Peggy Noonan Says That It's All Obama's Fault Now
This is worth looking at. It is Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal arguing that supporters of the President can no longer argue that he inherited the mess (the wars, the economic collapse) because he's been President for 9 months.
She compares Obama's situation to that of his predecessor. "At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency--all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them--was his. The American people didn't hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it," she writes.
What balderdash. First, the American people should have held him responsible (at least partly) for 9/11 because he and his team ignored repeated warnings that Al Qaeda was planning precisely the kind of attack it, in fact, launched.
Second, it is hardly to anyone's credit that no one was held responsible for the fact that both Manhattan and the Pentagon (the Pentagon!) were naked and open to attack by our enemies. (Imagine if Al Gore had been President!)
But the 9/11 issue is speculative. We can't know who, or if, anyone in the Bush administration dropped the ball that produced 3,000 American dead.
But there is no such doubt about the biggest problems Obama faces. His predecessor came into office after Bill Clinton produced the biggest surplus in our history and then chose to convert it into the biggest deficit in history by handing the Clinton surplus over to the wealthiest Americans in the form of tax cuts. Nor is there any question that Bush-Cheney chose to go to war in Iraq only because Bush and his team felt like it and planned on it from the earliest days of the Bush presidency. That decision not only produced the Iraq horrors which Obama has to fix but also allowed the war in Afghanistan to become the debacle it is today.
In the cases of the wars and the massive debt, Obama's plight is the result of choices Bush and the Republicans made. Choices.
Time, whether nine months or nine years, will not change the fact that the Republicans chose to do these things to America. Even Noonan admits that, writing that the the American people rightly held Bush responsible for everything after 9/11 through the end of Bush's term. So is there some statute of limitations on that? Is Bush no longer responsible for the damage he did because he is no longer in office? Is that how it works now? If so, it's something new.
Franklin Roosevelt had no reluctance to criticize twelve years of GOP rule in the 1920's because Herbert Hoover (and Calvin Coolidge) and the Republicans were partly responsible for the Great Depression. But only partly (though enough for FDR and his successors to blame them for it).
The difference is that the Republicans of the 1920's did not pursue ineffective and ultimately destructive laissez faire policies to benefit their friends but because laissez faire was the governing dogma of the day.
The Bush team took us to war in Iraq and deregulated and destroyed the economy essentially to advance their own interests (most notably those of Vice President and his cronies) and the ideological interests of the neocons without any regard for the national interest.
It is right that we not be too hard on those who make honest policy mistakes. But it is wrong not to hold accountable those who pursue bad policies to advance their own interests and to hell with the American people.
I wish Obama would talk more about what he inherited from George W. Bush. He doesn't like blaming but when blame is richly earned, blame is an effective tool. Otherwise, sure as shooting, the economic disaster of 2008 will be laid at our door, not theirs. The Republicans will take credit for the recovery!
The Clintons really are powerful. They got Dubya to ignore an August 2001 DIB entitled, "Al Queda planning to inside US" 7 months after Bill left office. And they didn't even need to use the phone.
They got Dubya to ignore Richard Clark.
Is there anything Bill Clinton cannot do?
I'm told Bill can also fold space like the navigators on Arakis.
October 23, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Friggin' typos. :(
Edited:
The Clintons really are powerful. They got Dubya to ignore an August 2001 DIB entitled, "Al Queda planning to attack inside US" (paraphrase) 7 months after Bill left office. And Clinton didn't even need to use the phone.
He got Dubya to ignore Richard Clark. Also without Bill even talking to him.
Is there anything Bill Clinton cannot do?
I'm told Bill can also fold space like the navigators on Arakis.
October 23, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We can't know who, or if, anyone in the Bush administration dropped the ball that produced 3,000 American dead."
Not now. But we stood a good chance at knowing a hell of a lot more of the story if independent and competent investigations, with consequences or prosecution where merited, had taken place quickly.
October 24, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Mooser.
You are much funnier on Mondoweiss. I suspect you tone it down here so that the local IDF cheerleading squad doesn't have a collective stroke.
October 24, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she's sort-of-right.
The fundamental problem in this case is that Americans (probably people all over the world but the rest don't count :-) ) are, on average, impatient. Not only did Obama inherit this mess, it's also such a big mess that it is going to take years, not months, to make more than a small dent in it.
