Patterico's Pontifications


Now You Tell Us

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 12:55 pm

The L.A. Times reveals a truth many of us already knew, but that the electorate at large evidently did not — namely, that Obama oversimplified the foreign policy challenges he faced:

The other truth is that, even with wider international support, it may be impossible for Obama to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, broker peace between Arabs and Israelis or stabilize African countries beset by civil strife. As Times correspondents explain on this page, the realities on the ground are more complex than presented by Obama the candidate.

It’s OK to say . . . now that he’s safely elected.


  1. Shorter LAT: Obama’s learning curve is as steep and hard as a brick wall, so expect a few faceplants.

    Comment by ThomasD (1659da) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:02 pm

  2. it may be impossible for Obama …
    He’s just one man. Notwithstanding the LA Times chronic inability to elucidate, the questions pertain to the successes and failures of the United States of America. So, is the LAT Times saying these efforts are futile? And if so, what should/will the US Foreign policy effort become?

    Comment by cboldt (3d73dd) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:07 pm

  3. Even shorter: “Tarzan hate war.”
    “I will fight no more forever.”
    “I-so-la-tion.” [Bonus points for knowing (no fair Googling!) the song reference.]

    Comment by Icy Truth (0466e6) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:09 pm

  4. “The L.A. Times reveals a truth”

    Some editor must have slipped up.

    Comment by Dave Surls (00087b) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:12 pm

  5. “It’s OK to say . . . now that he’s safely elected.” We’re starting to see all kinds of stories now coming out of the MSM about how, yeah we were biased, but no harm no foul. And stories to soften the HIGH expectations created by the MSM and The One regarding what he will actually do in the job of POTUS. Explainin away, explainin awaaay, you know the nearer your destination the more they keep splainin away. We are FUCKED! Time to buy assault weapons and ammo boys and girls, guns and ammo, before you can’t. Oh yeah, its a comin, complete weapons ban, just like in merry old England. First ‘assault” weapons, then handguns, then ammo. In all of our economy things suck except one small area: gun sales! Gun sales are through the freakin roof! Oh to own a gun store right now, get it while you can, because you may be closing your doors soon under the Liberal Fascists.

    Comment by J. Raymond Wright (0440ef) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:13 pm

  6. OK Pat,
    He’s a decent guy. But I have got to tell you there are going to be tons of “Step-backs” now that he is elected.
    Look, he’ll be my President, and If I was still fortunate enough to serve my country I would obey his every order.
    But I dunno, a “bait-and-switch”?
    Nah he’s a decent guy.
    Let’s keep the halo in the box for now and not lose the receipt ok?

    Comment by Paul from Fl (4dd8c4) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:16 pm

  7. This is just great – now we’ll be forced to listen to the endless caterwauling among the MSM, all in a desperate attempt to save their collective hides from their abysmal performance over the past year. Too late, your careers are shortly to be declared irrelevant.

    Comment by Dmac (e30284) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:28 pm

  8. Obviously no one can know for certain what the future will bring, but why is victory in Iraq far-fetched at this point?

    Comment by Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:40 pm

  9. Because both sides in Iraq hate America now, Steven?

    Comment by snuffles (677ec2) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:41 pm

  10. Snuffles, they don’t all. (And there are more than two sides.)

    Comment by Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:51 pm

  11. It doesn’t matter what the LAT or any of the rest of them think. The MSM was and still is in the tank, and still spewing any headline in the world that will sell a story.

    Fishwrap and a waste of bandwidth. Not worthy of my money, time, or notice. Just walk on by. Nothing to see here.

    They’ll soon be the way of the 45, 33, 78, 8 track tapes and cassettes.

    They are extinct, and too stupid to lay down. I’m just not buying it anymore, and you shouldn’t either.

    Comment by Docjohn (5ffda5) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:56 pm

  12. Steven,

    Odss are, America has blown $1,000,000,000,000 turning Iraq from a counter to Iran into a puppet state of Iran.

    Not much of a win.

    Comment by snuffles (677ec2) — 11/8/2008 @ 1:57 pm

  13. There will be no notable MSM criticism of The One. Every problem will be blamed on Bush, every failure of The Messiah’s policies will be blamed on racism. Watch and see.

    Comment by Old Coot (8a493c) — 11/8/2008 @ 2:01 pm

  14. We are so screwed.

    Comment by Scrapiron (ce69ff) — 11/8/2008 @ 2:08 pm

  15. the realities on the ground are more complex than presented by Obama the candidate.

    Hey, the jokes on us: Obama the candidate got away with it despite that intense press examination.

    Anyway, I thought all of these conflicts were caused by the neocons or the Bush Administration’s policies on behalf of Halliburton, Big Oil, et cetera?

    Once they were out of power, peace for a millenia would break out.

    Right snuffles/alphie?

    Comment by SteveMG (50b76f) — 11/8/2008 @ 2:22 pm

  16. Sempai-sama…..

    but why is victory in Iraq far-fetched at this point?

    I suppose that depends on what you mean by “victory”.
    Since we have spent 690 billion dollars and 4000 of the finest military lives on the planet so that the Iraqis could write shar’ia law into their constitution and become an Islamic state, I think I will agree with General Petraeus that we shouldn’t use the word “victory”.

    Comment by wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/8/2008 @ 2:27 pm

  17. “why is victory in Iraq far-fetched at this point?”

    We’ve already won.

    We wanted to destroy the Baathists, and they’re destroyed. We wanted to kill or capture the terrorists who were operating in Iraq. They’re toast. Mission accomplished.

    We ought to stay on in Iraq to prevent revanchism, but also to have bases so as to be able to destroy the Baathists in Syria, the mad mullahs in Iran, Hezbollah and the precious Pals, when and if the time is ripe to move against them.

    Comment by Dave Surls (00087b) — 11/8/2008 @ 3:09 pm

  18. dudes, and a few ladies perhaps,

    The Economy eclipses all. Most Americans couldn’t care less about Iraq or Afghanistan while looking at the financial abyss before them. Without some economic rescue plan and a tax base to afford military adventures, we’ll be falling back into a status of Russia, failed superpower.

    Besides, Iran and others are economically stressed to the point they can’t afford military adventures either so where’s the problem?

    Comment by datadave (9d0bdb) — 11/8/2008 @ 3:23 pm

  19. Without some economic rescue plan and a tax base to afford military adventures, we’ll be falling back into a status of Russia, failed superpower.

    DD can’t even offer a new and refreshed version of a meme that’s been around for, oh, say the last 50 years.

    - 1960′s – Russia is ascendent, look at what Khrushchev’s done so far;

    - 1970′s – our will is broken, our economy a mess, our cities are sewers, our military bedraggled, Iranian hostages, etc.;

    - 1980′s – Reagan The Cowboy will kill us all, how dare he call Russian “The Evil Empire,” look at what Gorby’s doing over there, etc.

    At least try to come up something new for once in the future, OK?

    Comment by Dmac (e30284) — 11/8/2008 @ 3:32 pm

  20. “Russia.”

    Comment by Dmac (e30284) — 11/8/2008 @ 3:33 pm

  21. Besides, Iran and others are economically stressed to the point they can’t afford military adventures either so where’s the problem?

    This is almost suicidal thinking. Even if it’s true today, it won’t always be true. And we need to think about how to deal with a well-funded future Iran today, so that we can be ready to respond.

    Comment by Steverino (647a08) — 11/8/2008 @ 4:39 pm

  22. “During a campaign that drew extraordinary attention around the world, Barack Obama offered a sharp break from the Bush administration’s interventionist and often unilateral approach to foreign affairs.”

    Anyway, the article is the usual leftoid MSM hogwash. Bush isn’t especially interventionist. He inherited ongoing wars in Iraq (hundreds of airstrikes and a blockade against Iraq under Clinton), and against Al Qaida (though Clinton’s bumbling response to Al Qaida attacks were no more effective than his idiotic policy of bombing Iraq year after year without any tangible result, firing missiles into the Sudan or Afghanistan is still war, even if the media wants to pretend it isn’t). Continuing ongoing military campaigns isn’t “interventionist”.

    And, the idea that we’re acting unilaterally is also total claptrap.

    Short version: The L.A. Times lies.

    Comment by Dave Surls (00087b) — 11/8/2008 @ 5:12 pm

  23. We needn’t worry about wars anymore anyway. Now that Obama will be our president the world will love us again, right? After Jan 20th warmongers world-wide will lay down their arms as the most evil war-monger terrorist in history hangs it all up and goes fishing. Right?

    I mean…they can’t still hate us after we’ve elected The One, can they?

    Comment by Kurt (12084d) — 11/8/2008 @ 5:17 pm

  24. Shocking, simply shocking!!

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/8/2008 @ 5:17 pm

  25. The Iranians didn’t care for O!’s first press conference as President-elect:
    Iran blasts Obama’s nuclear criticism

    Comment by Mossberg500 (9fd170) — 11/8/2008 @ 5:26 pm

  26. McCain thought the MSM was his friend, until he ran against a Dem. Obama thought he was the world’s choice, until he was elected.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/8/2008 @ 5:36 pm

  27. Just out of curiosity, is the L.A. Times staffed by good people, too? It’s not as though they did anything worse during the campaign than St. Barry did.

    Comment by Xrlq (62cad4) — 11/8/2008 @ 5:44 pm

  28. “Just out of curiosity, is the L.A. Times staffed by good people, too?”

    I’m glad you asked. The answer is that, while it’s a mixed bag, there are indeed many good people there. I have met, spoken with, and/or and maintained a steady communication with several of them over the years, and there are plenty of decent people there.

    There are a handful of completely deceitful ideologues, and there is a prevailing attitude of stuffiness, arrogance, and political correctness.

    But if you think it’s staffed top to bottom with nothing but flat-out bad people determined to lie to the public, you have a cartoonish and inaccurate view of the place.

    Comment by Patterico (fd5054) — 11/8/2008 @ 6:05 pm

  29. snuffles taking on Steven Den Beste? I’m suddenly reminded of the old joke about an ant trying to have intercourse with an elephant and promising to be gentle.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 11/8/2008 @ 6:24 pm

  30. Sniffles will have attained his optimum Peter Principle level by engaging SDB.
    Talk about taking a knife to a gun-fight.

    Comment by Another Drew (ec051d) — 11/8/2008 @ 6:36 pm

  31. I mentioned this on another thread but, instead of talking about whether someone is good, it would help me if we could discuss what makes a person bad. I suspect there are range of opinions on this:

    1. There are no bad people, only bad acts.
    2. You have to do something really evil to be a bad person, such as intentionally killing another without reasonable justification.
    3. People can be good and bad at various times in their lives.
    4. All people are flawed and thus bad, but some are bad to a greater degree than others.

    I wonder if some of this debate is a result of our inability to agree on our definitions. I also think some people are more motivated than others to find common ground with Obama voters.

    Comment by DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/8/2008 @ 6:46 pm

  32. I’m sure that an afro-american President will make things much simpler that the cafro-american one.

    Comment by theo (c51d82) — 11/9/2008 @ 4:37 am

  33. Hope he changes.

    Comment by Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:10 am

  34. As Times correspondents explain on this page, the realities on the ground are more complex than presented by Obama the candidate.

    It’s OK to say . . . now that he’s safely elected.

    And so it has been ever since Tuesday…

    The MSM has begun to mea culpa for being so far in the tank for Obama and at the same time start their important work of lowering expectations for him as well; proving that they intend to stay in the tank for the one

    The trickle that we gave seen this week will become a small flood shortly. Ironically, their need to regain their credibility has as much to do with reinforcing their ability to cover for Obama as it does to do with their economic success…

    I know that it’s in large part a fault of the electorate; those of us unwilling to learn enough about the individual issues to spot the MSM bias and call them on it. But, having said that, the MSM enjoys a great deal of protection from litigation based on the founders percieved need for a free, vigourous, and independant press in a representative democracy like ours.

    I would argue that at the very least there is a real violation of this principle based on this past election cycle. The MSM outlets that were so in the tank for Obama now become defacto propaganda arms of the government at best. At worst, there has been a collusive effort and widespread malpractice on their part in playing such activist king-makers on the national political stage…


    Comment by Bob (99fc1b) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:27 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3052 secs.