Blame Bush, Obama — or Us?
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
When someone screams about a terrible policy of the present administration, just pose four questions:First, was the controversial decision taken with bipartisan support? Second, were there precedents for such action in prior Democratic administrations? Third, will such polices continue under the newly elected Obama administration? Four, have the media changed their position on the issue since the November election?
If the answer is yes to these questions, then the acrimony was probably about politics and style, not principle and substance.Take the so-called war on terror. The Patriot Act passed Congress in October 2001 by majorities in both parties — and was reauthorized in 2006. The original versions of the FISA wiretapping accords were enacted under the Carter administration in 1978.
Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were given authorization by Congress. The pre-9/11 precursor for the removal of Saddam Hussein was the unanimous passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act — prompted by then-President Clinton's warnings about Saddam's dangerous weapons: "Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."President-elect Barack Obama no longer believes that the controversial FISA accords should be repealed. And the retention of George Bush's secretary of defense, Robert Gates, along with the impressive appointments of Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and former Bush Mideast envoy Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser — all of whom were in favor of removing Saddam — suggest that those who once supported the Iraq war will have more foreign policy influence in the Obama administration than those who opposed it all along.
Talk of a shredded Constitution and the need to immediately shut down Guantanamo Bay are no longer daily fare in the U.S. media — particularly after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Suddenly we have sober reflection about how to stop such a paramilitary attack here in the U.S. — and what to do about monsters in custody in Guantanamo, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of 9/11.Like it or not, radical Islamic terrorism antedated George Bush and will continue after him. And while we may lament how Bush sometimes conducted or articulated his policies, his support for beefing up homeland security, hitting terrorists hard abroad, supporting Democratic movements in the Middle East, and replacing two odious tyrannies with consensual governments once appealed to a broad number of Americans.Because they are largely sound strategies, they will not change much under a more charismatic President Obama — who for at least a while will enjoy the benefit of the doubt when confronting the same old nasty lose/lose choices.
On the economic front, we can apply the same type of critique to the present meltdown.The origins of our current mess were threefold: high energy costs, reckless borrowing and skyrocketing housing prices that squeezed family budgets. Promiscuous lending at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae created undue risks and increased foreclosures. The lack of proper oversight of Wall Street speculation ensured that a ripple of worry soon became a torrent of panic.But deregulation of Wall Street finance accelerated first under Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Radical risk-taking at Freddie and Fannie was overseen by former Clinton officials and heartedly supported by Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, the chief Democratic congressional watchdogs.
The controversial Bush bailout plan will be continued — or expanded — by a President Obama. We may see Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke remain in office in the manner that Bush extended Alan Greenspan's eight years under Clinton.Faulting Bush for the wild climbs in oil prices to $147 a barrel would mean also praising him for reducing gas costs below $1.50 a gallon as oil in tough times crashed to less than $50 a barrel. In truth, American dependency on foreign oil and vulnerability to wild swings in price have been chronic since the first Arab embargoes over three decades ago. Note that President-elect Obama has dropped talk of a windfall-profits tax on omnipotent oil companies. Supposed energy cabals that jacked up gas prices have now morphed into clueless oil companies that can't stop them from crashing.Many of our unpopular policies concerning terrorism, energy and finance are of long duration. They resulted from collective decisions by Congress, past administrations — and us, the people, in our daily lives. They were no more the fault of George Bush than they can be easily solved by Barack Obama.We should remember that fact in 2009, when the once-messianic Obama will become all too human, as he is overwhelmed by structural problems of terror, war and money not all of his own making — and the once-demonized but now retired George Bush will seem downright competent.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Campaign Rhetoric and Presidential Reality
December 22, 2008
Campaign Rhetoric and Presidential Reality
A Brief History
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
American presidential election rhetoric always paints the incumbent as incompetent in foreign policy, the challenger insightful and skillful. A look at recent history, however, shows that once the opposition gains office, the world suddenly becomes not so black and white.
