April 17, 2017

And now for a headline with balls.

At The Hill: "Trump juggles the foreign policy balls Obama dropped."

110 comments:

David Begley said...

When will the NYT run a multi-part "think" piece about the failure of the Obama foreign policy? Part I: How Syria started it all. Part 2: The Muslim Invasion of Europe; Europe Changed Forever. Part 3: Assad's Supporters in Russia and Iran; Part 4: How Bad Was the Iran Deal? Part 5: Dumb and Dumber: Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes. Part 6: North Korea: A Record of Failure; Part 7: Was Obama in Cahoots with Putin?

M Jordan said...

Trump's a baller.

AReasonableMan said...

Another Obama hate post. It's almost as if we don't have a new president in Althouse Land.

Original Mike said...

"Another Obama hate post."

It's not hate to recognize what a mess Obama left. You can't make progress if you don't understand where you're at and how you got there.

kentuckyliz said...

Obama dropped his balls.

Trump is playing with Obama's balls.

It had to be said.

traditionalguy said...

And DJT does several hot spots at the same time,like an American FDR type. Obama was a Fake President only here to sabotage the place. That took balls too.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
It's not hate to recognize what a mess Obama left.


Obama cleaned up the monumental catastrophes that Bush made. Let's give it a few years to see what disasters Trump creates. So far he hasn't done much of anything. Bombing an airfield that was emptied after telling the enemy that he was going to bomb them doesn't count as an 'achievement'.

tcrosse said...

Another Bush hate post. Remind me again what Bush is currently president of.

M Jordan said...

"Obama cleaned up the monumental catastrophes that Bush made."

That's a good one.

AReasonableMan said...

The Bush denial is strong today.

David Begley said...

Part 8: ISIS (not ISIL): The Avoidable Disaster. Part 9: Libya: How Could Hillary Be So Stupid? Part,10: Worst Foreign Policy President Ever? The Legacy of Obama's Leading From Behind.

Original Mike said...

What Obama did with Iran is going to make Bush look like a piker.

My name goes here. said...

"Obama cleaned up the monumental catastrophes that Bush made."

Really? He left a more stable Iraq then the one Bush left him?

He ended the war in Afghanistan after eliminating the Taliban?

He closed Gitmo?

He de-escalated the crisis in Yemen?

He built on the Bush/Rice (Condoleezza) successes in Libya?

He kept us out of a constitutional crisis in Honduras?

This is a serious question, what catastrophes of Bush's making did Obama clean up? The thread is about foreign issues, but if you got some domestic ones list them as well as the foreign one. Please and thank you.

Laslo Spatula said...

I will ignore the people involved and just look at the Headline.

"Juggles" can carry two contrary implications:

Adept: the juggler juggled eight balls with ease.

Clumsy: the wide receiver juggled the ball before dropping it.

The New York Times juggled it's headline implication on this one. You pick which way they juggled.

(Of course, "the juggler juggled eight balls" can have two connotations, also:

The juggler had a total of eight objects in motion.

The juggler was juggling an unspecified number of billiard eight balls.)

Parenthetically.

I am Laslo.




AReasonableMan said...

Obama's strategic withdrawal from the middle east was the will of the people. The US people are sick of the Washington elites dragging us into foreign wars in which we have little or no direct interest. Bush failed to protect the country and then failed again by panicking and starting multiple wars in the middle east. Those wars were bad for the middle east and bad for the US. We have been dragged into a tit-for-tat battle that will now last generations. Complete incompetence.

Original Mike said...

"Bush failed to protect the country"

Which one are you, ARM, a Bush Let It Happener or a Bush Made It Happener?

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
Which one are you,


Fact based.

David Begley said...

ARM:

Iraq and Afghanistan were won when Bush's term ended. Obama completely screwed everything up. Worst president ever. The Iran deal will haunt us for a century.

Original Mike said...

Didn't answer my question, ARM. Did Bush merely Let it happen, or did he Make it happen?

AReasonableMan said...

David Begley said...
Iraq and Afghanistan were won when Bush's term ended.


Delusional nonsense. No one other than a few whack jobs believes this. In reality Iraq was seriously weakened and on the path to becoming a client state of Iran. In Afghanistan nothing had been done about the real problem Pakistan, which supplies both weaponry and shelter to the Taliban.

