Condoleeza Rice Takes On Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…
Do you think that a list like this could be made for other presidents? Bush II, for example. Do you think that it will be longer or shorter? Do you think that there are more anecdotal instances of foreign displeasure with Bush, or with Obama?

I ask again: If anybody is making factual claims here–and I’m not; I’m refuting a factual claim–then what, exactly, are they using for evidence? Is it objective? Does it involve data, or “feelings”?[/quote]

Remember, it is not I who is making comparisons to Bush here. I do not feel so inclined.
I point out real–not imagined–effects that degrade US ambitions economically or diplomatically, or even militarily, to protect our interests and those of our allies.

Do you think our leverage with Iran has improved this year? Do you think our objectives are going to be achieved better by what Mr. Obama has conceded?

I don’t think so, I don’t need a “consensus” to tell me. Are we to wait for the inevitable “effect” of this administration’s concessions?

We have no other choice. And that is the greater problem with Obama’s approach to foreign affairs since 2009; he has left us with no choices, no leverage, no spine which others respect, and no track record of keeping his word to his allies.

Not “feelings”…truth.

162

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The opinions elicited in that year’s survey could not have possibly reflected any real changes in American foreign policy as perceived by the participants. I interpret these results as a measure of Obamamania, the hope that he was different and would change matters quickly, a hope and not a reality. (See again my skepticism on his Nobel Peace Prize Award.)

[/quote]

As an aside, you are clearly correct about this (which is why I didn’t use any stats that were not late in Obama’s term.

The same principle applies to opinion of Bush in the months/year following September 11.

163

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…
Do you think that a list like this could be made for other presidents? Bush II, for example. Do you think that it will be longer or shorter? Do you think that there are more anecdotal instances of foreign displeasure with Bush, or with Obama?

I ask again: If anybody is making factual claims here–and I’m not; I’m refuting a factual claim–then what, exactly, are they using for evidence? Is it objective? Does it involve data, or “feelings”?[/quote]

Remember, it is not I who is making comparisons to Bush here. I do not feel so inclined.[/quote]

Understood. Push didn’t use the words either, but he described Obama as being “almost universally considered” the worst, in a thread about Bush admin. officials’ opinions of him, after I compared Bush/Obama FP. So the comparison is natural to the discussion (and fits into Push’s opinion that Obama is “almost universally considered” to have the worst FP record–and provides a perfect testing ground for that claim).

[quote]
I point out real–not imagined–effects that degrade US ambitions economically or diplomatically, or even militarily, to protect our interests and those of our allies.

Do you think our leverage with Iran has improved this year? Do you think our objectives are going to be achieved better by what Mr. Obama has conceded?[/quote]

Yes. Time will tell which of us is correct. If it is you, you have my word that I will say so.

Allow me to offer a different perspective on his approach to foreign affairs since 2009.

He has not started any unnecessary wars–he bests his predecessor in but seven words.

He has dealt with the actual, stateless threat to our security–fantastic.

We have not suffered a major attack.

We no longer torture people.

Et cetera.

164

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…

Allow me to offer a different perspective on his approach to foreign affairs since 2009.
[/quote]
Fair enough

He will have allowed Iraq to degenerate into repeated ethnic violence. The Taliban very likely will retain and expand footholds in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Inaction and incompetence in the Mideast has exacerbated murder and strife in Syria, Libya and Egypt.
Iran is on the verge of obtaining destructive weapons and the means to threaten its neighbors.
Russia is like a hotel thief, rattling the doorknobs to see which door opens. Crimea…Ukraine…If there is nothing to fear from US and NATO, are the Baltic states on the list? At least one Russian general thinks Finland is fair game.

You were saying?

No credit given here. The mechanisms for this achievement were set in motion by previous administration and carried forward. His contribution to our security was exactly…what?

Are you so sure? Do you know what your CIA and its affiliates are doing today? (Well, perhaps, neither does Mr. Obama.)
I guess drone attacks and a hitlist don’t exactly count as torture.

[quote]
Et cetera.[/quote]

165

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Talk about moving goalposts indeed. I’m going to quote that list [b][i]AND EMPHASIZE THE RELEVANT EXCERPT[/b][/i] in a minute.[/quote]
[/quote]

Except YOU chose to make the decision as to what was relevant. And you were wrong.[/quote]

By the way, the word “relevant” here meant “the excerpt that is under present consideration,” not “the excerpt that is most important to you.” This is obvious.

There sure is a whole hell of a lot of willful misunderstanding going on around here.[/quote]

The al Qaeda connection was the LAST in the list. Do you understand why?[/quote]

Rape, murder, and jaywalking?