The outsider Dwight Eisenhower charged President Harry Truman's administration with defeatist incompetence in Korea. Yet, in 1953, President Eisenhower continued Democratic war policies, reached a stalemate at the DMZ, and reclaimed Truman's prior unpopular war policy as his own inspired victory.Brash-talking John Kennedy claimed by 1960 that the softie Eisenhower had let the Russians take the lead in strategic missiles. When elected, however, a more sober JFK dropped talk of a "missile gap" and continued existing defense planning.
Old pro Richard Nixon, when running for president, was said to have a secret plan to end the Vietnam War — apparently unknown to the clueless Kennedy-Johnson liberals. But for the next five years, President Nixon had no easier time withdrawing than his predecessors without conceding defeat.
Maverick Jimmy Carter claimed that cold warriors Gerald Ford and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, had raised tensions with the Soviet Union due to an "inordinate fear of communism." Soon a red-faced President Carter scrambled to boycott the 1980 Russian Olympics and beef up the Pentagon after global Soviet aggression from Afghanistan to Central America.
After the interventions of the trigger-happy Reagan and Bush Sr., feel-your-pain Bill Clinton was convinced that his charisma could achieve through diplomacy what his predecessors had failed at through their clumsy use of force. But after 1993, President Clinton ended up bombing or shooting Afghans, Iraqis, Serbians, Somalis and Sudanese — without consulting either Congress or the United Nations.Realist George W. Bush ran on ending Bill Clinton's nation-building — and ended up spending hundreds of billions of dollars on war and fostering democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So given that history, don't expect that President-elect Barack Obama's message of hope and change will translate into all that much of either abroad.Once upon a time, Obama or his supporters variously asserted that Iran was a hyped-up threat, that we could go openly into Pakistan if need be after al Qaeda, that the surge wouldn't work, that the Patriot Act and the Guantanamo Bay prison have torn asunder the Constitution, that we have alienated our European allies, that defeating terrorists is more a matter for criminal justice than military force, and that pushing democracy on traditional Islamic societies is culturally chauvinistic and naive.
But like his predecessors, the Obama administration will quickly learn that present U.S. foreign policy is mostly a result of reasonable decisions taken amid bad and worse choices. Therefore, don't be surprised if a President Obama continues much of what we are now doing — albeit with a kinder, gentler rhetoric of "multilateralism" and "U.N. accords."Obama has not assumed office yet, and already Iran has mocked the president-elect's campaign suggestions for unconditional diplomacy. Already, old-new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has indicated a desire to stabilize Iraq before withdrawing combat forces. Already, commanders have told the president-elect that a simple surge of more troops into Afghanistan offers no magical solution. Already, we are learning that whether we try more aid or ultimatums, Pakistan will remain Pakistan — a radical Islamic, nuclear failed state that is deeply anti-American rather than merely anti-George Bush.
As Inauguration Day approaches and campaign rhetoric ends and governance begins, words begin to have consequences. The truth is there are not many alternatives to the present general strategy against Islamic terrorism.President Obama doesn't want a terrorist attack after seven years of quiet — certainly not of the sort that occurred in Mumbai last month. He may tinker with, but not end, Homeland Security measures. He may better articulate the complexities of a tribal Middle East, but he won't stop American efforts to foster democracy there.President Obama may show more anguish over the necessary use of violence, but I suspect he won't cede a military victory to terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. He will talk up the Atlantic Alliance but likely complain in private that the United States inordinately does the heavy lifting in NATO. And if terrorists dared again to kill hundreds of Americans here at home, our new president would probably take military action.
Most conservatives and moderates expected that candidate Obama's grand campaign talk of novel choices abroad would end with President Obama's realist admission of very few new options.His problem is instead his left-wing base, which for some reason believed Obama's electioneering bombast that he could magically make the world anew — and so now apparently should do just that or else!
Campaign Rhetoric and Presidential Reality
A Brief History
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
American presidential election rhetoric always paints the incumbent as incompetent in foreign policy, the challenger insightful and skillful. A look at recent history, however, shows that once the opposition gains office, the world suddenly becomes not so black and white.
The outsider Dwight Eisenhower charged President Harry Truman's administration with defeatist incompetence in Korea. Yet, in 1953, President Eisenhower continued Democratic war policies, reached a stalemate at the DMZ, and reclaimed Truman's prior unpopular war policy as his own inspired victory.Brash-talking John Kennedy claimed by 1960 that the softie Eisenhower had let the Russians take the lead in strategic missiles. When elected, however, a more sober JFK dropped talk of a "missile gap" and continued existing defense planning.
Old pro Richard Nixon, when running for president, was said to have a secret plan to end the Vietnam War — apparently unknown to the clueless Kennedy-Johnson liberals. But for the next five years, President Nixon had no easier time withdrawing than his predecessors without conceding defeat.
Maverick Jimmy Carter claimed that cold warriors Gerald Ford and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, had raised tensions with the Soviet Union due to an "inordinate fear of communism." Soon a red-faced President Carter scrambled to boycott the 1980 Russian Olympics and beef up the Pentagon after global Soviet aggression from Afghanistan to Central America.
After the interventions of the trigger-happy Reagan and Bush Sr., feel-your-pain Bill Clinton was convinced that his charisma could achieve through diplomacy what his predecessors had failed at through their clumsy use of force. But after 1993, President Clinton ended up bombing or shooting Afghans, Iraqis, Serbians, Somalis and Sudanese — without consulting either Congress or the United Nations.Realist George W. Bush ran on ending Bill Clinton's nation-building — and ended up spending hundreds of billions of dollars on war and fostering democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So given that history, don't expect that President-elect Barack Obama's message of hope and change will translate into all that much of either abroad.Once upon a time, Obama or his supporters variously asserted that Iran was a hyped-up threat, that we could go openly into Pakistan if need be after al Qaeda, that the surge wouldn't work, that the Patriot Act and the Guantanamo Bay prison have torn asunder the Constitution, that we have alienated our European allies, that defeating terrorists is more a matter for criminal justice than military force, and that pushing democracy on traditional Islamic societies is culturally chauvinistic and naive.
But like his predecessors, the Obama administration will quickly learn that present U.S. foreign policy is mostly a result of reasonable decisions taken amid bad and worse choices. Therefore, don't be surprised if a President Obama continues much of what we are now doing — albeit with a kinder, gentler rhetoric of "multilateralism" and "U.N. accords."Obama has not assumed office yet, and already Iran has mocked the president-elect's campaign suggestions for unconditional diplomacy. Already, old-new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has indicated a desire to stabilize Iraq before withdrawing combat forces. Already, commanders have told the president-elect that a simple surge of more troops into Afghanistan offers no magical solution. Already, we are learning that whether we try more aid or ultimatums, Pakistan will remain Pakistan — a radical Islamic, nuclear failed state that is deeply anti-American rather than merely anti-George Bush.
As Inauguration Day approaches and campaign rhetoric ends and governance begins, words begin to have consequences. The truth is there are not many alternatives to the present general strategy against Islamic terrorism.President Obama doesn't want a terrorist attack after seven years of quiet — certainly not of the sort that occurred in Mumbai last month. He may tinker with, but not end, Homeland Security measures. He may better articulate the complexities of a tribal Middle East, but he won't stop American efforts to foster democracy there.President Obama may show more anguish over the necessary use of violence, but I suspect he won't cede a military victory to terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. He will talk up the Atlantic Alliance but likely complain in private that the United States inordinately does the heavy lifting in NATO. And if terrorists dared again to kill hundreds of Americans here at home, our new president would probably take military action.
Most conservatives and moderates expected that candidate Obama's grand campaign talk of novel choices abroad would end with President Obama's realist admission of very few new options.His problem is instead his left-wing base, which for some reason believed Obama's electioneering bombast that he could magically make the world anew — and so now apparently should do just that or else!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Obama's Citizenship Still an Issue
Worldnet Daily
Thursday, December 18, 2008
OBAMA WATCH CENTRALWorldNetDaily Exclusive
Citizenship issue has merit, AOL poll says Nation seeks answers to questions about president-elect's eligibility
Posted: December 16, 20089:11 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily
America Online is conducting a new poll asking readers whether they believe there is any merit to the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's citizenship – and most respondents say "yes."
