Obama as Gorby
AP writer Steven R. Hurst compares Obama to Gorbachev. The entire article is somewhat bizarre, beginning with the very first sentence:
President Barack Obama has gone abroad and gored an ox””the deeply held belief that the United States does not make mistakes in dealings with either friends or foes.
“Gored an ox?” More like a strawman.
While I’m sure that there is someone, somewhere, who holds that mighty strange “belief,” such a person would be exceedingly rare. I neither know of anyone who holds such a belief in American infallibility (either “deeply” or shallowly), nor have I read the work of anyone espousing it.
But that doesn’t stop Mr. Hurst from asserting that it’s what Obama is countering. In doing so, Mr. Hurst is taking a leaf from Obama’s book by misrepresenting his opponents’ beliefs as something quite different—and far sillier—than they actually are.
Hurst goes on to write:
Obama’s stark efforts to change the U.S. image abroad are reminiscent of the stunning realignments sought by former Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev. During his short””by Soviet standards””tenure, he scrambled incessantly to shed the ideological entanglements that were leading the communist empire toward ruin.
The analogy seems to be that Obama is interested in shaking up our foreign policy by proposing “stunning realignments.” If he is referring to Obama’s tendency to make nice to the likes of such luminaries as Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Ortega,, I’d have to agree.
But what are the signs that we are heaing toward ruin, as the Soviet Union was? The real estate bubble and derivatives? Really? And what on earth does that have to do with sucking up to Hugo Chavez? And does Obama really think Chavez has anything to offer us? How do such “realignments” help us in any way?
Even Obama’s adviser David Axelrod is unable to explain it, except in a vague touchy-feely way:
You plant, you cultivate, you harvest. Over time, the seeds that were planted here are going to be very, very valuable.
Straight from the mouth of David Axelrod, a man with absolutely no foreign policy training or experience whatsoever. Oh well; perhaps he knows a bit about gardening.
Obama himself had this to say about the Chavez handshake—at least it didn’t hurt much:
At his news conference Obama said he didn’t think he did much damage to U.S. security or interests by shaking the hand of Chavez, whose country has a defense budget about one-six hundredth the size of the United States, and depends upon its oil reserves for solvency.
But of course, no one is suggesting that Venezuela is some direct threat to the US. Another strawman; what else is new? The point critics are making is that Chavez is a tyrant, a socialist, a bombastic America-hater, and a statist who has suspended much of Venezuela’s constitution in his power grab, and that the Obama handshake gives him legitimacy and sends a message to the rest of the world that the US is more than willing to cozy up to such people.
But maybe—now that Obama’s in charge—it is. So maybe Hurst’s Gorbachev analogy isn’t so poor, after all—although it would perhaps be better to say that Obama is the un-Gorbachev. Gorbachev presided over the waning days of Communism in the Soviet Union. Perhaps Obama will preside over the waning days of capitalism in ours—a waning due in large part to his own policies.
Leftish “moral equivalence, ” book from pacifist press. http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3991 Reinventing Collapse
Soviet Example and American Prospects
By Dmitry Orlov
In the waning days of the American Empire the US administration finds itself mired in political crisis; foreign policy has come under sharp criticism; and the economy is in steep decline. These trends mirror the experience of the Soviet Union in the early 1980’s. Reinventing Collapse examines the circumstances of the demise of the Soviet superpower and offers clear insights into how we might prepare for coming events.
Rather than focusing on doom and gloom, Reinventing Collapse suggests that there is room for optimism if we focus our efforts on personal and cultural transformation. With characteristic dry humor, Orlov identifies three progressive stages of response to the looming crisis:
* Mitigation — alleviating the impact of the coming upheaval
* Adaptation — adjusting to the reality of changed conditions
* Opportunity — flourishing after the collapse
He argues that by examining maladaptive parts of our common cultural baggage we can survive and thrive and discover more meaningful and fulfilling lives, in spite of steadily deteriorating circumstances.
This challenging yet inspiring work is a must-read for anyone concerned about energy, geopolitics, international relations and life in a post-Peak Oil world.
About the Contributor(s)
Dmitry Orlov was born in Leningrad and immigrated to the United States at the age of 12. He was an eyewitness to the Soviet collapse over several extended visits to his Russian homeland between the late eighties and mid-nineties. He is an engineer who has contributed to fields as diverse as high-energy Physics and Internet security, as well as a leading Peak Oil theorist whose writing is featured on such sites as http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net and http://www.powerswitch.org.uk.
