Serious question: if, God forbid, there was another 9/11-like attack tomorrow, would the country instantly unify the way it did in 2001?
Serious question: if, God forbid, there was another 9/11-like attack tomorrow, would the country instantly unify the way it did in 2001?
Seriously? It would depend on how Pres. Obama and the Congressional Democrats reacted.
The American people would want to unite behind them however.
See, this comment reveals more than it intends to. What you’re saying is, if Obama & the Dems react in a way that is politically acceptable to what you regard as the country’s center-right majority, then unity would follow. But that means the answer to my question is no. When Bush’s approval ratings rocketed to 90% in 2001, it wasn’t because his policy prescriptions and pronouncements were suddenly exactly in line with the political philosophies of the bulk of the 50+% of the public who voted against him. It was because people just automatically gave him the benefit of the doubt, because he was the president and we’d been attacked. You’re saying Obama wouldn’t get the same benefit of the doubt — he’d have to earn it with his actions.
Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, by the way. Certainly, we shouldn’t blindly trust any president, especially not in the wake of a traumatic national event. Still, it’s an interesting thought to ponder. There are both pros and cons to an erosion in our capacity for national unity, if that is indeed what has occurred.
By the way, this isn’t just about Obama per se. Ever since 2005 or 2006, I’ve had the sense that we might not unify to the same degree that we did in 2001 if, God forbid, there were another attack. The war on terror itself has become such a political football, at the center of legitimate policy debates (of course) but also used to score points, and I’m just not sure the point-scoring would immediately and for an extended period of time calm down if we were hit again.
You’re saying Obama wouldn’t get the same benefit of the doubt — he’d have to earn it with his actions.
No, I’m saying, unfair or not, Pres. Obama has caused our distrust by his previous actions. His constant overseas apologies for America’s actions and seeming empathy for our enemies has made the American people wary.
I have no doubt that the American people would have united behind a president Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman.
There was no doubt that Pres. Bush loved this country and would do whatever was necessary to defend it.
Sadly there is some self-inflicted doubt about this on Pres. Obama’s part.
Only if you are a partisan wing nut do you think that Obama doesn’t love this country.
If anything it’s the Bush legacy that would taint the idea of future unity, especially under a Republican President. After 9/11 the vast majority of Americans gave him the benefit of the doubt (I was among them). In return what did we get? Two costly wars (in both money and lives) and Osama bin Ladin is still free. Had it just been the Afghanistan war or had the Iraq war been based on actual evidence it might have been different, but those of us center to left are far less likely to place trust in a leader from the right. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
There was no doubt that Pres. Bush loved this country and would do whatever was necessary to defend it.
Sadly there is some self-inflicted doubt about this on Pres. Obama’s part.
No, there’s not.
Quite frankly, that’s a repulsive thing to say. You’re confusing honest political differences with love of country. You should be ashamed of yourself. You won’t be, but you should be.
P.S. No matter how angry I got at Bush, no matter how much I disagreed with his policies, I have NEVER questioned his love of country or his good intentions with respect to America’s security. You now can’t say the same about Obama. Congratulations, you’ve provides fodder for every left-wing trope about the Right.
Serious answer: Yes, but only because I don’t think the country was really all that unified back in 2001. The haters would bite their tongues for a while, as they did then (leading to temporarily high approval ratings), but the knives would be back out before long, as they were then.
I don’t doubt that Obama loves his country, but I think he loves himself more.
My concern with Pres. Obama has nothing to do with politics. (Did you skip the part where I said I have no doubts about a President Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman?)
It has everything to do with his actions and words. The constant apologies while overseas, the insults to our allies and praise/excuses for our enemies. The sacrifice of our security for nothing in return (ie the missile shield in Europe) The constant chant of “fundamentally transforming America”…most of us like it the way it was.
He has given the distinct impression that he is a “post-national” president, and he does not believe in America exceptionalism. America is exceptional, and the American people know it.
