Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

I agree with Obama.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v..._tea_party.jpg
^^ Looks like "the zoo has an african lion and the white house has a lyin african"

I completely disagree, why?

Look closely at the picture of the Lion, it is lying down. So it is a lying African. It makes no mention of any people, just lions.

I think it is talking about Obama's den of Lions where he sends holier than thou' republicans who attempt to prove that God will keep them safe, but tragically, fail.

That picture is so racist, it's painful to watch. Is there much doubt she thinks Obama doesn't belong in the White House but in a zoo? And she's not alone.

At any rate, considering the continuity and similiarity between what was said about Obama, Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaing (2005-2008), Bill Clinton, and even Carter, race can not be deemed the deciding factor in Republican animosity.

Moreover, race and political preference are not mutually exclusive. Animosity can awaken dormant racism, can be expressed in racist terms by the less eloquent, and lingering racism can attribute to (the vehemence of) anti-Obamamania. Racist or politically motivated - that is not a matter of either / or.



I think Obama gave the right answer. As so often over the past few months, I admire Obama for his calmness of tone. He's a great diplomat. Composed, reflexive, accepting of his political opponents.

In general, the ball has been firmly in the court of the GOP. Obama has at every opportunity showed a willingness to co-operate. In healthcare in particular, Obama and the Democrats have been extending their hand to the GOP for months. The Republicans, in turn, have gone into a reflexive war-mode. Fine, they are under no obligation to work constuctively with the opposition. It does show that it is the GOP that is the party of polarization and extreme partizanship.

Is the Obama Administration politicizing the National Endowment for the Arts? Sure sounds like it. :yes:

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Is the Obama Administration politicizing the National Endowment for the Arts? Sure sounds like it. :yes:

It's too late—the damage is done.

What does everyone think Obama's going to do about Afghanistan? Apparently the military is getting impatient waiting for Obama to make a decision and it's rumored that McChrystal will resign if not given more troops.

Originally Posted by :
Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.

Originally Posted by :
In Kabul, some members of McChrystal's staff said they don't understand why Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but still hasn't given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.

If he resigns it will hardly be Obama's fault the previous administration pretty much ignored the conflict there allowing the present difficulty to arise.

I suspect Obama will give him his surge but it will not be open ended he will doubtless have to show some results and quick I bet cos it looks like world opinion including US is turnig against having troops there

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
If he resigns it will hardly be Obama's fault the previous administration pretty much ignored the conflict there allowing the present difficulty to arise.

Obama can be blamed for not taking the best action while in office, even if the previous administration started the mess.

The real question is: "what is the correct action"

Originally Posted by :
I suspect Obama will give him his surge but it will not be open ended he will doubtless have to show some results and quick I bet cos it looks like world opinion including US is turnig against having troops there

I would hope it isn't decided by popular opinion.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
The real question is: "what is the correct action"

:yes:

And the Ripley option, unfortunately, is not available...

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
The real question is: "what is the correct action"

Looks like there's a lot of head-scratching going on. This makes sense, although it's deeply repressing:

“A counterinsurgency strategy can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner. That’s in doubt now,” said Bruce O. Riedel, who led the administration’s strategy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year. “Part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that they are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election.”

Or as Sully puts it:

You cannot fight a counter-insurgency on behalf of a government that is as corrupt as Karzai's. And you cannot fight a counter-insurgency without vast numbers of troops to protect a population in an extremely remote and ungovernable region. And you cannot fight either without tackling the real source of the terror — in Pakistan.

So we are left with this dire set of alternatives. We either pack up and go home. Or we double-down for a couple of decades to try to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, knowing that, even then, we cannot prevent any single Jihadist plot or attack coming from that region. [...]

But if McChrystal is right, he is strategizing Afghanistan as a semi-permanent protectorate for the US. This is empire in the 21st century sense: occupying failed states indefinitely to prevent even more chaos spinning out of them. And it has the embedded logic of all empires: if it doesn't keep expanding, it will collapse. The logic of McChrystal is that the US should be occupying Pakistan as well. And Somalia. And anywhere al Qaeda make seek refuge.

Most troubling.

Alot of the arguments we hear for getting out of Afghanistan should sound eerily familiar to you all. Most of them are just retreads of the arguments against Iraq.

'The population is against us'
'The leadership is corrupt and unhelpful'
'The country is too disjointed for a coherent government'
ect.

Afghanistan is definitely a different situation from Iraq, but I can't help but roll my eyes when I see the same people pushing the same arguments all over again. Maybe we can't pacify Afghanistan and allow a stable central government to take root... I'm not sure. But many of the critics and all of the anti-war Democrats in congress have long ago burned up any credibility that they had on the issue. (I'm looking at you Harry Reid)

It's seems a bit of a stretch to say that our options are to leave or to indefinately occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and any number of other countries. We clearly can't do that, so the way the author expresses the dilemma, there is obviously one true solution. That's a red flag that the author is distorting something.

What Sasaki said. I'm not swayed by Sullivan's logic.

Also, weren't people always giving the US a hard time for divesting itself of Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, instead of insuring some form of stable government took root? And now many of the same people are saying we should pull out again? That won't solve anything, and it is cruel to abandon the mess we made.

CR

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Most of them are just retreads of the arguments against Iraq.

And as we learned in Iraq, if we massively increase troop strength and spread the bribes liberally amongst the tribes, we can buy a temporary lull in violence.

Not sure that's such a great lesson.

There's no doubt that we can re-make Afghanistan into something resembling a nation-state if we invest heavily in men and money for the next ten to twenty years. Is this something we ought to do? Are there alternative strategies?

Originally Posted by Lemur:
And as we learned in Iraq, if we massively increase troop strength and spread the bribes liberally amongst the tribes, we can buy a temporary lull in violence.

Not sure that's such a great lesson.

There's no doubt that we can re-make Afghanistan into something resembling a nation-state if we invest heavily in men and money for the next ten to twenty years. Is this something we ought to do? Are there alternative strategies?

Are you saying you think Iraq is going to go back to civil-war level violence?

CR

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Are you saying you think Iraq is going to go back to civil-war level violence?

No, 'cause a great deal of the ethnic cleansing has already taken place, so a return to full-on civil war is unlikely while we are there. But who gets to control what has not been settled, and there are a whole lot of armed people who think their tribe/group should take over. Things should get very hot as soon as we are perceived to be minimized.

The surge/bribe was a great solution to a self-inflicted mess, but the underlying disorder is still there. We established security, fantastic. But until there's a political solution the whole thing can unravel. And that is entirely up to the Iraqis.

If anything, the political situation in Afghanistan is more troubling. Leaving aside the improbability of defeating an enemy who can fall back to a secure base (Pakistan), let's ask the big questions:

• What level of political stability would be sufficient for our counterinsurgency goals?
• If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?
• If not, what can we do about it?
• How long might it take to achieve minimal political stability?
• How long are we prepared to be there, and at what cost?
• What will success look like? (Please be realistic, and don't say "A functioning representative democracy," 'cause that is not happening in the next decade.)

-edit-

P.S.: Since I answered your question, CR, could you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

Czar #2 going down?

Where does he find these people? :dizzy2:

A little data for the much-dismissed racial angle:

As evidence of the link between health care and racial attitudes, we analyzed survey data gathered in late 2008. The survey asked people whether they favored a government run health insurance plan, a system like we have now, or something in between. It also asked four questions about how people feel about blacks.

Taken together the four items form a measure of what scholars call racial resentment. We find an extraordinarily strong correlation between racial resentment of blacks and opposition to health care reform.

Among whites with above average racial resentment, only 19 percent favored fundamental health care reforms and 57 percent favored the present system. Among those who have below average racial resentment, more than twice as many (45 percent) favored government run health care and less than half as many (25 percent) favored the status quo.

No such relationship between racial attitudes and opinions on health care existed in the mid-1990s during the Clinton effort.

It would be silly to assert that all, or even most, opposition to President Obama, including his plans for health care reform, is motivated by the color of his skin. But our research suggests that a key to understanding people's feelings about partisan politics runs far deeper than the mere pros and cons of actual policy proposals. [...]

Beneath the arguments about government intrusion into the health care market, death panels, and such, a much more emotionally-laden dynamic is at work. Views about race along with a suite of other visceral matters are linked to people's opinions about health care reform, which likely explains why the present debate has caused a much stronger uproar than it did in 1994.

And yes, I know that correlation is not causation. But the correlation exists, and is worth noting.

So their finding is that people who are against affirmative action are more likely to be against government run health care?

Noted. Maybe I'll even buy their book :coffeenews:

Originally Posted by Lemur:
P.S.: Since I answered your question, CR, could you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

Yes, I could.

Originally Posted by :
A little data for the much-dismissed racial angle:

A very little data. I'd like to see the questions they used to determine 'racial resentment' - is being against affirmative action being racially resentful? - and what fraction of their population was 'above average resentful'. And what fraction of the people who didn't want Obama's reform were also 'resentful'.

And back to Lemur's questions about Afghanistan. ~;p

I don't see your choices as the only possibilities - ie that we have to choose between a decade plus of occupation or pulling out. Or that Pakistan is completely secure for the Taliban. I think we should strive to make a functioning, stable, non-Islamist government. If we don't everything we've worked for is wasted. And the Taliban will return to power and continuing supporting al queda. Plus they'll be able to destabilize Pakistan easier. And so, likely, we'll have to go in there again.

I don't think it will take a dozen years of 100,000 troops or other 'the empire must expand or it will collapse' silliness from Sullivan.

As for Iraq - so far the 'lull' has been permanent, and paved the way for a political solution.

CR

Originally Posted by :
As for Iraq - so far the 'lull' has been permanent, and paved the way for a political solution.

If the lull is permanent then how are attacks increasing again month after month?

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
So their finding is that people who are against affirmative action are more likely to be against government run health care?

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
is being against affirmative action being racially resentful?

Interesting. The authors never mentioned affirmative action, but that's the first thing both of you reached for.

Actually I googled "racial resentment".

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
I don't see your choices as the only possibilities - ie that we have to choose between a decade plus of occupation or pulling out.

That's not what I asked.

Originally Posted by Lemur:
There's no doubt that we can re-make Afghanistan into something resembling a nation-state if we invest heavily in men and money for the next ten to twenty years. Is this something we ought to do? Are there alternative strategies?

Originally Posted by Lemur:

• What level of political stability would be sufficient for our counterinsurgency goals?
• If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?
• If not, what can we do about it?
• How long might it take to achieve minimal political stability?
• How long are we prepared to be there, and at what cost?
• What will success look like? (Please be realistic, and don't say "A functioning representative democracy," 'cause that is not happening in the next decade.)

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Actually I googled "racial resentment".

And when I google the term, I do not see anyone defining "racial resentment" as a cognate for "affirmative action"; rather, seems that when discussing AA folks also discuss RR. Racial resentment /= affirmative action.

Here's a thoughtful counter-post to the study:

The conclusion, again, is that the question "Is opposition to Obama based on race?" does not have a simple answer. Racial resentment definitely exists in America today, but it's more polarized along party lines than it has been in a long time. Many people who do not like blacks oppose Obama, but they would likely oppose him even if he were white since they're Republicans.

Originally Posted by Lemur:
That's not what I asked.

Lemur, most of your questions I'd be guessing answers.

Originally Posted by :
Interesting. The authors never mentioned affirmative action, but that's the first thing both of you reached for.

I just saw Sasaki use it and it seemed logical. Really, I need more info and a definition of terms before I'm willing to accept what the study says. Funny you try too make something out of it.

EDIT: More of Obama's great diplomacy: Barack Obama's churlishness is unforgivable

Originally Posted by :
The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.
...
Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.

CR

Originally Posted by Lemur:
And when I google the term, I do not see anyone defining "racial resentment" as a cognate for "affirmative action"; rather, seems that when discussing AA folks also discuss RR. Racial resentment /= affirmative action.

When you only ask 4 questions it can be...what were the four questions? Usually they ask a few more than that. The divide between "average racial resentment" and "low racial resentment" could easily come down to their opinion of affirmative action. Never trust someone who's selling a book :whip:

Originally Posted by :
Here's a thoughtful counter-post to the study:

The conclusion, again, is that the question "Is opposition to Obama based on race?" does not have a simple answer. Racial resentment definitely exists in America today, but it's more polarized along party lines than it has been in a long time. Many people who do not like blacks oppose Obama, but they would likely oppose him even if he were white since they're Republicans.

That's what I said, I was just more concise :beam:

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
That's what I said, I was just more concise :beam:

No, that isn't even vaguely what you said. Retread:

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
So their finding is that people who are against affirmative action are more likely to be against government run health care?

Noted.

Originally Posted by Blog:
The conclusion, again, is that the question "Is opposition to Obama based on race?" does not have a simple answer. Racial resentment definitely exists in America today, but it's more polarized along party lines than it has been in a long time. Many people who do not like blacks oppose Obama, but they would likely oppose him even if he were white since they're Republicans.

--edit-

Crazed Rabbit:

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Lemur, most of your questions I'd be guessing answers.

So you made up a question and answered it? That's a fresh take on discussion.

Look, the situation in Afghanistan is not simple, so our discussion of it will also not be simple, unless we want to throw some slogans around and call it a day. I'm sorry if my questions required some guesswork, but I don't see how that precludes a serious discussion of what we want out of Afghanistan, and what we're willing to pay for it.

Put it down to postmodernism or whatever it was :bounce: