Obama embraces pre-emptive war Bush doctrine he used to hate (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

this is a long read, but some solid points.

Barack Obama, Neocon?A friend and Power Line reader has been emailing me to express outrage at the Democrats’ inconsistency in supporting President Obama’s implementation of the Bush Doctrine. I asked him to write up a post; here it is:

President Obama’s September 10 speech announcing his intention to “degrade” and “ultimately destroy” ISIL in Iraq and Syria poses a huge political and ideological problem for the Dems and the left. The reason is simple: Obama’s decision to wage war amounts to an endorsement of the Bush Doctrine of preëmption and a repudiation of the most fundamental rationale for His presidency in the first place: opposition to the Iraq War and, in general, “wars of choice.” It is also a repudiation of the anti-war Democrats who opposed the Iraq War Resolution and, more broadly, of the left’s ideology on foreign policy. Obama’s plan to attack ISIL has already caused huge cognitive dissonance on the left, which can only increase over time.

Virtually no one, NO ONE, opposing the IWR on the left, including Illinois state senator Obama, opposed it because he thought Iraq did NOT have WMDs. The argument was that there was no “imminent threat.” Of course, the Bush administration never argued the threat was “imminent”; just the opposite — that we could no longer wait for a latent or cumulating threat to become “imminent” after the experience of 9/11 — because we might never know or know too late. That was the Bush Doctrine.

Obama’s defining 2002 IWR speech is here. It is a classic expression of neo-isolationism: we can go to war only after we’ve been attacked. No preëmption of latent threats before they are “imminent”. He even rejected humanitarian intervention as a rationale for the IWR or any war that was not in response to an “imminent” threat or a prior attack. His examples of “good” wars were all responses to being attacked: the U.S. Civil War (Fort Sumter); WWII (Pearl Harbor); Afghanistan (9/11).

This is standard left-wing ideology, post-Viet Nam and post-cold war: let things get as bad as they can be before doing anything (“imminent”) or wait for Pearl Harbor, then respond — with a police action like the Global War on just one guy (Osama bin Laden)! Anything else is a “war of choice”.

Some honest voices on the center-left have objected to the massive contradiction between Obama’s “war of choice” ideology and his plan for ISIL. See, for example, Conor Friederdorf’s scathing Atlantic article immediately after Obama’s speech. It is a devastating comparison of the rationale for attacking ISIL with the debate in 2002 on the Iraq War Resolution — and not a flattering one for Obama. The title and subtitle are beautiful:



Obama Urges War in Iraq Despite Known Lack of WMDs

The self-contradictory rhetoric of a shape-shifting president…
This summarizes the point:

Didn’t Hussein pose a bigger potential threat in 2002 than ISIS does now? “ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria and the broader Middle East, including American citizens, personnel, and facilities,” Obama said. “If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies.” Nearly all of that could’ve been truthfully said about Hussein.
Bush said it....
Even Andrew Sullivan, probably Obama’s most enthusiastic and consistent supporter over almost 10 years, has concluded that “Obama [is] repealing a core pillar of his candidacy and presidency….Congress has effectively abdicated its democratic responsibility – and Obama is happy about that.”

article goes on to list all the Senators and Reps that voted NO on Iraq War and Yes on ISIL war.

then finishes with this:

Here’s Robert Kuttner endorsing, albeit half-heartedly, Obama’s assumption of the Bush Doctrine because…not Bush, I guess. And here is The New Republic on how marvelously thoughtful and reflective Obama is about all this, totally not poll driven. Power Line has already reported on the flimflam and double talk from The New York Times and from E. J. Dionne. These examples could be multiplied indefinitely.

Obama’s ISIL speech is a direct repudiation of his opposition to the IWR in 2002. It is an implicit endorsement of the Bush Doctrine. Indeed, it is a direct repudiation of the basic rationale for his presidency from the beginning!

