Is Obama Going to Go Bush When He's Prez?Follow

http://www.newsweek.com/id/178855/page/1

The gist of the article is that while on the campaign trail it's easy to make promises of change and reform when you don't have the Big Picture derived from intell briefings. But while Bush has been vilified for doing what he has done, the author contends that Obama doing something considerably different from Bush would be exceedingly unwise-- and then points out specific examples of how that would be true.

So once the Black Neo is in office and things don't change quite how you hoped them for them to, are you going to be disappointed and call for his head as you did Dubya?

Obama is about to enter the very murky world of the Oval Office; and you, his supporters are about to witness how pragmatism and reality force on Presidents a change they never promised to their constituents.

Totem

I thought that a man makes a decision based on information and not that the decision is made for him BY the information. If Obama is not a spineless CIA yes man cowering in fear like Bush & co, he'll do a lot better.
Anyway everyone knows that the current approach on "terrorism war" only made the terrorist climate worse. (well better if you are an terrorist :P)

Although clearly the point remains that he's about to hit reality head-on, and there will be compromises and "promises" made that can't be kept, or can't be implemented fast enough for the people waiting for changeâ„¢. That's just a fact of the Presidency.

How well he weathers the inevitable backlash and disappointment will be a mark of his character. If he retreats to a perpetual undisclosed location, then you can say he's mirroring BushCo. I don't see it happening.

Our government was never intended to allow one man to sit down at the desk in the oval office and start making decisions or changes based on their personal managing styles.

The most successful administrations are the ones that have have been able to slowly and subtly change the course of things. So, the goal is not necessarily dealing with the issues sitting in front of him the same of differently than the last guy, it's actually bringing about an opportunity for 'different' issues to come into play.

Nope, Imma just gonna continue to blame Bush for Iraq & the Economy.

You can continue to blame 9/11 on Clinton.

No, Kavekk, my position is much closer to Sammy's and Jo's thinking-- albeit, not in accord with Gitmo closing. I believe it has a place and a purpose in today's world, although were I President there would be no word on what goes on or has gone on inside there.

That said, their point of view is a realistic one. Expecting this change which as a motto had been tossed about during the campaign season to take place even over four years will be a stretch-- unless, of course, you define change as simply exchanging one cabinetmember for another and some minor policy adjustments.

Therein lies the rub. Most people don't have such a grasp of politics as we do. The vast majority will and do expect Obama to produce this "change" almost from the day he settles into the White House. And for these same people this is not the hope which was spoken of, but an ironclad vow that such change will occur.

What will mark those who have such unrealistic expectations from those of us who are more knowing and wiser will be the disappointment they feel at the perceived loss of Obama's principles, never having understood he is not a dogmatic pol, but rather a pragmatic one. And here is where each of you will need to adjust your perceptions of the present president. While you may disagree with his methodology, I predict Obama's won't be vastly different from Bush beyond some cosmetic alterations to please his constituents.

Why? Because if Obama and Dubya were to switch places in time, I suspect things wouldn't be much different from what we have today. Would we be in Iraq? Maybe not, even probably not, but we would have been involved somehow, if for no other reason than because after 9/11 (an event which demanded action from the American people) he'd have been forced to act against a dictator who continued to poke his thumb in our collective eye via infractions of the unconditional surrender of '91 and Saddam's outright "I dare ya to do something about it" posturing. Afganistan would have happened. 9/11 would have happened. The stock market soaring and then crashing would have happened. Gas prices skyrocketing would have happened.

In other words, nothing we have in place today would be different outside of a physical invasion of Iraq had Obama been in office in 2000. And Iraq might well have occured as well.

So am I being a Bush apologist? No. It might surprise you to know how critical I am of the man. But it doesn't change my beief that Dubya did the right thing by changing the status quo in the Middle East-- although it might be many many years down the road before we reap the benefits of upending that particular applecart. Because obviously what we had been doing apart from the first Gulf War, nothing was getting "fixed" or changed because it was business as usual over there.

Again, we'll see how nuanced the voting public can be. Hope and Change are great campaign slogans, but as I said in the OP and what was very incisively written in the Newsweek piece, it's all looks a lot different once you sit behind that desk in the Oval Office. Want proof? Notice that all remaining presidents have now met twice I believe to "introduce" Barack to his new responsibilities-- and believe me, it wasn't no back slappin' "Welcome to the exclusive club" meeting they had.

Totem

The groundwork for 9/11 was laid in the Clinton adminstration. All the principles involved were already in place training or laying low before Bush came into office.

Mind you, I'm not saying this to point a finger at Bill Clinton, but to show that apart from pre-emptively arresting them, nothing was going to happen beyond what exactly occured that day. Various adminstrations and studies had said our airports were soft targets. And all advice or recommendations for more security had been ignored for either budgetary reasons or for the convenience of the traveling public.

What's more surprising is that more security isn't evident in other areas of concern: Subways, seaports, fuel farms, electricity grids, key industries, and infrastructure like bridges.

We never learn or act until after the fact. 9/11 was a foregone conclusion outside of specific passengers attempting to retake control of the planes.

Totem

Edited, Jan 15th 2009 4:19pm by Totem

Of course! You gotta take credit when it becomes available, right? I thought that was d'riguer when it came to rooting for your team's prez? I would expect nothing less from you when Obama's term in office produces various and sundry victories of all flavors.

It's all part of the game!
:D

Totem

Give me a break Smash. Where exactly is "strengthening security in our airports" in the Dem platform? If any President was likely to make any changes to make the 9/11 attacks less likely back in 2001, it would have been a Republican, not a Democrat.

Sorry. Should have been more clear. I was specifically speaking to the first two of the four items on the list. You responded with some vague "Each presidents actions will change the results", when I think it's pretty clear that 9/11 would have happened, and the invasion of Afghanistan would have happened, pretty much regardless of who we'd elected in 2000.

We can speculate about things that occurred later and less directly like the stock market and gas prices. Here too though, I doubt very much that the policies of the Democrats would have changed the outcome much. Certainly, it's unlikely that a party less likely to push for expanded domestic oil production and more happy with the idea of increasing the cost of gas as a means to make alternatives more appealing would have somehow avoided the spike in gas prices we saw. And given that the market crash was helped along pretty well by Dem policies of foisting the cost of their social agenda on the financial institutions it seems equally unlikely they would have managed to avoid those either.


My point is that in order for a Dem president to have prevented those things from happening, he'd have had to completely ignore the platform of his party on a whole host of domestic and foreign policies. That seems pretty darn unlikely. Bush failed to prevent those things not because Republican party platform made them more likely but because the partisan nature of politics made it hard for Republicans to prevent them from happening. Dem policies actively helped each of those four things to happen. How on earth can anyone think that if a Dem had been in the White House that they'd have been less likely?

The article in question outlines why it's unlikely he will. Reality will meet fantasy and hopefully fantasy will have to give. His "ambition" was based on being naive enough to actually say things that can't work, but sound really good to those who don't know better.



No. They wish for large western nations not to fight back. There's a difference. Chamberlain sought "peace in our time" and the parallels to what the western world seems to seek today is scary. Confusing peace with appeasement is dangerous foreign policy.



Obama is viewed as someone who may just be dumb enough to buy the above fallacy. He's not a "bridge". I guarantee you that the folks in the Middle East hoping he'll do what he promised to not do so out of some sense of brotherhood with him. They see an obstacle to their dreams of power standing aside. Don't assume anything more is going on here.


The foreign policy you seem to hold in such high regard (and hope Obama adopts) reminds me of a guy I knew back when I worked at a convenience store. A common tactic used by the local hoodlums was to act as intimidating as possible and then ask the clerk if he could have something "for free", sometimes accompanied with "At least I'm not stealing it". There was a guy who'd fall for that every time. He was so concerned about being robbed by the thieves I guess that he'd "give" them whatever they wanted when they came in. In his mind, this way they had an understanding. They didn't steal from him, so he didn't feel like he was being victimized.

Of course, they ended up taking more than they could have gotten if they'd just stolen it, and at zero risk to themselves. It's a stupid thing to do. Even if you can't stop the guy from stealing something, you have to make him do it. If you just give in, he gets what he wants "for free" and your expense. It may feel better, but it's absolutely the wrong thing to do.

The policies most westerners seem to want to employ is just like that. Give them what they want instead of forcing them to fight for it. That way you avoid the conflict, right? But of course, it never ends does it? They never stop and things never get better. That's what you're hoping Obama will do.


I hope, just as fervently, that he doesn't. I hope he'll realize that only by standing up to the "bad guys" does the world ever become a better place. And yeah, it increases the conflict in the short term. Of course it does. But that's a necessary price for true peace. The kind of false peace you seem to want isn't real. It lasts only until the next demands are made. You end up being the victim without even realizing it.



Sure. The global community will embrace us with open arms and trade with us! Yippeee! Just sell your soul here. It's a small price, right?

So you're saying that we should oppose terrorists and dictators around the globe, even though we know that there's likely to be bloodshed, based on the hope that by doing so the world will become a better place? You agree that this is better than accepting some base level of "badness" in the world perpetually so as to avoid the conflict (and change) that might otherwise occur?


Just checking. Cause I agree with the sentiment entirely. I just think my view of what constitutes preparation and hope is a bit different than most...

You really do not understand this do you. The US is currently the 'bad guy', same as Israel. I live outside your country, I see very directly how the US standing has decreased under Bush.

Jewish MP speaks condemns Israel
Gerald Kaufman
This condemnation is building ..

Obama will have a month or two to wait for the Israeli elections but then he will need to engage and control this geneva convention breaking country.

All Obama has to do to improve the US presence on the world stage is not accuse every country he disagrees with of being in an axis of evil (despite having no relationship at all) and stop invading or threatening them. If he lets bulldog Clinton loose on Gaza/Israel with a remit to reign in Israel, we could see some progress.

You also type too much

Edited, Jan 16th 2009 2:52am by GwynapNud