March 11, 2011

"In the Middle East crisis, as on other issues, there are two Barack Obamas: the transformative historical figure and the pragmatic American president."

Cranking out another Obama-favorable article at the NYT — with precious little raw material.

56 comments:

Geoff Matthews said...

I'm sure that they have a template for this, so it's cheap material.

Lincolntf said...

two Barack Obamas: the transformative historical figure and the pragmatic American president.

By "transformative historical figure" they mean the guy they managed to package and sell to the country. And by "pragmatic American president", they mean a flailing political failure without principles to guide him.

TML said...

my name is SYBIL!!!

shoutingthomas said...

Well, the gist of the article is that he's not doing anything.

That's certainly transformative and pragmatic, I guess.

This is what Fred Reed has to say about that.

Not sure whether I agree or not. I don't have a foreign policy. But, I think the day has to arrive when the U.S. pulls back from stationing troops all over the world.

It costs a fortune. And, it's killing our own economy.

LakeLevel said...

The Times site said I had to register, which I am loathe to do. I will comment anyway. Obama is indeed transformative: he is transforming The U.S into a more divided, partisan, angry, poor and weak place.

He is not however pragmatic. He does not try what works. He pushes dogmatic solutions and doesn't seem to want to change course when they don't work. I don't think that word, pragmatic, means what the NYT thinks it means

DADvocate said...

They left out the third one, the one that doesn't have a clue.

pbAndj said...

Who cares that that piece is full of quotes and reporting that explains what the administration has done, is doing, and is planning to do? Blah blah blah.

What does the meadhousia have to say? We need to know the truth.

AllenS said...

There are two obamas: a basketball player and a golfer. I'll bet he sucks at both.

WV: rumpers

Tibore said...

Wait, what? To be "transformative", doesn't Obama have to actually take action in some manner? So far, regarding the Middle East, he's been far more a follower than anything else.

edutcher said...

I hate to say it yet again, but - My God, what drivel.

Do those people honestly believe what they write or has it gotten to the Pravda stage where they just crank it out?

I saw one cartoon this morning with Khadaffy as the Mad Dog of the Middle East against the Chihuahua of the West.

The new leader of the Free World is France, apparently, since Sarkozy has actually called for some action.

The third Barack Obama, the one they don't mention, is the incompetent affirmative action hire, bored by the details of the job except those which allow him to convert the US into a Fourth World Communist backwater that makes Rhodesia look functional, who merely votes, "Present".

PatCA said...

Yes, drivel, served up in heaping portions to defend a president deeply disappointing even to the left. Not quite so enchanting any more.

pbAndj said...

ed,

You seem to know a lot about repetitively cranking out the same thing. I wonder why?

Quayle said...

These people are in la-la land.

He is striding through an absolute fiscal and geo-political cataclysm with nary a clue about what to do, and even less of a clue (apparently) about how over his head he is.

His BP gulf oil spill leadership is starting to look stellar compared to his leadership in north Africa.

tree hugging sister said...

And now they can add, "Big EARS, big TEARS ~ how his early suffering at the filthy hands of white bullies shaped Barack's formative years."

SteveR said...

Transformative-winning the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing.

Mark O said...

Only two. How racist. He is all things to all people.

Lem said...

“There is a desire for Obama — not the American president, but Obama — to speak to their aspirations,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. But, he added, “his first job is to be the American president.”

The Two Obamas..

The Kenyan Obama and the Hawaiian Obama.

rhhardin said...

It's either two Obamas or a single moron, the NYT figures.

Elliott A said...

A hundred years from now, he will be remembered as well as Chester Allen Arthur, who is always rated as the worst president. Ironically, that is the only thing anyone ever remembers about him

Chef Mojo said...

The New York Times is reduced to making sausage from sausage casings.

bagoh20 said...

It could be worse. Imagine if he was actually transformative and effective at what he believes. Other than scaring off business and jobs, he's been a failure so far, thank god.

junyo said...

And by "pragmatic" they mean "not willing to risk any Americans for brown people".

Colonel Oliver: [explaining why the world will not intervene] You're black. You're not even a nigger. You're an African.

Browndog said...

I find it very arrogant of the Times to even attempt to understand the smartest guy in the room.

They should stick to what they've always done--and what we all should do-

just sit back and marvel

lemondog said...

NYT article without need to register.

Some Wiki background on Thomas E. Donilon, Obama National Security Advisor leaves one amazed by the level of mediocrity in this administration.

