Got so busy yesterday I forgot to post my response to Obama's speech. I thought it wasn't his best in terms of presentation. Maybe the audience—especially the front row, of mostly old white men and a lot of them in uniform—caused him to seem at times a little more defensive than usual.
But in terms of content, no matter what you think of his Libya strategy you have to admit it was more honest than I remember any president ever being about any military action our country has taken part in, at least in my lifetime.
He answered his critics, was blunt about the folly of the Iraq invasion and the lack of a quick response where massacres could have been prevented in other places, but also blunt about how the U.S. can't prevent all the tyrannical oppression and violence against civilians that occurs in the world.
I'm one of those who believe a horrible massacre has been avoided by the actions taken by Obama with the support of NATO and the Arab League and mandated by the U.N. Now there's an obvious quandary about how much support to give to the rebels in light of Qaddafi's superior artillery. I'd like to see a ceasefire and negotiations because that could stop any further deaths and violence.
But it seems in the areas Qaddafi controls, the violence and repression and against many civilians continues, so the justification is there for more support for the rebels until they are able to get Qaddafi out either by force or his support diminishing to the point of inevitable defeat.
It's not an easy situation to resolve in any ideal way, but then, most tough situations in life aren't resolved easily. But given the realities—and a lot about the Obama administration that I don't agree with or wish they'd do more the way I'd like to see things go—Obama is still handling the challenges he's had to face since taking office with much more honesty and intelligence than most presidents in my lifetime, and in many cases any of them, and that goes for this "military action" as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
For the better part of a year, I've been hearing about the need for an "adult conversation" from the critics of the Obama administration. Monday evening we had an encapsulated version of just that. Now there seems to be a whole lot of noise in the circuitry about the Obama Doctrine being too cold, calculated, and much too situational rather than a broadly inclusive position on America's involvement in crisis ridden areas around the globe. Really! This guy can't win. It's as though they want more politics and poetry than pragmatism.
Obviously we have an adult in the room, but the kids aren't listening - or they're just revolting - because that's what kids are/do ...
And "situational" is the most practical application of foreign policy I've seen in decades.
Well put man, netter than I did.
Bush went to congress for approval on Afganistan and Iraq. Obama sought approval overseas.
Watching the Obama Presidency, makes a student of history pine for Presidents James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Jimma Carter. Who knew that Obama has a excellant chance of surplanting them as the worst US president in history.
here is Gerald Ford's 1975 speech...
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/750028.htm
what EVER became of his 'energy policy'?
now 2011 same old same old...
they all sound alike they all do alike...must be that they (our leaders... on all sides & in the middle) really aren't running things?
I would hope that our leader would act in league with the world community in such a situation.
Jim's choice of language, i.e. "Jimma" Carter, reveals his ignorance and low mind, i.e. prejudice. He refers to himself as a student of American History, but first he should become a student of spelling, grammar and sentence structure. We all make typos in this age of keyboards and information overload, but his lack of care and respect in what he writes and in how he writes it once again undermines any semblance of credibility and being taken seriously.
Jim;
At this point we pretty much 'get' why you and your type do what you do. Whether it's to follow some faction of your party-line bully tactics to create distraction from the real issues, or to satisfy some latent need to legitimize your voice in cyber world - it still comes off as being more entertaining than substantive. But it's entertainment that draws people to view horrific YouTube posts of train wrecks and brutality. Given your mentors, I should be surprised?
That's more of a problem than a solution.
The "noise in the circuitry" I referred to earlier is exactly what's contributing to the demise of rational, intelligent, problem solving in American politics (and probably culture at large). Having a voice doesn't necessarily entitle one to speak. There's a reason why - during an 'adult conversation', the old adage suggests that children should be seen and not heard.
I do take offense to your unjust criticism of the Obama Administration - and though I'm not 100% satisfied with all his policies, the record needs to be set straight in terms of the quality of his Presidency.
"He" and his successors (regardless of party) are facing the most difficult problems in modern history:
- problems far beyond the scope of his predecessors
- problems complicated by balances of global interdependency
- problems that obviously require a new paradigm
in politics beyond myopic nationalism
This is the "adult conversation" that people with less pragmatic resources are pining for but their own habits of 'same ole' politics is threatened by ...
Obama needs to be commended for his steadfast, intelligent, and dignified leadership during this transitional period of global conscientiousness.
Sadly Jim, I believe all the right-wing spin and tea party nonsense has jaded me. Today I'm less shocked by what you represent and your ridiculous delusions than I am of Lally's beneficence in allowing you to develop your thoughts. You should be grateful while taking your place in history.
Paul,
My type, as you say believe in the US Founding documents. Obama apparently does not. Witness his takewover and interference in the Finance, Auto and health industries autocratic use of executive powers etc.. He and your type seek to trash the 1st Amendment with the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. All in all I believe my type is more consistant with American values based on the constitution. Yours and Obama's type is more comfortable with autocratic rule.
woops, that should be: "who subsequently alters or voids laws" etc.
(blame it on my brain surgery)
according to OUR LAWS Obama IN ORDER TO GO TO WAR
was DUTY BOUND to go to congress ..
his "preemptive war" is gonna" strangle our meager resources
He didn't even wait until NATO "confirmed" that Libyans were/are being "murdered" by Qadaffi
Obama is both violating OUR constitutional protocol AND NATOS mandate!
Kucinich speaking some sanity right now...
NOW Hilary Clinton is getting ready in spite of NATO'S arms embargo to arm the rebels.
this is Amateur Hour Foreign Politics.
Anonymous represents a strong sentiment on the left about the whole Libya thing, but a lot of the pundits and critics on the left were also part of the chorus criticizing Bill Clinton for not stopping the Rwanda bloodbath. Kucinich might be among them. Sometimes hard choices are made and treasure is spent and lives lost in order to save a much greater number (I certainly would have been grateful if the USA or someone else had stopped Hitler and his gang early on when their massacres were still mostly pending, even if thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, over twelve million would have been saved!). And as for "Amateur Hour"—I think Anonymous has Bush/Cheney in mind. So far Obama's foreign policy has been working amazingly well given the economic and political dynamics he's had to deal with. Certainly better than what came before, for the last several decades in fact.
Robert,
I look to Samuel Clemmens for inspiration on phonetic spelling for "Jimma". Mark Twain,that giant of American literature, changed the way Americans thought anf wrote. It is altogether proper, that the bumbling anti Israeli peanut farmer be addressed as Jimma in the grand tradition of the South.
I'll leave his last comment in as an illustration of another of his misinformed lies. Jimmy Carter was not anti-Israel, and only an ill-informed or poorly educated person would say that—or one whose ideology and its propaganda machine demands he say it even if he is educated and informed enough to know it's not true.
He's at it again, calling me schoolyard names and saying I never say what his lies are! When that's exactly what I clearly did in my comment above that he was responding to! So let me say it more simply: Jimmy Carter was not and is not anti-Israel or anti-Israeli, no matter how many times someone says it. He did more for peace in the Middle East, which is exactly what most Israelis were hoping for, than any other president before or since, as well as providing the most foreign aid at the time to any country in the world to Israel. But he also is not anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, which some on the right confuse with being "anti-Israeli."
Jimma clearly has advocated for the Palestinians. Lally is still a jerk and the tea party folk and the righteous people who support the US Constitution and oppose Sariah law in America will prevail, if we defeat Obama and the Democrats.
Man, you go to sleep on the East Coast and wake up to find a comment from a later time zone before you can delete it for being childishly abusive. But I'll let it stand anyway, just to exemplify the lack of reason and logic in the right's rants, or anything much based on reality. Kind of predictable for a rightwinger to resort to name calling when their accusations are refuted. Ironic too, isn't it, how his response actually proves the point I was making in the comment he's responding to!
The deletion after his comment was an error on my part in my response, and I accidentally deleted an earlier comment of mine that unfortunately is part of the thread I kept. So for the record, and for anyone who's following this thread and cares about the arguments being made (or unmade) here's the comment I accidentally deleted earlier, it goes right before my short "woops" correction several comments earlier:
Since there's been a bit of a dialogue in this thread and the comments were made before I could delete the obvious culprit who spreads misinformation, disinformation and outright lies, I'm letting them stand.
But the last comment is another in a long line of examples of how the right lies in the framing of arguments. A democratically elected president and a democratically elected Congress that passes legislation and takes actions that the right doesn't like is "autocratic" but a president who is put into office by the rightwing activist faction of the Supreme Court and not elected democratically who subsequently and alters or voids law passed by a democratically elected Congress by issuing "signing statements" and therefore is by definition "autocratic" is not...et-endlessly-cetera.
just how many "anons" DO you have?
heck, this "anon" would NEVER use the word 'autocratic'
and
just how IS our election "democratic"? We only have choices from amongst those who BIG MONEY .... allows
us to vote for..... and then, "hanging chards" rule.
here:
this .... circus event
is what got us into the mess we are now in:
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2008/01/17/the-legacy-of-hanging-chads
good ole Supreme Court 5/4 !
To delete or not to delete. That is the question. It is wonderous to see a liberal mind at work.
well
when you get to be OLD
you become ... automatically ....
Conservative
you join AARP, buy a rocking- chair
and
retreat into memories
& fantasies
any meaningful points become
lost in pointless blather and, at best, cliches
pushing the"delete" button is akin to
bombing 'them' in a "preemptive war"
A computer delete button is "akin" to actual bombs being dropped in an actual war? And talk about "cliches"—"...join AARP, buy a rocking-chair" etc, I wish I had a rocking chair, I always did have one in my homes when I was in my twenties and thirties. Oh well, guess I'm just not a cliche sometimes.
Jim you are a moron and a flaming hypocrit. I am disabled and can barely walk, but I'll meet you and any ten of your teapocrit culties anywhere, any time and teach you a thing or two. put your dukes up where your punky little mouth is. Michael, plese leave this up for a minute so Jimmass can see it.
Robert,
Pls list anything that I have said that is hypocritical or moronic(flaming or not). I live in Colorado. You are always welcome to visit. We can meet for what ever reason you name.
ps The Founders would certainly say "President Carter," who, not so incidentally, is extremely active even now, building houses for those in need even in his - a man who walks the walk. And please your so called justification for using "Jimma" based on history, custom, etc is a very thinly veiled dig/putdown. Have the nads to own this at very least.
as cited above, your so called allegiance and reverence to the Founding principals and then your constant, ill-intended use of figures of speech such as "Jimma" - prime example of your hypocrisy.
Obama is the only president that I have ill reguard that exceeds my ill reguard for Jimma. Jimma helped kick off today's Islamic Terrorism. Jimma has actively worked to end Israel as a country. Israel is probably our only true ally in the world, besides Britain. Obama has taken over where Jimma left off.
Ps Do not give me your crap about the founders. The Jefferson Adams election was one of the dirtiest electiond, complete with political payoffs. If you really want to talk about political excess, check out John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson. Robert, maybe should read a little history before you spout off.
maybe you should carry an eight pack of toilet paper before you spout off, Jimmass.
Robert, You are inventive. Does that pass as literary in your circles?
And oh, so the Founders were fallable? and being so, we should hold their imagined principles above the exigencies of life today for what reason?
Robert,
Men are fallible. Madison addressed this in the Federalist Papers. To paraphrase, if men were angels, there would be no need of law or a constitution limiting the powers of government.
This is an excerpt from Ben Stein' commentary on Obama's Libya and Eygpt policy as the Muslim Brotherhood is about to take over.
"Two questions:
Whose side is Mr. Obama on?
Where is Richard Nixon when we need him?"
Oh, now I remember. He was a peacemaker. He was crucified.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/01/foolish-thoughts/1
The lies are piling up again so the resident rightwinger can go blow off steam on some rightwing blog that buys them. But the idea of Nixon as a "peacemaker" makes my stomach turn. I have friends who died because Nixon lied and sold the voters on his having a "secret plan" to end the war in Viet Nam when all he did was expand it so that it lasted for six more years and hundreds of thousands of people died who didn't need to. At least those of us to the left of the rightwingers (which puts us anywhere from socialists to the few moderate Republicans still not quite extinct) were honest about LBJ (and he was too) messing up by getting involved in Viet Nam militarily. But anyone who attempts to defend Nixon as "a peacemaker" deserves one of the more terrible levels of Dante's inferno for their reward.
Lally,
You are obviously unfamiliar with Nixon's China trip. It took Republican albeit a liberal Republican to do it. Did you enjoy the rest of Ben Stein's article. It is a shame you deleted Mark Steyn's article, it too had great humor and insight. Have you noticed how liberals are nasty like Bill Maher, whom you have expressed repeated admiration for. Do you think it is funny to call women who disagree with you politically, c***s and t***s?
Rush, Anne Coulter, Mark Steyn are funny yet insightful and rarely if ever vulgar.
You sealed the deal on that one. Calling Rush, Anne Coulter and Mark Steyn insightful and not vulgar makes you certifiably insane! And makes me insane for engaging in dialog with a lunatic!
I think you've reached a logical conclusion Robert. I almost wrenched my neck doing a double triple take on his last comment which had nothing to do with what you or I had been commenting on, and the idea of Nixon as a "liberal"?! He faced the power of a more liberal Democratic Party that at times controlled the Congress and before which he made concessions, but he was anything but a liberal. To paraphrase a famous quote, I know liberals, and Nixon was no liberal. And then to cite Ben Stein as anything but a rightwing propagandist (he actually first made his name being paid for exactly that! and a whiney one at that... time to shut off the spout.
Robert,
Please provide an example vulgarity of Rush's, Anne Coulter's or Mark Steyn's.
Lally,
Nixon instituted wage and price controls, abolished the gold standard and started the EPA. I do not think that is in the Conservative's playbook.
Nixon was a rabid anti-liberal, but a pragmatic politician faced with an overwhelmingly liberal electorate on some issues and as I said in my earlier comment made concessions where he thought they were necessary for him to maintain power. But in his methods, his rhetoric, and most of his actions and policies, he was a true blue conservative in the terms of those times. Reagan obviously outdid him and made him look like he was more liberal than he was in retrospect as Bush/Cheney did the same for Reagan (except Reagan had been made into a conservative icon so his record is distorted to make it look like he was as far right as the current crop of rightwingers). But since the right continues to move further and further from the center, in retrospect everyone becomes suspect no matter their conservative credentials and resume. As I've pointed out before, one of the main writers current rightwing ideologues base their latest ideas on was kicked out of the John Birch Society for being too far right, at a time when the Birchers were basically the KKK in suits who went so far as to accuse Eisenhower of being a "Communist!"—as our resident rightwinger labels Nixon a "liberal" which simply means that the rightwing framing of the issues now is such that compromises and concessions make a conservative subject to being labeled the opposite, a liberal, which is how the right controls the Republican Party and keeps that party mostly incapable of compromise and therefor of actually governing in any way that represents the will of the people, et-endlessly-cetera.
Jim, please provide specific examples of how the aforesaid self aggrandizing vulgarians are not vulger, since you made the first assertion that they are not so.
Nixon may have been a foe of liberals but he instituted liberal ideas which of course failed for the most part.
Paul,
How do I prove a negative. Conservatives are funny. Lally's liberal hero Maher is a low life for repeatedly using foul terms in describing women he disagrees with politically. He also is ignorant and worst of all not funny. All dispicable behavior is fine as long as the object of ridicule is a conservative. Look how liberals continully disparaged Justice Thomas and Secratary of State Condelessa Rice. Tell me again how all conservatives are racist and liberals are civil rights advocates.
Please provide specific examples of how liberals disparaged Justice Thomas and Secretary of State Rice. As an example of disparagement, your continual, insistent referral to President Carter as "Jimma", this to a man who, well into his '80s, continues to help build houses for the homeless.
It is a shame that Jimma did not begin with and stick to Habitat for Humanity.
Robert you brought up the supposed vulgarities of conservatives. but without specifics. I will provide examples of when you attempt to prove your point.
Ispo facto, Rush, Anne and Mark are vulgar. YOU initiated the claim that they are not vulgar, so it is incumbent upon you to first provide specific examples of how they are not vulgar. And once again, you disparage President Carter in a non specific way.
you say "rarely if ever vulgar" which is saying in effect that even in your view they may sometimes in fact be vulgar.
Robert,
I accused Maher of vulgarity with specificity. You accuse convervative commentators without specificity. A little specificity is in order. It would make your outrage more effective, if you can back it up.
I don't owe this to you, by your own terms you first owe the participants of this blog specific examples of non-vulgarity. Apparently when it comes down to it you are unable to do this, because everything about the three people mentioned is vulgar.
"Maher is a low life for repeatedly using foul terms in describing women he disagrees with politically. He also is ignorant and worst of all not funny" You'd be banished from a kindergarden debate team you call this specific, Jimmass - there's no trace of a specific example here.
Robert,
What?? C**t and t**t is a proper term for Maher to use in describing Palin and Bachman? Are you nuts or are conservatives not worthy of any courtesy and liberals can be excused from any breach of decorum?
I stand corrected Jim - I couldn't find when you'd cited this before. He needs to work on his bedside manner if in fact he did say these things. It's easy and temptimg to fall into a tit for tat, he said she said loop, But it doesn't advance anyone's cause or interests, just like the Quran buring was not done to advance anything whatsoever, save the self promotion of the criminal who did this as he is in very real fact, accessory to murder.
Robert,
Thank you.
Post a Comment