Recently, some of our most able pundits have been arguing that neoconservatism is dead. As usual, The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart leads the pack. He could not have stated his case more clearly than here: “the ideology that 9/11 made famous — neoconservatism — has died.” Beinart is certain of this. His evidence? Al-Qaeda is finished; not only Osama bin Laden is dead, but now his second in command, Abd al-Rahman, has been killed by the U.S. No longer is jihadism a major threat, “a threat on par with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union,” he argues. It is “sliding into irrelevance,” leaving the U.S. with quite a different challenge — that of China’s authoritarian capitalism. What killed al-Qaeda, he says, is “exactly the narrow targeted policies that neoconservatives derided.”
Obama has gained his ends through intelligence and drone strikes, Beinart argues, and any resulting democracy in the Middle East comes not from the United States, but from the local rebellion of young Muslims. He also argues that Republican candidates are not attacking the president along neoconservative lines; instead, they largely avoid the issue, since they “have little appetite for the neconservative agenda of continued war in the Middle East.”
He implies that we should get out of Afghanistan, because it is not worth the cost of American lives, and because we can’t afford it. Right or wrong, the money is not there, something he says neoconservatives never paid attention to. America, he says — sounding like a conservative — must pay attention to limits, and we must hold in our grandiose ambitions.
Is Beinart right? First, let us point to a factor he pays little attention to: that despite a confused and ambivalent doctrine in foreign policy, President Obama is pursuing much of the same “neo-con” policies advocated by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in their administration. No one has made a stronger case for this than Walter Russell Mead. Obama’s defenders, he writes,
must also squirm; in general, President Obama succeeds where he adopts or modifies the policies of the Bush administration. Where (as on Israel) he has tried to deviate, his troubles begin.
He writes the following:
The most irritating argument anyone could make in American politics is that President Obama, precisely because he seems so liberal, so vacillating, so nice, is a more effective neoconservative than President Bush. As is often the case, the argument is so irritating partly because it is so true.
President Obama is pushing a democracy agenda in the Middle East that is as aggressive as President Bush’s; he adopts regime change by violence if necessary as a core component of his regional approach and, to put it mildly, he is not afraid to bomb.
And finally, the heart of Mead’s case:
In many ways we are living through George W. Bush’s third term in the Middle East, and neither President Obama’s friends nor his enemies want to admit it. President Obama, in his own way and with his own twists, continues to follow the core Bush policy of nudging and sometimes pushing nasty regimes out of power, aligning the US with the wave of popular discontent in the region even as that popular sentiment continues to dislike, suspect and reject many aspects of American power and society. And that policy continues to achieve ambivalent successes: replacing old and crustily anti-American regimes, rooted deeply in the culture of terror and violence within and beyond their borders, with weaker, more open and — on some issues at least — more accommodating ones.
In Libya, as we have seen, a humanitarian effort became, in reality, a use of force to promote regime change. True, he moved too slowly, and casualties may have been avoided had he promoted his real aim from the start. And in Syria, he began by proclaiming Assad a “reformer,” only to finally, in the past few weeks, call for the Syrian dictator to step down. Yet, as Mead concludes, “half way through President Obama’s tenure in office, we can see that regime change and democracy promotion remain the basis of American strategy in the Middle East — and that force is not excluded when it comes to achieving American aims.” So Mead writes — somewhat I think with tongue in cheek — “the Bush-Obama agenda marches on.”
A very compelling argument for how Obama, despite his own scorn for Bush’s policies, is continuing to pursue similar objectives. Well, in some cases. Obama is no neo-con when it comes to the growth of Chinese power in the Pacific. He’s no neo-con when he refuses to sell Tawain the F-16s it needs. And he was no neo-con when he backed the claims of that autocrat-in-utero, Zelaya in Honduras. What about his lack of resolve vis-a-vis Russia? Of course, there’s also his timidity in the face of Iran. And a timidity that continues despite all the urging by Arab allies that the U.S. put the handcuffs on the mullahs.
Obama only acted in Libya with the blessing of the Arab League. He treats the UN as a serious political and moral force. Can anyone imagine him launching an attack against Iran(assuming it got to the point where only an armed strike could prevent Iran from going nuclear) purely on the strength of America’s security needs and the understanding that sometimes a great power must go it
Russia may be our commercial rival these days, but the US and Russia have interests in common. We should be making common cause against the Muslim world, instead of pandering to it in various ways.
When it’s a liberal in the WH, the MSM doesn’t question the motives.
How can you quote Beinart, the guy is a moron, on a par with Tom Friedman?
And, Obama doesn’t have any foreign policy successes, his foreign policy is a shambles, a big mess – the amateur-hour Obama administration is just a stooge for the Muslim Brotherhood. Bush was not the brightest, that’s for sure & the neo-cons (now a code-word for Jews) were remarkably naive – but, of course, Obama makes Bush look like a genius.
Too many people say that a neocon is a code word for Jew.
Wrong.
A neocon is somebody who wants to expend US blood and treasure in the futile task of carving out a US sphere of influence in the Muslim world, under the guise of “spreading democracy.” Many of the idiots and traitors involved in the PNAC were Jewish, but not all were. And you don’t need me to tell you that just having some Jewish ancestry or a Jewish-sounding last name doesn’t make anybody a Jew from the religious or the cultural standpoint. These people were leftists who decided that they liked war, provided that they were the ones who got hired for the government jobs, the NGOs, the media, the think tanks, academia, and so on and so forth.
