I’m inclined to give the President the benefit of the doubt on the IRaq negotiations as well. What I’m not inclined to accept is that we now know he didn’t even really try, then be took credit for the withdrawal, then said it wasn’t his idea when the whole thing went bad.
It’s a pattern of behavior with him and I’ve never seen it done so frequently or egregriously, which is saying something in “Pass the buck” DC.
When did he say it wasn’t his idea? Quotes, please.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385069/obama-not-my-decision-pull-troops-out-iraq-joel-gehrke
I agree with his reasoning, but I have not seen any evidence that he ever wanted to leave a small force in Iraq, nor that he ever took the negotiations seriously. And that part isn’t Fox News, it’s his own Defense Secretary.
And here’s where he takes credit for the decision he says he didn’t make:
That’s a fair criticism, but I’ll nit pick that “idea” and “decision” are not the same thing, hence my original confusion. He does seem to want to have it both ways, but that’s just politics.
There are limits. Obama makes the excuses he does because he knows that he has a cult of supporters around him that few Presidents have ever had. That 35-40% will stand behind him as long as he doesn’t admit he’s a bad President.
You can think that if you like but there is no way to prove it and so I will just say that I disagree. I doubt that such a “cult” exists and that his approval has much to with what he says on most subjects.
Not to mention he was supposed to be above “just politics”. Yet no one in my memory has relied on spin and buck passing the way this President has. It’s like a crutch. Almost seems easier to just try to do a good job than to go to so much effort to avoid work.
As for the “cult”, I have never seen a President with 40% approval ratings have so many supporters who are completely unaware that he’s not popular. When Bush was in the dumps, many may have defended him, but none of us were unaware of where he stood with the public. The Obama supporters you see in your workplace, or among your friends, ask them sometime if they know the President is unpopular. I bet they have no idea.
All politicians say this.
Your memory is false.
Again, your memory is faulty.
Your bets have a very, very poor track record.
Statistically, it’s a dramatic change. One in four Republicans changed their mind about email monitoring (as, I admit, did about the same portion of Democrats). And while 52% is a (narrow) majority, the poll in your cite was taken before the media leaks had been in the news for a year. It would be interesting to see the numbers now.
While the people trying to regulate diet and nutrition have invariably been Democrats, Republicans are more likely to regulate people’s sexual behavior. I don’t consider that a core function of government.
Yeah, see, all my friends who voted for Obama or identify themselves as Obama supporters are completely aware of his popularity ratings. I don’t know what data you’re getting that makes you think this isn’t the case. People who are actually interested in politics generally hear about approval ratings, since they’re in the news every other week. In any case, I’m sure you remember the “experts” on Fox News’s disbelief when Romney lost. Ignoring facts isn’t a partisan issue.
My big beef with Obama was that he tried to be above politics in the early days. See how that worked out. It would have been better if he had played hardball like LBJ.
As for cults - two words: Ronald Reagan.
Reagan was actually popular throughout most of his administration and left office with a 60% approval rating.
I know what you mean about many Republicans worshipping at the altar of Reagan, but at least he’s a figure, like FDR or Kennedy, who had widespread support.
I’m surprised there hasn’t been mention of Libya as a strong negative for Obama. While I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be Libyan under Gaddafi, he’d moderated in the last decade before his death. He was privatizing economically to some extent. He had built better relations with Western powers and African neighbors. He’s voluntarily ended his nuclear program. Libya was in the process of destroying his chemical weapons stock and program too. Then a civil war started…
and the US assisted a NATO operation that produced a failing or failed nation state. Oh and some of the not destroyed chemical weapons stocks might have walked off in the chaos.
Bush go suckered in by the neo-con fantasy that you could go in, change a regime, and then magically peace, stability, democracy and a quick exit would follow. For all of his mistakes after that, he at least realized that failed nation states are not in the national interest and that he’d made one if he left quickly. He broke it, he bought it.
Obama at best was suckered in by the same peace, stability, and democracy appearing fantasy (ignoring the reminder of Iraq). At worst he didn’t care if he left a failed nation state in his wake as long as he got out quick. Either way he broke it and ran.
For biggest military intervention blunders Bush easily wins with Iraq. For worst judgement in a military intervention I have to give the award to Obama for Libya.
It should also be noted that Obama dithered on LIbya until the rebels were nearly beaten. Earlier intervention when the rebels had the advantage would have meant many fewer deaths and perhaps a better outcome.
We went from decisive and stupid under Bush to indecisive and overly cautious with Obama.
Yeah, well Libya is Libya’s problem. Give me indecisive and cautious over stupid any day if it keeps us out of an unnecessary war. Remember, this thread is about who was worst, and unless you’re making the case that this item made Obama worse than Bush overall, then who cares? Bush was a disaster. Obama has made some blunders. There’s the rub.
No, I’m not backing away from my contention that Bush was worse, with the caveat that Obama has two years to catch up to Bush. How he handles the war in Syria and Iraq will probably determine his fate in that regard. He’s already disregarding military advice just like Bush did, so let’s hope he’s smarter than his generals.
Well, unless Obama starts any unnecessary full scale land wars in the Middle East in those 2 years, then I think Bush is the winner. Are you expecting otherwise?
That depends. Ground troops will be committed, or else we will likely fail. By committing to this mission, he’s committing to all its costs, which will likely include a land war.
Alternatively, he could be content to see the mission fail, and I’ll leave that up to history to judge whether that’s worse than what Bush did. History tends to punish losers the most harshly. But I think Obama knows that and is not going to permit us to fail.
So yeah, land war.
If Obama had reduced the national debt instead of adding to it, I’d rank him in the top 10-15 presidents.