IS THE PRESIDENT TO BLAME?

There is plain criticism, which people normally glance over, in terms of whether it has any real meaning or effect on whom it is directed against; and judging from the reason for the kind of criticism, it becomes destructive, if it (criticism) is selfish.

While there is one that delves deep into analysing an opinion to prove that some wrong needs to be corrected, if there is ample room to make that opinion reversible or to be rescinded. That is usually referred to as constructive criticism.

The second type is the one that must be prevalent in the present political campaign that will play out in the 2012 general election, to elect a president, who is capable of handling the enormous issues that the country is facing; the huge National debt, the sluggish economy and the high unemployment rate.

Yet, in a very regrettable way, if not regretfully so, that is not the case, as politicians, who are running against President Barack Obama are engaged in. They are lambasting him, although "the ample room" is not there for them to do so.

Two clear examples are. 1. The disturbances in Afghanistan stemming from the burning of the Quran, and 2. The rising of oil and gas prices.

In the first incident, the disturbances will strain the already fragile relationship that the United States is having with Afghanistan; and so he apologizes for a diabolical act by members of NATO forces, and as president, it is his duty to safeguard them in every possible way, since the U.S. is the major part and also playing a leading role in operations there.

He will be the one to blame, when things go wrong; as the burning of the Quran is the worst of those things in that part of the world.

His critics are capitalizing on the issue for mere political points, and that is appalling, as they know that the only way to bring calm to come over the situation is to appease the Afghans. Therefore, an apology must be the proper thing to use in a case of that nature.

With oil and gas prices rising, the president has no control over them; and besides, his critics are more than aware of why crude oil price is rising. 1, The fact is that the United States and its allies in the United Nations are imposing economic sanctions on Iran, to stop it from pursuing its nuclear program.

Iran is in serious trouble economically, as those sanctions are having the supposed effect on that country; and therefore, the president must be exonerated from such an unnecessary critique.

In other words, if a situation calls for such criticism, a great number of people will confirm it to such a degree that it will achieve its goal; as it is justified by how and for what it is made, if it (criticism) is appropriate.

It can also be done just to malign a person, to reduce the standing and the integrity of that person in the eyes of the public; and in this instance, it is President Obama that his critics are attacking for that purpose; which is really bad.

It is just like doing something to put a person to shame for what he is responsible; but he (Obama) is not the one making oil prices to rise. 2. In all honesty, it is the so called Speculators in Wall Street that are manipulating crude oil prices for profit. They must be the ones to blame.

Otherwise, if any criticism is part of a planned rhetoric to assail an innocent individual, as the president is in this case, then all the candidates running in the Republican Party nomination race, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, with the exception of Paul, must be ashamed of themselves, as they are doing a great deal of damage and disservice, not only to Obama, but to the U.S.

In any kind of criticism fairness is key, and that is what all fair minded people look for to make sure the it (criticism) is appropriate and constructive.

So far, that is not what the Republican candidates are doing. They are rather indulging in unfair criticism to gain political favor. Besides, many U.S. presidents have apologized on behalf of the nation on many occasions. So, do not single out Obama.