The Economist’s latest cover features President Barack Obama in a air force flight suit with the headline “Mission relaunched” — a clear reference to the time President George W. Bush declared on an air craft carrier in a flight suit that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.
The accompanying story to the cover argues that Obama’s moves to fight the fighter of the Islamic State have been a “test that he has been failing until now.”
“A president who has always seen his main mission as nation-building at home is now using military force in six countries — Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia,” the piece said.
Then The Economist moves toward over all American foreign policy through Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished” speech.
“Its rise has also reflected American policy,” The Economist said. “First, the poorly thought-out intervention of George W. Bush, typified by the rash ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner that greeted him on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 after his invasion of Iraq.”
The piece does not simply criticize Obama. It praises Obama for getting “the diplomacy right” on fighting ISIL. But then concludes that there’s still more Obama could be doing.
See the full cover below:
Every dying media rag can utilize ObamaCare. The comparison was just as moronic as the recent piece on slavery by the Economist, sinking in the Atlantic. Obama is a tool for whatever ails you.
I’m having a hard time with the comparison. W said “Mission Accomplished.” PO said the mission has just begun and recognizes the complexities.
I may not think this is the best idea in the world but the Economist has drawn a very thin analogy.
“then concludes that there’s still more Obama could be doing.”
I’d bet my left nut that it doesn’t then say anything detailed about WHAT constitutes “more”. But no, I’m not going to read it…The Economist has become trash, just like the rest of the industry formerly known as journalism.
Funny cuz it’s true.
(see frame 5)
I find it to be worse than a “very thin analogy.” It is the Economist’s attempt to be edgy by assigning George Bush’s props and simplistic slogan to this President - who never said or did anything similar. I am okay with questioning policy, but this is just a cheap attempt to get noticed.