He worked as Executive Vice President for Law and Policy at Fannie Mae, the federally-chartered mortgage finance company, as a registered lobbyist from 1999 through 2005.[6] This line on his resume raised eyebrows when his appointment to the Obama transition team was announced, given that the company had been seized by federal regulators.[7]

Henry said...

Apparently, like damnation, being a "transformative historical figure" is an event not a process.

virgil xenophon said...

TML/

LOL. Don't laugh. A friend of mine married a Sybil--saw the character changes "up close and personal." Personally encountered the "evil twin" and everything in between. NOT for the faint of heart!

Bob said...

In other words, it's Friday at the NY Times.

Brian said...

The gist of the article is that it's a delicate balancing act to both ally yourself with regimes like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain to contain terrorism, while people protest for human rights against the autocracy. You publically espouse those values, but realpolitik requires you look after your interests by making deals with the regimes.

Beyond that though, in the article, it paraphrases Nat. Security Advisor Thomas E. Denillon to reporters: despite pleas from Libyan rebels for military assistance, the United States will not, at least for now, put its pilots in harm’s way by enforcing a no-flight zone over the country.

Okay. Predator drones don't have pilots that get in harm's way. Neither does supplying the rebels with stinger missles. A few dozen spec ops guys that could deliver stingers, or Russian equivalents with some training on how to use them, could turn the tide there like when Afghans shot down Russian helicopter gunships. The rebels, except for army defectors, aren't trained to fight. It's obvious they need help if they are to succeed.

But Mr. Obama is balancing his idealistic instincts against his reluctance to use military action in Libya, where the United States does not have a vital strategic interest.

We don't have a strategic interest in the outcome of Libya's civil war? The article contradicts itself by expressing concern over the people there perceiving whether we are on their side or not!

Obama has already called for the resignation of Qadaffi (per the article), and Qadaffi is massacring his own people to hang on to power. If we don't follow through with support for the rebels, and Qadaffi wins, the Libyan people (and by extension, the Arab street) will view that as weakness.

The article doesn't say if there is back channel negotiation to try to get Qadaffi to go into exile (Venezuela would be an obvious choice). But I don't see the U.S. as getting any credit if that occurs.

paminwi said...

"Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”"

I think that comment says it all! We will not follow what he says without criticism, like the sheep he wants us to be. If he wants to be President of China, I say go for it and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Maybe, his wife, then, could have a country she is really proud of!

Leo Ladenson said...

"[T]he president is trumping the trailblazer."


English translation: The naif is sitting on his hands, hoping not to be called on.

BT said...

If you think this is bad, wait for the run up to election 2012. The NYT's will have stories proving Obama's quote: This was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

And if any of you remain deniers of Obama's greatness you will be labeled "racists" in the first order. How could you not vote for such a great man!!!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bagoh20 said...

Pretty simple formula, but only when it's Obama:

Left likes it = transformative

Left hates it = pragmatic

It's a freaking cult!

Timothy said...

Transformative... do they mean like Optimus Prime? I'm pretty sure the President transforms into a Chevy Volt.

E.M. Davis said...

"Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”"

C.I.C -- Complainer in Chief.

Brian said...

From the article:
"Three months after a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself aflame and ignited a political firestorm across the Arab world, the president is trumping the trailblazer."

Okay, I thought it was a poor choice of words at first, but now I'm wondering if the writer is trying to snark us. Obama is trumping the "trailblazer" who literally set himself on fire to blaze that trail.

Comrade X said...

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China

he picked the one nation that needs his one skill the least. they've already had their community organized and are in the process of undoing it.

Windbag said...

Obama thinks it would easier to be the President of China. It would be better for everyone if that were so. (Well, maybe not the Chinese...)

The Drill SGT said...

"Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

a hugely telling quote that The Won will live to regret. why?

The President of China, has a bunch of titles, President likely being the least of them. General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Chairman of the CPC Central Military Commission, Chairman of the PRC Central Military Commission, being others.

He is a dictator, picked by Oligarchs. No wonder The Won thinks the China job is a better gig. None of those gun clinging, hicks to cause problems.

When shit happens in the world, nobody expects China to have to make a decision and lead. No wonder The Won thinks the China job is a better gig.

The only problem is, those Chinese Oligarchs would never pick an affirmative action, present voting, no experience, back bencher to lead them....

madawaskan said...