Yet there is little acknowledgement, let alone sense of shame, from the Dems, the left or the double-talking MSM. The only conclusion their cynicism, duplicity, and double-talking sophistry permits is that they are transparently partisan opportunists.

 

[mcintyre1]

Yeah, bombing ISIS from the air as part of a coalition of nations is exactly the same as launching a ground invasion of Iraq on intentionally faked evidence of WMDs. Exactly.

 

[NCCommish]

Yeah, bombing ISIS from the air as part of a coalition of nations is exactly the same as launching a ground invasion of Iraq on intentionally faked evidence of WMDs. Exactly.

Yep

 

[Varmint]

https://mattkuhar.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bodysnatchers1.jpg

 

[HellToupee]

Yeah, bombing ISIS from the air as part of a coalition of nations is exactly the same as launching a ground invasion of Iraq on intentionally faked evidence of WMDs. Exactly.

Yep

No coalition agaisnt the Khorasans in Syria

 

[johnnycakes]

Wait. Wasn't Bush's preemptive war to preempt Saddam from preempting George H.W. Bush?

 

[datonn]

Yeah, bombing ISIS from the air as part of a coalition of nations is exactly the same as launching a ground invasion of Iraq on intentionally faked evidence of WMDs. Exactly.

Yep

Ssshhhh! Let's see where tommyboy is taking this.

 

[The Commish]

I don't know why I even come in these threads anymore

Ah screw it....let's see where this thing goes

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Saddam Hussein = Not a threat to the US and nothing to do with Al Qaeda

ISIS = International terrorists so crazy Al Qaeda (you know, the group that actually attacked the US) kicked them out.

HTH

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't know why I even come in these threads anymore

Ah screw it....let's see where this thing goes

Tim will be along shortly......

 

[Bucky86]

Yeah!!! Obama sucks!! If only he didn't bomb in Syria, so I could also complain about him having no backbone. Screw you, Obama!!!!

 

[skol asylum]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

 

[timschochet]

And here I am!

Sorry tommyboy, but this is a really dumb article. Obama is NOT a neocon. The whole idea behind the neoconservative doctrine as regards Iraq is that the United States should "liberate" existing dictatorial regimes unfriendly to us and replace them with democracies friendly to us. That involves, out of necessity, troops on the ground. Obama hasn't done that and likely won't do it. His foreign policy has actually been the polar opposite of the neocons, which is why the neocons have been his biggest critics for the last six years.

That being said, Obama IS a hypocrite. Like other Democrats opposing Bush, he criticized the executive power of the Presidency in terms of using force without congressional approval. Then once he got to the Presidency, he forgot all that, and proceeded to do what every President has done before him for the last 70 years or so: use as much executive power as he can, and attempt to wage wars without Congressional consent. It should be noted that in both his criticism of executive power as a Senator and his use of that same power as President, Obama is no different than all of the other Presidents who preceded him. Nonetheless, they were all hypocrites when it came to this, and so is he.

 

[timschochet]

What we really should be debating is whether or not the President should be able to use force without Congress approving beforehand. This is an issue that everyone should have a view about, and it shouldn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative. Since FDR, this power has slowly increased. In 1973, Congress attempted to limit this with the War Powers Act, but most Presidents since have simply ignored it, and the Supreme Court has never reviewed it. The main problem is that legal action against the President is very difficult. From the moment that Andrew Jackson chose to ignore SC Justice Marshall regarding Indian resettlement, there has only been one option for those who believe the President is acting illegally: impeachment. And that is so politically charged that it is almost impossible to bring about other than on a totally partisan basis, which means the Senate will never remove a President. So effective, the President has carte blanche on the use of force..

 

[NCCommish]

What we really should be debating is whether or not the President should be able to use force without Congress approving beforehand. This is an issue that everyone should have a view about, and it shouldn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative. Since FDR, this power has slowly increased. In 1973, Congress attempted to limit this with the War Powers Act, but most Presidents since have simply ignored it, and the Supreme Court has never reviewed it. The main problem is that legal action against the President is very difficult. From the moment that Andrew Jackson chose to ignore SC Justice Marshall regarding Indian resettlement, there has only been one option for those who believe the President is acting illegally: impeachment. And that is so politically charged that it is almost impossible to bring about other than on a totally partisan basis, which means the Senate will never remove a President. So effective, the President has carte blanche on the use of force..

