Obama

[Rhisiart]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

His actions have demonstrated otherwise. Apparently all of his appointees have "issues" with paying their taxes.

All of them?

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Bush did not create a mess.

No, he wasn't responsible for individual banking CEO's greed, but he further widened the gap between rich and poor in the US through his policies.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

....nor did he bring "instability"--if anything things are more stable from a "will this country invade that other country" standpoint.

Bush and his cronies made one almighty mess of Iraq. I personally think invasion was inevitable (albeit it happened before all final options were exhausted), but there was no plan for Day Two. The arrogance and incompetence shown by Bush's war cabinet beggared belief.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Similarly, I doubt Obama can make the world more or less unstable depending on circumstances. If he appeases the likes of Iran and North Korea that will decrease stability.

Who says he will appease them?

Originally Posted by Doctor X

If he guts the military like Clinton did, that will decrease stability.

The US needs a well-armed defence force. However, along with the loony gun lobby, it seems the military gets away with too much.

I don't take a reductionist view of Bush. He had his successes. He also had his failures. The question is whether his successes outweighed his failures or his failures outweighed his successes. I lean towards the latter.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Rhisiart

All of them?

Rather more than "a few."

No, he wasn't responsible for individual banking CEO's greed, but he further widened the gap between rich and poor in the US through his policies.

How did he do that? What about the Democrats in charge of writing finance laws that created the problem?

In reality, there are quite a few places and people to point at, and few come off clean.

Bush and his cronies made one almighty mess of Iraq.

No they did not. You are merely tossing out a slogan like "cronies." Are the generals "cronies?"

. . . but there was no plan for Day Two.

There was, it just did not work fully. Rumsfeld wanted, like many, too much for a "clean" war where one can get in quickly and leave quickly. He then dug in his heals against suggestions otherwise.

However, critics--like Obama, incidentally--argued WITH Rumsfeld ironically that a "surge" of more troops and a great presence would make matters worse. They were all wrong.

So . . .

The arrogance and incompetence shown by Bush's war cabinet beggared belief.

you need to imagine the Democrats since they advocated the same failed strategy in a different direction. One significant part of this "war cabinet" eventually argued for the correct strategy. However, sometimes he correct strategy takes time to be recognized.

See why slogans are unhelpful?

Who says he will appease them?

Quite a few do. The question, as I noted, is will he.

The US needs a well-armed defence force. However, along with the loony gun lobby, it seems the military gets away with too much.

You do not know anything about the American military then: it is not all about "guns." It is about training, it is about compensation to retain competent members, it is about functional equipment and numbers, et cetera.

I don't take a reductionist view of Bush.

Really?

He had his successes. He also had his failures. The question is whether his successes outweighed his failures or his failures outweighed his successes. I lean towards the latter.

Such are not things you can put on scales.

It depends upon where you look and what you judge to be important and when.

If you judge anti-terrorism then he had a resounding success--such that his critics have to run about a bit trying to explain it away. The Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee became very quiet for a good reason when their counterparts tried to conjure up "failed policies."

If you judge domestic spending, then you have to wonder why he could not control members of his own party whether they were in charge or not.

If you judge foreign policy it depends on whether or not you care what the Great Unwashed of any country "thinks" about the United States--you indicated you do not. In that case, he succeeds--the US does what it says it does and is willing to go to war to enforce international law--ironic is it not? No one has invaded anyone else despite threats to do so . . . at least no one cool.

However, if you judge the ability to convince foreign government that the US knows what it is talking about when it states "intelligence shows"--even sympathetic governments--then you have to judge "FAIL"--the consequences of making a mistake everyone made but being the one responsible for it.

If you judge the support of education then he is a success . . . unless you prefer education to also include a decent foundation in the sciences rather than what the Great Unwashed in a particular constituency think should be taught.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum.

It is rarely cut and dried.

