Obama - As the world burns, the President fiddles.

[maxparrish]

Hey remember when Obama lied to America repeatedly, juxtapositioning Iraq with 9/11 at every turn and saying Iraq was a threat to America and then invaded Iraq... causing the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqis, maiming or killing 10,000 American Soldiers? And for giggles, the funny slide show he put together showing him looking for WMDs under the White House couch?

Or like, remember when the Obama Administration tried to prevent there from being a commission to study what went wrong after the worst terror strike in American history? And even when the commission was put together, refused to allow Obama to testify alone with the Commission?

Or, remember when the Obama Admin was caught wiretapping without warrants from even the FISA court?

Or how about when Obama put a fake reporter in the White House Press Corp (no not a Fox Reporter... someone even faker than that!) to lob one of the dumbest grapefruits to W?

Or when the Press Secretary of the Obama Admin told Americans they should watch what they say, in regards to Bill Maher who lose his late night television show after suggesting that people with the mindset of dying for a cause aren't necessarily cowards.

Or how about when the NSA sniffing program started getting its legs under the Obama Admin when there were reports the NSA had access to all of AT&T internet traffic?

Or when the Obama Administration leaked the identity of a NOC-List CIA agent because the husband of the agent spoke out against the Iraq propaganda?

Seriously, go fuck yourselves! All of hyper-partisans that didn't complain about these egregious violations of the law. And now you pretend to give a fuck about the Constitution, deficit spending, and the nation. Just fuck off. I've had enough!

Wow, talk about displacement. Rather than express rage at the real cause of your anger (unwelcome facts regarding Obama's actions) you dodge reality by raging at an old 'safe' target. Clearly this is a relapse into Bush Derangement Syndrome. I realize that you may have a finite number of memorized talking points on current events, but scraping the bottom of the barrel of old hates of Bush is a bit much.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hey remember when Obama lied to America repeatedly, juxtapositioning Iraq with 9/11 at every turn and saying Iraq was a threat to America and then invaded Iraq... causing the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqis, maiming or killing 10,000 American Soldiers? And for giggles, the funny slide show he put together showing him looking for WMDs under the White House couch?

Or like, remember when the Obama Administration tried to prevent there from being a commission to study what went wrong after the worst terror strike in American history? And even when the commission was put together, refused to allow Obama to testify alone with the Commission?

Or, remember when the Obama Admin was caught wiretapping without warrants from even the FISA court?

Or how about when Obama put a fake reporter in the White House Press Corp (no not a Fox Reporter... someone even faker than that!) to lob one of the dumbest grapefruits to W?

Or when the Press Secretary of the Obama Admin told Americans they should watch what they say, in regards to Bill Maher who lose his late night television show after suggesting that people with the mindset of dying for a cause aren't necessarily cowards.

Or how about when the NSA sniffing program started getting its legs under the Obama Admin when there were reports the NSA had access to all of AT&T internet traffic?

Or when the Obama Administration leaked the identity of a NOC-List CIA agent because the husband of the agent spoke out against the Iraq propaganda?

Seriously, go fuck yourselves! All of hyper-partisans that didn't complain about these egregious violations of the law. And now you pretend to give a fuck about the Constitution, deficit spending, and the nation. Just fuck off. I've had enough!

Wow, talk about displacement.

Exactly. Your hyper-partisan mind didn't allow you to give a flying fuck about that shit.

 

[TacticalLoco]

So you're thinking World View then, Jimmy? I'm extending the crap for thinking POV to dismal too, just as a courtesy.

 

[untermensche]

Wow, talk about displacement. Rather than express rage at the real cause of your anger (unwelcome facts regarding Obama's actions) you dodge reality by raging at an old 'safe' target. Clearly this is a relapse into Bush Derangement Syndrome. I realize that you may have a finite number of memorized talking points on current events, but scraping the bottom of the barrel of old hates of Bush is a bit much.

We're still living in the world that was fucked up bad by the Bush Administration.

How many terrorists did those morons create? How much instability did they create as well?

And of course we still live in the depressed world economy created by their complete mishandling of the mortgage crisis.

 

[ksen]

Max is wanting the government to do something? I thought they weren't competent or were evil or something?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow, talk about displacement. Rather than express rage at the real cause of your anger (unwelcome facts regarding Obama's actions) you dodge reality by raging at an old 'safe' target. Clearly this is a relapse into Bush Derangement Syndrome. I realize that you may have a finite number of memorized talking points on current events, but scraping the bottom of the barrel of old hates of Bush is a bit much.

We're still living in the world that was fucked up bad by the Bush Administration.

How many terrorists did those morons create? How much instability did they create as well?

And of course we still live in the depressed world economy created by their complete mishandling of the mortgage crisis.

Is that last part true? If W is kept from burning in history, his signing of TARP over the objections of his own party would be the reason. The Democrats are as culpable with the Mortgage crisis as the Republicans. Housing sales were the only things driving the economy during W's Administration. Neither side particularly wanted the economy to tank (that opinion of Republicans would change in 2009).

 

[untermensche]

We're still living in the world that was fucked up bad by the Bush Administration.

How many terrorists did those morons create? How much instability did they create as well?

And of course we still live in the depressed world economy created by their complete mishandling of the mortgage crisis.

Is that last part true? If W is kept from burning in history, his signing of TARP over the objections of his own party would be the reason. The Democrats are as culpable with the Mortgage crisis as the Republicans. Housing sales were the only things driving the economy during W's Administration. Neither side particularly wanted the economy to tank (that opinion of Republicans would change in 2009).

When the banks abandoned centuries of good lending practices and started giving mortgages without even checking the information on the application that was the time the government should have stepped in and said "What are you doing?".

Maybe the Congress should have acted too but the Bush administration controlled the agencies that regulated the banks.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There were agencies that regulated the banks? I don't think so.

 

[fromderinside]

When the banks abandoned centuries of good lending practices and started giving mortgages without even checking the information on the application that was the time the government should have stepped in and said "What are you doing?".

Maybe the Congress should have acted too but the Bush administration controlled the agencies that regulated the banks.

What galls me is that when the government does something effective the "killing Job Creators" signs pop up everywhere and when the government doesn't regulate something its the government's fault that business tried to steal everything with no regard to consequences.

Government exists for reasons. They are a source of real power that can be used against foreign and domestic assholes. The ones that need governing are the ones complaining the government is screwing their rights to take.

We don't need to fix Iraq. Iraq needs to fix Iraq. The problem is obvious. The solution is simple. Parties with interests need to cooperate if the want to keep from being destroyed. That is the approach Obama administration is taking. If they don't work together they'll destroy each other.

 

[Ford]

Max is wanting the government to do something? I thought they weren't competent or were evil or something?

Any second now, he'll no doubt chime in with all the things he'd have done differently, and we'll all be like "OMFG, Max you just solved all the world's problems! How did Obama not see these simple solutions to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Israel/Palestine and Russia/Ukraine? Armchair quarterbacks for President!"

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The risk is, that after the ISIS debacle is over the Kurdish militias will turn to separatists and start fighting the Shia Iraqi army and it ends up being another civil war. But otherwise I tend to agree with you. USA should definitely make sure that they stick with the Kurdish factions on this.

Frankly I don't think that is a bad thing.

Really? Because you're one of the guys who seems to believe that the Obama Administration should have supported the anti-Bashir rebels in Syria in order to expedite his removal, apparently unaware that the Islamist factions that eventually congealed into ISIS were actually PART of that rebellion in the first place.

Is your expertise on Kurdish culture, traditions internal politics thorough enough for you to make an informed statement that a Kurdish uprising will not eventually devolve into a Taliban-style theocracy dominated by centuries-old tribal traditions, corruption, nepotism and misogyny? Or are you simply making generalized, utterly-baseless assumptions about the destinies of people you have never met in order to make policy proscriptions, the consequences of which could endanger the lives of thousands of innocent people?