While I agree he is a hypocrite this isn't the best argument for it. In fact the War Powers Act of 1973 allows the President to use military force for 90 days without Congressional approval. Congress made this law. When you couple it with the wide open AUMF that Congress overwhelmingly passed no president really needs permission to use the military at this point. Congress can change that any time they have the balls to do so.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

 

[NCCommish]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

The second the GOP wants to impeach over that I will be right there with them. But they won't.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

The second the GOP wants to impeach over that I will be right there with them. But they won't.

Of course not. This is the sort of item that both parties see eye to eye on, at least when their party is in power.

 

[Fennis]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

a stance, as I remember, that you also (incorrectly) support.

 

[Fennis]

man, that is not one great sentence.

 

[NCCommish]

man, that is not one great sentence.

I don't get to judge but it is kind of unwieldy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

a stance, as I remember, that you also (incorrectly) support.

No, I don't. I get the argument, but there needs to be some kind of oversight for this sort of thing.

The more important point, though, is that people who see some kind of qualitative difference between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's foreign policy are mainly just deluding themselves.

 

[NCCommish]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

a stance, as I remember, that you also (incorrectly) support.

No, I don't. I get the argument, but there needs to be some kind of oversight for this sort of thing.

The more important point, though, is that people who see some kind of qualitative difference between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's foreign policy are mainly just deluding themselves.

To a degree. Actually I would say Hillary is even more so a Bush clone in this area than Obama.

 

[DocHolliday]

Obama is taking the correct action against ISIS these days.

 

[CBusAlex]

Obama is NOT a neocon. The whole idea behind the neoconservative doctrine as regards Iraq is that the United States should "liberate" existing dictatorial regimes unfriendly to us and replace them with democracies friendly to us.

How does this not describe our intervention in Libya and support for the Syrian rebels? Is the only difference between Obama and a neocon that he prefers airstrikes to ground invasions?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

a stance, as I remember, that you also (incorrectly) support.

No, I don't. I get the argument, but there needs to be some kind of oversight for this sort of thing.

The more important point, though, is that people who see some kind of qualitative difference between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's foreign policy are mainly just deluding themselves.

Nothing Obama has done or will do compares to Bush's ill fated decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Saying that Obama's FP is virtually identical to GWB's is simply a way for you to feel better about yourself and your erroneous support for GWB's foreign policy back in the old yeller days IK.

 

[tommyboy]

What we really should be debating is whether or not the President should be able to use force without Congress approving beforehand. This is an issue that everyone should have a view about, and it shouldn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative. Since FDR, this power has slowly increased. In 1973, Congress attempted to limit this with the War Powers Act, but most Presidents since have simply ignored it, and the Supreme Court has never reviewed it. The main problem is that legal action against the President is very difficult. From the moment that Andrew Jackson chose to ignore SC Justice Marshall regarding Indian resettlement, there has only been one option for those who believe the President is acting illegally: impeachment. And that is so politically charged that it is almost impossible to bring about other than on a totally partisan basis, which means the Senate will never remove a President. So effective, the President has carte blanche on the use of force..

we can argue lots of things. I thought the most interesting point the article made is that Obama staked his appeal on BUSH BAD, ME GOOD in large part with his opposition to Iraq War, preemptive military strikes and whatnot. To turn around 6 years into his presidency and bomb Iraq and Syria with a smaller coalition than Bush had, preemptively (to keep ISIS from becoming an even bigger threat) basically he's repudiated himself, and what he so stridently used to stand for.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Plus he wasn't even born here.

