What Obama Says Is His 'Worst Mistake' as President
Source: ABC News
In his final year in office, President Obama has spent a significant amount of time emphasizing what he sees as his long list of accomplishments since 2008, but in an interview today he also admitted what he considers to be his "worst mistake."
"Probably failing to plan for, the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya," Obama said an interview with "Fox News Sunday."
The 2011 U.S.-backed intervention that helped topple Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi wound up thrusting the country into turmoil that has only spiraled downward since.
Both Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continue to argue that it wasn't the removal of Gaddafi that caused the chaos, but rather the failure to prop up a stable government in the days following. An ISIS affiliate has since gained a foothold in the country, and the U.S. has carried out airstrikes against "ISIS camps" as recently as February....
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-worst-mistake-president/story?id=38289813
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)As we now know, Hillary talked him into it.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)who Obama detested. Hillry loyal to the prez? I don't bloody think so.
Nitram
(22,802 posts)And Obama is big enough to make a decision with or without the advice of otherwise. The twisting you do to blame Hillary for everything would be the envy of a pretzel maker.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)Nitram
(22,802 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Whether he should have overruled it or not is not the point. He's not running this time. She is. Her bad recommendation is the point. Once again, her judgment on an important Middle Eastern issue was rubbish.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)to her failed judgement leading to a greater string of problems.
Her experience and judgement is not the kind we need.
Zambero
(8,964 posts)Well, safe to say that Dick Cheney indeed made "Dubya's" decisions for him. Obama on the other hand is far too intelligent and analytical to blindly accept advice without considering other options and consequences. That is not to say that the outcome of any decision is guaranteed as envisioned. The President spoke the truth. Hillary encouraged it, as did others including NATO allies. Obama, on the other hand, owns it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Not because we wanted to meddle in things which were none of our business and outside any expertise we had, no, not that.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I think if we go in and destroy a nation's government like we did in Libya, it certainly is a huge mistake to not consider what comes next.
Bernie would not have allowed such a thing to happen. Clinton started it. The choice is clear, Mr. Obama, on who is the best to fix your mistakes.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Which is what I disagree with, we should have stayed out, not bombed it into chaos. Getting some asshole, even Gaddafi, is not justification for sending a nation into chaos, and personal vendettas never have a place in international affairs. You can send a guy to the the ICC, sure, glad to, but not at the cost of yet more lives you're supposed to be "helping".
That's my beef with our policy in Iraq (get Saddam) and Syria (get Assad) and our former policy in Iran (get Ahmadinijad). We got bin Laden. We got a shitload of #2s. We wanna get Putin and socialists in Latin America and jihadis in Africa, and it just goes on.
Mullah Omar never quite got up to that level of attention though.
So having got all of those people, now what have you got? Jack Shit, that's what. Less than Jack Shit. And no amount of planning is going to put Humpty Dumpty together again. That is the outcome.
So what is the chance that more of the same will somehow produce a better outcome? Where are the vibrant budding democracies resulting from our magnanimous efforts?
But I think Obama is not that engaged with it, he is just saying what he's agreed to say here. It's faint praise and faint damnation too.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Same again as Iraq. Obama proved he could order cities destroyed but he didn't think it through. Well, at least the public uprising stopped him from invading Syria, even though H's itchy finger trigger almost convinced him.
10 years from now, when Obama looks back and sees how we all forgot about him, he's gonna rightly blame H for his foreign failures. He's almost there now.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I am reluctant to think I know what goes on in Obama's brain, so to that extent I'm not going to agree with you.
But I thought it was quite clear in the Goldberg interview that he has a very jaundiced view of the DC playbook as he calls it.
But he has been typically minimalist about it, too.
I can think up all sorts of theories about why that is so, but none of them really compel me.
But I have thought such thoughts as you myself, and I think about it when I watch what he does, so ...
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The way it looks now he will be forgotten. His base has pretty much written him off and his largest legacy may be the trade deal he is pushing.
We are still in Afghanistan, going back into Iraq, the ME is still FUBAR, 9/11 is still a freaking mess of WTF?, banksters still in control, race problems with justice persist, and health care has a mere bandage.
Nothing much has changed in the last 8 years and there was so much hope for change.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And he's likely to be around for a long time.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)in Iraq?
How the heck did he forget about that?
thereismore
(13,326 posts)have known better.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)He has said several times "the buck stops with me"
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)Or appointing HRC and allowing her to take us into more disastrous wars. Take your pick they're all horrendous in their own ways.
swilton
(5,069 posts)bailing out Wall Street but not Main Street should be added, and in general, allowing the Republican Party to rebrand after 2009.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)FACTA
FBAR
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)His cabinet and adviser picks really set the stage for all the future bad decisions.
The day I heard of his cabinet (Summers, Geitner, Emanual) was when I *really* knew
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)WTF is what first came to mind!
My personal irk is that Obama seemingly NEVER found a pair of "comfortable shoes".
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)2cannan
(344 posts)From Was the First Obama Election Fixed? New Book Raises Suspicions
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/03/was-the-first-obama-election-fixed-new-book-raises-suspicions/
snip
So what youre getting in Fixers is a spellbinding analysis of the actual dirty deals that toppled Wall Street in 2008 with a new twist a fictitious character who says he laundered $75 million into the Democratic presidential campaign of Hillary Clintons primary challenger in 2007 in exchange for three names on an index card. Those three names had to become the hope and change Presidents chief economic advisor, Treasury Secretary, and head of the criminal division of the Justice Department. These three key posts were to keep piles of bailout money flowing to Wall Street while simultaneously making sure no Wall Street executives were prosecuted for the crimes that brought on the crash.
The primary challenger to Hillary Clinton and the man who beats her and goes on to become President is called simply OG in the book. (OMG would have worked for me.)
The details in the book surrounding the three names on the index card seem to be channeling Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and Lanny Breuer, who took the respective posts of chief economic advisor, Treasury Secretary and head of the Justice Departments criminal division in the first Obama administration and, indeed, sluiced trillions to Wall Street while the Justice Department failed to prosecute, saying it was worried about collateral damage, such as triggering bank layoffs. (Like the collapse of the U.S. economy from untamed financial corruption is not collateral damage.)
Locrian
(4,522 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)PatV
(71 posts)and the private prison industry (as an inmate or worker) just didn't cut it. We ended up with a nation existing on low paying service jobs like flipping burgers.
Obama was a ringer. He lied his way through two campaigns shamelessly. And we were so desperate we believe him.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)the people weren't given much choice in the matter.
McCain/Palin ... or Obama
Rmoney/Ryan...or Obama...
More blackmail from our owners.
Now it's gonna be:
Another idiot from Reeperville.... or Clinton(that's what 'they' want)
Already voted 4 Bernie...Let's go New York!!!!!
Califonz
(465 posts)Benghazi was in 2012, so maybe she can be president in 2037 ???
diane in sf
(3,913 posts)or any Democrat.
Paladin
(28,261 posts)3catwoman3
(23,993 posts)Because he is reasonable, mature, and intelligent, he expected the same of others.
Fuck Mitch McConnell and the whole lot of them.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,256 posts)Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)the TPP.
Obama and Republicans will get that bullshit passed by wrangling just a handful of Dems to help.
TeamPooka
(24,227 posts)rpannier
(24,329 posts)That he continued to believe it for so long when it was obvious to almost everyone else baffled
PatV
(71 posts)everything they wanted.
Now he's 'fixing' the banking industry. It'll probably be as effective as all his actions against Wall Street during his first term.
Democat
(11,617 posts)He wasted years trying to work with Republicans while they were just trying to run out the clock on his presidency.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)at how DU seems to think murderous barbaric psychopathic tyrants is a better option than anything else!
Self-determination is one of our core democratic values. We had a bloody civil war when we didn't get it right at the start, and had brutal slavery embedded in our constitution - shouldn't we give the Middle East a chance to get it right? That sounds like a good 'day after'!
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Are you glad we ruined our national reputation by invading Iraq illegally, destabilizing the entire region and creating ISIS?
You spent any time in the service? Why should our boys and girls be fighting and dying for what Iraqi and Libyan boys and girls ought to be fighting and dying for? If you recall, we didn't want any foreign intervention during our civil war. Now we think we have the right to go in and set up a government for anybody we don't like. Well, ya' know what? Anything we set up just disappears the minute we leave.