Gahrie, I didn’t miss anything. But citing miscellaneous Democrats (well, one Democrat and one very-conservative-on-foreign-policy independent) who you like better than Obama, doesn’t somehow prove that your concern about Obama “has nothing to do with politics.” That would be like me saying, “George W. Bush has raised self-inflicted doubts about whether he loves his country. This isn’t true of John McCain or Mike Castle.” Even though I’ve cited other Republicans, I’m still talking about politics! I’m still saying that Bush’s policies give rise to questions about whether he loves the country. Of course, I would never say that, because it’s false. But it’s absurd to claim you aren’t talking about politics. OF COURSE you’re talking about politics. You’re citing policies and actions of Obama’s that you disagree with, characterizing them in the most negative light possible, and using them as evidence that Obama has raised self-inflicted doubts about whether he loves his country.
Until you retract the odious statement, “There was no doubt that Pres. Bush loved this country … Sadly there is some self-inflicted doubt about this on Pres. Obama’s part.” there is really no point in further discussion with you on this topic. If you can’t see the repulsiveness of that statement, you’re a fucking moron. And I don’t EVER want to hear you complaining about Democrats crying “they’re questioning my patriotism!” when they’re criticized by Republicans, because guess what, questioning Obama’s partriotism on the basis of honest policy disagreements and differing approaches to diplomacy is precisely what you just did.
Joe Mama, I suspect that this time, the “haters” wouldn’t bite their tongues for more than 24 hours or so. I think the “knives would be back out” much, much more quickly than in 2001.
P.S. Alternative-universe gahrie, arguing that President Bush has raised doubts about whether he loves America and the ideals she stands for:
My concern with Pres. Bush has nothing to do with politics. (Did you skip the part where I said I have no doubts about a President John McCain or Mike Castle?)
It has everything to do with his actions and words. The constant drumbeat of jingoistic warmongering, the insults to the Muslim world and praise/excuses for Israeli apartheid, the sacrifice of civil liberties for minimal security in return (ie the PATRIOT Act), the constant chant of “securing the homeland”…most of us prefer having our rights and liberties intact.
He has given the distinct impression that he is a radical neoconservative president, and he does not believe in American ideals, American “soft power,” or America’s ability to influence the world for good through the example of its actions. America should be a beacon for liberty and justice, not a police state, and the American people know it.
Is that a fair characterization of Bush’s policies? Of course not. But it’s the rough equivalent of your characterization of Obama’s policies. It’s the way someone on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum would describe a series of policies they strongly disagree with. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But to then claim it “has nothing to do with politics”?!?!?!?!?!?!
Joe Mama makes a good point. I never did QUITE buy the “9/11 totally united the country!” bit. I think it traumatized the country, and quieted the Bush haters (both because the event was shocking, and because they knew they wouldn’t have a hearing – that they would be shouted down as divisive). If something similar happened again, I think the environment has changed and emboldened haters in general.
But all of those who say “I disliked what the Bush admin did, they squandered the goodwill of the world” are being a bit disingenuous. Because I suspect that unless Bush had become a liberal Democrat, they would have blamed Bush for squandering the goodwill of the world.
Hmm, interesting, so were the “Bush haters” lying to pollsters when they (well…the vast majority of them) said they approved of his job performance in the wake of 9/11? (His 90% approval ratings mean that roughly four-fifths of those who opposed him were now claiming to support him.) Or by “haters,” are we simply referring to liberal opinion-makers?
My sense is that there was a genuine sense, among most people, that it was truly inappropriate to engage in political point-scoring for quite some time after 9/11 — and yes, as you say, those who didn’t share that intrinsic sense went along with the zeitgeist anyway, for self-preservation reasons. But I think there was a genuine sense of unity among most people, which didn’t begin to fade for quite a while afterward. Of course this is a double-edged sword, as not just “political point-scoring,” but also legitimate political debate, tends to get silenced in such times of “unity.” Ideally, #1 would be suppressed while #2 would not, but that’s nearly impossible to achieve.
In any case, for a variety of reasons — the country has become more polarized over the last 9 years; our anti-terror strategy, which didn’t really exist yet in 2001, has become a huge political football in its own right; and subsequent attacks of similar magnitude are always going to be somewhat less traumatizing and shocking, and thus less unifying, than the first such attack — I think there would be less “unity,” for a much shorter period of time, if another 9/11-like attack were to occur. I suspect Glenn Beck and company would be back to shouting about Obama within 24-48 hours of an attack, and Republican politicians, after initially showing more restraint, would pretty quickly follow suit.
Hopefully we won’t have occasion to see who’s right.
