Barack Obama’s Pardon, Prostrate, and Plead Foreign Policy
“From this arises an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking.” — Niccolo Machiavelli
“There is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.” — Niccolo Machiavelli
George W. Bush defined success in foreign policy by how much he achieved for America. Barack Obama seems to define success by how many people across the world chant his name. This sort of needy “if you’ll be my friend, I’ll let you swim in my pool” mentality is a common failing of modern liberals. They are so hemmed in by the ridiculous rules they’ve set up for themselves, it’s almost impossible for them to effectively deal with foreign threats.
Most liberals — Barack Obama included — have bought into the Chomskyian idea that the United States is the root of all evil in the world. They believe that the weaker party in a conflict — by virtue of being weaker — must almost certainly be right. They feel that military power should be used for the collective welfare of all humanity, not to benefit our nation. They’re also believers in transnationalism and ceding the sovereignty of individual nations to international bodies like the United Nations.
The problem with beliefs of this sort is twofold. First, they’re completely at odds with the way the world really works. Second, they severely limit our potential foreign affairs options. Ironically, even though liberal Democrats don’t understand the limits of their beliefs, other nations seem to understand perfectly. That’s why, for example, Pakistan sided with Bush over the Taliban but has sided with the Taliban over Obama. It’s why the Somali pirates didn’t have the cajones to take an American ship while Bush was president, but have started going all “Pirates of the Caribbean” on American shipping since Obama’s election. If you’re wondering why Kyrgyzstan decided to stop allowing us to use a key military base for re-supplying Afghanistan, that’s why. There’s much to be said for talking softly and carrying a big stick, but nothing to be said for setting the stick down and just talking softly.
That’s not to say that every foreign policy challenge we have is related to Obama’s weakness and the limitations of his ultra-liberal ideology. Every president faces difficulties on the foreign policy front. But Obama enters every situation with both hands tied behind his back, and it forces him to do foolish and desperate things to get a reaction.
I would love to have someone answer this (clearly not Hawkins…he has no ideas as his article showed…his answer was “just don’t talk to ppl…they’ll cave”). Everyone claims that compromise is the death knell of this country, however no one wants to give another option. They also ignore that Nixon per history “opened the door” to China, Reagan shook hands with two USSR leaders, and HW Bush also spent several visits to China. We gave chem/bio weapons to Iraq during Republican administrations (because we were arming them against the Iranians) and we gave support to Afghanistan (under Reagan) to fight the Russians…and the people we supported became the Taliban.
No one here will admit to any of this (although its in the history of the world) and I’ll be called all sorts of names, but even if everything I have said is wrong, what’s your plan?
Seriously. What is your plan…pick your country. Why didn’t Bush do what your plan was? Why does not talking to anyone not work, and why are you willing to sit by and do “sanctions” that you ridicule if they come from the UN but which you think will work if they come from the U.S. alone? Why do you think that Russia and China will stop earning millions in dealing with Iran just because you don’t like it?
I’ll go first. NK had inspectors and seals and cameras in exchange for 2 cold water nuclear plants (thanks to Clinton). I was recently told that the success of the Bush era was that we “slowed” Iran’s production. If slowing a country down was the goal, Bush’s policy sped up the production of NK’s nuke program by giving them the latitude to kick out the inspectors and go full bore. NK was doing things covertly sure, but once he labelled them the Axis of Evil, they had no reason to go slow….they knew we couldn’t back up our harsh words so they built nukes. They knew we couldn’t do anything about it, and Bush agreed. So Bush said Iran getting nukes was unacceptable…but what did he do? Slow it down? Not that I’ve seen.
Seriously, try to not call me names and actually have a solution….prove you are smart, don’t just say you are. I’m a little tired of you guys calling me names and still not even approximating an idea. If you have an idea, say it, we’ll talk. Calling me names (and not even well-thought out ones) might make you giddy, but at the end of the day, proves you have no idea what to do. So please, call me a name…it just means you have no idea what to do….
That said, call me names. It just means you don’t have ideas. Which honestly makes me giggle
Jack
Jack, as you wish: You’re an idiot.
How’s this for a policy? Regime change. Support internal dissidents and opposition forces in Iran, Syria, North Korea. Bring those despots down. Encourage their downfall.
Reagan was once asked what his Cold War strategy was. Was it detente? Containment? Deterrence? Realpolitik? Bipolar stability? His reply was: “We win, they lose.”
So how about that? How about winning? Sound good?
Nick
BTW Jack, since you’re speaking about what’s “in the history of the world,” I thought I’d clarify your history.
1) What does Nixon going to China have to do with anything? Because the Chinese leadership in the early ’70s was open to some sort of economic change, and we wanted to create an anti-Soviet bloc, does not mean diplomacy with everyone will always work.
2) Reagan “shook hands” with one USSR leader, Gorbachev, beginning in his 2nd term, after we placed Pershing II missiles in Europe aimed at Moscow, rolled back communist governments and movements and insurgencies in El Salvador, Angola, Algeria, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, all over Latin America/Africa, etc., and supported dissidents in Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania, etc.) to bring down the Soviet regime itself. He also out-spent the Soviets militarily into oblivion and WALKED AWAY from Gorbachev’s nuclear offer (and with it, a Nobel prize that Al Gore would have sold his soul for) in order to maintain SDI — which was, in the end, the final nail in the coffin for the USSR.
3) Yes, the U.S. sold some arms to Iraq — but what’s that have to do with anything? It was to go against Iran, who had just taken our hostages. Besides, us once arming Saddam only greatened our responsibility to end his terrible rule.
Regardless, we only armed about 0.5% of his weaponry. The Russians, Chinese, and French sold him the most.
4) Only some of the people we supported in Afghanistan became the Taliban. The majority of the people Reagan supported became the Northern Alliance, who we sided with AGAIN in 2001. They were our allies in the 1980s, and remain our allies today. There’s nothing to be ashamed over.
You can’t just use these liberal talking points that you read on some blog and act like you know everything about “the history of the world,” as you put it. Nor should you act like every U.S. foreign policy decision in the past labels us all collectively, because it doesn’t. Some of us OPPOSE Nixon or Bush Sr. going to China for ideological reasons.
As those down under would say Jack, You are a total wanker. Obama will bring US enemies to its shores in droves and at the same time undermine the will of patriotic americans in the defence of their constitution, traditions and country. Remember jack Obamas mistakes will be paid for by the blood of patriotic americans not the by the blood of post modern left wing intellectuls like yourself.