“I said that last!” is not a defense. You said it, I refuted it. I can do it again and again.

You know how lame this kind of thing is. “That one was last!” Come on. You made a claim, I destroyed it.

The larger point being that your laundry list of “facts” included things that weren’t facts. That is bad argumentation under any possible definition.

[/quote]

You are wrong. Al Qaeda WAS allowed in country. It is debatable whether they were technically and officially invited. That’s all you have to hang your hat on.

But for the umpteenth time that is not why the USA and its allies needed to attack Iraq AGAIN.
[/quote]

The United States, the most powerful state in history, has porous borders. If it cannot prevent non-state actors and illicit materials from entering the country in spite of its best efforts, what makes you think that Saddam’s Iraq was capable of doing so against a highly capable transnational terrorist organization?

The word NEED is telling. Containment was working against Iraq. Support for the invasion would not have been possible if it wasn’t underpinned by the fear caused by the events of 11 September.

I’d like your, and anyone’s thoughts on this essay, authored by the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005.

Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq

166

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
She believes in werewolves. Werewolves! [/quote]

I hope you are not really this dumb and that is an attempt at humor.
[/quote]
OK, technically it’s WerwÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¶lfe . And it is 100% true.

Edit: it’s not letting me post the German word properly. [/quote]

The werewolf= Der Werwolf
[/quote]
That’s singular. I was spelling it in the plural but it won’t let me type an umlaut.

Regardless, she believes in them. Maybe she read about them in the Washington Times. [/quote]

Do you really not know the werewolves in question referred to former Nazi SS officers who allegedly kept up resistance after the wars end and not the werewolf of fables?
[/quote]

Yes. Spot on. By the way, one can achieve the effect of an umlaut by placing an “e” following the vowel you are wishing to modify. Der Werwolf in the singular becomes Die Werwoelfe in the plural.

167

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

He will have allowed Iraq to degenerate into repeated ethnic violence. The Taliban very likely will retain and expand footholds in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Inaction and incompetence in the Mideast has exacerbated murder and strife in Syria, Libya and Egypt.
Iran is on the verge of obtaining destructive weapons and the means to threaten its neighbors.
Russia is like a hotel thief, rattling the doorknobs to see which door opens. Crimea…Ukraine…If there is nothing to fear from US and NATO, are the Baltic states on the list? At least one Russian general thinks Finland is fair game.

You were saying?
[/quote]

I was saying that he had not started any unnecessary wars, which you have not denied, and by which achievement he has already bested the cabal of assholes and buffoons that preceded him.

But let us begin here:

[quote]
He will have allowed Iraq to degenerate into repeated ethnic violence.[/quote]

Can you tell me which document set the terms of the withdrawal, the date of its signing, and by whom it was signed? And then, for fun, who it was that had planned and executed that lovely near-decade-long outing in the first place?

Because whoever did the above is most certainly my pick for “guy who allowed Iraq to degenerate into repeated ethnic violence.”

168

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
No credit given here. The mechanisms for this achievement were set in motion by previous administration and carried forward. His contribution to our security was exactly…what?[/quote]

See the previous point in the post you were quoting.

Certainly not.

169

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
No credit given here. The mechanisms for this achievement were set in motion by previous administration and carried forward. His contribution to our security was exactly…what?[/quote]

See the previous point in the post you were quoting.

Certainly not.[/quote]

Depending on the drone strike you are talking about, murder, but not torture. Although Gitmo is still open, and who knows what the fuck is going on in there (in addition to indefinite detentions without charges or trials) and in other, even more secret places. But I’m not sure one President’s sins absolve the sins of the other, and vis versa, as it were.

170

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…

[quote]
He will have allowed Iraq to degenerate into repeated ethnic violence.[/quote]

Can you tell me which document set the terms of the withdrawal, the date of its signing, and by whom it was signed? And then, for fun, who it was that had planned and executed that lovely near-decade-long outing in the first place?

Because whoever did the above is most certainly my pick for “guy who allowed Iraq to degenerate into repeated ethnic violence.”[/quote]

The US (under Bush) negotiated the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq’s government; it would have ended active hositilites within the country and provided for a small “stabilizing force,” after 2011.
I don’t have time enough to Blame Bush–really the effort is a waste of time. But the end of the war was handed to Obama on a silver platter; his team botched the end-game, and, once again, conceded an unnecessary defeat in the jaws of a victory.
The result is an escalation on Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, a resurgence in AQ in Anbar. (You can check out that stats on Iraq interethnic violence on any of the usual sources. The timeline supports this.)

Obama gets no credit for extricating the US from Iraq. He will get the blame for the vilence that follows his incompetence. When that country disintegrates, or has civil war, the question will be not, "Who lost Iraq, " but “Why?”

(the question is lifted from Krauthammer’s book.)

171

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
No credit given here. The mechanisms for this achievement were set in motion by previous administration and carried forward. His contribution to our security was exactly…what?[/quote]

See the previous point in the post you were quoting.

Certainly not.[/quote]

Depending on the drone strike you are talking about, murder, but not torture. Although Gitmo is still open, and who knows what the fuck is going on in there (in addition to indefinite detentions without charges or trials) and in other, even more secret places. But I’m not sure one President’s sins absolve the sins of the other, and vis versa, as it were.
[/quote]

Agreed. One more reason I don’t make generalized comparisons. Bad is bad; worse is just bad with a different mask.

172

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
But I’m not sure one President’s sins absolve the sins of the other, and vis versa, as it were.
[/quote]

I tend to agree, and while I feel like there isn’t enough history to really objectively assess either’s effectiveness in any true objective sense, I don’t think they are materially different enough in FP to say one is any better than the other.

Without the clarity of time and history unfolding, I would tend to agree, Bam’s lack of Iraq puts him a step ahead, however, we’re talking baby steps here. He is just as wobbly and ready to fall as those that came before him.

173

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
But I’m not sure one President’s sins absolve the sins of the other, and vis versa, as it were.
[/quote]

I think you are sure that they do not; as I am. I have never said anything to that effect, though.

174

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
But I’m not sure one President’s sins absolve the sins of the other, and vis versa, as it were.
[/quote]

I tend to agree, and while I feel like there isn’t enough history to really objectively assess either’s effectiveness in any true objective sense, I don’t think they are materially different enough in FP to say one is any better than the other.

Without the clarity of time and history unfolding, I would tend to agree, Bam’s lack of Iraq puts him a step ahead, however, we’re talking baby steps here. He is just as wobbly and ready to fall as those that came before him. [/quote]

This is exactly how I feel (though I’d say he’s far ahead of Bush–not because he’s great, but because my estimation of Bush is more negative than yours).

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.

175

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Agreed. One more reason I don’t make generalized comparisons. Bad is bad; worse is just bad with a different mask.[/quote]

And yet bad and worse should still be called what they are, which is bad and worse.

And, even more importantly, we should not become confused in assigning the judgments.

176

[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.

177

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I don’t have time enough to Blame Bush–really the effort is a waste of time.[/quote]

It is exactly as much of a waste of time as blaming any President in history for anything done in history. But it enjoys the small advantage of verity.

[quote]
Obama gets no credit for extricating the US from Iraq.[/quote]

And I have never given him any.

But it will be a waste of time to “blame Obama,” will it not? Or have only some former presidents been vaccinated against criticism of their presidencies?

Whether the question is “who” or “why,” the answer will be living in the period just after the turn of the century.

178

[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]

Fair enough lol. I wasn’t trying to call you a Bush supporter, by the way. I just have a really low opinion of the guy.

179

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
But I’m not sure one President’s sins absolve the sins of the other, and vis versa, as it were.
[/quote]

I tend to agree, and while I feel like there isn’t enough history to really objectively assess either’s effectiveness in any true objective sense, I don’t think they are materially different enough in FP to say one is any better than the other.

Without the clarity of time and history unfolding, I would tend to agree, Bam’s lack of Iraq puts him a step ahead, however, we’re talking baby steps here. He is just as wobbly and ready to fall as those that came before him. [/quote]

This is exactly how I feel (though I’d say he’s far ahead of Bush–not because he’s great, but because my estimation of Bush is more negative than yours).

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]

I think I’ve made my thoughts on the Bush invasion of Iraq pretty clear in recent threads and I obviously agree with your assessment of the “wisdom” of the decision to invade.

180

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
But I’m not sure one President’s sins absolve the sins of the other, and vis versa, as it were.
[/quote]

I tend to agree, and while I feel like there isn’t enough history to really objectively assess either’s effectiveness in any true objective sense, I don’t think they are materially different enough in FP to say one is any better than the other.

Without the clarity of time and history unfolding, I would tend to agree, Bam’s lack of Iraq puts him a step ahead, however, we’re talking baby steps here. He is just as wobbly and ready to fall as those that came before him. [/quote]

This is exactly how I feel (though I’d say he’s far ahead of Bush–not because he’s great, but because my estimation of Bush is more negative than yours).

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]

I think I’ve made my thoughts on the Bush invasion of Iraq pretty clear in recent threads and I obviously agree with your assessment of the “wisdom” of the decision to invade.
[/quote]

Absolutely–You were not on my mind when I talked about claims made by others. I think you and I are eye-to-eye on recent American foreign policy.