The Bush foreign policy, in retrospect

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Stevenson

Old School
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,171
Likes
5,394
Points
113
I couldn't and can't stand the guy, but I will try a balanced analysis

Pros

Though 9/11 happened almost a year into his watch (a fact the right likes to ignore) there were no more terrorist attacks on his watch, and that is not insignificant

Though Iraq was entered into on lies and deceit, and was a disaster for a long time, it may turn out OK. Whether it was worth the cost is very doubtful though.

Libya was a win


Cons

Loss of prestige worldwide

Creation of far more enemies than friends

North Korea got the bomb on his watch

Iran more nuclearized on his watch

Afghanistan a wash and it should have been a win

Abu Gahrib

Most of all, losing our values and pandering to fear was horrible

Overall, I don't think he made us safer, I think he made us less safe.
 
I'm afraid that if we didn't pass the stimulus package, we'd be in deeper shit than we are now. There's no fear mongering in politics.
 
How does it feel to be lied into a stimulus package with no stimulus to it?

This article is pretty interesting...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html#printMode

The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims

The Obama Numbers Are Pure Fiction.
By WILLIAM MCGURN

Tony Fratto is envious.

Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto's problem was that he simply lacked the magic words -- jobs "saved or created."

"Saved or created" has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs -- and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years."

Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. "We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."

Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here.

During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.

If the "saved or created" formula looks brilliant, it's only because Mr. Obama and his team are not being called on their claims. And don't expect much to change. So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved.

"You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts," says Mr. Fratto. "But I'm still waiting."

Write to MainStreet@wsj.com
 
I couldn't and can't stand the guy, but I will try a balanced analysis

Pros

Though 9/11 happened almost a year into his watch (a fact the right likes to ignore) there were no more terrorist attacks on his watch, and that is not insignificant

Though Iraq was entered into on lies and deceit, and was a disaster for a long time, it may turn out OK. Whether it was worth the cost is very doubtful though.

Libya was a win


Cons

Loss of prestige worldwide

Creation of far more enemies than friends

North Korea got the bomb on his watch

Iran more nuclearized on his watch

Afghanistan a wash and it should have been a win

Abu Gahrib

Most of all, losing our values and pandering to fear was horrible

Overall, I don't think he made us safer, I think he made us less safe.


It may be overly simplistic, but a relatively fair analysis.

While I deplore appeasement, Bush's "carry a big stick" policy alienated us in a very negative way. I think that thus far Obama has done a good job of trying to earn us back some respect. Or at least as much as we can muster.
 
He obviously didn't carry a big enough stick, since:
North Korea got the bomb on his watch

Iran more nuclearized on his watch

Guess those UN sanctions worked!!
 
Only Denny can come into a thread about Bush's foreign policy and post an article blasting Obama's stimulus bill and pretend it's relevant.
 
I think it showed an example of "pandering to fear" not being a Bush "con" solely.
 
I think it showed an example of "pandering to fear" not being a Bush "con" solely.

Well that and the lying about how it was a stimulus in the first place and an emergency need.
 
Loss of prestige worldwide

Freedom Fries.

Creation of far more enemies than friends

We spend $500,000,000,000 on the military a year, I think we can handle it :pimp:

North Korea got the bomb on his watch

Iran more nuclearized on his watch

See above.

Afghanistan a wash and it should have been a win

We did win. The Taliban are dead.

Abu Gahrib

If a terrorist knows where a bomb is inside my local school, I don't care if he's got car batteries attached to his nipples. WHATEVER IT TAKES :pumpitup:

Most of all, losing our values and pandering to fear was horrible

I guess you don't consider freedom an American value.

Overall, I don't think he made us safer, I think he made us less safe.

Tell the men and women in uniform that you don't think they're making you safer. LOOK THEM IN THE EYES.
:smiley-arap:
:gasoline:
 
Militants attack Pakistani hotel, 5 dead, 70 hurt


PESHAWAR, Pakistan, June 9 (Reuters) - Militants attacked a hotel popular with foreigners in the Pakistani city of Peshawar with guns and a truck bomb on Tuesday, killing five people including a U.N. worker, authorities said.

Taliban militants have stepped up bomb attacks since the military launched an offensive in April in the former tourist valley of Swat and neighbouring districts northwest of the capital.

Militants shot their way through a security post at the gate of the Pearl Continental Hotel in the northwestern city of Peshawar and a suspected suicide bomber set off the truck-bomb in front of the lobby, security officials said.

