White House Concedes: Assad Won’t Go
Published on: July 23, 2013
show comments
  • rheddles

    Obama may be a serious person of principal, but that doesn’t make him competent, just as it did not Wilson. And just as Wilson’s megalomania and incompetence set the stage for the holocaust and the blue model, so Obama’s promise horrid dividends in the unforseeable future. Two presidents so good they leave behind a trail of evil.

    • Kavanna

      Wilson certainly left behind a trail of evil and misery, besides setting the American political system off on its course to self-destruction through “progressivism.” Perhaps the worst president in US history.

      • bpuharic

        The GOP at this time was, of course, expelling blacks from the party and making deals with right wing southern Democrats to ensure laws protecting blacks were gutted.

        • rheddles

          Like introducing segregation to Washington DC.

          • bpuharic

            The first national party to introduce a civil rights plank to its platform?

            The Democrats. 1948.

            First party to integrate the armed forces?

            The Democrats. 1948.

            I can keep going if you’d like.

          • rheddles

            Go as long as you want, but don’t forget the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Or who passed the Jim Crow laws.

          • bpuharic

            Certainly conservatives passed Jim Crow. The fact they happened to be Democrats is an accident of history. They were states righters then, they’re states righters now.

          • rheddles

            Right. None of those Progressive eugenists supported the legislation. Ha. Ha. That Progressive Woodrow Wilson didn’t oversee the segregation of DC. Real knee slappers those are.

          • bpuharic

            Everyone was a racist then. Everyone. To deny it is to be a revisionist

            But, then, if the right wasn’t revisionist, they wouldn’t have any history at all.

          • rheddles

            Everybody does it. My teenagers use that one all the time. Never works. There’s those three pesky amendments the Republicans had to pass because the Racist Democrats kept finding ways around them. You’re not going to get rid of them or your Democrat Jim Crow or Progressive Segregation. Facts. Deal with them.

          • bpuharic

            Don’t understand history do you? It’s not a matter of what people ‘do’. It’s a matter of historical fact

            The fact the right is so dedicated to lying about history is also a fact. Unfortunate, but a fact.

            The south has always been conservative. The south had slavery. It had Jim Crow. It enacted racism into law

            And conservatives…such as William F Buckley and James J Kilpatricke WROTE in defense of these policies.

            Unless, of course, you’re arguing Buckley was a leftist

            Given the right’s penchant for revisionism I would not be surprised to see you make that argument.

          • rheddles

            You’re fighting a straw man when you try to paint me as a conservative. You’re the one who like labels and groups. Just like you classify people by race instead of treating them as individuals. Common trait amongst Progressive Democrats.

          • bpuharic

            Since I’ve never classified anyone by ‘race’, you’re welcome to keep buying John Deere stock to harvest all your strawmen.

            And it’s the right which insists on racial profiling (e.g. Victor Davis Hansen telling us in the pages of “National Review” that most young black men are dangerous)

            You were saying.

          • indipete

            Wonderful, bupharic.

            I think we’ve reached the point, however, where we’re faced with the question of whether “integration” (understood by whites as meaning that blacks would become like them) is, for most, actually possible. And whether both blacks and whites are better off under the pretense of it. Because, if we aren’t — if we keep inventing white racism to explain the failure of integration, things will only get worse.

          • bpuharic

            Given the number of blacks who died to win their equal rights, they’ve racked up a pretty impressive record in support of equal rights

            Which is what integration is.

      • DisgustedwithElitism

        Wilson may qualify as second-worst (I am not really qualified to say); BHO is hands-down the worst ever and it is unlikely another will ever seriously challenge him for that distinction.

        • bpuharic

          Let’s compare records, shall we?

          No of trillion dollar wars started by Obama?

          Zero. Bush? 1

          Number of wars started that led to US dead?

          Obama 0. Bush 1

          Number of depressions started?

          Obama 0. Bush 1

          Hmm…seems you have a bit of a problem.

          • Jeff Jones

            Wars $1 trillion

            Domestic spending since Bush left office $6 trillion.

            This is one of those tricks liberals use. A liberal democrat will steal a Rolls Royce, so guys like bpuharic will search far and wide to find ANY Republican who stole so much as a roller skate and claim equivalency.

            We’re seeing that with the supposed targeting of liberal groups by the IRS. 300 conservative groups vs. 6 liberal groups were held up. Yeah it’s all equal.

          • bpuharic

            Bush had a deficit of 1.2trillion as his last.

            And deficits ALWAYS go up in a recession. I know in the right wing world, peaches and cream flow from toxic waste dumps left by corporate America, but the real world is different

            And the right deregulated the banks, still fights against re-regulating them, then tells us it was the middle class that caused the blow up.