In late 2011, when things are noticeably better and on an improving track, Republicans will indeed be taking credit for the recovery, even though those seeds were planted in 2009 (the last 10 months) and part of 2010 (the next ~8 months).
October 23, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The polite term is "low information voters." They are more commonly known as Palin supporters.
October 23, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Faux News watchers generally.
October 24, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post and spot on ct.
October 26, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who was George W. Bush?
CleverBullDog and others have attested to the fact that George W. Bush was not a conservative.
No one on this site has ever admitted voting for Bush including GOP supporters like MiddleClassBill, Toothless Chihuahua, Comment World, Progressive Conscience, SFC Wallace or that recent TPM'er luvAmerica.
The non-Fox News liberal media even presented the opinion that not only was George W. Bush a ""mushy-headed liberal" , his invasion of Iraq was a neo-liberal enterprise.
George Bush was just the liberal before Obama the liberal. Its not the Republicans fault. Nothing ever is their fault, of course. Peggy knows. Its called accountability, GOP style.
October 23, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Noonan has always struck me as being about the level of maybe a high school intern pretending to be a GOP PR person / political analyst. There's something kinda' cute about her lack of sophistication and her loyalty to the cause that always colors her work.
What a knob.
October 23, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual you resort to lying to try to make your idiotic points. I did say Bush was not a conservative. I never said I didn't vote for him, in fact I said I voted for him twice. What were the alternatives? Gore and Kerry, 2 of the stupidest fools to ever live. So while Bush was not my first choice, he was way better than the alternative.
October 24, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "true conservatives" don't want us to blame them for Bush -- he's not a true conservative, all of them just voted for him!
Did they get what they thought they'd get? And if they got fooled, they need to think about how.
October 24, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
CBD - congratulations for being one of the few and apparently proud two time Bush voters at TPM.
Many consider that those who voted for the guy who took two oil companies into bankruptcy in Texas, who weaseled out of duty in Vietnam, who was close to such frauds as Kenny Boy Lay and who made a bundle on a shady stadium deal among other evidence of incompetence are the real biggest fools on the planet.
As a Bush voter you were a willful accomplice to the disasters, crimes and death toll that the lying jackass Bush racked up, although as a Bush Baser it is clear you will feel no remorse or harbor any second thoughts about it.
October 24, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another rant devoid of fact. Bush volunteered for Vietnam service as part of Operation Palace Guard, but was denied due to his plane being obsolete. Look it up, Newsweek reported on this some time ago and they are certainly not a right wing pub. As to being close to Ken Lay, it was Bill Clinton who invited him to the White House and played golf with him.
I certainly have no remorse for supporting Bush over the incredibly moronic Gore or the equally inept Kerry. Bush had Cheney on the ticket, and that's the main reason I voted for him. I am more a supporter of Cheney than Bush.
October 24, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
CBD - as a guy who voted for Bush twice and who still thinks he was wise to do so, you are a joke buddy.
Go watch Fox News or ESPN, my dog has more smarts then you do.
October 24, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. There aren't that many people who will come right out and say they support Cheney.
October 24, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Bush had no idea that his plane was obsolete when he volunteered?
I've no idea of the answer but it sure is an obvious question.
October 24, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only was his plane obsolete, but the airwing for which he "volunteered" was in the process of being disbanded.
October 27, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"willful accomplice to the disasters, crimes and death toll "???
Give it a rest, will ya? I'm struggling to see what your post about who we voted for and his "liberalness" has to do with Rosenberg's original post.
October 24, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, bulldog, you voted for Bush twice and the Supremes voted for him five times. You must be so proud.
October 24, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What she's saying doesn't even make sense. The President is responsible for the decisions he makes. If he's inherited a War, the American people are smart enough to know what the new Commander in Chief is and isn't responsible for as things play out. Peggy Noonan speculating in the WSJ doesn't mean squat and isn't worth more that this few lines I've spent on it.
October 23, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Few things are predictable in US politics. This was about as hard to see coming as the sun rising every 24 hours in the east.
