O'S FOREIGN FAILURES
NEW PREZ FLUNKING GLOBAL TESTS
AMERICA'S enemies smell blood and it's type "O."
All new administrations stumble a bit as they seek their footing. But President Obama's foreign-policy botches have set new records for instant incompetence.
Contrary to left-wing myths, I wasn't a fan of the Bush administration. (I called for Donald Rumsfeld to get the boot in mid-2001.) But fair's fair. Despite his many faults, Bush sought to do good. Obama just wants to look good.
Vice President Cheney was arrogant. Vice President Joe Biden is arrogant and stupid. Take your pick.
Don't worry about the new administration's ideology. Worry about its terrifying naivete.
Consider a sampling of the goofs O and his crew have made in just two months:
China: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (you know that gal married to the Saudi hireling) crawled to Beijing to tell the party bosses that human rights don't matter. Our "relationship" is more important than freedom and human dignity.
Beijing's response? A staged military confrontation with an unarmed US Navy vessel; continued screw-America currency cheating; a renewed crackdown on dissidents and, yesterday, a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar.
Thanks, Hill. You're a sweetheart.
Pakistan: With viral corruption throughout and Islamist fanatics sweeping half of its territory, Pakistan's coming apart. Its Dem-adored prez tries to ban opposition parties and gut the judiciary. It has nukes and seethes with hatred of America. And Islamabad controls our primary supply route into Afghanistan, using it as an extortion tool.
Obama's response? Billions in new aid for Pak pols to pocket. We'd be better off handing the money to AIG to pay out more bonuses.
Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam. Am I the only American who remembers that candidate Obama had a plan to capture Osama bin Laden and fix our previous "mistakes" in Afghanistan? President Obama doesn't have a clue.
Iran: Obama tried to reach out, to talk. After all, talking got him to the White House. But America-bashing is what keeps Iran's leaders in office, it's their political essence. After 30 years of fierce hostility, hasn't anyone figured out that the senior mullahs need us as an enemy? Without the Great Satan America to blame, they'd have some real explaining to do to their homies. So O got the left-hand finger.
He wanted to chat with the Taliban, too. They told him he could stick it where the sun don't shine.
North Korea: Obama wanted a fresh start. North Korea's response? Threats of war with South Korea and the kidnapping of two American journalists. And the renewed pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, along with rocket tests.
Cuba: Obama would like to liberalize our relationship. The Castro boys told him to kiss off. They need an enemy, too. (Dear Mr. President: It's not always about us or how evil America is.)
Venezuela: Guess who else needs an enemy?
Mexico: The good news: Obama knows where it is on a map and recognizes that Mexico's government faces a narco-insurgency that threatens our country, too. His first action? Cave to the Teamsters, violate a lawful treaty on cross-border trucking, reignite fading anti-Americanism and undercut President Felipe Calderon.
Poland: Obama's stance on our bravest ally on the European continent? The Russians are more important than you are. He's sending the same message to Ukraine and Georgia.
Russia: Bolshie Biden, the commuting commissar, knows he's the man who can turn Russia into our best pal. After "Friend of Bill" Strobe Talbott tried and failed disastrously. And after poor W saw into Putin's soul, only to get his butt handed to him. "Uncle Joe" Biden has nothing to learn from past failures, though: He's got a re-set button.
Moscow's response to the Obama administration's bid for a new start? It threatens NATO members it once occupied and continues to back Iran's nuclear program. Plus, it bribes Kyrgystan to kick us off the critical-to-Afghanistan Manas airbase (then offers to help replace that supply lifeline, giving Russia a choke-hold on our troops).
Next, the Kremlin threatens massive re-armament and demands the abandonment of the dollar as the international reserve currency.
Obama's response? Push that re-set button again. And again.
At what point does naivete become cowardice?
As for our allies, Obama apparently needs them less than Bush did. O treated Britain's prime minister like the deputy Paraguayan veterinary inspector, and he blindsided the leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, Mexico and Canada on issues ranging from missile defense to trade. But he'd like them to take the Gitmo terrorists off our hands, please.
The one bright spot thus far has been Iraq, where Obama quickly tossed aside his campaign promises. The O-man doesn't want to be on the blame-line for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Baghdad. And his MoveOn.org supporters can throw all the tantrums they want. (Breaking news, folks: O's a professional pol, not the messiah . . . )
Apart from Iraq, a success Sen. Obama did all he could to prevent, his foreign policy's an instant wasteland. By comparison, the Carter administration is starting to look like a model of manly strength, courage and patriotism.
Ralph Peters recently became Fox News' first "strategic analyst."
==================
Golly gee whiz - and I thought Obama promised that he would change the way the world viewed America - he'd bring respect back. Yeah...right...
ANOTHER broken campaign promise!!! Obama is nothing more than an arrogant empty suit.
Cuba: Obama would like to liberalize our relationship. The Castro boys told him to kiss off. They need an enemy, too. (Dear Mr. President: It's not always about us or how evil America is.)
Damn, one of the reasons I was happy that Obama won was because I thought he could finally restore the relationship between the U.S and Cuba. That looks pretty dim at this point. sucks, I have family members in Cuba that I have never met.
Golly gee whiz, I'm sure we can believe all claims and assertions from Fox New's editorials.
An editorial from a right-wing news source would NEVER EVER try to distort things and use unsupported claims about a left-wing president.
Nah, that would never happen. We should always take such editorials at face value, especially if we happen to be of the same ideological bent.
We all know the best way to formulate foreign policy is from op-ed pieces from sources we agree with.
Doing silly things like supporting claims with data or sound logic is for idiots.
