From time to time I’ve pointed out that American politics at least in part consists of the parties swapping positions every so often. At The Week Michael Brendan Dougherty has noticed it, too:
Partisanship requires a certain level of hypocrisy. Republican Congresses and the conservative media put on their green eyeshades and become budget hawks during Democratic presidencies, then abandon such fiscal principles in favor of big new spending commitments when Republicans are in the White House. We’re seeing this play out in real time now: After eight years of railing against President Obama’s deficit spending, the GOP Congress seems ready to embrace Donald Trump’s big ideas about infrastructure spending.
Democrats have a version of this hypocrisy as well. It’s on foreign policy.
He’s saying that as though it’s a bad thing. He goes on to explain:
The sheer scale of U.S. engagements astonishes. The Pentagon recently posted its annual report on U.S. military bombings. In total, the Pentagon claims the U.S. dropped 26,171 bombs in seven countries. Most of them were in Iraq (12,192) and Syria (12,095). Five other Muslim countries were further down the list: Afghanistan (1,337), Libya (496), Yemen (34), Somalia (14), and Pakistan (3). Even this very specific-seeming tally undercounts the reality. Each strike can involve multiple bombs. And this doesn’t count the totality of the U.S. role in bombings, such as providing targeting data and refueling plans in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.
By themselves, the numbers are an indictment of Obama’s foreign policy. Eight years ago he campaigned against the “distraction†of the Iraq War, and on finishing the job in Afghanistan. His presidency began with a scheduled drawdown of American forces in Iraq and a “surge” in Afghanistan. But, faced with ISIS outrages and an Iraqi government on life support, Obama dramatically increased American air power there. While he embraced that distraction, Afghanistan got no better. The U.S. surge reclaimed more territory from the Taliban, but as the Obama surge faded, the Taliban surged in return.
We presently have “boots on the ground” in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria and possibly other places in the Middle East and West Asia as well.
I look forward to considerably more Congressional oversight of U. S. foreign policy than we’ve seen in the last eight years not to mention the last twenty-five, thirty, or fifty years. A president who’s despised by the Democrats and distrusted by many Congressional Republicans gives me at least some wan hope of the that.
The US is involved in “kinetic” action in Libya, Yemen, Somalia as well.
We are also trying to build up for confrontations in Eastern Europe and the South China Sea.
Makes me wonder if we are overstretched?
It would be useful if Congress provided oversight but I despair that the oversight usually ends with advocates of using more force getting the spotlight.
Can someone explain to me why the US Nobel Peace Prize winning President helping Saudi Arabia bomb hospitals in the Yemen makes him the best person since Jesus, but Putin bombing hospitals in Yemen that are controlled by ISIS or al Qaeda makes him Hitler?
And the alternative to blowing up ISIS leaders and fighters is. . . What, exactly? We have terrorist organizations devoted to murdering people in the West, and we are going to do what about that? Nothing? Not even the occasional warning shot?
Criticizing existing policy will always work, 100% of the time, regardless of who is in power, so long as the person criticizing is free to avoid proposing superior solutions. And of course we now understand that nothing that comes from a Republican means anything – these are people who throw their most sacred beliefs away the instant they get a chance to toady Putin’s pet man-child.
The idea that these liars, these frauds, this collection of imbeciles, the racists and assorted creeps who make up the degraded GOP are now to act as some sort of counterbalance to a man who simply cannot stop himself from attacking Meryl Streep. . . The mind boggles.
Michael, your remarks lack reason and objectivity. I know Republicans now have the power, and that disturbs you – so much so, that rather than wryly mocking them, as is normally done, you have readjusted commentary poisoned with hate-filled partisanship.
As for “attacking Meryl Streep,” did you not notice how she publicly attacked Trump at an event having nothing to do with political discourse, tersely dressing down an incoming POTUS? I think Ms. Streep sullied herself more by her own inappropriateness, rather than anything said or implied in Trump’s gruff respond.
Don’t take my comment as a criticism about Obama, I have said before he isn’t responsible for starting most of these conflicts but this is where we are.
I am trying to convey that Congressional oversight and criticism tends to be about why we didn’t go in there with more force, like “leading from behind” or “weak”, when it probably would have helped to hear more “a bad idea to go in” or “force is not the answer”.
If you are worried about hot head Trump, wouldn’t you want more dovish then hawk criticism?
Jan:
Your president is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vladimir Putin, the butcher of Aleppo. Deal with that fact. Then you can take time to come up with cleverer ways to rationalize your president’s immaturity, illiteracy and instability.
Michael, I know little about Trump except for the diverse, controversial commentary that has rolled out during ostensibly the primaries, GE and now post GE span of time. He is “my” president (and yours), mainly because he was elected as such by over 60 million people, along with approximately 85% of the nation’s counties. I do, though, approve of his encouragement towards more business formation by loosening the hand of government regulations. My criticism or wholehearted praise, however, of his presidential performance will come about only after he legitimately becomes president and begins to enact official policies, both foreign and domestic.