I suspect that unless Bush had become a liberal Democrat, they would have blamed Bush for squandering the goodwill of the world.
I think this is basically right.
Brendan – a couple of things operated greatly in Bush’s favour in September, 2001 …
Possibly the most important was a whole bunch of folk who had voted for Gore had an epiphany picturing ‘President Gore’ in the 9/11 situation – and, after the cold sweat wore off, they were supportive of the President who was responding appropriately to 9/11 … remember, there were still the folk – the ‘haters’ – trying to tell us back then that 9/11 was US “chickens coming home to roost” – the country wasn’t united behind Bush even then …
That first one led to the second one, which is that Joe-in-the-street was both shocked by 9/11 and reacted strongly to support Bush when Bush’s correct responses were being criticised as soon as the criticism was uttered … and the main stream media couldn’t build momentum against Bush during that period … after 9/11, President Bush didn’t respond primarily politically, he responded Presidentially and sincerely, so he got broad US support …
Contrast that with Obama, where, if, Good Deity forfend, another 9/11 event should happen, folk would be left realising that we *have* ‘President Gore’ in the White House because we chose not to elect the President who could be counted upon to respond appropriately to such an attack (no matter McCain’s areas of weakness and other areas of strength and unrelated areas of weakness) … it would be a lot harder to unite behind a Beer Summit for the new 9/11 or supporting those who support the perpetrators building a commemorative structure anywhere near the new event or Mr Obama apologising for the US/Bush having provoked the event … because *those* are the actions in Mr Obama’s track record as President …
Brendan – can you name anything Bush did in the couple of weeks following 9/11 with which *you* personally disagreed ? And, if there is such a thing, what would *you* suggest would have been a more effective response ?
If you want to see me (and gahrie and Joe Mama, I would venture) supporting Obama, that could be achieved by Mr Obama keeping Congress in session for the next 4 weeks, specifically targeted on cutting Federal spending to significantly reduce the Federal deficit back down merely to around what it was during the Bush Administration’s and GOP Congress’s 2005-2006 period, and Mr Obama both promising to veto pretty much anything else and honouring that promise … that get’s *my* support, at least …
a Beer Summit for the new 9/11 … or Mr Obama apologising for the US/Bush having provoked the event
You know, I was considering citing these very examples, right down to the term “Beer Summit,” as ridiculous things that some conservatives might falsely believe Obama would do in response to another 9/11. But then I decided that was an unfair accusation — surely no conservative would actually believe that President Obama would respond in such a way. It’s too absurd to even contemplate. No one, at least nobody this side of Birthers and Truthers, could be so blinded by partisanship and ideology to think it’s remotely reasonable to believe that would be President Obama’s response.
Every word you type about Obama is worthless and meaningless, Alasdair. You are unintentional self-satire as performance art — an absolute joke.
P.S. Before anyone accuses me of lumping people together, or attacking all conservatives: Gahrie is pretty damn partisan, but not completely unhinged. Joe Mama veers occasionally toward unreasonableness, but is mostly logical and sane, even when I disagree with him. (I, too, veer occasionally toward unreasonableness, so I understand.) AMLTrojan is consistently logical and sane.
But Alasdair? Almost literally nothing you say about politics has any redeeming value at all. You’re the conservative yin to Sandy Underpants’s yang.
P.P.S. Having said that, if large numbers of people share your patently ridiculous, absurd, wolf-face-fucking-crazy belief that Obama would respond to a 9/11-like attack with a Beer Summit and an apology, perhaps his approval ratings really would skyrocket like Bush’s did when, in the aftermath of such a horrible event, you and others who share your delusions are pleasantly surprised when he, OF COURSE, reacts presidentially and reasonably, exercising leadership and basic political skill, reassuring and rallying the nation, as ANY president, of either party, OF COURSE would — as opposed to being a cartoonish parody of a crazy lefty wingnut commie pinko hippie.
But I mean, really. Give me a God damn break.
No Brendan, people like Alasdair would find some way, ANY way to still find fault with Obama, its vital to their entire world view that they never admit, even for a second, that he (or any non-right wing leader) does something right about a non-trivial issue.
Short answer: Not just no, but HELL no.