Americans knew full well the sort of person Barack Obama was when they voted for him, they knew about his mentor Jeremiah Wright’s hate for America, they knew about his friend Bill Ayre’s terror attacks on America, they knew that his wife Michelle hated America, and they even knew that Barack Obama planned to publicly meet with and empower some of the worst and most murderous despots in the world, people like Castro and Ahamdinejad, dictators in the Hitler/Stalin mode. Learn to live with Obama and get used to his socialist and appeasement foreign policy, because he has another four years to impose his totalitarian regime on the United States and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, anyone can do to stop him. The media, the intellectual liberal elite, a huge majority of the entertainment industry, the Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court all fully and blindly support everything Obama and his regime are doing. You won’t recognize America four years from now because Obama will have destroyed her.
What an idiotic article.
It would be a waste of time to go over all the sophomoric thinking. Let his core audience do it.
“As P.T. Barnum once said, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’” Yes, Hawkins . . .
I assume Jack was alluding to Obama’s recent glad-handing with Hugo Chavez when he noted: “Reagan shook hands with two USSR leaders…” As I recall, the Reagan summits with the USSR were well planned in advance and that Reagan stuck to his guns in negotiations with our adversaries. This is not the same as an impromptu, all smiles photo-op with the most outspoken US critic in South America, who called our last President “the Devil.” This was great publicity for Chavez, who may have won elections but is still consolidating his power like any other two-bit tyrant. The US should speak out for freedom and the President should be liberty’s number one spokesman. Instead, our current leader slanders the brave Americans and Cubans who died fighting Castro’s dictatorship at the Bay of Pigs, saying that he can’t be “blamed” for what happened when he was only a child. I won’t call Jack an idiot but BHO’s approach to foreign policy so far has been idiotic for all the reasons Mr. Hawkins pointed out in his article and more.
These countries will not have to act responsibly due to the fact that Obama is creating the US in their likeness.
Or at least like Vzla.
Look at the moves made by Chavez 10 years ago.
As far as the other problem children, I am sure Obama will find snipits of their society that the US needs to copy.
100 days ago was a sad day for the US.
Obama’s problem is that he has never actually had to get something accomplished in his whole life; he has never worked in the real world where you set objectives and then work and negotiate to acheive them. He has moved from one post to another smooth-talking his way up the ladder without troubling himself to do anything productive at any time.
Now he is trying to wow the world by running around and cozying up to everybody who has a bad thing to say about the US, this probably makes him feel comfortable, sort of like being back in college, or Chicago.
What he doesn’t understand is that by agreeing with them he doesn’t make them like the US (they may like him, every bully likes a stooge) or do anything to reduce the tensions between the nations. He just gets some cheap cheers from people that hate us by telling them how bad we are and how right they have been for hating us.
He seems to have a pathetic need for constant adulation, his lack of a moral compass or realistic understanding of the domestic situation or foreign policy leave flopping about, blathering away to anybody he is in front of, saying whatever he thinks they want to hear. A Populist without a Plan he will say whatever pops into his head (or shows up on the teleprompter screen, viz the episode in Ireland).
His Chomskite upbringing makes him feel that he needs to apologize to third-world dumps for the fact that they are dumps; not call their leaders out for failing to improve the lot of their citizens. This is another manifestation of the Left’s inability to assign or accept responsibilty.
Vivo – Idiotic? Orwell was right. Someone holds up four fingers, you’ve been conditioned to see five. When trolling here, does it ever occur to your tiny brain how stupid, useless and ineffectual YOU appear? Oh silly me. What a question!
Now … more about this no speed limit idea, please. I rather like it.
Typical of the neocomradely community is this: the LBW, “lesser breeds without,” can not be relied upon to wash behind their ears unless they are terrorised into it, but of course militant extremist Republicans can always do right without fear of anybody except perhaps Father Zeus.
Tell us another story, Daddy.
Happy days.
How can the wingnuts ever expect to be believable to the mainstream when they write nutty things like this guy? Maybe they subconciously don’t want to win, maybe they just get pleasure from knee jerk reaction.
@11. JHM dba Goose N. Gander
WTF is that mass of disconneted nonsense supposed to mean?
While I believe that Obama is leading us down a very slippery slope I don’t think he should be compared to Bush. If we compared Obama to Clinton more on the left would see how crazy Obama really is. I don’t think Clinton was a great president but he wasn’t a wus in foreign policy! Obama is Carter on steroids in a much crazier world.
President Obama has taken the sticks off the table with his direct talks with dictators. Obama & the MSM refuse to see he has weakened the United States just by meeting with Hugo Chavez & capitulating to Castro. Liberals truly believe they can talk any mad man dictator out of their ideas. Without the threat of force, it’s not possible.
Furthermore, President Obama has damaged the United States in agreeing with said dictators & European leaders that the USA is inherently evil.
It’s amateur hour for the Barack Obama show.
I do find it odd that Jack and Vivo and others are somehow comforted by the notion of having a President that behaves in the past and present as if he loathes his own country. I’ve never understood that. I guess that’s why I’ve never seen any liberal as having any morality. How could they? When the leader of the free world despises the free world, we are all in trouble. Obama can wear his flag lapel pin now all he wants but it doesn’t change the fact that only a few short months ago he refused to wear it on principle. Wolf in sheep’s clothing? Ax to grind in lieu of slavery reparations? Reverse racism against the white face of America? Almost too scary to contemplate. I’m going to watch his actions not go by his words and so far, it doesn’t look promising for the future of the US.
Nick G.: “Jack, as you wish: You’re an idiot.
How’s this for a policy? Regime change. Support internal dissidents and opposition forces in Iran, Syria, North Korea. Bring those despots down. Encourage their downfall.
Reagan was once asked what his Cold War strategy was. Was it detente? Containment? Deterrence? Realpolitik? Bipolar stability? His reply was: “We win, they lose.”
So how about that? How about winning? Sound good?
Nick”
Sure, Nick, winning sounds great, especially to someone with a 5th grade education and absolutely no experience in foreign policy affairs.
Winning sounds great, but the strategy you have laid out is a loser. How do I know? Perhaps because I watched a news source other than Fox for the last seven or so years, and couldn’t help but notice what a collosally big cluster**** we created in Iraq by believing that we could just pit opposing tribes against each other, kill Saddam, and viola, Democracy!
If the fantasy world of foreign policy you lived in was rooted in any sort of reality, we would be sending exchange students to Iraq right now. Instead, every Iraqi with any sort of advanced degree has fled the country, leaving it a cesspool with no infrastructure, no real rule of law, and no Iraqi engineers, doctors or teachers left to pull them back out of the dark ages we imposed upon them in the name of Democracy.
“Winning” is great, buddy, but it’s only great when you actually win. And the price of losing and failing big time gets us a lot of dead American soldiers. It gets us a boatload of dead civilians. It gets us a boatload of debt. It gets us Blackwater scandals. It gets us tortured Iraqi civilians. It gets us allies that turn their backs on us. It gets us a destabilized Iraq that we now have to police. It gets us an outraged and polarized country that elects Barack Obama. It gets us a whole generation of furious Iraqi kids who grow up watching their friends and family get bombed and who are going to be looking for payback down the line.
60 more innocent Iraqis died today in a bombing and at least 125 were wounded so that we could “win.”
Also, hate to burst your Reagan fetishism bubble, but Ronnie had lots of constructive dialoge with Russia, not just sanctions or tough talk. I’ll bet 50 years from now, you nutcases will be telling your grandchildren that Sir Ronald flew on a winged stallion and slew the dragon Kruschev with a magical blade forged in the mines of Freedomia.
@12. Robert Hurley:
Hi Bob, do you and vivo always show in the same forums at the same time? Things get slow at the Kos?
How about you provide specific criticism of the article rather than just ad-homineum attacks? Or perhaps you can show that by sucking up to mad-men and terrorists Obama will make the world a better place.
Obama’s foreign policy strategy is simple. It is maybe if we’re nice to them, they’ll go away. Worked real well for Carter. Watch for trouble out of China and Russia soon!
Angry White Dude
Obama reminds me of a coach who throws or sabotages a game because he’s paid off, and then blames publicly his team for the loss. He has not demonstrated loyalty to our country. He loves government but can’t see the difference between government and country. Liberals can scoff at the analogies that Hawkins presents in this article to demonstrate individual behavior mirroring mass/country behavior, but his point is right on. Among individual behavior or sentiment, a serious problem in the US is simply the lack of trust amongst citizens. Right now, I would never trust a left wing liberal to ever defend me as a fellow American, whether it’s a journalist, news anchor, professor, or actor- they are simply too nasty to anyone who doesn’t worship the same liberal religion they do. Obama throws everyone and everything under the bus to save his skin- that’s not leadership. Of course countries are sizing him up and finding him weak- duh, the world is just being tactful right now, just wait. He has successfully lost respect world wide in his drive to be loved. It seems that liberals have forgotten how Carter allowed Iran to go to pot and imprison our fellow Americans in the US Embassy there for over 400 days, and then those very hostages were released literally days before Reagan took office. When Islamic terrorist announce Americans have no resolve to fight, that we’re soft, they really mean it, based on their perception of the liberal media, and they’re right-liberals are soft.
#17 Pastor of Muppets: INDEED!I’m enjoying your futuristic view. I’d like to play along. Do tell what you’ll be braying about Carter II in future years. Did it turn out to be a good thing that he nationalized the banks and increased the unemployment rolls by 50%? Was he elected King of the world after he dismantled the US military, took all weapons away from US citizens and put all Presidents and their administrations on trial for every potential war crime going back to Lincoln? Was he chiseled into Mount Rushmore after opening our borders to the world and declaring that the top 3% would be taxed to pay for free services for all?
Hi Bob, do you and vivo always show in the same forums at the same time?
Sugar Daddy George pays them to troll here.
#21 AThinkingPerson:
Yeah, you got it mostly right, except for the “king of the world” part.
Prez actually becomes Galactic Emperor in 2015 after he annuls his marriage with the first lady so that he can wed the Empress Garlaxx of the United Marxist/Socialist/Fascist/Communist/Atheist/Sith Empire of the Horsehead Nebula.
@vivo #6 said:
What an idiotic article.
It would be a waste of time to go over all the sophomoric thinking. Let his core audience do it.
“As P.T. Barnum once said, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’” Yes, Hawkins
why do you think it would be a waste of time? it’s entirely possible that there are people reading here who would like to see both sides clearly explained…
i would be interested in reading your thoughtful analysis of this piece…
#23 Pastor of Muppets: You’ve been watching way too much Star Trek but I do appreciate the humor. Once he’s taken away all of our CHANGE, it’s all we can HOPE for.
Pastor of Muppets #17
I think you will see more violence in Iraq now. The insurgence feel emboldened knowing Obama doesn’t want to fight the fight. They have seen through the media that Obama has no plans to finish the war in Iraq.
#2 Nick G – Regime change was Bush’s plan. It didn’t work in NK, Iran, Iraq (had to invade), Russia, Cuba, China, etc. I know a guy who was one of the youth leaders in Tiananmen Square and he’s still fighting that fight. I doubt we have 20 years to get rid of everyone in Iran’s leadership who will continue to make nukes. Give me examples of where this has worked…
#3 Nick G – Do you realize how much the US populace didn’t care for communist China in the Nixon era? If you had been around then, you would be talking about how apalling it was to meet with them and talk about trade while they were still a communist country (which you apparently still are complaining about). Same with Russia…you guys are saying “have a big stick” but Reagan talked to them…he didn’t just stand around looking menacing with a bat in his hands waiting for them to come over and surrender.
And your points #3 and #4 need to be researched a little better. They clearly aren’t accurate histories, but I’m not trying to give a history lesson so I’ll let that go.
Jack
#4 dmgold – Is there a point in our future?
Jack
Foreign Policy will be Obama’s Waterloo. I cannot say that enough.
The signs are already pointing towards a meltdown in his administration.
There is no one guarding the shop while Playboy runs to his Leno interviews and plays with his dog.
http://afrocityblog.wordpress.com
Randy: “I think you will see more violence in Iraq now. The insurgence feel emboldened knowing Obama doesn’t want to fight the fight. They have seen through the media that Obama has no plans to finish the war in Iraq.”
Really? You must be in very close contact with the insurgency to be able to know so much about their motivations and feelings. Maybe you ought to be subject to some harsh interrogations so that we can find out exactly what critical knowledge you possess.
The fact is that Sunni and Shia are going to kill each other regardless of whether we stay or leave. One of the reasons we used to be buddies with Saddam was because he kept the warring factions in line. With him dead, they go back to slaughtering each other. This is not new, and has nothing to do with Obama’s willingness to “fight the fight”.
#27 Jack: “…but I’m not trying to give a history lesson so I’ll let that go.”
You might dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back like that Jack. As soon as you get your official “Comment Police” badge and certificate, be sure and let us know.
#27 Jack:
Regime change was Bush’s plan.
It was actually Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act (H.R. 4655)
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
Can you point me to the place you’re getting your numbers regarding the exodus from Iraq of those with advanced degrees? Also, I would like to read some authoritative source regarding the failure of Democracy in Iraq.
@27. Jack
Regime change was Clinton’s plan (I am pretty sure I recall a resolution passed in Congress and signed by him to that effect).
Behavior Modifictaion seems to have been the idea behind W’s actions, mostly bungled, or sabotaged by our “Allies”. Abasement does not seem like a good approach, grovelling before tin-pot dictators and religious lunatics may be a good way to get some easy applause but it seems unlikely to be the basis for a sound foreign policy.
Nixon wanted the Chinese as a foil to Soviet power, they wanted us for the same purpose, there was little love in the partnership. I remeber how he was criticized for his approaches but the US was not in a position to up the ante the way Reagan did.