 

[Varmint]

Obama is NOT a neocon. The whole idea behind the neoconservative doctrine as regards Iraq is that the United States should "liberate" existing dictatorial regimes unfriendly to us and replace them with democracies friendly to us.

How does this not describe our intervention in Libya and support for the Syrian rebels? Is the only difference between Obama and a neocon that he prefers airstrikes to ground invasions?

https://mattkuhar.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bodysnatchers1.jpg

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

a stance, as I remember, that you also (incorrectly) support.

No, I don't. I get the argument, but there needs to be some kind of oversight for this sort of thing.

The more important point, though, is that people who see some kind of qualitative difference between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's foreign policy are mainly just deluding themselves.

Nothing Obama has done or will do compares to Bush's ill fated decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Saying that Obama's FP is virtually identical to GWB's is simply a way for you to feel better about yourself and your erroneous support for GWB's foreign policy back in the old yeller days IK.

I think posts like this are mainly just projection on the part of the speaker. I've openly supported many of Obama's national security decisions, such as unilateral drone strikes on foreign militants, his (reluctant) decision to keep Guantanamo open, and scrapping the idea of civilian trials for detainees. I disagree with Obama on some other issues, but it's not like I walk around criticizing the guy while standing up for Bush. I sincerely see him as basically the same thing, and I'm 100% confident that you would too if he was from the other party.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What we really should be debating is whether or not the President should be able to use force without Congress approving beforehand. This is an issue that everyone should have a view about, and it shouldn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative. Since FDR, this power has slowly increased. In 1973, Congress attempted to limit this with the War Powers Act, but most Presidents since have simply ignored it, and the Supreme Court has never reviewed it. The main problem is that legal action against the President is very difficult. From the moment that Andrew Jackson chose to ignore SC Justice Marshall regarding Indian resettlement, there has only been one option for those who believe the President is acting illegally: impeachment. And that is so politically charged that it is almost impossible to bring about other than on a totally partisan basis, which means the Senate will never remove a President. So effective, the President has carte blanche on the use of force..

we can argue lots of things. I thought the most interesting point the article made is that Obama staked his appeal on BUSH BAD, ME GOOD in large part with his opposition to Iraq War, preemptive military strikes and whatnot. To turn around 6 years into his presidency and bomb Iraq and Syria with a smaller coalition than Bush had, preemptively (to keep ISIS from becoming an even bigger threat) basically he's repudiated himself, and what he so stridently used to stand for.

ISIS isn't becoming a threat -- they're part of Al Qaeda, a group that's already attacked the United States.

There's nothing preemptive about attacking them.

Just like there was nothing preemptive about attacking Al Qaeda when they were the government in Afghanistan. Something that Obama, I, and every other thinking person on the planet supported when Bush did it.

And there was nothing preemptive about attacking Saddam Hussein in any event. He had no WMDs and was no threat to the United States.

That's the difference.

 

[Jutz]

It depends on what the definition of IS IS.

 

[jon_mx]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Yeah, it a huge stretch.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

a stance, as I remember, that you also (incorrectly) support.

No, I don't. I get the argument, but there needs to be some kind of oversight for this sort of thing.

The more important point, though, is that people who see some kind of qualitative difference between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's foreign policy are mainly just deluding themselves.

Nothing Obama has done or will do compares to Bush's ill fated decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Saying that Obama's FP is virtually identical to GWB's is simply a way for you to feel better about yourself and your erroneous support for GWB's foreign policy back in the old yeller days IK.

I think posts like this are mainly just projection on the part of the speaker. I've openly supported many of Obama's national security decisions, such as unilateral drone strikes on foreign militants, his (reluctant) decision to keep Guantanamo open, and scrapping the idea of civilian trials for detainees. I disagree with Obama on some other issues, but it's not like I walk around criticizing the guy while standing up for Bush. I sincerely see him as basically the same thing, and I'm 100% confident that you would too if he was from the other party.

Perhaps. But I know you're far too intelligent to equate Obama's actions in Syria and Libya to Bush's invasion of Iraq, so there has to be some other motive. Citing Obama's inability to get Guantanamo closed is a red herring.

