Europe Faces Obama Disappointment

You mistake the world wide sentiment of ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN BUSH with lack of comprehension of the troubling issues of the day. Greg apparently it is not in your cognitive ability to understand what billions world wide know by instinct: George W Bush is an ignorant and brutal demigod, a deciever and betrayer of the best qualites of America. Billions hail Obama NOT for what he may deliver but because he is NOT Bush.

The only thing I have read is about some apprehension by world leaders of American protectionism and a change in trade practices/agreements/tariffs that may emerge from speeches made while campaigning. While many overseas are glad Bush is on the way out, anything that could hurt thier own economies/interests in this area won't be seen as positive by Obama.
I would suppose anybody that has overly high(?) expectations will be disappointed; anything can be said in campaigning, but there is Congress and realities to face too.
Take care.

Sam,

"You mistake the world wide sentiment of ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN BUSH with lack of comprehension of the troubling issues of the day."

U.S. foreign policy has changed remarkably little in the 60+ years since WWII. Obama made a lot of promises, both domestically and to international audiencies, that he will have great trouble fulfilling. His administration team is already telling audiences to lower their expectations. Some groups, internationally and domestically, are bound to be disappointed.

"...George W Bush is an ignorant and brutal demigod, a deciever and betrayer of the best qualites of America."

That's pure opinion, and not one shared by tens of millions of Americans, and quite a few allied nations. Do you presume to speak for billions?

Greg, I do indeed feel quite comfortable speaking for billions. One can rarely, if ever, say such a thing. But the animosity toward the arrogant bullying mentality of Bush is pervasive across the planet. Since we are at about 6 billion, "speaking for billions" is quite reasonable.

You are wrong about the effects of Bush policy. Read any of Chalmers Johnson's books, particularly "Nemisis." Obama will be practical, reasonalbe and international, UNLIKE the unilateral Bush drive for American global economic, military and political hegemony.

Greg the "right" side of history is will be the complete excoriation of GW Bush and the neo-cons. The "wrong" side will be clinging to and denying the abject failure of Bush's entire approach to the Presidency. His tenure is marked by the character failings of the bully.

I believe I've just witnessed the ying and the yang of Obama followers. Elation of the new demigod and beyond hate for President Bush.

I know, Sam C., you will attack me and my words here but I really could care less. Ignorant and brutal demigod? Billions worldwide know this? You're into drama, right?

Greg, I know you don't need reaffirmation regarding your comprehension, but I'm saying it anyway. I appreciate the information you bring to Gather and have almost always valued your opinion.

And Capt. Planet here does not speak for everybody.

Sam,

"Greg, I do indeed feel quite comfortable speaking for billions."

Interesting. Did they agree to appoint you as their spokesman? You certainly don't speak for me, and I would venture to say you don't speak for the 57 million who voted for McCain. I'd bet there are more than a few Arab allies who don't share your opinion, not to mention the East Europeans. Or the Asians who have expressed reservations about Obama's protectionist proposals. Hmmm. Yet you feel comfortable speaking for "billions."

"You are wrong about the effects of Bush policy."

That's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. But for every book you want to reference, I can find another book to counter the argument. That's the beauty of differing opinions. How boring it would be if we all agreed all the time.

"Obama will be practical, reasonalbe and international, UNLIKE the unilateral Bush drive for American global economic, military and political hegemony."

That remains to be seen. Shall we wait for him to be sworn in first? As for "the unilateral Bush drive for....", try reading up on the history of U.S. foreign policy. You'll see that the American push for global economic, military and political hegemony far predates George W. Bush.

"Greg the 'right' side of history is will be the complete excoriation of GW Bush and the neo-cons. The 'wrong' side will be clinging to and denying the abject failure of Bush's entire approach to the Presidency."

I'll guess we'll find out when the history is written.

Cathi I will not attack "you" but your words, like mine, are fair game. However I also do not "speak" for you. If I did your commentary would be far more reasoned and logical.

It is foolish to pretend Bush is not an athema across the globe. Perhaps with Obama there will be some with exaggerated hopes dashed. When Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation he was savaged by the abolishionists by declaring freedom for slave ONLY in the states in rebellion, NOT universally across the nation. The "Great Emancipator" was a partial one. Hopes dashed. WHat Obama will NOT do is further the imperial agenda of the neo-cons. He will pull back from encircling Russia. He will strengthen our weakened military. He will curb the oil moguls. And he will liberally use the carrot instead of the stick. He will work Russia out of the Western Hemisphere.

It would be wise for all AMericans to read up on their Lincoln. Such studies will give you a insight into our next Pres and how he will govern.

Sam,

"WHat Obama will NOT do is further the imperial agenda of the neo-cons."

Yet American imperialism has been a focus of U.S. foreign policy since the end of WWII. Every president has pursued essentially the same foreign policy, with only minor modifications for more than 60 years. Part of the reason for that is that the congress and defense and state bureaucracies are entrenched and the president, although responsible for foreign policy, cannot do anything without the consensus of others.

"He will pull back from encircling Russia."

And abandon Georgia and Ukraine in the process?

"He will strengthen our weakened military."

Yet he has pledged to cut millions in defense spending and prominent Dems in Congress are already talking about cutting military funds.

"He will curb the oil moguls."

Through a tax that will be passed on to consumers.

"And he will liberally use the carrot instead of the stick."

Diplomacy not backed by the credible threat of force is meaningless.

"He will work Russia out of the Western Hemisphere."

How, exactly?

Sam, he's no Lincoln. You are entranced, obviously, and trust me, my comment is logical but you are entitled to your opinion, illogical or unreasonable.

One miracle at a time. How is our military weakened and how will he be strengthening our military? Just curious.

Dang Greg! You beat me to it!

America is going to be very disappointed after Obama finishes getting his corporate appointees in place but their was no other choice for this election.

Greg I did not claim Obama is a "Lincoln." I stated that he is inspired and wishes to emulate the sucesses of Lincoln in his Admin. That is common knowledge. Ergo, study of Lincoln might lead to a better understanding of how Obama will lead and how he will react to crisis. No brainer.

How is our military weakend?? Are you serious?? Bush has built in a structural weakness by attempting to move our national army into a arm of sole executive discretion by parceling out its functions to "contractors" only answerable to political appointee and by using proxys for dirty work. Let's not play dumb, shall we? You know the worn state of military infrastructure and equipment and the rampant corruption in the contractor game. That's a silly question.

You also know the only reason Moscow is in Latin America is reaction to our activities in Georgia and Ukraine. The Russians have no viable interests in our hemisphere. When we stop threatening them by kicking the damned cold warriors to the curb they will back out of our back yard. Again, no brainer.

And cutting millions from the Bush defense scenario is not necessarily "weakening" the military. There will be a massive restructuring of the military AWAY from the Rumsfeld/Bush debacle. AGAIN, no brainer. Every credible American military leader INCLUDING the vaunted Petreaus states diplomacy MUST assume a far greater role than it has under Bush. NO BRAINER.

Federal intervention into the energy market will only bring us back to the stable prices of pre-Bush era. You have no grounds to assume that means any "costs" passed onto the consumer.

It's a new world Greg. Get on board.

Emulate Lincoln? Lincoln was a political hack! He was only interested in doing what was best for him and his party, not for the nation as a whole. You stated that yourself. Is this what Obama wants? When has Obama professed he wanted to emulate Lincoln?

How is our military weakend?? Are you serious?? Bush has built in a structural weakness by attempting to move our national army into a arm of sole executive discretion by parceling out its functions to "contractors" only answerable to political appointee and by using proxys for dirty work. Let's not play dumb, shall we? You know the worn state of military infrastructure and equipment and the rampant corruption in the contractor game. That's a silly question.

That's a silly statement. You stated that Obama will strengthen our weakened military but failed to state how you view our military is weakened. As there are many directions the term "weakened" can go, is it silly to ask for clarification?

But you statement above sounds like you are heavy into the conspiracy theories. Is that true?

There will be a massive restructuring of the military AWAY from the Rumsfeld/Bush debacle. AGAIN, no brainer. Every credible American military leader INCLUDING the vaunted Petreaus states diplomacy MUST assume a far greater role than it has under Bush.

The military has already gone through massive restructuring, this will happen again? How so? And where is the information that states every credible (what standards?) military leader feels that diplomacy will assume a far greater role than it already has?

Good grief Cathi there is no reason for me to belabor common knowledge easily available on a variety of media. You want links??? That is not necessary. Show me rather, any quote by any reputable head of any military service, past or present that claims our military has not been weakened to the point of breaking during Bush's war. Do your own homework. How many thousands of dollars in enlistment bonuses are we up to now?

Jefferson said the power of war should be left to those who "pay," the legislature, not those who "spend," the executive. When war making power is shifted thru contractor armies, security companies and proxy nations UNACCOUNTABLE to those who "pay" then the system is broken. Read up on the Constitution and Constituional historians if you need schooling on the realtionship of the military to a civilian government.

Sam,

"Greg I did not claim Obama is a "Lincoln." I stated that he is inspired and wishes to emulate the sucesses of Lincoln in his Admin."

I think you were having that conversation with Cathi.

"Bush has built in a structural weakness by attempting to move our national army into a arm of sole executive discretion by parceling out its functions to "contractors" only answerable to political appointee and by using proxys for dirty work."

Congressional cuts to manpower allocations following the Cold War (drawdown of the 1990s) forced the outsourcing of many military jobs to contractors because the core mission had not changed: to fight and win the nation's wars. Fewer personnel combined with an increasing optempo FORCED the defense department and the president to increase contracting functions throughout the late 1990s and into Bush's administration. This is not some new phenomenon that started with GWB.

So, let's not play dumb, shall we, to use your term.

"You also know the only reason Moscow is in Latin America is reaction to our activities in Georgia and Ukraine. The Russians have no viable interests in our hemisphere."

That's just ridiculous. The Russians have been in our hemisphere since the late 1950s. Remember missiles in Cuba? The only reason the Russians pulled out of our hemisphere was because they could not support their satellite states any longer. However, as I said before, large cash reserves resulting from high oil prices have allowed Moscow to venture back where it once was.

"And cutting millions from the Bush defense scenario is not necessarily "weakening" the military."

Every serious analysis I've read says that CURRENT levels of funding (including supplementals) will be required for at least 4-5 years to replace and repair equipment lost and damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you cut the DoD's budget, you are, by definition, not maintaining the funding levels needed for the reconstitution of the force after two wars. That means a weaker military that will take longer to get ready in the event of an international crisis.

"Every credible American military leader INCLUDING the vaunted Petreaus states diplomacy MUST assume a far greater role than it has under Bush."

Greater role? Yes. But certainly not the only element of national power to be employed.

"You have no grounds to assume that means any "costs" passed onto the consumer."

Right. When's the last time a corporation absorbed a new tax or cost increase out of pocket?

I found your use of "no brainer" initially amusing. Now I realize that it is a self-characterization that you were employing.

Sam, quit with the homework statements. They are not appreciated and serve to belittle.

You have made statements and you want me to look up links to back them up? I asked where has Obama stated that he wanted to emulate Lincoln, who was only interested in what was best for his party and himself. And how would he want to emulate this?

I am for enlistment bonuses. These men and women put a lot on the line and its difficult to compete with the private sector when recruiting, let alone areas, particularly California and the Northeast, who are terrified to allow recruiters on high school and college campuses for fear of their children choosing to honorably serve this nation. The GI Bill doesn't cut it anymore, even though it has recently been improved.

Now again, what type of massive restructuring have you heard about, since they have already gone through massive restructuring? Obama & Co. are already talking about cutting military funds and defense spending. Where is the money coming from to accomplish this?

As a UK citizen, I can only tell you that many, many millions of my countrymen/women feel that it's a case of ABB... 'anyone but Bush'. He (Bush) has led my country's leaders down a path that so many of us were totally against. WMD were never discovered and it was on THAT premise that we joined you in attacking Iraq.

ABB...

Ishbel,

"He (Bush) has led my country's leaders down a path that so many of us were totally against."

Are you kidding? Are the British George W. Bush's lapdogs? Are your leaders not capable of independet thought and decision-making? Or was Tony Blair lying when he said all the way to his last day in office that removing Saddam was the right thing to do? Instead of blaming Bush, try taking a look at your own leaders.

Sadly, many of us in the UK truly DO believe that Bliar was a liar and a cheat and WAS, indeed, Mr Bush's poodle.

We do blame our own leaders, believe me. History will not deal kindly with Bliar or his cabinet, including our present Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

Ishbel,

"Sadly, many of us in the UK truly DO believe that Bliar was a liar and a cheat and WAS, indeed, Mr Bush's poodle."

But there's no evidence to support such a claim, no matter what you may BELIEVE. For Blair to have been lying, your intelligence agencies would have had to have told him that there were no WMD, and then he would have had to deliberately cover up their report and publicly state the opposite of what they told him.

In fact, he was advised, as was Bush, by the intelligence agencies, that the WMD were in fact there. They may have repeated faulty intelligence, but that is not a lie.

"History will not deal kindly with Bliar or his cabinet, including our present Prime Minister, Gordon Brown."

Since that history is not yet written, we'll have to wait and see, won't we?

You obviously have made up your mind about the machinations of MY Govt - and will not countenance an opposing view.

We KNOW that Bliar and his minions hounded to death a government scientist who would NOT support the WMD debacle. That is a matter of FACT.

As I have said, like many British citizens - I believe that ABB is the best we can expect from our so-called 'special relationship'. I think Obama WILL make a difference, but we have yet to see him take office, so guesses about how pro-Europe or pro-peace he may be are premature.

Ishbel,

"...and will not countenance an opposing view."

I'm merely asking for some evidence to support the claim that Blair lied. If there's no evidence to support the claim, then there is no valid opposing view.

"We KNOW that Bliar and his minions hounded to death a government scientist who would NOT support the WMD debacle. That is a matter of FACT."

But that doesn't mean he lied.

The scientist was being pressured to support Bliar's stance on WMD. He refused to do so, despite being leant upon to LIE.

Okay, Ishbel, but you said you believed Blair was a liar. Pressuring a scientist does not make Blair a liar. Where is the evidence he lied?