And yes, Reagan did talk with the Russians, but he did so while raising the stakes. He knew that they were dumping 66% of their GDP into defense while we were spending about 4%, I am sure the gist of the discussion with the Soviet leaders ran like this; “I can double my commitment to defense spending, can you? Now, let us talk nicely”.
#7 Bob – So your concern about Obama is planning when handshakes occur? Obama hasn’t even tried to negotiate anything, so planning things in advance is the only difference with Reagan from what you said…
And no one slandered anyone connected to the Bay of Pigs (or that era), but as I pointed out, our relations with Cuba haven’t materially changed in a long long time and I’m not sure that the flying Castro brothers care (clearly they don’t). So is the big plan to ignore Cuba forever when it isn’t actually solving (or doing) anything? Is there a goal here?
You mentioned what great ideas Hawkins has up above. Too bad they are false.
He claims Pakistan liked Bush and now they like the Taliban because Obama is around? The Taliban assassinated the person Bush sent in there to take over for Musharaff. Musharaff himself took Bush’s money and didn’t lift a finger to support our interests. The Taliban are where they are because Bush didn’t solve that problem…they didn’t just pop out of thin air in the past 96 days. I promise.
He claims the Somali’s suddenly decided to start going after U.S. flagged ships because of Obama. That’s not just bad reporting, it’s an outright lie. Many U.S. ships have been threatened followed, fired upon and so forth under Bush. And let us not forget exactly who our President was when Somali piracy started showing up in the news on a weekly basis and under who’s leadership Somalia went to Al Qaeda. Right in front of the over-extended Bush who also advocated Hawkins policy of all bark even if you know you can’t bite.
He claims that the base in Kyrgyzstan was closed because of Obama. I’m sure it had nothing to do with Russia forgiving $180 million in debt, giving $150 million in financial aid, and a $2 billion in a “low cost loan” that they got a few days before they made that announcement. You don’t think Russia had closing that base as a pre-condition for all of that aid? Bush kept poking Russia and being all tough and what happened…the invasion (and continued occupation) of Georgia and things like us losing this base.
Hawkins should be ashamed of himself for his lack of intellectual honesty.
Jack
#26 Randy – Bush signed a bill before he left office saying that we would be pulling out of Iraq on essentially the same timeframe as Obama, so if there is a negative reaction over there it’s not necessarily fair to blame it on Obama.
That said, I think it’s more likely to get quiet until we leave and then we’ll see just how pacified everyone over there is (*shiver*).
Jack
#30 AThinkingPerson – Thanks, I will!! FedEx supposed to get here this afternoon and I have a spot all picked out on my mantle!!
Jack
#32 Norma and #33 anton –
I said Regime change was Bush’s plan meaning his strategy in dealing with all of the countries I listed. That said, however, regime change wasn’t what ultimately happened/worked in Iraq, it was invasion and brute force. That Clinton tried it too without success is just proof that “regime change” doesn’t work by itself which was my entire point.
My larger point is that simply having a big stick doesn’t work (which was Bush’s entire plan…have a stick). Reagan and Clinton had the stick and talked to the other countries. Not themselves at first, but meetings with senior officials happened. You can talk tough, be tough, and not give in, but you have to talk.
People around here equate “talking” to failure and it’s a ridiculous concept that a) doesn’t work, and b) is why they have no other options beyond “regime change”…not a lot of choices when you can’t use your words.
Jack
“Most liberals — Barack Obama included — have bought into the Chomskyian idea that the United States is the root of all evil in the world.”
Unfortunately, what liberals miss is that they are willing “comfort women” to evil. Liberals sleep with evil, fornicate with evil, massage evil, and re-produce evil, while claiming moral superiority. What the liberals miss that the rest of us see, however, is that you cannot claim morality when you are not grounded in a morality that transcends your immediate emotive state.
The evil we see in the Obama administration is not new. We’ve seen it before in Russia, Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia, and a host of other places throughout history. And this evil will force choices to be made in order to counter the wag the dog Obama administration’s spin machine.
#36 Jack: I had no doubt whatsoever that you had appointed yourself the position. It’s become quite evident in your mini-essay/self-righteous prose that you’ve gifted us all with. At least now we know what angle you’re coming from. You might get a smaller soapbox though. The one you’re currently using is starting to make me think you suffer from Napoleonic Syndrome. I know, I know, if we don’t believe you’re the smartest thing on the web we can just ask you right? But please, don’t let me take your attention away from your current job. There are far too many comments remaining that haven’t yet been annointed with your “informed” retorts.
#39 AThinkingPerson – Nice discussion on the important issues that face our country. Keep up the good work! If you can fit it in today, maybe you could go shout at a mailbox…that would be almost as helpful.
Jack
37.Jack
“People around here” (is that kind of like “you people”?) equate ‘talking’ to failure…..”
Really?
I remember Reagan “talking to Gorbachev” very eloquently, at length and with great frequency. He also “talked with Congress” at great length, eloquently and effective. He also “talked with” the American people honestly and with great effect. You’re confusing “talking to” with “surrendering to”.
Articulate spokesmen who DO have America’s interests at heart do not equate “talking to” means has to be predicated oon “surrendering to”.
Reagan also knew when to get up and walk out of the room when continued talking was contingent on him surrendering the best interests of the United States.
I believe Mr. Reagan was indeed “talking to” Gorbachev when he said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”
“Talking to people” in the current White House occupant’s world cannot be taken to mean two way communication. “Talking to people” in his world means, “You like me! You really like me!”
He’s the high school cheerleader who thinks she really is popular, and it never occurs to her that her full calendar is a result of her empty head and ready bed.
I think it’s very helpful to Mr. Hawkins that the lefties show up, helpfully illuminating the points he is making. Thanks, guys.
BTW, Jack, you really should know better than to reference namecalling in a pre-emptive fashion.
Pastor of Muppets said, “If the fantasy world of foreign policy you lived in was rooted in any sort of reality, we would be sending exchange students to Iraq right now. Instead, every Iraqi with any sort of advanced degree has fled the country, leaving it a cesspool with no infrastructure, no real rule of law, and no Iraqi engineers, doctors or teachers left to pull them back out of the dark ages we imposed upon them in the name of Democracy.”
With Obama and the left in charge entrepreneurs will soon be leaving the US which will put this country into the dark ages.
Articulate spokesmen who DO have America’s interests at heart do not equate “talking to” means has to be predicated oon “surrendering to”.—-boy, I scrambled that!
Articulate spokesmen who DO have America’s interests at heart do not equate “talking to” with “surrendering to”. There.
#40 Jack: “Shout at a mailbox.”? You mean instead of pointing out how you’re Lording your miniature intellect on this website? That just wouldn’t be as much fun! How is what you’re doing “helpful” to us? Is it helpful to deny the obvious fact that Carter II is throwing our national security to the wind in favor of a political ploy? I’m guessing your answer would be yes! Is it “helpful” to us that you’re arguing over Reagan’s Russian policy instead of avoiding trying to defend Carter II’s obvious lack thereof? I’m guessing your answer would be yes. The only thing you’re doing that is remotely “helpful” here is to remind all of us how closed-minded the liberal left truly is. No wonder you always want to look backwards, it’s entirely too painful to contemplate what you’ve voted in for our future.