 

[The Commish]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

a stance, as I remember, that you also (incorrectly) support.

No, I don't. I get the argument, but there needs to be some kind of oversight for this sort of thing.

The more important point, though, is that people who see some kind of qualitative difference between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's foreign policy are mainly just deluding themselves.

Nothing Obama has done or will do compares to Bush's ill fated decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Saying that Obama's FP is virtually identical to GWB's is simply a way for you to feel better about yourself and your erroneous support for GWB's foreign policy back in the old yeller days IK.

I think posts like this are mainly just projection on the part of the speaker. I've openly supported many of Obama's national security decisions, such as unilateral drone strikes on foreign militants, his (reluctant) decision to keep Guantanamo open, and scrapping the idea of civilian trials for detainees. I disagree with Obama on some other issues, but it's not like I walk around criticizing the guy while standing up for Bush. I sincerely see him as basically the same thing, and I'm 100% confident that you would too if he was from the other party.

Perhaps. But I know you're far too intelligent to equate Obama's actions in Syria and Libya to Bush's invasion of Iraq, so there has to be some other motive. Citing Obama's inability to get Guantanamo closed is a red herring.

IK's comparison was at the policy level. He didn't compare two specific incidents.

 

[timschochet]

IIRC, Ivan for years now has generally agreed with my assessment of Obama's foreign policy as outstanding.

 

[skol asylum]

What we really should be debating is whether or not the President should be able to use force without Congress approving beforehand. This is an issue that everyone should have a view about, and it shouldn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative. Since FDR, this power has slowly increased. In 1973, Congress attempted to limit this with the War Powers Act, but most Presidents since have simply ignored it, and the Supreme Court has never reviewed it. The main problem is that legal action against the President is very difficult. From the moment that Andrew Jackson chose to ignore SC Justice Marshall regarding Indian resettlement, there has only been one option for those who believe the President is acting illegally: impeachment. And that is so politically charged that it is almost impossible to bring about other than on a totally partisan basis, which means the Senate will never remove a President. So effective, the President has carte blanche on the use of force..

we can argue lots of things. I thought the most interesting point the article made is that Obama staked his appeal on BUSH BAD, ME GOOD in large part with his opposition to Iraq War, preemptive military strikes and whatnot. To turn around 6 years into his presidency and bomb Iraq and Syria with a smaller coalition than Bush had, preemptively (to keep ISIS from becoming an even bigger threat) basically he's repudiated himself, and what he so stridently used to stand for.

ISIS isn't becoming a threat -- they're part of Al Qaeda, a group that's already attacked the United States.

There's nothing preemptive about attacking them.

Just like there was nothing preemptive about attacking Al Qaeda when they were the government in Afghanistan. Something that Obama, I, and every other thinking person on the planet supported when Bush did it.

And there was nothing preemptive about attacking Saddam Hussein in any event. He had no WMDs and was no threat to the United States.

That's the difference.

ISIS is not part of Al Qaeda. They are so bad even Al Qaeda has disowned them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IIRC, Ivan for years now has generally agreed with my assessment of Obama's foreign policy as outstanding.

I wouldn't say "outstanding," but I'm generally supportive. Most of the criticisms the guy catches from the right are off-base IMO.

 

[timschochet]

IIRC, Ivan for years now has generally agreed with my assessment of Obama's foreign policy as outstanding.

I wouldn't say "outstanding," but I'm generally supportive. Most of the criticisms the guy catches from the right are off-base IMO.

i should temporize my statement as well. It WAS outstanding IMO, but in retrospect I have a problem with the way we've dealt with the government in Baghdad. We should have placed more conditions on leaving. Now we are reaping the consequences.

 

[The Commish]

IIRC, Ivan for years now has generally agreed with my assessment of Obama's foreign policy as outstanding.

I wouldn't say "outstanding," but I'm generally supportive. Most of the criticisms the guy catches from the right are off-base IMO.

i should temporize my statement as well. It WAS outstanding IMO, but in retrospect I have a problem with the way we've dealt with the government in Baghdad. We should have placed more conditions on leaving. Now we are reaping the consequences.

The outcome in Iraq was/is inevitable. If the US doesn't set up fort there, this problem will always exist. It doesn't matter what "conditions" we place on our exit. It's the nature of the beast. When you have opposing forces wanting to do things THEIR way, this is what you get. It's a no "win" situation for the US.

 

[timschochet]

While I agree it was a no-win situation we could have made it less bad. Specifically:

1. We should have tied economic and civil rights for Sunnis to our leaving Iraq.

2. We should have tied economic and civil rights for Sunnis to our funding of the al-Maliki government.

These efforts MIGHT have weakened the radicalization of the Sunnis and prevented the rise of ISIS. We'll never know, but I think Obama and Clinton were derelict in not trying.

In about a year from now we're going to face a very similar situation in Afghanistan. Hopefully we'll have learned from our errors, but I doubt it.

 

[Bojang0301]

The sooner people realize the two party system is a sham and that Dems and Republicans are the same ### holes in the back pocket of major military contractors and oil companies the sooner we can move forward bettering ourselves.

 

[Fennis]

The sooner people realize the two party system is a sham and that Dems and Republicans are the same ### holes in the back pocket of major military contractors and oil companies the sooner we can move forward bettering ourselves.

There are large differences between Dems and Republicans. For instance, they believe in a 3% marginal tax rate difference for the top 5% of tax payers.

 

[timschochet]

Such a cop out to claim there are no differences between the two parties . Lazy, ignorant, and anti-intellectual.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

a stance, as I remember, that you also (incorrectly) support.

No, I don't. I get the argument, but there needs to be some kind of oversight for this sort of thing.

The more important point, though, is that people who see some kind of qualitative difference between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's foreign policy are mainly just deluding themselves.

Nothing Obama has done or will do compares to Bush's ill fated decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Saying that Obama's FP is virtually identical to GWB's is simply a way for you to feel better about yourself and your erroneous support for GWB's foreign policy back in the old yeller days IK.

I think posts like this are mainly just projection on the part of the speaker. I've openly supported many of Obama's national security decisions, such as unilateral drone strikes on foreign militants, his (reluctant) decision to keep Guantanamo open, and scrapping the idea of civilian trials for detainees. I disagree with Obama on some other issues, but it's not like I walk around criticizing the guy while standing up for Bush. I sincerely see him as basically the same thing, and I'm 100% confident that you would too if he was from the other party.

Perhaps. But I know you're far too intelligent to equate Obama's actions in Syria and Libya to Bush's invasion of Iraq, so there has to be some other motive. Citing Obama's inability to get Guantanamo closed is a red herring.

IK's comparison was at the policy level. He didn't compare two specific incidents.

Incidents largely define a president's foreign policy. The idea that we should compare the foreign policies of Presidents without noting their biggest and most impactful foreign policy decisions is odd.

 

[Fennis]

Such a cop out to claim there are no differences between the two parties . Lazy, ignorant, and anti-intellectual.

that's true, other than a 3% difference in marginal tax rates for the top 5% of tax payers, republicans are really, really, really in the pockets of big business and the military industrial complex. Dems on the other hand are only really, really in the pockets of big business and the military industrial complex. That's like a one more really difference.

 

[tommyGunZ]

IIRC, Ivan for years now has generally agreed with my assessment of Obama's foreign policy as outstanding.

IK is one of the, if not THE most rational conservative voice on this board. But he's wrong saying that Obama's foreign policy is exactly like GWB's.

In fairness, he's probably still trying to find the answers to the Bills passing game in the bottom of a vodka bottle, so perhaps we should give him a pass.

