""I think you can have both," Bush, who leaves office January 20, told ABC television, adding "You're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president.""
And this is the problem with Bush... He's a simple president in complex times. Why doesn't the world share his black and white views.
Notice how hewon't interrupt his vacationeven for a deadly crisis in the Middle East? That's really presidential.
Is there a reason for the U.S. to become involved? Isn't this a job for the U.N.? I'd like to hear from both sides.
I think that many would say that the U.S. should be involved based on GWB's pledge that he would broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Also, U.S. policy indicates that there should be at least some involvement.
Israel and the United States share the view that the United States has a predominant role and responsibility in Middle East peace-making.
Source. There is also the matter of the Memorandum of Understanding. I think that, at the very least, this would make most Presidents take some time off vacation to at least monitor the situation, but I believe that the only time GWB ever interrupted a vacation was to be involved in the Terry Schiavo mess. Maybe this isn't as important as Terry Schiavo.
Bush is a short-timer lame duck. People in the Middle East should be much more concerned with what Obama has to say about the situation and what his policy will be. As it stands, this situation is much more pertinent to Obama than it is to Bush. Bush can only have an effect for a couple of weeks. Obama will have influence for at least four years.
But taking a position might interfere with his birdie attempt on hole #12. Or maybe he's just waiting for Rick Warren's memo to hit his desk.
President-elect Barack Obama has also been monitoring the violence from his vacationing spot in Hawaii, staying in contact with Bush and Rice. “President Bush speaks for the United States until Jan. 20 and we’re going to honor that,†Obama adviser David Axelrod said.
It's interesting how some people who would be very upset and say Obama is not the President yet if he did address this crisis are now crying crocodile tears because he won't. Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.
That's a total cop-out, and you know it. Just because he isn't president does not mean that he must maintain silence. He can speak without usurping Bush's role. A simple "I hope that peace is achieved soon" would suffice. How about - "When I become president, I intend to work for peace." Is that so hard?
Perhaps he's in support of all of these "eye-for-an-eye" civilian deaths. Check out this taken from a Detroit News article: In a visit this summer to Israel, Obama did appear to give implicit approval to such a strike, saying, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
I think the New York Times knows why he's been silent. Take a look at this quote from a recent article: In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, Mr. Obama has not suggested he has any better ideas than President Bush had to resolve the existential conflict between the Israelis and Hamas, the Palestinian group that controls Gaza.
To be clear, I'm not asking that he act as if he's president. I'm asking that he act like a person who is about to take the reigns of the United States in a couple of weeks. That person can respect the role of the current president while acknowledging the reality of the pending change in leadership.
Funny how GWB could say the same things, seeing as how he's still President and all, especially since he promised peace before 2009 . . . Ooops!
I think you're missing my point. I'm not trying to compare Obama with Bush. I, for one, am hoping for change. So far, they are both on vacation and silent. No change at all. That's truly sad.
No word from the President in an international crisis is sad.
Agreed. The same is true for the incoming president. Just trying to be consistent. If you're going to criticize Bush, you've got to be less than pleased with Obama's silence. As I stated earlier, Obama is actually much more influential at this point. I, for one, was hoping for change.
If you're going to criticize Bush, you've got to be less than pleased with Obama's silence.
Not really. You see, Obama is not the President yet, and he hasn't exactly been silent. Reminding everyone that he's not President yet is pretty smart. I would say that most people who aren't hypocrites grasping for any straw to criticize someone undeserving of criticism should be pretty pleased with Obama.
Meh. I suppose you can be content with Obama's taking a page from Bush's foreign policy playbook. I'm not. I don't let the cult of personality excuse mimicry of Bush. His inaction is already convincing the world that he's little different than George Bush.
Just look at this quote from the article: But his choice of a foreign policy team, especially Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, have raised doubts that much will change. If I recall correctly, his campaign platform wasn't "Not much will change!" I'm surprised your so accepting of more of the same.
And lest you think that his silence is a great strategic move with no negative impact, take a look at this: Walid Kazziha, a professor at the American University in Cairo, said Obama would have to take bold steps if he wants to restore U.S. influence in the Middle East, widely seen as having greatly declined during eight years of Bush.
But the first signs do not suggest Obama will do that, he added. "If he was going to take a stand he would have said something. When he wants to say something, he can," he said.
And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, I'm shocked that you would ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room. As the Washington Times has said: Since his election, Mr. Obama has weighed in regularly on such issues of the day as the financial crisis and the terrorist attacks in Mumbai Hmm... funny how the rules have changed. Can we stick our head in the sand? "Yes we can!" Now that golf is done, let's hit the bsketball court!
If this is something to be proud of, I guess you're bar is just set much lower than mine.
Meh. I suppose you can be content with Obama's taking a page from Bush's foreign policy playbook. I'm not. I don't let the cult of personality excuse mimicry of Bush. His inaction is already convincing the world thathe's little different than George Bush.
If I recall correctly, his campaign platform wasn't "Not much will change!" I'm surprised your so accepting of more of the same.
And lest you think that his silence is a great strategic move with no negative impact, take a look at this: Walid Kazziha, a professor at the American University in Cairo, said Obama would have to take bold steps if he wants to restore U.S. influence in the Middle East, widely seen as having greatly declined during eight years of Bush.
But the first signs do not suggest Obama will do that, he added. "If he was going to take a stand he would have said something. When he wants to say something, he can," he said.
If this is something to be proud of, I guess you're bar is just set much lower than mine.
The people in the article weren't exactly comparing Obama to GWB and decrying the lack of change so much as they were hoping for some sign that U.S. endorsement of Israel will change. GWB is hardly the architect of U.S. policy towards Israel. It has a long history, an incredible momentum, and I don't think anyone seriously expects U.S. policy towards Israel to change. Obama never said he would change it, and it's silly to think that he ever would.
BTW, it's kind of hypocritical to make a big show of redlining a typo when you can't spell "basketball" and don't know the difference between "your" and "you're". Oh well, I guess my standards are just higher.
I think you missed the point of the article. US influence in the middle east has "greatly declined" during the Bush years. Obama appears to have no desire to see this change. With so much at stake in the middle east, that's a big problem. I'm not expecting Obama to radically change our policy regarding Israel. I'm just expecting him to not follow specific policies that have proven to be a failure. I don't think that's too much to ask. Bush's mistakes have certainly come at a price. Even if a ship is big and heavy, a good captain will steer it away from an iceberg that's dead ahead. At a minimum, the captain shouldn't re-steer the ship into an iceberg that it has already hit - even if they captain just took over the watch.
FWIW, you're free to make corrections when you quote me - nothing personal at all! I don't claim to proofread everything I write, and definitely make my share of mistakes. I'm not sure why you'd be offended. I certainly am not. I'm not sure why you think it's a "big show," but maybe you're just being a bit defensive. I just wanted to make it easier to read by avoiding confusion with "inter-nation" and wanted to be clear that I was not inappropriately modifying a quote to change the meaning. Sorry for the deference.
However, that's not what the people in your article are concerned about. It doesn't appear from the article that they're concerned about "inaction" at all.
The Arab world was largely enthusiastic about Obama's election victory in November, in the belief that a fresh face in the White House must be better than outgoing President George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq and gave strong support to Israel.
But his choice of a foreign policy team, especially Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, have raised doubts that much will change.
Mustapha el-Sayed of Cairo University said: "I am really pessimistic ... because when I see the kind of people who surround President-elect Obama I find they are the best friends of Israel who do not dare to distance themselves from the positions of the Israeli government."
It's pretty clear that they are not happy because Obama has surrounded himself with "the best friends of Israel", and that U.S. policy towards Israel is unlikely to change.
Is there no merit to isolationism and non-interference? America has always made a political point of protecting Israel, but the current escalations sort of prove we've done nothing about the overriding hostilities in the region. Isn't this a situation where we have to let Israel and Palestine broker their own peace, or suffer their own consequences? We're just coming out of a very unpopular, largely pointless Middle Eastern war in which we really had no stake and saw no benefits, in return for spending trillions. What, other than America's supposed Zionist roots, makes us think stepping into the middle of another Middle Eastern conflict is any more justifiable?
I, for one, am really attracted by our pre-WWII isolationist mindset. Why have we in recent years designated ourselves as Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick" and forgotten the "walk softly" part? If the UN wants to play referee in the Middle East, then fine -- that certainly, to me, seems to make more sense than artificially inserting ourselves into yet another useless ploy to garner a month-long, lip-service cease fire.
Walid Kazziha, a professor at the American University in Cairo, said Obama would have to take bold steps if he wants to restore U.S. influence in the Middle East, widely seen as having greatly declined during eight years of Bush.
But the first signs do not suggest Obama will do that, he added. "If he was going to take a stand he would have said something. When he wants to say something, he can," he said.
Sayed said he expected a tug of war between Obama advisers in favour of the status quo, closely allied with Israel, and between those who think differently.
"My impression is that the good friends of Israel will prevail at the end and this will contribute to a further erosion of U.S. influence in the area," he added.
You can quibble all you want about which policies they are referring to. What you can't argue is that whatever the policies are, they have led to a great decline in U.S. influence in the Middle East. Insomuch as Obama is giving every indication that he intends to stay the course, this is a bad thing for the United States. Like I said earlier, no matter how entrenched the policy is, if it lessens the influence of the United States, change is needed. This is bigger than a petty argument over party affiliation. This is about our country as a whole, and damage that it will continue to suffer.
Is there no merit to isolationism and non-interference?
As long as we are addicted to oil, we can't ignore the Middle East. Although Israel is not an energy producer, it has an effect on stability across the region, and on the threat from radical Islam extremists. Just how much of an effect it has is certainly a matter for debate. Nonetheless, our national security is affected by what's happening in the Middle East.
See the above post. Russia, China, India, etc all want oil. So do we. The more influence we have in the Middle East, the better. Until we end our addiction to oil, that is.
I understand. That's why I was clear to say that it's debatable how much effect this conflict has on the oil issue. Smart people have opinions on either side of the fence. Generally, the fear is of extremism being fueled by a conflict such as this. (Not that the Iraq war helped in that department.) While Saudia Arabia may not have an axe to grind at the moment, a Saudi Arabia facing pressures from energized anti-American extremists is a different story. And don't forget, Israel is positioned to take out threats in the region - including well beyond its borders. (Nukes in Iran, anyone?)
I'm not saying that I buy into all of this, but credible arguments can be made either way.
Walid Kazziha, a professor at the American University in Cairo, said Obama would have to take bold steps if he wants to restore U.S. influence in the Middle East, widely seen as having greatly declined during eight years of Bush.
But the first signs do not suggest Obama will do that, he added. "If he was going to take a stand he would have said something. When he wants to say something, he can," he said.
Sayed said he expected a tug of war between Obama advisers in favour of the status quo, closely allied with Israel, and between those who think differently.
"My impression is that the good friends of Israel will prevail at the end and this will contribute to a further erosion of U.S. influence in the area," he added.
Once again, he said that he expects that there will be no change in U.S. policy towards Israel, not that there's anything wrong with Obama taking a vacation or that there's anything wrong with Obama's "inaction" that you claim hurts him so much. There's nothing wrong with "inaction" in and of itself except for the fact that it may be a tacit endorsement of current policy, a policy that has been in place more or less as it is now for generations. The "further erosion" he's talking about is policy that the U.S. has been pursuing for generations, not inaction. This policy is not going to change. Obama didn't run on changing it. If you expect him to change it, you're going to be disappointed.
Your first objection was not that Obama would continue policy that has been set for generations. Your first objection was that Obama was on vacation and hasn't made a statement.
My objection to GWB not coming back from vacation, on the other hand, has something to do with the fact that the current U.S. President might actually need to do something in this situation. If the conflict escalates, for instance, Israel might expect us to actually do something for them. I'd like our President to be on the job if something like that happened. Obama can make statements, but he can't commit aid or send in troops yet. That's kind of still GWB's job.
Obama is giving every indication that he intends to stay the course, this is a bad thing for the United States. Like I said earlier, no matter how entrenched the policy is, if it lessens the influence of the United States, change is needed.
So, you don't want the U.S. to support Israel like it has been for generations?
So, you don't want the U.S. to support Israel like it has been for generations?
I am a firm believer in Israel's right to exist. I am also a firm believer in re-examining failed policies. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I actually think that the US could have a lot of clout if we could come up with a plan for peace and give it more than lip service. We'd have to be fair to all sides for it to work. I'd also want the support of the United Nations. We could take the lead, but do so under the banner of the UN.
It wouldn't be easy, and it may not work. But we certainly don't have the fortitude to try as long as we're stuck in Iraq. This is where I have hope in Obama. If we can successfully withdraw from Iraq, we can focus on real problems.
Comments
Good Going Bush...
And this is the problem with Bush... He's a simple president in complex times. Why doesn't the world share his black and white views.
Meanwhile, Cheney says that U.S. would have invaded Iraq regardless of any WMDs.
Bush is a short-timer lame duck. People in the Middle East should be much more concerned with what Obama has to say about the situation and what his policy will be. As it stands, this situation is much more pertinent to Obama than it is to Bush. Bush can only have an effect for a couple of weeks. Obama will have influence for at least four years.
But taking a position might interfere with his birdie attempt on hole #12. Or maybe he's just waiting for Rick Warren's memo to hit his desk.
It's interesting how some people who would be very upset and say Obama is not the President yet if he did address this crisis are now crying crocodile tears because he won't. Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.
Perhaps he's in support of all of these "eye-for-an-eye" civilian deaths. Check out this taken from a Detroit News article:
In a visit this summer to Israel, Obama did appear to give implicit approval to such a strike, saying, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
I think the New York Times knows why he's been silent. Take a look at this quote from a recent article:
In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, Mr. Obama has not suggested he has any better ideas than President Bush had to resolve the existential conflict between the Israelis and Hamas, the Palestinian group that controls Gaza.
To be clear, I'm not asking that he act as if he's president. I'm asking that he act like a person who is about to take the reigns of the United States in a couple of weeks. That person can respect the role of the current president while acknowledging the reality of the pending change in leadership.
I guess he's just a hypocrite.
Just look at this quote from the article:
But his choice of a foreign policy team, especially Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, have raised doubts that much will change. If I recall correctly, his campaign platform wasn't "Not much will change!" I'm surprised your so accepting of more of the same.
And lest you think that his silence is a great strategic move with no negative impact, take a look at this:
Walid Kazziha, a professor at the American University in Cairo, said Obama would have to take bold steps if he wants to restore U.S. influence in the Middle East, widely seen as having greatly declined during eight years of Bush.
But the first signs do not suggest Obama will do that, he added. "If he was going to take a stand he would have said something. When he wants to say something, he can," he said.
And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, I'm shocked that you would ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room. As the Washington Times has said:
Since his election, Mr. Obama has weighed in regularly on such issues of the day as the financial crisis and the terrorist attacks in Mumbai Hmm... funny how the rules have changed. Can we stick our head in the sand? "Yes we can!" Now that golf is done, let's hit the bsketball court!
If this is something to be proud of, I guess you're bar is just set much lower than mine.
BTW, it's kind of hypocritical to make a big show of redlining a typo when you can't spell "basketball" and don't know the difference between "your" and "you're". Oh well, I guess my standards are just higher.
I think you missed the point of the article. US influence in the middle east has "greatly declined" during the Bush years. Obama appears to have no desire to see this change. With so much at stake in the middle east, that's a big problem. I'm not expecting Obama to radically change our policy regarding Israel. I'm just expecting him to not follow specific policies that have proven to be a failure. I don't think that's too much to ask. Bush's mistakes have certainly come at a price. Even if a ship is big and heavy, a good captain will steer it away from an iceberg that's dead ahead. At a minimum, the captain shouldn't re-steer the ship into an iceberg that it has already hit - even if they captain just took over the watch.
FWIW, you're free to make corrections when you quote me - nothing personal at all! I don't claim to proofread everything I write, and definitely make my share of mistakes. I'm not sure why you'd be offended. I certainly am not. I'm not sure why you think it's a "big show," but maybe you're just being a bit defensive. I just wanted to make it easier to read by avoiding confusion with "inter-nation" and wanted to be clear that I was not inappropriately modifying a quote to change the meaning. Sorry for the deference.
I, for one, am really attracted by our pre-WWII isolationist mindset. Why have we in recent years designated ourselves as Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick" and forgotten the "walk softly" part? If the UN wants to play referee in the Middle East, then fine -- that certainly, to me, seems to make more sense than artificially inserting ourselves into yet another useless ploy to garner a month-long, lip-service cease fire.
Reason #237 to pursue alternative energy.
By your logic we should invade Colombia to address the decades of guerrilla warfare, lest it destabilize the flow of our sweet, sweet Venezuelan oil.
I'm not saying that I buy into all of this, but credible arguments can be made either way.
Your first objection was not that Obama would continue policy that has been set for generations. Your first objection was that Obama was on vacation and hasn't made a statement.
My objection to GWB not coming back from vacation, on the other hand, has something to do with the fact that the current U.S. President might actually need to do something in this situation. If the conflict escalates, for instance, Israel might expect us to actually do something for them. I'd like our President to be on the job if something like that happened. Obama can make statements, but he can't commit aid or send in troops yet. That's kind of still GWB's job. So, you don't want the U.S. to support Israel like it has been for generations?
I actually think that the US could have a lot of clout if we could come up with a plan for peace and give it more than lip service. We'd have to be fair to all sides for it to work. I'd also want the support of the United Nations. We could take the lead, but do so under the banner of the UN.
It wouldn't be easy, and it may not work. But we certainly don't have the fortitude to try as long as we're stuck in Iraq. This is where I have hope in Obama. If we can successfully withdraw from Iraq, we can focus on real problems.