Obama: Exceptional Apologist

At the sametime though he is acting as a diplomat and it is a fact that the Russian people themselves stood up and got rid of the Soviet System. Remember Yeltsin standing on the tank?

The American view is that the US won the Cold War the Russian view is that people got rid of a failing system. There is truth to both.

 

Actually such things are very important to people. Consider the Palestine and Israeli conflict. You can agree on the facts of the conflict yet still come to very different conclusions. The narrative, or more plainly spin, that you present history can make all the difference in how you view your own country and the World.

 

You have to consider the audience he was speaking too. I doubt he makes the same statement if speaking before a veterans group.

The President while the leader of the US is also the chief diplomat. Consider if a French president addressing the US congress made no mention of the US WWII but only spoke of the French Resistance.

 

Wow... something I can actually read without getting angry... and damn near agree with.

I think the above is true... but I would also pose that perhaps Obama is just a little to fervent or zealous about repairing the damage done to our reputation abroad lately, and can't keep his point of reference to the last 8 years alone.

I agree though, that it is somewhat counterproductive to draw too much attention to the past, and to look forward would be better suited than running around the world apologizing for others. He knows about as much about all that as Liz Cheney knows about any of this. I wish people would quit asking polar opponents of public figures what they think. We KNOW what they'll think before they do.

Why she thinks she needs to contribute to the polarization of the USA I have no idea... unless she's planning to be Limbaugh's running mate.

 

People will miss him I bet. So many people reply to his posts...you have to think people like to argue and debate with him. Without Basso and TJ, D&D would be a lot quieter probably...maybe that's better. But I think the libs on here need a basso and TJ to keep them fired up.

 

folks, this is real.

 

I bolded part of this, but it bears repeating. basso has time and again made claims had them rebuked with proof, and then not even bothered to respond to the proof.

Or as in this case he asked for proof was given well thought out specific examples, and doesn't respond.

Sadly in the other thread he made disparaging remarks about other posters, and then was shown that the narrative he either believed, or just made up was completely wrong, and he never bothered to respond.

Then basso has the gall to chide others for not engaging in open honest debate. These are all concrete examples of basso running away from honest and open debate.

I take by the fact that he offers no defense or counter argument is because there is no defense of the positions he espouses here.

 

Certainly it is important to people, which is why people like basso can get upset that Obama deviates from the "American view." I'm saying the narratives are not official. The "American view" doesn't exist. I'm American, have studied the collapse of the USSR quite a bit, and I conclude Gorbachev was the primary mover in that event. Basso would say the "American view" (and Liz Cheney would say "the truth") is that Reagan escalating the arms race caused the collapse. We're both Americans and we disagree. He has more Americans on his side, probably, and I have more academics on mine. Obama seems to want to go the social forces route. Fine. There's no American view; different Americans see the event differently. Liz Cheney wants to claim the moral high ground on the interpretation of historical events -- it's ridiculous to try (and not just because her chosen interpretation is wrong ).

 

from obama's speech in russia



"By no means is America perfect. But it is our commitment to certain universal values which allows us to correct our imperfections, and to grow stronger over time. Freedom of speech and assembly has allowed women, minorities, and workers to protest for full and equal rights. The rule of law and equal administration of justice has busted monopolies, shut down political machines, and ended abuses of power. Independent media have exposed corruption at all levels of business and government. Competitive elections allow us to change course and hold our leaders accountable. If our democracy did not advance those rights, I – as a person of African ancestry – wouldn’t be able to address you as an American citizen, much less a President."

you can easily do these searches yourself

 

I disagree with you about Gorbachev. That he had an opportunity to do it, obviously, is a result of his circumstance; but I don't know if that's very interesting. In any case, he would have had that opportunity regardless of Reagan.

I also disagree with the characterization of a "Soviet view." Again, the interpretation is not monolithic. Besides that, though, I think most there understand the Cold War as a hegemonic war and not an ideological one (though the propaganda at the time was definitely one of ideology). There's a reason Gorbachev is called the Last Bolshevik. Insofar as they saw it as a war of good vs. evil, I'm sure they wouldn't cast themselves in the role of the bad guy. Just like we can easily find things like free speech for which we can villainize the USSR, they could as easily find US behaviors (like supporting murderous regimes in Third World countries, for example) to do likewise. I think it would be far more useful for you in your understanding of the Cold War to see it more as hegemonic war that some moralized struggle of good vs evil. If you were expecting Obama to go to Russia and give the Evil Empire speech, I can see how you were disappointed.

 

no you want the us president to go and tell everyone we're superior, which doesn't work.

 

He may very well feel that way, but it would be the height of diplomatic stupidity to go to other countries and tell them that. I, for one, am dam glad that we have a president whose diplomatic philosophy is deeper than "with us or agin us."

 

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about.

Obama never said that. He does take a more diplomatic approach, but he has stated typical American Idealism time and time again.

The fact is the Soviet Union fell apart because it ran out of money and they knew it was over. Gorby's efforts to make peace with the west was recognition that things were not sustainable and that the Soviet Union was falling behind and becoming economically brankrupt. Communism fell from the satelite nations inwards, and the Soviets couldn't do anything about it but watch. The momentum embolden each successive nation until Russia's own people realized that change was afoot.

If our presidents of the past has such a key role in this, why did they totally blow it. Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all failed to heed Nixon's dying warning not to neglect Russia, but to engage it heavily and help it become a successful and economically viable nation. We should be allies with Russia, not still living in cold war suspicion and politics.

 

Basso, would you consider someone who broke national intelligence-related laws a patriot?

 

That depends on whether the letter in parenthesis behind their name is D or R.