"Iraq could be one of the great achievements of this administration"
- Vice President Joe Biden on CNN
The Obama administration is no different from any of its predecessors when it comes to shifting blame for failure and taking undeserved credit for success. All administrations engage in minor hypocrisy for their political benefit. It is expected and accepted for the most part. However the Obama administration has taken it to a ridiculous extreme. This is evident when the president uses Bush era deficits to rack up exponentially more debt. It is also evident in the prosecution of terrorists in Federal courts. But nowhere is it more blatant than in the recent comments by the Vice President taking credit for the progress in Iraq.
In 2007 then Senator Obama vehemently opposed the surge, which is responsible for the continued stabilization and political reconciliation seen in Iraq. He did not just oppose the surge; he gave speeches guaranteeing that additional troops will only lead to more violence and instability. He wanted nothing short of a troop withdrawal because the war was a lost cause, a sentiment echoed by congressional Democrats. Meanwhile, then Senator Joe Biden had the brainstorm of dividing Iraq into three different countries. He was convinced that this was the only way to have any semblance of peace in Iraq. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Biden expressed an iota of confidence or support for the Bush surge strategy.
Candidate Obama ran on the platform that the only thing to do about Iraq was to bring the troops home. Never once did he admit to the gains of the surge or accept the evidence of stability. In fact he made it a cornerstone of the campaign to summarily dismiss it. Now that the candidate is president, he is more than willing to tout Iraqi success and take credit for it. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence of success, the administration has yet to acknowledge that the Obama/Biden stance against the surge was wrong. A debate on the potential outcome of Iraq if either of their ideas were followed has been conveniently missing. The leap from vehement opposition to the surge strategy to self congratulation on the success of the same strategy has been phenomenal.
President Bush set the stage for an Iraqi success not because of, but in spite of Obama and Biden. The military success, the Sunni awakening, the political progress, and the withdrawal timeline are all Bush legacies. The current administration's contribution to the progress in Iraq has been to leave it alone. Ironically President Obama's Afghanistan strategy mirrors his predecessor's "secure and hold" surge strategy in Iraq. Now no one expects this administration to give George Bush credit for anything. Their motto has always been, "if it works, credit Obama; if it fails, blame Bush." It worked for them in the campaign and it worked in the first few months of the presidency. But in this case, as Charles Krauthammer points out, they should at least have the decency to say Iraq will be an American success.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
Quite a biting critique, Mr. Krutic.
I'm certain you're not going to endear yourself in the eyes of our resident liberals.
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Mr. Krutic -
I agree that President Obama shouldn't take credit for the results of the Iraq surge...even though the surge was only part of the solution - what had a greater effect was the "Sunni Awakening". The same principle applies to Afghanistan GEN McChrystal has stated that the increased forces are very important...but it's implementation of the 'government in a box' and gaining the trust of the people that will make the difference.
Without the 'Sunni Awakening', the surge in Iraq would have been nothing more than what's now called 'mowing the grass' in Afghanistan.
The truth is that almost everything President Obama has tried to fix has gone from bad to worse.
Oh? Let's check your claims.
Obama’s thirteen-month obsession over health care has caused a countrywide revolt leading to Democrats jumping ship.
Guess you haven't been reading the news lately. It's not a done deal yet...but a reconciliation vote in the Senate is coming.
The economy (even after the $862B hoodwink they call stimulus) is still flatlining at best.
Flatlining? Gee, I guess the articles in the WSJ and on Bloomberg's showing GROWTH since this past August are all lies, all part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. Yeah, those liberals over at the WSJ and Bloomberg's are at it again....
And since you're an economist by education, surely you watch the S&P index more than the Dow, and surely you KNOW that the S&P index is up over 60% from its low when President Obama got the stimulus bill passed.
And are you aware that ONLY one-third of the stimulus has been spent? Are you aware that one-third of the stimulus was comprised of tax cuts? Frankly, I believe we should NOT have cut taxes...but that's a different story.
A whopping 6% of Americans think that the so called Recovery Act has created jobs. As the joke goes - the only "shovel ready" projects available are related to clearing the snow in DC.
The RNC and its wholly-owned subsidiary Fox 'News' have done a wonderful job of pointing out how terrible the Recovery Act was...but I guess you didn't see the recent statements by GOP governors Schwarznegger and Crist saying something completely different. Oh! But I forgot - they're RINOs and anything they say must be lies.
And BTW - here's a list of over 100 Republicans and several Democrats who voted against the stimulus...and then eagerly sought the stimulus funds and claimed credit for the jobs thus created!
The deficit has skyrocketed, and the jobless rate is bleaker than before the stimulus.
Since your education is as an economist, surely you know that there are people you listen to, and people you don't...and I suspect that IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomics Advisers, and Moody's are three firms whose word carries some weight with you. And here's what they say about the stimulus:
"Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative."
But you know better than they do, I suppose.
Oh yeah - since you have so much professional experience in the field, I'm also sure that you pay more attention to TRENDS than to the present situation...so surely you're aware of how the TREND of the new jobless claims clearly show a vast improvement. The improvement is beginning to flatten out somewhat...but remember, we're in the first quarter of the year - historically the worst time for businesses IIRC - and only one-third of the stimulus has been spent. There's still a significant chance of that 'double-dip' recession...but that's not likely.
A double-dip recession is also your only hope to regain the White House in 2012. That, sir, is the real reason why conservatives want Obama to fail.
In response to the people's concerns over jobs, the President convened a televised bipartisan health care summit.
Ah, just like John McCain you have an aversion to multitasking!
On the international front, Iran is more belligerent than ever, and moving toward a dictatorship.
Yes, and I'm SO sure that McCain - or anyone else on the conservative side - would have been able to get Russia AND China to join in efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear power program. And if you'll do some research, you'd find that if Dick Cheney had had his way, we'd already be at war with Iran!
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Mr. Krutic -
I prefer to keep my language in comments and articles more...palatable than what's in the above comment. However, when I see someone (whose education and professional experience would indicate that they should know better) publish an article that contains accusations that are so easily disproven, I think it's quite proper to open up with both barrels.
Here's a suggestion: if you're going to make accusations and declarations as you did in this article, please include links to reputable sites that back up your claims...or at least be prepared to do so, because BC readers will call your bluff. I've had to eat crow several times because I couldn't back up my claims - as Dave and Clavos can tell you with smiles on their faces - so I try to make a habit of either providing a proof-link to a reputable site...or I'm well-prepared to do so when someone thinks I'm bluffing.
It's a good habit learned the hard way. Perhaps it would help you, too.
4 - Dave Nalle
Ah, Glenn. So selective in your statistics.
You do realize, do you not, that even 2.5 million jobs is less than a third of the number of jobs lost since the recession began? In fact, given the timeframe it's likely that at best the stimulus was job neutral, creating jobs at about the same rate other jobs were lost. And most of the jobs created were short-term, low pay or with the government, and only a fraction of them can even be causally connected to stimulus spending.
And the 60% rise in the S&P? Surely by now you're familiar with the concept of a stock bubble? If not I suspect that lesson will be hammered home for the third time in a decade before too long.
But let me add this. I'm fine with Obama taking credit for things improving in Iraq, so long as he also takes the blame for the devastating cost of the war. Or maybe he'd be wiser to leave both of those in the Bush legacy.
Dave
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
2.5 million jobs is still 2.5 million jobs, isn't it? What would our jobless rate - and our economy - be without those jobs?
most of the jobs created were short-term, low pay or with the government,
Prove your first two claims...and as for the third, remember - people WITH jobs (government or not) are able to spend and contribute to the economy FAR more than someone without a job. Remember the saying back in the early 80's recession? "We just need a war." And every single job thus created would've been funded by the government in one way or another.
and only a fraction of them can even be causally connected to stimulus spending.
I didn't know that you were more authoritative than IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomics Advisers, and Moody's! Guess I was wrong.... Not!
Surely by now you're familiar with the concept of a stock bubble?
The real estate bubble was a bubble because real estate was greatly overvalued. The dot-com bubble was a bubble because the dot-com stocks were hideously overvalued. So WHAT major segment of the market is vastly overvalued right now, Dave? Please enlighten me!
Obama taking credit for ending the Iraq war is akin to someone taking credit for helping the previous occupant to close the barn door after the horses got out. Obama helped, but it was under Bush that we saw the beginning of the end of the Iraq war.
BUT that does NOT and can NEVER take away from Bush/Cheney the responsibility for wasting so many lives, so many hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq.
And IIRC, you not only supported their decision, but you supported an expansion against the war on terror. And you should take responsibility for some of that 'devastating cost of the war'.
6 - Mark
So WHAT major segment of the market is vastly overvalued right now, Dave?
The public trough.
7 - Ruvy
I just thought I'd note that the Iraqi civilian body count (from terror attacks and fighting) from 3/09 to 2/10 was 2,592 people. This against 3,640 civilians in the previous 12 month period - this according to iCasualties.
That sounds like peace to me, boys and girls - it's a veritable pounding of - flesh into explosives. The Americans and friends have brought nothing but the stink of death to the Middle East, and now their pulsillanity (sp?) promises to do the same to Israel via Persia and its lapdog, HizbAllah.
Peace! Peace! Halleluyá! Peace! [gag- vomit]
8 - Clavos
So WHAT major segment of the market is vastly overvalued right now, Dave?
Pretty much all of it...
9 - Ruvy
By the way, is 6,000 civilian deaths over two years anyone's definition of "success"?
10 - Ruvy
As to the American equities market, it is swollen with stimulus money right now. When the swelling goes down, so will the market. As for the "lagging unemployment rate", one would do well to read what the Grey Lady has to say. Obama-Whore that she is, she still reports something worth while every now and again.
11 - roger nowosielski
I would have thought it ran into hundreds of thousands, Ruvy.
12 - Ruvy
The point, Roger, is that peace has not been restored to Iraq. It's not a success - not by any stretch of the imagination. Afghanistan is bleeding like a slit milk cow, Yemen is in the midst of a war (this one, not the fault of the Americans), and the rest of the region hovers on the edge of a war that will be ostensibly to kill the Jews - but will wind up with more Arab dead anyway.
But one cannot blame Obama for this, anymore than one can blame Bush. That is to say that both are at fault, for American foreign policy is responsible for much to the sword hanging over the head quality of life in this region.
The only good thing about it all is that most Israelis now understand that America is no friend of Israel - that, courtesy of the unusually honest (and therefore openly hostile) policy Obama pursues here.
13 - Mark
I question the use of the term 'blossoming' to describe Iraq, as well. It would appear from the Brookings' latest Iraq Index that the benchmarks established in the late Bush administrations are not close to being met, and that the number of dislocated people remains in the millions. There are positive signs in extending the reach of basic 'public' services, however. And the level of violence remains comparatively low.
14 - Cindy
Mouths that speak about war and 'success'?
WTF do you want from an economist who works for banks?! This author should be as marginalized as a white supremacist.
15 - roger nowosielski
Of course, not.
Why on earth would anyone expect our State department to be able to do so is beyond belief?
The Americans are notoriously incompetent when it comes to reading the geopolitical pulse. It's the arrogance that stands in the way, the insane idea that all nations and people want to be like us and adopt our values.
John Foster Dulles was the most vocal exponent of this insane idea. And he had followers in such as Kissinger and Brzezinski.
And the show goes on.
16 - roger nowosielski
I know I'll get nothing but venom from such as STM, to name but one, for making such sacrilegious remarks, so beholden they all are to the the tradition of Anglo-Saxon.
But to turn their argument upside down, it's all bullocks.
The West has been the greatest force in today's imperialism, all the worse for the fact that it is imperialism of the worst kind, an imperialism with a kindly face, hiding its evil intentions under the guise of the rule of law, supposedly protecting all and all alike from imperialistic tyranny.
Utter bullocks, that's all I have got to say to this.
17 - roger nowosielski
Just today, McCrystal apologized for US forces killing over twenty civilians. He'd assured everyone that all necessary precautions will be taken from now on not to make similar mistakes. He asked the Afghan people for forgiveness, saying it's necessary to obtain their good will, to understand that America fights Taliban for their own good.
Good luck, McCrystal and Obama and all the parties complicit in this insane operations. If you want to help Afghanis, help them to fight their own wars. But your presence, America is stained. It stinks to high heavens.
Everyone knows it. How come you are the only one who doesn't have the inkling?
It must be the Statue of Liberty syndrome, our gift to the world.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
The West has been the greatest force in today's imperialism, all the worse for the fact that it is imperialism of the worst kind, an imperialism with a kindly face, hiding its evil intentions under the guise of the rule of law, supposedly protecting all and all alike from imperialistic tyranny.
Now, now - be nice, or we'll bring democracy to you, too!
19 - Glenn Contrarian
And I see Mark and Clavos chimed in with throwaway suggestions as to what market in America is overvalued.
