Obama’s accomplishments so far

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”

Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?

[/quote]

Tea Party influenced politics and political pragmatism, my friend, pragmatism.

Obama cannot be be seen as soft on terrorism.

Same goes with immigration. While Obama increased deportations over the Bush Administration, but he was still accused of being soft on unauthorized immigration and not controlling the border (which is simply not true because Obama was harder in enforcement than Bush).

As I said before, ofentimes in politics, you need to pander to the public to achieve your larger goals.[/quote]

Um, Brian? Uh, yeah, the Tea Party DID NOT EXIST when Obama took office. You’ll note that the article quote references “Candidate Obama”, meaning President-Elect, NOT President (yet).

So, that means Obama was lying on the campaign trail, yes? He knew FULL WELL that he was going to continue the abysmal policies of his predecessor and just bullshitted the American people, correct?

At some point, you’re going to need to admit that Obama is engaged in torture, targeted assassinations, undermining the US Constitution and rule of law and dangerously eroding American civil liberties. And I personally could give a shit WHY he’s doing this, just that HE IS doing this. Frighteningly, you seem perfectly content to excuse it (and rationalize it) while Obama is doing it, but NOT when Dubya did it. Double standard, anyone?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”

Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?

[/quote]

Tea Party influenced politics and political pragmatism, my friend, pragmatism.

Obama cannot be be seen as soft on terrorism.

Same goes with immigration. While Obama increased deportations over the Bush Administration, but he was still accused of being soft on unauthorized immigration and not controlling the border (which is simply not true because Obama was harder in enforcement than Bush).

As I said before, ofentimes in politics, you need to pander to the public to achieve your larger goals.[/quote]

Um, Brian? Uh, yeah, the Tea Party DID NOT EXIST when Obama took office. You’ll note that the article quote references “Candidate Obama”, meaning President-Elect, NOT President (yet).

So, that means Obama was lying on the campaign trail, yes? He knew FULL WELL that he was going to continue the abysmal policies of his predecessor and just bullshitted the American people, correct?

At some point, you’re going to need to admit that Obama is engaged in torture, targeted assassinations, undermining the US Constitution and rule of law and dangerously eroding American civil liberties. And I personally could give a shit WHY he’s doing this, just that HE IS doing this. Frighteningly, you seem perfectly content to excuse it (and rationalize it) while Obama is doing it, but NOT when Dubya did it. Double standard, anyone?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”

Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?

[/quote]

Tea Party influenced politics and political pragmatism, my friend, pragmatism.

Obama cannot be be seen as soft on terrorism.

Same goes with immigration. While Obama increased deportations over the Bush Administration, but he was still accused of being soft on unauthorized immigration and not controlling the border (which is simply not true because Obama was harder in enforcement than Bush).

As I said before, ofentimes in politics, you need to pander to the public to achieve your larger goals.[/quote]

Um, Brian? Uh, yeah, the Tea Party DID NOT EXIST when Obama took office. You’ll note that the article quote references “Candidate Obama”, meaning President-Elect, NOT President (yet).

So, that means Obama was lying on the campaign trail, yes? He knew FULL WELL that he was going to continue the abysmal policies of his predecessor and just bullshitted the American people, correct?

At some point, you’re going to need to admit that Obama is engaged in torture, targeted assassinations, undermining the US Constitution and rule of law and dangerously eroding American civil liberties. And I personally could give a shit WHY he’s doing this, just that HE IS doing this. Frighteningly, you seem perfectly content to excuse it (and rationalize it) while Obama is doing it, but NOT when Dubya did it. Double standard, anyone?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).

[/quote]

Yes, I support an American Empire. But a softer, gentler one based on earning the hearts and minds of people through American democratic principles, but also through the brands, consumer lifestyle ideas and products and technology that we sell.

National interests come first. But humanitarian principles should be part of our foreign policy.

There are times when military force is necessary. But I generally believe that commerce, relations and people exchange achieve a lot more than intransigence and hard demands that we make under threat of force.[/quote]

Brian: How about assassinations? Does that fall under “hard” or “soft” power? You do know that Obama spent a huge chunk of change on covert US forces in Libya, right?

Everything from US SOF forces to CIA paramilitaries to US-backed insurgent hit teams. You don’t think we did this just with airpower, did you? Not so much.

Obama’s “kinder, gentler” American Empire is the same American Empire that’s been rolling since Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet pulled into harbors across the globe and showed American “power projection”.

He is just as willing as Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon, or LBJ to put bullets into the heads of those who oppose our wanting to take their shit. It might look and smell nicer, but the bodies hit the dirt just the same.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).

[/quote]

Yes, I support an American Empire. But a softer, gentler one based on earning the hearts and minds of people through American democratic principles, but also through the brands, consumer lifestyle ideas and products and technology that we sell.

National interests come first. But humanitarian principles should be part of our foreign policy.

There are times when military force is necessary. But I generally believe that commerce, relations and people exchange achieve a lot more than intransigence and hard demands that we make under threat of force.[/quote]

Brian: How about assassinations? Does that fall under “hard” or “soft” power? You do know that Obama spent a huge chunk of change on covert US forces in Libya, right?

Everything from US SOF forces to CIA paramilitaries to US-backed insurgent hit teams. You don’t think we did this just with airpower, did you? Not so much.

Obama’s “kinder, gentler” American Empire is the same American Empire that’s been rolling since Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet pulled into harbors across the globe and showed American “power projection”.

He is just as willing as Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon, or LBJ to put bullets into the heads of those who oppose our wanting to take their shit. It might look and smell nicer, but the bodies hit the dirt just the same.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).

[/quote]

Yes, I support an American Empire. But a softer, gentler one based on earning the hearts and minds of people through American democratic principles, but also through the brands, consumer lifestyle ideas and products and technology that we sell.

National interests come first. But humanitarian principles should be part of our foreign policy.

There are times when military force is necessary. But I generally believe that commerce, relations and people exchange achieve a lot more than intransigence and hard demands that we make under threat of force.[/quote]

Brian: How about assassinations? Does that fall under “hard” or “soft” power? You do know that Obama spent a huge chunk of change on covert US forces in Libya, right?

Everything from US SOF forces to CIA paramilitaries to US-backed insurgent hit teams. You don’t think we did this just with airpower, did you? Not so much.

Obama’s “kinder, gentler” American Empire is the same American Empire that’s been rolling since Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet pulled into harbors across the globe and showed American “power projection”.

He is just as willing as Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon, or LBJ to put bullets into the heads of those who oppose our wanting to take their shit. It might look and smell nicer, but the bodies hit the dirt just the same.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Any thoughts on this, pri?[/quote]

Allan, c’mon, we’ve already been through this. My explanation is simple, but you insist on making it complicated. Let me try to spell it out again:

– Obama doesn’t want to appear soft in the war on terror. So he’s not going to make any dramatic policy shifts or do anything that Fox news can latch onto as being “easy” on terrorists. He also cannot afford to risk that one of his decisions becomes associated with an actual terrorist event (e.g. releasing someone due to lack of evidence only to have the suspect commit a terrorist act later.) Americans just don’t want to accept that supporting civil liberties involves risk, and sometimes those risks come to realization.

– Obama can’t afford to alienate the military. As I’m sure you know, many people in the military and intelligence agencies are not as enlightened as you are about the importance of civil liberties with regard to national security (and I mean that sincerely – that you are in “enlightened” – and I absolutely agree with you about the importance of the issue.)

So, you are right, he is trading liberty for security. He’s violating some of our core principles. His main reasons for doing so are practical ones, and probably even somewhat self-serving (depending upon his long-term objectives, which we don’t know.)

It’s not that hard to see what’s going on. From the beginning, he was trying not to lose the 2012 election.

But something I think you misunderstand is that I never claimed the guy was a saint. He certainly is not some noble superhero. But he’s not a demon or a failure either. He’s just the best choice for the job, given the available field.

I always thought that folks on the left who accepted Obama’s promises that he was going to end all this ugly stuff were ridiculously naive. I’m rather surprised that you actually hold him to this standard as well. Yep, he lied on his campaign promises, and probably intended to do so all along. Guess, what? He’s a politician.

