Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by cliftonparksufan, Jan 10, 2017.
At home and abroad, President Obama’s trail of disasters - The Boston Globe
Once again a rightie has to be taught the basic stuff about how newspapers work.
It's not an editorial which is the opinion of the paper, it's an op-ed column written by their house conservative. That's another thing that's very rare with conservative newspapers, non-conservative ones are willing to give space on the op-ed page to columnists of the opposite viewpoint. The WaPo does it, the NYT does it, and the Boston Globe does it.
Doesn't change the content of what he wrote
This is also one of the reasons why we have such rigid political divisions in the Internet age. Once upon a time, when you bought an actual newspaper and opened it up to the opinion page, you could read one columnist's view on one page and more often than not you could read the counterpoint on the opposite page. Now people just click a link to the article/editorial that validates their worldview and never even see the other side, even by accident.
No it doesn't. It doesn't make it any more factual either. It's the perspective of someone who doesn't like Obama or the Democratic agenda. That's as much as we can say for it.
I say let 'em crash!
Economy - The writer swung and missed
Health Care - He has a good point
Foreign Policy - 50/50. The Middle East wouldn't be much better if we didn't pull out troops; it's always going to be a mess regardless of what we do. This had zero impact on terrorist attacks outside of the Middle East.
National Unity - This is as much Obama's fault as the Right's propaganda machine
what exactly was he wrong about?
The numbers aren't wrong, just taken out of context and grossly misleading in the way he presents them. I could go point by point but I don't feel like writing multiple paragraphs.
I'm going to try and read this. But if i could raise one immediate objection - "For years he has enjoyed doting coverage in the mainstream media." If Fox is the most watched news channel, doesn't this by definition make them a huge part of the 'mainstream media?' So yeah, that statement, in the second paragraph is dumb or very poorly worded.
I'm pretty sure had the GOP had their way, the recovery would have been worse.
A follow up on Foreign policy. The writer was an idiot to not at least acknowledge that the timeframe for Iraq was established by the previous administration.
And Obama didn't create ISIS.
Back then, in 2011, there was no ISIS. The group didn't exist under that name yet. There was just their predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq, which had been at the forefront of the terrible insurgency in Iraq. But many thought it was licked.
"All of the intelligence that we had gathered, all of the results of the surge, all of the detainees we had in our detention system, all of the information we had coming to us from people on the ground, from the tribes indicated that al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated," said Ret. Col. Peter Mansoor, who served in Iraq.
It makes for a lousy hot take but GWB signed the Status of Forces Agreement in 2008. The one that stated that combat forces would be out by 12/31/11.
You are correct: the writer is woefully misinformed.
The fact is that it was President George W. Bush who signed the Status of Forces agreement in 2008, which laid out the timetable for all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. At the time, three-quarters of Americans supported the withdrawal, and Obama was following-through on a campaign promise. It is also important to note that most Iraqis viewed the US troops as occupiers and blamed us for civilian deaths, which was a destabilizing force facing the newly-installed democratic government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.
Bush also cautioned against leaving to early and general after general cautioned Obama to leave a residual force in place. There is no doubt that the Iraq war was a disaster, but there is also no doubt that Obama was hell bent on getting out the troops regardless of consequences which led to the rise of ISIS. There is also no doubt that he underestimated them when he called them the JV team and was very slow to react to the threat allowing them to gain territory in the Middle East and spread over multiple countries. His administration is also responsible for the debacle in Libya and drawing a red line in Syria with no intent to follow up on his threat.
Bush's war in Iraq was a disaster. Obama's policies have not been any better. By the way we have troops back in Iraq with as far as know no status of force agreement in place.
Why didn't Bush renegotiate the SOFA then before he left?
And you want to know why Obama's policies have been much better than the previous jackwagon? Because less American's died as a result. That's much, much better.
there was no agreement on the number of troops to be left behind - at one point the current jackwagon president was going to leave behind approx 10,000 but changed his mind
and by using your yardstick Lincoln and FDR were horrible jackwagons
You spilled the beans when you referenced the "house conservative". Every newspaper ought to have at least one, right? lol
Hard to imagine it being worse. Most tepid economic recovery in history.
Unofficial Translation of U.S.-Iraq Troop Agreement from the Arabic Text
Of course it could be worse. If we adopted the same shtty policies as Europe (like the GOP wanted) the recovery probably would've been slower.
that's the original agreement - but it is well known that all parties assumed the agreement would be renegotiated
"Lets call Obama a failure so we piss liberals off so it makes them not want to work with Trump"
or we can play let's pretend Obama was so successful that the candidate promising to continue his policies was defeated by the least popular presidential candidate in history.
Yeah he wasn't the reason Hillary lost, but nice try. Try harder next time.
Separate names with a comma.