Golly gee whiz, I'm sure the best way to argue against articles like this is to not make a point other then to bash the writer.
Nah, it would make much more sense to just dismiss it and not argue any of the points it makes because partisanship rules.
So, all of those things in the OP are untrue?
i'm sure hillary said that to china.
the problem is that crooks is a bitter, dried up old vagina.
"Bush sought to do good"
Crooky's posting absolute , again.
dubya "sought to do good" as defined by head and dubya's Repug puppetmasters.
"good" intentions, even if bona fide (which dubya's weren't) aren't enough when running an empire, and pave the way to .
Wow, so the second version of Boutons can read minds........
Who cares if Bush "sought to do good"? That's so wishy washy that it should be no basis for an argument.
I sought to do good, and so is Barack
Tourettes?
Did you libs even read the article - or did you just skip to the bottom to see who had written it?
The author CLEARLY says he wasn't a fan of the Bush Administration - but since he writes for Fox I guess that doesn't mean anything.
What about Juan Williams? He's an Obama supporter, but he's also a major contributor on Fox News - are his views and opinions suspect also?
And considering how much sarcasm is used on this board - I find it interesting that you don't recognize it when used by others.This is clearly tongue-in-cheek.Despite his many faults, Bush sought to do good. Obama just wants to look good.
But regardless of what you think of Bush, he was steadfast in his belief that everyone should experience liberty and freedom - and that belief governed much of what he did.
Clam and boutons2 - you both are idiots and not worth my time to comment on your hateful posts.
My point actually:
One should be skeptical of such op-ed peices and, as always, claims stand or they fall on the merits of the claims, independently of the source.
While one cannot logically dismiss the claims, one can roughly judge how much initial weight to assign them and how much critical thinking should be done.
Further:
One should be skeptical of the Obama administration, and be on the lookout for mistakes. One should expect mistakes. , it took Bush 6 years before he really got the hang of it.
BUT
There is a line between fair criticisms and partisan hackery.
Sokay. Either these policies will work after 4 years or they won't.
They are a definite change in strategy, and unlikely to make conservatives happy, because if they end up really working, that success will invalidate a lot of how conservatives view the world.
He is going in a direction I have been advocating for a while. It will be interesting to see who is right after 4 years.
Good question.
You get points over johnsmith for succinctness, clarity, and a lack of smartassery, though.
The answer:
Maybe.
They either stand on their own or not. Interesting bit that I will get to over the weekend.
It is pretty obviously partisan in both the manner and character of the attacks/critcisms made.
Do you dispute that?
That was McCain. He said it was a secret plan and apparently it is staying a secret because he didn't get elected. Is that political or does McCain just hate America?Am I the only American who remembers that candidate Obama had a plan to capture Osama bin Laden
And really -- this is trying to write a foreign policy obituary for an administration that has been in office for a little over 50 days. Once again it is the conservatives who think problems can be fixed with a magic wand. I challenge any of them to write an opinion piece without using the word "messiah" or characterizing Obama as such.
What's up with all the right-wingers who defended Bush and called us all anti-Americans now throwing that under the bus? All of you are 8 years too late.
Absolutely not but my point was more at the content of your post and not the opinion piece. You complain that he didn't back his opinion(s) up with post that lacked any backing of your opinion(s).
From some liberal rag:
John McCain says in almost every stump speech that he knows how to capture Osama bin Laden and that he’d follow the al Qaeda leader to the “Gates of .”
So Washington Wire was wondering, what does McCain know that President Bush and the Pentagon don’t about how to sweep up America’s most elusive enemy.
“One thing I will not do is telegraph my punches. Osama bin Laden will be the last to know,” he said today while riding on the back of his bus between Florida events. In other words: he’s not telling. Why not share his strategy with the current occupant of the White House? “Because I have my own ideas and it would require implementation of certain policies and procedures that only as the president of the United States can be taken.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/0...ure-bin-laden/
I'm sure McCain would have captured Bin Laden by now.
And freed Cuba.
And destroyed North Korea.
And ended the drug wars.
And forced China to become a democracy.
And converted the Iranians into Southern Baptists.
Foreign policy is easy and quick. Bush and Clinton proved that.
^ Isn't this thread about Obama's foreign policy?
This thread is about the bag's article.
Judging foreign policy eight weeks into an administration is stupid.
Conservatives' wand theory fails once more.
How much longer do we have to wait before we can judge the policy of your Queen in charge and the rest of her congressional minions?
Again, hyperbole and stupidity doesn't help you.
Oddly enough, the polls for Congress are the best they have been in three years. Still low, but rising.
I could, and probably will, completely eviscerate this piece quite easily, don't doubt that for a second either.
Some of what Obama has done I have been advocating for years, and will be happy to provide a defense for it.
Just don't have the time for it at the moment.
I'm sure crookshanks thinks she has really "socked it to those libs" with this turd masquerading as an essay, but all it does for me is simply demonstrate how little respect Fox News has for the intelligence of its viewers.
Why must you add a personal attack. All I was doing was posting an article that I agreed with and found interesting - I knew I wasn't going to change any minds among you libs. I was under the impression this forum was for political discussion - but maybe now in the age of Obama, we can't have an opposing opinion.I'm sure crookshanks thinks she has really "socked it to those libs" with this turd masquerading as an essay, but all it does for me is simply demonstrate how little respect Fox News has for the intelligence of its viewers.
But I also don't understand this automatic hatred you guys have for ANYTHING having to do with Fox News. So, since you're so much more intelligent than us who watch Fox News, please enlighten us as to where this author is so grossly incorrect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
