're saying. If you have criticisms of FEMA or Bush's comments, that's different. To me. *I* just see the staying on the plane as a cheap shot. I am biased on this because I've lived through devastating hurricane devastation multiple times and the last place *I* wanted Bush to be was in the middle of the aftermath of Katrina diverting resources that were needed for recovery. It's not something to be argued about and I apologize that I missed directing that out to the universe instead of appearing to be directed to you.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 23, 2016 16:54:57 GMT
True enough about hurricanes. We are told that we should have at least 72 hours worth of food/supplies so that we can 'tend to our knitting' (as my grandmother always said) before any kind of relief from the state or federal government comes in. In my experience, the state shows up first. Actually, if the truth be told, it is the private agencies that show up first. And the first of those is almost always the utility workers from other states to help put us back together. Last major hurricane, Georgia and North Carolina utility workers were the first people we saw. FEMA didn't show up for at least four days. We saw the church agencies long before we saw FEMA. It helps if your 72 hours worth of supplies aren't under 20 feet of water, but you know. Bootstraps. People should not have been in New Orleans when Katrina struck. That's the bottom line. The evacuation efforts were extremely ineffective. They were WAY off their game. Other places can and do far better. And with that.... I'm going to exit talking about Katrina. I am in no way neutral and I don't need to get all worked up about something that happened 10 1/2 years ago right now.
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Mar 23, 2016 16:57:40 GMT
I think Bush's aid should have never whispered into his ear. He would have finished reading in 5 minutes and then they could have just said he needed to leave immediately. Really? We were being attacked and thousands were killed and reading to children should not be interrupted? I think Bush reacted appropriately but he definitely needed to know what was happening.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Mar 23, 2016 17:18:54 GMT
Actually, if the truth be told, it is the private agencies that show up first. And the first of those is almost always the utility workers from other states to help put us back together. Last major hurricane, Georgia and North Carolina utility workers were the first people we saw. FEMA didn't show up for at least four days. We saw the church agencies long before we saw FEMA. Yup, private enterprise is almost always more efficient than government, IMO. What makes Walmart so successful in disaster relief is a simple formula. 3 people are sitting in the same office: "It's the person from operations sitting next to the person handling logistics," said Jason Jackson, the retailer's director of business continuity. "So when the first person says, 'I need ten trailers of water,' the next person says, 'I have it available,' and the third person says, 'I can get it there.'"
|
|
|
Post by lumo on Mar 23, 2016 17:39:21 GMT
The events are not the same.
Now, if the prime minister of Belgium had gone trotting off to a football game or something after the attacks, well, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
If an attack on the scale of what happened in Brussels happened here, would you expect every other major world leader to drop what they're doing? Honest question
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Mar 23, 2016 17:42:34 GMT
Not sure which sites you are looking at, but I've seen plenty of outrage. Here's my take on it, based upon some research. Just as an FYI this trip has far more reaching implications that some minds can possibly handle, evidently. Furthermore, his impassioned response about NOT letting terrorists dictate how we should live in fear rings true. Hence his game attendance which as mentioned is not merely a sport event but speaks to the terrorists and also further cements global commitment, tact and diplomacy.
|
|