BEEN THERE....DONE THAT!
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I served in the '70's, my son is a disabled vet, my father was a Korean War veteran.
Hillary and Obama salvaged our reputation. I am not going to point out the repetitive facts regarding our present status in Iraq and Libya - you seem to have your own satisfying 'facts' regarding this.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Self-determination also means we don't take out dictators we don't like.
That would be up to the people of the country with the dictator, no?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I haven't seen the people rise up in support of these dictators.
Hussein and Qaddafi were not executed by us. Mubarak was put on trial.
Anyone think Assad is real popular - or just a murderous thug who would kill anyone to keep his grip on some kind of power - rather than end up like Hussein and Qaddafi?
rpannier
(24,329 posts)toppling Saddam Hussein was a good thing?
And Ghaddafi?
And trying to topple Assad?
Because having ISIL in Iraq-Syria, Libya, etc is such a good thing
The girls that were kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria are just what exactly?
The codifying of women wearing covering in what used to be Libya - now a disaster state is preferable how exactly?
The ethnic cleansing and murdering of various religious and ethnic groups in Iraq was good or preferable?
I guess these are preferable to what was there before or something like that?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Hussein, Qaddafi, Assad - all better than freedom to choose their own path?
Terrorists and criminal gang elements are something we can help with. This is a new Middle East, finding its own way.
It's a shame you can't recognize the evil villainy of murderous despots who actually killed many, many more than we have. Hussein at least a million.
Somehow Hillary is at this level?
You have zero credibility for me.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)Okay. That's fine
I could point out that I have a Masters in International Relations. I could point out that my field was North African Affairs; though now I work on east Asian affairs. But that likely means zip to you, so I'll let that pass with only a mention
The humor (dark humor I'll admit) of your statement is that it contains no attempt to address the issues that have come up as a result of the destabilization in North Africa and the Middle East.
No mention of Boko Haram or ISIS except we can deal with this
We created a mess that has resulted in over half a million people being killed, millions forced to flee for their lives, millions overwhelming Europe and so on
There is more to this than terrorists and criminal gangs.
And not everything is a criminal gang or a terrorist (see below)
We have yet to really show we have a game plan beyond regime change and a belief somehow that this will all work out because we're such good people and have good intentions
And how long and how much money are we going to spend trying to 'fix' this situation?
Ask people in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, etc how well most of this is working out for them. Ask the refugees.
In defense of Ms Clinton, from every report I've seen, she did make an effort to try and get money and logistical help after the fall of Ghadafi, but there was little interest from much of the administration to get further involved
There's almost no way to anticipate the abdication of responsibility by both the French and the British that occurred -- largely because of national political issues they scaled back (likely in fear of something bad happening)
So, 'No' I'm not blaming her. There was an understanding among allies (UK, France and US) that the Brits and French would take the lead. It didn't happen.
But, I will note, that she did seem to oppose the Arab Spring Movement in Egypt. She made statements in support of Mubarak. Something that kind of contradicts your statement about her belief in self-determination.
There is also zero evidence of her doing anything to support movements for self-determination in Bahrain or anywhere in the Gulf States.
Curious, did you/do you support the Invasion of Iraq?
What about the ousting of Mubarak? Do you support Al-Sisi, the strongman who rules Egypt, with our support, more ruthlessly than Mubarak did?
How do you feel about what happened in Bahrain?
On the record, I supported ousting Hussein. Not so much for him, but because the legacy that were his sons made the situation untenable. I did not support the invasion because everything I read had suggested that they didn't really seem to have a game plan beyond ousting him.
I opposed Libya for two reasons; 1. There seemed to be an interest on the part of everyone on regime change and that was it. The opposition was fragmented and it didn't seem to have any day after thoughts. 2. The history of Libya suggested there would be serious problems when he was gone. -- though in fairness, this was a rather weak argument given that history began at 1968 and worked backwards. 30 years is a really long time and a lot of change has happened.
Obama is correct in his assessment on Libya. But, that's more the fault of the British and French because they wanted the lead in it. They said they would handle it.