Jack, you cannot see the truth because you speak with emotion. A person’s mind can be made to see the truth but their emotions cannot. Back up, breathe, turn off the mainstream media and really think for yourself. You’ll see that Obama has implemented the Rules of a Radical to get elected. It was through the use of manipulating emotions. He has ZERO experience. It’s showing and it’s going to hurt the US. He has done more damage to the economy in less than 100 days than any other president. (I know you’ll say he had to fix Bush’s mess, but think, doing more of what Bush did won’t fix it!) He has hurt the views of the US, we survive by being strong not weak. The other nations want us weak that’s why they are happy with Obama!
Conservatives might be wrong on some of their views about Obama but if you think you’d realize that you are too. Obama’s foreign policy will put an end to our once great nation, the conservatives are right about that!
Norma – Vivo is not sure who’s wasted time he’s talking about. As a leftist, though, he is automatically allowed to dismiss all arguments that run counter to his “thinking” without offering any actual arguments in return. That’s because, you know, they’re right and everyone else is wrong. Cool beans, eh? No wonder they’re so smug.
Jack, you’re a genius. Just thought I’d say that since calling you names seems to be one of the first things people do in the comments here…
#41 Meryl – Well, Obama hasn’t surrendered anything yet and somehow we keep hearing about how he has appeased everyone and has failed. They keep pointing to shaking hands and smiling and bowing as if they think that means he has already sold the country for parts. Either they are still assuming he’ll surrender or they think the act of talking IS surrender.
I also have to say that this talk about him wanting everyone to like him is a bit silly. Bush went around the world talking to (friendly) countries and somehow he didn’t get the “rock star” label. Maybe it’s more that people DO seem to like Obama and not that he’s out trying to be liked. People like me (well, not around here) but because I’m likeable, not because I’m “trying” to get them to like me.
And I pre-emptively mentioned name calling because it was going to happen anyway so I wanted to be on record as saying “I know you are going to do it, but it’s not useful or salient.” And people who can’t discuss issues aren’t very helpful anyway, so I was giving them the opportunity to insult me and go away early on.
But if they think I’m going to get upset because someone can’t think of anything more pertinant to say than “yer dumb” they are sadly mistaken
Jack
#44 AThinkingPerson – I disagree with Obama having released those memos. But since you didn’t ask (you just assumed) you wasted your ‘breath’. Who is closed minded now?
And I was saying Reagan was right and that Obama is doing what he did (or trying to). Didn’t think I’d get crucified for agreeing with Reagan around here. But some people just start lobbing insults and making assumptions and have no desire to discuss issues instead.
#45 Ms Attitude – What emotions exactly am I showing? I disagree with what Obama did for/to the economy. Did you assume otherwise? Did you ask before you assumed? I at least appreciate your intellectual honesty when you said Bush fouled the economy up, because he was at the very least asleep at the switch.
You say conservatives might be wrong on some of their views of Obama. That is my entire point. You and others here have assumed I’m in love with him and in fact I am against more of what he’s done than I’m for. The Bush foreign policy failed, badly, and my reason for posting what I did was to try to get someone to tell me what they think would be more effective than what Obama is doing. Instead I get insults, blather, and people making baseless assumptions about where I’m coming from.
But if anyone can get past their assumptions about me and want to actually talk about how to improve our foreign policy I’m glad to participate. Otherwise, folks can keep flaming me if it makes them giggle (and if they don’t actually care about these issues).
Jack
#47 Herb – Since you’ve called me a name, you have now fulfilled all requirements to post on PJM. Although technically I think you did it wrong…
Jack
#48 Jack: Why do you value a President having “rock star status”? In case you didn’t know or have conveniently forgotten, the President’s duty is to protect and defend OUR Constitution. Funny how liberals always seem to forget that. For some reason if Chavez loves Carter II, that makes all of his bad decisions good in your world? Good thing Michael Jackson wasn’t on the ballot or we can all guess who you would have voted for.
CHAOS IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY
Democrat uni-party government is a leftist dream.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/04/america-is-in-full-disconnect.html
“Jack” seems to do exactly what he accuses his enemies of doing:
“I would love to have someone answer this (clearly not Hawkins…he has no ideas as his article showed…his answer was “just don’t talk to ppl…they’ll cave”)…. That said, call me names. It just means you don’t have ideas. Which honestly makes me giggle Jack”
Its quite clear that Hawkins does not give the “answer” Jack attributes to him. On the contrary, my own short summary would be that Hawkins (following Machiavelli and numerous other figures) advocates a policy of credible threats. Threats are made credible when the power making the threats has a record of carrying them out.
For example, after the Bush administration took down the Baathist regime in Iraq, Libya was willing to abandon its nuclear program.
On the other hand, a record of NOT backing up threats invites further aggression because it destroys the credibility of your threats.
The French ignored Hitler’s unilateral abrogation of Germany’s treaty obligation when he re-militirized the Rhineland. Then the Western Allies (France and the UK) did not honor their pledge to support Czechoslovakia and folded at Munich. As a result their pledge to support Poland had no credibility (As I recall, Ribbentrop reassured the Italian FM that they would fold on this too, just as they had at Munich). “Jack” may not know what happened next, but the rest of us do.
The ability to make a credible threat allows a state to exercise coercive power without actually going to war. Often defeating a minor enemy allows one to intimidate a major enemy without war. But allowing your threats to lose credibility means your choices become much worse.
So far Obama’s eventual policy choices are unclear. His rhetoric is clearly accommodationist: he wants to “reach out” to Iran, North Korea, and Venzuela, and acknowledges their grievances against the US. His rhetoric appears to show more empathy for the dictators of those states than for the Bush administration. On the other hand, in Afghanistan so far he is pursuing the Bush administration’s policies, and in Iraq he has so far drawn back from a hasty withdrawal. (Just as he has abandoned campaign promises to “re-open” NAFTA).
Other powers will mostly ignore his rhetoric, except to the extent that they think it will constrain his ability to use force. But they will watch with total attention what he does in situations where threats fail to intimidate an enemy of the US. So far the signs are not good. What was our response when a US reporter was put on trial as a spy in Iran? this was “disappointing”. It is widely reported and widely beleived that in the Somali pirate case the administration refused several requests to act, and that decisive action occurred only when the naval officers on the ground decided that they could regard the hostages life as being in danger. It is certain that our enemies followed this case carefully, and the public relations efforts of the administration, while they may convince their domestic supporters (“Jack” and his ilk) will carry no weight with foreign adversaries.
