« What Obama's Torture and Gitmo Exec. Orders Do -- And Don't. | Main | Poll v. Poll: How Each Side Describes "Card Check" » Provocation Of The Day: Obama's Middle East = Bush's Middle East22 Jan 2009 03:46 pm Jeffrey Goldberg just wandered into my office and observed that, at first blush, President Barack Obama's reckoning of the last month's worth of Middle East history would be the exact same reckoning that George W. Bush would have had. In other words -- there's nothing that Obama said today that George W. Bush wouldn't also say. Is this true? Significant? Comments (21)
I don't think Obama is going to kneecap and humiliate Sec. Clinton as President Bush did to Sec. Rice and Sec. Powell. So no, while the objective reality is the same the appointments of Mitchell especially and Holbrooke to Afghan/Pak situation is a clear departure. We are determined not to simple platitudes but recognize that ENDING this intractable problem is the key to defusing global terror. 
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!!!!!! Come on... that was too easy!!
How about showing concern for the Palestinian people for starters?
Ofcourse, that raises an interesting question, exactly what did George Bush accomplish in 8 years? If the situation stands exactly or worse than when clinton left office, this just further illustrates the disaster that the Bush years will come to be seen. Nothing at all has moved forward and everything has to be started from what Clinton left.
More like wishful thinking by Goldberg!
I dunno. On the one hand there was a lot of pro israeli talk on the part of Mr. Obama. On the other hand, there was a need to open up Gaza, we haven't heard that before, a need to give money directly to the Palestinian authority, again, something new and an appeal to reaching out to Arabs and Gazans specifically. So, there was a LOT of difference there.
That is wishfull thinking. Obama naming George Mitchell is something George Bush would never do and George Bush would never extend an olive branch to the arab countries of the middle east.
This is in the same category as the Daily Show's analysis pointing out that Obama and Bush have both, at different times, used similar rhetoric. Which really only proves that politicians like rhetoric. No one ever claimed that George Bush was so incompetent he couldn't ever get a 30,000 ft. view of something more or less correct. But as Peter F. so eloquently pointed out, Bush's problem isn't that he never SAID the right things, but that he very rarely DID them (can you imagine was actual COMPASSIONATE conservativism would look like...without someone quite so crazy as Mike Huckabee behind it?)
Anon beat me to it. It is the people appointed and the tone more than the words themselves, but even they are different. Jeffrey is deluding himself.
It's that Obama has credibility, an air of competence and the world behind him. So if he says "We will defeat the terrorists" you can actually believe him.
Wishful thinking!
BTW it seems pretty clear that at least the government of Israel disagrees with this notion, or they would have no hurry to withdraw troops before Obama's inauguration.
Obama also said today that "It will be the policy of my administration to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as Israel and its Arab neighbors,". That is a complete reversal from Bush. Also, appointing Mitchell, half Lebanese, fair and with a record of success, is hardly a Bush-like appointment. Jeffrey Goldberg is delusional. And that's a good thing.
Sorry, forgot the link: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/01/obama_names_envoys_for_mideast_afghanistan_2.php The source for Obama's quote
Writing from Jerusalem at 2:35 AM, I’ll try to keep this coherent. The statement is true, and significant. . .for more check out http://www.readingpulitzer.com/2009/01/22/obamas-middle-eastbushs-middle-east/
I second Mimikatz; not only are the words different; the attitude (Bush's indifference to peace, Obama's insistence), the insistence on aptitude over cronyism in terms of his appointments, and the credibility Obama brings to the equation by having (thus far) not been caught in a flat-out lie and then refusing to admit he lied, means that Jeffery's attitude requires a sense of abstraction that strains credulity.
I agree with "An Israeli": the Mitchell appointment is just what Bush should have done & never did. Obama's other appointments (e.g. James Jones) give some ground for hope. Bottom line, Obama is a strategic thinker/politician. He is buying time with the Mitchell appointment--the Arab world & Palestinian factions will back off a little (since Mitchell really is respected by good-faith people on both sides) & refocus their policy gaze on a slightly more distant horizon. And that's good for the peace process. So wait and see...
Houston we have a problem! First, Joe Klein is all bent out of shape because Obama and his people have not solved all the problems of the world in the 2 days they have been around http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/22/childish-things/. Now, Jeffrey Goldberg is surprised that, in dealing with an important region such as the Middle East, Obama is pretty much echoing (for the time being) what the previous administration has been saying the past month? Are you guys really serious? What did you except Obama to say after 48 hours in office about some of the key issues that may end up consuming most of his term? Look, perhaps you guys really believe the U.S. government is here to feed your silly blog postings and provide sound bites. The rest of us expect something entirely different...grown-ups who solve problems after careful and thoughtful delibration. Another similarly silly article is the following by Michael Scherer which is supposed to let us know that the Obama team was "Not Quite Ready on Day One." Has this guy ever worked in a real office? How long does it take one person coming to work for Time to settle down and get their e-mail, phone, etc. working, let alone a bunch of new staff moving into entirely new digs with outdated equipment they are required to use? http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1873540,00.html
I have never heard Bush express any sympathy for the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians and infrastructure repair as Obama did today. Did he?
IIRC, Bush's approval didn't collapse because his rhetoric suddenly became lacking. It's not like he became a worse public speaker from 2001-2008. Frankly, the stuff he promised still sounded great! After all, who doesn't want to defend America from weapons of mass destruction or spread freedom or rebuild New Orleans? The problem wasn't that Bush said he wanted Clear Skies or to protect us from WMDs or to rebuild New Orleans. It's that what he included in his "Clear Skies" legislation was polluting, there were no WMDs, and he didn't rebuild New Orleans. Really, people thought it was great in August 2005 when he said our nation was prepared for an emergency. But, uh, after Katrina it wasn't so great anymore when he said it. This isn't a double standard. It's called learning from experience. When a guy lies to you, you should stop believing the stuff he says, even if it still sounds awesome! Goldberg seems to have embraced the soft bigotry of low expectations. Apparently, the job of a President is just to say the right thing. It's like writing Harry Potter, really--just get the right words on the page, and you're doing an awesome job! Personally, I expect more from my Presidents.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Bush said a lot of things.
the difference is, Obama is ACTING on what he says.
Posted by freaktown | January 22, 2009 3:52 PM