Was Bush's foreign policy smarter than Obama's?

[Giz]

I guess the correct answer is probably; "there hasn't been enough time to tell yet", but I'd be broadly sympathetic to the 10 reasons listed in this Daily Telegraph opinion pience:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...was-a-smarter-world-leader-than-barack-obama/

(Note: I've snipped the discussion from the article to just quote the headline points below, read the article for the reasoning behind each one)

1. Bush never apologised for his country
2. Bush identified and confronted evil
3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda
4. Bush defended [US] national sovereignty
5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship
6. Bush cultivated key allies
7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence
8. Bush believed in fighting a global war
9. Bush did not compromise US security
10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

I don't suppose anyone would take issue with the above, would they?

 

[johnny karate]

Just off the cuff, I'd probably take issue with number 9. I feel like the 9/11 attacks might be considered a "compromise of US security".

 

[Upchurch]

1. Bush never apologised for his country

BZZZT.

From the article:

Barack Obama has apologised for America’s past actions in practically every speech he’s given on foreign soil, and has humiliatingly referred to America’s “arrogance”. In contrast, George W. Bush’s speeches before international audiences were filled with pride for America’s history and achievements, with an uncompromising belief in the greatness of his country. The Obama approach has simply projected weakness rather than strength, and his diatribes against the previous administration’s counter-terror strategy has provided ample ammunition for those who believe the United States lacks the stomach for the fight ahead.

I call bull

Do I need to continue or is the rest of the article similarly slanted and biased?

 

[Giz]

Just off the cuff, I'd probably take issue with number 9. I feel like the 9/11 attacks might be considered a "compromise of US security".

I think that might be a bit like blaming Obama for the recession...

 

[johnny karate]

...which pretty much everybody does at this point.

Look, I fully acknowledge that saying 9/11 was Bush's fault is glib and ridiculously simplistic, but that doesn't mean I've got to give the guy a pat on the back for a job well done.

9/11 happened on his watch. That's not an accusation but rather a statement of fact. To ignore that, and pretend how safe America was while he was president is revisionism of the most blatantly dishonest variety.

 

[Giz]

BZZZT.

From the article:

I call bull

Do I need to continue or is the rest of the article similarly slanted and biased?

A little more detail? Say by giving your thoughts other than just quoting from the article. (Obama certainly has flattered foreign audiences by highlighting/exaggerating foreign accomplishments whilst minimizing American achievements - i.e. Berlin, Cairo etc)

 

[Giz]

... which pretty much everybody does at this point.

Do they? I would say that he influences the speed of the recovery but that he got into office too late to shoulder the blame for the initial problems...

 

[johnny karate]

Do they? I would say that he influences the speed of the recovery but that he got into office too late to shoulder the blame for the initial problems...

I would agree. But people are out of work and losing their homes. No one really cares how this all started anymore; they just want it fixed. And that's Obama's job, regardless of whether or not it's his fault.

 

[Upchurch]

A little more detail? Say by giving your thoughts other than just quoting from the article. (Obama certainly has flattered foreign audiences by highlighting/exaggerating foreign accomplishments whilst minimizing American achievements - i.e. Berlin, Cairo etc)

First, showing humility is not the same thing as 'humiliatingly referred to America’s “arrogance”'.

Second, That tiny bit of a quote is taken way out of context. As shown in this article by Telegraph, Obama was also chastising Europe's anti-Americanism sentiment. Apparently, Gardiner doesn't read his own paper.

Third, it is pure opinion that Obama's approach has projected weakness. I happen to disagree. To use that as support that Obama has "apologised for his country" shows the weakness (and bias) of his argument.

If the rest of the article is as weak as this first point, the author is a hack and this is a hatchet job.


Whether or not Bush's foreign policy is smarter than Obama's, this editorial won't likely contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

 

[Giz]

Whether or not Bush's foreign policy is smarter than Obama's, this editorial won't likely contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

Well, it might if it sparked a discussion of whether a "humble" approach that might be seen as weakness might bring better returns than a more "proud" approach that could be seen as arrogant.

But I guess it won't if you just want to slam the piece for disagreeing with your view of Obama...

 

[Upchurch]

Well, it might if it sparked a discussion of whether a "humble" approach that might be seen as weakness might bring better returns than a more "proud" approach that could be seen as arrogant.

If you wanted to do that, find an article that at least attempts to create a legitimate argument. Or, better yet, create a legitimate argument yourself.

"Obama is ashamed of the US. Here is an out of context and misleading reference. Oh yeah, and Obama is a weenie" is not an argument.

But I guess it won't if you just want to slam the piece for disagreeing with your view of Obama...

Well, don't let the fact that it is factually wrong keep it from reinforcing your view of Obama.



Okay, can we be done with the personal attacks? If you have a legitimate argument to make, go ahead and make it. This article ain't it.

 

[Giz]

Okay, can we be done with the personal attacks? If you have a legitimate argument to make, go ahead and make it. This article ain't it.

Project much?

The article (as just one of 10 points) refers to events such as:
Berlin; Obama downplays US (and UK) involvement in such events as the Berlin airlift and fall of the Berlin Wall in favor of sentimental "we are the world/ yes we can" mush
Cairo; A rather generous spin was put on Islam's relationship with Science and the West as well as some apologetics for past US actions.

You can certainly make the argument that the Obama approach of flattering foreigners until they do what you want will work better than a harder stance that might get their backs up but you aren't even doing that… it sounds like you want me to argue both sides...

 

[Darth Rotor]

I guess the correct answer is probably; "there hasn't been enough time to tell yet", but I'd be broadly sympathetic to the 10 reasons listed in this Daily Telegraph opinion pience:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...was-a-smarter-world-leader-than-barack-obama/

(Note: I've snipped the discussion from the article to just quote the headline points below, read the article for the reasoning behind each one)

1. Bush never apologised for his country
2. Bush identified and confronted evil
3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda
4. Bush defended [US] national sovereignty
5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship
6. Bush cultivated key allies
7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence
8. Bush believed in fighting a global war
9. Bush did not compromise US security
10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

I don't suppose anyone would take issue with the above, would they?

Absent his decision to go to Iraq without laying the hard to do foundation, yes.

However, that's a non trivial percentage of the grade.

Given that President Obama (by the way, I'll thank you to refer to my president by his proper title, as one would refer to Queen Elizabeth as "Queen Elizabeth" and not "Windsor") has been in office about a year, I do not find any comparison between the two to be valid. Different body of work.

So, the Texan judge says: need more data.

To be clear: I voted John McCain for pres, and given that President Obama won, he is now my president. This is the John Wayne philosophy, in re John F Kennedy.

"His name is John, he must be a good president."

Wait, I think I messed up the John Wayne quote.

DR

 

[KingMerv00]

I'll agree with #10. That isn't necessarily a compliment.

 

[JihadJane]

2. Bush identified and confronted evil

Sucker!!

8. Bush believed in fighting a global war

What's good about that?

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

You mean like supporting them one year and killing them the next?

 

[Travis]

1. Bush never apologised for his country​

Even if true I'm not sure that is a good thing. America has made mistakes and I would rather we face up to them than pretend they never happened.

2. Bush identified and confronted evil​

The CIA/FBI identified the evil and the military and law enforcement are confronting it in a struggle that continues to this day under Obama.

3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda​

Obama hasn't?

4. Bush defended [US] national sovereignty​

Obama hasn't?

5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship​

Obama doesn't?

6. Bush cultivated key allies​

I seem to recall losing Spain under Bush's watch. Has Obama lost any yet?

7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence​

The importance of missile defense is arguable. However I don't think that Obama has exactly thrown it under the bus totally either.

8. Bush believed in fighting a global war​

That global war that Obama is fighting still?

9. Bush did not compromise US security​

Obama has?

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy​

"We are invading you to free with but with no plan on how to do it" isn't kinda mixed? What are Obama's mixed messages?

 

[Upchurch]

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy​

"We are invading you to free with but with no plan on how to do it" isn't kinda mixed?

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

***Six Months Pass***

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)




Now, that is what you call not sending mixed messages in the face of the enemy.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

If you think a list like that implies smarts, then undoubtedly you'll agree, in an aimless, slack-jawed sort of way.

 

[Brainster]

As with many things, I think America is well-served by a mixture of both approaches; cowboy and conciliation. We can argue which is needed when, but the fact that the conciliator has the cowboy waiting in the wings and vice-versa keeps things reasonably in balance.

 

[A'isha]

As with many things, I think America is well-served by a mixture of both approaches; cowboy and conciliation. We can argue which is needed when, but the fact that the conciliator has the cowboy waiting in the wings and vice-versa keeps things reasonably in balance.

I don't often agree with the things you post, Brainster, but this I am 100% behind.