Clinton was a success in areas his supporters deem him a failure: welfare reform and ending the Yugoslavian genocides. He was a failure in what his supporters considered a success: foreign policy. He may have been "liked" . . . by the North Koreans and Iranians, and even he has nightmares about Rwanda--though what he could have materially done other than tell the UN to let its commanders do their jobs is anyone's guess.

Obama is being deemed a failure by some of his supporters because he is taking a more realistic view of his more unreasonable campaign promises whereas opponents are breathing a few sighs of relief. Bush's religious conservative supporters found him a failure for not pushing their agenda enough, ironically.

Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

The point is it rarely becomes a singular event, decision, that defines a President unless it is overwhelmingly obvious--Lincoln won the most important war the US ever fought--including the Revolutionary War. It covers up for a lot of other things. Nixon did some great things in foreign policy, particularly having the conviction to end the Vietnam War--a Democrat created war, incidentally--supported by Republicans in a way.

How many people remember that? Criminal abuse of power, obstruction of justice, et cetera tends to focus attention, particularly when it cripples a branch of government.

Presidents do get judged for sins of omission as well, even if it is merely appearances. Bush should have recognized that the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans lacked clues and stepped in--or made sure his underlings took that charge. Whether it would have matters is irrelevant to appearances: Reagan and Clinton would not have made that mistake. Bush will be blamed for the economic down-turn because he did not warn enough about he various root problems--such as Fannie Mae and all of that. He mumbled something about it 2003 I believe. Does not matter: he did not warn. Whether he could of known is a different subject: it was his job to know. Quite a few Presidents are damned for the failure to act--many of them during the 1800s! It may be all "appearances" but appearances in some cases matter.

One can go on.

--J.D.

[Rhisiart]

Your entire text seems a pretty damning account of American politics. You make some good points though.

BTW, American foreign policy only enforces international law when it suits it. Israel has flouted more UN resolutions than any other country, but the US (and Britain) turns a blind eye.

For the record I still think Rumsfeld was a feckin' idiot.

[fryke]

DoctorX: That's a _lot_ of hogwash. How was Bush's antiterrorism a success? He didn't bring terrorist attacks from 1'000 attacks a year to zero. He took them from 0.001% to zero - and we don't know whether any of the measures taken after 9/11 actually helped. What we _do_ know is that warnings before 9/11 were ignored and that the reaction(s) to it was a tad strange or, let's say it: Wrong.

I don't wanna play down 9/11. It was a terrible thing to happen. But it was a crime of an organisation called Al Quaida, not an act of war by Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Rhisiart

Your entire text seems a pretty damning account of American politics. You make some good points though.

Call it as I see it: it is rarely a case of "all good" or "all bad." But as I love to tease my English friend, at least we are not run by the Scots.

BTW, American foreign policy only enforces international law when it suits it.

As it should . . . in a way . . . because international law can be an ass. Case in point:

Israel has flouted more UN resolutions than any other country, but the US (and Britain) turns a blind eye.

Yup. But she is a democracy. She has not threatened to wipe all of her neighbors off the map in progressively hyperbolic terms. She also does not send her children to blow up civilians or randomly shoot rockets at neighbors.

However, she also treats the population like chattel, practices land-grabbing with the philosophy of "if we live there they cannot get rid of us," and have practiced quite frank terrorism such as blowing up the homes of families of terrorists. However, in a choice between a democracy that can behave badly, and regimes such as Syria who do behave badly, the democracy will win. It is never a situation of "black and white," "good versus evil."

For the record I still think Rumsfeld was a feckin' idiot.

Not much argument there. I would agree that an idiot is one who, like the crazy person, does the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. Rumsfeld should have learned from the situation rather than expecting the situation to conform to what he wants it to be.

Originally Posted by fryke

DoctorX: That's a _lot_ of hogwash. How was Bush's antiterrorism a success?

How many have we had?

Oh, you admit the answer:

He didn't bring terrorist attacks from 1'000 attacks a year to zero.

He took them from 0.001% to zero. . . .

Wrong.

- and we don't know whether any of the measures taken after 9/11 actually helped.