A sincere question:
Since all of the news this handshake has garnered over the past few days, I’ve had to ask myself what I would have done had I been in Obama’s place.
Was it the style of the handshake that was the problem?
Or was the handshake itself the problem?
I understand the importance of image in today’s world. One photo-op with the P.O.T.U.S. suddenly makes Chavez relevant again on the world stage.
But in foreign affairs, does common decency go out the window? In the past, have presidents refused to shake hands with dictators whose policies are repugnant to us?
My thinking is this.
Should Obama visit Ted Manson (the serial killer)?
Should Obama visit Osama Bin Laden?
Should Obama visit Fidel Castro?
Should Obama visit with Chavez?
Should Obama visit with drug lords or rapists?
No. Obama should not legitimize anybody in low standing. They have nothing to offer us. No wisdom. No knowledge. No morals.
Baklava, you’re making a strong case that he not
show up for joint sessions of Congress.
this is “Being There” without being funny
Occam,
So true. Until Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and Robert Byrd step down (or others) why should he give them any standing?? 🙂
Oh, my! Things are getting interesting in the newest theme park, Obama Land. I wonder which color the sky is, there.
The AP writer begins, after confusing the punch line of a parable with an entirely different one, with:
stunning realignments sought by former Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev. The only thing “stunning” about Gorbachev was his inability to read the large, bold-face type on the wall in front of him. If you read his book Perestroika you see that he thought the Communist state was just fine, just needed some tweaking.
So if the writer meant to compare Obama to a leader who led his state into dissolution he may be on to something. However, that is not what he meant.
In fact, given the media’s conscientious reporting of events in Obama Land I expect to see, any day now, Obama compared with Inspector Clouseau. as in:
blockquote cite=”Just as Inspector Clouseau seemed always to be bumbling, clueless, and arrogant to a fault, but always ended up catching the criminal anyway, so President Obama, while appearing to put the nation into unpayable debt and making himself look foolish to the world’s leaders, if not the world’s press, will, through a series of errors (think “speaking Austrian”), misjudgments (Sarkozy wants to watch him walk on water), and pratfalls (the door that wasn’t there) so entertain such jolly folk as Korea’s Kim, Iran’s Amahdinejad, and Venuzuela’s Chavez that it won’t matter if he alienates most of our allies and invites ridicule, because he will guide us through the gates of Obama Land where all boo-boos are attended to and, when we are told to clean up our rooms, we will be told in a stern but non-hurtful manner.”>
The Axelrod quote seemed to have ripped out the pages of “Being There” the political satire by Jerzy Kosinski about mentally challenged Chauncy Gardiner, whose ramblings about gardens are used by a sitting President and his minions as supposedly profound philosophical reflections on the state of the world. You can see where this is headed.
M: it would have been different if there had been some sort of receiving line with everyone shaking hands with Chavez, where Obama would have had to have gone out of his way to not shake Chavez’s hand. But, as I wrote in my previous post on the subject:
I had wondered whether he was trapped into the handshake by circumstances, but it’s clear that he actually sought it out [emphasis mine]:
“…this U.S. president wanted to meet [Chavez].
So Barack Obama walked across a hotel ballroom here Friday and introduced himself to Chavez. The two leaders smiled and shook hands, chatting briefly. Chavez’s office later said the two men talked about their mutual desire to change the relationship between their countries — a characterization the White House didn’t dispute.”
Thanks for the reference, Neo. That answers my question.
In and of itself – like each of the other things he has done – are irrelevant. It, however, is not irrelevant as a whole.
In the same way loosing 1 oz drop of blood isn’t a problem but loosing 200 1 oz drops is.
This stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum – these people do not compartmentalize each instance and not remember the last ones. For whatever reason (some at different levels of incompetence) many think/wish it to be so therefore they argue it to be that way.
Indeed, we can directly trace 9/11 to the perception since Vietnam (with the exception of Reagan – who was an aberration) that we are paper tigers. We just had another aberration and are now downgraded to tissue tigers.