Suppose Obama were a Republican with Republican majority, and ex-president GW Bush, a Democrat, with his party now in the minority. Here's a sample of what we'd be hearing:
REPUBLICANS: Those sore losers who treacherously ruined our nation in the prior administration must not dare to raise their voices against our great commander in chief. If they do so. it will be proof positive that they are with terrorists and evildoers around the world, and hate America and its freedoms. We're in charge now, we make the rules, and you perverted tree-hugging elitist commie destroyers of family values can sweep our driveways, mow our lawns, and tote our golf clubs.
DEMOCRATS: We support the troops too, but more inclusively than you. We think we'd like to suggest a 1% reduction in your bailouts of Wall Street, but we need to agonize over it first. We are inclined to maybe propose that you possibly consider considering a 2% increase in the gas mileage of the extra tanks going to be sent abroad to be blown up by boys in long white robes hiding in mountainous ravines, but of course if you think a 10% deterioration in gas mileage is the best you can do, be assured that we will stand right behind you to help you hunt down and kill terrorists such as Osaddam bin Hussein.
October 23, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very Good - you nailed it exactly - that is EXACTLY what we would hear - and of which have already heard more than a belly full
Cheney, the man who has been Wrong About Everything*, running his mouth off at every opportunity, is the consummate Republican. He took the money and ran, he refuses to acknowledge his mistakes and crimes, he continues to insist he is right. Puke.
* example: Nelson Mandela is a terrorist and should rot in jail forever
October 23, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rot in jail forever" sounds appropriate...in a sentence with "Cheney" as the subject. Make it a jail in Baghdad, please.
October 25, 2009 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What keeps this hag going? Peggy Noonan should take her spiffy grandma routine to some sunny kitchen, where she can smile away the whole day, a little speck of baking flour on her nose, whippin' up batches o' peanut butter cookies for the neighborhood and drinking herself to death on Smirnoff by the tumbler-full. She's been in the bag for years, soft-selling the neocon line. "Well, gee, I hate to seen untoward about this, but why don't we bomb the Arabs back to pre-Bronze?" You're burning up oxygen pointlessly, Peggy. Do the world a favor: Die.
October 23, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That second sentence should go down as one of the very best snark attacks I've read... and I look for such things. Brilliant!
I love what you do with the language, Curt. You can make me laugh out loud, even as I share the anger and the contempt that underscores so much of what you discuss here on these pages.
October 23, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's real nice of you Curt.
October 24, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are the repeated warnings of 911;
http://www.americanhiroshima.com/911warnings.htm
and here, from the same site and many others, are warnings of a new, far more terrible, 911;
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22american+hiroshima%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Any shmuck can look back and cast blame or try to shift blame. Many shmucks make a living doing just that.
But looking into the future, taking action to change that future based on today's warnings - that's another matter entirely. So tell us, Rosenberg, what should Obama do?
October 23, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case you think this is just crank stuff, here' Nicholas Kristoff in the N.Y.Times writing 5 years ago;
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/opinion/11kris.html
The point is the warnings are out there, all the time. Intelligence agencies have to deal with thousands and thousands of them. How can they tell the credible from the crank, and what actions should they recommend?
It's easy for the Rosenbergs of this world to look back and cast blame. But he should be treated as he deserves to be - as an unprincipled shmuck.
October 23, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
More:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13097/how_likely_is_a_nuclear_terrorist_attack_on_the_united_states.html
But you get the idea - a nuclear attack on the United States is somewhere between possible and likely. What do "progressives", the "big brains", have to say about it? Nothing. They're too busy with important things - making sure Republicans are blamed for all bad things while they, the progressives, get credit for all good things.
October 23, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg would advise an Obama Mission Accomplished fly in on a carrier off San Diego.
Then he would recommend giving $12 billion more in unrestricted aid to General Musharraf in Pakistan like the Bush administration over the last 8 years.
Musharraf might then give another award to his buddy A. Q. Khan as a great 'national hero of Pakistan' while Khan meanwhile sends 'nukular' bomb plans to every dictator and terrorist group on his and Musharraf's Hotmail address lists.
October 23, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, the warnings are out there. Should a nuclear attack occur on Obama's watch they'll all come to the fore...and he'll be in for a hell of a lot worse than what Bush experienced.
October 23, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There already is a nuclear attack foreseen : the Americans and their dearest friend are fixing to drop a nuke on Iran.