David Begley said...

ARM:

At least Obama fixed all of Bush's mistakes. /sarc

Original Mike said...

ARM the Truther.

AReasonableMan said...

Donald Trump said...

"Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake,"

"George Bush made a mistake. Obviously we can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty."

"We should have never been in Iraq. They lied, they said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none."

“"The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe."

“How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center…excuse me, I lost hundreds of friends!”

“You call it whatever you want. They lied.”

My name goes here. said...

"Obama's strategic withdrawal from the middle east was the will of the people."

That did not answer my question. Did the strategic withdrawal clean up a catastrophe?

Because it seems to me that it did not. Joe Biden was saying the Iraq was going great, you know until it wasn't.

I asked, and I will ask again. What catastrophes of Bush's making did Obama clean up?

AReasonableMan said...

My name goes here. said...
What catastrophes of Bush's making did Obama clean up?


By forcing Iraq to become responsible for their own defense Iraq's inept Shia political leadership has been forced to negotiate with the Kurds and and to a lesser extent the Sunnis. Their army, although still weak, has now recorded some genuine military victories against ISIS. Similarly, by withdrawing, the Shia were forced to face their fate as a client state of Iran. It is notable that Muqtada al-Sadr had been forced to distance himself from Iran and recently called for Assad to step down. While nothing is going to undo the damage Bush inflicted on Iraq they are unquestionably on a better path than they were eight years ago, when literally nothing in the country worked.

David Begley said...

ARM

Iraq has done a bangup job with ISIS. /sarc

AReasonableMan said...

David Begley said...
Iraq has done a bangup job with ISIS.


Stupid comment. ISIS arose in large part as a reaction to the inept Iraqi Shia political leadership. But, after the removal of the Bush appointed nut jobs, they have, very slowly, learnt from their own mistakes.

narciso said...

Inept by what standard, the shia behave the way the golden square and the baath and their successors the Islamic state thought them.

Balfegor said...

Re: AReasonableMan:

Obama's strategic withdrawal from the middle east was the will of the people.

Ye~es . . . and it's one reason why Japan is re-arming.

But your claim was that Obama cleaned up Bush's messes. Throwing all the dishes on the floor and walking away isn't the same as cleaning up.

Well, in fairness to Obama, he just threw Iraq to Iran and ISIS to fight it out. In Afghanistan he initially escalated US involvement, and then later negotiated to leave a garrison force indefinitely.

narciso said...

Islamic state kills shia Kurds and jews because that is what they did in the anfal, how they dispossessed the shia, and how their mukharabat funded Hamas and Fatah, the admission at the end of black widow.

narciso said...

Now they accused chalabi of being an Iranian puppet, yet they allowed Maliki a defacto one to rule for eight years

narciso said...

Without the strongest tribe to mediate he got out of hand, likewise the Sunni tribesmen took over Kurdish recounts like mosul.

Matthew Sablan said...

To be fair, that's how every president feels about their predecessor. There are things Bush could've done better; Clinton, all the way back to Washington.

Michael K said...

Another Obama hate post. It's almost as if we don't have a new president in Althouse Land.

How long did it take from the posting of the item to ARM's knee jerk ?

Nanoseconds ?

Michael K said...

Picoseconds?

Michael K said...

Femtoseconds?

AReasonableMan said...

Balfegor said...
"Obama's strategic withdrawal from the middle east was the will of the people."

Ye~es . . . and it's one reason why Japan is re-arming.


For the record, Japan is not in the middle east. And, it is reasonable to expect Japan to carry some of the load for its military defense. This is actually Trump's state position.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
How long did it take


I know math is hard for some but the numbers are available if you can get a less math-phobic friend to help.

narciso said...

Much as Clinton spent all his time bargain with arafat, dabbling in the balkans while alqueda was on the march.

Rusty said...

Original Mike said...
"ARM the Truther."

"You can't melt steel with fire!"
But Bush knew.
Bush knew that fire would melt steel.
In his cunning plan.
All he had to do was ignore the warning signs and let the Saudis fly airliners into our buildings.
It is and will always be Bushs' fault.
Obama. Sacred holy Obama.
Obama can do no wrong.
The laws of man and physics do not apply to Obama
The light bringer.
ARMs secular jesus. Holy and pure.
He gave money to the poor.
He caused the lame to walk.
And he condemned counless generations to bend over the crushing weight of debt he has imposed.
More thn all the other presidents combined.
Blessed be his name.
Government be with you.
And also with you.
Bureaurocracy without end.
Forever and ever.

ARM hates you and the inherent liberties you so jelously covet.

Original Mike said...

As ill-considered as some of ARM's posts are, I never would have pegged him as a Truther.

narciso said...

Much like the vips were in the w era.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/20
17/04/in_her_majestys_disservice.html

Static Ping said...

The question is not if Afghanistan and Iraq were good ideas, both of which are certainly up to debate. When it comes to Obama the question is whether the United States's foreign policy is in better or worse shape when he left compared to when he started. Then there is the secondary though very important question of given what he started with could the results have been any different if he had taken a better course of action.

Looking at Iraq, Obama did not have the option to not invade Iraq and depose Saddam. What he inherited was an unpopular but on the whole modestly successful war in a somewhat stable country that still had a lot of problems. It's not the best of situations but it certainly was not the worst of situations either. Obama's actions destabilized the country and the region, led to the rise of an overt terrorist state in ISIS, increase the power of Iran, and resulted in various terrorist attacks and atrocities. It seems to me that his choices were poor.

Afghanistan is Afghanistan. It's barely a country. The outcome here is unlikely to be good regardless. He did get Osama, so there is that.

North Korea is an issue that has been kicked down the road back to the Clinton and Bush administrations. It was poorly handled by the prior administrations. It was poorly handled by the Obama administration. Now we have to hope that Trump can save us from a lunatic with nuclear weapons.

Libya was botched so badly that it is hard to imagine how it could have been done worse.

Egypt was handled very badly and the current decent situation was despite him.

The Iran deal was not only incredibly stupid and exceedingly dangerous, but appears to have been intentional. If the entire White House was secretly replaced with the inmates from an asylum, I'm not sure that the crazy folks would think this a good idea.

Obama was very bad at foreign policy. It's not all his fault, but a lot of it is.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
"ARM the Truther."


Idiotic comment. The truth is much more prosaic, Bush/Cheney were the most incompetent leaders in a century if not the entire history of the country.

Rusty said...

Original Mike said...
"As ill-considered as some of ARM's posts are, I never would have pegged him as a Truther."

Ignorant people embrace conspiracies of all sorts. Logic baffles them.

Original Mike said...

Is 9/11 Bush's fault, ARM?

Matthew Sablan said...

We're still really close, historically, to Bush and Obama to be making those sorts of sweeping comparisons. Honestly, I see Bush going down in history as probably a B-/C+ president. Average, a few good points, some bad ones, but over all, average.

Obama may get the same grade, maybe lower if you care about how the president works with the Congress, maybe higher if you stick with the narrative of "scandal free." Then, of course, we'll still want to wait several years to see all the unintended consequences (both the ones we were warned about and the ones no one predicted) for his foreign and domestic policies.

Anyone making sweeping claims about either (most incompetent, worst, etc.), are jumping the gun.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
Is 9/11 Bush's fault, ARM?


As Trump pointed out, while commander in chief Bush failed to keep the country safe. This is an unassailable fact. Trump is correct on this issue. In fact, his willingness to point out that the Emperor had no clothes was a major contributor to Trump's becoming president. The cognitive dissidence on the right had become overwhelming and needed to be cleared. Only Trump was willing to do so.

Original Mike said...

So, 9/11 is Bush's fault. We have a name for that: Truther.

Gk1 said...

It is brave territory to even have a press outlet merely suggest obama the light bringer may not have been all that. The reaction of the left is predictable as it is tedious.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
So, 9/11 is Bush's fault. We have a name for that: Truther.


So, according to you, the Republican president is a Truther?

Michael K said...


Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Michael K said...
How long did it take

I know math is hard for some but the numbers are available if you can get a less math-phobic friend to help.


I think ARM is having some sort of breakdown. He didn't used to be as nasty.

I could not time the knee jerk with math, you fool. I would need a high speed camera. Maybe with a Schlieren apparatus for the shock wave.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
I could not time the knee jerk with math


So, when you measure quantities in the time domain, all you've got is 'really, really fast'? Sad!

Original Mike said...

"So, according to you, the Republican president is a Truther?"

He might be, I don't know what he's said on this issue. But the topic is your unwillingness to state that 9/11 is not Bush's fault. That's pretty extreme, reasonable man.

antiphone said...

Matthew Sablan said...

...What he inherited was an unpopular but on the whole modestly successful war in a somewhat stable country that still had a lot of problems. It's not the best of situations but it certainly was not the worst of situations either.

"Modestly successful" in achieving what goal?

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
He might be, I don't know what he's said on this issue.


Why don't you read my post quoting him on this topic. Avoiding the self-evident is not evidence of a mature mind.

Original Mike said...

"Why don't you read my post quoting him on this topic."

I read it. it says nothing specific about 9/11, just mealy mouth words about not keeping the country safe.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
I read it. it says nothing specific about 9/11


Exactly how delusional are you? What do you think Trump was referring to? Why is it that everyone else in the country understood the topic under discussion except you?

How exactly are the following statements the slightest bit ambiguous?

“The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe."

“How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center…excuse me, I lost hundreds of friends!”

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

So, when you measure quantities in the time domain, all you've got is 'really, really fast'? Sad!

More ignorant nastiness from the fool who thinks I know how fast his knee jerks without seeing it.

Some people know that measuring something requires observation.

Not on the left, apparently.

Original Mike said...

So you and Trump are both Truthers. Glad we resolved that.

Michael K said...

“The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe."

I wonder why the TV series "The Path to 9/11" has never been shown again or has not been put out on DVD. It was pretty good but there was an unfortunate association with some guy who was president as all the planning took place.

I think his wife had political ambitions. I wonder if that's the reason Disney has been sitting on that property for so long?

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
More ignorant


While correcting your stupidity is a Sisyphean task, your original statement was:

"How long did it take from the posting of the item to ARM's knee jerk ?"

As I pointed out, the times were available on the relevant posts. But you were too dumb to get that, and went off on an irrelevant tangent. The price of being senile, I guess.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Trump is correct in that he inherited a mess. Obama had no foreign policy successes in 8 years unless you count a fake agreement with Iran that essentially pays them to continue their nuclear program. Our "leading from behind" strategy was a total failure. China and Russia filled the power vacuum we left. The Norks were totally ignored. The middle east slid further into chaos. Will Trump be any better? Who knows, but it's hard to imagine he could be worse. The one thing I do know is that unlike Obama, Trump will be held accountable for whatever mistakes he makes.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
So you and Trump are both Truthers.


No. According to your criteria Trump is a Truther. I have deliberately avoided making any personal assertion on the topic so that we could focus on the main point of interest, that you believe that the current Republican president is a Truther.

Original Mike said...

"I have deliberately avoided making any personal assertion on the topic ..."

Because you know how loony your belief sounds.

Matthew Sablan said...

""Modestly successful" in achieving what goal?"

-- Try quoting the right person. You'll have a better shot getting answered.

Rusty said...


"I think ARM is having some sort of breakdown. He didn't used to be as nasty."

He's always been this nasty. It's just the current administration has forced his facade and revealed his fascism.

Darrell said...

Mr. Wu had a name for Althouse Lefties.

antiphone said...

Try quoting the right person. You'll have a better shot getting answered.

Sorry about that.

Static Ping said...

...Obama did not have the option to not invade Iraq and depose Saddam. What he inherited was an unpopular but on the whole modestly successful war in a somewhat stable country that still had a lot of problems.

"Modestly successful" in achieving what goal?

antiphone said...

Donald Trump talking about the foreign policy mess under Bush in:

...the August 2004 issue of Esquire

My life is seeing everything in terms of "How would I handle that?" Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have.

I would have been tougher on terrorism. Bin Laden would have been caught long ago.

What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!

Michael K said...

More nastiness from ARM.

Too bad, guy. Something is obviously bothering you.

I don't agree that Bush "lied" and the invasion was for for valid reasons that were probably a mistake in retrospect. The issue was (and this is not directed at nasty ARM but others who might be interested) whether Arabs could rule themselves without tyrants. It seems the possibility of self rule by Arabs was a myth.

The WMD issue was a pretext provided for Tony Blair and was not the real reason although I was concerned about poison gas at the time.

The big mistake Bush made, and it was a mistake, was to put Bremer in charge and to disband the Iraqi army.

AReasonableMan said...

Rusty said...
has forced his facade


What does this even mean? Forced his facade to do what?

Michael K said...

Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county?

He was right but many of us thought it was worth a try. Part of the problem was the ineptitude of the CIA which made predictions based on no data.

The CIA has become a bureaucracy and arm of the Democratic Party but has lost any competence they once had.

Static Ping said...

antiphone: The Iraq war accomplished the following:

1. Deposing Saddam Hussein, who had been a significant to major problem for over a decade.
2. Establishing an imperfect but basically functional democratic government in Iraq that we could live with.
3. Putting our troops next to Iran which was a useful chit in keeping them in check.
4. Killing lots and lots of Islamic extremists in Iraq as opposed dealing with them in France or Israel or the United States.

To be frank, the communicated goal of setting up a wonderful democracy in the middle of the Middle East failed. I'm not saying that is impossible to do this, but it is not possible without a very long-term plan of staying there, unlike the pie-in-the-sky assumption that we would show up and all would be right in the world. But overall the war did produce useful results, if not the ones that were promised.

Bailing out proved to be a huge mistake.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
More nastiness from ARM.


So you can say any unpleasant thing you like to the lefties here and that is OK but if someone points out that you are an intellectually lazy old fool then that is nasty? Nice double standard you've got going there.

As a moderate, I am uncomfortable with double standards.

Original Mike said...

Truthers are not moderate.

antiphone said...


I don't agree that Bush "lied" and the invasion was for for valid reasons that were probably a mistake in retrospect. The issue was (and this is not directed at nasty ARM but others who might be interested) whether Arabs could rule themselves without tyrants. It seems the possibility of self rule by Arabs was a myth.

The WMD issue was a pretext provided for Tony Blair and was not the real reason...


So it's not a lie, when it's a pretext? When Colin Powell made his presentation to the UN he was just offering a false pretense for the benefit of Tony Blair's conscience. This is the moral clarity of the Bush administration, remake the middle east by invasion and occupation? They were simply too idealistic, they aimed too high?

Michael K said...

Antiphone, I;m not sure it's worth it to argue with you but CIA said there were WMDs. A "slam dunk." Remember ?

That was not the real reason, though. The sanctions were collapsing. Read the linked post but I doubt you will.

"if someone points out that you are an intellectually lazy old fool then that is nasty?"

How many books have you written ? How many years have you taught graduate students? How many degrees do you have ?

I don't mind being called "old" or even a fool by a fool, but "intellectually lazy ? You lie. And why ?

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
Truthers are not moderate.


I don't think Trump is a moderate. He seems extreme, going in all directions at once.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
And why ?


You are lazy in your posts here. You routinely resort to insult without even the pretext of an argument. Your exchanges with Ritmo are an embarrassment.

Original Mike said...

"I don't think Trump is a moderate."

I find neither of you moderate.

antiphone said...

Static Ping

1. Deposing Saddam Hussein, who had been a significant to major problem for over a decade.

A minor problem for the US compared to the problems we're now dealing with as a direct result.

2. Establishing an imperfect but basically functional democratic government in Iraq that we could live with.

Pretty vague this one, a government in Iraq we could live with, wtf.

3. Putting our troops next to Iran which was a useful chit in keeping them in check.

The opposite has happened.

4. Killing lots and lots of Islamic extremists in Iraq as opposed dealing with them in France or Israel or the United States.

I'm not defending the regime but it is simply inaccurate to characterize Iraq under Saddam Hussein as a source of Islamic extremism. Iraq had a relatively secular culture at the time of invasion, totalitarian, repressive government yes but not tolerant of of religious extremism. That is no longer the case.

AReasonableMan said...

antiphone said...
"3. Putting our troops next to Iran which was a useful chit in keeping them in check."

The opposite has happened.


In what was a series of bone-headed mistakes, eliminating Iraq as a regional rival to Iran ranks as number 1.

Drago said...

ARM: "In what was a series of bone-headed mistakes, eliminating Iraq as a regional rival to Iran ranks as number 1"

Nope.

obambi refusing to support the Green revolution in Iran is easily number 1.

Easily.

But then, to support the Green revolution would have meant obambi would have had to take some signficant steps against a homicidal, gays/women oppressing radical-islamic state....and we all know quite well by now there is no way obambi was ever going to do that!

In the end, quite the opposite. Literally.

So soon we get to worry about Iranian intercontinental ballistic nukes! Which is to be expected from a president who set up NASA's main mission to be -Make Muslims Feel Good About Space Flight!-

Drago said...

We could easily go back to 1916 if we wanted to look at some of the "modern" roots of the middle east situation whereby Britain and France basically carved up the regions based on their desires to create French/British zones of influence.

But if we did that we would not blame Trump!

So nix that idea right now, eh?

AReasonableMan said...

Drago said...
obambi refusing to support the Green revolution in Iran is easily number 1.


Yes, I can see this now, the mullahs would have just stepped aside allowing for a peaceful transition towards a democratic paradise. Obvious now that you mention it.

J. Farmer said...

But one sure upside of these strikes is that they are a step toward restoring abroad the credibility of America as a power to be reckoned with.

Ugh. The incredibly stupid "credibility" argument that will never die. Yes, I am sure that big powers like China are just terrified about us frittering away resources on stupid conflicts that we have little or no ability to fix and yep continues to draw us in more and more. I mean, isn't that exactly how we interpreted the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan? Was the NSC terrified at the prospect of the Soviet Union as "a power to be reckoned with" or were they all high-fiving each other over the Soviet's incredibly foolish decision that was certain to bog them down and drain them of money, military, and morale?

J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

obambi refusing to support the Green revolution in Iran is easily number 1.

What does it mean to "support the Green revolution?" And what do you imagine that would have accomplished?

Achilles said...

AReasonableMan said...

Yes, I can see this now, the mullahs would have just stepped aside allowing for a peaceful transition towards a democratic paradise. Obvious now that you mention it.

They obviously didn't. Instead they called in airstrikes and murdered a bunch of people who wanted freedom and liberty.

The mullahs just did what the "Antifa" left wants to do. Why is it the left and the mullahs are on the same side all of the time?

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

What does it mean to "support the Green revolution?" And what do you imagine that would have accomplished?

Speeches about the values of freedom and liberty and UN pressure not to use airstrikes and military force on the protests would have been a start.

He could have refused to implement a no-fly zone or bomb the military while they killed the protesters but at the very least there should have been crippling international sanctions. And there is no way on god's green earth we should have given them money and support. That is just absurd.

Drago said...

J Farmer: "What does it mean to "support the Green revolution?" And what do you imagine that would have accomplished?"

Oh, nothing and nothing. It's all hopeless. Forget it. It's impossible. There's no point. Why bother?

It's such a nice day out let's focus on that.

Matthew Sablan said...

If Obama didn't plan to support them, he should have reined in his administration to not make it look like they'd get support.

Static Ping said...

antiphone said... [responding to Static Ping]

How quickly we forget what a major problem Saddam Hussein was. There was a reason we were camped out in Saudi Arabia for a decade to keep him in check. The dude wanted nuclear weapons and was actually getting somewhere in that regard.

Did it work out as well as hoped? Nope. However, when Bush left the country was generally stable and all those benefits were present. Pulling out is what enabled ISIS and what enabled Iran. Yeah, pulling troops back tends to have the opposite effect of keeping troops in the area.

Your Iran comment is rather puzzling. Iran went in the opposite direction because Obama showed weakness to the point that I am not entirely sure what Obama was trying to accomplish. If you told me he was working directly for the Iranians I wouldn't find that ridiculous. I don't actually believe that, mind you, but it is difficult to determine what he would have done differently if it was true.

mockturtle said...

While I certainly agree with the sentiments in this editorial, I also believe that just about anyone here on this blog could have written it. The same thought occurs to me when I hear TV news pundits. These people are 'analyzing' news. We could 'analyze' news. There is no there there. Seldom does one of them bring any new information or insight to the discussion. Talking heads saying nothing.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

Speeches about the values of freedom and liberty and UN pressure not to use airstrikes and military force on the protests would have been a start.

He could have refused to implement a no-fly zone or bomb the military while they killed the protesters but at the very least there should have been crippling international sanctions.


Huh? Airstrikes? No fly-zones? Are you sure you're talking about the same Green Movement that I am?

@Drago:

Oh, nothing and nothing. It's all hopeless. Forget it. It's impossible. There's no point. Why bother?

Translation: I have no answer but it won't stop me from engaging in dumb cheerleading

Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
"@Drago:

obambi refusing to support the Green revolution in Iran is easily number 1.

What does it mean to "support the Green revolution?" And what do you imagine that would have accomplished?"

It would have proved that we live up to our nationl creed. That we take a keen interest in the lives and liberty of other people. And. When the United Syayes takes an interest in someone they tend not to die under interrogation.
But, hey. It's a living constitution so fuck em

Drago said...

Farmer: "Translation: I have no answer but it won't stop me from engaging in dumb cheerleading"

That's not a translation it's just another baseless dumb assertion by you.

J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

Oh, I am sorry; I read what you wrote as sarcasm so I thought I'd answer in kind.

I figured that if you considered Obama's decision no to support the Green Movement "easily" is greatest mistake, you could actually explain that. If you have a non-sarcastic answer, I'm all ears.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

- John Quincy Adams 4 July 1821

Drago said...

ARM: "Yes, I can see this now, the mullahs would have just stepped aside allowing for a peaceful transition towards a democratic paradise. Obvious now that you mention it."

Yeah, those stupid democracy seeking moderates in Iran had it coming alright.

Well played ARM. You and obambi sure showed them what's what.

Drago said...

Not only would the mullahs not voluntarily step aside but obambi and his ARM-like fans simply had to release $140Billion as well as literal pallets of hard currency to those same mad mullahs who just happen to be the largest state sponsors if terror.

We HAD to you see. After all, those bad dudes aren't just going to step aside!

I guess it's obvious now that I thought NK about it.

Drago said...

Darn autocorrect

J. Farmer said...

Yes, I can see this now, the mullahs would have just stepped aside allowing for a peaceful transition towards a democratic paradise. Obvious now that you mention it.

What people in the US seem to be missing is that the Green Movement was never trying to overthrow Mullahs or even the Islamic Republic. The entire movement essentially grew out of a contested presidential election between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir-Hossein Mousavi. One of the leaders of the Green Movement, Mehdi Karroubi, is a mullah.

AReasonableMan said...

J. Farmer said...
Mehdi Karroubi, is a mullah.


While it is true that the definition of mullah is very loose, Karroubi has made his living as a lawyer, politician and investor not as a cleric. As much as it pains me to assist Drago's weak and pathetic position, Karroubi appears to be very liberal by the standards of Iran.

J. Farmer said...

@A Reasonable Man:

While it is true that the definition of mullah is very loose, Karroubi has made his living as a lawyer, politician and investor not as a cleric. As much as it pains me to assist Drago's weak and pathetic position, Karroubi appears to be very liberal by the standards of Iran.

I do not disagree with that. He is widely considered a pragmatic, moderate reformer. And I agree that he is "liberal by the standards of Iran." But Karroubi is a mullah by any standard definition of the word. And the Green Movement was not looking to overthrow the Islamic Republic, the Ayatollah, or the Council of Experts.

Drago said...

ARM: "As much as it pains me to assist Drago's weak and pathetic position, Karroubi appears to be very liberal by the standards of Iran."

Gee, "thanks" for the "support"ARM.

I'm not sure I can afford many more of those types of pyrrhic rhetorical "victories".

Michael K said...

"Your exchanges with Ritmo are an embarrassment."

I agree.That's why I avoid him and block his comments when I can.

I used to hold you in some regard. Too bad TDS has taken over.

I have better things to do.

Michael K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAORE said...

It's about time that Obama's balls dropped.