Obama has now allowed prosecution of US officials in the “waterboarding” case to become an open question. Regimes that routinely torture and kill their opponents, and which think nothing of killing hundreds in collateral damage will regard him as hopelessly naive. Usually there is a high price to be paid for inviting such an attitude from dangerous enemies. Only time will tell if the US will also suffer that fate, or if the accumulated history of our willingness to fight will protect us for a few years more, despite Obama’s waffling.
Ms. Attitude: “With Obama and the left in charge entrepreneurs will soon be leaving the US which will put this country into the dark ages.”
If any entrepreneurs would choose to leave the United States of America because they think they can make a quicker buck elsewhere, then I will be happy to see them go and would even throw them a going away party. They are not patriots and don’t deserves the blessings that America affords them. Maybe they’ll be happier making money in the UAE, where they can lawfully be tortured at the pleasure of the Sheiks.
#51 AThinkingPerson – Did I say I value having a President with “rock star status”? But I do think having a practically universally despised President didn’t get us very far around the world (frankly it didn’t get us far at home either if his approval rating is any indication).
Unless you care to comment on the huge advances we have made in getting China, NK, Russia, Iran, Venezuala etc etc to do what we want them to…
Jack
#53 Mike – “Threats are made credible when the power making the threats has a record of carrying them out.”
Libya did abandon their program, I’ll give you that, however I don’t believe it was because of our invasion as much as the internal issues in the country and Qadhafi’s eroding support from the increasingly radical religious groups and the military. The external threat of Isreal was overcome by the internal threats and frankly, the 30+ year program hadn’t borne fruit and he needed the money for other things. But I can’t say the war didn’t have any impact, so fair enough.
However, Libya is not a country that already has nukes. NK, Russia, and China aren’t going to care in the least how much we posture. Iran certainly hasn’t slowed down. And Libya folded WITH the presence of US and UK negotiators…i.e. we were talking to them and ultimately paid them off (which is in fact a form of compromise, like it or not…the same type of compromise that Clinton had with NK before the Axis-of-Evil stupidity).
You are right, Obama hasn’t “done” anything yet but many are pre-judging and in some cases, hoping for failure. I don’t agree with your analysis on the Somali pirate issue at all. It was quite clear that Obama left it up to the commanders on the ground (which if you think about it is exactly what you would want him to do) and based on how it ended, I think it sent a very clear signal. Unlike when the Russian boat was taken and they spent weeks and weeks talking to them before ultimately paying them off. I don’t know of a better signal than Americans all safe and at home, and the pirates all dead or in custody (and all pretty darn quickly).
And as I’ve said before, I don’t think waterboarding amounts to torture, and I think Obama was pretty clear in saying that anyone who waterboarded is in the clear given the directions they had at the time, and that you are crazy if you actually think anyone is going to bring charges against the lawyers who argued the legality of said interrogation technique. That’s just spin and fear-mongering from the Right and is frankly silly.
Jack
54. Pastor of Muppets:
You have just shown your complete lack of intelligence.
Jack, your first post was full of emotion. It put the image in my mind of someone trying to pick an arguement. That’s emotion driven.
As for my assumption that you agreed with Obama’s policies on the economy; most who are for Obama are 100% for him on every matter.
As for another solution to dealing with our adversaries I have one. I agree that we should talk to them but not bow down to them, physically nor any other way! We should call the shots and we should rely on the fact that we do have the strongest military in the world and we aren’t afraid of using it. It all goes back to the security of knowing that “my dad can beat up your dad.” Yes, that means we can make the rules, isn’t that what being the most powerful nation is all about? If we surrender that to another nation then we will be playing by their rules. And if I wanted to do that I’d move there now. But as it turns out the ones that oppose us would have me beheaded because I’m not the type of woman they would want me to be.
Our nation offers freedoms that many others want to take from us and they won’t be nice if they are allowed to be the ones making the rules.
I wonder what type of parent Obama is in regards to his wife. Does he contradict her in front of his children, does he talk down about her? In a way that’s how he’s doing the people of the United States. It belittles him and us to talk bad to other nations about our past. I thought he said he was going to look forward!
Jack: You’re quibbling over semantics. You berated Bush for not getting “rock star status” treatment which I was commenting was a pretty silly quality to look for in a President who is supposed to be caring about Americans first and foremost.
I’d like you to comment further on your last statement: “Unless you care to comment on the huge advances we have made in getting China, NK, Russia, Iran, Venezuala etc etc to do what we want them to…”
Who is the “we” you are referring to?
@57. Ms. Attitude
Please remeber that the “Pastor of Muppets” is the religious leader of the sock-puppets, please show him the appropriate amount of respect!
#58 Ms Attitude –
“As for my assumption that you agreed with Obama’s policies on the economy; most who are for Obama are 100% for him on every matter.”
That’s absurd and a perfect example of the over-generalizing and demonizing on the Right. How could you possibly know that? You thought that about me without asking any questions, are you doing the same with everyone else? The Left is guilty of this too, but two wrongs clearly don’t make a right.
But you are right, one shouldn’t talk the country down and this administration is going a little beyond simply changing policies in the way they are putting things out there (the release of the torture memo’s are an example of trying to make a point that is better left un-made). But then again, having Cheney running around and bad-mouthing the President is also not very American (and we were told that doing that to Bush during war-time was treasonous…). Throw in all the “we hope he fails” talk and when the next terror strike happens (god forbid) I hope all of you remember every time you applauded the distractions of these public pi$$ing contests. There are many things to talk about that are fair game, but spending so much time on these pointless claims of messiahs and rock-stars and bowing and smiling and on and on is bad for the country and bad for all of us.
And I do agree we need to have strength and let everyone know we’ll use our force when we need to, but shaking Chavez’ hand hardly undermines that. People agree that he is following “Bush policies” in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so in terms of hostile military action, I don’t see him showing weakness (also my prior point about what happened to the pirates).
I’d like to know exactly what he has done that has so greatly under-mined our strength in the world…
Jack
#59 AThinkingPerson – I wasn’t at all berating Bush for not having rock star status. What I was saying was that Bush goes around the world and talks to forums and other countries and that’s ok, but when Obama does it, he gets saddled with the LABEL of “rock star” like he is being liked by people and he should try to stop it somehow. Same activities, two different results.
As to the other part, “we” is the the US under (or as a result of) Bush’s leadership. My assertion was that he was despised and made no progress. NK went from no nukes to nukes, Russia invaded Georgia, China is supporting our enemies (as is Russia), Iran is going full tilt towards nukes. While rock star status isn’t a prerequisite, Bush was despised and got poor results on the big ticket items, so if you disagree, tell me why you think things have gone well with NK, Russia, Venezuala etc and why his being so disliked helped,hurt or didn’t matter in those efforts.