The loud voices urging us to start ANOTHER war say their bomb-Iran scheme will solve the problem in an instant. These are the loudest voices anywhere on Earth calling for a nuclear bombing.
War promoters always promise the first-round knockout, the sucker punch, the tidy outcome. A review of all the various wars and conflicts, dragging on for years, will show this promise is a fantasy.
The bomb-Iran plotters salivate about an attack in the US that would frighten the public enough to back their plot. Odious, unforgivable insects they are.
Terrorists are people that wants us to fear and act out of fear. I am tired of all of them.
October 23, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrorists are people that wants us to fear and act out of fear
So you supported Bush when he ignored all those warnings?
October 24, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your point seems to be that so many people gave warnings that Bush was justified in believing that they had to have been wrong and could be safely ignored.
The short answer is that Bush was such a hater that he assumed that anything Clinton had done was wrong and that if he did the opposite everything would turn out right. Stupid. Talk about a knee jerk reaction by a jerk.
We recognize that from among all these warnings Bush cannot have been expected to know precisely what attack might occur. What we object to is that he seems not to have taken ANY reasonable precautions.
October 24, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No that's not my point at all.
The Bush administration didn't ignore the warnings. It did take actions, several times, to protect the President and the government. It simply did not envision the possibility of this particular attack, and the military were not prepared for it (they had the warplanes nearby). This kind of thing - surprise - happens all the time in warfare.
What, exactly, do you think Clinton did that could have prevented the attack? If that protection was junked by Bush, what reason did he give?
October 24, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me emphasize my point again. I thought it was obvious but you don't get.
It's easy to criticize past actions, but much, much harder to initiate good ones which prevent future disasters. There are real threats out there of nuclear attacks against United States cities. Credible threats. What should we do about them?
That's my point. Repeat, that's my point. It's as simple as could be...and yet I haven't heard a single response to it after all these posts. There's been only casting of blame. Talk about haters....
October 24, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Replying or giving facts to people like you spider is usually a waste of time due to your pre-conceived opinions and inability to shake off Fox News propaganda and read or compute facts that are new to you.
I'll give two examples if you want anymore educate yourself. My comment above about the unrestricted aid Bush gave to Musharraf while A. Q. Khan was receiving Hero Awards from Musharraf was not a US policy bound to reign in Pakistan behavior or Pakistan nukes.
In case you are living in a Fox News bubble, the recent howling by Pakistan and the recent Pakistan assault on their own Taliban is entirely due to demands from Clinton/Obama and the recent NEW conditions set on military aid to their Army.
Also seeing as the greatest nuclear threat exists with current nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands Obama has reversed the Bush administration policy of not cooperating with Russia and others to reduce and secure nuclear weapons.
October 24, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's an answer.
But you might want to reconsider your opinion of what Bush did in Pakistan. Your view is simply partisan and wrong.
Bush leaned heavily on Musharraf - very heavily. Remember the latter's speech to his people about the pressure being applied? The majority of Pakistanis side with Al Qaida, or at least prefer them to us.
Nobody is reigning is Pakistan's nuclear weaponry. Pakistan has India to think about and will never give up its weapons, or cease to try and improve them, as long as the Indians have theirs.
It's not clear why Pakistan is attacking in the tribal areas. Certainly our pressure is important, but so is its internal politics. The fundamentalists in the tribal areas have been growing stronger and more independent and that is causing trouble for Pakistan internally as well as in its relations with its neighbors. Nor is it clear the government will win. The government could fall and the whole area will descend into chaos.
Getting Russia and others, including us, to destroy significant portions of their arsenals is a good thing. But signing a treaty is not the same thing. We'll have to see whether anything really happens. Ditto with Iran...if you are serious about preventing proliferation.
All these things, however, will take effect well into the future...if at all. Meanwhile, the nuclear threat against U.S. cities is current. Very, very current. None of your proposals address it.
Finally, you're not in a position to educate anyone. You're too fucking stoopid.
October 24, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
When billions of untied aid go missing, that Musharraf claims he was under pressure from us to take an action which was necessary for the well-being of his country but unpopular at home does not indicate that much actual pressure was applied.