          • bannedforselfcensorship

            Obama attacked Libya, which led to the deaths of our ambassador and others.

            (Wars started without Congressional Approval: Obama 1, Bush 0)

            Also, Obama sent guns to Mexican drug lords that killed hundreds, including a US border agent.

            Stop trying to claim Obama is somehow better because 9/11 happened BEFORE he was president.

            p.s. Bush wanted to reign in Fannie and Freddie….the Dems wanted “roll the dice.”

            Google Barney Frank and “roll the dice” and then come back and explain how it was all Bush’s fault.

    • Pete

      “Obama may be a serious person of principal …”

      You’re joking, right?

      Unless the principles you refer to are those of a leftwing ideologue who believe lying for the ’cause’ is good & just.

      • CiporaJuliannaKohn

        The term “left wing” is too amorphous to apply to Obama.

  • Kavanna

    I can’t understand this post’s holding out hope for Obama to be some politician of deep principle — it can’t be anything other than WRM trying to rationalize (five years too late) his support for Obama.

    This ongoing fiasco demonstrates the truth many knew from the beginning: Obama and his people are parochial, demagogic “community organizers,” not serious thinkers or statesmen. Obama himself is an incompetent empty suit, put there by ultraliberal, ultrawealthy donors from Wall Street, Hollywood, et al. Even his signature domestic “reforms” (more of the same, actually) were assembled by Congress.

    Imagine if we had a real president — a Mitt, or even a Hillary. As it is, it’s Carter all over, without even Carter’s slim experience.

    • Andrew Allison

      It’s much, much worse than Carter. The Administration is, consciously and deliberately, stirring up racial hatred.

      • bpuharic

        Uh where is he stirring up race hatred?

        And Rush (PBUH) never does this…

        • Andrew Allison

          Sorry folks.

          Since you ask: a guy who is as “white” as the President makes a serious error of judgement, gets jumped by a hood(ie)lum with a history of violence, fires in self-defense and is thus a racist. GMAB

          • bpuharic

            Your opinion. Everyone has one.

            My wife, a criminal defense attorney, has a different opinion.

          • Andrew Allison

            My sympathies to you both!

    • CiporaJuliannaKohn

      Obama is unprincipled and incompetent.
      Anyone who supports the radical Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood is unprincipled by definition. Anyone who as president keeps totally silent during the attempted revolution in Iran is totally unprincipled.
      Obama’s incompetence is so glaring that it would take at least a book to list all of his failures. Let me just state that the world is much worse off today than when he took office. No amount of white wash by the liberal media will change history that is yet to be written.
      Obama’s “policy” in Syria was and has been based on his ridiculous belief that if he engaged with the dictator Assad, then peace and tranquility would break out.
      This belief is based on Obama’s own megalomania according to which he can push back the oceans and heal the planet and convert tyrants with self interest into Obama followers.
      It is Obama’s deeply flawed personality which explains more than anything else his amazing incompetence as president.
      Maybe one day we shall find out who were the original backers of this man–the ones who backed him before he ever arrived in Chicago.

      • bpuharic

        Infantile right wing nonsense.

        Obama never ‘supported’ the MB. We have ALWAYS had relations with governments that weren’t friendly. The right wing govt of Bush had great relations with Pakistan even though it was well known he was harboring Bin Laden.

        I suggest you get a new binky and let diplomacy be handled by the adults.

        Obama said nothing about the Greens in Iran at the request of…the Greens. You’re too juvenile to understand how international diplomacy works. Perhaps you should read a book entitled “Special Providence” by a guy named Walter Russell Mead. It’s pretty good.

        • Jeff Jones

          > suggest you get a new binky and let diplomacy be handled by the adults.

          More drivel from the whiney caricature who is quick to call others out on insults, but slow as molasses to apply those rules of discourse to himself.

  • Atanu Maulik

    The one ray of hope is that America is so strong form the inside that it will survive even Obama (the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action in US history).

  • Corlyss

    Wow! Most scathing assessment of His Nibs’ foreign policy I’ve seen from the ranks of ViaMeadia. About time, no?

    • Andrew Allison

      No. VM has been a quite consistent critic of what passes for “foreign policy” in the current administration ;<)

  • Richard Finlay

    “That President Obama, who came into office vowing to prioritize green jobs and push a climate change treaty, has presided over the shale gas and oil revolution is the latest example in American history of domestic dynamism overturning conventional thinking and ushering in a new period of American strength”
    America often succeeds in spite of its government rather than because of it.

