dagblog - Comments for "Bill Clinton: Obama May Look Like a ‘Wuss’ Over Syria"

Yes! Palin in 2016. Governor

ocean-kat — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:59:04 +0000

In reply to Interesting comment but it

Yes! Palin in 2016. Governor of the largest state in America!

Just kidding. You do have a point. Especially if the candidate was the governor of a populous diverse state.

Dowd chimes in (if she didn't

artappraiser — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:50:02 +0000

In reply to Bill Clinton: Obama May Look Like a ‘Wuss’ Over Syria

Dowd chimes in (if she didn't people would wonder if she was ill.)

My natural inclination in

artappraiser — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:48:14 +0000

In reply to "sounds like you still

My natural inclination in foreign policy is pretty laissez-faire except for trade. Only because humans cannot predict the future well. That includes diplomacy, but I can still admire it when it is done well.

And this conflict is so complex that few can even understand what is really going on much less consider the future blowback.

But when it comes to Islamists and other fundamentalists, as a feminist, I am especially loathe to see our country helping them in any way, even if it were supposedly in our national interest. The blowback is a bitch. See our long relationship with Saudi Arabia and then see the results, big picture. Not that we have to antagonize them.

"sounds like you still

EmmaZahn — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:23:45 +0000

In reply to Interesting comment but it

"sounds like you still entertain some hope that Obama may be that eight-dimensional chess player guy."

Hardly, and for the record, never did. Always thought Obama shared W's management style as in being the decider who lets others do the strategizing.

I seriously doubt what is unfolding in Syria was deliberately planned by anyone in the White House. Maybe an idiot lower down the food chain kicked off something there to which others in the government think we must react somehow. But do we? Why is standing back and watching ~~both~~ all sides bleed each other a bad strategy? .I am sorry for the people who end up collateral damage but I do not see how our getting involved will do much except make it even worse for them

I've always had a preference for presidential candidates who were governors (unless they were one termers using the office as a stepping stone).

We tried to warn the

Resistance — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:46:48 +0000

In reply to Interesting comment but it

We tried to warn the Obamabots.

Interesting comment but it

artappraiser — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:07:02 +0000

In reply to "I think what Clinton was

Interesting comment but it also sounds like you still entertain some hope that Obama may be that eight-dimensional chess player guy. I have totally been disabused of even entertaining that.

I tried real hard to be objective, but now within enough time into his second term where there's no need to do things for re-election purposes, I've bascially chalked him up as an extremely mediocre president, no genius, not even an exceptional talent at it. It's been interesting for me in that I've now been convinced that American voters' usual preference for electing governors to the presidency (i.e., trained in the executive government experience) is very wise.

At least until someone

EmmaZahn — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:30:39 +0000

In reply to I have to admit that this

At least until someone implies you are a wuss. Then you would want others to know just how mean you can be.

"I think what Clinton was

EmmaZahn — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:27:23 +0000

In reply to This piece in the NYT today,

"I think what Clinton was doing was putting out some support for the factions in the administration that were advising to put more into this. That Clinton knew of Obama's waffling and angst, and was trying to get the message to him: you'll regret that, you've got to risk a little more action."

Meddling ex-presidents!

What I like about Drezner's piece is the counter implication, that rather than being a wuss, when it comes to foreign policy Obama can be one callous sob. Way better optics imo.

Of course, sending a deputy nsa to respond to the wuss charge while personally addressing a gay pride event could also be construed as a signal to all the warring factions of where their conflict ranks in his priorities.

Spin, spin, spin. Being President is hard.

I have to admit that this

Verified Atheist — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:06:59 +0000

In reply to Another perspective from

I have to admit that this idea had already occurred to me, but it also occurred to me that if I were Obama and this was my game plan, I would not mention this to anyone in writing, and to very few people (if any) orally. To those I might mention it to orally, even then it would probably be through a plausibly deniable manner. (E.g., simply ruminating out loud.)

P.S. Confirmation of a lot of

artappraiser — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:13:23 +0000

In reply to This piece in the NYT today,

P.S. Confirmation of a lot of the above is here, in Dexter Filkins' New Yorker article of May 13: The Thin Red Line; Inside the White House debate over Syria. Starting @ page 4: At times, Obama’s caution has isolated him within his Administration.....The "wuss" label is not inaccurate, he is afraid of the consequences of any kind of involvement in this conflict, probably even the diplomatic ones. Most of us probably agree that's wise, but wuss is still an accurate label. If he felt strongly about NOT being involved, he could say so. It's not like he's not capable of doing that, see Iraq or Libya. He is not decisive about it. I think Clinton was basically saying: when you're president of the U.S., you'll regret not being decisive, you don't really have the luxury of being indecisive. And Obama might be wishing he could have a little talk with Lyndon Johnson about that....