October 24, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan is a tremendously corrupt country and a completely unstable society. Musharraf could be a simple thief who did nothing, just as the current government could be the same - pretending to seriously oppose the fundamentalists while only doing so half-heartedly. Besides, our threat is not credible. What are we going to do - allow the country to fall into the hands of the insurgents, or collapse altogether?
October 24, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but this is one of the real instances where throwing money at the problem was probably not the best response.
October 24, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's administration did ignore important warnings.
Here are some of the knee jerk reactions in point:
"Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condaleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[6] from January 25, 2001 that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush Administration.[7]
In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.
"Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies."[8]
At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clark strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clark replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clark, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist." [9]" Wikipedia
To put this is words that a Republican might be able to undersant Wolfowitz fits the Republican stereotype of an intellectual -- someone so fond of his own ideas that he is unable to reality check.
October 24, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my two posts at the bottom of the thread.
October 24, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, the war will always "be over by Christmas", they just never mention the year.
October 24, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee spider, seems like you want an attack to occur so you can say 'I told you so'. Sick.
BTW, whatever the current admin is doing vis a vis a possible nuclear attack you can be sure those actions won't be publicized.
As to your claim of ineptitude for Gore, try this on for size:
1) Gore wins Bush v. Gore, assumes presidency. 2)Keeps counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke. 3)Knows that "al-Qaida will be your biggest security threat" (as Clinton told Bush in transition briefings). 4)Gore holds REGULAR cabinet level meetings re: counter terrorism and al-Qaida. 5)Encourages communication between CIA and FBI, FAA. 6)Two 9/11 terrorists living in San Diego that were on CIA watch list get apprehended. 7)Gore pays attention to August 6 al-Qaida memo, "shakes trees". 8)Finds out Arizona FBI agent has been warning about flight schools. 9)Gore and FBI investigate all flight schools. 10)Apprehend Atta and other 'pilots'. NO 9/11!
October 24, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a fantasy world you live in! First, your point number 5 is laughable, since it was the Clinton/Gore White House that instituted the policy of the FBI and CIA NOT TALKING to each other. Remember the memo from Jaime Gorelick?
You are also painfully ignorant about the facts of what actually happened. Bush and his team began working on plans to deal with the Taliban and AlQuaeda on day one! They had negotiated basing rights with Uzbekistan in the spring of 01, to develop a staging area to launch an attack from. The plans for the attack were completed in early September, days before the 9/11 attacks. Arguing that the vague warning that 'Bin Laden determined to attack US' was news to anyone is just stupid. Here's a new warning for you. He still is. Now, you and Obama have been warned, so anything that happens, it's your fault.
October 24, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 9/11 Commission came to the conclusion that the Gorelick memo presented no obstruction or 'firewall' for CIA/FBI cooperation on counter-terrorism.
Bush's initial moves after taking office were to attempt to negotiate with the Taliban govt in order to get a pipeline deal. I don't know where you get your info but the Bush WH had exactly zero cabinet level meetings re: al-Qaida prior to 9/11 despite numerous warnings from Clinton admin nat'l security staff.
"Now, you and Obama have been warned, so anything that happens, it's your fault."
Pretty high opinion of yourself, no? Thanks for lumping me together with the POTUS but I doubt I personally could do much with your warning.
You and spider seem to be anticipating a nuclear attack with glee. sick.
Somehow, if it actually were to happen, fingerpointing would be waaaaay down the priority list.
I seem to recall that Bush got almost unanimous support from Democrats that didn't start to erode significantly until early 2003.
No chance of you guys returning the favor, is there?
October 24, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must have misaddressed your post. I haven't said a thing about Gore. Nor do I want a nuclear attack... I was responding the Rosenberg's blame game in a realistic way. That's all.
October 24, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, must've been Bulldog re:Gore
"They're too busy with important things - making sure Republicans are blamed for all bad things while they, the progressives, get credit for all good things."
What is this, 2nd grade recess? Don't you have any recollection of Obama trying to bring the Repubs in on EVERYTHING? What "good things", what "bad things" are you talking about.
You want to criticize Obama/progressives because YOU haven't heard from them on what they're doing about a future attack? That's pretty self-important.
October 24, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have been clearer. I was referring to what I read on this site.
Of course, the administration is working with all the help, all the previous knowledge and expertise available to it...and I'm reasonably sure that all those insiders of the previous administration are providing it.
