WSJ: “Is Obama Smart?”

[daveman]

I suggest PC that you consider point number five in this cute little bullet point 'analysis'.

I suggest you read my signature.

 

[daveman]

[Like any great leader Reagan instilled confidence.

In a nut-shell......Reagon made us feel number one.

Carter made us feel like number two.

part of what makes me queasy about the right: lazy, "in-a-nutshell" thinking combined with an over-emphasis on how presidents make you "feel."

And that's different from the left's bumper sticker and protest sign thinking...how, exactly?

 

[highway234]

That'll be a first.

gave up, did you?

mudwhistle: yes, instilling confidence is part of the job. another part of the job is being frank with the american people when there's a need for sacrifice or the nation needs to face a challenge. carter over-emphasized the second, reagan over-emphasized the first. i remember the reagan years, the happy talk got to be a bit much.

in any case, instilling confidence and talented oratory would have done virtually nothing to avert the iranian hostage crisis. in fact, it can compound the problem. one of the few things i think obama got right was to keep mum during the iranian demonstrations a couple years ago. the right howled and howled at him that he should express solidarity with the iranian demonstrators, but if he had done that, it actually would have undermined them. that's because they really have not gotten over the '53 coup -- we actually overthrew an elected leader there, and that has left a legacy of anti-americanism that has spanned generations. therefore, whoever we publicly support there, the iranian people almost automatically view them with suspicion. that's why dealing with iran is such a tricky issue.

Gave up? She kicked your ass, did someone dip your head in fresh concrete?!?!

It's called mercy....

man, you people are simple.

 

[highway234]

That's something you'll have to discover for yourself.

why? try me. have a go at explaining to me how carter betrayed the shah. i'm all ears. it shouldn't take too long to explain, or link to someone, preferably somewhere closer to the center than ann coulter, who spells it out. the iranians were holding the hostages demanding the shah as the ransom, at least in the beginning. if carter were going to betray the shah, why not just give him to the terrorists? instead he refused and the hostage crisis made him a one-term president. kinda a weird way to betray someone, isn't it? to sacrifice your presidency for him?

That's an asinine suggestion. And I don't need to visit any conservative sites to give you an answer.

The way Carter betrayed the Shah was by going against U.S. policy by pulling the rug from under him like Obama is beginning to do with Israel. By not coming to the aid of an ally, turning a blind eye in favor of democracy, and instead allowing thugs to take over the country and take our diplomats hostage.

Instead of showing strength Carter allowed a group of rioters to literally take over the country. (Sounds familiar to the current Arab Spring, doesn't it??)

Thank you Jimmy Carter. Thank you for showing the world what a paper-tiger America is. This weakness led the way for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter's ineptness and lack of vision made him a one term President.....not just one incident. Sounds like our current POTUS, doesn't it???

Sometimes folks on the left nit-pick everything yet they don't look at the big picture. Sure the Shah was a less then desirable leader but the alternatives turned out to be much worse for us. Now you have a leadership there that is the geopolitical center of terrorism in the world. A leadership that is bordering on suicidal....an unacceptable threat in the region and a possible lynch-pin to instability. I wonder what would happen if Iran launches a nuke into Israel. I bet you love that prospect.

How many deaths of Americans in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and all over the world are the Ayatollahs guilty of? How many innocent Iraqis have died from Iran's support of insurgencies? The killing in Iraq wouldn't have gone on as long if not for the training and military aid Iran supplied them. You quickly find fault in our actions but not Iran. They're just fighting for their freedom. Only the United States can be deceitful and immoral, not somebody else.

I wonder how many of their own people have they murdered? The President of Iran said there are no Gays in his country. Homosexuality is punishable by death. Would it be if the Shah were still in power? Would Iran be a nuclear threat to Israel if the Shah or his family was still in power? Obviously you haven't considered this or if you did you don't really care about it because maybe you love situations that makes the U.S. look bad.


Any shit-for-brains can recognize flaws. Not everyone can fix them.

i dunno, seems like pretty muddy thinking to me. it's what i always hear from the right: tough talk is what fixes problems. but beyond that, there are realities and these realities need to be thought about and evaluated and the answer isn't always chest-thumping. kinda is related to what you say about nit-picking but not thinking about the big picture. cons NEVER nit-pick. they're never detail-oriented, and they never actually think a problem through. frankly, they're not smart enough. the answer to everything is blustery talk and chest-thumping. well, sorry, that's clownish.

i'd say pakistan is the center of terrorism, not iran. and yeah, i want israel to get nuked. you fucking jackbag. where do you clowns come up with this asinine shit?

 

[mudwhistle]

why? try me. have a go at explaining to me how carter betrayed the shah. i'm all ears. it shouldn't take too long to explain, or link to someone, preferably somewhere closer to the center than ann coulter, who spells it out. the iranians were holding the hostages demanding the shah as the ransom, at least in the beginning. if carter were going to betray the shah, why not just give him to the terrorists? instead he refused and the hostage crisis made him a one-term president. kinda a weird way to betray someone, isn't it? to sacrifice your presidency for him?

That's an asinine suggestion. And I don't need to visit any conservative sites to give you an answer.

The way Carter betrayed the Shah was by going against U.S. policy by pulling the rug from under him like Obama is beginning to do with Israel. By not coming to the aid of an ally, turning a blind eye in favor of democracy, and instead allowing thugs to take over the country and take our diplomats hostage.

Instead of showing strength Carter allowed a group of rioters to literally take over the country. (Sounds familiar to the current Arab Spring, doesn't it??)

Thank you Jimmy Carter. Thank you for showing the world what a paper-tiger America is. This weakness led the way for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter's ineptness and lack of vision made him a one term President.....not just one incident. Sounds like our current POTUS, doesn't it???

Sometimes folks on the left nit-pick everything yet they don't look at the big picture. Sure the Shah was a less then desirable leader but the alternatives turned out to be much worse for us. Now you have a leadership there that is the geopolitical center of terrorism in the world. A leadership that is bordering on suicidal....an unacceptable threat in the region and a possible lynch-pin to instability. I wonder what would happen if Iran launches a nuke into Israel. I bet you love that prospect.

How many deaths of Americans in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and all over the world are the Ayatollahs guilty of? How many innocent Iraqis have died from Iran's support of insurgencies? The killing in Iraq wouldn't have gone on as long if not for the training and military aid Iran supplied them. You quickly find fault in our actions but not Iran. They're just fighting for their freedom. Only the United States can be deceitful and immoral, not somebody else.

I wonder how many of their own people have they murdered? The President of Iran said there are no Gays in his country. Homosexuality is punishable by death. Would it be if the Shah were still in power? Would Iran be a nuclear threat to Israel if the Shah or his family was still in power? Obviously you haven't considered this or if you did you don't really care about it because maybe you love situations that makes the U.S. look bad.


Any shit-for-brains can recognize flaws. Not everyone can fix them.

i dunno, seems like pretty muddy thinking to me. it's what i always hear from the right: tough talk is what fixes problems. but beyond that, there are realities and these realities need to be thought about and evaluated and the answer isn't always chest-thumping. kinda is related to what you say about nit-picking but not thinking about the big picture. cons NEVER nit-pick. they're never detail-oriented, and they never actually think a problem through. frankly, they're not smart enough. the answer to everything is blustery talk and chest-thumping. well, sorry, that's clownish.

i'd say pakistan is the center of terrorism, not iran. and yeah, i want israel to get nuked. you fucking jackbag. where do you clowns come up with this asinine shit?

Pakistan is a threat but not the type that Iran poses. Pakistan has been nuclear for how long? There was one case where a Pakistani was caught passing nuke technology onto a terrorist state. I believe that was more the exception then the rule.

Btw, how much experience do have in the field. Have you ever worked with someone from that region?

It's amazing the arrogant asswhipes our colleges churn out. They attend classes, and read books and yet they never set foot in one of these countries yet they think they know everything. Yes I know where you whining complainers come up with this shit. Not much comes out of your mouth unless someone suggested it to you. An original thought is out of the question. What you come up with is generalities that don't fit. "Libs smart, cons stupid".

We get it.