Brief Obama Critique

[Ned Ryerson]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

I consider Jefferson a great president and he too would be judged a racist today. My bigger concern with Wilson and FDR and to a lesser extent LBJ is their wholesale disregard for the limits of their office and the disrespect they had for our form of government, a limited government. Their disdain for our Constitutional order and its guarantees. Some of the things FDR did are shocking, even today. The harm they have done is long lasting and Obama seems quite comfortable to continue the trend.

I don't think "racist" does justice enough to a slave owner. I will forever disdain him as a president for this and for his cooperation with France in crippling the young Haitian government, whose revolutionary leaders had drawn inspiration from America's own revolution, only to have theirs shunned because of fears that it would inspire more slave rebellions in the US.

For consistency's sake, can I assume you also deride Lincoln for his suspension of habeus corpus and complete ignoring of Ex parte Merryman?

[Marlow]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

lonewolf, for someone who likes to keep friendships, that was indeed an odd overture. but, yes, you're still a cool guy.

I personally think George W may have been the LEAST competent president we have EVER had, and that's saying a lot. I was truly embarrassed for my nation that he was the titular head for 8 years. I thought Reagan a total buffoon (but likable). But . . . truth be told, I have been disappointed in Obama (not that I don't think he's MUCH better than any of the Rep candidates). Our government is in a partisan shambles right now, with no light at the end of an interminable tunnel. We'd muddle through; we always do. But this is not America's finest hour, I'll grant you that.

[jazzcyclist]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

I don't see how you can lay this at the feet of W, considering the nearly unanimous support for the invasion of Afghanistan in Congress (518-1) and among the American people (93%) in Fall 2001. Hell, both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted for it, and in a poll conducted in Berkley, CA at the time, 70% of those folks voted for it. I remember the mood of the country back then, and if W had done nothing, he might have been impeached.

Was congress partly responsible? Yes, but was what Bush and Cheney wanted all along. And they lie to congress and the UN(who called their criminal asses out)Revenge for daddy? The idiot stated numerous times that being a War President would give him political leverage.

This horrific catastrophe is simply bush's baby...no rationalization will absolve that war criminal...who is scared to travel overseas because he knows that certain Nations will try to nab his ass a send him to The Hague.

I think you're confused and conflating Afghanistan with Iraq, because Congress certainly wasn't bamboozled into invading Afghanistan. Go back and check the chronology. We were attacked on 9/11/01, and before W even had a chance to go to Capitol Hill and address Congress, it had already passed a war authorization bill on 9/14/01. A few days later, French President Jacques Chirac flew to Washington and was the first foreign leader to offer troops for the invasion, after which most of the NATO members made similar offers. Nor was the U.N. bamboozled when it unanimously authorized an Afghanistan invasion on 9/28/01 after only three minutes of deliberation.

And FYI, the U.N. was never bamboozled on Iraq which is why it never authorized W's Iraq War and Kofi Annan called it a violation of international law. Furthermore, while W and Cheney certainly had designs on Iraq when they took office, I believe Afghanistan was the furthest thing from their minds, but after 9/11 they couldn't ignore it.

[Pego]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

I have trouble pinning much blame on quagmires like Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan on any particular president of either party. To paraphrase Willie S a bit, "there are tides in the affairs of men…"

Meaning, that there are just things that rise up and confront the wisest of men and a decision either way is destined to be the wrong one. Such is the nature of human conflict.

I find Obama horridly disappointing in terms of what he promised and what he is delivering (on things that he most definitely has the whip hand on). He's another big-city hack intent on running a business-as-usual political machine.

I will, however, being a 1000% backer of socialized medicine, count him as one of the best presidents ever just for having the balls to try to get that time bomb of a topic moving through the pipeline.

I'll co-sign this.

[jeremyp]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

My opinion of Obama has gone from reluctant "fan" to reluctant "disappointed fan" but with the realization that history is based on looking back, rather than living through. I am also of the opinion that the last 2 POTUS' have been dealt a most difficult reality to deal with. At home we have to deal with a political system that is sclerotic. Where are the Statesmen? The Compromisers? Obama is no LBJ in his poor work with the opposition. Abroad He has had to deal with forces that run themselves and seem immune to parental guidance, but he has seen over fewer and fewer American deaths, and a decreased military aggressiveness. The economy is recovering, in spite of the right's insistence that austerity was the answer, while ever feeding at the public trough. At least for me there is something to be said for speaking softly and not over using the Big Stick.