No American wants to see a nuclear attack against America succeed. Well almost no american.
October 24, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peggy Noonan is biased, but she's smart, and she also knows how to turn a clever phrase - didn't she say that Sarah Palin was "out of her depth in a shallow pool"?
In this particular case, she is more right about Obama than many would like to admit. That is because at this point, after 9 months, and similar to past presidents, Obama is beginning to be perceived as owning America's problems from the psychological vantage point of many Americans. Is that fair? Absolutely not, but it's true.
Some of the above comments are legitimately questioning the fairness aspect, but from a political perspective, the psychology is what counts.
October 23, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
All they know is they lost their job, their house and their country and its got nuthin' to do with their votes for that flyboy jock who was an ass kickin', evil slayin', Saddam gettin', straight talkin' (exceptin' bad intelligence) macho man.
That's psychology. That's The Bush Base.
October 23, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
They know. When I was arguing with tea baggers in a line for a town hall reminding them that they voted for Bush twice shut them up.
Noonan is trying to peddle that theme -- telling her people what to think -- "it's Obama's fault now." We don't need to buy into it and say sure that's what people think. Obama is pretty good at this -- he says, stop complaining, we all know what mess I inherited -- get a mop!
Iraq is Bush's mess. Obama will be judged not on the existence of the war but on the skill with which he is getting us out.
That Osama has had safe haven in Afghanistan is Bush's mess. Obama will judged on the skill with which he pursues closing that down without totally destabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And so it goes.
October 24, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you AJM, I hope you wore one of those advanced N-35 surgical masks when you were near the Teabaggers! (or is it only the water?)
In past comments I have diagnosed Teabaggers as having PDSD, Post-Dubya-Stress-Disorder.
They couldn't complain about all the incompetence and disasters when the guy they voted for was in office screwing up, so they saved up the rage for the guy who is trying to clean up the multiple catastrophes.
October 24, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
well said
October 24, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. There's a difference. She not just saying it's Obama's fault now. She's saying that she wants Obama to stop complaining about what he inherited. Nobody wants to hear him complain about what he inherited. They just want him to get the economy back on its feet and try to improve our healthcare system.
October 24, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nobody" equals the Republican politicians who want to sell the same pack of policies that led to disaster last time.
Most people do want Obama to fix the problems except for those who want him to fail.
Be so nice, according to those who voted for Bush, if we could just push that mess under the carpet and pretend it never happened.
October 24, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. No one is suggesting that the problems never happened. I just think it would be more productive to just go out and debate how we best fix them rather than play the blame game. The debate over who is to blame could go on forever. Better to just move past that, in my opinion.
October 24, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
To blame appropriate you need to know what happened and why. If you don't know those things, it is difficult to prevent the same problems from arising in the future.
Blame is also appropriate as a way to pinpoint who needs to be fired -- or unelected.
Trusting the same people who got us into this fix, to get us out when they are not even willing to look at how things went wrong makes no sense to me.
October 25, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
But there's a difference between knowing the causes and publicly blaming people who are no longer in a position to do anything about it.
If someone wants to have a discussion over the causes of the credit crisis or housing bubble - I'm all for that. But just saying "don't blame me because I inherited a mess" is not at all productive. And it seems like there's a lot more of the latter going on than the former.
October 25, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is productive if it alerts voters not to vote for people who share the views of those who created the problem in the first place.
The people who created the problem may not be in a position to do anything about it but if they have a reasonable justification for what they did they can make their case to the public. Cheney is trying.
October 25, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is Barney Frank.
October 25, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama"owns" the problems now, in the sense that there's only one president at a time. Who else do we think is supposed to try to fix this mess? Everyone who's not a total partisan tool hopes that he'll be successful.
This is much different than trying to fix blame for how we got here. The sad little conservatives and Republicans who voted Bush into office, twice, would very much like to conflate these two things. They would like us all to ignore who's to blame for making the mess -- the guy they voted for twice -- and try to redirect some of that very justified anger onto Obama.
Well, tough sh*t. Until those who gave us George and Dick (and the dangerous people who came to power with them) apologize with some honesty and humility, there's nothing you have to say that I'm intersted in hearing.