I can still hold out hope that Obama will react strongly when the challenge comes – he somewhat did with the Somali pirates. As I have said before I suspect he truly believes in his own preeminence and when that reality gets shattered that is one of the likely outcomes (the other is belief that we didn’t do enough capitulating and go into hyper America is Bad mode). I also do not believe that he will continue to accept those personal insults that are resulting from this once it becomes apparent that his capitulation isn’t changing their ideas (in fact making them worse).
strcpy: You can hope all you want. Hope doesn’t change anything.
Hussein Obama is committed, and will not be deflected. The minions he has surrounded himself with are equally committed. None of them has ever made a mistake, so no correction is ever needed.
He sure didn’t have anything to do with the pirates. The WH saying so doesn’t make it so.
Hope all you want. You may even extend your hope to the survival of the American republic, but that won’t do any good either.
Action is wanted, not hope.
“He sure didn’t have anything to do with the pirates. The WH saying so doesn’t make it so. ”
This is the same thing pedaled by the BDS people – we can only go by what our sources say. Our sources (even ones that are not Obama happy) all say he gave a broad enough OK for the thing to go through. Both the official and unofficial story pretty much jive with each other and there is *no* evidence to the contrary. The only reason to *not* believe it is irrational thought involved with Obama on the part of a number of people (and, like the BDS crowd they are tending to create their own network of each other to quote as “proof”).
“Hope all you want. You may even extend your hope to the survival of the American republic, but that won’t do any good either.”
True, reality trumps hope and it also trumps your brand of doom and gloom. Until there is a real test of Obama we do not know what he will do, you do not, I do not, his most ardent supporters and detractors do not, heck I even bet Obama doesn’t know.
So far the only one we have seen (the pirates) we know he gave vague authorization and our military ran with it and we know that once it was obviously politically popular he also ran with it. Did he mean to do what they did? Did he only support it after he realized it was politically popular? Dunno – he may have found their refusal to give into The Big O so infuriating that he wanted them killed (in fact, I would say that while that scenario is full of your “action” it is one of the more chilling conclusions would could come too). There are a myriad other scenarios that fit with what we know too.
Myself I think he didn’t expect them to really kill them (in fact I suspect when he first heard the news there was a sinking feeling in his stomach), found it a popular idea, and ran with it.
However I do realize I have no real evidence as to this and it is my own personal opinion based on his other actions and my perceptions of them. For all I know Nyomythus (or however you spell it, too lazy to look it up) in another thread is correct and his whole thing is an elaborate plot to lull them into a false sense of complacency before sticking the pitchfork into their stomach for the killing blow. If true I’ll praise the pitchfork (just as I do his decision to allow the seals the latitude he did). I seriously doubt it, but I can not say until the situation happens (and I will certainly hope Obama goes close to the right thing – hope is entirely different than expect).
We will never truly know the mettle of a person in any situation until they are in it. About the only thing I am mostly sure of is that he *will* be tested strongly at some point – I will also hope that the test isn’t too hard on Americans or our allies (our only hope that this will not happen is if our highly motivated and highly skilled military stops it beforehand).
M Says:
“But in foreign affairs, does common decency go out the window? In the past, have presidents refused to shake hands with dictators whose policies are repugnant to us?”
How would you deal with having to shake hands with a thug? I’d go with a staid formal thing.
Obama will meet Castro, and will come to him. Where and how remains to be seen. But it will happen. After all, he is the one who crossed the floor to Chavez, not the other way around. Quite significant.
As we all know by now, Chavez owns Citgo. Learning that a few years ago, I stopped purchasing fuel at Citgo branded stations. Obviously, so did many others.
So very few stations carry a Citgo sign out front now (in my area, anyway). One now has to dig a little to see if they are still buying gas from a Chavez owned station.
strcpy wrote, “he gave a broad enough OK for the thing to go through”
Look. I’m not an ODS person. In fact, I hate identity politics. It’s basically irked me that Obama hasn’t done the due diligence (has been negligent) of learning macro-economics. Through his own negligence he will be working to be Jimmy Carter times 2. But that isn’t just HIM. That is a whole host of liberal/leftists (including Republicans).
But it is clear to me that the Somali Pirate operation is not something you can give Obama credit for.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/04/17/president-obama-restricted-navy-seals-from-rescuing-ship-captain-with-force/
Maybe you can question the source. But it matches up with the press reports as the events unfolded. And having been in the Navy myself and understanding how Rules of Engagement can be different for each theater because of politics – I believe it.