 

[Fennis]

[SIZE=10pt]I enjoy comparing [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Democrats[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]and Republicans:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Democrats [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]are [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]a nineteenth-century pastoral game.
Republicans are a twentieth-century technological struggle.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Democrats[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]play on a diamond, in a park. The [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Democratic[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]park!
Republicans play on a gridiron, in a stadium, sometimes called Soldier Field or War Memorial Stadium.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Democrats[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]begin in the spring, the season of new life.
Republicans begin in the fall, when everything's dying.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Republicans[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] you wear a helmet.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Democrats[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]you wear a cap.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Republicans[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] are concerned with downs - what down is it?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Democrat[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]s are [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]concerned with ups - who's up?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Republicans[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] you receive a penalty.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Democrats[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]you make an error.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Republicans[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] the specialist comes in to kick.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Democrat[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]s [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]the specialist comes in to relieve somebody.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Republicans[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] have hitting, clipping, spearing, piling on, personal fouls, late hitting and unnecessary roughness.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Democrat[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] have [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]the sacrifice.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Republicans[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] play in any kind of weather: rain, snow, sleet, hail, fog...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Democrats[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt], if it rains, we don't go out to play.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Democrat[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]s have[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]the seventh inning stretch.
Republicans have the two minute warning.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Democrats[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]all has no time limit: we don't know when it's gonna end - might have extra innings.
Republicans are rigidly timed, and it will end even if we've got to go to sudden death.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Democrats[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt], during the game, in the stands, there's kind of a picnic feeling; emotions may run high or low, but there's not too much unpleasantness.
Republicans, during the game in the stands, you can be sure that at least twenty-seven times you're capable of taking the life of a fellow human being.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]And finally, the objectives of the two parties are completely different:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Republicans[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] the object is for the quarterback, also known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]With [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Democrat[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]s [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]the object is to go home! And to be safe! - I hope I'll be safe at home![/SIZE]

 

[timschochet]

Such a cop out to claim there are no differences between the two parties . Lazy, ignorant, and anti-intellectual.

that's true, other than a 3% difference in marginal tax rates for the top 5% of tax payers, republicans are really, really, really in the pockets of big business and the military industrial complex. Dems on the other hand are only really, really in the pockets of big business and the military industrial complex. That's like a one more really difference.

Saying somebody is pro business, including big business, is almost a meaningless statement- like saying they're pro-America . Heaven forbid we ever get a politician who is anti-big business. With regard to the military-industrial complex , yes both parties have been tied to it for the last 50 years, but that's because it's so key to employment. Both political parties ultimately gave similar desires but that's a good thing, because we are all American and extremism is disdained here. But there are significant differences: one of the most important is which issues to prioritize. Beyond that, the two parties have very distinct ideas about the powers of the states vs the federal government, the role of judges, the Constitution, how to handle education, the environment, immigration, the debt, taxes, social issues, etc.

 

[Fennis]

Such a cop out to claim there are no differences between the two parties . Lazy, ignorant, and anti-intellectual.

that's true, other than a 3% difference in marginal tax rates for the top 5% of tax payers, republicans are really, really, really in the pockets of big business and the military industrial complex. Dems on the other hand are only really, really in the pockets of big business and the military industrial complex. That's like a one more really difference.

Saying somebody is pro business, including big business, is almost a meaningless statement- like saying they're pro-America . Heaven forbid we ever get a politician who is anti-big business. With regard to the military-industrial complex , yes both parties have been tied to it for the last 50 years, but that's because it's so key to employment.Both political parties ultimately gave similar desires but that's a good thing, because we are all American and extremism is disdained here. But there are significant differences: one of the most important is which issues to prioritize. Beyond that, the two parties have very distinct ideas about the powers of the states vs the federal government, the role of judges, the Constitution, how to handle education, the environment, immigration, the debt, taxes, social issues, etc.

I agree they have tons of rhetorical differences.

Governing and policy is the same no matter which party controls the legislature and executive branches. We have spent the last 14 years with various parties controlling various branches and the differences are small. A possible exception is ACA, although that was just a repackaged republican plan.