T Nation

Obama's Hubris


#1

First, there is this needless immigration reform via executive action. He is clearly seeking to me more divisive than ever and hoping somehow to come out on top rather than work with congress on real, actionable change.
I realize this issue continually fails to get traction and the list of reasons is pretty unsearchable. But if he were sincere about real change, he certainly would work with congress rather than compare penis size as he is choosing to do.

I think his 'conciliatory' speech on Nov. 5 was telling and it's like nobody really paid attention to what he was saying. What he said in short was, 'I don't give a fuck who won, I am going to do what I want anyway' and congress can go along or suck his dick.
Examples:
"What stands out to me, though, is that the American people sent a message, one that theyâ??ve sent for several elections now. They expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do." <- No dumbass we hate your policies.

"So, to everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too." <- This one is particularly telling to me. As if not voting is a way of making your voice heard. What he is really saying is that the supposed "voice" of the non-voters are the silent majority who obviously agrees with him and everything he is doing. You don't speak to the "voice" of those who didn't say anything because they didn't say anything. They had the opportunity to be heard and chose not to. In other words he has no intention of working with congress or listening to the actual voices of those who screamed to be heard with their resounding vote against him. Some how he just refuses to believe he is an unpopular president with unpopular policies. It is why, I suppose, he still considers 'climate change' a bigger issue than the rising tide of terrorism and the specter of its consequences in the world. I am afraid the only thing that will change his mind is a large mass of dead bodies on American soil.

Those are a couple of things I noticed. In other words where his predecessors at least tried to work with an opposing congress, this guy has no intention. The executive order on immigration is just the beginning of his 'fuck you' to congress and the people. I expect an unprecedented amount of executive orders the next to years. Hopefully congress will defund them.


#2

His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster, and his domestic policies haven’t been that much better.

This one really takes the cake though.

It’s only a matter of time until the more extreme right starts deporting individuals on their own, and then we will really a shit storm on our hands.


#3

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion.


#4

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

Foremost is marginalization by both Russia and China.

Another big one is lack of a coherent strategy on the Middle East, specifically Iraq exit strategy which he ran on.

The US Saudi relationships is about as weak as it’s even been, probably due to lack of backbone on Syria and having to “deal” with Iran. Tensions are also there with Israel.

The only thing that has probably went right is Egypt, and even that comes with a political cost.

So in short, our enemies have gotten stronger while our allies are probably making back up plans.

Do you think it has not been a disaster?


#5

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

Most pundits, including some of his closest advisers tend to agree, for one. See Leon Panetta. It’s more than a ‘Meet the Press’ analysis. It has merit, based on allegations from his own staff.
There is little you can say has gone right foreign policy wise, from the ‘Reset’ button with Russia, to the Arab Spring, to the Syrian Red Line, to ‘we do not have a plan’ for dealing with IS, etc.

There are smaller successes, such as more oil independence, the tire tariff on China, and such, but they pale compared to the major gaffs.


#6

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

Foremost is marginalization by both Russia and China.

Another big one is lack of a coherent strategy on the Middle East, specifically Iraq exit strategy which he ran on.

The US Saudi relationships is about as weak as it’s even been, probably due to lack of backbone on Syria and having to “deal” with Iran. Tensions are also there with Israel.

The only thing that has probably went right is Egypt, and even that comes with a political cost.

So in short, our enemies have gotten stronger while our allies are probably making back up plans.

Do you think it has not been a disaster?

[/quote]

The thing about Obama is that he doesn’t have any “friends” on the international stage. By that I mean, Bush and Clinton were always talking to foreign leaders; building ration ships with them. Obama only has awkward, stunted episodes like bowing to the Japanese, delivering a “reset” button to the Russians, talking during God Save The Queen and returning the Churchill bust; becoming a hostile interloper in Israel domestic politics; backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and completely alienating the Egyptian military and secular elite. Everywhere Obama goes he’s acts like an arsehole and makes enemies.

Obama lives in a fantasy world; isolated from real politics; surrounded by a cabal of “advisers” and sycophants and cynical manipulators. Bill Clinton had friends and contacts everywhere. He knew Washington and the game inside out. But Obama really has no clue what he’s doing. He was utterly unprepared and unequipped to deal with the responsibilities of POTUS. His only friends and contacts were the radical fringe of the left and the wave of opportunists who jumped on his bandwagon.

