Page 3 of 69 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1030
  1. #31
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enmore View Post
    The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is up for election next year and he's pretty unpopular at the moment.

    Yeah, you guessed the rest.
    Well, he gets the strangest political endorsements....



    Stock photo, of course.

  2. #32
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    ^^^ In all fairness ole Q-Daffy was able to "tickle fingers" with a lot of leaders after he committed to end his nuke program and get rid of his mustard gas stockpiles.

    In related news.. the MSM is still spinnin their best yarn for P-Turtle.

    The empty-office presidency

    My new column for The Week focuses on the, er, unique handling of the launch of a new war by Barack Obama. Before we get to my take on Obama’s absence on a South American tour during the start of hostilities against Libya, though, let’s first get Dana Milbank’s take on what he casts as Obama’s tactical error. Ducking out of town while the bombs started falling, Milbank writes, allowed Republicans to paint Obama as weak:

    But the “weak leader” charge gained traction over the weekend, as Obama chose to launch the attack on Gaddafi’s forces while on an excellent adventure in South America with his family.

    At about the moment the Tomahawk missiles began to rain down on Libya, Obama was joking with Brazilians about Carnival, the World Cup and the Olympics. Rather than hearing an Oval Office address announcing the new war, Americans got word from the president in a scratchy audio recording. As thousand-pound warheads pounded Libyan forces, Obama was kicking a soccer ball, seeing the sights and watching cowboys in sequins.

    It was perilously close to George W. Bush’s My-Pet-Goat moment, when then-President Bush continued reading a storybook with children on Sept. 11, 2001, after he was told that the second World Trade Center tower had been hit. Bush later said he was trying to maintain calm; likewise, White House officials tell me the decision to proceed with the South America trip was made in part to convey that the Libya bombardment was not a major military action.

    Obama administration officials calculated that he would take a hit for proceeding with the voyage. But they appear to have been surprised by the force of the weakling complaint, coming not just from usual suspects such as Karl Rove but from liberals such as my Post colleague Richard Cohen, who saw Obama “quite literally distancing himself from the consequences of his own policy.”
    Sorry, Dana, but this isn’t comparable to Bush’s My Pet Goat moment. For one thing, Bush may have waited a few minutes to finish up with the kids, but he didn’t absent himself from the response for four entire days. Bush didn’t leave the country to finish reading the book to the kids, either. Second, the 9/11 attack came as a surprise to Bush, while Obama launched this war himself and left the country knowing full well it would take place in his absence.

    Let’s talk about that decision for a moment, too. The White House wants to argue that the trip had been planned for months, and that they deliberately chose not to reschedule it as a show of strength. Milbank buys into that, too:

    Since his earliest days on the campaign trail in Iowa, he has made clear his aversion to the flavor-of-the-day news cycle, instead measuring his progress toward a few broad-brush goals, such as American competitiveness and America’s standing in the world. If something — like, say, the uprisings in the Middle East — doesn’t fit unambiguously within his big goals, his instinct is to brush it off.

    “I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle,” he told reporters once. “I’m not. Okay?”
    The problem for Milbank and the White House is that they have already established a precedent on postponing previously-scheduled trips when emergent situations occur, as I point out in my column:

    Obama had scheduled his tour of Latin America months earlier, but the same was true of his trip to Indonesia in 2010. That trip got postponed twice as domestic politics intruded on the president’s schedule. First, Obama pushed the date from March 2010 to June 2010 in order to push his health care reform bill to final passage. In June, he postponed the trip again, this time to take more control of the Gulf oil spill. It’s hard to argue that ObamaCare ranked as a higher priority than going to war, and yet Obama refused to delay his trip to Rio de Janeiro, where photo ops depicted him playing soccer in the street and watching children dance in the first two days of his war.
    Recall that the trip to Indonesia wasn’t just your typical foreign junket, either. Obama had insisted that only a man of the world such as he could heal the breach between the West and the Muslim world, and he pledged to leverage his unique life story to bridge that gap. The speech in Cairo was part of that strategy, as was the trip to the most populous Muslim nation — Indonesia. It carried considerably more weight for Obama’s global strategy than a trade tour of South America. Yet Obama postponed that trip twice, with one postponement occurring so that he could flack ObamaCare a little more to get Congress to pass it.

    That’s an interesting set of priorities. Obama refused to leave the country when ObamaCare was at risk, but refused to postpone a trip while putting the US military in harm’s way in Libya for the first time.

    Note too that Obama wasn’t the only one out of the country, either:

    And where was the defense secretary at this time? The second in civilian command of the military also left town on the 20th. Gates was scheduled to leave on the 19th, but he waited a day to “keep tabs” on the military action in Libya. Did he fly to consult with a member of the military coalition imposing the no-fly zone to coordinate efforts, as Obama announced two days earlier? Not exactly; Gates flew to Russia, which had to be talked out of vetoing U.N. Resolution 1973.
    Once again, let’s remember the stink that arose when Chris Christie and his lieutenant governor Kim Guadagno both left New Jersey for vacations at the end of last year and a freak snowstorm locked up the Garden State. Liberals screamed about the dereliction of duty in having both executives out of state when an emergency arose. Now we have the two men in civilian command of the military out of the country when starting a new war.

    My column concludes that most presidents would have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate leadership at this moment. Obama preferred to play soccer in the streets and do a samba chair dance instead.

    Update: I fixed the link to, er, my own column. Yikes.

    The reoccurring theme in the MSM and regurgitated here in TLR is that we are simply trying to make P-Turtle "look bad". As opposed to the reality that he is a sh*tty leader based on his record of fecklessness and complete forfeit of leadership on every issue. It's not "bad optics" or the "vast right wing conspiracy/Tea party" that's making this twit look bad... he's done that all on his own. But as is the case with everything else libberals fail at.. personal accountability ranks pretty low and it's gotta be someone elses fault. The buck stops over there somewhere====>>>
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #33
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    ^^^

    I want to know where our national address is. For the last 100 years, US Presidents have always addressed the nation before sending troops to war (Reagan - Grenada, Bush 41 - Panama, Clinton - Kosovo, etc.)

    Obama is NOT addressing the nation because A) He doesn't want to be seen as this warmongering president. God forbid he looks bad for 2012. B) I don't think Obama knows what our goal is there. Forget an "exit strategy" or "endgame". What's our goal? Protect the civilians? Okay. Uphold the UN mandate? Fine. What do we do if the fighting lasts 10 years there? What if the rebels kill Q-daffy tomorrow? Will we help them set up a new government? We know the rebels have been endorsed by al-Qaeda - what if they're Islamic extremists?

    The Obama White House is trying to fight a war without looking like they're fighting a war. You can criticize Bush for the way Iraq and Afghanistan was handled, but at least he never managed the war by looking at the latest public opinion polls.

    Let's face it. President "Present", the Community Organizer-in-chief, the guy who never ran anything bigger than a US Senate office, is in way over his head.

  4. #34
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    ^^^ The whole middle East is in Chaos and I wonder what time tee off is?

  5. #35
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,979

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    Well, he gets the strangest political endorsements....



    Stock photo, of course.
    He sure did have a lot of friends until recently.


  6. #36
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,979

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    BREAKING NEWS: Obama has dispatched America's latest carrier to the Med:




  7. #37
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,506

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enmore View Post
    BREAKING NEWS: Obama has dispatched America's latest carrier to the Med:



    Hmm, this might actually work. Send BO over to any problem countries on this ship and have him wine and dine their leaders until 2012. It probably would've worked for Qadhafi, and it would almost certainly work for Chavez.
    “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

    ― George Orwell, 1984

  8. #38
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    According to this sock puppet Milbank. P-Turtle's foreign policy is sooo cleaver.. not even P-Turtle knows what it is.