Geopolitics is not a board game. You do not simply move the pieces around, playing them against each other and roll the dice to see if your move worked. If you want to contemplate the ramifications of such policies, the first thing you should do is consider what would happen if somebody did it in YOUR OWN country: if, for example, North Korea sold fifty million dollars worth of assault rifles and RPGs to the Ku Klux Klan, or if Iran decided to provide funding and material support to the Texas secessionist movement, or if the Chinese military started assassinating republican politicians with drone strikes in the middle of populated areas.

It's easy to talk about monkeying around with other people's lives when you don't have to live with the consequences of that intervention (and don't even have to care, especially if the media gets bored and starts covering the latest Miley Cirus meltdown). But in the event that arming the Kurds backfires -- and it will, because there is almost no possible scenario in Iraq where a heavily-armed Kurdish population is anything other than a destabilizing influence -- then the responsibility for those consequences also rests on our heads.

 

[maxparrish]

Max is wanting the government to do something? I thought they weren't competent or were evil or something?

Any second now, he'll no doubt chime in with all the things he'd have done differently, and we'll all be like "OMFG, Max you just solved all the world's problems! How did Obama not see these simple solutions to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Israel/Palestine and Russia/Ukraine? Armchair quarterbacks for President!"

Except that I have always made the same criticism. For those that seem usually stubborn about being tone deaf to the main criticism raised in OP; i.e. Obama has no coherent foreign policy, or meaningful understanding of how the world works other than to make the choice that usually harms US interests. Whether not I wanted him to do something different in each instance (I did in most) I have been perplexed by his mindset - his recent comments during this crisis and in the New York times interview may have explained much of il...he always underestimates.

As Ron Fournier put it "This is a president who underestimated ISIS, he called them JV. He underestimated what was going to happen after Libya, he said that in the New York Times article. He underestimated Putin. He underestimated several other areas. He's been the Commander in Chief or the underestimator in chief. So I don't want him to underestimate. We can't afford the president to underestimate this threat. I also don't want him to overreact. We have done that before and it kind of got us into this mess. So you’re right. It's an awfully tough thing to do. I wish I was more confident that the president really understood the threat to our homeland though."

Apparently he 'underestimated' the responsibilities from backing a regime change in Libya. He 'underestimated' the repercussions of helping to shove Mubarak out the door, and inviting the Muslim Brotherhood in. He underestimated the danger of radicalized savages taking control of the Syrian civil war. He "underestimated" the threat of ISIS in spite of intelligence warnings last fall. He underestimated it again in January when Isis went on a serious offensive in Northern Iraq, dismissing them as JayVees. And today he seems more focused on telling the Iraqi's how to run their government than in the repercussions if ISIS continues its advance - both humanitarian and to US regional interests.

It seems Obama is learning on the job, and having been burned in Libya decided to ignore Syria. Whatever the case Hillary is running for the hills and Obama is now claiming it was not his fault that US forces did not stay.

At this point it is a no-brainier; decimate ISIS hardware from the air (tanks, artillery, armored transports, trucks, etc.). Bring in the B-52s and lay down some real shock and awe. A sustained air campaign will check their advance and reduce their "army" back to its basics - a big militia of fanatics with AK-47s and some RPGs. You don't need ground combat troops (other than trainers and special ops).

Will Obama echo the feckless and cruel policy of a prior era, when our US Congress refused to supply ammunition or air support to South Vietnam, and let them fall? There is no such thing as abandonment with honor, Obama may never learn that.

 

[Ford]

Any second now, he'll no doubt chime in with all the things he'd have done differently, and we'll all be like "OMFG, Max you just solved all the world's problems! How did Obama not see these simple solutions to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Israel/Palestine and Russia/Ukraine? Armchair quarterbacks for President!"

Except that I have always made the same criticism.

What...that you're an armchair quarterback?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As Ron Fournier put it "This is a president who underestimated ISIS, he called them JV. He underestimated what was going to happen after Libya, he said that in the New York Times article. He underestimated Putin. He underestimated several other areas. He's been the Commander in Chief or the underestimator in chief. So I don't want him to underestimate. We can't afford the president to underestimate this threat. I also don't want him to overreact. We have done that before and it kind of got us into this mess. So you’re right. It's an awfully tough thing to do. I wish I was more confident that the president really understood the threat to our homeland though."