"I was in the Chinese restaurant when we heard firing and then a blast. It was totally dark and people started shouting and running," hotel waiter Ali Khan told Reuters.

Top city administrator Sahibzada Anis said five people had been killed, among them a U.N. refugee agency worker. Police said the man was Serbian.

About 70 people were wounded among them a German woman working for the U.N. children's fund. A British man and a Nigerian man were also wounded, Anis said.

The United Nations is heavily involved in providing relief for more than 2.5 million people displaced by the fighting in Swat and elsewhere in the northwest.

About a dozen U.N. staff were staying at the hotel and some had been wounded but there had been no report of any fatality, a U.N. official said.


 
Yeah, I was being facetious.

Do I look like maxiep?

I have a good article to post by a SF newsguy who says the media is fawning all over Obama and too much so. Wanna read it?

:lol:
 
8672_image.jpg
 
Down ~10 points, negatives up ~20 points.

From when he was inaugurated? Hardly surprising. Presidents tend to be at their most popular when first inaugurated.

His approval/disapproval has basically been unchanged since the start of March. Bad news for people hoping the American people are turning on Obama.

Nice find.

Thanks! I thought so.
 
From when he was inaugurated? Hardly surprising. Presidents tend to be at their most popular when first inaugurated.

His approval/disapproval has basically been unchanged since the start of March. Bad news for people hoping the American people are turning on Obama.



Thanks! I thought so.

Rasmussen has him at 50/50 right now. You may want to check the internal demographics on party affiliationon Gallup/CBS/NYT. Or, you may not. I have, so do so at your own risk. :devilwink:
 
Interesting poll, only 2.7M votes. Not scientific though.

obama+f.JPG


And there's this:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/79295.html

OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS TRAIL THOSE OF W.; GALLUP COVERS IT UP/update

Gallup reports that 56% of the public believes that Obama is doing an excellent/good job. Gallup reported 62% approved of George W. Bush's job performance after the first 100 days. MSM tells us how popular Barack Obama is but the numbers tell a different story especially when used comparatively. Comparing the Gallup poll taken following the first 100 day of George W. Bush and Barack Obama is rather informative especially given the highly contentious nature of the 2000 election.
Here are the numbers for other presidents:
April approval ratings in first year in office Bush now 62%
Clinton, 1993 55
Bush, 1989 58
Reagan, 1981 67
Carter, 1977 63
Nixon, 1969 61
Sampling error: +/-3% pts
 
Rasmussen has him at 50/50 right now.

Rasmussen has had a significant Republican house effect recently. During the campaign, Rasmussen was always the outlier in putting McCain ahead or essentially even with Obama when other polls had Obama comfortably ahead. The election didn't show Rasmussen to be right.
 
Con: His unequivocal support of Musharaff's military dictatorship almost stifled Pakistan's civil rights movement. Also, while I applaud his AIDS relief for Africa, I hated the Christian overtones it contained (impractical emphasis on abstinence).
 
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 36% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Twenty-eight percent (28%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +8 (see trends).

For the first time in years, voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on economic issues. This comes following the unpopular bailout and takeover of General Motors. Adding to the hurdles facing the struggling auto-giant, GM owners are looking elsewhere for their next car. Just 42% are likely to buy from GM again. A Rasmussen video report notes a widespread expectation that the government will be forced to provide ongoing bailout funding for GM. Few expect taxpayers to get their money back from the auto bailout.

Overall, 58% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-one percent (41%) disapprove. For more Presidential barometers, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights.
 
Rather than cherry-picking the poll that one would like to believe, let's use them all.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

This includes Rasmussen, along with other major polling entities.

The average is 59.6 approval vs. 33.9 disapproval. Pretty healthy approval numbers, despite such a bad situation. Presidents would love such approval numbers in good times.
 
Rasmussen had it much closer until just before the election. Conservatives on this forum were using Rasmussen polling in September and October to suggest that it was still a toss-up when it was clear to almost everyone that Obama was pulling away.

The polls are what the polls are. Rasmussen has proven to be accurate going back several election cycles; it's reasonable that his numbers were accurate all along. You can't prove otherwise.
 
The polls are what the polls are. Rasmussen has proven to be accurate going back several election cycles; it's reasonable that his numbers were accurate all along. You can't prove otherwise.

Rasmussen has proven to be consistent, not accurate. Once you adjust for its tilt, it's as good a poll to use as any.

Regardless of what one believes about Rasmussen, they also have Obama near 60% approval and the Real Clear Politics polling index I linked averages all the latest polls, including Rasmussen. It's not good news for you. ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top