Obama and responsibility
There have been a number of reversals from Obama lately on what used to be called the “war on terror.” All of these switches are in the same direction, towards Bush’s once-reviled policies and away from the standard liberal/Left line.
In this recent post, I speculated on what might be causing these changes when I wrote, “now that Obama will own whatever happens in Afghanistan, it behooves him to be more careful, doesn’t it?” One can extrapolate from “Afghanistan” to “war on terror,” and theorize that Obama isn’t eager to have another terrorist attack occur here on his watch.
Good, I say; I’m not eager to have that happen, either. But the phenomenon of Obama’s backtracking is an example of something even larger, the general issue of taking responsibility.
So far Obama has been, without question or rival, the President most heavily involved in holding his predecessors responsible for everything that has gone wrong since his taking office. The cries of “don’t blame us for anything we’ve done about the economy; after all we inherited it,” have been nearly unceasing, and are unprecedented for an incoming administration.
This tactic of continual blame fits in with well with, and is fostered by, the MSM, as well as being nicely congruent with widespread Bush Derangement Syndrome in its larger and smaller manifestations. But it also dovetails neatly with Obama’s personality and history: my sense is that the man has almost never before had to take responsibility for his actions and their consequences, at least in the public realm.
Read any summary of Obama’s life and achievements and you will be struck by the fact that Obama always impressed people by his very being; something about the man inspired confidence and conveyed competence. But in each of his career moves, his actual accomplishments were few—although it was hard to notice because he rarely stayed long enough for people to expect him to have shown something for his tenure. You might say that “hope and change” was Obama’s mantra, even back then: people would hope a great deal of him, and then he’d change jobs before they noticed that he hadn’t delivered much.
Now Obama is stuck; there’s nowhere to go after the Presidency but down, careerwise. He’s here for four years at least, and under the sort of constant scrutiny he’s not accustomed to (nor is anyone, really, prior to taking on the office). Even though the press is in his pocket and always has been, there are more rumblings of discontent now coming from that source than Obama has probably ever experienced before in his life. Moreover, he must be aware that, as time goes by, and despite his blame-Bush propensities, at some point more people are likely to start holding him accountable for what goes on while he’s President.
Obama is most vulnerable in the realm of the war on terror. After all, even the most committed Bush-hater has to begrudgingly admit that after 9/11 no more terrorist attacks of any magnitude occurred on our soil, although nearly everyone expected them (of course, some of the most committed Bush-haters think that it was Bush himself who was the perpetrator of 9/11—but let’s assume they’re a mere fringe element). Through hook or by crook, Bush “kept us safe,” and Cheney and company are harping on that fact and suggesting that Obama won’t be able to do the same.
This must haunt Obama and cause him to do a bit of thinking. As time goes on, whatever happens will become more and more difficult to pin on Bush, although he’ll probably continue to try. Thus, the willingness to take some responsibility and defy his own supporters on the Left, who are up in arms about his backtracking on the “abuse” photos, the military tribunals, and indefinite detention.
Previously in his public life, Obama was a senator—first state, then federal. Senators are notorious for being able to pass the buck. They are one of a group, after all, and groups diffuse responsibility.
The presidency is a very different beast indeed. Those who aspire to it can say what they will. But once they are in office, the buck tends to stop at their very own desk—even if they continue to desperately try to pass it.
“the man has almost never before had to take responsibility for his actions and their consequences”
Oh, let’s be really crude: what does one expect from an affirmative-action hire? Or, more correctly, those who find it easier to praise-and-pass-along such hires. Furthermore, it fits right into our nobody-can-fail educational system and, unfortunately, much of society.
Read any summary of Obama’s life and achievements and you will be struck by the fact that Obama always impressed people by his very being; something about the man inspired confidence and conveyed competence. But in each of his career moves, his actual accomplishments were few…
This drives me crazy. As I wrote a friend before the election, Democratic voters are just rolling the dice on Obama and crossing their fingers.
Perhaps Mitsu or another Obama supporter can explain how brilliant and wonderful Obama’s leadership has been since the inauguration in terms of what the man has done and not counting the times he has backtracked to follow the Bush’s lead.
In the meantime, enjoy Victor David Hanson’s take on a parallel universe where Sarah Palin became president in 2008 and did the same things as Obama.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDU4NDI5MjgxZmRjZTY4ZGFlOTA5M2U2MmY2NDA2Y2M=
“The One” is odd, especially for someone who sought the office of President with such vigor, for trying to blame the problems at hand on his predecessor. Very different from others. T. Roosevelt, F.D. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan didn’t do that. Far from it – they all seemed to relish the opportunity to tackle the problems in front of them. If you “own” it from the start, you get all the historical credit for later accomplishments. “Cleaning up others messes” is not usually what the history books write about when describing great leaders. Also, “The One” believed Bush and Co. failed to explore all options and is now finding out that they in face DID explore lots of options and what is in place was the best option available. Will eventually make his leftist pals scream and moan, but they have nowhere else to go, so he’ll live with it.
Oh, huxley, Mitsu is only defending his fellow Harvard grad. Those guys have to stick together, don’t you know?
After all, as our betters they think they have an inherited right to form up society as they see it should be organized.
Marxism is just another mutation of oligarchy and might makes right. It’s dressed up in so-called “science” and other fol de rol. The Russian defector Bezmenov pretty accurately describes what the true Communists are like. If they get power they do away with the Marxist intellectuals, since those people are all rivals for power and the intellectuals would turn on the rough fellas in a heartbeat.
So, in a true Marxist society much of what comes out of the Ivies and the rest of the elite universities would go the way of the Dodo.
Last fall people said sarcastically that Obama would be in trouble if he won the Presidency: he’s always started running for his next job as soon as he got his current one and what was left for him to run for? I figured then that his next step would be running for Secretary-General of the UN. He can stick around as President for long enough commit the US to beef up the UN’s money and power then resign as President to go run it, leaving Joe Biden with whatever mess he’s created – and us with Joe Biden. Which I’m increasingly thinking might not be such a bad deal.
Why would Joe Biden “not be such a bad deal?” I find him very despicable. There are very few palatable Dems out there. Perhaps Joe Lieberman, but he’s now an “Independent.”
The Democrat Party no longer stands for anything it used to many years ago. It all changed in that party in 1972. The New Left and the Cultural Marxists took it over.
huxley’s quote from neoneocon, “… something about the man inspired confidence and conveyed competence ….” reflects another element of Obama’s origin that few give much credit.
Obama’s grandfather, de facto father, was a not-quite-failing salesman who got-ahead by moving-on. When grandma was paying the family bills, after the last move, grandpa probably gave many a lesson on blaming “them” for his failures, and Obama would have been there to listen.
Most intellectual types underrate how much can be learned from even a moderately successful salesman. My grandfather was such, came from the same interior swath of the USA, and taught me a few lessons that promoted my own career perhaps beyond the successes it should have had.
Furthermore, Obama’s marks were University if Chicago, liberal types, just aching to be used. His joy in using them is one thing that tickles me.
“… he’s here for four years at least, and under the sort of constant scrutiny he’s not accustomed to …”
Meh… I don’t see it. And I don’t see the MSM ratcheting up their current level of “scrutiny” anytime soon.
I think almost anything can happen under Obama’s watch, and he’s still going to win reelection in 2012.
Sorry to be such a pessimist, but do you really think the MSM is not ready, willing, and eager to explain how American decline would have happened anyway?
Barack the pupil
kicking, resisting, yet learning
from Darth Dick Cheney
Didn’t I read somewhere that Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, “The buck stops…ah…um…ah…somewhere over there!”? Maybe Obama could dig it out of the White House storeroom and proudly display it on his desk.
The problem Obama faces is that Bush/Cheney had a perfect record after 9/11 – no hits, no runs, no errors. (And before any Obamanaut weighs in on 9/11, no one is to blame for that; no one realized the threat we faced, not Clinton, not Bush.)
So Obama will have to be exceptionally diligent, and in fact lucky, even to match Bush’s record. That’s a tall order. It’s like being in a free-throw contest when your opponent just shot 20 in a row. A perfect performance on your point will make you…tied. And it’s the best you can hope for. No pressure there.
More likely he’ll send it to Crawford.
I figured that once Obama was president and was fully briefed on the full extent of foreign security risks, he might rethink some of his campaign promises to completely reverse Bush initiatives and polices. I told friends my opinion of him would improve if he would concede that the prior administration had a few things “right”.
Obama’s modification of his Iraq exit plan, his back-pedaling on the torture memos/photos and his change of position regarding the closing of Gitmo and tribunal hearings prove that he has had new “insight”. But still the constant Bush bashing continues.
Obama lacks intellectual honesty and integrity and I cannot respect him. Interestingly, he has conceded that “mistakes were made” with regard to some of his cabinet and other appointments and the New York flyover. So, is it political suicide to admit the prior administration was right about a few things?
Remember the press constantly badgering GWB to admit that mistakes were made? As I recall, he stood fast, too. Is that just too much to ask, to far to go?
Would it make a difference to us?
Actions speak louder than words.
The mistake the Left has made from the beginning is hating Conservative more the they hate those that wish to destroy our country. !!Big mistake!!
Now some of them are realizing that there are tough decision to make, and now that it’s their ass they can not make judgments from the sidelines, they have to make judgments are if they were responsible for the decisions they make and this make all the difference, for the wrong reasons, but if it defends our greatest civil liberty of all, “..the right to life..” then, well, they re evolving towards my position, perhaps their rationale will catch up too.
“All of these switches are in the same direction, towards Bush’s once-reviled policies and away from the standard liberal/Left line.”
Neo, as well stated by some of the above comments, the reality of the situation became clear once in office. You just can’t shmooze fanatics bent on our destruction like you can guilty liberals.
“This tactic of continual blame fits in with well with, and is fostered by, the MSM, as well as being nicely congruent with widespread Bush Derangement Syndrome in its larger and smaller manifestations. But it also dovetails neatly with Obama’s personality and history: my sense is that the man has almost never before had to take responsibility for his actions and their consequences, at least in the public realm.”
I couldn’t agree more. Also Ozyripus nails it. This man has never experienced real discrimination or racism as have older & poorer black people. And though he has been the recipient of policies that perhaps propelled him beyond his abilities, he constantly and without hesitation plays the race card. I suspect he has done more to set race relations in this country back than anyone in recent memory.
“Read any summary of Obama’s life and achievements and you will be struck by the fact that Obama always impressed people by his very being; something about the man inspired confidence and conveyed competence.”
I’m with Huxley on this. This drives me crazy too. I don’t mean to bang my own drum, but from the first time I listened to his empty rhetoric I knew, as sure as I’m typing this, that what we have here is a con man and a not very good con man. All you can say is that it is true, that a sucker is born every minute! It also shows that being rich, famous or powerful today is no guarantee against being stupid, or perhaps I should say gullible and predisposed to a hyper-sensitivity about even being thought to perhaps maybe be racist in some small way. Call it what you want but stupid is stupid. These idiots wouldn’t have succumbed to such non-sense if they really deep down weren’t that way.
“Now Obama is stuck; there’s nowhere to go after the Presidency but down, career-wise. He’s here for four years at least, and under the sort of constant scrutiny he’s not accustomed to (nor is anyone, really, prior to taking on the office). Even though the press is in his pocket and always has been, there are more rumblings of discontent now coming from that source than Obama has probably ever experienced before in his life.”
Yes, but it is no where near enough to inform the mass of politically unengaged, who derive the bulk of their information from the MSM still. He treats the MSM with contempt and they still fawn over him. Press conferences look like a slobber-fest of craven, oleaginous fans (of the worst sort) trying to out do each other in a suck up contest. Come to think of it, no wonder he despises them.
” Interestingly, he has conceded that “mistakes were made” with regard to some of his cabinet and other appointments and the New York flyover. So, is it political suicide to admit the prior administration was right about a few things?
Remember the press constantly badgering GWB to admit that mistakes were made? As I recall, he stood fast, too. Is that just too much to ask, to far to go? JT Hoits, in Obama’s case it might help him, but with Bush it would only have been another ‘gotcha’ moment. The President/MSM dynamics were totally different.
nyomythus, you said that, “The mistake the Left has made from the beginning is hating Conservative more the they hate those that wish to destroy our country.” I couldn’t agree more with that.
You then go on to say, “Now some of them are realizing that there are tough decision to make, and now that it’s their ass they can not make judgments from the sidelines… I disagree with you there. I think that Obama and his advisers are basing their decisions on naked domestic political calculation and allowing an incipient victory in Iraq to slip away, as well as loosing Afghanistan and even more important Pakistan as well as just sliding backwards on the general ‘war on terror’ will be bad, very bad politically. I don’t think there is any other calculation occurring. Ask yourself, if they were trying to set out to destroy or cripple this country, what would they do differently?
Additionally you said, “but if it defends our greatest civil liberty of all, “..the right to life..” then, well, they re evolving towards my position, perhaps their rationale will catch up too”
I do hope you are right and that the reality of the situation has been a huge wake up call. I hope that they realize that they a) made mistakes and b) learned from their mistakes.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that they have and if they have, I don’t think that they have the moral courage to further antagonize their base. Perhaps I’m wrong and I hope I am, but I’m not holding my breath on any epiphany for these clowns. Especially when you are surrounded by the likes of chief advisor, Rahm boy, who is nothing more than a Roy Cohn for our times.
Tim …don’t think that they have the moral courage to further antagonize their base.
We’ll be hearing that agony soon enough … and it will be interesting to see.
I’m convinced that Obama and his crew have been stepping up to the plate on national security not because they have any particular love for the U.S. or because they believe in fighting terrorism, but because they know if they don’t, they’ll pay for it at the polls. Another 9/11, especially a year or two down the road, and it’s Obama’s problem, not something that can be blamed on Bush. Not that Mr.-Buck-Stops-Somewhere-Else wouldn’t try. Some of the grownups on the team–Gates and Panetta in particular, who don’t need their jobs and have no known aspirations for higher positions in the administration–probably want to do it for the right reasons, but the rest all look at national security through the lens of domestic politics. Unfortunately, this lens distorts the view.
I find it amusing that when Obama proves himself to be the pragmatic politician that I and others have always claimed he was, rather than offering praise, you guys still find ways to denigrate him.
Obama’s policies and decisions are vastly different from Bush’s. Sure, he’s tacked back a bit from some of his campaign promises — however, rather than being motivated, as Neo seems to think, by fear that he is going to have to “take responsibility” — I believe he is simply motivated by new information he’s been getting since he’s come into office. I can’t say for certain whether all of his positions are wise or not, without knowing what secret information he has access to — but I can say that I’m not surprised at all, nor nearly as disappointed as some of my friends on the left. I’ll wait and see how it plays out.
To get into specifics rather than vague aspersions on Obama’s character or on people who went to Harvard or whatever, I’d say the position I’m the most concerned about is the fact that the Obama Justice Department appears to be continuing to argue that some civil suits ought to be dismissed completely on the grounds of national security, without the case being heard in court, even in secret. I believe that some middle ground ought to be sought, such as secret judicial review of the evidence, so that at least there is one other branch of government privy to the information that is supposedly justifying the withholding of evidence. It’s crucial that no single branch of government have the sole authority to decide matters which may affect the administration of justice, I believe.
However, I am not that exercised about his reversal on the photos — I tend to think that he may be right that the photos will not reveal details that are particularly more important than what we already know. He had to balance the concerns raised by the military with concerns raised by those interested in civil liberties. Of course, the courts may well decide to force the issue in the end, but if they do, at least Obama will have shown himself to be sensitive to concerns of some within the military. Nevertheless I agree with those on the left who say that openness is important to restrain the impulses on the part of anyone in power to abuse that authority (as clearly occurred, in my view, here). These are both valid concerns and Obama balanced them — as he is supposed to do. In some cases he’s come out on the side of the civil libertarians and in others on the side of those more interested in secrecy. That’s as it should be, though I can’t obviously judge whether I agree with him on this particular decision.
The problem I had with Bush is not that I think every single decision he made was wrong — it was his tendency to be rather one-sided in his deliberations, his lack of judgement and foresight overall. Sometimes his decisions made sense but he was slow to revise his view in light of new information. He didn’t seem to care that much about careful preparation, he appointed people who were clearly incompetent to important positions; in general I feel he treated his office with a cavalier attitude. Obama, to my mind, is a far more serious individual, someone who appropriately comes down sometimes in the right and sometimes on the left of any issue, but at least he attempts to balance the arguments and issues in a flexible and pragmatic manner. That’s the person he’s always said he is and the person I’ve always thought he is — a politician after my own heart, frankly, whether I agree in entirety with every decision he makes or not. One cannot expect to agree with anyone 100% … I don’t expect it, and I don’t expect Obama to be mistake-free. I expect him, however, to soberly weigh the options and make a considered choice — and to change his mind when warranted. That’s what he’s doing and I for one am quite pleased that’s what he’s doing.
I agree with Mitsu. Furthermore, if you’ve ever tried to unknot a tangled ball of string someone has left for you, the process is usually less than straight forward, and you often go in many different directions at a much slower pace to do it. (metaphor for Bush Crapfest) So, much easier to mess things up than to straighten them out.
Has Obama really seen the Bush light on some of these issues? Maybe, but I doubt it on most. I think it’s pretty questionable that he would have created a Gitmo/limbo situation, or torture program, invade Iraq, approved filtering the entire incoming communications, circumvent the FISA court, and a number of other things.
Because he’s stuck with the ill effects of some of this stuff that likely wouldn’t have come into existence in the first place had he been in charge, he’s in a position where things don’t undo neatly.
If Obama sits in his office, and goes wow, those last guys were on to something, I’ll eat my hat. More likely, I suspect he mutters small oaths how things have been left for him.
If he wasn’t pragmatic, he would just undo, and let things come what may.
However, don’t despair. The number of things that still could go awry for him are numerous, and no joke.
Mitsu
Better said that he had now to confront information that he had previously ignored or tried to ignore. Two years ago Obama introduced a resolution to have US combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008, which would have cut the knees off the Surge. Consistent with that position, he was slow during the campaign to acknowledge the success of the Surge. When in office, he had to face the facts he had previously ignored.
Mitsu then talks about Dubya.
Such as the quicky “Stimulus” package, which exponentially increased our debt. Then several days ago he states that our long-term debt load is “unsustainable.” You don’t say?
Such as Obama’s making the cockamanie claim on the campaign trail that inflating tires would save the energy equivalent of increasing domestic drilling- continental, offshore, and Alaska?
Such as Obama’s presenting DVDs to Gordon Brown- in a format not used in the UK?
Such as Treasury Secretaries who don’t pay their income taxes?
“I find it amusing that when Obama proves himself to be the pragmatic politician that I and others have always claimed he was…”
Mitsu, that’s called “reality biting you in the butt”. Some campaign positions are found to be untenable after assuming the office. Closing Gitmo without a viable alternative is one of them. I will admit that I do not know what the best way is to deal with those incarcerated at Gitmo. I know for certain, however, that I don’t want those terrorists in the American criminal justice system. Terrorist-friendly lawyers (Lynne Stewart, take a bow), discovery rules which turn over valuable information to the terrorists (we know after WTC1 that the terrorists study this material very closely), rules of evidence that would tend to exclude most of what was collected for intelligence purposes, and overall circus atmosphere with the media render the court system unsuitable to try the likes of KSM and Ramzi bin al-Shibh. Face it, if they’d been caught under similar conditions during WW2, they’d already have faced a military firing squad, just as the German agents in Britain or SS troops who were caught in American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge were.
I will give Obama some credit for facing reality on national security. To a point. I don’t trust his instincts, and he may still feel compelled to throw his leftist base a bone. Let’s hope it’s not on anything important. And don’t get me started on the “stimulus”.
Keep in mind, here, that Obama has only backtracked somewhat. Guantanamo is still going to be closed, and most of the prisoners there are going to be tried in Article III courts. Only a subset of the most dangerous are going to still be tried by military tribunals, and Obama has mandated a number of changes to the tribunals to make them more transparent and fair. Keep in mind that during the Bush Administration a number of officers involved in the commissions complained and/or resigned over procedural unfairness — also note that we’ve successfully tried a number of terrorists in our civilian courts already, and the military tribunals have failed to get convictions.
Again, it’s a balanced, pragmatic approach that takes into account the need for security and the need to protect our American values of fairness. There are undoubtedly very dangerous people at Guantanamo, but not everyone there was a terrorist (as the Bush Administration even admitted) and we have a responsibility as a nation to uphold some standards of fairness. To have a system where the executive branch can hold someone incommunicado without any judicial review whatsoever is what the Bush Administration proposed — that to my mind is untenable. Obama has proposed retaining military tribunals (used by presidents from George Washington forward) and incoporating a national security court to be staffed by members of the judicial branch — restoring at least some checks on untrammeled executive power. As I’ve said before I’m not certain I agree with everything Obama is doing but he is weighing the issues and that’s what he’s always said he would do.
“…note that we’ve successfully tried a number of terrorists in our civilian courts already…”
Yes, with full transcripts available to whoever wants them. What have the terrorists learned about us while we were busy disclosing everything we knew about their cases in open court? Even a gag order is useless to prevent people like the treasonous Ms. Stewart and her fellow travelers from helping their terrorist friends (beyond providing legal counsel). Unless we’re very, very lucky, the next round will be much deadlier than the first, and we will have only ourselves to blame for putting our methods in the hands of the terrorists. Not just the generalities that anyone can find in a quick Google search. The real nitty-gritty of how our police, military. and intelligence operatives do business. The terrorists have no business learning that until they’re standing on the “X”.
Obama was never focused on international issues and stopping Jihad, his obvious passion is domestic social engineering. The true test of his taking responsibility as President, and shifting his positions will come when the now looming hyper-stagflation angers the vast majority of people in the streets. My bet is that he will only shift blame, and not respond with meaningful corrective action that would derail his unaffordable programs. This will bring his entire party’s popularity crashing through the basement on the next election day. It is virtually impossible to blame the other guys when you, and your buddies, are in total control. In the end, the economy rules the ballot box. Obama has firmly planted the seeds for his own demise.
The timeless truth in the old “CEO advice” joke about the “three sealed envelopes addressed to my successor” still is valid:
Envelope #1 says – Blame the previous guy and his team as long as possible then open envelope #2
Envelope #2 says – Reorganize, then when the going gets tough, open envelope #3
Envelope #3 says – Leave three envelopes in the desk drawer before you go.
Mitsu,
Obama made his grandstanding announcement about closing Gitmo about 2 days after his inauguration. It was a lead news story in Europe. It reinforced the European popular opinion that everything Bush did was stupid or evil and that Obama had a magic wand. Now he is pulling back and showing his pragmatism? That’s not the impression he’s leaving across the big pond. For the average person here, he is turning into a typical American. Human Rights Watch is still the voice of authority, and Americans will still be derided for not simply sending KSM to a therapist where he can voices his legitimate grievances about America’s misdeeds. Sensible foreign politicians are simple not going to trust him. They won’t stick their necks out.
The simple fact is that Obama made a lot of promises, some on foreign soil–all broadcast abroad, when he didn’t know what the hell he was talking about. He and his useful idiot helpers undermined the things that even you concede Bush did correctly. Now, you expect that he should get credit for being hit over the head by reality. Sorry.
He probably should have gotten a good whack on the rear when he was a kid and his narcissistic fantasy world was under construction.
Right now he seems to have been moderated by a few tough-minded people like Gates, but there is no evidence that his fantasy world won’t win the upper hand on future issues.
“…Because he’s stuck with the ill effects of some of this stuff that likely wouldn’t have come into existence in the first place had he been in charge, he’s in a position where things don’t undo neatly…”
Ill effects? Like no attacks on American soil in the last 7 1/2 years? That’s the bottom line, not what the NYT or France or the Nobel Prize Committee thinks of us. I’ll take survival over a favorable editorial in the Gray Lady, thank you. Face it, whatever your opinion of EITs, warrantless surveillance, Gitmo, and the rest of it, the fact is after 9/11, AQ did not launch another attack on U.S. soil during the remainder of Bush’s term. I have to think there’s a cause and effect relationship to that, because it’s pretty clear AQ didn’t just go away and sulk after it lost its safe haven in Afghanistan. Instead, it went after our European allies, who were less willing to incur the wrath of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.
Among other things, some of O’s pronouncements, both before and after the election, impressed our friends and enemies in ways that are not useful to us.
As in…don’t stand with the US because they’ll sell you out for domestic political purposes, or, go ahead and hit them, they’ll fold.
And that’s only his words. His actions had better not follow his words or we’re in worse trouble. The point is…his words were, by themselves, damaging to us.
It is theoretically possible that we dodged the post 9-11 bullet by sheer luck. None of the effort by the military and intel guys had any effect. Some of the BDSers claim it is true, demanding to be shown plots thwarted after which they snort themselves into nasal hemorhages with scorn and insist it was…luck. For purposes of argument, suppose this is true. It means that when we get hit next, it’s also a matter of luck. Nothing we could have done.
It then matters if O is seen to have been vigorous, no matter the actual effect of his efforts.
I don’t know how dumb O is, but he is smart enough to know you can always get a majority to vote themselves other people’s money. After that, who knows?
But it is possible that he knows he has to be seen to be vigorous Just In Case.
Mitsu,
How can you say President Bush only listened to one side in his deliberations? Were you there? I think you are starting with the conclusion you want to reach and working backward.
This must haunt Obama and cause him to do a bit of thinking.
Lord, I HOPE so, though I’ve yet to see any precedence for that.
–
I doubt that Obama is haunted by anything except his own reputation as The One. He has not said or done anything to make me believe that he loves America or Americans.
I’m amazed that so many people still think he’s even minimally competent. Obama’s plans for our economy are just crazy, and everyone who depends on a pension should be worried. Yet the one’s I know aren’t. Why? Because they think someone will “take care of them.” That’s the liberal view of things. Overage children.
Please change “one’s” to “ones” in the last paragraph. I’m so ashamed. (Hangs head.)
So basically during his endless campaign he was endangering this nation’s security out of pig ignorance and indulged in through demagoguery out craving for personal aggrandizement, correct?
Any grownup could see that Bush was doing what he thought needed to be done, but Obama somehow lacked perspicacity to grasp that? The only alternative is the explanation above.
Now how the hell do you whether he was or not?
Lack of judgment and foresight? Lack of judgment and foresight? And you are a fan of Obama? I’m glad I’m not standing next to you — I wouldn’t want to get hit with the lightning bolt.
You just admitted that Obama’s judgment on terrorist trials was lousy, and that Bush’s was correct.
As for foresight, Obama has positioned himself as soft on terrorism, so that if another terrorist attack should occur, he’ll be swept out of office, certainly in the next election or perhaps even impeached. And what he did he gain? The adulation of the lunatic fringe left. That’s foresight?
Similarly with Chrysler. By shoveling money to Chrysler and his union pals, but without forcing reform, he now owns the Chrysler problem. He’ll either a) have to continue burning taxpayers’ money to keep Chrysler alive, or b) dispatch Chrysler personally, after burning taxpayers’ money. Either way, a losing proposition. I believe we were discussing “foresight?”
As opposed to appointing people who were clearly incompetent and tax frauds. That’s much better.
So where was that “careful preparation” on the stimulus bill, hmm? He spent the better part of a trillion dollars within a week.
So he says.
By the way, when did “pragmatic” become the liberal watchword? I’m still stuck on “robust.” Must’ve missed a memo.
Mitsu:
“Keep in mind, here, that Obama has only backtracked somewhat. Guantanamo is still going to be closed, and most of the prisoners there are going to be tried in Article III courts. “
Why should Gito be closed at all? Because he backed himself in to a corner on the issue. Now what has he got? These guys worked their way into office throwing overboard tools of national self preservation in favor of media influenced polling numbers. There’s your pragmatism.
Why would Joe Biden “not be such a bad deal?”
What would “not be such a bad deal” is trading Obama for Biden. In other words, I’d rather have Biden as President than Obama.
Obama will likely rename Gitmo. The idiots watching Katie Couric will be assured problem solved.
Has anyone considered WHY Gitmo was chosen by the Bush administration?
The danger level escalates if they are placed anywhere else. Islam / Al Queda, et. al. aren’t exactly well known for their long distance seafaring abilities, marines, seal teams, or air forces. And you know Castro isn’t stupid enough to allow the prisoners’ buddies in for an attempted jail break from HIS side of the fence.
Elise,
You must be a Democrat to have such a favorable view of Biden. He is every bit as unsavory as Obonga is. He has done and said some really ugly, stupid, and damnable things.
His first act was one that I will never forgive him for. Background. In November of 1972 he won his election bid for the United States’ Senate, taking office in January of 1973 (I was a senior in high school 1972-73, joining the Army before graduating and reporting for duty that August). In 1974 the Congress voted to cut off military aid for South Vietnam. He and his Senate colleagues agreed with the House. Next year, the Soviet T-34 tanks rolled over the DMZ and from Laos into South Vietnam, steamrolling that country. The Communists won the war. Biden was down with that result. I was an SP4 stationed at Fort Lee, VA, having dinner at a sergeant friend’s house one evening that April as news film footage showed the progress of the Communist offensive. My friend Al Davis’ wife, An, who was a widow of an ARVN major killed in the war (they met when he was stationed at Cam Rahn Bay in 1971) was weeping. She was extremely worried about her family and friends still over there.
And that’s not the only way I have issues with Joe Biden. He’s been WRONG about just about every major foreign policy and military issue since he’s been in the senate. He was wrong about the Cold War buildup during the late Seventies and on into the Eighties. He was wrong about the deployment of the Pershing II missiles and cruise missiles in Western Germany. He was wrong about ballistic missile defense AND HE IS STILL WRONG ABOUT BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE.
Obonga and Biden concur about EVERY policy issue, past and present. They are bookends and almost interchangeable.
Mitsu attempts to smother the truth with an avalanche of words, speculation and half truths.
Obama is a complete ass; no plan of his has ever survived the first contact with reality.
Reality has a conservative bias.
FredHjr
And that’s not the only way I have issues with Joe Biden. He’s been WRONG about just about every major foreign policy and military issue since he’s been in the senate.
Which simply makes him an average Democratic congressman of the last 35 years.
Mitsu wrote, “Keep in mind, here, that Obama has only backtracked somewhat. Guantanamo is still going to be closed”
I hate to do your identity politics thing but that statement of yours proves that Obama is NOT serious.
He doesn’t think things through.
Pow.
Your rhetoric is all about identity politics by the way. Just because you disagree with somebody’s decisions you call the man unserious. You lack an ability to convey a substantive message Mitsu.
You are predictable.
For me, the identity politics thing that you do does not further the debate.
Furthermore Mitsu, I have no need for liars other than to call them out in case a political newbie is reading this blog.
You wrote, “To have a system where the executive branch can hold someone incommunicado without any judicial review whatsoever ”
Liar.
You’ve done it too many times.
Baklava,
I agree with you about Mitsu. He/she does the typical liberal pseudo-intellectual thing–throws out non-facts as if they were facts, hoping to win an argument using untruths (lies).
Mitsu’s posts are always interesting because I use them to look for the lies.
One advantage that reading hard copy beats reading web posts is that one can underline the relevant lies, ad hominems, and other weak arguments.
Elise, You must be a Democrat to have such a favorable view of Biden.
Hey, let’s leave name-calling to the other side, okay? Obama and Biden may be interchangeable on policy but they are not interchangeable on influence. If Obama resigned as President to go run the UN, the Obama Brand would be damaged to some extent; that would reduce the Democrats’ ability to implement the types of proposals they are pushing. Furthermore, Biden does not have Obama’s charm (it’s lost on me but it does exist) nor his symbolism; that would further circumscribe the Democrats’ ability to enact their agenda.
To put it another way, if you oppose what Obama and Biden want to accomplish, why wouldn’t you rather have the less effective one as President?
I skimmed the comments after mitsu’s 2nd and logern’s so forgive me if I repeat what others have said. Voices seemed intemperate, and I wanted not to get wrapped up into it.
Mitsu, I can see why you would come to the conclusion that Obama was a pragmatist if you only paid attention to the parts you liked. His criticism was often intemperate itself, red meat for the haters, however he might disguise the dish as he prepared it. If that is “just what politicians have to do to get elected,” then it is fair to ask you how much honesty and candor would be an acceptable minimum. He made forceful, condemnatory statements during the campaign that he is now reversing on. He is not merely scaling back a bit. Even if Obama is getting the answer right now, we have the problem of dishonesty, and we have the political deception problem of this is precisely why some people voted against the Republicans in general. It is not a mere irony, it is the heart of the campaign system. Obama was challenged on exactly these points throughout the campaign: What is he going to do instead? Why does he think civilian courts would be better? What if he’s wrong?
To a subtler point. Mitsu, you keep making statements of the sort that Bush was unserious, or not-fully-thoughtful, or doctrinaire, while Obama is more serious and thoughtful. Not that the one is always wrong and the other always right, but as a general tendency. It sounds very evenhanded, but look at it in the abstract. That’s exactly the position liberals keep reciting every decade for the last five. It’s the default conventional wisdom of your tribe. I can’t see it as anything but the position you will always take, regardless of the data. It is an impression you have about groups of people, in lockstep with the stereotype. That alone would cause me to re-examine my views.
I imagine you’re a fine fellow in real life, entertaining to talk to, and full of good ideas. But in comment after comment, I can’t find the least evidence of self-reflection. I have mentioned before that I consider it key. From her “Mind is a difficult thing to change” series, I think neo would concur. I come from your tribe – there is some chance I may know what I am talking about.
screwed up the italics. sorry.