    So what exactly is the Obama Doctrine?

    Everybody knew what the Bush doctrine was…Obama, by contrast, has been so subtle in his doctrine that he’s baffling Americans.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #39
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    According to this sock puppet Milbank. P-Turtle's foreign policy is sooo cleaver.. not even P-Turtle knows what it is.

    So what exactly is the Obama Doctrine?



    I thought during the election Obama promised that the "Obama Doctrine" would be that they would talk to all these people and fix problems with diplomacy...

    I guess guys like Q-Daffy don't like talking.

  10. #40
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    ^^^ Oh ya.. that "genius" carrots-n-sticks policy. Yielded utterly predictable results.

    A game of Clue: The Obama Doctrine and Libya

    President Obama seemed, in his speech on Libya Monday night, to have to back himself by process of elimination into the one particular solution he has chosen. He accomplished this through navigating between a series of arguments against implied strawmen, and a set of positive statements. The reasoning seems to have gone something like this:

    We Americans don’t want to regime-change evil dictators, because that’s not the kind of exceptional nation we are. (Strawman argument) We are an exceptional nation, of course. (Positive statement) Our exceptionalness drives us to protect innocent civilians from harm. (Positive statement) But our exceptionalness can’t be acted on at our discretion (strawman argument); it must be given the cover of an international coalition of unexceptional nations (positive statement). Nor is it allowable for our exceptionalness to put us in a leadership role (strawman argument); we must participate as just one nation among many (positive statement).

    Military force, meanwhile, is not the right way to persuade a brutal dictator to depart his office. (Strawman argument) Military force is appropriate for the purpose of preventing harm to civilians. (Positive statement) When we are using military force against a dictator, therefore, we are not trying to regime-change him (strawman argument); we are merely trying to protect civilians (positive statement).

    As for the principle of protecting civilians, it is effectively contingent. Obama’s outline of the brief against Qaddafi was perhaps the most interesting part of the speech, in that it seemed to qualify and quantify what constitutes an actionable threat to civilians. Other autocrats elsewhere may be killing their defenseless civilians, but none of them is the solution to the Clue: The Air Strike Version conundrum.

    – The mullahs in Iran may have been beating their people to death and imprisoning and torturing them, but they haven’t been bombing them from the air.

    – Assad in Syria may be shooting his people in the street, but he isn’t firing on them with main battle tanks.

    – The emir of Bahrain may have deployed tanks against his people, but he hasn’t killed 1000 of them in a day.

    – Yemen’s old dictator may be engaged in an armored-force duel with his opposition in the streets of the nation’s capital, but he’s in Yemen, and the stand-off there isn’t a countrywide civil war in which a rebel-held city the size of Benghazi is about to fall to Saleh’s forces.


    Adducing all these very specific clues, Obama at length comes up with the winning solution: “Muammar Qaddafi, in Libya, in March 2011.”

    A key problem with this quasi-Socratic approach to policy discovery is that it does come off so much like a game (or a seminar exercise). That in itself sends an unfortunate signal. But Obama’s earnest, comprehensively explanatory polemic last night created another, very specific one. If Obama wants Qaddafi out – as he said he did in the speech – then by any sensible analysis, the one audience that ought to be convinced of the coalition’s threat to the Qaddafi regime is Qaddafi. Why make the point to him that it would be wrong for the force being used against him to dislodge him from power? – and that the force in question is most certainly not intended to?

    Perhaps, in the end, because Obama rarely makes any kind of positive, declaratory policy statement about foreign affairs or national security. He gives explanations, and constructs arguments against whole brigades of strawmen. He identifies pretty clearly which of the world’s conditions he will routinely decry. We have a fair idea what he’s against. But as far as we know, in the realm of foreign policy, there is hardly anything he’s so much in favor of that he would adjust his freshman-seminar rhetoric to effectively promote it – or to avoid undermining its prospects.