Your guy blew it. By extension, you blew it, because you forced us all into this ditch. Bush represented. Take responsiblility for it, or shut the f*ck up. Have a little dignity, fer chrissakes.
In the meantime, the guy who has the job now is trying to do it. It would be good if the party of No were to lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
October 24, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could argue that the democrats blew it by nominating such incompetent twits Gore and Kerry that made Bush the least disastrous choice. You don't even know what 'mess' you are complaining about. Iraq? Well, that's pretty well wrapped up now. It might have been easier if dems weren't always encouraging the enemy there. Bush had to fight the insurgents in Iraq and the insurgents in Congress. Afghanistan? Obama said that war was necessary, it's just that now he wants to ignore the general he put in charge and not send the needed troops. The financial meltdown? Well, Dodd and Frank were heavily involved there, as were Clinton and Reno and Gorelick. Not to mention all the good little democrats that lied to get loans they couldn't repay.
October 24, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you hit every talking point for the week. Congratulations.
Blah, blah, blah.
Deny, divert and delay. You got nothin'else.
October 25, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems the whole rest of the world knows who owns the current shape our country is in.
And they are not blaming this Admin. and are not afraid to say so.
October 24, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A wonderful summary MJ but here's the good news -- the reason Obama doesn't talk about what Bush left him with is because that's not the kind of man Obama is.
No doubt he could and nobody would blame him. But Bush thought being a man meant clearing brush on a ranch, hating brie and not liking books too much until suddenly freaking out and picking up a copy of "The Stranger" late in life.
For Obama, being a man means not marring your presidency by trying to pass the buck that, even if it's not the one you chose to spend, still stops with you.
October 23, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good analysis destor.
October 23, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't talk about what Bush left him with? He doesn't talk about the mistakes made over the past 8 years both domestically and abroad?
October 24, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good anaylsis destor. Good post
October 26, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Health care reform and the continued War in Afghanistan are issues that will (and should) be attached to Obama. The man himself said in an interview a couple months ago that he wanted to get health care reform right because once it passes into law, "I own it."
Though I personally could not be more pessimistic about his chances, Obama will have every opportunity to walk the walk. An interesting facet of history is that perception is almost always reality.
Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president we've ever had or probably will ever have. He is credited with winning the Civil War and saving the Union. We do not often speak of how awful his predecessor, James Buchanan, was or how that man's blatant inaction hastened the national crisis to an unnecessary level.
As you mentioned, MJ, FDR gets justified credit for bringing the nation back from a crippling depression. The hands-off policy of Hoover has been relegated to a mere footnote in American history.
In short, a general analysis of history shows that bad, ineffective leaders get dwarfed by their counterparts who achieve great successes. If Obama is indeed the Savior, history will remember him for it and will relegate Bush to being just another footnote. The current president, like all those who have gone before, has every opportunity to make the most of his presidency. Whatever his success or failures may be, he will indeed have to "own it."
October 23, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks you for the history lesson, or "How Rosie is you garden".
Every once and a while here at Waikiki beach a tourist will come down to the bead wearing a 1920's style turbin shower cap. That lady just cant seem to catch up with the present eather.
It must easy for you, in your bath robe and slippers, to SPECULATE what the President's war strategy could/woulda/shouldaive been.
The ball is in the Obama's court, he can sent troops or party with his crew.... Bottoms up Prsident Stupidly !
October 24, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Island man, thanks for your stories about Waikiki beach, oh and go ahead and finish that 12-pack....do us a favor, though, and hang up the keyboard until you sober up.
October 24, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me something "old noble one",
What is with Anita Dunn wild tonge action while giving her love of Mao speech last week.
Oh yea, I surf Queens every so often and the last time I had a drink was 1981.
October 24, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again MJ Rosenberg documents for the world that he is a complete idiot. He talks of the Clinton surplus as if it ever existed, when a look at the US Debt shows that at no point in Clintons administration did the debt ever decline. He ignores the fact that Bush inherited an economy in recession, with the second quarter of negative GDP growth ending just a few weeks into his presidency. He blames the tax cuts for the decline in revenue instead of the recession and the crashing of the dot com bubble. Those tax cuts helped prevent the economy from deteriorating further and spurred the recovery. He blames Bush for choosing to start wars, but ignores the fact that even Obama the Magnificent has said Afghanistan was a war of necessity. In short he has proven yet again that he is a complete fool.