Except that Obama didn't under-estimate ISIS. He -- and everyone else in America -- drastically over-estimated both the competence and the motivation of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military, with the latter collectively pissing its pants and running away at the first hint of difficulty. He was correct when he called them a JV organization; what he didn't count on was that Iraqis are Pewees.

And today he seems more focused on telling the Iraqi's how to run their government than in the repercussions if ISIS continues its advance

That's primarily because ISIS can't continue its advance in a country that is being governed effectively. The only way they can win is if the Maliki government hands them a victory. Which, if Maliki refuses to step down (and possibly even if he doesn't) is very likely.

Much has been written about the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, the ways they're similar and the ways they're different. With the rise of ISIS, those differences have all but vanished: we now have an incompetent government with an inept and deeply corrupt military structure fighting against a group of highly motivated and battle-tested ideologues who also enjoy the support of a disenfranchised population. Put simply: we've been here before.

At this point it is a no-brainier; decimate ISIS hardware from the air (tanks, artillery, armored transports, trucks, etc.). Bring in the B-52s and lay down some real shock and awe. A sustained air campaign will check their advance and reduce their "army" back to its basics - a big militia of fanatics with AK-47s and some RPGs. You don't need ground combat troops (other than trainers and special ops).

Because that worked so well when we tried it in Vietnam.

Will Obama echo the feckless and cruel policy of a prior era, when our US Congress refused to supply ammunition or air support to South Vietnam, and let them fall?

Seeing how the unification of Vietnam turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to that country -- and that forty years later it is now one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia -- I hope he does EXACTLY that.

If ISIS can govern more effectively than Maliki's government, then ISIS will prevail whether we want them to or not. The only other option is for the United States to try and govern Iraq effectively, an option we have established pretty conclusively is WELL outside of our capabilities. Military power is nice to have, but it doesn't translate into political power, nor the capacity to affect meaningful change in other people's collective destinies.

The military is an instrument of destruction, not politics. If we're not planning to DESTROY Iraq, then we should stay the fuck out of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When the banks abandoned centuries of good lending practices and started giving mortgages without even checking the information on the application that was the time the government should have stepped in and said "What are you doing?".

Maybe the Congress should have acted too but the Bush administration controlled the agencies that regulated the banks.

Yup, although there's blame for both sides.

It was the Democrat's attempt to get more minorities into houses that lit the fire, Bush sat back and watched a spark turn into a bonfire, though.

 

[untermensche]

Obama has no coherent foreign policy, or meaningful understanding of how the world works other than to make the choice that usually harms US interests..

US foreign policy is to protect US interests overseas.

What has the price of gas been the past 6 years? That is US foreign policy.

How cheap is stuff at walmart? That is US foreign policy.

How many US citizens have been killed by foreign powers? That is US foreign policy.

So what great US interests have been lost because of Obama's lack of your understanding as to how the world works?

 

[ksen]

As Ron Fournier put it

lol

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When the banks abandoned centuries of good lending practices and started giving mortgages without even checking the information on the application that was the time the government should have stepped in and said "What are you doing?".

Maybe the Congress should have acted too but the Bush administration controlled the agencies that regulated the banks.

Yup, although there's blame for both sides.

It was the Democrat's attempt to get more minorities into houses that lit the fire, Bush sat back and watched a spark turn into a bonfire, though.

Umm... last time I checked, it was the Mortgage companies that were lying on the loan forms. Then they lied about the safety of the mortgage investment to get ARM's rated as AAAs. If the investors knew that they were buying risky minority mortgages (read middle class Americans trying to buy upper class homes), the demand to buy out those mortgages wouldn't have existed and the ability to continue giving out those mortgages wouldn't have existed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup, although there's blame for both sides.

It was the Democrat's attempt to get more minorities into houses that lit the fire, Bush sat back and watched a spark turn into a bonfire, though.

Umm... last time I checked, it was the Mortgage companies that were lying on the loan forms. Then they lied about the safety of the mortgage investment to get ARM's rated as AAAs. If the investors knew that they were buying risky minority mortgages (read middle class Americans trying to buy upper class homes), the demand to buy out those mortgages wouldn't have existed and the ability to continue giving out those mortgages wouldn't have existed.

The trigger event was the CRA.

The banks couldn't write enough loans while maintaining proper underwriting. The government reacted by lowering the standards for government-backed mortgages. The scum jumped on the wagon and started writing tons of crap.

 

[KeepTalking]

Jimmy,

As you failed to address my argument regarding the three principles behind Obama's "doctrine", I won't spend a lot of effort on correction of your fractured narrative of nano quibbling and micro carping events that are well recognized in the popular press. None the less, your most egregious "fict-facts" and "truthies" needs hauled out to your local dumpster.

First, it is widely known that Obama wanted Mubarak out, and that he invited the Muslim banned Brotherhood to participate. For example on Feb 10, 2011:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obama-rejects-mubaraks-assurances/article565907/



OR This:

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/02/04/slapdash-obama-policy-egypt/

Israel and our Arab allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, think we are making a mistake by pushing Mubarak out right away. They know their region.

And yet, in a remarkably blunt American intrusion into the internal affairs of another country, we have the president of the United States bowing to the mob in the street, trying to force Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak out of power.

The Obama administration has no consistent policy other than to take the temperature in Tahriri Square. And to throw a longtime friend to the wolves. Not that Mubarak isn’t himself the king of the wolves, but he is our ally. And to “avoid violence.” Allies, shmallies.

Here is how our policy started out Sunday. Hillary Clinton suggested Mubarak should stick around and have a “dialogue” about the future.

What we’re trying to do is to help clear the air so that those who remain in power, starting with President Mubarak, with his new vice president, with the new prime minister, will begin a process of reaching out, of creating a dialogue that will bring in peaceful activists and representatives of civil society to, you know, plan a way forward that will meet the legitimate grievances of the Egyptian people.

Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said it’s not our place to figure out who should rule Egypt.

"That is not for our country or our government to determine. I don’t think that people that seek greater freedom are looking for somebody else to pick what and how that change looks like."

On Tuesday, Obama decided that, oops, it is U.S. policy to interfere, telling Mubarak to start getting the Hell out now.

"What is clear — and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak — is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now."


By Thursday, the message to Mubarak had evolved from start getting the Hell out now to GET THE HELL OUT NOW.

From a New York Times article this morning titled, “White House and Egypt Discuss Plan for Mubarak’s Exit.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/world/middleeast/04diplomacy.html?_r=0

And from that New York Times article: "The proposal also calls for the transitional government to invite members from a broad range of opposition groups, including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, "

Second, I think most folks know that Syria has been long considered as an enemy of the United States interests. They are a member of the Axis of Evil, they are listed by the State Department as a "state sponsor of terrorism", they were developing nuclear weapons (until Israel took action), they harbored insurgents for cross border attacks during the Iraq War of Occupation, they provided safe Haven to Iraqi officials who supported Saddam and refused extradition, and they have actively supported HAMAs and two other terrorist groups. They even assassinated Lebanon's Prime Minister and gave Scud's to Hezbollah. That they agreed, among the 54 nations (including Sweden) who also agreed, to take Al Qeada renditions after 9/11 was for individual reasons unrelated to why the CIA wanted to dump them.

Third, you completely ignore and/or miss the point regarding Libya and Syria. There is nothing inherently wrong about a failed intervention, but it is inherently wrong to intervene where no substantive US interests are at stake (or no dire humanitarian reasons). There was not a valid reason to intervene in Libya or Egypt, but Obama did. There was some VERY SERIOUS reasons to intervene in Syria but Obama did not. Why?

Since you recall the remarks Obama made in Feb. 2011 about Mubarak stepping aside, surely you remember his remarks made in August 2011 about Syria:

"The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people. We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."

So, to review:

In Max's world, Obama calling for Mubarak to step aside is intervention, but making the same call for Assad to step aside is most definitely not intervention.

I hope this reveals that this truly is a case where Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Nothing will satisfy those who are rabidly against anything Obama does, just because it was Obama doing it.