electoral-vote.com

[Ad Orientem]

Again, Obama is the President and these are the results of his actions in the region. This one cannot be blamed on Bush or Reagan. Nice try though!

Your desire to erase the last 60+ years of history is understandable but I can't go along. Obama was not President in the 1980's when the US was arming and training Al Qaeda. Nice try though.

[notsheigetz]

How many years did the Roman Empire last? 600 years or more?
How long will we last with Obama's combination of financial recklessness, social demagoguing, and  appeasement of our enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamists?

Would be curious to know what your non-appeasement plan towards "our enemies" would be if you were president. Hopefully it would not involve financial recklessness.

As to why I put "our enemies" in quotes, I have lived my whole life never giving any offense to muslims, radical or not, and have never received any in return. As a matter of fact I don't even know any so I don't consider any of them my enemies no matter what the a**holes who run the country tell me.

[MediumTex]

Reub,

You are clearly not an Obama fan and it appears that you think that Romney would do a much better job if elected.

If Romney is elected I hope you are right.

As I have said before, I think that the President's party affiliation doesn't matter much in recent decades when it comes to foreign policy, but if Romney is elected perhaps I will be proven wrong. 

What is happening in the middle east with the uprisings is what the Iraq War was supposed to encourage, right?  I never understood why exactly that would be a good thing, and I think we are seeing that maybe it wasn't a good thing to wish for, especially if we are now responsible for intervening in every situation in the middle east where the people are sick of their government.

[Ad Orientem]

Obama is the leader from behind who helped "liberate" these Islamists in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. Didn't he? The ramifications of those decisions will haunt us for decades if not centuries.

Decisions that would likely have never been a remote consideration if we observed a policy of minding our own business. Al Qaeda would never have existed if Reagan had kept us out of that business. The whole of the Middle East would not hate us if we did not go around bombing and invading countries like it is our God ordained duty to police the world according to our standards. Obama is merely the latest in a long line of interventionist presidents who just keep making things worse for us.

He also is the guy who ultimately failed to protect our consulate properly under known threats. I understand that he actually went to bed without knowing the disposition of what happened to our people over there.

That may be a fair point. I don't know the details of what transpired yesterday as the crisis unfolded. But I do find it highly distasteful that people are clearly trying to make political hay out of a tragedy and international crisis. Usually one waits more than a couple hours before engaging in the Monday morning quarterbacking of how a crisis was handled. Romney was out attacking Obama while the emergency was still in its early stages.

The simple truth is that we don't really know at this point what happened. It is mostly speculation. But that of course won't even slow down the ideologically convicted Obama haters. All of which said Obama is just George Bush with a tan as far as I can tell.

[Ad Orientem]

Repeat after me: Obama is the President not Bush Reagan or Lincoln.

That is patently ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that each president operates in a vacuum utterly unaffected by what their predecessors left them to deal with?

[Pointedstick]

Repeat after me: Obama is the President not Bush Reagan or Lincoln.

I think the point that Ad Orientem is trying to make is that these are trends that have been in motion for quite some time and have their origins in the past. Islamic terrorism did not start under Obama, and its origin is a complicated story that involves U.S. involvement in the region in many ways. It's just an undeniable fact that the USA trained the Mujihadeen and Bin Laden. Does that explain everything about Islamic terrorism today? No, of course not. But it bears remembering. Our intervention in the Middle East has been at best a two-edged sword, and now today we find ourselves fighting people we embraced as allies in the recent past.

[dragoncar]

Repeat after me: Obama is the President not Bush Reagan or Lincoln.

Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?  Does it not embiggen the smallest man to lead from behind? - Abraham Lincoln

[MachineGhost]

While I believe in many Libertarian ideas I vehemently disagree with them on isolationism. The world is too dangerous a place and is small and getting smaller every day. We need a strong military and a proactive policy to stay as safe as we can and aid our strategic allies. This, however, does not mean leading from behind in Libya or forcing a friendly dictator out of power in Egypt (reminds me of Carter and the Shah of Iran all over again) making way for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over all over the Middle East.

Technically, Libertarians don't believe in isolationism (I think only Quackers and Amish believe in that), but armed neutrality and diplomacy rather than violent interventionism.  The problem I -- and many of our Founding Fathers -- have with intervenionists is they don't understand the concept of blowback, so blowback begets interventionism begets blowback begets interventionism, ad infinitum.  If you study the historical evidence you'll see that interventionism has very little to do with spreading democractic ideals of fairness and justice (that is just the propaganda), and about acquiring power and profit to the elites involved.

[Lone Wolf]

100 years of consistent Republican foreign policy.

I think you may be forgetting the excellent Republican Calvin Coolidge!  As MT points out, the only empire this man wished to build was an Empire of Napping.  And an Empire of Being Awesome.

Warren G. Harding and Eisenhower were also firmly against empire-building, so I give credit where it's due.

Obama is the leader from behind who helped "liberate" these Islamists in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. Didn't he? The ramifications of those decisions will haunt us for decades if not centuries.

I strongly agree with you that the turmoil in Libya and Egypt is a direct result of the actions of Captain Peace Prize.  It's hard to see it any other way.

However, I'd say that this is down to actions Obama took rather than his inaction.  Obama's policy was to enable violent revolution in Libya and the overthrow of a "friendly" autocrat in Egypt.  The President attempted to keep his hands clean, arm rebels, let them do the killing, and then try to blame others for the consequences of his actions.  (I assume that this is the "leading from behind" that you refer to.)

At the time, Ron Paul predicted that "we may be delivering al Qaeda another prize in Libya.  They weren't there before."

And now we have our consulate in Libya overrun, American citizens murdered, and the black flag of al Qaeda flying over the US embassy in Egypt on September 11th.

Lately Obama's tactic has seemingly been to distract from his horrific performance on the economy by touting his foreign policy "accomplishments" (such as personally spearing Osama bin Laden through the face with his Nobel Peace Prize.)  But in reality he's just created a big mess.  I'm glad he's managed to resist invading Syria, at least.  His foreign policy is less blatantly disastrous than his economic policies, I'll admit, but it's surreal to see him running his campaign based on a combination of his crummy foreign policy and trying to reignite the always-tedious culture wars.

[moda0306]

Maybe I'm missing something here... did Obama arm Egyptian rebels?  Should he have supported Mubarek?  We've gotten ourselves into plenty of trouble in the past going that route as well (Iran in the 70's).  I was also under the impression that most Libyans are pretty pro-US, but that there is an Al Quaeda presence there that may be responsible for the attacks.

I also don't understand the bitter sarcasm towards the death of Osama.  This is perhaps the greatest single victory in the fight against Al Quaeda.  He didn't exactly land an airplane on a carrier to signs of "Mission Accomplished."

Saying that Obama has a disasterous economic record is a bit much, since the ones that would have done the opposite have been proven completely wrong on macro time and time again.  Methinks we'd be in a massive depression right now if Tea Partiers had their way, and even they sometimes won't disagree, with economic success being defined by the value of green paper going up and paying 6% interest without taking risk in the midst of a deleveraging instead of the amount of people working in the economy or even wealth being created.

Our balance sheets are being repaired now as we muddle through this and the government collects low taxes but keeps our safety net and retirement payouts in place.  I'm becoming quite confident that we'll come out ok as long as some balanced budget amendment doesn't occur.  The middle east will always be bouncing between hopes of progress and predictions of disaster.  As long as we continue to kill Al Qaeda management without having to invade and nation-build with boots on the ground and hundreds of billions in assets wasted, I'll consider that progress, because the rest over there is a powder keg.

[Lone Wolf]

Sure, Obama had a hand in the Egypt turmoil by (eventually) calling for Mubarak to step down.

But back in 2011, it was the neocons from the Bush adminstration (and who are now Romney foreign policy advisors) who were crowing about Egypt.  This was the desired outcome of the "freedom agenda".

It's interesting to speculate on what some other person (such as Bush, McCain, or Harry Browne) may or may not have done with Mubarak, but all I can really look at are concrete actions.  And Obama's actions on Libya and Egypt were his own bad decisions.  (And in the case of Libya, a highly unilateral one.)

Therefore, the consequences that followed (and will follow) flowed from his actions.

So I'm not clear what you or Reub think Obama should or shouldn't have done in Egypt.

Me? I think the U.S. needs to stay out.  Blowback's a bitch.

I can't speak for Reub (and I'm sure that I don't), but what you describe seems like a good "short version".  I like starting with "worry about ourselves", "don't make things worse", "don't foment bloody revolution", etc. and working from there. 

[MediumTex]

I'm imagining what Calvin Coolidge would have done about Libya.

After waking up on his own (there would be strict prohibitions against waking him up over things like this), he might have seen that there was a rebellion brewing in Libya and after being hounded by the press he might have made the following statement:

I've never much cared for that Qaddafi fellow.  He was always a bit flashy and thuggish for my taste.  I don't blame the Libyans if they are tired of him.  If they decide that changing their political leadership is something they want to do, then I wish them well.  We had a civil war here and came out of it okay.  I think that every rebellion deserves the opportunity to be left alone and succeed or fail based on the merits of the rebels' grievances, as opposed to the strength of the foreign power that has decided to pick a side in the struggle.  I respect the sovereignty of other governments the same way I expect them to respect the sovereignty of ours.

[moda0306]

MT,

That would assume that rebellions succeed or fail based on the validity of the grievences... I think it was pretty well figured that Ghadaffi was in a position to commit a lot of genocide before losing his spot.

I think, quite often, rebellions succeed or fail (or don't happen at all) due to nothing both the force of some thugs being stronger than others.  I'm not saying we definitely should have interfered, but war doesn't necessarily favor the side with the most legitimate grievences.

[Ad Orientem]

100 years of consistent Republican foreign policy.

I think you may be forgetting the excellent Republican Calvin Coolidge!  As MT points out, the only empire this man wished to build was an Empire of Napping.  And an Empire of Being Awesome.

Warren G. Harding and Eisenhower were also firmly against empire-building, so I give credit where it's due.

I stand corrected. All three of the Republican presidents in the 20's adhered to a very sound foreign policy of non-interventionism. Eisenhower, although a generally good president had his imperial moments. He ordered the CIA to overthrow the elected Iranian Government and install the Shah thus paving the way for a lot of the misery to follow. He also ordered the CIA to overthrow and or assassinate Fidel Castro.

[Pointedstick]

I can't speak for Reub (and I'm sure that I don't), but what you describe seems like a good "short version".  I like starting with "worry about ourselves", "don't make things worse", "don't foment bloody revolution", etc. and working from there. 

I agree with you, but I don't think it's quite fair to say that fomenting revolution was Obama's position because it was and is a position held by all the mainstream foreign policy wonks in all parties. Is it fair to say that Obama's policies have failed when they were practiced by his predecessor and are endorsed by his party, his opponent, and his opponent's party? Are they really "his" policy, or are they just the beltway consensus? And what was anybody else advocating? If we're going to chastise Obama for following the mainstream policy prescription, it seems a little off-base not to at least acknowledge that it's highly likely that any alternative president (and indeed, the previous president as well as the aspiring challenger for the presidency) would be doing the same thing.

[Lone Wolf]

I'm imagining what Calvin Coolidge would have done about Libya.
I've never much cared for that Qaddafi fellow.  He was always a bit flashy and thuggish for my taste.  I don't blame the Libyans if they are tired of him.  If they decide that changing their political leadership is something they want to do, then I wish them well.  We had a civil war here and came out of it okay.  I think that every rebellion deserves the opportunity to be left alone and succeed or fail based on the merits of the rebels' grievances, as opposed to the strength of the foreign power that has decided to pick a side in the struggle.  I respect the sovereignty of other governments the same way I expect them to respect the sovereignty of ours.

I love it!  I wonder, sometimes, if it's just wishful thinking to believe that most Americans (war-weary as we are) would enjoy hearing something this refreshing.  Is it really just a handful of us that would find this cool?  After all, it's the code that most of us live our own lives by.

I stand corrected. All three of the Republican presidents in the 20's adhered to a very sound foreign policy of non-interventionism. Eisenhower, although a generally good president had his imperial moments. He ordered the CIA to overthrow the elected Iranian Government and install the Shah thus paving the way for a lot of the misery to follow. He also ordered the CIA to overthrow and or assassinate Fidel Castro.

Ah, thank you for correcting me on Eisenhower!  You are completely right.

[MediumTex]

MT,

That would assume that rebellions succeed or fail based on the validity of the grievences... I think it was pretty well figured that Ghadaffi was in a position to commit a lot of genocide before losing his spot.

I think, quite often, rebellions succeed or fail (or don't happen at all) due to nothing both the force of some thugs being stronger than others.  I'm not saying we definitely should have interfered, but war doesn't necessarily favor the side with the most legitimate grievences.

President Coolidge responds to moda's point as follows:

Mr. Moda, you may have a good point there.  Clearly there are many nasty and brutish dictators in humanity's history, and they often treated their people downright poorly.  However, I am not nearly wise enough to be able to select which rebellions are: (i) morally correct in their grievances, (ii) weak enough to require the assistance of the U.S. in order to be successful, and (iii) strong enough to be able to stand on their own without further assistance from the U.S. once the tyrant has been toppled.  Since I do not possess this level of knowledge concerning the nature of the countless rebellions that are always unfolding somewhere in the world, and since I do not believe the American people elected me to try out my fortune telling abilities in matters of foreign policy, I am content to leave foreign countries to take care of their own internal affairs and I will busy myself with the internal affairs of the U.S., assuming they do not interfere with my nap times.

We tried to improve upon human nature through government interference and global war under Mr. Wilson's administration, and I do not believe that we saw any improvement at all in human nature as a result of his lavish expenditure of treasure and the the blood of our sons.  I hope you will understand when I say that the business of the U.S. is business, and excorcising the demons in human nature as they manifest themselves in the guise of dictators and thugs in foreign locales is not part of the oath of ofice I took as President and appears nowhere in my job description under the Constitution.

Good day. [President Coolidge yawns as he leaves the podium]

[Ad Orientem]

I am sooo stealing that.

[moda0306]

MT,

Perfectly put and 100% valid.

Also, wasn't Libya an action taken by NATO involving a lot of French input?  Sorry, I didn't pay much attention to the events in Libya.

[MediumTex]

Also, wasn't Libya an action taken by NATO involving a lot of French input?  Sorry, I didn't pay much attention to the events in Libya.

President Coolidge answers one more question as he leaves the briefing room:

I wouldn't presume to speak for the French, but it has always seemed that they are a people who fall in and out of love with military confrontations as frequently as they change their fashion preferences.

I am perhaps a bit more old-fashioned in my sensibilities, but I have always thought that peace was better for the soul than war, regardless of the season.  Plus, you can't imagine how hard it is to get any rest over the sound of artillery fire.

If the French want another war to fill the columns of their newspapers with tales of blood and glory I would say let them have their Mediterranean adventure.  The U.S. wishes them well in their efforts to improve the world.

[Ad Orientem]

I think I am voting for President Coolidge this November.

[MediumTex]

I think I am voting for President Coolidge this November.

You can just call me Sleepy-Time Cal.

[notsheigetz]

Looks and sounds a little like Ron Paul. Too bad people don't want that kind of president any more.

I think I am voting for President Coolidge this November.

You can just call me Sleepy-Time Cal.

[MachineGhost]

Mr. Moda, you may have a good point there.  Clearly there are many nasty and brutish dictators in humanity's history, and they often treated their people downright poorly.  However, I am not nearly wise enough to be able to select which rebellions are: (i) morally correct in their grievances, (ii) weak enough to require the assistance of the U.S. in order to be successful, and (iii) strong enough to be able to stand on their own without further assistance from the U.S. once the tyrant has been toppled.  Since I do not possess this level of knowledge concerning the nature of the countless rebellions that are always unfolding somewhere in the world, and since I do not believe the American people elected me to try out my fortune telling abilities in matters of foreign policy, I am content to leave foreign countries to take care of their own internal affairs and I will busy myself with the internal affairs of the U.S., assuming they do not interfere with my nap times.

We tried to improve upon human nature through government interference and global war under Mr. Wilson's administration, and I do not believe that we saw any improvement at all in human nature as a result of his lavish expenditure of treasure and the the blood of our sons.  I hope you will understand when I say that the business of the U.S. is business, and excorcising the demons in human nature as they manifest themselves in the guise of dictators and thugs in foreign locales is not part of the oath of ofice I took as President and appears nowhere in my job description under the Constitution.

Good day. [President Coolidge yawns as he leaves the podium]

I move in support of creating a Coolidge AI Bot with the ultimate aim of replacing the entire U.S. government with it.

[MachineGhost]

Since 9/11, Americans have chosen to stake our domestic tranquility on our ability – under our commander-in-chief – to rule the world by force of arms rather than to lead, as we had in the past, by the force of our example or our arguments. And we appear to have decided in the process that it is necessary to destroy our civil liberties in order to save them and that abandoning the checks and balances of our Constitution will make us more secure. Meanwhile, our military-industrial complex and its flourishing antiterrorist sidekick have been working hard to invent a credible existential challenge to match that of the Cold War. This has produced constantly escalating spending on military and antiterrorist projects, but it has not overcome the reality that Americans now face no threat from abroad comparable to Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or the USSR. The only real menace to our freedoms is our own willingness to supplant the rule of law with ever more elements of a garrison state.

The so-called “global war on terror”? or “militant Islam,”? as so many now openly describe it, has become an endless run in a military squirrel cage that is generating no light but a lot of future anti-American terrorism. It turns out that all that is required to be hated is to do hateful things. Ironically, as we “search abroad for monsters to destroy,”? we are creating them – transforming our foreign detractors into terrorists, multiplying their numbers, intensifying their militancy, and fortifying their hatred of us. The sons and brothers of those we have slain know where we are. They do not forget. No quarter is given in wars of religion. We are generating the very menace that entered our imaginations on 9/11.

On that day, the world felt our pain and stood with us. Le Monde famously proclaimed: “Nous sommes tous Américains!”? The world’s solidarity with us reflected decades of goodwill for America, accumulated over the course of “the American Century”? that Henry Luce had foreseen. But does anyone here imagine that a second 9/11 would draw the same global reaction today? By surrendering the aspirations for a higher standard of behavior that once endeared us to the world, we have lost much of our international followership. We have thereby compromised our capacity to lead. To regain our influence, we must rediscover our values and return to the practice of them.

http://mepc.org/articles-commentary/spe ... rial-times