Call me an ODS person all you want. But until Obama provides CLEAR cut proof that he is not an appeasing weak on National Security Democrat then using THIS incident is too far for you strcpy
“Call me an ODS person all you want. But until Obama provides CLEAR cut proof that he is not an appeasing weak on National Security Democrat then using THIS incident is too far for you strcpy”
Are you arguing weak on national security or or you going to argue that he didn’t authorize the rescue? While related those are two different questions.
If the latter what would clear evidence be? The official white house story, the official seal story, and the unofficial seal story all agree and fit the time line. We have one report otherwise (the one you linked) by people that were not there (according to the “evidence” but believe this to be the case), even your source doesn’t fully believe it. Part of the Derangement Syndrome is immediately dismissing the huge piles of evidence in favour of murky/bad that more fits your pre-conceived notions.
That is the very heart of said Derangement Syndrome – none of the BDS people thought they were doing it either. After all everything Bush said was a lie and they could all post links to people who pointed out it was a lie and gave a scenario someone thought was more true as evidence. I certainly do not expect *any* politician to be totally truthful – indeed I expect them to all lie when it suits them. Yet when all the stories from the people there match with what we saw then no reason to invent my own story even if it more closely matches with my pre-conceived notions. Eh, pointing it out to the BDS people never worked I guess I shouldn’t expect ODS people to be any better.
As for weak on national security I’ll agree there with what he has done so far. The only caveat to that is that we have not seen anything other than diplomatic meetings, until he gets a real push we do not know how he will react. I would put money on “not decisive”, yet I do not know. Even then I am rational enough to realize that simply being decisive isn’t always good – I would rather have a weak indecisive president than one that goes on the war path and kills anyone who opposes them.
Of course, I suppose since I’m a long term known Democrat and Obama supporter on this site then I can be safely ignored. (in case you didn’t note, that was sarcasm).
strcpy wrote, “If the latter what would clear evidence be?”
strcpy, CLEAR evidence requires Obama to make strong national security and strong pro-America statements which Obama hasn’t done.
He didn’t do that in the pirate situation.
What we saw was an incident that went on for a few days.
Obama was in silence mode.
To give Obama credit for anything is identity politics.
It’s ODS in reverse. It’s the DESIRE to give Obama credit where it isn’t due.
So…. stop with the ODS in reverse…
strcpy wrote, “I would rather have a weak indecisive president than one that goes on the war path and kills anyone who opposes them.”
I wanted to say – is this a thing with lefties/Obama’s of the world. Create strawmen? You’ve seen Neo point these strawment out.
They are VERY obvious.
Why do you guys do this???
Do you actually BELIEVE the strawman argument. Or is it simply creative flourish when arguing to try to convinve a political newbie?
Which president killed anything that opposed them? Bush?
I would rather have a weak indecisive president than one that goes on the war path and kills anyone who opposes them.
You’re BDS person.
It isn ot that we see your views as irrelevant. They are all too relevant on this score.
I would put money on “not decisive”,
it is only in the mind of the coddled that an indecisive President can be given credit for American lives saved, not by his indecision, but by the decisive actions of the US Navy.
Some people prefer that other people lose their lives because of Obama’s indecision and contradictory orders to the Navy, which was only changed because the Navy captain actually cared about the life of the hostage and sought enough freedom in his orders to act when he knew what was giong to happen.
Some people prefer that others lose their lives solely in order to acquire an administration that will leave them alone or in some way or fashion perform to spec.
That’s what indecision means and it’s why people who favor it are wrong.
Our sources (even ones that are not Obama happy) all say he gave a broad enough OK for the thing to go through. Both the official and unofficial story pretty much jive with each other and there is *no* evidence to the contrary. The only reason to *not* believe it is irrational thought involved with Obama on the part of a number of people (and, like the BDS crowd they are tending to create their own network of each other to quote as “proof”).
I wonder if you perceive the disillusion and the dissassociation you actively ignore here.
People, and I include the US military combat leaders in this classification, despise cowardly leaders that frame things in such a way that they get the rewards, regardless of what actually happens, while the negative consequencse fall solely on the people actually executing his policies.
The Left highilghts this kind of CYA as a good trait for leaders, as something to be admired and characterized as more cautious and wise than loose cannon cowboys.
It’s only good for the Left, for the Left has no need of real actions for they have plenty of people they can sacrifice to indecision and calamity before they must suffer the consequences of indecision or CYA.
