Certainly that appears to be your only point. Do you similarly nullify all after the fact criticism?
Not at all. I only question those who claim that what was obvious after the fact was obvious before
the fact. In those cases, one's credibility would be greatly enhanced by some evidence that the after-the-fact claim is consistent with the before-the-fact analysis. In your case, however, I just don't see that.
I don't think my prescience (whether real or imagined) on this issue has ever been my point here. Rather the question is, given all the facts as they could be discerned before the event, was this the right moment for a U.S. president to take a highly visible action on this matter that none of his predecessors have ever done. Was the net result, considering all related factors and other issues competing for his time and energy, likely to be good or bad? This is the sort of judgement that political and other leaders must make repeatedly, and it is the standard by which others judge them.
I have no quarrel with that, although the point that no other president had ever made such an in-person appeal to the IOC needs to be taken in context. No other national leader had made such a personal appeal before the 2005 vote on the 2012 Olympics, so the precedent is less than five years old. GWB didn't fly to Singapore to support NYC's bid for the 2012 games, but then few people anticipated that Tony Blair would show up in person to push for London's bid. Because Blair was successful, however, it has now become standard procedure for national leaders to attend.
In any event, I agree that Obama should be judged on the criteria that you set forth, but that judgment should be based on what he knew then
, not on what we know now
You appear to be both evading this question yourself and implying that I am incapable of making a reasonably objective judgement about the matter. Hardly a reasonable position, and I am surprised that you take it.
I'm not evading the question. How could I be? Nobody asked me the question.