Condoleeza Rice Takes On Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

Bad and worse.
I reframe this, not as a comparison, but as a process.
Well, it looks like we have quite a “consensus” here–a consensus I am not ready to embrace–about Bush being “worse” no matter what one thinks of the current Amateur-in-Chief.

I am reminded of the joke that the character Hesh tells in The Sopranos. A new rabbi comes to town and is immediately called on to deliver a eulogy for the town reprobate. The town is gathered at the gravesite, and the rabbi says, “Look, I am new here and did not know the deceased. Can someone among his friends say something for him?” Silence. “Please, someone, say something nice about this man!”
More awkward silence. Finally, from the back of the crowd, someone yells, “His brother was worse!”

Bad and worse. My contention is that whatever one thinks of Bush at the end of his administration–or of Rice and her moral authority to criticize–Obama is leaving us worse, by inattention or by intention. Here is my list of foreign policy errors (some in repetition, simply because no one contends them):

*Poland and Czech missile concession. Remember that damn red reset button proffered by Mme Clinton? Is it now in the Oval Office and re-labeled “panic?” It should be.
*Libya (being dragged in by the French with no particular plan)
*Bengazi (a pack of lies promulgated to disguise a failed policy and ulterior actions by the ambassador)
*Syria–red lines, indeed. I will send the White House a pack of red pencils for his freehand use. He will need them in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey…
*Egypt–for, against, for, against. Confusion, instability.
*SOFA Iraq–a total screw up that will reap horror (but may be not before 2016?)
*SOFA Afghanistan–ditto. But with bad consequences for the US and its “allies” later.
*Pakistan–boy, don’t we know how to pick our friends. And they know how to treat a toothless beggar.
*Ukraine–was the US meddling, or just the EU? With what back-up plans? Since when was the EU allowed to have an independent foreign policy that might commit the US to its errors? Oh, that’s right. Our ambassador was caught on tape…
*Crimea–see above. What puny measures are wielded by the “world’s superpower?”
*Iran–someone is going to argue that, after 6 years of dicking around–Obama has Iran in a weaker position than in 2009. Someone needs a lesson in reality testing. How has this position served us and the Arab Gulf allies? This screw-up will cost the US, its interests, its allies–in blood, horror or treasure.

My point should be made clear: however Bush left matters, Obama has made them worse. Because of his craven amateurism and unrealistic ideology, we now have fewer resources to exercise, and fewer choices, to advance our interests and protect our friends, everywhere.

And Rand Paul would continue the process of bad to worse.

182

^ I’ll back be to respond to this.

183

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Well, does she still believe the WMDs were stolen by werewolves? [/quote]

Well this article is clearly right wing biased and very slanted against the handling of obama’s foreign policies, after all he’s had a little success, very little success. And for all of that, I agree with it, especially what Rice says.
Obama’s foreign policy is a fucking disaster. Everytime I think of that stupid ‘Reset’ button with Russia, I cringe.
Bush was right about Russia. He knew what Putin was up to, he knew what kind of person he is. And he actually had a good relationship with Putin. Putin had a health respect for Bush. Maybe he thought he was crazy.

But it’s right, pulling out of Afghanistan was a terrible idea and we have yet to see the full breadth of it. They have no economy, and if anybody thinks for one second their going to abandon their opium production for coffee or other such non-sense then you flat stupid. With no economy, no means of self support and a means developing a strong central government, it’s once again going to be a hot bed of terrorist activity.

Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing and it’s not going to bite him in the ass, it’s going to hit the next president. Honestly, I don’t even like to look.
We are expecting to Europe to be helpful in these matters? lol. Europe isn’t going to do shit. Their economy is a mess, their main military force is the U.S. military. Which is why they can afford to have little militaries and spend no money on it because they depend on the U.S. to bail their asses out.
Obama sucks, it’s clearly amateur hour in the white house.

184

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A ‘mushy narrative?’ I wonder whose admin has been better for regional stability?[/quote]

When regional stability entails starting a war against a regime that had committed war crimes more than a decade prior, based in large part upon lies about the said regime’s nuclear capabilities/aspirations and some pictures of some shiny metal tubes in the desert that turned out not to be what they had been purported to be; promising that we’d be “greeted as liberators” and planning about three weeks ahead only to find that the invasion set in motion a decade-long, bloody sectarian clusterfuck which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and left thousands of wives, mothers, and children (“with the army you have,” remember that one?) back home to greet the coffins of Americans kids who died for who the fuck knows what; and trillions of dollars gone, burnt up, wasted on a fight that won us appallingly little and cost us appallingly much–and all this while there were actual, direct threats to our national security from a stateless terrorist organization which had just a year and a half prior kicked us in our gut and which was more closely affiliated with a half-dozen Middle East countries not called Iraq…

[/quote]

This is blatant nonsense. Please evidence this, keeping in mind that the word “said lies” entails an extension beyond publications owned by Arianna Huffington and al Jazeera.

Huffington post on Obama’s foreign policy approval.

‘You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.’[/quote]

You can fool all of the fools all of the time. I am just astounded that people like him.

185

Edit: This is directed at the good doctor.

For now I’ll say this: You’ve begun by denying a comparison that’s being made, and then you’ve gone on to offer half a comparison.

“I’m not ready to agree that red is worse than green. Green is boring and yucky.”

There is also the problem of internal logic–you have declared it a waste of time to criticize Bush, and then you’ve weighed in on a comparison predicated–by logical necessity–on a criticism of Bush (though, in your defense, you have avoided writing a word about him…)

186

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I’m reacting to a particular set of claims made by others here; I’m not ordering “Obama change” posters in bulk and handing out flyers.[/quote]

lol, I know.

I’m not sure I hold Bush in much better regard than you do. I just hold Obama in more contempt than you.[/quote]

I am not afraid to say that I have much more respect for Bush looking back. No, I am still not on board with Iraq, but there are many things he did that looked foolish at the time, but seeing things come full circle were not as dumb as they seemed. Bush is not as stupid as people think he was.

189

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Edit: This is directed at the good doctor.

For now I’ll say this: You’ve begun by denying a comparison that’s being made, and then you’ve gone on to offer half a comparison.

“I’m not ready to agree that red is worse than green. Green is boring and yucky.”

There is also the problem of internal logic–you have declared it a waste of time to criticize Bush, and then you’ve weighed in on a comparison predicated–by logical necessity–on a criticism of Bush (though, in your defense, you have avoided writing a word about him…)[/quote]

Nope. My criticisms of Obama stand alone without a comparison to his predecessor.
Remember “Mission Impossible?” Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to support Mr. Obama’s choices (or negligences.)

191

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, you would do well not to challenge me again to produce evidence of my claims on such an easy, easy fat-slow-pitch-right-in-the-strike-zone topic as Bam’s foreign policy incompetence.[/quote]

Holy shit man. You must be kidding me.

You say that Obama’s foreign policy is “almost universally regarded” as the worst, and your hard data is comprised of [u]13 links[/u] to pieces that criticize Obama’s foreign policy–editorials and op-eds, mind you–including from such publications as Communities Digital News and NPR, the latter of which ran the headline, “More Second-Term Misses Than Hits”–and this proves your flatly ridiculous claim?

Does this mean that NPR as a whole regards Obama’s FP as worse than Bush’s? Worse than Nixon’s? Worse than LBJ’s? Seriously, tell me if you think this.

I am honestly asking you this question: Do you think you just evidenced your claim? Do you think that 13 links to articles–do you honestly think that this satisfies the criteria for the acceptance of the claim that the guy’s foreign policy is “almost universally regarded” as the worst?

You Googled “Obama + foreign policy + bad” and you posted some links. Do you think you’ve satisfied what was required of you? Honestly?

192

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Edit: This is directed at the good doctor.

For now I’ll say this: You’ve begun by denying a comparison that’s being made, and then you’ve gone on to offer half a comparison.

“I’m not ready to agree that red is worse than green. Green is boring and yucky.”

There is also the problem of internal logic–you have declared it a waste of time to criticize Bush, and then you’ve weighed in on a comparison predicated–by logical necessity–on a criticism of Bush (though, in your defense, you have avoided writing a word about him…)[/quote]

Nope. My criticisms of Obama stand alone without a comparison to his predecessor.
Remember “Mission Impossible?” Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to support Mr. Obama’s choices (or negligences.)
[/quote]

The beginning of your last post explicitly referenced the comparison, and then it took a side:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Bad and worse.
I reframe this, not as a comparison, but as a process.
Well, it looks like we have quite a “consensus” here–a consensus I am not ready to embrace–about Bush being “worse” no matter what one thinks of the current Amateur-in-Chief.
[/quote]

Anyway, I am far from interested in defending Barack Obama’s policies on their own.

What I am interested in doing–and what I have been doing here in this thread–is challenging the ludicrous claims that are being bandied about (or the ludicrous comparisons, rather), claims which peddle the fantasy that some kind of universal–or, in Push’s coinage, “almost universal”–national and international consensus has formed around the claim that Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been worse than the second Bush’s, or worse than everybody’s.

This sentiment is worth challenging–because it’s bullshit. See, for illustration, Push’s “evidence” above, which consists of a handful of op-eds and editorials pulled from Google.

Now, as for my feelings on the actual question and on your list (which, by the way, much of which I agree with):

You say that you are not ready to support the claim that Jack is sicker than John. You offer your evidence: John has psoriasis, irritable bowel syndrome, herpes, and the flu. He may also be developing type II diabetes and heart disease.

What you do not mention is that Jack has AIDS and brain cancer.

197

And that NPR piece, Push–in what way does that piece, to take but one of many examples, support the claim that Obama’s FP is the worst ever? Or worse than Bush’s? How do you draw this conclusion from that piece.

And if the piece had said that–do you think it would prove such to be an “almost universally” held opinion?

No. What you have proved is this: There have been at least 13 pieces critical of Obama foreign policy. This is literally what you evidenced.

And I say: Whoopdee do. Pieces critical of a president’s FP choices are a dime a dozen. Want me to start posting links to criticisms of Bush? I wonder if I could find more than a dozen of them. You think?

200

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…

Anyway, I am far from interested in defending Barack Obama’s policies on their own.
…
[/quote]
Ah, at last.

You choose not to see: I do not compare Barack to George. Barack’s mistakes stand on their own. However you construe the semantic of the word “worse,” I am not making the comparison. At all. You are.
Because that is the only argument you seem to be able to make.

And you cannot–or rather, do not–choose to examine Barack. With fondest regard, that is certainly your choice.
But then you also cannot claim that something is “better” under his command, because you have left his choices and negligence unexamined.