This isn’t about sources. This isn’t about what the sources say. This is about the difference in character and particular values between Obama loyalists and non-Obama supporters.
There is no evidence that the sun will go nova tomorrow either. That, however, does not prove the preposterous global warming narratives and lies. There is such a thing as logic and reason, you know, something not even Obama and his followers can eradicate completely. The argument advanced by Obama followers that he should be given “credit” for a “broad” order, which contradicted his first order and which was revised only because cooler heads on the ground gave more care for the lives of the hostage than Mr. Hope and Compassion, is preposterous on the face.
That’s not “credit”. That’s called parasitism. Benefiting through the sacrifice of others, while you repay them nothing in return while they take all the risks. This is admirable? For some, yes.
The fact that it exists, and I certainly recognize that it does exist, is indisputable. Yet it is not the same as credit, valor, reward, and responsibility. Certainly other issues of parasitism exist, such as Europe relying on US military funding and power. Such as Obama’s unfair and unequal elevation above both his peers and his superiors, white or black. These issues of “credit”, as others here call it, exist. But I do not see it as a credit to Obama. I see it as a character flaw that will end up making America an object of humilitation and ridicule, if not causing the downright sacrifice of our best to benefit the likes of Murtha and Reid.
This is the same thing pedaled by the BDS people
I wish the BDS people here and in the world would claim that Bush had nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, torture, Gitmo, or all the rest.
But I am not sure you do.
“Do you actually BELIEVE the strawman argument. Or is it simply creative flourish when arguing to try to convinve a political newbie?”
Now that I am a BDS person and hate the last eight years, let me say the following – Bush never once killed, ordered killed, approved being killed, or in any way shape form or fashion was involved with the killing of someone who was opposed to him – never. Indeed, Bush went (IMO too much) out of his way to do so. He only killed those that were 100% clearly against the *US* and separated his position as the President of the United States from his personal being to an extent that was extreme.
I recall the early to mid Clinton day in which any firearms owner, let alone state militia (official or not) that was considered a wanton terrorist and deserving of full on governmental hate. That was as near a decisive action as we have had with a President of the US acting against people who did not like him and, let me tell you, that time was scary for people like me. Ruby Ridge (which started with Bush Sr) through Waco were absolutely test cases with the American public that – joyfully – failed miserably. It wasn’t even kept secret this was the case, unlike today where they learned their lesson from then.
Of course, being now a full on BDS person who thinks Obama is hot I don’t recall those times. I do not know why “decisive” action can be wrong, especially when a narcissistic president may feel that personal opposition results in the need for governmental suppression (after all, Ymarsakar and a greek desert tell me otherwise). I may be crazy to choose a weak President over one that will put all opposition in jail for the sake of being “decisive”, yet if so then call me full on BDS along with OBS on the Love Him side. I’ll gladly take that if it means Obama never sees opposition to himself to be as a symbol of being a traitor, heck I’ll even gladly take that label if it mean a non-repeat of the early to mid 90’s and how the conservative movement was portrayed.
I’ve always found it amusing how the same ideas from my side move me from the hard left to the hard right (especially since I consider Obama to be the worst the president in at least the last 50 years I do not see that how makes me a an Obama supporter – Oh well). But then I also note that this tends to be an individual thing and greatly depends on if I am currently aligned with their ideas or not. I guess I’ve always seen it as a true form of “Derangement Syndrome”, not that all those that disagree with me suffer from that (far from that – most do not), but I find it interesting how easily I can shift from one to the other with absolutely no change whatsoever with what I believe, who I like, and who I vote for.
It colors my opinion of people who post just as I am sure my support of Obama where it aligns with my own personal thoughts colors theirs of me. But then since I am not a full on BDS person I can be safely ignored.
I also understand why our political land is so screwed for the next few years – few want to be anything other than “correct”. Any thing less and you are giving way to the enemy. I, for one, will be a happy camper if Obama pulls it out of his ass to be a strong foreign affairs president who prosecutes our interest abroad. I doubt that and so far he shown the exact opposite, yet at least until the first real test (so far it has only been talk) I do not know. If that makes me a BDS or ODS person then so be it.
I’ll take what I can find of the situation from those that are in the position to know what happens, see if it works with what we saw in real time, and work from there (even if it supports someone I do not like). For those that feel their own feeling trump everything else – go for it. Myself I will try and not be so … crazy.