October 24, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Clever: What's a little thing like an unnecessary war in Iraq between friends!
Clever! (SNARK)
October 24, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you know that the war was unnecessary how? By having the advantage of hindsight? Yeah, it's always easy to say the QB should have run instead of passed after the play is over. At the time, people on all sides (including Hillary and Bill, and many other dems) believed from the intell that Sadaam had WMD. Add to that fact his behavior in violating the cease fire, his past aggression, his genocidal policies, the murder, rape, torture that marked his reign, and most people agreed removing him was a smart thing to do.
In addition, in the course of the war, Islamic extremists from around the world have travelled to Iraq to be destroyed in the desert by our military, tens of thousands of them. We built a terrorist bug zapper and they flocked to it. Far better than trying to fight them here.
October 24, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hindsight? Not exactly. We were all against the Iraq war before it started. We were sold out by the Democratic party hacks who believed Bush. None of us did.
October 24, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, based on no information of your own you decided it was prudent to ignore the conclusions of the majority of the worlds intelligence agencies and determined Sadaam was no threat. You also ignored his past actions, past and present statements, and current behavior in violation of the cease fire agreement to come to this conclusion. In addition you ignored the fact that he was slaughtering his people by the thousands, supporting terror worldwide, and was in general a very bad guy and decided he should be left in power. So basically you admit you are an idiot.
October 24, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So?
MJ was right, and the world intelligences were wrong.
They seem to have been engaged in a cluster fuck: reporting each other's rumors as fact.
The British believe Saddam is getting uranium from AFRICA! (our own intelligence doesn't think so but let's not mention that part).
There are a lot of despicable tyrants out there and Saddam was high on the list but if disinterested benevolence was our motivation there were better places to start being the world's policeman and cleaning up the planet. Not to mention not causing ourselves strategic problems by creating another Shia state.
I'll admit I bought some of the intelligence bullshit but I wasn't the administration in charge of seeing that intelligence was done sanely either.
October 24, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her point is that nobody wants to hear Obama complain about what he's "inherited". We just want him to do what he said he was going to do. Playing the blame game isn't the right strategy.
October 24, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Toothless Chihuahua: So Clever and Sharp-Witted He Voted Twice for Bush. Not a fool either!
October 24, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you're so clever you rely on the profane idiot Old Grouch to come up with childish taunts for people. Truly pathetic, and truly stupid if you think Kerry or Gore were valid choices for the Presidency.
October 24, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, wouldn't have been hard to beat Bush and Cheney's record.
October 24, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you are going to the least common denominator. All of a sudden, it's a victory if Obama is just "less bad" than Bush. What a low bar to see a standard off of.
October 24, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have missed my point: Clever was arguing that he couldn't have voted for Kerry or Gore because they would have been worse than what we got -- my point is that that would have been hard work.
Back in reality Kerry and Gore would have been very good Presidents but given the differences in starting principles that would take too long to argue out with Clever.
October 25, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
This what is wrong with trying to assign blame. You don't actually know what you think you know.
What we do know is that the United States had plenty of failures against Al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists under Clinton. So why believe that he knew what he was doing? Since Bush also failed numerous times, Obama has the same problem.
October 24, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton was sure that Al Qaeda was such a serious threat, and that 911 or its equivalent was immanent, then he should have executed his plan immediately, and not passed the buck to the next guy, who was certain to have a different set of assumptions and beliefs, and who would take months to understand the situation as well as he did.
October 24, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Condi: I know you are warning us about a
non-state actor but we haven't figured out what to do about the states yet. We'll get back to you -- meanwhile go play in the bureaucracy.
Clinton didn't realize how reality challenged the Bush people were or he might have taken steps at the end of his Presidency which would have limited the choices of the guy at the helm for the next four years minimum.
October 24, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that ex-political speech writers on the right(Noonan, Buchanan, Frum) all think they are some kind of policy experts? Most of them are artful spinmeisters, a best and know nothing about true governing.
October 26, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lots look at the accomplishments of the Obama Administration.........
Trillions of dollars of debit
Lots of partys and golf
On his way to being the worst president in our history
October 26, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink