Well, at least Obama’s not Bush
And the resume’ of conservtive foreign policy success of the last 8 years is what? And, as such, why should we listen to your advice?
If Obama isn’t pursuing that failed policy, then he at least is potentially on a different track.
Let’s see, the results of the foreign policy of the last eight years: a free Iraq that’s doing fairly well. No major terrorist attacks in this country. Al Qaeda much weakened. And I hadn’t noticed any significant problem between Bush and Sarkozy, or Merkel, or Brown, or eastern Europe, or any of the other European countries that Obama is presently sucking up to.
Nor do I see any concrete improvements as a result of Obama’s speeches in terms of what Europe is actually planning to do vis a vis the US. It’s all rhetoric; but that’s Obama’s style, anyway, so it’s a good match if rhetoric is Europe’s reaction, as well.
Oh, and saying “at least [Obama’s] potentially on a different track” is an absurdity. “Different” is not better—although those who voted for this dangerous man on the promise of “change” fail to understand that.
You might as well say “Well, at least Hitler wasn’t the Weimar Republic.” True, but hardly a point worth making. And no, it doesn’t mean that Obama is Hitler. But it does mean that the consequences of Obama’s policies could put us, and the world, in a situation a whole lot worse than we had under Bush.
Logern,
You need to grow some clarity in that brain.
That’s as constructive as I can get.
If positive is good.
and a change from positive is different.
is a change good?
Not enough information mathematically speaking.
However, if you look at the further information you find that the trajectory of Obama is negative. It’s a Carter redux squared.
How is that for mathematics and different is good.
Logern’s post reflects the disturbing simple-mindedness that seems to characterize leftist fellow-travelers (not the ringleaders; they’re calculating bastards).
Specifically, “if X is bad, then not X must be good.” It appears not to occur to their pea-brains that not X can also be bad, and in fact even worse than X. There is no inversion symmetry between X and not X, nor an zero sum condition imposed on them.
Life all too often imposes a choice between bad, worse, and catastrophic.
Well said Occam.
It’s a shame people aren’t taught logic anymore.
There are many Bush foreign policy successes which could be mentioned. A huge factor, which deserves mention, is the forwarding and interweaving of our relationship with India. This aligns us with a massive economic power; it gives us leverage to counterbalance the power of China. President Bush recognized the strategic importance, and successfully strengthened our relationship.
gcotharn: I forgot to mention Bush’s policies on Africa, which earned him a lot of kudos there.
Let’s also not forget Bush’s support of Columbia and Philippines in their fight against terrorists. Also, the surrender by Libya of the nuclear program and support for the Lebanese against Syria. Let’s throw-in Kosovo as well.
Stole my thunder: India and Africa were both on the tip of my tongue. I would add in Eastern Europe, a handful of semi-sensible Arab nations, Colombia…
We have a significantly deteriorated relationship with the UN. That is not at all the same thing as deteriorated relationships with individual nations. The UN represents specific sectors of the population of each of its member nations – seldom the most democratic sectors – and should be more properly thought of as the United Elites. It just bugs the heck out of progressives to not be on their good side, but I consider it rather a plus myself.
I am glad somebody is mentioning the fact that there was no rift between America and Europe under Bush. More European countries supported the war in Iraq and all supported the war in Afghanistan (as to extra troops, well, Obama is not getting them either) and generally there were good relations despite the insane demonstrations whenever Bush or Rice appeared here. OK, Bush annoyed Chirac and Schroeder. But surely that is a double plus good. 🙂
Helen: Unfortunately, those truths are not known by most people in America.
On the other hand, it is my impression that although most leaders of Europe actually appreciated and worked rather well with Bush, the population there (as here) mainly bought the popular meme that Bush is an incompetent idiot.
Actually, I ignored some of Bush’s successes.
(with the track record of many of the posters here, that was par for the course when discussing the opposition. (neo grudgingly admits a few things on issues to appear balanced, I give her credit there))
But yes, it is a fairly low bar for Obama. That is still true.
You guys are heavy on the critique. Well, it’s like giving financial advice, when you personally invested with a Bernie Madeoff type. What’s next for 2012. Palin, the foreign policy genius?
I await more uninteresting commentary and insults.
Who’s this Palin liberals keep talking about?
When one canard does not work if you are Logern you try another. Typical leftist drivel.
@Logern,
You have yet to display why Bush’s policies were worse than Obama’s current plan of action. Just saying that “there’s a low bar” for Obama doesn’t mean anything specific other than “Bush : Bad as Obama : Good”
I believe you ignored all of Bush’s successes as you didn’t mention any of them at all. This is possibly because you don’t consider any of his actions successes. How do you define success?
You’re still not playing ball. Define your terms. Ad hominem attacks weaken your argument, which is already devoid of factual basis or clearly thought-out points.
Republicans will just never poll well with a lot of lefty Europeans… regardless of what they do. When the bashing is nonstop from so many sources, some moderates are going to fall in also… even some Euro conservatives…
What did Bush do to get the US polling worse than Iran in some places? He didn’t give them veto power over US policy… which in Obama-esq talk; was turned into be unilateral…
This doesn’t mean we owe them electing a fellow leftist… because otherwise they’ll whine a lot…
Helen Says:
“OK, Bush annoyed Chirac and Schroeder. But surely that is a double plus good.”
That’s what I said before the election when people brought it up. 🙂 When you annoy European socialists, you should take it as you are doing something right.
The facts, the facts, they burn, they burn.
On the other hand, it is my impression that although most leaders of Europe actually appreciated and worked rather well with Bush, the population there (as here) mainly bought the popular meme that Bush is an incompetent idiot.
Sadly they were fed it by our moronic media, which is still slobbering over the Obamas, though the odd bit of criticism is beginning to appear.
Many people on our discussion boards here on neo’s site have come over, in stages and at different times in their lives, from the other side where “Logern” is coming from. I was Far Left (at least academically – I wasn’t much of an activist and I probably flew under the radar because I was buried in books and articles). We are all familiar with the attitude of the Left: it gives the benefit of the doubt to our enemies and our erstwhile allies who wanted to freeload on us during the Cold War and beyond.
We pissed off France and Russia, because Iraq was a major client and ally of those nations. The Germans also had cozy relations with Saddam, to the point where it was financially very beneficial for some of their corporations and politicians. Most of all, they saw in a militant Iraq that would soon be freed of the inspection regime a counterweight to the United States and Israel in the region. That was the game. Anyone who tells you differently is either a fool or a liar.
Chirac and Putin were counting on Saddam’s regime to keep us off-balance and threatened, since Iraqi bio and chem weapons programs could deliver products (for a price) to groups that would use them against us.
President Bush upset the emerging geo-strategic reality, and they didn’t like it one bit at all.
In this country the Far Left succeeded in roping in the dopes from the Soft Left and the Middle Muddle. The Soros’ controlled media NGO’s worked the MSM to get Bush at any cost. No one and nothing was spared in that mission.
Aw, Neo, you’re using logic. That’s not fair!
If only I had stayed a child.
I would have loved this guy in the 70’s and 80’s.
Ah, well.
The thing is, people like Madoff operate on the same principle as William Jefferson, PillowC, Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Obama.
They make you believe that they are the indispensable man, the virtuous man, the man that will do the good thing, the different thing, the non-Bushdevil thing.
In reality, you are going to get shafted, soon as you give them what they want. And just like in Madoff, some of the dupes will benefit while others will lose all.
Just sit there and wait for it, L. Wait for that Jonestown moment in your life when everything changes.
Quoting Joe Biden from day before yesterday.
“The last administration left us in a weaker posture than we’ve been any time since World War II: less regarded in the world, stretched more thinly than we ever have been in the past, two wars under way, virtually no respect in entire parts of the world,” Biden said on CNN’s The Situation Room. “And so we’ve been about the business of repairing and strengthening those.”
I would guess that counts as a bit of foreign policy assesment.
Logern, what makes you think Biden’s assessment is correct? Ante up.
When quoting Joe Biden it is more useful to tell us the provenance of the thought; that is, from whom he copied, so that we can ascertain the quality of the opinion.
In some respects however, it is a true statement: the author of the statement believes that being less regarded – in certain undefined respects by certain undefined concerns – and being stretched ‘more thinly’, with ‘no respect’ – again, in certain undefined respects – in entire ‘parts of the world’, leaves us in a ‘weaker’ posture.
So, let’s define WHO regards and respects us less:
tyrants, dictators, oppressors of individual liberty and freedom; i.e. statists. In other words, people whom I would hope we have no interest in courting (Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Russia, etc.).
And when he speaks of respect, he is saying that they defy our will; so in order to gain their respect, Obama has ceded all our foreign policy goals to bring the goals into line with the statists’ intentions. Certainly that will make them respect us, won’t it?
Assistant Village Idiot Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Logern, what makes you think Biden’s assessment is correct? Ante up.
You want me to back up the Vice President?
Okay, we’ve been in two wars for awhile now.
Extended tours, and military stop-less has been in effect. Don’t know if it’s as bad since WW2.
And uh, go peruse “Gateway Pundits” archives for a collection of how much people love us around the World. (I’m glad I finally found some use for that guy)
And for the most part, if you believe the MSM (and I’m sure you don’t) Obama’s two visits to Europe have gone mostly well. But hey, it’s still only couple months in, so there’s always hope things will get a lot worse.
Will more popular support (than Bush) sway European leadership (who one assumes do answer somewhat to their constituencies), is yet to be seen.
Ozymandias
Part of my post cut. Ah, but I’ll leave it at that.
Good move, Logern. I don’t think you can answer Oz. What you have written so far doesn’t show much reflection about what the position of the US is or is not. Constant drumbeat of talking points from Democrats, Code Pink, or International Answer doesn’t count as analysis.