One of the repeated political strategies of the Obama administration has be to blame any of the current problems facing our nation on his predecessor (some of it correctly, some of it debatable, some it incorrectly).
Recently however, Vice President Biden signaled that they were going to take responsibility for one of the more important political developments – the success of the war in Iraq.
Biden told Larry KIng:
the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see
90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're
going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward
a representative government.
Later, the White House press corp asked Spokesman Robert Gibbs to clarify Biden's statement, to which Gibbs explained:
troops home, which we intend to do in August of this year.
Q But the Status of Forces Agreement to bring troops home was signed before the President took office.
MR.
GIBBS: Something that — something that I think the political pressure
that the President, as a then-candidate, helped to bring about.
So wait, as Andrew Malcom laid out at the LA Times: Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, both President Obama and Vice President Biden opposed the surge, which has been credited for the stabilization of the nation, both predicted the surge would fail and produce more sectarian violence, Biden even suggested that the best solution would be to divide the nation up between the three groups in Iraq, and as the questioner pointed out to Gibbs, the Status of Forces Agreement was signed long before Obama took the oath of office.
Gibbs' answer – Obama the candidate brought about the political pressure to make everything work out. Here's a question, if Obama can place enough political pressure on the President of the United States, who is of a different political party, to make Iraq work, but Obama the President can't put enough pressure on the members of his own party, in the majorities in both houses of Congress, to pass the health care reform bill that they all want?
If Obama's policies bring about change and success in domestic and foreign policy he can and should take credit for that, but he cannot take credit for Iraq, when the turnaround happened before he took office, all the while blaming former President Bush for everything else. It's almost like he is a normal politician that only takes credit for the good things and blames the other party for anything negative.
Weird. We're talking about Iraq, and then suddenly health care.
Republicans used to complain that Democrats blamed Bush for everything. Now they are trying to blame Obama for everything. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they suddenly see the light.
Obama can't get health care passed because the big corporations don't want it and they control Congress (and the Supreme Court, for that matter). He won't get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan because the military/industrial complex wants us there. Simple.
I'm beginning to understand how things work. Finally. The game is rigged folks.
Obama's Excuses
Louis, where in this piece did I blame Obama for anything? I merely pointed out that has MO has been a perpetual campaign – blaming Bush for everything before and after Obama himself became President.
Yet suddenly, now that the Iraq War has turned around, the Obama administration wants to take credit for being in office when that become recognized even though they opposed every policy that brought it about.
Can you explain how Obama should receive the credit for the turnaround in Iraq? What exactly has he done to bring about the democratic change in that nation? If he is to get credit that question should not be difficult to answer.
As to why I mentioned health care, I just found it interesting that candidate Obama could take credit for "pressuring" Bush in his Iraq policy. I'm supposed to believe that even though he has been unsuccessful in his attempts to pressure his own party to pass much of his legislative agenda. There seems to be a disconnect there.
The Iraq situation is not over yet: need I point that out? We aren't out, nor has the situation "stabilized." In fact, if anything, violence is growing. Now the Sunni parties are vowing to "sit out" the coming elections. The surge took place to give the Iraqi government breathing room to form a stable government with elections and so on. It remains to be seen if this will work out. I hope Biden's right, but it's not over til it's over.
There's no "disconnect" as you put it regarding the health care debacle. The facts on the ground are that 60 votes are needed to get anything done in the Senate – ANYTHING. The Republican party is violently intransigent in not agreeing to anything at all that Obama wants to do. Thus, he was dependent on getting ALL 60 "Democrats" (is Lieberman really a Democrat? NO!) lined up in his corner, including the conservative ones. Ever try to herd cats?
I still find it "interesting" that you combine these issues. They are not linked.
Still, let us all just erase history so we can scream and holler and condemn Obama for not producing a true miracle and end the two Bush wars and restore the economy to health within one year of assuming office especially in the face of fanatic Republican opposition. 2001-2008 just didn't occur, in this view, and Republicans didn't control all three branches of government for 6 of those years. Yes, Clinton made mistakes, but if Bush was the savior as the Republicans believe, why were things worse at the end of his term than at the beginning? Oh, right, it's all the liberals fault (as is everything in the universe).
Myself, I blame the American people – a more spoiled, soft-bellied, ignorant group of whiners I have never encountered. We want everything NOW, and we don't want to pay for any of it! Don't cut ANYTHING but taxes! And if the President can't give us everything we want NOW, then down with him! A bunch of three year olds.
Arguing about it is pointless and, I believe, a sign of mental derangement. After the Supreme Court let the cat out of the bag (giving corporations rights reserved for living, breathing human beings), we have had confirmed my notion: our true masters are big money and big corporations: big oil, Wall Street, the Military-Industrial complex, big Insurance, big Pharma, and so on, ad nauseum. After all, we have the best congress money can buy! Only fools and the deluded think our political opinions count for anything.
The Iraq situation is not over yet: need I point that out? We aren't out, nor has the situation "stabilized." In fact, if anything, violence is growing.
I made no judgment on the war. I just pointed out that the current administration is taking credit for a situation they played no role in creating. Can you think of someway that either Obama or Biden deserve credit for what they are terming as "one of the greatest accomplishments of [their] administration?" That's their words not mine.
The facts on the ground are that 60 votes are needed to get anything done in the Senate – ANYTHING.
How did Reagan, Clinton and Bush manage to get things done in the Senate? Somehow they managed to pursue an agenda and pass legislation. You can simply play the card that you accused others of playing – "It's all the Republicans fault" – as you did right after this point.
Were Republicans not opposed to Clinton's policies? Were Democrats not opposed to Reagan and Bush's? We don't live in a monarchy where the President becomes king and can simply pass whatever he would like. I'm sure you were thankful for this previously, as I am now. It balances out. We have separate branches of government for a reason.
Yes, Clinton made mistakes, but if Bush was the savior as the Republicans believe, why were things worse at the end of his term than at the beginning? Oh, right, it's all the liberals fault (as is everything in the universe).
Louis, these discussions would go much better if you would engage in points I actually make instead of railing against strawmen of the opposition.
I never said Bush was "the savior" and most Republicans believe that Bush made plenty of mistakes. I don't really know any that would argue that point.
It is a repeated talking point of Obama that he came to office with all of these problems and he is being criticized for not solving them all in one year. That's not the criticism, but even if it is, when you campaign on "hope and change" and how you are going to change everything and you are unable to do so (logically and realistically) it is going to come back and bite you.
The criticism is that he has take situations that were handed to him (deficit spending) and made it worse. It is inarguable that President Obama has spent more and placed the nation in more debt. Even if you take out the wars that he inherited, he has multiplied discretionary spending. You can argue that all of the spending was needed, but why were Democrats so critical of Bush's spending.
I still find it "interesting" that you combine these issues. They are not linked.
What do you find interesting about it? The post was about Biden claiming the war was an Obama success, Gibbs defending the statement saying that candidate Obama brought about the situation, then I simply asked a question related to the political issue du jour – if candidate Obama could force a President of the opposing party to enact his agenda, why would he not force, encourage, etc. members of his own party to vote for his health care bill? I could substitute any of Obama's agenda that he has not yet been able to get through Congress for "health care bill." Closing Gitmo or whatever other issue you want to use.
The way you add quotes around "interesting" seem to indicate you see some larger meta-narrative hiding behind my post that explains it all.
Myself, I blame the American people – a more spoiled, soft-bellied, ignorant group of whiners I have never encountered.
Odd that Christians are often accused of speaking ill of Americans or other groups. I wonder how you would respond if I made such a comment.
Only fools and the deluded think our political opinions count for anything.
Public opinion soured on illegal immigration reform under Bush and health care reform under Obama, both of which were stopped in Congress even though most wanted them to take place. Seems public opinion worked in those cases.
Also, if all those evil "BIG" things rule and control us all, how did Obama get elected by a rather significant margin, unless he is part of the complex. Which is it: Do our political opinions count or is Obama part of the complex?