Long answer: Define unite? I think everyone likes to look back at the time immediately after 9/11 as some rainbow and unicorn filled time when Democrats and Republicans held hands and sang kumbaya. To the extent that this did happen, it was over and done with by the next election (November 2002) when people were seriously talking about Iraq.
I think it would depend on the scale of the assault also, btw. Another 9/11-level, you’d have almost no window of unity before the window of unification closed. However, New York and/or DC is a smoking crater–I think collective shock might buy a few weeks or months of unification, with the long end being if most of the partisan hacks / demagogues from both sides were literally dust in the wind. However, the moment you had your first serious bone of contention (“Hey, guys, just how do we go about picking the new SCOTUS?”) all hell would break loose. And heaven forbid if it’s in an election year.
A few simple points that seem to have been overlooked.
1. Republicans have been the hawk party since at least Nixon. After 9-11, almost everyone I knew wanted a hawkish president. I heard many people say “I’m glad Bush is President right now,” because they felt that a military response was required and that Gore might have hesitated to deploy one.
Let’s say that al-Qaeda hits us again, with operations organized out of Northwestern Pakistan. Personally, I would want a President who would be willing to heat that whole region to about 100,000 C, and then let things work themselves out. Like it or not, a generic Republican (even Palin) is more likely to make that decision than Obama.
2. I don’t think anyone adequately remembers the raw emotions and total shock of 9-11. Mass casualty attacks are not like debates over healthcare or education. They activate deep seated emotions which encourage unity for the common defense. I think if the moment came, gahrie might still bitch about Obama leading the country, but I expect he’d do whatever he could to contribute. I think 90%+ of us would. That’s just what this country is.
Casey #24 – your point 1. is what I referenced in the first of my “couple of things” … I, too, heard many people express how they did not feel that Gore would have responded appropriately … and, in ongoing current discussions, sadly enough, a bunch of those folk, now, today, have even *less* confidence in how Mr Obama would respond, Good Deity forfend, to such an event …
For whatever reason, Brendan is choosing to ignore the 1200 pound gorilla – what, in Mr Obama’s track record so far, gives any of us confidence that Mr Obama’s response would be responsible and appropriate …
I don’t know anyone that I can think of, myself included, who would not rally around a Mr Obama making responsible decisions …
I also have to note that Brendan carefully chose not to answer the simple questions I asked …
“Brendan – can you name anything Bush did in the couple of weeks following 9/11 with which *you* personally disagreed ? And, if there is such a thing, what would *you* suggest would have been a more effective response ? “
Short answer, no. Long answer, no, because Republicans can only be counted on for partisanship.
Al. Had Gore been allowed to assume the office to which he was elected, 9/11 would not have happened. Further, Osama would be dead. Shove your cold shiver bullshit up your ass where it belongs. The Clinton administration was pursuing a plan of action to kill Osama and disable his terrorist network, they handed this plan off the Bush adminstation, who promptly and for pure partisan reasons threw the plan in the trash. Given republicans are more than willing to commit treason in the name of partisanship I have no faith in any Republican’s ability to stand behind their nation, only a demogo on faux news. Sertiously Al, the above is less absurd than your utter and complete bullshit about Al Gore and the Democrats by an order of magnitude or 10.
I don’t answer irrelevant questions from blind partisans who assume, as an article of faith, that the core reason the public at large reacts in X, Y or Z way is because the public at large shares the blind partisan’s ideologically driven view of the world.
Alasdair, when you walk back your ridiculous, nonsensical trope about Obama holding a “Beer Summit” and “apologizing” in the immediate wake of a hypothetical terrorist atrocity, then perhaps we can have an actual conversation. But if you really believe that’s a reasonable prediction of how he would respond — and your “track record” of unhinged Obama Derangement Syndrome suggests that you probably do — then there is no point in wasting energy answering your pointless, irrelevant, bad-faith “questions.” Any attempts to “answer” would simply be greeted with more pointless, irrelevant, bad-faith partisan nonsense.
Yeah, this line of discussion is only reinforcing my Hell No answer.
“Republicans can only be counted on for partisanship?” Are you really that f*cking stupid? Or does the anonymity of the internet allow you to totally display your idiocy without fear of consequence?
Brendan:
Does Pres. Obama believe in American exceptionalism or not?
I don’t know, and neither do you, what Obama believes in his heart. But I believe the most definitive statement on this question, from Obama’s own mouth, is this:
That answer may be unsatisfying to you. You may regard it as too nuanced, too larded with caveats, too multilateral, too much “Finlandia” and not enough “America, F*** Yeah!” And that’s all well and good — you’re entitled to those opinions, obviously. (I might even partially agree!) You do need to consider the context, of course. He was talking to a bunch of foreign reporters at a NATO conference in Europe. So it’s probably not precisely the answer he would give if asked the same question at a steelworkers’ convention in Ohio (just as Bush, despite his relative aversion to nuance, would give differently framed answers in different contexts — all politicians do that, obviously). But in any case, you’re certainly free to object to the substance of what Obama said.
But how any reasonable interpretation of Obama’s answer can possibly support the notion that he has created “some self-inflicted doubt” about whether he “love[s] this country,” is beyond me. He may not define “American exceptionalism” in the same way that you do; he may not articulate his love for this country in a way that you deem optimal; he may not conduct this country’s foreign policy in a way that you approve of. And again, that’s all fine. But there is absolutely no basis for the vile slander that Obama has somehow sown “doubt” about whether he “loves this country” at all.
Why does America need to be “fundamentally transformed” then?
Have you read his books?
Have you heard his constant apologies for America while he is overseas?
How do you explain his sitting in church week after week, year after year listening to his preacher attack the United States?
How do you explain his surrounding himself with radicals and terrorists who hate the United States?
I want to make it very clear, I am willing to accept that he loves America, but given his words and actions, there is room for rational doubt.
During the 30 years prior to Obama’s election, America had been governed, at a national level, primarily by Republicans and conservatives. They enacted a bunch of policies with which he strongly disagreed. Obviously, that’s what he meant by “fundamentally transforming” the country. That doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. From his perspective, it’s like trying to get someone you love off drugs, or cure them of a mental illness — note I am NOT saying that conservative policies are a drug or an illness, just trying to make a loose analogy here — the fact that you want to “transform” them into a better version of themselves (or what you regard as better) doesn’t mean you don’t love them.
No, I haven’t read his books, but I hear they were ghost-written by Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad anyway, so why bother? *rolls eyes*
His “constant apologies” is your term, a partisan characterization. But, that aside, even accepting your terminology at face value, what Obama is “apologizing” for isn’t America’s core existence or beliefs or values, it’s specific policies with which he disagrees, indeed which he believes have harmed the nation’s interest. He thinks “apologizing” for them is in the nation’s interest. In what way does that denote a failure to love his country? Hint: it doesn’t, unless you start from a “love it or leave it” sort of premise. Disagreeing with certain American policies, even “apologizing” for them, doesn’t mean you don’t love America. (Unless of course the Tea Partiers hate America.) And no, doing it “overseas” doesn’t mean you don’t love America, either. You might regard it as inappropriate, and that’s fine, but the location doesn’t somehow elevate otherwise acceptable opposition to specific policies to the level of OMG YOU DON’T LOVE AMERICA. That’s ridiculous.
The preacher thing is guilt by association. I don’t give a shit.
Finally, I don’t need to explain his “surrounding himself with radicals and terrorists who hate the United States,” because that’s not a true statement. And again, even if it were, guilt by association (and cherrypicked associations at that) is not a valid method of analysis. If Republicans aren’t racist and Islamophobic, how do you explain them surrounding themselves with racists and Islamophobes? Shut up. Not a valid argument.
Sorry, but no, there is no room for rational doubt, no evidence that Obama doesn’t love America. This is simply another branch of the same school of thought that leads to the belief that he’s a Muslim, he was born in Kenya, etc. He’s an “other” who holds political beliefs and advocates policies that the Right regards as being wrong for America, therefore he must not simply disagree, he must in fact hate America, so let’s accuse him of not loving America, which he can’t possibly rebut because nothing he says can ever possibly prove to our satisfaction that he loves America. It’s sheer, vile nonsense, and should not even be discussed in the same paragraph as the word “rational.”
Read his books.
And I’d love to be able to read the college papers he has blocked.
Obama’s own books are going to convince me that he doesn’t love America? I seriously, seriously doubt that.
Now, sure, his PoliSci 101 final paper on “Why America Sucks and I Hate It” might do the trick… *rolls eyes again*
Are we really having this conversation?
James, how is it idiocy to say that the Repulican party believes only in partisanship given their behavior in the Senate? It is, rather, lunacy to suggest otherwise. The Republicans have nothing to offer but the tea party and the tea party has nothing to offer but partisanship, jingoism, obstructionism, and hate. The most active ideas of this party are authoritarianism and imperialism. The Republican tea party is morally and ideologue bankrupt. The Republicans have as much to offer America as a used condom with a hole in it.
No..we’ll have it hopefully in about ten years when his presidential library opens and we see what is in there.
Re: #35
The voice of enlightened reason has been heard from.
What James, are you surprised when a liberal doesn’t just capitulate to your bullshit is that it? Yeah a lot of them have no backbone and get upset when someone actually hits the Republican tea party with their own tactics. But you know what, the Republican tea party is full of shit and I’m not afraid to say so, even if it offends the delicate sensibilities of the tea beggars. After all, why should I care about the feelings of a bunch of racist xenophobes? The sure as shit don’t give a damn about how I feel. So no more touchy feely liberal crap, you come at me with a bat I’m coming back with a flame thrower.
Note, I don’t include true conservatives in the above statement, folks like AML and I have legitimate differences of opinion that can be discussed rationally and generally some common ground can be found. Folks like Al exist outside of those boundaries, and when they come at me with bullshit I’m more than happy to throw it back in their face. James, I don’t know where you really exist on this continuum yet, but it’s not looking good mate. Up to you.
Thanks for agreeing with me G. But I’m not really sure I want your support. Please don’t be offened or anything.
I also don’t include Joe mama and sveral others. Only the likes of Al, the crazy and insane. The only way I’ve ever found to argue with crazy that doesnt make me go nuts too is with an equal mesure of crazy. It seems counter intuitive, I know, but it’s better than yelling at the TV.
So gahrie, your criteria for loving something is believing its perfect and nothing should be done to make it better? Pretty high standard, I hope your kids, should you have them, aren’t held to the same standard (which makes you a hypocrit, but no big surprise there).
How long has America been perfect btw? When it was founded and included slavery and segregation and no rights for women or minorities whatsoever? When Clinton was in office? FDR? Carter? Kennedy? The day before Obama took office? I assume now that its no longer perfect (otherwise Obama wouldn’t be deserving of your critcism for the policies he has made) you hate America? Or do you think it shouldn’t be changed?
I am also surprised to see you admit that Tea Party is full of America haters since they want to change it too.
Actually, it does seem that my #24 was unintentionally almost identical to Alasdair’s #18. Strange, as we do disagree on many things.
Maybe when the shit hits the fan we’re all conservatives?
I mean, if conservatism is defined as preserving one’s culture against the threat of demise, surely most of us felt that intensely after 9-11. And I really could see the bulk of Americans becoming quite furious with a patient and restrained response by Obama.
Think about this. What if some Pakistani ISI guys managed to get a few nuclear weapons into this country and took out some city cores. What is the appropriate response to that? If you ask me, the appropriate response is nuclear. Yes, it’s savage and inhumane. But at that point you’re dealing with an existential threat, and you wipe it out completely.
I’m sure Obama would disagree with that position. I think he would choose a defense that left more innocent people alive. And while I actually respect the humanity of such a position, I also think it amounts to risking American lives to save those who would kill us.
That’s it, at the end of the day. When the time comes to kick ass, Obama would want to talk it out.
So gahrie, your criteria for loving something is believing its perfect and nothing should be done to make it better?
C’mon David..you aren’t even trying anymore.
That’s not a strawman, it’s a bloody hayfield.
No one said that America was perfect. Hell, I don’t believe it can ever be perfect. But it is a hell of a lot better than anything else in human history.
There is a huge difference between “fundamental transformation” and “nothing should be done to make it better”. Hint, look up the word “fundamental”.
Casey #43 – it’s the difference between Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain … it’s the difference between learning from history and produly repeating the failures of history …
Historically, appeasement doesn’t work … historically, as whichever Founding Father said “Good fences make good neighbours” … chances are that President Reagan learned what was needed to win the Cold War while in kindergarten or elementary school … he definitively didn’t learn it at an Ivy League school … Reagan’s successful technique was what Churchill had to do starting from behind – and that was be stronger than his opponents …
And our Mr Obama is much more of a Chamberlain …
To paraphrase an axiom that Brendn seems to be applying – “If the historical facts are against you, argue non-relevant history; if the relevant history is against you, argue no n-relevant historical facts; and if both are against you, ad hominem works for lots of people !” …
When Carter was President, America’s opponents were reasonably secure in their belief that Carter would not retaliate … when Reagan became President, they *already* knew he just could be the one to press that Big Red Button – so they behaved *much* better … not perfectly, cuz they were still human and fallible, but still much better …
The perpetrators of 9/11 did not for one moment believe that the US would retaliate, because they thought Bush II was basically Clinton Continued … imagine the Taliban’s surprised look as they realised that Dubya wasn’t Bubba – for some of ’em, quite possibly the last actual look on their face …
Casey – the ability to disagree, and still continue to interact and discuss, is a valuable one, is it not ?
Nope, sorry gahrie, until you recant your ridiculous claims earlier in this thread I have no reason to give you any benefit of the doubt. Who knows what the actual context of the quote you are providing as your sole evidence that Obama hates America is. You eschew complexity, nuance, and reasonable disagreement at every turn in favor of ideological fanaticism and purity. Why should I believe your position here is any different? Unless you have some evidence to back up your claim that Obama hates America and wants to reshape it into something horrible there is no point in discussing this further with you.
@Alasdair – Retaliate? Like he did against Iran for taking our embassy and citizens hostage? Oh yeah, Reagan was a real cowboy all right. Moron.
You don’t have a g-damned clue what Obama would do, and hopefully you, and the rest of us will never have to find out.
I’d rather have a Commander in Chief who isn’t going to fly off the handle at the first sign of trouble and react out of revenge and emotion. When people do that it tends to end very badly.
Any rational person understands that it’s not an if/else proposition. It’s not a choice between “nuke the bastards” and appeasement. There ARE degrees in between. Only a complete fool would cling to such a black and white view of the world.
Alasdair, your omniscience regarding the true motivations and beliefs of everyone — your sparring partners in blog debates, your political adversaries, the American people as a whole, America’s foreign enemies — never ceases to amaze. You always know exactly what is in everyone’s head, and amazingly, it always lines up precisely with your ideological worldview. I say what I say because you’re so obviously right that I have no other rhetorical options; the American people rallied around Bush after 9/11 because they agreed with his policies; the behavior of America’s enemies can be entirely explained by the fact that universally they recognize that the world is precisely as you, Alasdair, believe it to be.
Where can I get one of your warped right-wing Palantirs?
In any case, as I said before, “I don’t answer irrelevant questions from blind partisans who assume, as an article of faith, that the core reason the public at large reacts in X, Y or Z way is because the public at large shares the blind partisan’s ideologically driven view of the world.” That’s not an ad hominem attack, really — or, if it is one, it’s a completely accurate one. It’s a description of the reality of your approach to this sort of topic. There is simply no point in engaging in the meat of an issue with someone who argues in the way that you do, because no matter what I say, you’re always going to come back with some non-responsive, irrelevant, blindly partisan/ideological nonsense. It’s like arguing with a brick wall. You’ll note I actually did get into substance a bit with gahrie, because he at least will listen, and respond in some fashion. You simply ignore, distort, change the subject, focus on subtopics — whatever it takes to keep things within your ideological comfort zone. I just don’t have the tolerance for that anymore. I’m not going to engage you in a point-by-point substantive debate when you’re unwilling or unable to participate in such a debate meaningfully.
Having said all that, I’ll repeat that if you want to “walk back your ridiculous, nonsensical trope about Obama holding a ‘Beer Summit’ and ‘apologizing’ in the immediate wake of a hypothetical terrorist atrocity, then perhaps we can have an actual conversation.” I’m waiting…
Right, because Clinton didn’t use cruise missiles to the outrage of the right during his presidency. To say Clinton would not have taken action against Al Qaeda had he been president is some real ballsy bullshit considering he was planning to go after them and Osama before they attacked us. It was Bush that round filed that plan because he wanted to prove to papa he was a real man and could invade Iraq. For some reason you are confusing a man with serious daddy issues for a strong leader. Idocy.