    J.E. Dyer blogs at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions” and as The Optimistic Conservative. She writes a weekly column for Patheos.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #41
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    P-Turtle is finding out gubbernin' is a lot harder than posting snippits of "wisdom" over at KOS.

    Obama 2005 Flashback: Bush Foreign Policy Is Dumb & Only Rewards Halliburton and Homophobia

    As we watch the far left this week squirm to defend President Obama’s embrace of Gitmo, renditions, military tribunals, and endless war we are reminded of the rhetoric from the not too distant past.

    It wasn’t that long ago that Senator Barack Obama was posting on the Daily Kos and bashing Bush and conservatives for their dumb foreign policy that only rewarded Halliburton and the homophobes.

    Pundit Press dug up this little jewel from the Daily Kos archives.

    Here’s part of Obama’s ridiculous leftist rant:

    I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton…

    …The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives’ job. After all, it’s easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it’s harder to craft a foreign policy that’s tough and smart. It’s easy to dismantle government safety nets; it’s harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It’s easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it’s harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that’s our job.
    This week the Obama Administration announced that they would resume the military tribunals at Gitmo.
    And P-Turtle's "tough & smart" foreign policy is what exactly? Oh.. I forgot... that oobberdoober smart "carrots-n-sticks" thang.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #42
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    ^^^ Follow up poll. We gonna use carrots or sticks when applying "smart power" to the Saudis?

    Obama losing the Saudis?

    Remember when Barack Obama promised that his foreign policy, unlike that of George W. Bush, would strengthen ties with America’s friends and improve relations with our antagonists? Neither does Tom Brokaw, who not surprisingly failed to mention Obamas’ “smart power” in his report last night from Baghdad. Too bad, because as CNS News reminds us, the irony is palpable:

    After remarking on the difficulty of establishing democracy in the Middle East, Brokaw said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates “will face some tough questions in this region about the American intentions going on now with all this new turmoil, especially in an area where the United States has such big stakes politically and economically.”

    “And a lot of those questions presumably will come from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia,” reported Brokaw on the Nightly News. “I was told on the way in here that the Saudis are so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President Mubarak of Egypt that it sent high level emissaries to China and Russia to tell those two countries that Saudi Arabia now is prepared to do more business with them.”
    Earlier, many warned that the aggressive demand for Mubarak to resign from power would have serious implications for our other allies in the region. Even if we hadn’t eroded our economic power, tossing aside Mubarak would cause others whose cooperation we need to re-evaluate their relationship with the US. Given our current financial position, we can hardly afford to alienate the nations in the region on which we rely for a counterbalance to Iranian dreams of hegemony as well as a mostly-quiet peace with Israel.

    Some may not consider the Saudis much of a loss, being a absolute monarchy with plenty of corruption and radicalism, and there is a fair amount of truth in that argument. At this critical time with Iran, however, we’re better off keeping them on our side both diplomatically and financially rather than losing them to China and Russia especially.
    As AeroSim points out.. it's not like we need their oil or nethin'...

    WTI Oil +$1.43 $110.26/bbl
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #43
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Corruptfornia
    Posts
    3,786

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    I don't how this is gonna work out, but what I DO know is that gas
    out here in the I.E. is at 4.00 bucks or more. THAT folks, SUCKS !!!

  14. #44
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by no2guncntrl View Post
    I don't how this is gonna work out, but what I DO know is that gas
    out here in the I.E. is at 4.00 bucks or more. THAT folks, SUCKS !!!
    Yeah, a friend of mine has family in Hawaii. They say that gas is pushing $4.70/gallon in Honolulu. At prices like that, you're looking at spending $60 to fill up a Toyota Corolla.

  15. #45
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    $120 bucks to fill up the work van today the internet is going to get a little more pricey soon Everything is going to start sky rocketing!Obama is fine with that too!

    I usually fill up 2 to 3 times a week too

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •