Obama making things worse?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Well...

President Obama gives himself A-plus for 2014

What do you think?

**Ouze**

I think he's done a pretty awesome job this year, all in all. I think I'd be willing to upgrade him from his previous C to a B or even a B+.

I'd never be able to give a perfect A+ to any president who keeps the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay open, which remains a stain on our national honor.

**curran12**

Agree with Ouze on all counts. Given the conditions, he's done pretty darn well for 2014, but there's still considerable progress to be made until we're in A+ territory.

**DarkLink**

WellSpokenMan wrote:
If you have been the victim of descrimination for x, you tend to see it everywhere. Absent some other explanation you wonder if that x is why something happend or why something didn't go your way. It's very frustrating. On the other hand, if you don't actively descriminate for x, you think that people making that assumption is ridiculous. This all feeds into more misunderstanings and stereotypes.

Numbers don't lie, and the numbers indicate there is a problem here.

The tricky part is that correlation does not imply causation. It can be difficult to tell if some things are racially motivated or not when there are confounding factors. The assumption that it's always about race is difficult to actually prove.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I think he's done a pretty awesome job this year, all in all. I think I'd be willing to upgrade him from his previous C to a B or even a B+.

I wouldn't consider it "awesome"...

His foreign policy is in shambles... he's trying to polish it with his Cuban escapades. Looks like we're going back into Iraq again... Not to mention the continuation of his Droning Policy.

His domestic policy is what? Oppose any/all things from the opposition party? Oh... wait, that's not him, but soon-to-be minority leader Reid.

He missed serious opportunities to help mitigate racial issues. His speech after the Ferguson Grand Jury report was spot in, but the timing was off imo.

Countless as unilateral "changes" to policy that pushes the envelope of his Executive Powers (Obamacare, Immigration, etc...). Which, in fairness, I really place the blame on Congress as they've largely gave up much of their oversight.

At the most, I'd give him a C+

I'd never be able to give a perfect A+ to any president who keeps the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay open, which remains a stain on our national honor.

To be honest, his hands are tied. I believe it would've been done at the beginning of his Presidency if he could. But, I suspect you don't have a problem with the detainee facility per se, but over the "indefinite detention" policy.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
To be honest, his hands are tied. I believe it would've been done at the beginning of his Presidency if he could. But, I suspect you don't have a problem with the detainee facility per se, but over the "indefinite detention" policy.

Yes, absolutely. I have no problem with prisoners of war, or prosecution of war criminals, or some permutation of the above, my beef is that we have a facility which has no process, no justice, and no end. FFS, when they have had people tried by tribunal and served out their sentence, they still aren't released - they are just moved to a different cellblock. This is an affront to the principles upon which this country was founded blah blah blah we did this before so no new ground to cover here.

I would disagree that his hands are tired, though. Here's what I think is a compelling opinion piece to that effect.

I wouldn't agree that his foreign policy is in shambles, but it's a bit uneven. He's in a rough spot with Iraq I think: if we don't intervene and it gets worse, which seems likely, then it's his fault. He's already blamed for leaving Iraq too early (despite the fact it's on Iraq for refusing a new SOFA agreement!).

If we do intervene, then he's a warmonger and those dead Americans are on him. Americans really want our government to do something to fight ISIL while simultaneously having no political will whatsoever to commit the forces necessary to actually do so. It's a catch-22.

The obvious answer to this is to cease what is, in my opinion, currently an unlawful intervention in Iraq and do his job and get Congress to sign off on a lawful AUMF - there is no reasonable reading of the original AUMF that allows this administration to engage in hostilities against ISIL, in my opinion. If he can't get Congress to sign off, then the people have spoken, via their duly elected representatives.

Sorry, that was kind of a tangent.

**whembly**

I don't disagree with Slate's premise, but again, something is holding Obama back.

At least he's releasing the prisoners that couldn't be prosecuted... we're down to about ~120 detainees left.

Ouze wrote:
Disagree that his foreign policy is in shambles, but it's a bit uneven. He's in a rough spot with Iraq I think: if we don't intervene and it gets worse, which seems likely, then it's his fault. He's already blamed for leaving Iraq too early (despite the fact it's on Iraq for refusing a new SOFA agreement!).

It's a fething mess Ouze and I think you know it.

Let's look at the latest efforts to normalize Cuban relations... why now?

Here's an opinion piece that nails it:

Obama's Shift on Cuba Comically Overblown
By Mark Salter - December 31, 2014

For all the media attention paid to President Obama’s decision to “normalize” relations with Cuba, it’s not entirely clear what the president can do on his own to justify all the portentous headlines. On its face, it would seem very little.

He cannot lift the trade embargo without congressional cooperation, which he won’t get. He cannot send a U.S. ambassador to Havana without Senate confirmation, which probably won’t happen. He cannot even expand the size of our interest section in Cuba into a full-fledged embassy without congressional appropriations, also doubtful.

He can relax travel restrictions to Cuba, but 600,000 Americans already travel every year to the island nation, mostly Cuban-Americans visiting family. It’s not clear that the number will increase that significantly in the wake of Obama’s decision.

Thanks to his announcement, those who do make the journey will for the first time be able to use their bank debit and credit cards while there. They can bring back Cuban cigars and rum as souvenirs. But neither product will be imported for sale in the U.S. unless Congress agrees to lift the trade embargo, a change of course for which the president laid no predicate on Capitol Hill.

In short, Obama’s decision is more expressive than definitive, which is by now a familiar recourse for a president whose foreign policy record abounds with symbolic statements and empty gestures. Like his executive decision not to deport some illegal immigrants, his executive action on Cuba can be reversed as easily as it was made by a successor with different priorities.

As a result, media speculation that this small alteration in U.S.-Cuban relations will work a profound change in the tyranny that has oppressed Cuban society for nearly six decades seems comically overblown. The Castro regime weathered the loss of its Soviet sponsors, who had sustained Cuba’s primitive economy, as well as the prestige it once enjoyed in parts of our hemisphere and on college campuses. It’s just a Caribbean backwater now, with antique cars, the ruined beauty of its towns and a flourishing sex tourism trade.

Yet the regime shows no sign of change or self-doubt. It’s unlikely to become a more benign agency merely because of the presence of more American tourists. I think it’s safe to assume the political prisoners Raoul Castro agreed to release, as welcome as that action is, will not find their “liberty” any less precarious should they resume their human rights advocacy.

Obama loyalists point to our normalization of diplomatic and commercial relations with China and Vietnam, which have expanded extensively even though both regimes continue to oppress their citizens. That is true. Of course, China is a great power, and its enormous impact on global security and prosperity necessitates our engagement with it. Cuba’s heyday as David to America’s Goliath has long passed. We have no important security or economic interests at stake in the decision to exchange ambassadors or trade with Cuba.

Like China, in the two decades since we normalized relations, Vietnam has remained a one-party state that imprisons those who challenge its prerogatives. Yet relations between our countries have strengthened as Vietnam emerges as a thriving, mostly free-market economy and likely ally in opposition to Chinese adventurism in Southeast Asia.

As someone who was marginally involved (as an aide to Sen. John McCain) in the events that led to normalization with Vietnam, I can testify that the process was the mirror opposite of the approach President Obama took on Cuba.

In the first place, it was a decision that could be fairly attributed to two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In 1991, the Bush administration approached Vietnam’s U.N. delegation with a proposal for a quid pro quo normalization process that became known as the “roadmap.”

We had three major issues with the Vietnamese at the time. First, we wanted them to withdraw their forces from Cambodia, which Vietnam had invaded in 1978. Second, we wanted them to release from “re-education camps” South Vietnamese officials imprisoned since the war had ended. Finally, and most importantly, we wanted Vietnam to cooperate much more extensively than it previously had in determining the fates of hundreds of American servicemen still listed as POW/MIA in Vietnam. If they did those things, two successive U.S. administrations said they would lift the trade embargo and eventually restore normal diplomatic relations.

The Vietnamese never formally agreed to the roadmap, but they complied with its conditions. They got out of Cambodia and emptied the re-education camps. Their cooperation on POW/MIA investigations, which had been grudging and fitful, soon became much more helpful and trusting, and allowed for what will be remembered as one of the most extensive efforts to account for the fallen in the history of warfare.

Clinton had succeeded Bush 41 when it came time to reciprocate. Both presidents had worked assiduously to get Congress and other stakeholders to buy in to the roadmap. Bush had sought the counsel of Vietnam veterans in both parties in Congress, particularly McCain and Sen. John Kerry. He asked McCain to travel to Vietnam as his emissary. Kerry chaired a special committee to help determine the fates of missing servicemen, a committee on which McCain and several other Senate veterans of the war served.

Owing to his personal history as a draft avoider and opponent of the Vietnam War, Clinton acted gingerly before taking any step toward better relations. He sat in many meetings with representatives of the veteran organizations, the families of the missing, members of Congress. Cabinet-level discussions were held. The Vietnamese were pressed again and again for more cooperation on POW/MIA investigations. Clinton asked McCain and Kerry to author a Senate resolution calling for lifting the embargo and then to persuade a bipartisan majority to support it.

Consequently, the decision to normalize proved far less controversial and politically confrontational than does Obama’s decision on Cuba. It wasn’t much of an issue in Clinton’s re-election. Relations between the U.S. and Vietnam have grown steadily closer and more beneficial to both parties. A course was prudently considered and elaborately negotiated, a political consensus to support it was built carefully, and a relationship was established by meaningful actions from both parties.

That is how statecraft is made by an administration interested in making history instead of headlines.

Yep... I like that phrase... Obama's administriation is making "headlines"... not "history".

**Ouze**

Well, I guess we disagree.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
Well...

President Obama gives himself A-plus for 2014

What do you think?

I don't know that the Administration gave itself an A-plus, it seems more like they're pointing to a series positive things which happened during the year; which is something Administrations tend to do.

As to using letter grades: I didn't even like doing that when I had to grade papers, as I always found them rather arbitrary, and I certainly don't think they're useful when discussing some as complicated as a Presidency. Its basically just the deliberate creation of a talking point, something I'll happily leave to media personalities.

whembly wrote:

t's a fething mess Ouze and I think you know it.

Let's look at the latest efforts to normalize Cuban relations... why now?

The timing of this particular decision only matters to people looking for a reason to be critical.

As to the article, I hesitate to take seriously the word of someone who uses the phrase "Obama loyalists..." while stating that EOs can be overturned by future Presidents as if this were some profound revelation. He does have a point about Vietnam and Cuba being non-comparable, but seems to ignore the fact that this would necessarily allow for them being handled in a distinct fashion.

As to Obama's foreign policy being in shambles, I say no. Its roughly consistent with that of all the Administrations that have followed Reagan.

**Ouze**

That's exactly what an Obama Loyalist would say, though.

**Tannhauser42**

Honestly, I would say our foreign policy has been "in shambles" for quite some time now, since before Obama and before Bush. Our constant attempts to play off different powers against each other for our so-called personal gain, supporting one country because they have better congressional lobbyists than another country, supporting Group A to overthrow Group B to be overthrown by Group C when Group A turns on us, and so on, is now finally biting us in the ass.

I think Teddy Roosevelt had the right idea.

**Ouze**

I don't see how punching a bear in the face is going to make anything better.

**Jihadin**

Release the detainee's in GITMO. Drone controllers are behind that move. Also we can stop tax dollars being used for their education

**Tannhauser42**

I don't know, Ouze, maybe Putin might respect Obama more of Obama did that?