While nobody despises the Democrats more than I do, I must point out that both parties in the US have become stooges for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Much more on the Left than on the Right.
As I recall, the term “neocon” referred to Jewish editorialists who became conservative; people like Irving Kristol (who coined the term), Norman Podhoretz, Mona Charen, Michael Medved, Dennis Praeger and (I think, but could be wrong) Hugh Hewitt. It doesn’t extend to all Jews, or even to all conservative Jews: at least it didn’t use to.
I realize that meanings shift, but don’t think this one should be allowed to. To refer to all Jews as “neocons” does an injustice both to Jews and to real neocons.
I would accept “neocon” as a description of any liberal, Jewish or otherwise, who became a conservative. That would make me a neocon. For the record, I’m not Jewish, at least that I know of. Further than that, I wouldn’t go.
What Beinart writes is a valid sample of what is considered wise in the liberal world. It does not matter too much whether the wisdom is authentic or not, what matters is whether it is representative, and it could well be: For instance Beinart does not consider Obama’s inability to offer vocal support to the Iranian opposition. It’s mostly about Lybia, probably because the R2P theory comes from the glorified lefties of the administration.
If the “Arab street” is rising, it is to GWB’s credit. Beinart is only attributing the credit to BHO, because the common narrative is that GWB could not possibly have done anything right. Who in the left is going to recognize that BHO’s obsession with the Oslo theories in general and settlements in particular has complicated everything instead of solving anything in the Middle East?
If this president is a neocon, that’s purely accidental, and certainly not the consequence of any ideological resonance.
The term neocon was used to describe people like myself who at one time were termed liberal but became ‘conservative’. A neocon tends to be conservative on domestic agendas and foreign policy. However, you will find neocons favor women’s abortion rights. Neocons are not limited to being Jews, although I am. They tend to be educated middle class. Neocons also identify with the tea party while not necessarily being part of it. They are also likely to be Romney supporters.
Here’s just one example of the result of Obozo’s ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Libya.
But then, from his point of view, persecution of Christians isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Your sentiment that “Of course, the Left was always wrong when it condemned Bush and Cheney…” is not necessarily correct. What should have happened is we get the intelligence, do a quick strike to kill the Al Qaeda leaders and gotten the hell out. None of out leaders seem to have learned a damned thing from Viet Nam or from the Russian (oh pardon me, the Soviet’s) war in Afghanistan. Should have done the same thing in Iraq, should do the same thing in Iran and several other countries. If Jimmy Carter had nuked the embassy in Tehran, while it would have killed our people, it would also have prevented any of the last 30 years of stupidity and probably cost Reagan the win.
“If Jimmy Carter had nuked the embassy in Tehran, while it would have killed our people, it would also have prevented any of the last 30 years of stupidity and probably cost Reagan the win.”
Yep, no doubt about it, you guys are all neocons now.
Carter would not have, nor did not need to ‘nuke’ Tehran in the face of the kidnappings of 52 american diplomats by the Amahdilbijad wing of the Khomeini regime. This is a common though false and premature post haste conclusion attributed in hindsight to that violation of all civilization and the diplomatic means by which nations interacted at that point.
All he had to do was immediately mobilize all available military capability, and move it via the navy, particularly carriers, and send it to the persian gulf. Once mobilized and deployed there, begin sending fighters and bombers to distribute leaflets saying that the United States had no beef with Iranian people, but that kidnapping of diplomats, in any country or region in the world, or by any nation or regime, new or otherwise, was completely unacceptable, and would require the situation be resolved by no less that the safe and orderly release of the 52 kidnapped hostages into United States Armed forces custody. And that any form of resistance by the Iranian Army to this ultimatum would be crushed by any and all means necessary and could, and would result in a state of war between U.S. and Khomeni’s Regime. Get on television, and as president, read the entirety of the statement to the Iranian people, and in the following days, return to television in a televised address, and issue the appropriate time line ultimatum (48 hours), because by that time the navy and marines would have been deployed to the region and sitting on Irans doorstep.
That’s all it would have taken.
And of course Khomeini would have backed down, and saw to it that the kidnapped hostages were safely released into U.S. custody. Diplomatic relations with Iran would probably have been terminated by most if not all the rest of the world, with sanctions to follow, and the rogue regime of Khomeini could and would then proceed along with no support anywhere from any nation in the world- distrusted, reviled, hated and despised, having been humiliated and defeated by the proper use and deployment of United States Armed Forces.
Amaddillijad and crew had initiated the kidnapping without Khomeni’s knowledge or permission, and represented yet another freak sect of shia islam that even Khomeni thought were kooks. And that is saying something.
Khomeni was a lot of things, but not so vain as to miss an opportunity to save his own skin in the face the proper, reasonable, and justifiable threat of the use of United States Armed Forces against a rogue element of a (his) rogue regime. The corpus of Admaddillijad’s gaggle would have been summarily and quietly separated from their heads, as Khomeni would have maximized the opportunity to send the message to Iran that his rule and authority would be undermined or superseded by no one, or no thing.
Khomeni enjoyed a significant portion of popular support, in the early days of his fledgling autocrat rule, but even and especially he would be keenly aware that Admadddinijjadds actions were indeed yet quite a bridge too far. The iranian people would not be so “Bai-yai-yai-yai-yai” in the streets (hoping to get on television) for long, once it sunk in that war with the United States, if Khomeni for his part did not act quickly and decisively, and above all reasonably, would be only days, or hours away.
So much for popular support.
