US Foreign Policy: Obama = Bush

[Michael]

Lets just pretend that GW Bush could have had a third term as President. On that basis, I can reasonably suggest that a Bush Administration would be talking all about increasing the US deployment to Afghanistan, supporting Israel's right to build settlements on illegally expropriated Palestinian land, Gitmo would still be open and US government would still be engaged in 'rendition' and last but not least, you can guarentee that the Goldman report would be trashed.

Now with Obama as President, its all about increasing the US deployment to Afghanistan, supporting Israel's right to build settlements on illegally expropriated Palestinian land, Gitmo is still open and US government is still engaged in 'rendition' and last but not least, the Goldman report is being officially trashed.

Gosh... is anyone surprised by any of this?

I predicted that "Obama = Bush" on US foreign policy issues back during the 2008 primaries, so I'm not suprised at all the way things are turning out. It ain't pretty, but NO ONE can claim to be surprised by this.

I said it then and I'll say it again now - should have nominated Hillary if you wanted to bring some sanity to US foreign policy. With Obama, its more of the same from GW Bush with some nice pretty words thrown on top (and quickly discarded). At least GW Bush was honest about his policy goals. Can't say the same about Obama at all.

[Donkey]

US foreign policy is a seemingly semi-sentient behemoth that appears to operate independently of whomever is President, in many respects. It is very easy to feed and make it bigger and more evil, but extremely difficult to reign in.

[Michael]

US foreign policy is a seemingly semi-sentient behemoth that appears to operate independently of whomever is President, in many respects. It is very easy to feed and make it bigger and more evil, but extremely difficult to reign in.

Yes, I've made this argument previously - that US foreign policy is remarkably consistent regardless of which President is in office.

For example, some of the absolute worst CIA 'black ops' and funding of anti-democratic groups occurred under President Carter (and shortly after the Church Committee's investigation of illegal CIA behavior).

[Donkey]

Yes, I've made this argument previously - that US foreign policy is remarkably consistent regardless of which President is in office.

For example, some of the absolute worst CIA 'black ops' and funding of anti-democratic groups occurred under President Carter (and shortly after the Church Committee's investigation of illegal CIA behavior).
I think that international power and democracy are at odds. Nobody ever seems to vote on foreign policy, even if that policy potentially affects more people than domestic policy. Democracies should not wield power.

[Donkey]

Yes, I've made this argument previously - that US foreign policy is remarkably consistent regardless of which President is in office.

For example, some of the absolute worst CIA 'black ops' and funding of anti-democratic groups occurred under President Carter (and shortly after the Church Committee's investigation of illegal CIA behavior).
I think that international power and democracy are at odds. Nobody ever seems to vote on foreign policy, even if that policy potentially affects more people than domestic policy. Democracies should not wield power.

[The Drunk Guy]

I think that international power and democracy are at odds. Nobody ever seems to vote on foreign policy, even if that policy potentially affects more people than domestic policy. Democracies should not wield power.That's why we're a republic. ;) Think of us as the Romans, spreading civility throughout the barbarian world.

[Donkey]

That's why we're a republic. ;) Think of us as the Romans, spreading civility throughout the barbarian world.
Fuck that shit. The purpose of democracy is to hold the government accountable to the people. The purpose of republicanism is to have the people accurately represented.

Neither of those apply to foreign policy.

[Americano]

US foreign policy is a seemingly semi-sentient behemoth that appears to operate independently of whomever is President, in many respects. It is very easy to feed and make it bigger and more evil, but extremely difficult to reign in.

US foreign policy = MIC. It doesn't matter who's president; some administrations feed it better than others.

[Michael]

Apparently I'm not the only one who has noticed that Obama sure acts a lot like GW Bush on the foreign policy side...

Obama Fails in Middle East

The announcement by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he will not run for reelection is the exclamation point on the utter collapse of the Obama adminstration's Middle East policy. Launched to great expectations -- the appointment of George Mitchell, Obama's Cairo declaration that the plight of the Palestinians is intolerable -- it is now in complete disarray. It is, without doubt, the first major defeat for Obama's hope-and-change foreign policy.

Article (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/493335/obama_fails_in_middle_east)

Please read the article. It explains how Obama's amateur attempts have not only failed but potentially set the process back to square one. It is one thing to try to do something and get no where - it takes a special kind of incompetance to try to solve a problem and only succeed in making the whole problem worse and more difficult to resolve. That's what Obama is doing here - exactly what GW Bush did on every issue - a reverse 'midas touch'. I'm afraid Obama's got it too!