If you look at his foreign policy overall it can only be described as incoherent. But if you look closer there is a purpose. It actually looks very bad. He incited the Arab Spring which led to the Civil War and the rise of ISIS. He also did everything he could to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power; toppled Gaddafi leaving an Islamist regime; ignored the Iranian populist reform protests; let the Iranians go nuclear and put maximum pressure on Israel.

There’s not a “conspiracy” with Obama as such. Obama just has a radically subversive mindset that would shock Middle America if it knew what he was really like. Obama is what Eric Hoffer called a “True Believer”. He was brought up by radicals, devoted his life to radical politics and his foreign policy is shaped by his ideological mindset. He sympathises with radical elements of Islam; he sympathises with black supremacist ideology; he despises traditionalism and traditional American values. The only people Obama identifies with in America are the most left-wing liberals. He despises the rest of America. His mindset, quite literally leads him to destructive policy that harms the country.


#7

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

See Arab Spring.


#8

Anybody on PWI with a background in Psychology?


#9

Russia, Syria, Iraq, Isreal.

Yeah, “Don’t do stupid shit” is working just fine.


#10

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

Foremost is marginalization by both Russia and China.

Another big one is lack of a coherent strategy on the Middle East, specifically Iraq exit strategy which he ran on.

The US Saudi relationships is about as weak as it’s even been, probably due to lack of backbone on Syria and having to “deal” with Iran. Tensions are also there with Israel.

The only thing that has probably went right is Egypt, and even that comes with a political cost.

So in short, our enemies have gotten stronger while our allies are probably making back up plans.

Do you think it has not been a disaster?

[/quote]

How has the United States been “marginalized” by Russia and China, who together field 2 aircraft carriers to the ten of the U.S.? Give me hard headed analysis, not an uninformed jeremiad.


#11

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

Foremost is marginalization by both Russia and China.

Another big one is lack of a coherent strategy on the Middle East, specifically Iraq exit strategy which he ran on.

The US Saudi relationships is about as weak as it’s even been, probably due to lack of backbone on Syria and having to “deal” with Iran. Tensions are also there with Israel.

The only thing that has probably went right is Egypt, and even that comes with a political cost.

So in short, our enemies have gotten stronger while our allies are probably making back up plans.

Do you think it has not been a disaster?

[/quote]

How has the United States been “marginalized” by Russia and China, who together field 2 aircraft carriers to the ten of the U.S.? Give me hard headed analysis, not an uninformed jeremiad. [/quote]

Just curious what military spending has to do with a presidents track record with regards to foreign policy?


#12

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

Foremost is marginalization by both Russia and China.

Another big one is lack of a coherent strategy on the Middle East, specifically Iraq exit strategy which he ran on.

The US Saudi relationships is about as weak as it’s even been, probably due to lack of backbone on Syria and having to “deal” with Iran. Tensions are also there with Israel.

The only thing that has probably went right is Egypt, and even that comes with a political cost.

So in short, our enemies have gotten stronger while our allies are probably making back up plans.

Do you think it has not been a disaster?

[/quote]

How has the United States been “marginalized” by Russia and China, who together field 2 aircraft carriers to the ten of the U.S.? Give me hard headed analysis, not an uninformed jeremiad. [/quote]

OK, now go find some econometric charts.

Start with Putin’s development of energy resources and markets including a near stranglehold on uranium, the continued development of the SCO with potential additions of Pakistan, Iran, India, and potentially Turkey, and the development of an independent economic system outside of US influence and sanctions.

Let’s not forget the debt crisis the comes up every year, before being kicked down the road, which funds a lot of the military spending. Let’s also not forget the exponential rate of growth of the interest we have to pay on that deficit spending, to guess who.

Let’s also not forget the brinkmanship in the Ukraine where the Putin is directly testing our commitment to resort to the military option. Sure we have the best military in the world, but it’s been a long time since the US has been in a fight with a worthy opponent, and don’t think a potential conflict would come too easily and without a cost.

When I refer to marginalization, I don’t mean militarily which is the last resort option. I mean as a world leader, where the rest of the world looks up to and respects us. Everytime Obama has had an option to become a leader and negotiate a mutually beneficial outcome in international disputes, he has failed and Putin has stepped up to the plate.

The nightmare scenario in the back of my mind is that the US had done the analysis looking 100 years into the future, realizes that we can’t compete, and forces us into playing our hand now, while we do have the advantage. This might be good for America but it is one of those unfortunate times in world history.


#13

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

Foremost is marginalization by both Russia and China.

Another big one is lack of a coherent strategy on the Middle East, specifically Iraq exit strategy which he ran on.

The US Saudi relationships is about as weak as it’s even been, probably due to lack of backbone on Syria and having to “deal” with Iran. Tensions are also there with Israel.

The only thing that has probably went right is Egypt, and even that comes with a political cost.

So in short, our enemies have gotten stronger while our allies are probably making back up plans.

Do you think it has not been a disaster?

[/quote]

How has the United States been “marginalized” by Russia and China, who together field 2 aircraft carriers to the ten of the U.S.? Give me hard headed analysis, not an uninformed jeremiad. [/quote]

Just curious what military spending has to do with a presidents track record with regards to foreign policy?[/quote]

The word marginalization implies that the U.S. has been reduced to a marginal position in the international system, which is ludicrous to say the least. Military spending and the quanitative and qualitative characterists of a state’s military forces are both indicative of its relative power. American hegemony is waning (which is inevitable), but the U.S. enjoys a very significant relative power advantage over its peers and will for the foreseeable future.


#14

[quote]theuofh wrote:
having to “deal” with Iran.
[/quote]

Do you take issue with the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran? If yes, why?


#15

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Anybody on PWI with a background in Psychology?[/quote]

I do. Why?


#16

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

Foremost is marginalization by both Russia and China.

Another big one is lack of a coherent strategy on the Middle East, specifically Iraq exit strategy which he ran on.

The US Saudi relationships is about as weak as it’s even been, probably due to lack of backbone on Syria and having to “deal” with Iran. Tensions are also there with Israel.

The only thing that has probably went right is Egypt, and even that comes with a political cost.

So in short, our enemies have gotten stronger while our allies are probably making back up plans.

Do you think it has not been a disaster?

[/quote]

How has the United States been “marginalized” by Russia and China, who together field 2 aircraft carriers to the ten of the U.S.? Give me hard headed analysis, not an uninformed jeremiad. [/quote]

Just curious what military spending has to do with a presidents track record with regards to foreign policy?[/quote]

The word marginalization implies that the U.S. has been reduced to a marginal position in the international system, which is ludicrous to say the least. Military spending and the quanitative and qualitative characterists of a state’s military forces are both indicative of its relative power. American hegemony is waning (which is inevitable), but the U.S. enjoys a very significant relative power advantage over its peers and will for the foreseeable future.[/quote]

No, it’s indicative of our economy.


#17

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
His whole presidency has been a foreign policy disaster. . . [/quote]

Given your background, I’d be interested in what analytical framework brought you to that conclusion. [/quote]

Foremost is marginalization by both Russia and China.

Another big one is lack of a coherent strategy on the Middle East, specifically Iraq exit strategy which he ran on.

The US Saudi relationships is about as weak as it’s even been, probably due to lack of backbone on Syria and having to “deal” with Iran. Tensions are also there with Israel.

The only thing that has probably went right is Egypt, and even that comes with a political cost.

So in short, our enemies have gotten stronger while our allies are probably making back up plans.

Do you think it has not been a disaster?

[/quote]

How has the United States been “marginalized” by Russia and China, who together field 2 aircraft carriers to the ten of the U.S.? Give me hard headed analysis, not an uninformed jeremiad. [/quote]

I don’t think marginalized is the right word. Usurped maybe better. The annexation of Crimea for example, the arming of Assad is another. Then you have China demonstrating their military capabilities in time for the Obama visit, shit like that.
There seems an unhealthy lack of fear by these allies who have gotten what they want from Obama and return no diplomatic gratitude by proceeding with aggressive action against our interests. Obama was more than happy to pull back on the eastern European defensive missile program and gave us little if anything in return.


#18

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
having to “deal” with Iran.
[/quote]

Do you take issue with the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran? If yes, why?[/quote]

There’s nothing to negotiate.


#19

Arguing over semantics reminds is a bit Rumsfeldian.

When I mean marginalized, I don’t mean the absolute, but the decaying amount of consideration the rest of the world, specifically Russian and China, pays to our interest in their calculus.


#20

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
having to “deal” with Iran.
[/quote]

Do you take issue with the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran? If yes, why?[/quote]

There’s nothing to negotiate. [/quote]

Isn’t there? Iran wants crippling economic sanctions to be lifted. The P5+1 (and numerous other states) do not want Iran to become a nuclear weapons state.