The kidnappings of diplomats in the American embassy in Tehran was an attack on every civilized nation in the world, and on the diplomatic structure every civilized nation uses to conduct relationships with other civilized nations. And those kidnappings served no purpose other than chaos and evil itself. Exactly what one should expect from the barbarous regions of this world.
If acting quickly and decisively, alone, unilaterally, and without waiting for authorization in the form of a resolution from “the U.N.” is considered “neo-conservative”, I would strongly disagree.
That the nation of Israel would benefit from such actions is parenthetical and secondary (and of course it would benefit…) as any and all sane, responsible and representative governments would have benefited secondarily from such actions and for the resulting preservation, and restoration of the diplomatic structure on which the free world depended, operated and would expand in the face of such an abomination.
A nations sovereignty rests with itself and no one else. No one would have likely supported us once this one and only option was initiated, or they would have tried to jump on that bandwagon as quickly as possible. Who cares. Leadership resided with the president alone and a simple taking of stock as to the situation and it’s opportunities would have shown the clarity needed for as how to proceed.
But there were other abominations in that decade, in that region, particularly in 1973, and proper actions required that were thwarted by democrat party majority in congress, that are little talked about or remembered so much as was the kidnapping and taking of hostages from the U.S. embassy in 1979.
Proper actions taken in 1973 might have been more characterizable as ‘neo-con’ as they would have been far more pre-emptive than reactive, and would have also spared the world much of the trouble we see today from that persistently barbarous region, and led to at least one more protected and representative government there as an ally in the cause of liberty and freedom, and the family of nations.
Simply put Carter was inept. I have to say what we are witnessing right now with Obama, in math terms, is Carter to the third power.
Nobody will ever be able to convince me that all the foreign political wrong turns Obama made during his years in office are due just to his lack of experience,lack of understanding of world events etc.. Based on what we know of his past, his many very controversial friends, his problematic (and Muslim)upbrenging, political Marxist affiliation, his first peculiar foreign policy moves; his first official foreign address was to the Muslim world, his first foreign visit was to Abbas, bowing to the Arabian King, exaggerated ouvertures to the Arab-Muslim world, humiliating America by admitting and apologize for so called US misconduct vs. the Arab-Muslim world, his hugly open hostility towards Israel, his disdain for his other western allies etc.. The guy is pursuing some devastating anti-American, anti-western self-defeting policy..he must be stopped!
I don’t recall Bush denying troops and resources requested by the commanding general in the field, nor do I recall him drawing down during the worst enemy offensive of the war, leading to increased vulnerability and casualties of the men left standing the line.
I don’t recall Obama having ANY foreign policy successes save killing BinLaden, and he appears to have been forced into that. Libya, Egypt, and possibly Syria falling solidly into the hands of radical islam may be a success in his eyes, but not in mine.
What kind of foreign policy uses the word “justice” more often than the word “victory”? The Bush foreign policy *and* the Obama foreign policy. Just download America’s FM 3-24: Counterinsurgency and read it for yourself.
Bush’s great wisdom was to fire his neocon strategists Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, promote Gates, Petreaus, and Mattis to war-command, and ignore Cheney.
Obama’s great wisdom was to retain those war-leaders, embrace and extend their strategy in FM 3-24, ally them with Hillary, and extend their influence throughout the State Department and the CIA. As USMC Gen. Victor Krulak put it:
So far, the results of this right-left partnership are pretty good. Each has embraced and implemented the best ideas of the other, and these ideas are working. This is good for our troops and good for our nation. It’s what democracy is supposed to accomplish. Let’s keep up this left-right partnership.
—————————
FM3-24 COUNTERINSURGENCY (MCWP 3-33.5)
URL: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
It’s hard to be sanguine about this 10 year campaign in Afghanistan- that is, this long war prosecuted by Republicans and Democrats. Americans have died and been maimed and the Taliban has reemerged and Obama now seeks to make a deal with these medieval sadists. In Iraq, Iran has gained a crucial degree of influence there- so much so, that we could not use Iraqi territory at all in order to attack the mullahs if that miserable last option becomes necessary.
Somehow our vast military might and the enormous amount of money we’ve poured into these places, our road and school building schemes haven’t resulted in two stable and loyal allies. What has gone wrong; what did we fail to do. I don’t really know. It would be interesting to hear some ideas about what went wrong. Can we give any credence to people like Mark Helperin who think the whole nation and ally building ideas was wooly-headed?
Much will depend upon the success (or lack of it) that attends Gen. H. R. McMaster’s present assignment as chief of CJIATF-Shafafiyat.
The MSM (mainstream media) and the IFM (ideology-first media) both ignore crucial stories like this … to their shame … because this neglect gravely harms America’s soldiers.
Fortunately professional military sites like Small Wars Journal *do* cover these stories. So yes, it is possible for ordinary citizens to learn about these issues. Good.
—————————————————-
Making a Sandwich in Afghanistan:
How to Assess a Strategic Withdrawal from a Protracted Irregular War
URL: http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/making-a-sandwich-in-afghanistan
Physicist,(can I omit the “a” am I being too familiar), thanks for the reply. And thanks for the link- I’ll definitely check out the piece.
By the way, your coinage “IFM” is witty and very apt. While I’ve been disaffected big time from the MSM, I have to confess that publishers/writers on the Right bring boxed in minds to many an issue.
Thanks Stuart — have fun reading SWJ … there’s plenty of meaty analysis there. Hey and let’s not forget to make fun too of “boxed-in lefties” … who have their own special brand of IFM!
“So far, the results of this right-left partnership are pretty good.”
Good A parsons, good. It looks like your path to the Inner Party is on track. Good use of a now seen as successful former Goldstein to bolster the intellectual capacity of Mr. President. And Mr. President may be channeling you again, as his next oration may include more of the intellectual firepower from the Man Who Did It To Me.
This Goldstein situation will disappear soon. Remember not to remember!
Something is lacking here, however. You must groupthink that it is never a “left-right partnership”. The left simply co-opts the right, absorbs it, and a new frame of reference about what is good is born. Such errors will leave you in time, as your children are watching you closely.
A parsons, did you give Winston your gin ration? The scab on his ankle feels good today.
Cuz!
Mr. Lucky, your utterly incomprehensible ideology-first jeremiad regrettably overlapped with my reply referencing Paul Kan’s thoughtful analysis:
May I respectfully suggest that you respond to the latter?
———————–
Why no-one is a neocon anymore
URL = http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/comment/265124/
Great insight; BUT, the attempt to credit Obumbles with anything that smacks of a “consistent policy” is failing.
Knowing the actions, re-actions, and retractions, that this ‘administration’ has taken on practically every endeavor, show how incompetent, confused, shallow, inept, and corrupt they really are.
Beinart is only one, in a long line of liberal media prostitutes, trying to paint a picture of Obama as being a “moderate” to an extremely gullible and slavish populace.
From now until the general election, you can be assured, Obama, and his prostitutes, will paint him as being “disabled” and “ganged up on” by the RACIST TEA Party and crippling Republicans in Congress.
This party is just getting started. Obama, Holder, Waters, Clyburn, Sharpton, Jackson, Rangel, and Farrakhan are just getting their inciteful rhetoric warmed up.
When they’re done, a lot of people will believe Obama is more disabled and disadvantaged than he has ever been before.
Why would anybody suggest that obama has succeeded in any way with his foreign policy?
He has alienated and frightened our two strongest allies, Great Britain and Israel. He has enabled the deposition of the strongest stabalizing influence in the Middle East, Mubarak. He has made the US a sychophant of China, the greatest long-term threat to our security. He has been played for a fool by Iran, the country most likely to cause a nuclear war. North Korea has taunted the weakling adolescent. The state of our economy has deteriorated substantially our ability to protect ourselves and influence world events. He has abandonned Poland, another remarkable ally. He has allowed Mexico to descend into chaos. Is there a single country in the world that has more respect and friendship for the US now than under Little Lenin’s predecessor. And most important of all, is there a single country in the world that trusts that America will be true to its word.
Even if one were to give him full credit for killing OBL and deposing Gaddafi Duck, the ledger would be 100 to 1 against his idiotic policies. As for OBL, his death has zero impact on our relationships with foreign governments. Any fear and respect that was to be garnered was 100% achieved when US marines took Falluja. That one action demonstrated beyond a doubt that the US not only has the dominant military technology, but also still has young people with courage matched rarely in human history. And as for Gaddafi Duck, nutty as the guy was, he was an ally, for god’s sake; particularly in comparison to the his even nuttier counterparts in the Middle East. No good will come from that pointless and counterproductive adventurism either.
He isn’t just the worst, by far, domestic president in history, he is also the worst, by far, foreign policy president in history.
But then, of course, his goal isn’t to protect and strengthen our country, is it? His goal is to weaken and destroy it.
Obama a success in foreign policy? You are joking.
How about his rejection and indifference to the Iranian demonstrators for democracy? He turned his back on them and has enabled and allowed the Iranians to tighten their totalitarian hold on their population. And, enabled them to essentially develop their own nuclear weapons and increase their imperial agenda in the ME.
He sided with the communist, anti-democratic Zelaya in Honduras. He has insulted every traditional western ally of the US, from his constant, endless insults to Britain, to France, to Germany. And to Israel.
He actually enables Mexico to export its impoverished class to the US, for the US taxpayer to support; he ignores his constitutional duty to protect American citizens from illegals and to secure US borders.
And no, there is NO WAY that he can be given credit for killing Bin Laden; that was the SEALS. The fact that it occurred ‘under his watch’ is not relevant.
Libya? He only went into it because he was shamed into doing so by France and Britain. On his own, he never would have, and he copped out as much as possible, leaving the work to others – including the Canadians. Oh, and refused to go to Congress, redefining ‘war’ as consisting only of ‘ground troops in hostile actions’…while ‘airplanes dropping hostile bombs’..heh, to Obama, that’s ‘not war’.
His refusal to acknowledge US exceptionalism, his apologizing to the world for ‘being the US’, his relativism that equates freedom with enslavement, suggesting that both are ‘free choices by a society’…Obama hasn’t a clue about history or societies.
What’s he doing about Syria? Nothing. What’s he doing about Africa? Nothing. He, being basically anti-democratic, has no understanding of what the Arab implosion and upheaval is about…and has no idea or will to assist them in developing democracy. [There's a meeting now in Paris about Libya].
His own internal domestic activities are heavily anti-democratic, from his constant ignoring of Congress, to his insistence that Congress be a rubber stamp and pass His bills without reading, to his ignoring the laws actually passed by Congress and having his unelected Depts carry out the rejected laws anyway (EPA, DREAM).
There is nothing more to Obama than A Performer. That is all he is. He performs, constantly on stage, to manipulate You..to like..Him. That’s all there is to him. There’s no mind, no intellect, no analysis, no policies, no programs. Nothing but a Performance to get you to Like and adulate Him. Period.
The comments on this column provide solid evidence that very few PJM/Tatler readers think the war is complicated.
This means PJM/Tatler performs no better than the MSM at communicating the sobering realities and complexities of this war. Both PJM and MSM are making a horrendously bad job of it.
America’s soldiers deserve better … much better. We owe this to them.
Kudos to Small Wars Journal for sustained journalistic commitment to winning and to our troops.
———————————-
Obama’s Pledge: A Responsible End to War in Iraq
URL: http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/obamas-pledge-a-responsible-end-to-war-in-iraq
Your vomit-inducing SPAM posts aren’t worth anyone’s time of day.
Please, buy a gun, aim at head…point and click.
I don’t read nonsense, but you have to wonder about the motivation, since he obviously takes a lot of time preparing his remarks but receives only invective for his efforts. I haven’t seen another one like him on any site. The dear departed Matthew was somewhat similar, but Matthew’s investment must have been 1/10 this guy’s investment.
The trolls who jump in occasionally to throw feces around and cause a stir are understandable. They’re having a little fun, or lose their temper over something they read; but this guy spends a LOT of time writing his drivel. He isn’t being paid either, because he would be getting about 2 cents a minute for his time.
He obviously enjoys what he does. Strange.
Agreed – ‘a physicist’ is weird.
First, he’s most certainly not a physicist or indeed, someone with any scientific expertise; and, he’s equally illiterate in mathematics.
I’m assuming he’s a leftist, retired, and simply surfs the web all day, endlessly cherry picking articles that support his opinions. That’s all there is to him. Every single post has some irrelevant link…and is written in a patronizing, sanctimonious manner..deliberately ‘softened’ by his frequent tactic of dropping the ‘g’ and use of terms such as ‘you folks’ and ‘ain’t’. Best to ignore him.
Yes, best to ignore him when you can’t refute him.
And then there is Delia; what is up with her?
It seems obvious that any fair-minded person would acknowledge that Obama has been more aggressive (or less, passive, take your pick) with his military policies than one might have expected. Listening to your rhetoric, one could have assumed that he would make immediate pull-outs from both theaters, shut down the drone campaign, and close Gitmo If you can’t at least admit that he has NOT followed the peace-at-any-price, pacifist agenda, then any reasonable discussion is unlikely.
You guys have DEFINED Obama in your mind as x. Therefore, anything he does must somehow prove that he is x, or be ignored. Apparently, it makes the “discussion” easier for you. Ah, the joys of trying to have a dialogue with true believers. To you, the fact that he bowed to some King/Prince is more important than the fact that we got Bin Laden and drones are whacking bad guys regularly. Sorry, but to me that is an odd way to think, if “thinking” applies here.
Matthew, is that you?
Where have you been.
Unusual to see a post from you without a pro-Stalin quip.
dwight – the point is, all sorts of replies are made, refuting ‘a physicist’. He ignores their data content, and simply reposts some link that he feels substantiates his dogmatic adherence to AGW. So, he’s not someone to ‘take apart’ an issue, debate on it, and analyze it. All that he does, is post his opinions.
As for Obama, do you seriously think that he had a single thing to do with capturing Bin Laden? Other than, doing as he was told, i.e, to OK the capture – did he sit down, analyze the data and information and conclude that Bin Laden was there? Did he risk his life? What did he do?
No, our opinions on Obama are not a priori but are based on observation of his speeches and actions. That includes his utter indifference to the demonstrators for freedom in Iran, his support for Zelaya’s attempt to sideline the Honduran constitution, his dithering about troops in Afghanistant, his dithering about Egypt and Mubarak, his dithering about Libya…Obama only does what he’s told by the military and even then, he dithers and ties himself into knots until the key time period has passed.
No President would be micro-managing intelligence. You are avoiding the main thrust of my point (and the central point of this whole thread) which is that Obama has NOT reversed the GWB war policies, but that does not suit your agenda about how he is the “worst ever.”
Over and over I ask what you guys would say had Obama withdrawn the troops from both theaters, shut down the drone program, and closed Gitmo. Would he then be the worst, worst, worst ever, instead of just the worst? Instead, we have the fact that Obama waited and waited before he oked a semi-surge; sounds like a centrist position, but, oh no; to you it is more evidence of the worst ever.
The language and positions that you, Proreason, and a number of others take here, is so over the top, so hyperbolic, that it is clear that Obama has made you crazy and you have ODS. Rational discussion of strengths and weaknesses…has left the building. Can you step back enough to realize that, or do you even care? After all, extremism is the defense of liberty is no vice, eh?
No, dwight, Obama’s foreign policies are not those of Bush. It isn’t even that he has reversed the policies of Bush. He has no policies other than to remove the US from any involvement…other than his rhetoric to which no-one listens including Iran and Syria. It’s not a policy-of-peace; it’s a policy of nothing.
Bush promoted democracy in the ME; Obama doesn’t do this. Again, he ignored the Iranian demonstrators-for-democracy. He didn’t support the anti-Mubarak agenda for weeks, dithering and duthering. Same with Libya. Same with Syria.
That is, he himself has no policy about promoting and enabling democracy, which was the keystone of Bush’s foreign policy.
ALL you are basing your similarities on – is drone attacks. Nothing else. The fact that he didn’t close Guantanamo wasn’t a policy decision but a realistic decision; there was no other place to hold those people.
His withdrawal from both Afghanistan and Iraq – how is that ‘copying Bush’?
To say that ‘he waited and waited’ is indicative of centrism is fallacious. Centrism has nothing to do with ‘waiting’! It has nothing to do with ‘the time it takes to come to a decision’! It has to do with political ideology.
Furthermore, there is little to no hyperbole about Obama on most posts.
GWB promoted democracy by invading two countries and yes, that was a huge decision. But when no WMD’s were found in Iraq, “promoting democracy” took on more prominence. As far as I know, the MILITARY strategies of trying to build democracy in the semi-occupied countries remains the same, albeit becoming more effective with experience, one would hope. GWB did nothing that I can recall to address democracy in Iran or Syria or Egypt or Libya. In fact he was criticized for attacking Iraq, but doing nothing against Iran.
This is just one more example of you folks creating your own version of Obama world, and then cackling to each other about it endlessly. It is not constructive, just malicious, but then I am hardly shocked by it.
Now now. Don’t be so harsh on A parsons.
The bell rings, A parsons drools, and imaginary treats flow his way. What else can he do, such a product of the University Dumb Down. Notice that the links do the talking, and they are surrounded with what appears as sugary platitudes. The poor thing has been so thoroughly filled with expert advice that tying one’s shoelaces must involve a handy approved reference manual.
And yes, one only needs to probe a bit and then watch the well trained monotone action in the form of – I want to rule your life, and I will use smiley faces to mask my jackboot mentality. For the time being anyway. And as long as you truly agree, you can keep you teeth.
This one is really precious, he’s already locked himself into pattern, that if he deviates from it, he a loser, and if continues with the smiley + links he’s a loser. And in the end, not nearly because of form, but because of substance. But the form reveals a purposeful masking of Modern Liberal Groupthink.
Here A parsons, you’re so lame (you probably think the world’s about you), let it be served up to you, and from Wikipedia no less. That makes it all so much betterer! So authoritative!
“Parsons — Winston’s naïve neighbour and an ideal member of the Outer Party: an un-educated, suggestible man. He is utterly loyal to the Party and believes fully in its image of perfection. He is in a way like the proles, unable to see the bigger aspects of the world. He is active and participates in hikes and leads community group and fundraisers. Despite being a fool, Parsons does possess some good traits. He is a very friendly man and seems to believe in a basic form of decency despite his political conformity. He punishes his son for firing a catapult at Winston and shows fondness for his children despite his belief that the end of family life is a good idea. He is captured when his children claim that he repeatedly and unknowingly spoke against the Party in his sleep and he is last seen in the Ministry of Love, proud of having been betrayed by his own children.”
Well A parsons, is Winston’s scab better now? $0 health care, remember? Cuz…
Come on A parsons, tee it up.
Oops, a Physicist has gotten Mr Lucky’s attention; stand by for category three creative invective.
Damn, now I’m afraid I will be wasting too much time on this site for the next day or two.
At some point, maybe we can discuss how Presidents do things which you might not expect them to, BECAUSE of their party affiliation. Nixon could go to China, whereas McGovern could not have. Reagan could talk about getting rid of all nuclear weapons, whereas Carter could not have. Obama can whack people with drones, whereas GWB or McCain would be getting called baby-killers. This essential “fact” of American politics works, whether or not the MSM is in the tank for the libs, if fact, it is part of the same phenomenon.
Dwight, it’s unclear whether Delia’s deadly version of conservatisms “big tent” has room for both of us … but I definitely agree with your views regarding the deep wisdom of the old Klingon saying “Only Nixon Can Go To China”.
And is there *anyone* on PJM/Tatler who understands Mr. Lucky’s references to “Winston’s scab”? In Mr. Lucky’s world, this phrase somehow explains health-care policy, AGW, and GWOT … all lumped together.
Is it a Randian code-phrase? Neo-con? Libertarian? John Birch? Dominionist? Bahai? Scientologist? Marxist-Leninist? Lyndon LaRouche? Phineas Priesthood? Borg? Please help us out, Mr. Lucky!
———————–
Star Trek: Only Nixon can go to China
URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102975/faq#.2.1.1
Well golly gee gosh, looks like Irene has flushed D-White out of that Subterranean Faculty Lounge Rat Hole. No worry, Hope and Change is on its way to mend the Carbon Caused Disaster. Mr. President will lick your wounds. For a campaign donation. He is really needy now. Help him be Him.
And D-White, That’s A physicist, not a Physicist. Follow his rules! He might not post smiley faces!
“Damn, now I’m afraid I will be wasting too much time on this site for the next day or two.” Don’t be afraid D-White. You have companionship now. A fellow boot worshiper!
Well what the hell, look what Modern Liberal BlenderWorld has regurgitated. Toss in some Faux Centrist Pick It Fence But, mix with the New No Nothing Credentialed, and you have Modern Liberal cocktail party patter, in the form of “the deep wisdom of the old Klingon saying ‘Only Nixon Can Go To China’.” Deep. Deep. So Deep. So Gaga.
D-White, since you’re the More Smarter One, with years of experience blathering such things to chained persons in “classrooms”, perhaps you could explain the significance of Winston’s scab. And after all, just because yours is not on the ankle, (but you know where!), that does nor mean that you shouldn’t dominate A parsons. In fact, A parsons needs now you more than you need your copy of the Federalist papers.
A parsons is in need of a dictator. Wow D-White, just think, Modern Liberal Dreams really can come true. A Linking Simpleton drops from the sky, and he is all yours! Like back yard dog clay waiting to be molded!
Didn’t he win the last Presidential election…?
“I like Fidel Castro and his beard…”
And you just go on and on.
It’s been a long time since I read 1984, and I never taught it, so Winston’s scar and what it might connote has faded. Now if you want to talk Orwell Essays, they should stick better in my mind. There is plenty of grist for you there in “Politics and the English Language,” but I will let you do your own grinding. And while you are at it, read, “Such, Such Were the Joys” and it may help you figure out where you were in the pecking order.
Your boots and domination obsessions still remains yours…not mine. You are still living up to the obsessive quality of the queer old josser in the Joyce story “An Encounter” I linked you to many moons ago. He too, wanted to talk about who should be whipped… Hey, if the boot fits, wear it.
OMG! You guys are crackin’ me up!
You know why I’m not ‘moderated’ here? Because I’ve earned it and I’m not about to chuck that all into the shallow waters with a bunch of SPAMMERS who have only ONE priority and that is to MUCK up the comments section with their goobers.
Meh. I wish Lefties who post here could be half as entertaining as their Hollyweird counterparts…that would almost make their pukey drivel somewhate entertaining.
Delia wrote “OMG! You guys are crackin’ me up!”
(and then later)
“Meh. I wish Lefties who post here could be half as entertaining as their Hollyweird counterparts…that would almost make their pukey drivel somewhate entertaining.”
Hmmm, is there a slight disconnect in logic there? I’m shocked, I tell you. Just shocked! Read a little Orwell, then a little Joyce and then you may be able to substitute some $1 words for the potty-mouth ones (just for variety, of course.)
Hell, read Ulysses and you can enjoy Bloom sitting on the toilet for an extended period.
They really really take themselves seriously, don’t they?
It’s a strange kind of perversion that brings them here.
The world is full of sadists. In the Middle Ages, there were people who wandered around doing public penance by hitting themselves with whips. These guys are similar. They must have a special membrane in their brains that blocks out reality and shovels every rebuke to a pleasure center. That’s why I don’t understand why people attempt to have serious discussions with them. Every serious response just validates themselves in their own sick brains.
Matthew / Dwight, for example, is a HUGE fan of Stalin. And the laugably named “a physicist” simply endlessly repeats his talking points, all of which revolve around his religion, global warming.
It’s a sad thing to see.
Your utter repugnance and hilarity in lack of two brain-cells to rub to together is not ‘entertainment’ by any stretch of the imagination.
LULZ x10!
Stalin?
You’re making mah point here about making up goofy stuff and passing it back and forth, as if such creative assertions about those who disagree with you…prove something.
What you have proved is the apparent hollowness of your case, or else you might be able to come up with some substance, rather than middle school rhetoric. Ever notice how some people flail, when they get in over their depth? Well, I’m seeing a lot of splashing, but…
Dwight,
Stop cramping your masturbatory hand by writing drivel.
Don’t you have a shampoo bottle to visit with your tiny penis?
MMMMMMM?
“Ever notice how some people flail, when they get in over their depth?”
Poor thing, D-White. Your new association with A parsons will be like having Madonna and Gaga “sitting on the toilet”. Which part will you play? Who will “flail” who?
The Ping Pong Tongue goes off with –
“…you might be able to come up with some substance, rather than middle school rhetoric. Ever notice how some people flail, when they get in over their depth? Well, I’m seeing a lot of splashing, but…”
“…a lot of splashing, but” – Such as, pick It Fence But but?
So here is a sampling of D-White ”substance” -
“Evidently, a preponderance of you guys and gals are a bunch of frantic drama queens…”
“…splashing, but…” -
38. Dwight
I am fascinated by Alaska, but not quite so much by her any more. It’s like she works at sounding like a hick.
October 20, 2010 – 5:14 am
“…when they get in over their depth…” -
Dwight
Can you cite ONE time when Obama has said, “they are against me because I am black?”
July 27, 2010 – 1:36 pm
“…some substance…” -
Dwight
It’s not a huge deal to me, but I’d like to see conclusive evidence that that is Boehner’s natural skin color
January 8, 2011 – 7:15 am
And more “splashing, but” -
Dwight
But you have to admit, there is a pervasive, albeit not universal quality of the posters here of being half-educated.
June 26, 2011 – 5:39 am
“…some people flail…” -
Dwight
Lawrence and Meghan Kelly have pointed out some of the precedent here, but what you see is red meat dangling from a stick and you can’t help drooling.
March 23, 2011 – 9:03 am
“…middle school rhetoric…” -
Dwight
Although Anglo-Germanic grammar can be idiosyncratic, singular subjects like system, take singular verbs. Do not be distracted by other plural elements in the sentence.
March 18, 2011 – 3:45 pm
More “substance” –
52. Dwight
I voted for Obama, but knew that he was just another guy.
Evidently, a preponderance of you guys and gals are a bunch of frantic drama queens…
We can always borrow more, print more money.
February 23, 2011 – 8:29 pm
This is merely the tip of the D-White self induced need to sorta be smart. But the need to slyly superior bleeds through much like Mr. President’s sincerity. Right now D-White is in Modern Liberal Rampage mode. Normally the Ping Pong Tongue simply blathers on aimless bits of wisdom it picked up from existing for so many years in that intellectually superior zone of known as The Faculty Lounge, or he runs to his Federalist Papers, a random roll in some obscure bathroom. Which begets…
He’s getting edgy now. The Modern Liberal comes forth –
“Hell, read Ulysses and you can enjoy Bloom sitting on the toilet for an extended period.”
Anyway, being one of “them” has its benefits, you never really have expend the energy thinking for yourself. Just smile and say yes! “On the toilet”, no less!
But it ain’t him to blame
He’s only a pawn in their game.
Ah, Delia and Mr Lucky.
She writes of small penises and shampoo bottles, a popular theme on Pajamas Media. Good robust discussion.
And Mr Lucky goes into the files, the collected works of D-white for pearls of wisdom which have been cast swineward, or truffles rooted out by our porcine pal and only partially digested.
Robust, indeed.
PJM/Tatler readers may wish to reflect upon a passage from Gen. H. R. McMaster’s famous PhD thesis Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam (a book that is on the USMC Commandant’s Professional Reading List):
What made the stress of our son’s five combat tours bearable for my wife and me, was that the harsh boots-on-the-ground truths that we heard from our son and his fellow Marines, were the same harsh truths that we heard from Mattis, Petraeus, Gates, Mullen, and Obama.
Whatever the harsh realities of this war, the truth’s been told, at both the lowest levels and the highest levels. This truth-telling is good. Necessary. Vital.
Sites like Small Wars Journal take seriously their war-time responsibility to tell these harsh, complicated truths about a long, tough, grinding war … PJM/Tatler should take this responsibility seriously too … as should every American citizen.
We may not agree, but especially in time-of-war, we should respect one another.
It all makes perfect sense when you realize that Republicans and Democrats, or Neocons and Globalists, are all just different flavors of the same Bilderberger Ice Cream. The Right and Left Hands of the same Puppetmaster. The agenda is the Bilderberg Agenda. The faces and the language change from time to time to make us think that we play some role in what happens, or that our vote matters. It does not. No choice is presented to us that is not already pre-approved by the Bilderbergers. No candidate can be elected who is not their pawn. There are two exceptions: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
While unlikely to the extreme, I suppose one would have to admit that if someone that you once totally opposed turned around and did everything that you would want a person in his position to do, your continued opposition would look foolish. That works both ways, I guess.
Think of it this way, the Military Industrial Complex, the democratic and republican party and the neocons all have a lot more in common than the corrupt liberal establishment that screeched and lied to get Obama elected. People who talk and write dreamy visions of who they think Obama is are far left extremists aka the organized. These Liberal extremists are trying to bully a system that is more powerful than the fed gov itself. It doesn’t work the way the liberal extremists want it to and it never will. Both parties have the MIC in common no matter what the weak, euro trash wannabees would like us to think.
War is diplomacy by another means. War leads to democracy. People die in order so that freedom, liberty and democracy shall be ushered in so that the next generation can thrive. Think about it, then watch this 90 second video http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/march-of-democracy.html a historical review of the last 4000 years of democracy. You’ll see that democracy grew fastest after the USA was founded and the USA has brought more freedom to the world than European countries or any other nation. That’s change we can believe in!!! So is what Obama and Bush doing really all that bad? Death and violence is always bad, but would you rather be lead by Bush then Obama versus Adolph Hitler, Lenin, Stalin or Chairman Mao??? Nuff said, right?
Juggernauzt @ Twitter
Cindy Sheehan has been one of the few consistent leftist antiwar, “anti-empire,” activists from the start. Love her or hate her, she hasn’t backed down, and now she faces the IRS for having not paid her taxes (ahem, out of principle, unlike Boy Geithner). As for Michael Moore … typical two-faced ignorant BS.
All this blather and hyperbole about blaming Bush for dragging Obama into conflicts with the muslims is lame.
Witnessing what has happened during Pharoah Obama’s reign, it’s obvious our beloved Pharoah is trying to play it both ways; He’s taking soft swats at easy targets to make it look like he’s upholding America’s stance on muslim militancy, and playing softball in theaters where the muslim militants have been entrenched and rule with an iron fist.
Russia fought in Afghanistan for 10 years, and gained nothing. And now America has too.
Obama’s trying to appear as a “Moderate” to the muslim world. This basically means he will make no decisions that will threaten the militant muslim progress.
In January 2011, his new chief of staff, which I’ll bet you have a hard time remembering, said:
“I believe in Third Way’s unique mission: advancing moderate ideas, challenging orthodoxies and building a big-tent political movement that can attract an enduring majority,”
Third Way is a Democrat think tank chaired by the most radical Democrats in the current administration.
This quote is William Daley’s.
“Pharoah Obama”
That about sums it up.
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OMG. *tears* You nailed it, CG! hahahahahaha
Here we are again, getting our Sunday morning chuckles!
I really can’t take all the credit for calling him the “Pharoah”. Rush has called him that many times. I thought it was highly appropriate.
He certainly does look like most Pharoah’s I’ve seen pictured. Here’s one I’m sure he would appreciate:
http://iamnotarapperispit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/will-pharaoh.jpg
Obama Pursues Bushs Foreign Policy?
Really? Think that there really is a whit of difference between one Tranzi and another? All of these guys are cut from the same cloth. There is little difference on to the other.
Same Fascisti or whatever you want to call them. They have trotted out the “acceptable” GoP talking heads to ‘run’ for the nomination. There really is not much difference one to another. Just in degrees. They will convince some of their ‘Conservative’ or ‘Constitutionalist’ bona fides – enough to put another talking head in place as the last free place on earth is sold to the highest bidder and the spoils stolen and divided.