But I was thinking more along the lines of "speak softly and carry a big stick." Instead, America constantly changes around from speaking softly to shouting to thumping our chests, and from carrying a big stick to throwing stones and offering carrots or knives in the back, and all of those in any combination.

**Ouze**

I'd love to see a policy where we stop interfering with other countries. Yeah, there are a lot of terrible regimes, but there always have been, and there always will be, forever and ever, hallelujah, amen... lets concentrate on just trying to make America great.

**Jihadin**

Ouze wrote:
I'd love to see a policy where we stop interfering with other countries. Yeah, there are a lot of terrible regimes, but there always have been, and there always will be, forever and ever, hallelujah, amen... lets concentrate on just trying to make America great.

Can't. Exceptionalism is frown upon in the US of A

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I'd love to see a policy where we stop interfering with other countries. Yeah, there are a lot of terrible regimes, but there always have been, and there always will be, forever and ever, hallelujah, amen... lets concentrate on just trying to make America great.

Can't. Exceptionalism is frown upon in the US of A

Because "we didn't build that".

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:
That's exactly what an Obama Loyalist would say, though.

I'm sure, but I also imagine there are plenty of people who aren't "Obama loyalists..." who would be annoyed by a bad characterization of EOs and the phrase "Obama loyalists...".

whembly wrote:

Because "we didn't build that".

The statement was "You didn't build that."

**DarkLink**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Honestly, I would say our foreign policy has been "in shambles" for quite some time now, since before Obama and before Bush. Our constant attempts to play off different powers against each other for our so-called personal gain, supporting one country because they have better congressional lobbyists than another country, supporting Group A to overthrow Group B to be overthrown by Group C when Group A turns on us, and so on, is now finally biting us in the ass.

I think Teddy Roosevelt had the right idea.

Thank various european nations for that. We pretty much inherited their mess.

**reds8n**

whembly wrote:

Let's look at the latest efforts to normalize Cuban relations... why now?

Because of the situation in Russia.

**d-usa**

reds8n wrote:
whembly wrote:

Let's look at the latest efforts to normalize Cuban relations... why now?

Because of the situation in Russia.

As well as Venezuela.

Both have assisted Cuba with oil and financial resources. But with the drop in oil prices that support is going to be a lot harder to provide and there will be difficulties in subsidizing Cuba with oil shipments. This leaves Cuba in dire need of assistance and it opens a window for the US to step in and gain the influence needed to affect change.

**Jihadin**

Have to wait for the other Castro brother to die because its not changing.

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
Have to wait for the other Castro brother to die because its not changing.

^yup... anyone thinks that *we* can change them now are being silly.

If we could, they'd be changed by now.

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

**Jihadin**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

My obsession with Cuba. Getting one of their classic vehicles they're still using. You know damn well you be in line if you could Dogma

**dogma**

Jihadin wrote:

My obsession with Cuba. Getting one of their classic vehicles they're still using. You know damn well you be in line if you could Dogma

All the more reason to normalize relations.

**Jihadin**

dogma wrote:
Jihadin wrote:

My obsession with Cuba. Getting one of their classic vehicles they're still using. You know damn well you be in line if you could Dogma

All the more reason to normalize relations.

I rather go full bore with someone more willing in the Cuban leadership who actually share that same goal. One willing to meet whatever benchmarks we set.

Edit

Castro looks to have only a few more years of life left

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

They're commie bastiches that's an affront to human decency?

And yes, you're right about it being about Florida too... which is why Jeb Bush is a player to the Republican nomination (blech!).

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

They're commie bastiches that's an affront to human decency?

.... and this wasn't a consideration, somehow, when we granted China Most Favored Nation trading status?

I too have never understood the particular beef we have with Cuba.

**A Town Called Malus**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

They're commie bastiches that's an affront to human decency?

.... and this wasn't a consideration, somehow, when we granted China Most Favored Nation trading status?

I too have never understood the particular beef we have with Cuba.

Beard envy.