"..Outside of exceptional cases where the United States intervenes decisively on one side or another, Arab attitudes toward the world's preeminent power are generally what economists would call inelastic. In other words, even when the United States does "good" things -- such as ending the war in Iraq -- Arab public opinion does not seem to change all that much. Even in Libya, anti-American sentiment will almost certainly increase after the NATO operation fades from memory. In fact, in several Arab countries, U.S favorability ratings have been lower under Obama than they were in the final years of President George W. Bush's administration..."
It wasn't supposed to be this way dammit!
Look, I thought international perception of Americans was over rated under Bush and I feel that way with Obama. America is in a perpetual "damned if you do or don't" corner over there. I just find it interesting that it can happen to Obama too, is all. Reagan had problems, if you call, also. In fact, the Mid-East is blind to Democrats or Republicans.
The title is "Don't give up on the Arab spring." To be honest, I don't see how this is America's responsibility. The only people that should asking the question are the Arabs themselves.
Whatever. People who wear sandals while carrying weapons can't be helped anyway.
***
The second the Muslim Brotherhood were elected everything was doomed. It's what they want and we have to quit believing they will one day turn rational and see things our way.
That Obama held out the belief they could work with the MB was naive. They liberated Libya but look at the short-term results.
I'm not sure President Obama even has a coherent foreign policy plan for the Mid-East. Judging by his (and Secretary of State Clinton) disappointing responses, this may indeed be the case.
President Obama:
"I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy," Obama said. "They're a new government that is trying to find its way. They were democratically elected. I think that we are going to have to see how they respond to this incident."
She's not really my girlfriend. We're dating and fucking and stuff but I need to see first how she reacts to my beating her first.
What I meant to say...in 3-2-1...
Anyway. Plenty of comment at Foreign Policy.
***
Hillary the film reviewer:
'We absolutely reject its content and message.'
I give it a 6 out of 10!
Clueless and apologetic is not a way to go through life. No sireebob.
Right. It's because of a movie. Sure.
/wanking motion.
The film has been playing for months in underground theaters in California. But wait. The story gets even more interesting. Dude is not exactly a model citizen.
***
The administration is making a habit of "clarifying" things and spare me it's the right-wing media confusing things. They don't control his words. It doesn't say much about his communication skills.
Mind you, didn't Obama say Romeny "shoots and aims later?" Right. You mean like this?
Call me old fashioned but I think Obama needs to worry less about Romney, stop campaigning and focus on the task at hand.
***
Over the years, several ambassadors have been killed but few, it seems, have been spoken in such high-esteem as Christopher Stevens. I've heard tributes all day long.
Tragic indeed.
***
Oh, look. Here's a surprise. Hey, bin Laden had to do something in the cave lest blue balls attacks. Maybe they'll preserve the cum stains. Who knows?
***
In other news...
Oh, look. Here's a surprise. Krugman pretends to know something about foreign policy. And gets schooled. Happens a lot. What tripe and I'm glad scholars take him to task.
Oh, look. Here's a surprise. Even on economics he loses the plot sometimes.
Krugman doesn't celebrate success if it doesn't fit his damn, tired ideology.
Which sucks.
Consider his condescending views about the Baltics:
"...One would think, given the divergent outcomes, that a serious economist would advocate for countries to follow the successful example of northern Europe rather than the failed strategies of the south. Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman doesn't seem to see it that way. Throughout the crisis, Krugman has attempted to explain away or even mock the Baltic countries' success even as they have continued to inconveniently disprove his arguments.
On Dec. 15, 2008, Krugman issued his first pronouncement on the Baltic crisis in a post titled, "Latvia is the New Argentina." He meant that Latvia would have to devalue its currency and perhaps default, as Argentina did in 2001. Neither happened. Latvia returned faster to fiscal health than anybody had anticipated. Krugman's claim that devaluation was necessary for Latvia's recovery (and presumably also Estonia and Lithuania's) turned out to be wrong.
Krugman's main line of argument has been that more fiscal stimulus is always needed as long as a significant output gap exists. But in Cyprus and Slovenia, very substantial fiscal stimulus generated minimal growth. Neither country would be suffering from its current financial conundrum had it not followed such a policy. Spain would probably be safe as well...
NYT finest?
I can just imagine Krugman losing his cool with a Latvian economist.
"Show me up, eh punk? You have to spend, understand? Spend you fucking puke! Spend! Don't you know I bet my rep on this strategy? Arggg...."
/Latvian police throw dog net on him.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.