Did any of you guys read the last paragraph of this NYT crap:


How Mr. Obama manages to do that while also balancing American interests is a question that officials acknowledge will plague this historic president for months to come. Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”


*****

What the FLYING FIG....

Obama: Whaaaa I just wanna be President of China.

Sycophant "Official":No one is...gawd I can't even do this.

What a bunch of thumb suckers.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
E.M. Davis said...

the president is trumping the trailblazer.

So our super-awesome-deluxe president is out-shining a man who set himself ablaze?

That's quite a feat.

madawaskan said...

I see plenty of people caught that.

It's evident Thomas Friedman has too much access to the White House.

The Crack Emcee said...

There is no "raw material". There's not even a "transformational historical figure" since Bill Clinton was the first black president.

All that's left is folly, and the fact the Left brought him to us is all the proof I need of that.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

Nor Tianenman Square. I wonder why not?

But to be fair: this is a second-hand paraphrase. From the New York Times. I never believe second-hand paraphrases from the New York Times, so why should I start now?

David said...

Obama does not become a transformative historical figure simply because he was elected President while black. He has to do transformative things with his presidency. Right now he is on his way to being as transformative as Chester Arthur. Or Jimmy Carter, if you want to be really snarky about it.

He has a pretty good shot at becoming the First Black President Not To Be Reelected.

Rialby said...

Just thinking about Obama's disappearing act this morning on matters of critical international importance - if BHO came out and said, "we cannot do anything more because we have no fucking money and the Chinese have us by the short hairs", I would say good on you, Barack. But this crap about deferring to the feckless international consensus? Unacceptable.

Quayle said...

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

Really? You were waiting for incompetent fools that whine like children and play the victim card at every challenge?

Waaaaaaa. This is haaaarrrrrddddd!

ricpic said...

If he'd just stay on the golf course and the basketball court in between bouts in Reggie Love's bed we'd be much better off for the next two years.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@pb & j

"ed,

You seem to know a lot about repetitively cranking out the same thing. I wonder why?"

Because he's not a rudderless, whoring politician like the human debris that you, your lefty friends and the NYT strain and wheeze to prop up every day - that's why.

Methadras said...

Yes, there are two Erkle's. The first is a coward. The second is an empty suit.

Phil 3:14 said...

This administration seems lost in the Middle East, though to be fair, not the first administration to be so.

Once again I'll say it, for a candidate who was so good with "staying on message" he has put together a team that sucks at it.

Christy said...

Yes, he is transformative. He has transformed the U.S. into a balkanized nation.

Just watched some of his presser. I admit, I'm irrational. He opens his mouth and I'm sure he lies. Help me! I don't want to be the victim of a derangement syndrome. Or is it insane if he really is that bad?

I wonder if his release of the strategic oil reserve will follow protocols, or if he will direct the oil to blue states. Anyone know how distribution works?

Christy said...

Don't you just love the fact that after National Intelligence Director Clapper testified that Khadafi would prevail, the WH quickly distanced themselves from his statements. Oh, no, not so! Then today, the President admits that yes, Khadafi will most likely hold on.

Tom said...

Dumbo is not a "transformative historic figure", he's an inexperienced incompetent whose idea of leadership is standing behind his teleprompter issuing meaningless proclamations that Quadafi step down or else. It's the presidential way of voting present.

dick said...

Interesting to read the comments. Normally when the article is about Zero all you see is comments praising him to the skies as being the best of the best. Not on this one. Maybe they are wising up as to just how much of a loser we have as president and with an administration that is even worse than Carter's. Usually after a couple of hundred comments praising Obama to the hilt they close off comments. They didn't do that here. Wonder why.

Ron Holland said...

In discussing the Middle East, we might benefit from Anthony Wile’s discussion on The Daily Bell concerning how pricing oil in dollars and thus supporting the dollar as the world’s reserve currency might have as much to do with America’s many invasions of the region as well as our support of corrupt authoritarian regimes at Mid-East Conflict Not Exactly About Oil at http://www.thedailybell.com/1851/Anthony-Wile-Mid-East-Conflict-Not-Exactly-About-Oil.html

Also Ron’s article on the dangers to the region of copying the failing American regulatory democracy model titled A Middle East Warning: American-Style Democracy Isn’t the Answer is also a worthwhile read as he recommends the Swiss model of government as an alternative at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland43.1.html
Thanks,
Douglas