Milbank is another classic Very Serious Pundit who are all about drawing false equivalences between the parties to be evenhanded.
"The two presidents stood in the East Room on Tuesday afternoon, united in their goal of defeating the Islamic State but separated by a stylistic gulf as vast as the Atlantic."
"On the left, facing the cameras, was François Hollande, war president. He spoke of “cowardly murderers” who “dishonor humanity,” of a “relentless determination to fight terrorism everywhere and anywhere,” of “an implacable joint response,” of “hunting down their leaders” and “taking back the land.”
"On the right stood Barack Obama, President Oh-bummer."
"Defeating the Islamic State?"
“That’s going to be a process that involves hard, methodical work. It’s not going to be something that happens just because suddenly we take a few more airstrikes.”
"A political settlement in Syria?"
“It’s going to be hard. And we should not be under any illusions.”
"Could the Paris attacks have been prevented?"
“That’s hard — that’s a hard thing to track. . . . That’s a tough job.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-president-oh-bummer/2015/11/24/9ed001c6-92f4-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html
I have to say the only bummer is this sorry column of Milbank's. It does take tough methodical work and there probably wasn''t a way to have prevented the attacks.
It seems that what Milbank and his Very Serious Buddies in the Beltway want are easy answers. But it really isn't easy. You have a coalition with different interests.
Russia wants to buffer Assad. Turkey and most Sunni Arab nations are more interested in taking down Assad than ISIS-who while they don't like ISIS at least they are attacking Assad.
Maybe Milbank can tell us what the easy answers are.
"Obama, in Turkey last week, responded to those who believe he isn’t tough enough on the Islamic State. “Some of them seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference,” he said.
"Well, yes."
"Tough talk won’t defeat terrorists — but it will rally a nation. It’s no mere coincidence that the unpopular Hollande’s support has increased during his forceful response to the attacks, while Obama’s poll numbers are down."
"But here, he gives the whole game away. Talking tough has nothing to do with it but it's a political winner he believes. This goes to an interesting observation that Putin made a month or so ago in his 60 Minutes interview."
"He observed that so much of American foreign policy is made around domestic politics. The President deserves credit for not playing that game."
"There was little difference in their strategies for fighting the Islamic State, but Hollande was upbeat and can-do, while Obama was discouraging and lawyerly. It was as if the smoke-’em-out spirit of George W. Bush had been transplanted into the body of a short, pudgy, bespectacled French socialist with wrinkled suit-pants."
Aha. So that's it. Milbank wants W back. Well not all of us miss those years. W's bellicose talk mostly caused problems rather than solved them.
For what it's worth, Milbank's colleague, David Ignatius, didn't have these snarky criticisms of the President. He thought that Obama hit just the right note. What was great is he made this point on the odious Morning Joe program that MSNBC insists on running for 3 hours despite odious ratings.
Ignatius argued that Obama showed the kind of restraint you want after the downing of a Russian plane by Turkey, a NATO member.
The more I hear the substance of the criticism of phony Serious Pundits like Milbank, I'm grateful that Obama is the President today, not W.
You've seen this a lot the last two weeks. Ok, so the GOP engages in irresponsible anti Muslim rhetoric? But Obama was 'defesnseive' so clearly he's as guilty as them.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-beltway-medias-adventures-in-false.html
Now Milbank has a hit piece on the President on his speech yesterday with Hollande. In my opinion it was a very good speech that hit all the right spots.
Milbank can't really take issue with what he said but somehow the tone is a huge problem in his mind.
"On the left, facing the cameras, was François Hollande, war president. He spoke of “cowardly murderers” who “dishonor humanity,” of a “relentless determination to fight terrorism everywhere and anywhere,” of “an implacable joint response,” of “hunting down their leaders” and “taking back the land.”
"On the right stood Barack Obama, President Oh-bummer."
"Defeating the Islamic State?"
“That’s going to be a process that involves hard, methodical work. It’s not going to be something that happens just because suddenly we take a few more airstrikes.”
"A political settlement in Syria?"
“It’s going to be hard. And we should not be under any illusions.”
"Could the Paris attacks have been prevented?"
“That’s hard — that’s a hard thing to track. . . . That’s a tough job.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-president-oh-bummer/2015/11/24/9ed001c6-92f4-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html
I have to say the only bummer is this sorry column of Milbank's. It does take tough methodical work and there probably wasn''t a way to have prevented the attacks.
It seems that what Milbank and his Very Serious Buddies in the Beltway want are easy answers. But it really isn't easy. You have a coalition with different interests.
Russia wants to buffer Assad. Turkey and most Sunni Arab nations are more interested in taking down Assad than ISIS-who while they don't like ISIS at least they are attacking Assad.
Maybe Milbank can tell us what the easy answers are.
"Obama, in Turkey last week, responded to those who believe he isn’t tough enough on the Islamic State. “Some of them seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference,” he said.
"Well, yes."
"Tough talk won’t defeat terrorists — but it will rally a nation. It’s no mere coincidence that the unpopular Hollande’s support has increased during his forceful response to the attacks, while Obama’s poll numbers are down."
"But here, he gives the whole game away. Talking tough has nothing to do with it but it's a political winner he believes. This goes to an interesting observation that Putin made a month or so ago in his 60 Minutes interview."
"He observed that so much of American foreign policy is made around domestic politics. The President deserves credit for not playing that game."
"There was little difference in their strategies for fighting the Islamic State, but Hollande was upbeat and can-do, while Obama was discouraging and lawyerly. It was as if the smoke-’em-out spirit of George W. Bush had been transplanted into the body of a short, pudgy, bespectacled French socialist with wrinkled suit-pants."
Aha. So that's it. Milbank wants W back. Well not all of us miss those years. W's bellicose talk mostly caused problems rather than solved them.
For what it's worth, Milbank's colleague, David Ignatius, didn't have these snarky criticisms of the President. He thought that Obama hit just the right note. What was great is he made this point on the odious Morning Joe program that MSNBC insists on running for 3 hours despite odious ratings.
Ignatius argued that Obama showed the kind of restraint you want after the downing of a Russian plane by Turkey, a NATO member.
The more I hear the substance of the criticism of phony Serious Pundits like Milbank, I'm grateful that Obama is the President today, not W.
No comments:
Post a Comment