Which was fine. But you break it, you own it. They didn't.
As to Syria, I don't support regime change because the region is such a fricking mess before everything started. The opposition is a fragmented group and I don't trust the Saudis who seem all hell bent on forcing out every non-Sunni government/organization in the region.
(below)
I would also add on the issue of terrorism, that it's a more complicated situation with ISIL then they are terrorists - because they are not using terror 'just because'.
The best read on that comes from Graeme Wood
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1014&pid=1410187
I'd explain, but I prefer to let others read for themselves.
It is a good read on what makes ISIL tick
Not saying it strengthens my position or weakens yours. It's just a pretty good read and I think you'll enjoy reading it (for the information)
My original post may have seemed dismissive and overly antagonistic to your position
I apologize for that -- because it probably was and that's not right
This post may have come across that way as well -- I did reread and try and remove a few less pleasant or seemingly 'Thou art beneath me.' lines because it's not my intention to demean or ridicule your position
I think I do take a fairly nuanced position on these things and I believe you probably do as well.
These kinds of disagreements are more difficult on a computer than say, in a bar or restaurant because they involve typing and no way to get a good back and forth
Have a nice day or evening
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Also? Using "self-determination" as an excuse for heavy-handed interventionism is fucking dumb.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You know Bush has been out of office for a long time now.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It's the DU comments I find repulsive.
The argument continues to be we would be so much better off if murderous barbarians were in charge - you know, like back in September 2001.
And most everyone understands the jihadist movement that originated with the toppling of the US puppet Shah of Iran, and the Mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan - this is the source of ISIL, not Hillary!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)First off, the toppling f the Shah and the Mujahadeen movement in Afghanistan have pretty much nothing to do with each other, except in the sense that the US was involved (Some of that heavy-handed interventionism I was mentioning to you.) Even that connection is circumstantial.
While there is some outgrowth of the Mujahadeen movement into the rest of the middle east, the majority of it is homegrown, and the connections are mostly "common cause' - sort of like international communism, it's a bunch of people looking to some of the same heroes for a variety of often very divergent, eminently local reasons.
Daesh exists as it does in Syria and Iraq as a direct consequence of the Iraq War. A war that Hillary clinton not only voted for, but heavily advocated, and supported for over a decade. No, she is not the only one with that on her shoulders, but none of them are running for president. Last time one of them did, it likely cost him the election.
Daesh also now has a solid foothold in Libya because the United States, under advisement from the clinton-led state department, engaged in a plan to destroy the nation's leadership and military, then abandon it to its own devices. That is directly the responsibility of Secretary clinton and President Obama - her for pushing it, him for accepting it.
It is our heavy-handed interventionism in both nations that created the current situations in both, and Hillary Clinton was a feature of both of those decisions.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)I remember several news stories of American business leaders leaving Iraq ahead of the first war with Iraq in 1990, saying that Saddam's own people were planning a coup. It could not be carried out due to the crippling sanctions against the Iraqi people during the Clinton Administration.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)where did you find that -- the thirdway dictionary?
Reter
(2,188 posts)ISIS is far worse.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Keep telling me how bad ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, and Hillary are.
Iran/Iraq War
http://www.history.com/topics/iran-iraq-war
Hussein gasses the Kurds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
Lockerbie bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
September 11 attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Was he weird? Yes.
Did he drop acid? Yes.
Was he building armies to attack his neighbors? No.
Did he threaten US allies? No.
Did he have a huge pot of gold? Yes.
Did he have a huger collection of black gold? Yes.
Was he starting a ME currency exchange for oil bonds and trading that did not involve the dollar? Yes.
Was the whole purpose to fuck him over, destroy a functioning peaceful country that had decent and fair control over several potentially violent sects (who hated and opposed each other?) Yes.
Read some history. It might help with your understanding.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I'm remembering.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Get your head out of cable or local news. Read international sources, especially Europe's where their idea of free press is actually (wait for it) Free.
It is not your fault. If you were forced to listen to Rush and Sean, or Billo and Ann every day as your only source, you would be sounding just like you do. Have you ever traveled to the middle east? Europe? Asia? Africa? I have, and i must tell you. the truth on the ground is way different than what we are fed here. Our news is so insular, so self-aggrandizing, so myopic and so controlled by 6 corporations, I am shocked that there are not more people like you. Good at heart, bus misinformed.
Xolodno
(6,395 posts)Europe wanted us to foot the bill again for their mess.
Don't remember where, but read that a number of European leaders have come to their senses and realized, they can't give token assistance and expect the US to whip out its check book and write in blood anymore to fix a mess left over from European Colonialism.
There are bigger shit storms brewing in South-East Asia and its time Europe got their act together.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)We created a huge problem where there was none.
We prepared the ground for ISIL and other violent groups where there used to be a functioning, stable government.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Umbral18
(105 posts)Failure to R̶e̶p̶u̶b̶l̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ Idiot proof your signature legislation even though the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Then they let 9/11 happen
Then they rigged the next elections with voting machines
Then they invaded Iraq
Then they crashed the economy
I kinda sorta expected Obama to see through the republican fog. Alas, he got lost in the fog.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)in my view was not holding the people in the Bush administration accountable for torture and then compounding that mistake by using drones to go after American citizens with no due process. Letting the banksters get away with their crimes was a real doozy too.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)later: "why did THEY make me do that?!"
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)callous taoboy
(4,585 posts)NCLB, Arne, RTTT. All utter bullshit that has decimated the climate of education and fattened the wallets of the test makers / scorers.
A travesty.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)That was a doozy.
Aristus
(66,377 posts)President Obama is a stand-up guy...
Skittles
(153,160 posts)letting BUSH INC off the hook
PWPippin
(213 posts). . . as his worst mistake. We so often hear he's playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. What's his strategy here? Admitting this will have an effect on his legacy. Admitting this could be used against Hillary since it is known she convinced him, against many other advisors, to intervene. Does he hope his taking ultimate responsibility, as he must, will absolve her somehow? There are so many other issues, as stated above, that he could have pointed to. I didn't hear the interview and wonder did he offer this bit of soul baring or was he asked? Just really curious.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)... who probably convinced him that decapitating Libya was the right thing to do.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
That certain people would make sure that Libya became a model democracy.
Not understanding that was NEVER their plan for Libya.
fbc
(1,668 posts)It lead to majorities for the republicans in both houses and complete obstruction of his agenda.
He actually endorsed her last week in her reelection run.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)Is A Hell Of Alot More Significant Than A Domestic Political Party Appointment
moondust
(19,984 posts)Appointed by PBO in 2009.
Because of the importance of the 2010 midterms in setting the stage for redistricting/gerrymandering, somebody's hair should have been on fire at the DNC working to GOTV. I don't remember hearing a peep out of them.
Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)his support for TPP and chained CPI for social security should be on the list. These really disappointed me.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)TPP?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)That doesn't even make the top ten.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The carnage of the attacks itself, the tremendous scale of the human misery that followed, and its role in the destabilization of Africa (e.g. unrest in Mali and the coup in Birkina Faso) easily place it in the top ten.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)But much of what you assert would probably have occurred in some sense anyway. The region is very unstable and it is difficult to connect action with result.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Democat
(11,617 posts)Go back to the Primaries forum and trash the Democratic Party if you must.
This is a thread about Obama, no Hillary or Bernie bullshit.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Nitram
(22,802 posts)I'm sure many do.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Nitram
(22,802 posts)No one is stopping you.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)responsible for planning foreign affairs.
I suppose, now that the country is run by mega-wealthy corporation owners, the country is being run like a corporation. Screw up and move up. That's how people like Carly Fiorina end up as CEOs. So the Sec. of State who screwed up Libya is getting promoted to chief executive. Just great. As long as the owners get richer, the promotions will keep coming.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)Zambero
(8,964 posts)Make Obama a one-term president, whatever the cost. That Obama was able to avert a hoped-for monumental train wreck in the face of unprecedented obstructionism could possibly be the hallmark to his legacy.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Continuing Bush's legacy.
Failure to jail any Wall Street criminals. A few on my list.
What Obama and his team did in past years in some countries is really good to say that many of them are Obama's mistakes.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x43wvh1