I did expect Obama to make a few token gestures – maybe he could have closed Gitmo, for what that’s worth. But he’d be a fool to make this a front-and-center issue, and the opposition would ensure it was just that if he even tried to keep half his promises.

We’ve never really had a President that would have done what you want Obama to do (maybe Lincoln, maybe Teddy Roosevelt, but those are weak “maybes…”)

Even the “good” wars in our history have some ugly sides to them.As long as we have to fight these guys (probably forever, to some degree), we will be always be testing the limits civil liberties.

I also wish Obama would try a little harder, but understand why he doesn’t.

[Edit: I just noticed Brian beat me to my response as I was typing this.]

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Any thoughts on this, pri?[/quote]

Allan, c’mon, we’ve already been through this. My explanation is simple, but you insist on making it complicated. Let me try to spell it out again:

– Obama doesn’t want to appear soft in the war on terror. So he’s not going to make any dramatic policy shifts or do anything that Fox news can latch onto as being “easy” on terrorists. He also cannot afford to risk that one of his decisions becomes associated with an actual terrorist event (e.g. releasing someone due to lack of evidence only to have the suspect commit a terrorist act later.) Americans just don’t want to accept that supporting civil liberties involves risk, and sometimes those risks come to realization.

– Obama can’t afford to alienate the military. As I’m sure you know, many people in the military and intelligence agencies are not as enlightened as you are about the importance of civil liberties with regard to national security (and I mean that sincerely – that you are in “enlightened” – and I absolutely agree with you about the importance of the issue.)

So, you are right, he is trading liberty for security. He’s violating some of our core principles. His main reasons for doing so are practical ones, and probably even somewhat self-serving (depending upon his long-term objectives, which we don’t know.)

It’s not that hard to see what’s going on. From the beginning, he was trying not to lose the 2012 election.

But something I think you misunderstand is that I never claimed the guy was a saint. He certainly is not some noble superhero. But he’s not a demon or a failure either. He’s just the best choice for the job, given the available field.

I always thought that folks on the left who accepted Obama’s promises that he was going to end all this ugly stuff were ridiculously naive. I’m rather surprised that you actually hold him to this standard as well. Yep, he lied on his campaign promises, and probably intended to do so all along. Guess, what? He’s a politician.

I did expect Obama to make a few token gestures – maybe he could have closed Gitmo, for what that’s worth. But he’d be a fool to make this a front-and-center issue, and the opposition would ensure it was just that if he even tried to keep half his promises.

We’ve never really had a President that would have done what you want Obama to do (maybe Lincoln, maybe Teddy Roosevelt, but those are weak “maybes…”)

Even the “good” wars in our history have some ugly sides to them.As long as we have to fight these guys (probably forever, to some degree), we will be always be testing the limits civil liberties.

I also wish Obama would try a little harder, but understand why he doesn’t.

[Edit: I just noticed Brian beat me to my response as I was typing this.]

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Any thoughts on this, pri?[/quote]

Allan, c’mon, we’ve already been through this. My explanation is simple, but you insist on making it complicated. Let me try to spell it out again:

– Obama doesn’t want to appear soft in the war on terror. So he’s not going to make any dramatic policy shifts or do anything that Fox news can latch onto as being “easy” on terrorists. He also cannot afford to risk that one of his decisions becomes associated with an actual terrorist event (e.g. releasing someone due to lack of evidence only to have the suspect commit a terrorist act later.) Americans just don’t want to accept that supporting civil liberties involves risk, and sometimes those risks come to realization.

– Obama can’t afford to alienate the military. As I’m sure you know, many people in the military and intelligence agencies are not as enlightened as you are about the importance of civil liberties with regard to national security (and I mean that sincerely – that you are in “enlightened” – and I absolutely agree with you about the importance of the issue.)

So, you are right, he is trading liberty for security. He’s violating some of our core principles. His main reasons for doing so are practical ones, and probably even somewhat self-serving (depending upon his long-term objectives, which we don’t know.)

It’s not that hard to see what’s going on. From the beginning, he was trying not to lose the 2012 election.

But something I think you misunderstand is that I never claimed the guy was a saint. He certainly is not some noble superhero. But he’s not a demon or a failure either. He’s just the best choice for the job, given the available field.

I always thought that folks on the left who accepted Obama’s promises that he was going to end all this ugly stuff were ridiculously naive. I’m rather surprised that you actually hold him to this standard as well. Yep, he lied on his campaign promises, and probably intended to do so all along. Guess, what? He’s a politician.

I did expect Obama to make a few token gestures – maybe he could have closed Gitmo, for what that’s worth. But he’d be a fool to make this a front-and-center issue, and the opposition would ensure it was just that if he even tried to keep half his promises.

We’ve never really had a President that would have done what you want Obama to do (maybe Lincoln, maybe Teddy Roosevelt, but those are weak “maybes…”)

Even the “good” wars in our history have some ugly sides to them.As long as we have to fight these guys (probably forever, to some degree), we will be always be testing the limits civil liberties.

I also wish Obama would try a little harder, but understand why he doesn’t.

[Edit: I just noticed Brian beat me to my response as I was typing this.]

[Aecetia]

Allan,

Here is the soundtrack to your post:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1600681-golden-earring-twilight-zone

[Aecetia]

Allan,

Here is the soundtrack to your post:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1600681-golden-earring-twilight-zone

[Aecetia]

Allan,

Here is the soundtrack to your post:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1600681-golden-earring-twilight-zone

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Obama’s “kinder, gentler” American Empire is the same American Empire that’s been rolling since Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet pulled into harbors across the globe and showed American “power projection”.

He is just as willing as Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon, or LBJ to put bullets into the heads of those who oppose our wanting to take their shit. It might look and smell nicer, but the bodies hit the dirt just the same.[/quote]

At first glance you are correct.

But as you said, especially in diplomacy, words have meanings.

I believe that Democrats are kinder, gentler. Republicans are the intransigent kinds who by making sine qua non demands on other countries back us into corners from which we cannot extricate ourselves. The very nature of diplomacy and foreign policy is that there is continuity.

For example, let’s look at Cuba. Republican presidents’ tough talk on Cuba have prevented rapprochement. So we ended up with a Cuban leadership that hardened towards the US. That’s brought the two countries closer to conflict and imposed humanitarian hardship on the Cuban people.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Obama’s “kinder, gentler” American Empire is the same American Empire that’s been rolling since Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet pulled into harbors across the globe and showed American “power projection”.

He is just as willing as Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon, or LBJ to put bullets into the heads of those who oppose our wanting to take their shit. It might look and smell nicer, but the bodies hit the dirt just the same.[/quote]

At first glance you are correct.

But as you said, especially in diplomacy, words have meanings.

I believe that Democrats are kinder, gentler. Republicans are the intransigent kinds who by making sine qua non demands on other countries back us into corners from which we cannot extricate ourselves. The very nature of diplomacy and foreign policy is that there is continuity.

For example, let’s look at Cuba. Republican presidents’ tough talk on Cuba have prevented rapprochement. So we ended up with a Cuban leadership that hardened towards the US. That’s brought the two countries closer to conflict and imposed humanitarian hardship on the Cuban people.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Obama’s “kinder, gentler” American Empire is the same American Empire that’s been rolling since Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet pulled into harbors across the globe and showed American “power projection”.

He is just as willing as Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon, or LBJ to put bullets into the heads of those who oppose our wanting to take their shit. It might look and smell nicer, but the bodies hit the dirt just the same.[/quote]

At first glance you are correct.

But as you said, especially in diplomacy, words have meanings.

I believe that Democrats are kinder, gentler. Republicans are the intransigent kinds who by making sine qua non demands on other countries back us into corners from which we cannot extricate ourselves. The very nature of diplomacy and foreign policy is that there is continuity.

For example, let’s look at Cuba. Republican presidents’ tough talk on Cuba have prevented rapprochement. So we ended up with a Cuban leadership that hardened towards the US. That’s brought the two countries closer to conflict and imposed humanitarian hardship on the Cuban people.

[Author]

Posts