As for his relationship with Putin, it has thus far been the exchange of “nice” words. What these words will lead to has yet to be determined. Clinton, Bush and Obama/HRC all had their hands tentatively outstretched, with fingers crossed, that they could deal civilly with Russia and on less formidable terms. It’s no different with Trump, except that most everything Trump does or says nowadays is either interpreted as an attack or cozying up with the wrong types of people.
Furthermore, I personally wasn’t a fan, either, of the “appearances of friendship” Obama displayed when he was with Raul Castro or Hugo Chavez, including his demeaning “bows.” But, each presidency is viewed with different partisan perspectives and standards. Now that I’ve changed party affiliations, from democrat to non-affiliated, I am comfortably-inclined to support workable agendas rather than ideological ones. So, while I’m glad to see Obama leave, am relieved that the corrupt HRC didn’t win a 3rd term for him, I am assuming nothing, purely giving Trump the benefit of the doubt until he proves himself otherwise.
“Furthermore, I personally wasn’t a fan, either, of the “appearances of friendship†Obama displayed when he was with Raul Castro or Hugo Chavez,”
Only happened in right wing world. On Putin, you completely ignore the financial relationship that Trump has with Russia. We have pretty good reason to believe he has major financial ties. Of course, he never revealed his finances since you guys completely trust him, something I would advocate we should never do with any politician, so there is some speculation here.
CO- Have to agree with you on some of this. People forget that a lot of the criticism was because he was not more aggressive. While Obama’s foreign policy was far from perfect, given our divisions, he think he did a decent job of minimizing our involvements. The alternative if Grump had won was large scale war in multiple places.
Steve
“….did you not notice how she publicly attacked Trump at an event having nothing to do with political discourse, tersely dressing down an incoming POTUS? I think Ms. Streep sullied herself more by her own inappropriateness…..”
She showed herself to be small. And who cares what she has to say anyway?
Michael Is deep in bitterness and denial. It’s rather pointless to debate. Just watch the the spittle spewing rants, and shake your head at such a maladjusted person.
Jan:
He was rejected by American voters.
The American people chose Hillary by 3 million votes – by more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota combined. And his election was hopelessly tainted by his treason with Vladimir Putin, profiting from, cooperating with, and lying about, crimes committed against the United States by a hostile foreign power.
The electoral college picked Trump. He may be your president, and Putin’s stooge, but he is nothing to me but a fecal smear on American history. I am under no obligation to treat the Putin-Trump administration as anything but a national humiliation, and a defilement of the White House.
The celebrity culture in the U.S. which exalts the creative class unlike any other in the world, needs a little bridling.
Seymour Hersh among others has exposed the American government’s attempts to overthrow Christian-protecting Assad.
Again, Russia is not the villain. Obama in fact has courted Saudi Arabia which has funded jihadis from across the Mideast to implant
takfirism in Syria then threaten Russia. Obama has also helped
SA destroy Yemen.
If the presidential election was decided by popular vote, Trump would have campaigned differently and would have won anyway.
Gerhard Schroder….hasn’t he been called the Trump of Germany with his Russian business interests? The American Empire’s first goal has always been to prevent a Berlin/Moscow alliance of any kind, which would have brought peace and stability, and still might, to the chagrin of Big Government Liberals and Conservative Frauds here.
Poles want peace with Russia, don’t like U.S. provocations.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/01/huge-influx-of-us-military-gear-for.html
“She showed herself to be small. And who cares what she has to say anyway?”
Wholeheartedly agree with the latter. However, on the first part, the only thing she said about Trump was that it was pathetic that he was mocking a disabled person. That is not small, that is just speaking up for others. She is right. (Oh, and don’t try to BS us into believing Trump was not mocking the guy.)
Steve
Michael, California’s popular vote comprised the majority of HRC’s overall popular vote edge. Remove California from the national election and Trump would have had the same electoral count, while Clinton would have had 55 less in her electoral count, and lost the popular vote as well. So, I guess you’re supportive of having CA being King, and let all the other states eat dirt! You’re one fair guy, Michael!
Remove Texas and Trump loses. What is your point?
Well if you take CA away from HRC, she not only loses more electoral votes (down from 228 to 173) , but also the popular vote. Taking Texas away from Donald gives him 266 (down from 304 electoral votes). Any which way you slice it, he has more electoral votes, no matter which large state is eliminated. Furthermore, the bottom line is that HRC won 20 states in total, and Trump won 30 states. Again, it’s that big dense population in CA which is causing dems to have heartburn. Otherwise, it was pretty clear who the country, as a whole, wanted for the next president.
That’s my point, Steve.
While y’all are relitigating the election, I think I should mention that nobody got a majority of the popular vote. If you’re arguing that justice demands that Hillary Clinton won because of her greater number of votes, you’re arguing that a minority of voters should be awarded the election.
That’s what’s being argued either way. It’s just which minority that’s being debated.
LOL. Trump won. I don’t want to relitigate that. I just think it is stupid to say that if you took out California Clinton does not win the popular vote. Take out either side’s biggest state and they don’t win. Fairly meaningless argument.