Of course they backed up their contentions with absolutely nothing at all...but then such is the modus operandi of most conservatives these days since the facts aren't on their side....
20 - roger nowosielski
Gosh, Glenn,
I hoped my innocent little remark would be promptly ignored. Fat chance of that now.
But no, don't do me any favors. I'll try to do without.
21 - doug m
I couldn't make it past the first page because the author creates no confidence of his knowledge about subjects or his blinded by partisanship.
Where's the hypocrisy in prosecuting terrorists in Federal court? Didn't the Bush administration do the exact same thing?
The author also appears unaware what quelled the violence because the influx of soldiers was a very small part. And spare the Sunni Awakening nonsense. The words sound great from a marketing sense but really it was a massive bribe.
What's wrong with the idea of dividing Iraq into three countries? If you know history, you know the people didn't come together through the people's own volition. Also, the strategy seemed to work in Eastern Europe.
22 - roger nowosielski
Mark ain't no conservative, Glenn. And he ain't no liberal either.
I should hope that Mark is analytical first and foremost. And if you're "analytical," you don't need facts.
23 - roger nowosielski
That should have been the game plan from the get-go, doug. To deal with ethnic strife and divisions in the same manner as with broken Yugoslavia.
But that of course was too simple a concept for Bush and Brenner. They were so keen on displaying the united front and the power of American diplomacy that common sense simply stood in the way.
And we're still spewing out the same old propaganda, how the Iraqis are all united and willing to live in peace despite all evidence to the contrary, simply because we choose to believe so.
Pathetic.
24 - Mark
Glenn, as I understand it, US federal debt as a percentage of GDP has gone over 90% and is quickly headed for 100% which Standard and Poor's has stated would be incompatible with a AAA credit rating.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Mark -
Here's the stats on the federal debt as a percentage of GDP. We're at 83.4 percent - which is really, really not good - but we've got a lower percentage than, say, Japan, Germany, Israel, Belgium, Singapore...but we just passed France.
Not only that, but we've got a significantly BETTER debt-to-GDP ratio than we did after WWII...and remember how our economy in the 1950's and 1960's was the envy of the world? During the 1950's our top marginal tax rate was 91% (even during the Eisenhower administration) - that's how we paid off almost all the debt from WWII - and JFK cut the top marginal tax rate to the low 70's, IIRC. Our top marginal tax rate remained in the 40's until Reagan came in and slashed it to the low 30's...which was soon followed by the worst recession since the Depression.
Federal spending was then increased under Reagan - the Cold War, remember? - and we got out of that recession...and then the Savings-and-Loan bust hit (remember the Keating Five? McCain was one of them) where more banks and S&L's failed than even during the Great Recession that we just got out of.
Bush ("No new taxes!") got the economy back on track by raising taxes...but not quickly enough to get re-elected. We did really well under Clinton (there was talk of a 'Goldilocks economy'), and then Dubya comes in, slashes taxes to the lowest point since the Roaring 20's...and guess what? It's the Great Recession!
IN OTHER WORDS, Mark, while it's not good to have sky-high taxes, it's ALSO not good to have taxes too low...because then government (from police to Medicare to fire departments to schools to municipal governments to regulatory agencies) cannot do its job...and the economy as a whole slows down.
Government can't run the economy, but what the government DOES do is provide the grease and oil that allows the machinery of the economy to function. Take away the grease and oil, and the economy starts to grind and things get ugly real quick.
Okay? I think you might agree that most conservatives really don't understand that last sentence...but that's a fact not of life, but of civilization.
A recommendation - start edjimicating yourself, to use a Southern colloquialism. Forget what you think you know, stop demanding that facts must fit your worldview - for there are many who know history, but do not understand history.
Instead, read the history, consider the facts over the months and years, and maybe, just maybe you'll see things a little differently...and you just might see that things really aren't so bad right now - but they coulda, maybe woulda been without Bush's TARP and Obama's stimulus.
You don't hear me praise Bush often - he IS a war criminal - but even Hitler something right (the autobahn) and so did Stalin (defeated Hitler). Bush increased AIDS funding, resisted Cheney's (and others') calls to invade Iran and expand the 'war on terror', and got the TARP - imperfect as it certainly was - passed when it was desperately needed.
One last thing - if you're one of the majority of Americans who think the TARP and stimulus was a huge waste of money, then write an article about it and I'll do some more edjimicatin' for all and sundry.