  • Jeffrey Marsh

    You suggest that President Obama believes that “nuclear proliferation” is more dangerous than Iran getting nukes. But the whole reason to be concerned about proliferation is fear of what Iran and other maniacal regimes would do with nukes. In other words, Obama’s Iran policy is another example of ignoring common sense (destroy Iran’s capability ASAP by any means necessary) because of infatuation with long words.

    • bpuharic

      Destroy their capability?

      Uh, how? And for how long? You ready to repeat our huge success at nation building in Iraq?

      Right wing neocons never learn from failure. That’s one thing they’re good at.

      • Joel0903

        If the other option is an unstable theocratic dictatorship whose leaders have God complexes having some of the most dangerous weapons in the history of the world? Let’s think.. common sense says YES. Lefties never learn that their little pipe dreams end with lung cancer. Can’t get out of that bubble to see reality.

        • bpuharic

          We’re talking Iraq, not Texas.

          If you think we have the capability…military and financial…to change the Iranian regime, I’d point you to your failure in Iraq

          If I thought you’d learn from the evidence.

          • Joel0903

            As I said, Iraq is a fairly stable democracy. There’s less violence in Iraq today than in Egypt. Or Syria. Or Libya. Fewer Iraqis die each year from violent causes now than they did before 2003 (the most common cause of violent death in Hussein’s Iraq resulted in the family receiving a bill for the bullet). If the country doesn’t fall into a sectarian civil war, they’ll do fine in the long run. Democracy is always a long-term project. Particularly, a parliamentarian democracy. However, a republic, such as we are supposed to have, and such as we had until the latter part of the 19th century is very difficult in the early years. It worked here because the founders of the republic buckled down and sought to make it so. They were visionaries, in the main. This is rarely true in the democracies we’re seeing spring up in the MidEast. Iraq could never have survived that early season as a republic without descending into a civil war worse than what we saw. However, parliamentarian democracies are almost always less stable than republican democracies over time. They are more flexible in the early years, and the hope is that the instability and in-fighting in the process later will not be fatal to the democracy. This seems to be holding to be true in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s too early to tell in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.

            The high estimates of IRAQI civilians murdered by Hussein’s regime between 1988 and 2003 are near 1 million, by the way. The LOW estimates tally over 500 thousand. That doesn’t include the poison gas attacks against Iranian civilians during their war in the 80s (yes, I know the Iranians did the same thing to Iraqi border towns – which should further make my point about such men). Imagine if the US government openly murdered, in 15 years, 1 million citizens. Imagine that repeated uprisings against the tyranny had been brutally crushed. The real political travesty isn’t Bush’s. It’s the UNs – which exists primarily to see to it that such things are not allowed to happen without swift reprisals. 1 million dead civilians and libbers don’t care. Oops.

          • bpuharic

            Egypt just had a coup. Newark is more stable than Egypt.

            And Iraq just had 500 terrorists sprung from prison in the midst of bombings, etc. If that’s stable, then perhaps Sudan is also in a hopeful state.

            And I don’t care how many Iraqis die. That’s their problem not ours. There’s no reason we should have shed American blood and treasure over people who were killing our troops as they left.

            By all mean point me to a stable democratic Muslim state. I’ll wait.

          • Disc_Coastie

            Mr. Bp… you are extremely long on rhetoric regarding anything that neocons espouse… Has Mr. Obama and Prog/Libs, in your opinion, done anything wrong?

          • bpuharic

            Well the liberals haven’t. Obama has. He hasn’t prosecuted any Wall Street bankers. Hard to believe trillions disappeared from the economy and no one’s gone to jail.

      • bannedforselfcensorship

        Actually, if you forced me to plan to attack Iran’s nuclear capability, I would argue for a punitive expedition. Basically, the invasion, the seizing of sites and destruction of materials and the killing of scientists, take out their military, and just leave.

        You do not have re-build nation’s after war. It just seems nicer. You could arm any anti-theocracy groups or separatists too to keep them busy after.

        Yes, you might get a crazy Islamic enemy state afterwards…wait we already have that…but with sites and key researchers destroyed they are back to square 1 or 2 for nukes.

  • Andrew Allison

    Speaking of the MSM, is it perhaps time to consider its reporting of a recent event in FL, in which a man who is no more “white” than the President exercised spectacularly bad judgement, was jumped by a violence-prone individual wearing a hoodie and, while on his back, shot in self-defense?

    • Corlyss

      Deplorable, in a word.

      I’m not in the habit of watching Bill O’Reilly, but he unloaded on the entire unholy alliance between pols and race-baiters in his Talking Point’s memo yesterday. It was sort of cathartic to hear him say what Richard Cohen said recently in his op-ed, and what Bill Cosby has been saying for years, and what Juan Williams devoted a whole book to in the last few years [I am convinced that book is what got him fired from NPR, not his occasional stints on FoxNews].