We do. We know of plots that were discovered and halted by techniques and strategies instituted by his Administration. You are simply trying to rewrite history to fit your . . . what is that term you use? Oh yes, "hogwash." How quaint.

What we _do_ know is that warnings before 9/11 were ignored. . . .

By Clinton . . . then Bush. Your point? However, your sentence is fallacious; it assumes these "warnings" would have led to a different situation. That is "Monday Morning Quarterbacking."

I don't wanna play down 9/11.

Then do not write this:

It was a terrible thing to happen. But it was a crime of an organisation called Al Quaida, not an act of war by Afghanistan or Iraq.

Wrong on two fronts. First, Al Qaeda was sponsored and supported by the government of Afghanistan which Bush--and Clinton before him--tried to negotiate with--remember those statues? Granted, they were trying to deal with those who think the best way to deal with gender issues is to simply publicly shoot women in the back of their heads. They were given the opportunity to cough up Al Qaeda--they failed. Even Obama disagrees with you on that point.

Second, Iraq was not about 9/11 other than we no longer wait for the inevitable. He rather did what you suggested regarding Al Quaeda--he paid attention to the problem.

You implied method of looking at terrorism as something you can "sort out" or "arrest" is not only naïve, it fails. This was Clinton's approach after the first bombing of the Towers.

How well did it work?

--J.D.

[fryke]

How many attacks did you have on the towers in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998? See: You _can_ see it as simple as you want, but just saying that Iraq was not about 9/11 now doesn't quite put Bush and consorts into a better light. Because that's one of the biggest mistakes they made. They changed their arguments to fit the war they wanted.

So to look at terrorism as something criminal is wrong in your opinion. Why? I'm not talking about "works" or "doesn't work". To me, quite clearly, all attempts have failed so far. There are reasons for that.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by fryke

How many attacks did you have on the towers in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998?

One prior to 9/11 was not enough? The failed millennium neither?

Curious. . . .

When did Al Qaeda come together? When did it have the force of a government behind it?

. . . .but just saying that Iraq was not about 9/11. . . .

Is a different topic; try to stay focused on one at a time.

. . . now doesn't quite put Bush and consorts into a better light.

I am really not concerned with your lack of illumination.

Because that's one of the biggest mistakes they made.

What mistake?

They changed their arguments to fit the war they wanted.

Only if you were not paying attention, particularly to the ten years prior.

So to look at terrorism as something criminal is wrong in your opinion.

Reality is not a matter of opinion.

How are those "arrests" going?

Why? I'm not talking about "works" or "doesn't work".

You should. Particularly if you are going to conjure up post hoc blame.

To me, quite clearly, all attempts have failed so far.

9/11 was a success for terrorists. FYI. . . .

There are reasons for that.

I am not sure you are aware of what they are, but I like surprises.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

One quick example:

An Ohio truck driver who admitted six months ago that he plotted with senior operatives of Al Qaeda to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was sentenced on Tuesday to 20 years in prison. Minutes before the sentencing, the driver, Iyman Faris, 34, tried to withdraw his earlier guilty plea, saying he had admitted a role in the plot only to fool the F.B.I. and secure a book deal for himself.

''I'm innocent,'' Mr. Faris said.

But Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of Federal District Court said she was not persuaded. The sentence was the maximum allowable under a plea agreement that Mr. Faris, a native of Pakistan who came to the United States in 1994 and became a citizen in 1999, signed with prosecutors last May.

Judge Brinkema said that when Mr. Faris agreed to plead guilty to terrorism charges in a secret proceeding, his answers to detailed questions about the Brooklyn Bridge plot and other incidents indicated that ''he thoroughly understood what he was doing.''

Prosecutors said in court pleadings that Mr. Faris traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan in late 2000 and met with Osama bin Laden and other senior Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, widely regarded as a key planner of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Government officials said Mr. Mohammed told Mr. Faris that Al Queda was planning two more attacks in New York City and Washington, including the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge.

New York Times

One of the more public ones.

--J.D.