• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

WaPo's Richard Cohen: Obama would have lost WWII

By Richard Cohen Opinion writer November 30 at 7:51 PM

The presidency has changed Barack Obama. His hair has gone gray, which is to be expected, and he looks older, which is also to be expected, but his eloquence has been replaced by petulance and he has lost the power to persuade, which is something of a surprise. You can speculate that if the Obama of today and not Winston Churchill had led Britain in World War II, the Old Vic theater would now be doing “Hamlet” in German.

The president has lost his voice, that is certain. The numbers say so. Obama has the approval of only 44 percent of the American people. During his time in office, Congress and much of the nation have gone Republican — statehouse after statehouse, governor after governor (soon to be 32) — an astounding feat when you consider that the GOP has become the Know-Nothing Party in all its meanings.

It’s not that Obama has lost his gift of eloquence. His problem is that he often has nothing to say. When he does, as after the mass murder in June at a Charleston, S.C., church, he can be moving and eloquent. It is on foreign policy particularly where he goes empty and cold. His policy, after all, is to avoid yet another Middle East quagmire. It entails the ringing call to do as little as possible.

Obama’s self-inflicted predicament was apparent in the statement he issued following the Paris terrorist attacks. Unlike many other mass killings, this one was broadcast in real time — unfolding on TV as it happened. It left the United States both shaken and horrified. Yet Obama spoke coldly, by rote — saying all the right things in the manner of a minister presiding at the funeral of a perfect stranger.

The president is capable of better, and indeed, after some criticism, he eventually did better. But he is a cautious man who fears his rhetoric running away from him. This happened once before, when he issued his “red line” warning to Syria — and then, upon consideration, said never mind. The result has been a foreign policy debacle in which the measure of Obama has been taken. He’s been bullied off the playground.

Obama’s dilemma is not just that he cannot find the words to articulate his policy. He cannot stick to his policy either. His initial reluctance to act in Libya faded when Moammar Gaddafi threatened to massacre his opposition and the French took the lead. His determination to stay out of Iraq collided with the threatened genocide of the Yazidis. Iraq fell apart, the Islamic State seemed to come out of nowhere. Americans were beheaded. Women were enslaved. No boots on the ground became some boots on the ground — and then some more and then some of them helped the Kurds and mixed it up with the Islamic State. Reality rebuts policy, which unravels by degree.

George W. Bush’s Iraq war was a lesson to us all. But from the start of the Syrian crisis, no one sane was proposing doing it all over again. Instead, the proposal was to intervene early and attempt to avoid the bloodbath and humanitarian calamity that have resulted. The idea was to do more than simply tell Bashar al-Assad to return to practicing ophthalmology in London and for the United States and its allies to take some action — such as grounding Assad’s helicopters. And when it came to the Islamic State, the proposal was to do more than make some initially inadequate bombing runs, but put spotters on the ground and train anti-Assad fighters who had a stake in the fighting. As it was, the United States managed to assemble an army of about half a dozen.

Obama is confined by the prospect of another Iraq. He defends his policy of minimalism with an off-putting petulance: “If folks want to pop off and have opinions . . . .” He talked of seeing at Walter Reed hospital “a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs. . . . And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.” Yes, some of the Republican presidential candidates are playing games, but Obama’s critics in think tanks and elsewhere are dead - serious. Besides, life presents mean choices. Limbs were lost in Paris, too.

To a large degree, Obama became president on the strength of his eloquence. To a large degree, that is what has deserted him. He is out of words because he is out of ideas. Consequently, he ought to listen to others. They’re not the ones who are popping off. He is.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c3b812-978b-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html


ouch
 
My opinion on this is that you can't predict how a man, how a state leader is gonna react in critical situations such as WWII.
Who would have thought that a crippled socialist would be one of the greatest Commander in Chief in US History ?
Critical situations such as WWII brings the best of great leaders, transform them into something you would never have guessed they could become.
Therefore, it's impossible to tell wether Obama would have won or lost WWII if he had led Britain instead of Chruchill. But wether the answer to this question is, telling that Obamz doesn't compare to Churchill is not insulting towards Obama, it doesn't make him a bad leader. Not being one of the greatest doesn't make you one of the worst.

If they had led the US instead of J. F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missiles Crisis, most of the GOP candidates would have started WWIII
 
You can speculate that if the Obama of today and not Winston Churchill had led Britain in World War II, the Old Vic theater would now be doing “Hamlet” in German.

A very contorted parallel, and a good example of why Richard Cohen is known for being hyperbolic.
We aren't engaged in a conventional war against a sovereign nation (or nations) with standing armies/navies/air forces.
We aren't experiencing "the blitz" and hanging on by our fingernails while facing the prospect of a massive, overwhelming military invasion and occupation.
If we were Obama would be just as staunch and determined under those circumstances as Churchill was.
To speculate otherwise is to engage in baseless fantasy.

Despite what AM radio tells us, our way of life, our nation of laws, our very existence, is not in grave and imminent danger of extermination. Not even remotely.
No, this is a whole other kind of 'war' in which many of the strategies and tactics are still being learned (or not), often on the fly. Not surprisingly, reactionaries often paint Obama as an indecisive pussy, while his supporters see him more as a thoughtful and patient chess player.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
I can't see a real same-level comparison from Nazi Germany (or rather the Weimarer Republic) to Syria today. The key issue is that there is World's biggest country, which also is highly unstable (Russia), deeply involved with the syrian regime, and open warfare was out of question to anybody who did not want WW3 to start there.

So that left Obama with the silent options, which he, as he stated, employed, of course. It's just you can't sell these ops as good as those hyper-macho over Iraq, so there can be no "Mission Accomplished" bullshit activities. Rather the opposite.

Which must look like Obama is weak.
 
You can speculate that if the Obama of today and not Winston Churchill had led Britain in World War II, the Old Vic theater would now be doing “Hamlet” in German.

A very contorted parallel, and a good example of why Richard Cohen is known for being hyperbolic.
We aren't engaged in a conventional war against a sovereign nation (or nations) with standing armies/navies/air forces.
We aren't experiencing "the blitz" and hanging on by our fingernails while facing the prospect of a massive, overwhelming military invasion and occupation.
If we were Obama would be just as staunch and determined under those circumstances as Churchill was.
To speculate otherwise is to engage in baseless fantasy.

Despite what AM radio tells us, our way of life, our nation of laws, our very existence, is not in grave and imminent danger of extermination. Not even remotely.
No, this is a whole other kind of 'war' in which many of the strategies and tactics are still being learned (or not), often on the fly. Not surprisingly, reactionaries often paint Obama as an indecisive pussy, while his supporters see him more as a thoughtful and patient chess player.

The nuances of the enemy has no bearing on the fact that Obama is a weak president and could not lead the United States to victory.

This hypothetical is spot on. Germany and Japan in a romp.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Horseshit. It was only by the Grace of God that Roosevelt/Truman, Churchill, and Stalin won World War II and was more due to the tactical errors and blunders made by Hitler than any other single reason. That's a fucking fact and anyone that denies it is fucking ignorant of history. That being said, had Obama or even George W. Bush (shudder the motherfucking thought) been president during WWII, we STILL would have won by the almighty Grace of God. Fuck the guy that wrote that horseshit.
 
Horseshit. It was only by the Grace of God that Roosevelt/Truman, Churchill, and Stalin won World War II and was more due to the tactical errors and blunders made by Hitler than any other single reason. That's a fucking fact and anyone that denies it is fucking ignorant of history. That being said, had Obama or even George W. Bush (shudder the motherfucking thought) been president during WWII, we STILL would have won by the almighty Grace of God. Fuck the guy that wrote that horseshit.
I'm not sure.

The article doesn't state that the Us would have lost if Obama had been President of the US instead of Roosevelt, it states that the UK would probably have lost if Obama had been Prime Minister instead of Churchill and I think it is true. Amond the Allies the great leader was not Roosevelt, it was Churchill. It was Churchill (and others, but mostly Churchill) who gave british army, Air Forcve and Navy the courage to resist to the germans to fight, depite being outnumbered and outgunned. Without Churchill, the UK would have fallen into the hands of the enemy. And if the UK had fallen, there would have been very very few chances to beat the nazi.
 
Not surprisingly, reactionaries often paint Obama as an indecisive pussy, while his supporters see him more as a thoughtful and patient chess player.

Then Putin is Garry Kasparov to Obama's Bobby Fischer Boucher.

oETdyVqz.jpg



Churchill:

"we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender"

"But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: "This was their finest hour"


Obama:

"we will contain and degrade the luftwaffe."

If only Obama would view the threat of islamic terror like he does climate change or view Putin like he does the Republicans.

Though I disagree with Cohen's take that if we only had "grounded Assad's helicopters." Armchair generaling aside, this article was more about Obama's qualities as a world leader than strategy or tactics. He's more Chamberlain than he is Churchill.

And of all the world leaders during that crisis, Churchill was above them all.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I'm not sure.

The article doesn't state that the Us would have lost if Obama had been President of the US instead of Roosevelt, it states that the UK would probably have lost if Obama had been Prime Minister instead of Churchill and I think it is true. Amond the Allies the great leader was not Roosevelt, it was Churchill. It was Churchill (and others, but mostly Churchill) who gave british army, Air Forcve and Navy the courage to resist to the germans to fight, depite being outnumbered and outgunned. Without Churchill, the UK would have fallen into the hands of the enemy. And if the UK had fallen, there would have been very very few chances to beat the nazi.

The article half ass touches on the sentiment which led to my broad interpretation. Be that as it may, the fact that Hitler opened a second front in the East before subduing The UK was really the fatal blunder of Nazi aggression.
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
I did a seance to contact the ghost of Neville Chamberlain the other day. He showed up and called Obama a pussy.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Horseshit. It was only by the Grace of God that Roosevelt/Truman, Churchill, and Stalin won World War II and was more due to the tactical errors and blunders made by Hitler than any other single reason. That's a fucking fact and anyone that denies it is fucking ignorant of history. That being said, had Obama or even George W. Bush (shudder the motherfucking thought) been president during WWII, we STILL would have won by the almighty Grace of God. Fuck the guy that wrote that horseshit.

I can't disagree with this, but I would just also point out that, WWII was a HUGELY agreed upon event, by all concerned....nobama is in a much different situation now, some was handed to him, and some he initiated....but I can't see him having the respect for the country, or what it faced, in the past, and at that critical time in it's history, and therefore can't see him doing anything else but screwing it up.
 
If only Obama would...view Putin like he does the Republicans.

Since when does Obama embrace Putin? It's republicans who are falling all over themselves in praise of that pathological piece of shit.
At least Obama instituted some heavy sanctions against Russia, something Bush did not do when Putin invaded Georgia.

This article was more about Obama's qualities as a world leader than strategy or tactics. He's more Chamberlain than he is Churchill.

That certainly doesn't jibe with the hawkish campaign promise he made (and kept) to significantly escalate the war in Afghanistan, and to capture or kill Bin Laden - even if he was in Pakistan and even without co-ordination with the Pakistani government (a risk McCain definitively stated he would not have taken).
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I did a seance to contact the ghost of Neville Chamberlain the other day. He showed up and called Obama a pussy.

Why is it always that Obama, or any other Democrat for that matter, is a pussy? I suppose the logic is that all Democrats are pussies, and conversely all Republicans are super tough, though history hardly bears that out. Always with the personal attacks, never focus on substance. Sad, really, but effective propaganda by the right-wing media. Fundamental disagreements shouldn't escalate to blind hatred, and really it's a matter of finances, and petty social issues that really have no place outside the doors of your local house of worship. Perfect example, Republicans "stand with Israel", even though they have universal healthcare that includes coverage for abortion and some of the most liberal abortion policies in the world. Nice job, Republicans.

I can't disagree with this, but I would just also point out that, WWII was a HUGELY agreed upon event, by all concerned....nobama is in a much different situation now, some was handed to him, and some he initiated....but I can't see him having the respect for the country, or what it faced, in the past, and at that critical time in it's history, and therefore can't see him doing anything else but screwing it up.

My hypothetical assumes Obama was in the same situation as Churchill, Roosevelt, etc., in the same times with the same support of the nation. I don't see how anyone could have screwed it up, because as you said the objective was clearly defined and the pieces already in place. I'm not taking anything away from Churchill or Roosevelt in regards to their rhetorical bonafides, or the passion with which Churchill in particular was able to rally his countrymen, as a matter of fact my contention is that in those same circumstances Obama certainly has the skill set to rise to the occasion. A better question would be how well Churchill, Roosevelt, et. al, would successfully perform the same function in these times and circumstances. Whose to say, it would be meaningless conjecture, but it's a fair question in light of the assertions made in the article in the OP.
 
I did a seance to contact the ghost of Neville Chamberlain the other day. He showed up and called Obama a pussy.
I did a seance to contact the ghost of Adolf Hitler. He said Trump was going too far
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
My hypothetical assumes Obama was in the same situation as Churchill, Roosevelt, etc., in the same times with the same support of the nation. I don't see how anyone could have screwed it up, because as you said the objective was clearly defined and the pieces already in place. I'm not taking anything away from Churchill or Roosevelt in regards to their rhetorical bonafides, or the passion with which Churchill in particular was able to rally his countrymen, as a matter of fact my contention is that in those same circumstances Obama certainly has the skill set to rise to the occasion. A better question would be how well Churchill, Roosevelt, et. al, would successfully perform the same function in these times and circumstances. Whose to say, it would be meaningless conjecture, but it's a fair question in light of the assertions made in the article in the OP.

That depends. Are they bound by the pathetic political correctness that has crippled nearly everything in this country? Do they get to wage war, the way they waged war back then, or do the lawyers get to pick them, as they do in these sadly ineffective, and overly lengthy wars we get to have today?
 
Top