      • Joel0903

        To be fair to Bill, he has often said this in his talking points, even before this incident happened.

        • Corlyss

          Okay. I don’t see how what I said was being unfair to O’Reilly. He might have said it before, but this time it caught the attention of the victim culturists circling the Martin mythology.

          • Joel0903

            You weren’t being unfair to O’Reilly, just a turn of the phrase as I was pointing out that he has often made the point you mentioned over the years.

  • Andrew Allison

    Re: “Some things about US policies tend to work out OK because we have
    overwhelming power and resources to bring to any problem or dispute.” Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Domestic unemployment? Etc.
    Might I suggest that the problem in each case is our government’s failure to apply its overwhelming power and resources coherently?

    • Joel0903

      Vietnam was lost in DC, not the jungle. Afghanistan is more stable than when we went in there and isn’t openly harboring our enemies, which was always the goal. Everyone knew and said at the time (though lefties like to forget this), that American style democracy would take years to flourish in Afghanistan. Iraq is a fairly stable democracy in a region that wasn’t known for them.

      The domestic unemployment issue will be a long term problem, given the policies of Obama and (if she runs), the likely policies of Clinton. 16 years of bad policy is hard to recover from. Especially now, with China overtaking us as the world’s largest power (will happen on Obama’s watch). Particularly in a global economy, number 2 is not a pretty place to be – as we’ve seen in other countries since the 90s when things started shifting. When you add in almost 2 decades of bad economic decisions, starting with sarbanes-oaxley after the crash in 2001. It did nothing but spend money, and Dodd-Frank was an order of magnitude worse. Of course, it’s authors get slapped on the back and stick their fingers in their ears whenever someone reminds them that it lead directly to the current crisis.

      • bpuharic

        Rather odd in that the economy was losing 800K jobs a month when Obama took office and now we’re adding hundreds of thousands

        But the right doesn’t let evidence hamper Rush (PBUH) from making an argument.

        China was the world’s largest economy until the mid 19th century. Even if everyone there made only a dime, they’d STILL become the world’s largest by dint of fecundity.

        • Joel0903

          It has nothing to do with Obama’s policies. They have been dampening a normal cycle, if anything. Further, we wouldn’t have continued losing 800k jobs a month indefinitely, even if McCain had been elected in 2008. The job losses were responses to events in the summer of 2008 (the Lehman collapse, primarily, but also AIG, et. al.). They’ve also been DISTORTING a normal cycle (by the way, we aren’t adding 800k NEW jobs a month.. that’s double-speak, as before Obama “new” jobs always meant net jobs). We’ve never had this bad a NET job creation in a recovery. Ever. Why do you ignore that? We’ve never added this many part-time jobs in a recovery. Ever. We’ve never added this few full times jobs in a recovery. Ever. Why do you ignore these facts? Lefties like to bash bush over the recession. There was ONE thing Bush could have done differently – and that wouldn’t have mattered. The HRA of 2006 was ultimately what lead to the recession. Bush should have vetoed the bill. However, he sincerely hoped it would work out, I believe. Even though it was a horrible idea for the country – to force banks to give risky home loans to people who clearly couldn’t afford them in order to promote minority home ownership. Having said that, if Bush had vetoed the bill, the Democrats had large enough majorities in both houses of Congress that they could have overridden the veto. Thus, the result would have been the same.

          I do agree with your last paragraph about China completely, however. Ultimately, this is the challenge the US economy will have to overcome. Eventually, China will be a democracy – even if it takes 100 years. Their citizens are rising in income and wealth, and they are now seeking the same comforts the middle class in the US is after. Even if the Chinese stop manipulating their currency, it will still be cheaper than the US (no matter how much we continue to manipulate our currency) as a manufacturing and export hub. With Asian markets growing so quickly, and there being no real N. American markets outside the USA, China clearly is going to have a trade advantage going forward. Ultimately, this is something US politicians need to address over the long term. The exploitation of new oil finds in N. America is likely to help somewhat, if we can transition to becoming a net exporter of oil (between the US and Canada, this is certainly possible), and increase our export of both coal and of clean-coal technologies. Many markets will never truly be American again, however. The sooner we, the public, face up to this and adjust, the better the nation will be. Nations do not adjust to things quickly, however, so I foresee several more decades of US decline regardless of who is in power in DC (barring some new breakthrough in technology that changes the paradigm again). Meanwhile, libber policies will keep bankrupting our cities and the nation as a whole will become more like Europe and less like S. Korea or the new China (the democratic China of 2100, that is).

          • bpuharic

            First this is not a normal cycle. It was the worst recession in 8 decades, exacerbated by loose financial regulation.

            You ignore the fact that what I said was a fact. You’re unhappy with the fact the economy’s growing in spite of the right wing sapper charges put underneath it? Tough.

            The reason job growth is so bad is because

            this is a NORMAL RECOVERY for a financial sector collapse. As Reinhart and Rogoff showed in their study “This time is differrent”, after having studied 8 centuries of financial sector crises and recoveries

            this one is pretty typical.

            So, no, Rush (PBUH), is unable to use this to show how superior right wing policies were that led us to the fiasco.

            Bash Bush over 1 recession? “Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play”

            How many depressions DOES the right wing get before we say enough? How much damage do you get to do to the middle class, while enriching the 1% before even the right wing sees this is bad for America?

            Housing was not the cause of the depression. The math doesn’t work out. In 40 years, home ownership varied between 64-68% of all households. THAT was not the problem

            What DID cause the blow up was Wall Street exploding credit default swaps by


            That’s not a typo. In the 10 years between 1997 and 2007, CDS’s went from $320 billion to

            sixty two TRILLION…more than the GDP of the entire planet

            So stop blaming ‘liberal’ policies when even Alan Greenspan said he was shocked by Wall STreet greed…a fact the right does not want to hear because of its puppy love for our Wall Street Masters.

          • Joel0903

            I agree with you on the credit default swaps. However, like the risky mortgages, those were pushed by liberals, not conservatives in Washington. The greed by the bankers (who aren’t conservative figures wither, by the way), was encouraged by both sides in Congress, and in a way, was encouraged by the public who wanted those cheap loans from the banks. They go hand in hand. Further, Alan Greenspan saying he was “shocked” by what happened is like Marilyn Manson’s mom saying she was shocked by his antics. Or Timothy Geithner saying he was shocked by what happened. That doesn’t change the fact that what lead to the collapse was the collusion between Wall Street and Washington. A collusion totally enabled and encouraged by Democrats in Congress at the time, including the current President (since he was all for that type of relationship between the Illinois Senate and the bankers in Chicago).

          • bpuharic

            Uh…wrong. Subprime mortgages did not reach 10% of all mortgages until 2004, and hit 25% in 2006. The GOP controlled both the Congress and the presidency.

            Since the GOP had control, they could have, at their leisure, changed the law. They didn’t. They could have regulated derivatives. They didn’t. They could have regulated rating agencies. They didn’t.

            They argued the market was ‘self enforcing’ and ‘self correcting’.

            That’s the crux of right wing economic theology: Markets are perfect and rational

            Except when they aren’t, of course, the middle class picks up the tab.

            That’s what ‘moochers’ are supposed to do, according to the right wing.

            I agree with you on Greenspan, though. At least he was honest enough to admit it.

          • Joel0903

            The actual problem wasn’t the implosion of the subprime mortgage business, however. The economy could have shrugged that off – except that the banks were using the loans they owned as investment vehicles. That’s what caused the big blow up in the financial markets. Since they were given incentives (or required in some cases) to make low interest loans to people who couldn’t really afford them, and were also given incentives to keep rates low and make their profits by investing in the loans they owned, there was no incentive for due diligence. There was basically a “do this and if you take a loss, we’ll bail you out” attitude in the Congress – again, on both sides of the aisle, but primarily with the Democrats. Part of the issue is that subprime mortgages are volatile by nature – making securities backed by those mortgages volatile as well. Due to the push to get every American in a home – of which both parties were guilty in the late 90s and early 2000s, this lead to an increase in the number of subprime mortgages. Which meant more of them were taken over by the banks when the borrowers couldn’t pay or simply stopped paying their mortgage. This caused the price of the securities to bottom out. Since the securities had been so lucrative due to the government pushing the sub-prime mortgages both politically (in Congress) and through Fannie and Freddie, banks were heavily leveraged in those securities. As were Fannie and Freddie, in addition to taking on all of that bad debt from trying to bail out the mortgage companies that failed due to the bad loans and outright malfeasance (Countrywide, for example) that Fannie and Freddie were supposed to be looking out for. They weren’t. They were making money on the loans themselves – a clear conflict of interest for a watchdog entity (and being a watchdog was supposed to be part of the mandate of both companies). The people MOST responsible for the bursting of the housing market were the American public who were demanding cheap and easy credit in the first place. Followed by the banks for making the loans and the politicians who were demanding them. It was almost impossible for a bank to turn down a minority family for a home loan of even 250k – regardless of the fact that, in that family of 4, the one making the loan had a gross salary of 40k a year and was the sole income in the home supporting a wife and two children (as an example). Of course, when the rates on those ARMs predictably skyrocketed, everyone looked around and said “oops” including the home-owners who now couldn’t afford their loans.

