[quote]smh_23 wrote:
… You have declared it “a waste of time” to examine (ascribe blame to) Bush. If you were to reconsider this position, I think you would come to appreciate my little analogy to Jack and John and psoriasis and AIDS.[/quote]
Well, as a matter of fact, every day people–real people with life threatening diseases–ask me the same questions.
“Am I her-2 positive? That’s better, right? I want that…”
“Mantle cell lymphoma…that’s worse than marginal zone lymphoma, right?”
How do you answer that question? “Well, at least you won’t die of something serious.”
No. Each case stands alone. The comparison does not serve the victim; it is the fine distinction among possibilities that suggest the cure.[/quote]
And yet it is true that some are sicker than others, that some are going to succumb to their illnesses sooner than others. Truth–in a time of so much falsity–is something to be celebrated as an end in itself, say I. This without regard for cures.
Out of nothing more than curiosity, what kind of medicine do you practice?
Please do not bother comparing this to “yellow cake” or to “bicycle tubes” or bloody wars. Those “confusions”–or “lies” if you will–stand on their own.
I will wade through and respond to the Libya material later (how many sunny days do any of us have left, and is it wise for us to spend them under roofs?). I do appreciate the detail and thought you’ve put into the points, and I look forward to engaging it.
That said, I reject your rejection of the comparison between Bush II and Obama. This because you waded into just that when you (happily) joined in on this thread. Note the initial exchange which sparked this entire controversy. Note that the claim against which I’m arguing here is a claim about Barack Obama’s presidency relative to the presidencies that went before his.
Now, if you do not want to comment on a comparison, then that is fine. But to think that comparison between the foreign policies of contiguous presidencies is a waste of time–this is silly. To think that every administration in history must be considered as an island and only that–that it is fatuous to evaluate the third in terms relative to an evaluate of the second and first–this is not a notion that I will support.
You may respond with a rejection of my rejection of your rejection of the comparison, to which I will respond with a rejection of your rejection of my rejection of your rejection of the comparison. But I would rather not turn this into an endurance contest.[/quote]
I will throw you one bone…one bone only.
A comparison between presidents is useful for 2 reasons.
One is historical interest confined to a particular problem. (e.g. Truman vs Eisenhower on Korea. Eisenhower vs Kennedy on missile defense)
The other reason is electoral politics. I presume that neither of us will be voting in 2016 for Obama or George Bush which is why comparing them directly is a waste of time.
But some of us here will be judging candidates on whether they will improve US standing–latitude, freedom of action, peaceful protection of legitimate interests–not prestige or “power.” The tools we have are critical appraisal and carefully drawn comparisons.
We both choose the right tool for the right job.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
… You have declared it “a waste of time” to examine (ascribe blame to) Bush. If you were to reconsider this position, I think you would come to appreciate my little analogy to Jack and John and psoriasis and AIDS.[/quote]
Well, as a matter of fact, every day people–real people with life threatening diseases–ask me the same questions.
“Am I her-2 positive? That’s better, right? I want that…”
“Mantle cell lymphoma…that’s worse than marginal zone lymphoma, right?”
How do you answer that question? “Well, at least you won’t die of something serious.”
No. Each case stands alone. The comparison does not serve the victim; it is the fine distinction among possibilities that suggest the cure.[/quote]
And yet it is true that some are sicker than others, that some are going to succumb to their illnesses sooner than others. Truth–in a time of so much falsity–is something to be celebrated as an end in itself, say I. This without regard for cures.
Out of nothing more than curiosity, what kind of medicine do you practice?[/quote]
Perhaps you would have more to work with if you were to pivot to selective memory loss. I understand that that ailment is on the rise.
; )
I have read through the Libya post (sunshine be damned!). I have a question: You mention that Stevens was forsaken either by design or negligence. What could possibly have motivated the former? Say a furtive deal was in fact being made–a speculation, by the way, which I find neither unreasonable nor particularly damning (I assume that some or another furtive deal is being made somewhere in the world at all times by multiple officials in the United States government, an assumption confirmed in my acquaintances with intelligence documents from yesteryear)–say a furtive deal was underway: Surely a dead ambassador was the last thing hoped-for by Obama and Clinton in such a scenario?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Click on the links. Read.
Of course you’re going to get op-eds and opinions. What in the flying fuck do you think you’d get with a subjective statement like “the worst foreign policy in history?”[/quote]
Except that you didn’t make that statement.
[/quote]
I used the word “stupid” and admitted when I used it that I could’ve used a better one.
If I kept going and slapped up 100 dozen op-eds it wouldn’t satisfy someone who believes Bush II was the equivalent of an almost Anti-Christ and is hell bent on maligning him even at the cost of his credibility as he defends the current Fool-in-chief.
[/quote]
You have not evidenced you claim. That you are having a difficult time of it is a function of the ludicrousness of it, and has nothing to do with me.
Again: You made a plain statement, and it needs to be evidenced. A handful of op-eds do not, and logically cannot, evidence it.
I will repeat that you were asked to support the contention that Obama is “almost universally” regarded as the worst FP leader in American history or since TR, and you offered a dozen op-eds, not all of which even made an comparison between Obama and any other president, or commented on his place among other foreign policies of other administrations.
Now, are you telling me that this is it? If so, what you are telling me is that you are not able to support the claim. (Which I already knew.)
The claim is that Obama is “almost universally” regarded as having the worst FP of any president since TR.
The evidence–a dozen opinion pieces–is not proof of the claim. This you know–very well (and I know that you know it). In fact, since the advent of the editorial, there has not been as American president–and never, in the history of this country, will there be an American president–for whom a collection of a dozen, a hundred, two hundred critical op-eds cannot be gathered.
So, your claim is rejected. That is its current status. If the status is to change, it will be on the heels of actual evidence–hard data and relevant evidence to prove your (unprovable and risibly untrue) claim.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy
“FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality…”
*a non-Tucker Carlson owned publication ^
The Obama administration’s foreign policy has received criticism across the political spectrum. “Hawkish” conservatives such as Obama’s 2008 Republican challenger John McCain[2] and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham[3] have accused the President of being timid and ineffectual in wielding American influence, while more “dovish” liberals such as Jimmy Carter[4] and Dennis Kucinich have accused him of cynicism and heavy-handedness. In particular, many critics charge that he has pursued similarly imperialistic policies to those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, of whom Obama was deeply critical during his tenure in the Senate and his 2008 presidential campaign.
Since you peg so much on beauty pageants:
Fewer Americans Think Obama Respected on World Stage
The Consequences of Disarming America
The president’s policies laid the groundwork for Putin’s actions in Ukraine.
No Carlson ownership ^
Why Is President Obama’s Foreign Policy Unpopular?
No Carlson ownership ^
HUFFPOLLSTER: Obama’s Foreign Policy Rating A Weak Point
Quinnipiac: “American voters give President Barack Obama a negative 39 - 55 percent grade for his handling of foreign policy, one of his lowest foreign policy grades ever.”
No Carlson ownership ^
Obama’s Foreign Policy: More Second-Term Misses Than Hits
“…which leaves Obama’s overall management of foreign policy open to criticism from many directions…”
No Carlson ownership ^
From Russia with Love:
"Obama is a very weak foreign policy president. It’s obvious he lacks interest and knowledge of global affairs. In fact, he has delegated his foreign affairs portfolio to a small number of amateurs: Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes. They and others have grossly and badly served this president.
“Mainstream media is very aggressive and for the most part always anti-Russia and anti-Vladimir Putin,” Lavelle said. “This US president faces a dilemma - react in favor of bellicose media or be seen as weak. Obama, as usual, compromises and in the end dissatisfies virtually everyone.”
No Carlson ownership ^
The Peril of President Obama’s Foreign and National Security Policy
"Start with President Obama’s vision of the world and his role in it, which make him the antithesis of President Reagan. President Obama believes he is an extraordinary leader of an ordinary, badly flawed nation. Reagan believed he was an ordinary man privileged to lead an extraordinary nation. Obama is totally wrong; Ronald Reagan is half right. For Ronald Reagan was also an extraordinary leader.
"President Obama’s actions and rhetoric before and since becoming President put him at the leftward end of the Democratic party’s New Politics wing that has dominated the party’s foreign policy thinking since the riotous Chicago Democratic convention of 1968. Repudiating the Cold War liberalism of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, the New Politics wing of the party typically has considered our enemies abroad less dangerous that what Senator J. William Fulbright famously and fatuously calls ‘the arrogance of American power.’ This liberal guilt about the so-called arrogance of American power impelled President Obama to return to Great Britain the bust of Winston Churchill that British Prime Minister Tony Blair loaned to George W. Bush – an overt repudiation of Churchill’s legacy of vigilance that President Bush sought to emulate. This liberal guilt about the so-called arrogance of American power pervades President Obama’s landmark foreign policy speeches. Speaking in Cairo and later to the UN General Assembly, President Obama apologized profusely for a catalogue of American sins – a few real, many more exaggerated and most imagined. When asked about American exceptionalism at a G-20 meeting in Strasbourg, President Obama dismissed the notion. No American President other than Jimmy Carter would have believed or said anything like that. In his Cairo speech, Obama placed greater blame for our troubles in the Middle East on a decent and democratic Israeli ally than on the region’s culture of despotism, the fanatical eliminationist Iranian regime, or a Palestinian entity bent on eradicating the Jewish States. President Obama’s Cairo and UN speeches are not the exception – they are emblematic: President Obama’s default position is to blame America first; conciliate America’s enemies; and pressure or ignore America’s friends in Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and Latin America.
"Here, finally, is some good news. The United States remains so powerful that even President Obama’s administration cannot squander the benefits of American primacy in a mere four years, or even eight. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration’s misguided economic and national security strategies threaten to erode that primacy dangerously and substantially. President Obama is a true believer in what former UN Ambassador John Bolton calls the first post-American Presidency. The President strives to make the United States look more like the EU and the UN rather than to champion American exceptionalism. It will take an election – perhaps a series of elections – to reverse this perilous course.
Here is another prediction: When in 2012 the next Republican Presidential nominee poses the Reaganesque question of whether we are better off than we were four years ago, the answer will be a resounding – No – economically, politically, internationally, and militarily. That will be because of what the Obama Administration has wrought.
This Administration is the Carter Administration on steroids.[/i] Things will get worse before they get better.
"Referring to the broad-ranging criticism the Obama administration has been getting regarding foreign policy in general and Ukraine in particular, Wallace directly asked Gates to respond.
“I thought in the middle of a major international crisis that some of the criticism, domestic criticism of the president ought to be toned down, while he’s trying to handle the crisis,” answered Gates. “My own view is, after all, Putin invaded Georgia when George W Bush was president. Nobody ever accused George W. Bush of being weak or unwilling to use military force, so I think Putin is very opportunistic in these arenas.”
Such responses are precisely why the American people want to throw the kitchen sink at their television sets. In his first sentence Gates termed the events in Ukraine as an ‘international crisis’ before adding that Barack Obama was ‘trying to handle’ it.
If, indeed, the president believes Ukraine is a major international event, then the way he handled it was to play a round of golf. Does that mean Gates thinks Obama was dealing with Vladimir Putin while lining up a 25-foot putt? Either it is an international crisis or it is not. Gates stated clearly that it is, and Obama’s strategy was to get 18 holes under his belt instead.
It is that very reason that Obama is chastised for being weak and why Gates followup comment about George W. Bush was so asinine. The difference between Bush and Obama is that if Bush found himself in the midst of an ‘international crisis’ he would not have casually made his way to the links. In that sense Gates’ observation about Bush is overwhelmingly unjustified."
Bob Taylor has been traveling the world for more than 30 years as a writer and award winning television producer focusing on international events, people and cultures around the globe. Taylor is founder of The Magellan Travel Club.
Senior UK Defense Advisor: Obama Is Clueless About ‘What He Wants To Do In The World’
"Sir Hew Strachan, an expert on the history of war, says that the president’s strategic failures in Afghanistan and Syria have crippled America’s position in the world.
“President Obama is ‘chronically incapable’ of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush, according to one of Britain’s most senior military advisors.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, since you reject my contention, tell me the presidents who had worse foreign policies than Bam.[/quote]
Say something negative about the organiser in chief and all the libs come out of the woodwork. They just can’t help themselves. It’s like Obama has control over their minds. You’ve got to hand it to the guy. He knows how to work a crowd.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, since you reject my contention, tell me the presidents who had worse foreign policies than Bam.[/quote]
Say something negative about the organiser in chief and all the libs come out of the woodwork. They just can’t help themselves. It’s like Obama has control over their minds. You’ve got to hand it to the guy. He knows how to work a crowd.[/quote]
I find this ironic.
Of the two of us, one is a knee-jerk partisan, a card-carrier, a consumer of prepared narrative. The other is a liberal here, a conservative there, a libertarian over yon.
Or do you embody a more eclectic politics than I’m describing? Because as far as I can tell, your beliefs are far-right and only that. That I call mind control.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, since you reject my contention, tell me the presidents who had worse foreign policies than Bam.[/quote]
Bush II, Johnson, Nixon (the good is outweighed by a whole hell of a lot), and Carter, in recent memory.[/quote]
Can you give me hard data supporting this? I demand it![/quote]
Well, this here is a list of presidents believed by smh to be worse than Obama on foreign policy. It doesn’t make any claims about universal opinion. But, just for giggles, what might you consider “hard evidence”? Because yeah, I’m pretty sure I can back it up, at least some. How about polled opinions of presidential historians? Imperfect–yeah–but far less imperfect than a bunch of op-eds written by journalists, almost all of whom are schmucks with no expertise and no training.