There are some 87,000 national votes in the unscientific survery. A full 51 percent of nationwide respondents believe people should be concerned about Obama's citizenship, 43 percent say the controversy has no merit and 6 percent of voters remain undecided.
In all, 43 states agree that there could be merit to the Obama citizenship controversy.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!
Among voters who said Obama's citizenship shouldn't be an issue, represented by 7 yellow states, an average only 50 percent of those states' respondents sided with Obama.
However, Washington, D.C., voters overwhelmingly sided with Obama – with 74 percent voting to drop the issue.
On a similar note, WND poll asked readers, "Are you satisfied Obama is constitutionally eligible to assume the presidency?" A full 97 percent of 6,000 voters said "no."
The top three answers were:
No, if I can't get a driver's license without an original birth certificate, how can Obama become president without one?
No, and Americans should continue to dog him about it through his term
No, there's a reason why he's unwilling to disclose his original birth certificate
(Story continues below)
AOL readers posted comments under its poll results, including the following:
No, I don't think it has any merit. A birth certificate was posted on his web site showing his birth in Hawaii and a story to go with it. Those who are keeping it alive are just sore losers.
This could be put to rest with a $10 copy from the government, and yet Obama has spent somewhere between $500,000 and $800,000 to block this. Why does he waste taxpayers money on this foolishness.
The birth certificate thing is just more racism under a smoke screen. You birthers can keep this going as long as you want with no results, just as the "Impeach Bush" folks never got anywhere for the past 8 years.
Why spend thousands of dollars to block lawsuits that are requesting him to do what John McCain willfully and freely did?
It's sad that every pathetic, Republican racist out there is clinging to the hope that President Obama is not a red-blooded, red, white and blue right down to his soxs American citizen! President Obama is a God given gift to America. He has a big job ahead of him ... cleaning up Bush's mess!
Now isn't that interesting that the slime states of the left which are in the most trouble with their budgets are the ones who think this thug is real.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
OBAMA WATCH CENTRALWorldNetDaily Exclusive
Citizenship issue has merit, AOL poll says Nation seeks answers to questions about president-elect's eligibility
Posted: December 16, 20089:11 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily
America Online is conducting a new poll asking readers whether they believe there is any merit to the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's citizenship – and most respondents say "yes."
There are some 87,000 national votes in the unscientific survery. A full 51 percent of nationwide respondents believe people should be concerned about Obama's citizenship, 43 percent say the controversy has no merit and 6 percent of voters remain undecided.
In all, 43 states agree that there could be merit to the Obama citizenship controversy.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!
Among voters who said Obama's citizenship shouldn't be an issue, represented by 7 yellow states, an average only 50 percent of those states' respondents sided with Obama.
However, Washington, D.C., voters overwhelmingly sided with Obama – with 74 percent voting to drop the issue.
On a similar note, WND poll asked readers, "Are you satisfied Obama is constitutionally eligible to assume the presidency?" A full 97 percent of 6,000 voters said "no."
The top three answers were:
No, if I can't get a driver's license without an original birth certificate, how can Obama become president without one?
No, and Americans should continue to dog him about it through his term
No, there's a reason why he's unwilling to disclose his original birth certificate
(Story continues below)
AOL readers posted comments under its poll results, including the following:
No, I don't think it has any merit. A birth certificate was posted on his web site showing his birth in Hawaii and a story to go with it. Those who are keeping it alive are just sore losers.
This could be put to rest with a $10 copy from the government, and yet Obama has spent somewhere between $500,000 and $800,000 to block this. Why does he waste taxpayers money on this foolishness.
The birth certificate thing is just more racism under a smoke screen. You birthers can keep this going as long as you want with no results, just as the "Impeach Bush" folks never got anywhere for the past 8 years.
Why spend thousands of dollars to block lawsuits that are requesting him to do what John McCain willfully and freely did?
It's sad that every pathetic, Republican racist out there is clinging to the hope that President Obama is not a red-blooded, red, white and blue right down to his soxs American citizen! President Obama is a God given gift to America. He has a big job ahead of him ... cleaning up Bush's mess!
Now isn't that interesting that the slime states of the left which are in the most trouble with their budgets are the ones who think this thug is real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)