            Markets ARE self correcting. They’re not self-enforcing, however, since people are not. However, the government also colluded in the distortion of the markets (aside from the ways I mentioned above), by the wink-wink, nod nod attitude taken by the feds. That’s why we only see massive prosecutions once everything implodes. It’s not that the shenanigans weren’t going on during the good times. Of course they were. It’s that the regulators don’t do their jobs – and in many cases – at least in broad strokes, the pols don’t want them to. Until something breaks in the system and they politicians need to point fingers. In the case of the derivatives, however, it was worse, in that the politicians/bureaucrats (such as the Fannie Mae Chairman whose name I cannot now recall) were pushing these as being safe investment vehicles even though they knew they were toxic by virtue of being linked to a vastly distorted housing market.

          • bpuharic

            A hodgepodge of a dog’s breakfast, some of which is right. Some of which is wrong

            First, only 1 of the 25 largest banks that went bankrupt were subject to the CRA.

            2nd, subprime mortgages never went above 10% of all mortgages until 2004, and hit 25% in 2006. The GOP controlled BOTH the House AND the presidency. It was well within their power to do something about this.

            But blaming mortgages ignores basic math. Home ownership in the past 40 years has ranged between 64=-68% of all households. This marginal change in ownership was not, as you admit, enough to damage the economy.

            What DID do the damage was the securitization of mortgages via credit default swaps.

            How in the world do you justify under the guise of ‘deregulation’ allowing

            sixty two TRILLION DOLLARS of these to be sold in 2007? Any answer?

            In addition, the rating agencies themselves were in collusion with the banking houses, who paid their fees. The system was rotten and needed strong regulation…a fact ignored by today’s congress.

          • bannedforselfcensorship

            “Reinhart and Rogoff ”

            I bet you will attack these same scholars when they say that austerity works better than keynesian expansion, though…LOL.

  • circleglider

    [W]e disagree with President Obama in some important respects about how
    the world works, but we have always thought him a serious person of
    principle when things come down to the bedrock.

    How naïve and silly can you be? Is Via Meadia so afraid that it will be lumped into the “vast right-wing conspiracy” if it dares to be honest with itself — and openly condemn President Obama?The simple reality is that the only event that can stop all three of Professor Mead’s “worries” from occurring on President Obama’s watch is the 2016 elections. While a US-Iranian war would otherwise appear inevitable, the reality is that Obama can do nothing but “cave in the face of an Iranian dash for the bomb” because he will not start another war in the Middle East. Given the choice between war and acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power, Obama will always choose appeasement.Likewise, Obama has always been driven to reduce the influence of Pax Americana. He believes that America’s power was unfairly acquired and cannot be fairly deployed; he also believes that multilateral institutions are inherently better able to arbitrate international conflicts and impose fairer solutions.Obama was never the second coming of Woodrow Wilson – he is the 21st Century Neville Chamberlain

    • bpuharic

      It’s risible watching the right call Obama an appeaser after the robust failure of their policies in Iraq

      The right assumed we’d have a cake walk at nation building. It would be ‘cheap’ according to the neocon Rumsfeld. It would be swift and painless

      It took 2 TRILLION dollars of national wealth and, more importantly, 4400 US dead and we’re left with the detritus of a failure so great that terrorists run around Iraq like teenagers at a country fair.

      Yet the right calls Obama an ‘appeaser’ because he sees, correctly, there is no military solution in Iran.

      Given the huge and expensive failure of the right, they’re the last people who should use that term.

      “appeaser” in the mouth of the right is like the word ‘love’ in the mouth of a prostitute.

    • bannedforselfcensorship

      I have to say I don’t think many presidents would agree to a war with Iran even if it did go nuclear. McCain maybe.

      Iraq was hard enough, Iran would be much worse. And the country is war weary.

      Yes, Iran getting the bomb is very very bad, mainly because the more regional powers want their own bombs the more chance for a mistaken war to occur.

      Personally, I think that Iran is making a miscalculation. They do not need a bomb. We took care of Saddam for them. I think they will regret going nuclear, though most likely case is they want the capability to go nuclear but not actually do it….have your cake and eat it too. We shall see.

  • Anthony

    “What saves America’s bacon time and again is the dynamism of our economy, the strength of our political union and in the last analysis the sacrificial patriotism of the American people.”

    Reads like a tribute to pluralistic social capital and capitalist dynamic – Red, White, and Blue to say the least WRM (“I would love my country and justice too” – Camus). Now, Pax Americana – protection globally of free enterprise. Wilson had promised a more moral foreign policy than his predecessors; Obama has promised a more principled one than his predecessor. Yet, both remain at bottom guardians of the system (with immense military power intended to defend U.S. interests abroad). So, our foreign conflicts as viewed by both allies and detractors may be myopic when counterposed to actual United States function overseas (world order) through both Republican and Democratic administrations – America is fine with that.

    Finally, “an unsteady administration has made itself look foolish and weak by a mix of intemperate rhetoric, empty threats and feckless dithering.” Agreed, but as stated our world position has not depended on just twelve years of foreign policy lurches….

  • jacknyc

    “American society is (or has been up until now) so strong that not even
    political incompetence and gridlock has been able to prevent the rise of
    a great world power. ”

    in conservoland, O’s malevolence is exceeded only by his incompetence, but his destructive intentions have not failed for lack of trying

    i disagree though, i think we are indeed able to be destroyed from within, thus democracy

  • moderate Guy

    You mean there was any American policy under Obama, internal or external, that wasn’t a failure and an embarrassment?

    • bpuharic

      Jan 20, 2009. Obama takes office and the economy’s been losing 800,000 jobs a month

      Hmm….what did we GAIN last month? Seems the right can’t even do basic math.

      • moderate Guy

        As a percentage of total population, which is the only realistic number, less Americans works today than in 2009, or indeed any time since 1980.
        Let me guess, you too this is not “really math, but just arithmetic”?

        • bpuharic

          Yeah depressions will do that. And the 30 year wage stagnation is adjusted for inflation

          And you might try doing the math. Robert Reich has pointed out that, if we had the same income profile 1975-2007 as we did 1950-1975, median income would be not $50,000 but $90,000

          Oh…by the way…are the rich working 3X more than they were 30 years ago? I bet not.

          More puppy love for Wall STreet.

          • moderate Guy

            Depression? and here Obamy was telling us this was a “recovery”.
            And we are talking about jobs, not incomes and your visceral hatred for anyone that earns more money than you, in your mind undeservedly no doubt.

          • bpuharic

            The right has a knee jerk reaction to anyone who questions our Wall Street masters. We’re envious. We’re out of bread so we’re supposed to eat cake, I suppose.

            And we’re still down several million jobs after the right wing blow out of the middle class. Even Obama can’t repair the damage you people did to the US.

            And the 30 year figure was calculated for 2007, not 2009, so that was at the end of the Bush run up in the economy…and it was STILL true that the rich took virtually ALL the income growth in the country while the middle class got

            nothing. Another right wing success story!

          • moderate Guy

            You have masters, I don’t. I am guessing that’s why you cannot conceive, in your closed mind, of anyone who can think for himself.
            Sad, really.

          • bpuharic

            Yeah…IMAGINE! Someone who doesn’t believe what Rush (PBUH) says.

            No one has that right!

          • moderate Guy

            I never listen to Rush; but you obviously do. Is that what makes you so angry? Stop doing it.

          • bpuharic

            He’s got 250 drones in Congress. I don’t have to listen. I watch what they do. The tragedy unfolds like a sad opera.

          • moderate Guy

            Your anger and hatred is blinding you to reality. I mean really.

          • restoreliberty

            And we are going to elect a whole lot more of them in 2014.

          • bpuharic

            there’s actually no point. You already control the House.

            And 90% of GOP voters are white.Only 52% of Democratic voters are white.

            Good luck

          • restoreliberty

            Wrong, the middle class that paid their mortgages every month are doing just fine. The progressives losers given a loan on incomes that couldn’t pay the rent let alone the mortgage were all put in that position by failed democrat policies.

          • bpuharic

            Except many people’s loans are under water, with the banks walking off with billions in equity.

            And Bush wasn’t a democrat. I know the right is busily rewriting history to protect their Wall Street masters, but the fact is, he wasn’t


          • restoreliberty

            That’s your fascists leader economic plan…..fatten up the bankers and screw the peasants. Same ole progressive philosophy that has always existed, nothing new, and nothing that isn’t an abject failure is the motto of the centuries out of date die hard fascists and their equally vile cousins the marxists.

          • bpuharic

            Boy can’t you just see him jumping up and down covering his screen with frothy spittle!

            COMMUNIST!!! MARXIST!!! MARTIAN!!!

            I haven’t voted GOP since I voted for John Andersen in 1979.

            But I notice you’re so hysterical you’re now claiming Bush was a marxist democrat

            Need I say more?

          • Jeff Jones

            > Even Obama can’t repair the damage you people did to the US.

            You can keep repeating that until you’re blue in the face. Fewer and fewer people are buying it.

            So, I’m curious, bpuharic. Why do you keep posting here? You said yesterday that this is a “right wing blog.” If that’s true (it’s not) do you really think you’re going to change anyone’s mind? I’ve been reading your posts for a while now and you don’t seem to have any allies here. Why do you stay?

          • restoreliberty

            Let in few more tens of millions of low wage workers and that will surely help those “stagnant” wages you seem to be worried about only for ideological lying purposes.

          • bpuharic

            Another right wing talking point

            Obama’s deported more illegals than Bush. But SSSHHH!!! Don’t let Rush (PBUH) find out!

          • Jeff Jones

            Obama’s deportation figures include those who have left due to lack of employment opportunities. If he’s enforcing immigration laws it’s not intentional.

          • bpuharic

            Special pleading. Obama’s in favor of illegals. Proof?

            He’s in favor of illegals

            Yes, the standard Rush (PBUH) argument. You’re right because you’re right.

      • restoreliberty

        part-time amusement park and other related tourism hiring that will come to end in September

        wow, you’re really cooking with gas now

        • bpuharic

          The state with the highest percentage of minimum wage jobs?

          The right wing paradise of TX.

          Good luck.

          • restoreliberty

            The have the highest number of jobs, period. So yes, by default they would have a higher number of minimum wage workers. If you don’t to want to work for minimum wage, get some pride, get an education or learn or a skill. That is what RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE DO.

            I know that would be a novel approach to the leeches in the “progressive” retrogressive fascist party.

          • bpuharic

            Learn some math, OK? I didn’t say the had the highest NUMBER of MW jobs. I said the highest PERCENTAGE

            But you go ahead. You tell your kids to work at McDonald’s for the rest of their lives. ISn’t America great!

          • Jeff Jones

            I live in a normal middle class neighborhood in Texas and am not seeing the abject misery you keep talking about.

            What I do see is my own company hiring here and downsizing at our headquarters in Silicon Valley.

  • Jack Kalpakian

    Is Syria a U.S. state? There is absolutely no United States interest in Syria at present. The Islamists that the author bemoans haunting Syria are none other the friends of Senator McCain and others who strove to use the Islamist movement against the Russian Federation and its allies. The goal of removing Assad contradicts the goal of a having a secular and inclusive democratic government in Syria, because of the significant presence of AQAM affiliates and sympathizers on the ground. To that extent, the United States needs to prioritize its interests. At present, Jordan needs cementing and Lebanon is in play. It may sufficient to “Finlandize” Lebanon and create a neutral patch of territory there, thereby securing Israel and retaining a toehold that can be used against a possible hostile regime in Damascus in the future. That will require a very different view of the country.

  • restoreliberty

    Poor Oblmamo the Lamo, his support for his fascist brethren in the Brotherhood is being blocked and repudiated by Egyptians and Syrians who, as it turns out, aren’t really in favor of religious oppression, fascist government, and jihad against the west just to prop up another set of dictators.

    Poor Oblamo, now he will have to think of some other way to engineer the demise of Western Civilization.

    • bpuharic

      The tin foil hat crowd is out in force today. Had I known the right was this crazy I would have gone to work for Alcoa in my hometown.

      • restoreliberty

        What you should do is focus more on reducing your stupidity factor than spend your time worrying about my tinfoil hat.

      • Disc_Coastie

        I look smashing in tin!!

  • Colton Johnson

    Sadly, keeping Assad in power will prevent a genocide of the various minority groups. There is already talk of infighting between the rebels in addition to skirmishes with Kurds. Obama took a wrong step in drawing a line on chemical weapons. But then again, how does a “white terror”-like or a Yugoslavia-like genocide compare to Assad’s terror?

  • justin bristow

    The only principle in foreign policy in Washington today is whether policy builds domestic support by being popular. Despite the foreign policy elites inane jammering about democracy in Syria the public isn’t buying it. Americans will no longer be arming jihadists for the benefit of our Muslim allies. The sooner our State department brethren rap their heads around this the better.

    • bpuharic

      You tell ’em! Bush was a man of principle when he fired Rumsfeld after the 2006 election handed him his head, wasn’t he? That had nothing to do with being ‘popular’.

      And I guess you’re too dim to notice Obama HASN’T armed the Syrian rebels for exactly the reason you say. The largest component of the Syrian rebels is Al Qaida.

      • justin bristow

        Your comment makes no sense. Bush was right to fire Rumsfeld (finally).Obama is right to limit arms to Syrians, though half of Washington is upset about that. We’re actually in agreement here, why do you insult me?

        • bpuharic

          Let me back off and say your comment about ‘state dept brethren’ was abit askew IMHO. I haven’t seen anyone at State saying we SHOULD arm Syria (there’s alot of resistance to that), and you’re absolutely correct about Bush and Rumsfeld.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.