[user4]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

For consistency's sake, can I assume you also deride Lincoln for his suspension of habeus corpus and complete ignoring of Ex parte Merryman?

Yes, I do have problems with some of what Lincoln did and I do think the nation could have freed the slaves without killing at least 1/2 a million men in the process, though some certainly did give their lives knowing they were freeing others. Nevertheless I rate Lincoln as a great president because he acted to free slaves, thus expanding liberty and the scope of the original constitution's guarantees. It could be argued that war was happening whether Lincoln wanted it or not. I dont know if I totally buy that but I still see Lincoln as a top-10 president.

I fear though that the size and scope of the federal government through the civil war period unleashed a kind of statism on the country that will never be rolled back. The indian wars that followed are a sad reminder of that and the bureaucratic largess is still with us.

Today, when the average American thinks of some good that can be done his immediate instinct is to think that the federal government should either mandate it or actual do it. That is a complete transformation of the American psyche.

[expat]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

So on the one side we have references to the "incompetency, lies, hypocricy, imperialism and dangerous, harmful actions" (none of them specified) of the President; and on the other, he's a "big-city hack intent on running a business-as-usual political machine" but at least he got some kind of healthcare reform passed.

Fainted with damn praise, eh? I like the guy. I don't always agree with him, tactically or substantively (I'm way to his left), but I think he's the smartest and pleasantest President since ... (Adlai Stevenson? Oh, wait ...) probably FDR, the fascist warmonger who was also (magically, simultaneously) the treacherous dupe of the Comintern. Funny how bent out of shape people get. (See also my own rants about Thatcher!) Go Rupp!

[beebee]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

I don't see how you can lay this at the feet of W, considering the nearly unanimous support for the invasion of Afghanistan in Congress (518-1) and among the American people (93%) in Fall 2001. Hell, both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted for it, and in a poll conducted in Berkley, CA at the time, 70% of those folks voted for it. I remember the mood of the country back then, and if W had done nothing, he might have been impeached.

Was congress partly responsible? Yes, but was what Bush and Cheney wanted all along. And they lie to congress and the UN(who called their criminal asses out)Revenge for daddy? The idiot stated numerous times that being a War President would give him political leverage.

This horrific catastrophe is simply bush's baby...no rationalization will absolve that war criminal...who is scared to travel overseas because he knows that certain Nations will try to nab his ass a send him to The Hague.

I think you're confused and conflating Afghanistan with Iraq, because Congress certainly wasn't bamboozled into invading Afghanistan. Go back and check the chronology. We were attacked on 9/11/01, and before W even had a chance to go to Capitol Hill and address Congress, it had already passed a war authorization bill on 9/14/01. A few days later, French President Jacques Chirac flew to Washington and was the first foreign leader to offer troops for the invasion, after which most of the NATO members made similar offers. Nor was the U.N. bamboozled when it unanimously authorized an Afghanistan invasion on 9/28/01 after only three minutes of deliberation.

And FYI, the U.N. was never bamboozled on Iraq which is why it never authorized W's Iraq War and Kofi Annan called it a violation of international law. Furthermore, while W and Cheney certainly had designs on Iraq when they took office, I believe Afghanistan was the furthest thing from their minds, but after 9/11 they couldn't ignore it.

Not confused at all. 19 terrorists sent by OBL's organization attacked us on 9/11/01. Attacking and invading Afghanistan was a war crime...those people did nothing to us.

I have friends from all over the world and most of them view us Anericans as violent gun loving cowboys who beat up on small poor harmless countries. And they consider us to be terrorists.

[TN1965]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

My biggest disappointment in Obama is that he saved Chrysler. That automaker should have gone out of business along with their shitty cars. :wink:

[user4]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

Not confused at all. 19 terrorists sent by OBL's organization attacked us on 9/11/01. Attacking and invading Afghanistan was a war crime...those people did nothing to us.

My recollection of events was that there was a period of negotiations, between the US and the Afgan "Taliban" government for apprehension and turn over of OBL and all complicit ALQ leaders on charges of organizing the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban gave it consideration and would not turn him/them over. The war was the final result of the escalation. At some point OBL issued the famous tapes of himself taking credit for the 9/11 attacks. Our war against the Taliban was a war to remove ALQ and its terrorist network from Afghanistan and our cause actually merged with existing Afghan northern alliance forces within Afghanistan.

You might not be confused, you could just be wrong.

[scottmitchell74]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

I have friends from all over the world and most of them view us Anericans as violent gun loving cowboys who beat up on small poor harmless countries. And they consider us to be terrorists.

And yet the World flocks to our borders, imitates us on a grand scale, calls on us first when things go wrong, happily make us of our advances, and wish their country(s) had 1/2 the freedoms we have. Oh, and when they do come over here and get a chance to tote a gun and wear a cowboy hat...you should see the look on their faces! Merica!

[Ned Ryerson]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

I fear though that the size and scope of the federal government through the civil war period unleashed a kind of statism on the country that will never be rolled back. The indian wars that followed are a sad reminder of that and the bureaucratic largess is still with us.

Today, when the average American thinks of some good that can be done his immediate instinct is to think that the federal government should either mandate it or actual do it. That is a complete transformation of the American psyche.

Can you describe for us your ideal society for a country on the scale of the United States? I'm trying to get a sense of the relationship between the citizen and the state (level of support and interference between the two) that you think is achievable in a country of substantial area and population.

[user4]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

I fear though that the size and scope of the federal government through the civil war period unleashed a kind of statism on the country that will never be rolled back. The indian wars that followed are a sad reminder of that and the bureaucratic largess is still with us.

Today, when the average American thinks of some good that can be done his immediate instinct is to think that the federal government should either mandate it or actual do it. That is a complete transformation of the American psyche.

Can you describe for us your ideal society for a country on the scale of the United States? I'm trying to get a sense of the relationship between the citizen and the state (level of support and interference between the two) that you think is achievable in a country of substantial area and population.

I have no ideal society because there are no ideal men. Checks and balances are generally good, liberty to provide for yourself and your family are a surer foundation for civil society than any totalitarian socialist statist model I have seen .. An all encompassing powerful state generally stifles liberty, creativity and productivity. It often becomes the tool of the most powerful and wealth devouring interests. That seems to be the trend, bigger more powerful and wealthy governments seem to be a symptom of more concentrated wealth and power within a society with the government serving the interests of the most wealthy.

If I had to design a sysem that could plunder and loot the working people of a society and funnel the cash to wealthy corporations I would push for an all powerful government that promised everything to everyone. Orwell and Russel knew the game well.

[TN1965]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

That seems to be the trend, bigger more powerful and wealthy governments seem to be a symptom of more concentrated wealth and power within a society with the government serving the interests of the most wealthy.

So Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway all have smaller governments than the United States? What do you mean by "small" then? A higher marginal tax rate equals a smaller government? :roll:

[beebee]

Re: Brief Obama Critique

Not confused at all. 19 terrorists sent by OBL's organization attacked us on 9/11/01. Attacking and invading Afghanistan was a war crime...those people did nothing to us.

My recollection of events was that there was a period of negotiations, between the US and the Afgan "Taliban" government for apprehension and turn over of OBL and all complicit ALQ leaders on charges of organizing the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban gave it consideration and would not turn him/them over. The war was the final result of the escalation. At some point OBL issued the famous tapes of himself taking credit for the 9/11 attacks. Our war against the Taliban was a war to remove ALQ and its terrorist network from Afghanistan and our cause actually merged with existing Afghan northern alliance forces within Afghanistan.

You might not be confused, you could just be wrong.

So we bombed a helpless innocent nation because bad guys live there?

You do realize that we negotiate with these bad Taliban?

The Afghan war was never just. Obama sent seal team six into Pakistan to kill 9/11's orchestrator. Had tough guy Bush done the same thing when OBL was stuck in Tora Bora we could have saved lives and our national treasure...and our reputation.