Jack
OK, let us look at the accomplishments of the previous regime as regards to Foreign policy:
1. Failed to capture the man responsible for 9/11 even after 7 years
2. Screwed up the war in Afganistan, allowed a bunch of poorly armed terrorists to regroup and fight us.
3. Screwed up the war in Iraq. Made the population there hate us even after we disposed of their oppressive dictator.
4. Apologized to the Chinese after they shot down our plan and took our solders as prisoners (everyone seemed to have forgotten about this)
5. Looked on impotently as North Korea exploded nuclear weapons.
6. Encouraged Pakistan with cash and weaponry as they provided Taliban safe haven and allowed them to regroup in their country and launch attacks against us.
I find it amazing after all of this, the conservatives have the gall to preach to the rest of us how strong they are on defense and how they are the only ones that can protect us from the “bad” guys. You conservatives are a joke.
Ms. Attitude: “You have just shown your complete lack of intelligence.”
No, what I did was own you. I exposed you as nothing but a hypocrite who claims to be a patriot but in reality views her American citizenship as useful only in as much as it can get her more money than some other country.
There are still millions of entrepreneurs all over the world who are scrambling to get United States citizenship and there always will be. Again, I would gladly wave goodbye to any stupid American who is thinking of leaving the country because of a slight increase in his tax rate.
There are plenty of ambitious entrepreneurs both here and abroad who love America and would be would be glad to take that traitor’s place.
Jack, my point was that the vast majority of kneejerk namecalling on all conservative news sites is done by lefties who can’t discuss ideas. Sorry I didn’t say it plainer. Duh.
I could copy and paste this insightful article that debunks the Left’s take on Bush’s foreign policy legacy but I won’t take up valuable space here. Please, read and enjoy at your leisure…
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4426&page=0
1. Failed to capture the man responsible for 9/11 even after 7 years
Yet President Bush prevented future terrorist attacks & essentially crippled the Taliban & Al Queda. This is no mean feet.
On the other hand, President Obama has assured we will be attacked again in the United States by politicizing water boarding & closing Club Gitmo.
The fact you’re focusing on one man–Osama Bin Laden–proves your argument is paper thin as President Obama’s resume.
2. Screwed up the war in Afganistan, allowed a bunch of poorly armed terrorists to regroup and fight us.
Explain how the War on Terror is screwed up in Afghanistan. It’s not Iraq, but we are far from lost.
President Obama will make certain we lose in Afghanistan with his defeatist anti-American attitude.
3. Screwed up the war in Iraq. Made the population there hate us even after we disposed of their oppressive dictator.
You have not been paying attention. We have won in Iraq. President Obama may snap us from the jaws of victory with his anti-American hatred though.
4. Apologized to the Chinese after they shot down our plan and took our solders as prisoners (everyone seemed to have forgotten about this)
????
5. Looked on impotently as North Korea exploded nuclear weapons.
North Korea is starving its people; the country is under virtual collapse. You want impotence? Hillary Clinton is impotent with President Obama.
Obama still insists on direct talks, yet Bush was staunch in only 6 way talks with North Korea. This is hard impotent. You’re projecting.
6. Encouraged Pakistan with cash and weaponry as they provided Taliban safe haven and allowed them to regroup in their country and launch attacks against us.
Pakistan is a sovereign country. We are not rulers, despite you delusion otherwise.
Game. Set. Match.
#62 Jack: I think your point about the whole rock star persona has merit except for the fact that he seems to be reveling in it. Article after article, picture after picture, interview after interview all about him and his family and the new dog and his love life. Truly, if he actually cared that he’s starting to look a bit arrogant and silly, he’s certainly not showing any signs of it. Has he yet to come out and speak against the topless photo on the cover of the Washingtonian magazine (that it was recently discovered had been photoshopped)?
I’m thinking that Bush at least had the dignity to not give a rats ass what the media thought about him. He made decisions that kept America safe and the world be damned. Isn’t that what we as Americans want in our President?
64. Pastor of Muppets:
YOU owned me???? How old are you?
Our country was built by entrepreneurs and succeeds because of them. If socialism succeeds as Obama wants then they will all leave!! NONE will want to come to the US because they cannot make a profit. They will go elsewhere. Get it, Kiddo?
61. Jack:
Go visit HuffPo, DailyKOS or any other liberal blog. The ones that frequent those pages are the ones that troll on here. They really do believe that Obama does no wrong. I came across a movement (can’t find the page right now) where they want all Tea Party participants thrown in jail or killed. They are serious. Surf the web… you’ll see what I’m talking about.
PASTOR OF MUPPETS
#23
DID YOU MEAN EMPRESS EXLAX ON THE HORSESH*T NEBULA ?
SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT !
S.M.
63. Charvakan:
Since Bush did bad it makes it perfectly okay for Obama to do worse…good reasoning!
67. Sebastian Shaw:
This is why it pays to get your news from a wide range of sources, not just the partisan hacks at PJM and Fox News:
1) “Yet President Bush prevented future terrorist attacks & essentially crippled the Taliban & Al Queda. This is no mean feet.”
You mean the Taliban that’s taking over Pakistan this very week?? Crippled indeed…
And prevented “future terrorist attacks?” Where? I seem to recall a particularly gruesome one not too long ago in Mumbai, and oh yeah…suicide bombing is back in vogue in Iraq.
You give President Bush more credit than he deserves.
2) “Explain how the War on Terror is screwed up in Afghanistan. It’s not Iraq, but we are far from lost.”
We’ve been in Afghanistan far longer than Iraq and the Taliban is still operating with impunity…now in Pakistan! (Containment is for libruls!) The government we installed barely controls Kabul. Heroin is their biggest export.
Screwed up? Depends on your definition, I guess, huh?
3) “You have not been paying attention. We have won in Iraq. President Obama may snap us from the jaws of victory with his anti-American hatred though.”
We “won” in Iraq, huh? Explain this, then:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517768,00.html
Smell that? It’s not blood and cordite. It’s….victory!
4) Your ”
????” in response to the Chinese plane disaster speaks volumes. (Not in a good way, either.) Look that one up, dude. It was before 9-11…so in right-wingese, it doesn’t count as a black mark on BUsh’s record.
5) “North Korea is starving its people; the country is under virtual collapse.”
Ah yes, but they’re still part of the Axis of Evil, right? And the Bush regime’s nuclear policy didn’t really stop them from launching missiles and stuff, huh?
Funny though that in 2003, you could have said the same thing (starving its people, under virtual collapse) about Iraq!!!! BUt nope…Iraq was an imminent threat…
6) “Pakistan is a sovereign country. We are not rulers, despite you delusion otherwise.”
Again…this could have been said about Iraq in 2003. Why pull out the “sovereign country” crap for Pakistan circa 2009 (a nuclear power with a weak Islamist government and a countryside festering terrorists) but Iraq circa 2003 (contained dictator, no nukes, and a secular government) was an imminent threat!
C’mon, Jack, let’s tag team these wingers.
To all the posters that advocate the “talking with Iran” approach please show where six years of endless talks between the EU and the UN with Iran have lead to;
Have they persuaded Iran to open their facilities to inspectors?
Have they enlightened the Iranians to stop hanging the juvenile victims of rape?
Have they gotten the Iranians to stop testing ballistic missiles?
Have they stopped their elected leader from denying the Holocaust?
Have they gotten them to stop supporting Hebollah/Hamas?
So, why will Obama sitting down and having a photo-op with change all this?
73. Herb:
You’re getting a little worked up there. It’s Friday, relax.
You can point out all of the mistakes Bush made all weekend long, does it make the fact that Obama has made more mistakes in a shorter period of time okay?
We didn’t die under Bush’s watch but we probably will under Obama’s.
AThinkingPerson,
You are being a little too kind to Obama. Think back to his Berlin visit. He wanted to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. The venue was changed because Chancellor Merkel didn’t find it appropriate to use the site for foreign campaigning. When he settled for the Victory Column, his people distributed fliers in the bars in Berlin to get the young people to attend. The whole event was a staged rock star event. It was embarrassing to any half-way serious person.
When Obama
succeedsfails with his dopey changey non-existent foreign policy experience I would like to cordially invite all of the liberal trolls back here on PJM for a big, frightening dose of reality.Of course, some of you dolts will just blame Bush for 911 part deux as per ingrained your brain-washing.
to pastor , vivo et al. recommended reading: IET soldiers hand book, available from the us army
“The insurgence feel emboldened knowing Obama doesn’t want to fight the fight. ”
Again, playing into the troll’s hand. They’re not insurgents. They’re terrorists. Insurgency ended when we adopted the Petraeus strategy of working with the disenfranchised government/military members of Iraq. You know, Petraeus – the one MoveOn.org slandered. And you know, the Surge, the one all the liberals (including our idiot current President) said would never work.
We won in Iraq by ignoring liberals. We’re going to lose that victory by listening to them. Make them take ownership of that.
When we have another terrorist attack within the United States, I fully expect President Obama to lay the blame right at President George W. Bush; he will say it with a straight, bored face while his teleprompter spits out the information. He will not take any questions for the press.
67. Sebastian Shaw:
72. Ms. Attitude:
My point is not that Obama has done better, that is too early to judge, he has been in power for only a few months. Conservative criticisms of him as pure speculation on their part on what his policies will result. Conservatives are in no position to complain over Obama’s approach. Yes, it is different from what they want. My point is that is probably a good thing, since the previous regimes approach resulted in a total failure in all the areas I listed. If we follow the conservative demands on foreign policy why do we expect anything to change from the previous failures?
Regarding the Chinese plane incident, it took place sometime around April 2001, though I made a slight mistake. The plane was not shot down, but it crashed on a chinese island after their fighter jets interfered with its flight. The plan was supposed to be a “spy” plane but was flying over international waters. The chinese said they won’t release the flight crew until US apologises, and Bush did for the US. My point in bringing this up, is that conservatives talk tough about the military, but we don’t see that in actual events.
#66 AThinkingPerson – I haven’t done your link due justice yet, but wanted you to know I hadn’t ignored it. I have some thoughts, but I haven’t finished it yet (darn weeds in my yard ultimately got the better of my focus) so I’ll get back to you.
#68 AThinkingPerson – Sure, the media loves him. But you can’t expect the White House to set precedent by answering every picture (photoshopped or not) of him or every article they write. That’s a dangerous road to hoe, so I don’t count that as an explicit indicator of him eating it up. You said Bush didn’t give a rats ass about the media…wouldn’t ignoring what the media says about Obama be the same thing?
As to what I want in a President (re: the world be damned) well yes and no. We have to do what is right for the country and nothing else, however I would argue that Bush did what Bush thought was right regardless of what the rest of the world said. So I’m being very careful with words there, but I have a point. If your father dies and you do what is right for your family (meaning your wife and kids) and you take the entire inheritance you can feel good that you did right by your family. But only if the rest of the family that had rights to that money are never going to be necessary to you again. Short term/long term. IF we had Russia and China’s support right now, serious pressure would be put on NK and Iran. But we don’t and so Iran will end up with nukes. Maybe what would be necessary to get their support wouldn’t be worth it, but it has to be considered. Bush just said no, which basically meant that Iran will get nukes, so he made that decision…it didn’t just happen.
#70 Ms Attitude – I don’t visit liberal sites because while they have the same characteristic as the flame patrol I find here (at times), I am honestly hoping I can convince folks here to move towards fiscal conservatism as their driving factor as opposed to the social conservatism they are currently pushing. I think the Republicans are more worried about gay marriage (as an example) than the economy or foreign policy. I agree there are morons on the left, but wouldn’t it be nice if the common sense types on both sides could stop lumping the other side as “the enemy” and maybe get together on something, anything? If you and I agree on the Iran nuke problem (for example) and we fix it, we can then later go back to worrying about the social issues. We don’t have to hate each other 100% outright just because of elephants and donkeys.
#74 Anton – Talking with Iran isn’t the solution. Talking with Russian and China is the solution to Iran, along with the work that is already being done to pump up the resistance in Iran (and the extremist policies of Achmanddedjfaldfs, whatever his name is which are out of touch with his people is unintentionally helping). But, we need the support of the countries that are funding him, giving him techonology, etc or we are honestly toothless unless we invade. I hope you don’t think that’s a good idea (or at least not one to be taken lightly).
#75 Ms Attitude – Herb and Charvakan are dead on in my humble opinion. You are right that Bush’s mistakes are irrelevant to what we do now, but I think they (as am I) are trying to get someone to tell us how to fix those very real issues. If someone here supports what Bush did, tell us why it is going to work. If you don’t, tell us what we should do! Leave Obama out of it for a sec. What should we do? I still haven’t heard anyone come up with an option…just that Obama stinks, which is at best partisan and at worst a cop out.
Jack
I am sick of hearing how hated we are in the world from our cowardly commander-in-chief. We aren’t hated at all by people who desire freedom.
I recently met a couple who sought and received political assylum in the US. They both had brothers who were killed by Saddam Hussein in the biological warfare against the Kurds. They spoke extensively about how George Bush is a hero in their country; they think Obama is a joke and may walk away from the people of Iraq like we did in Vietnam.
I was sickened by the black congressional representatives who spoke so lovingly of Fidel last week. I grew up in Florida and had friends from Cuba whose families were robbed of their extensive land holdings, money, etc. and put on a one-way plane to the US with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
Personally, I’m beginning to think liberals are out of their minds.
24. norma:
@vivo #6 said:
What an idiotic article.
It would be a waste of time to go over all the sophomoric thinking. Let his core audience do it.
“As P.T. Barnum once said, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’” Yes, Hawkins
“why do you think it would be a waste of time? it’s entirely possible that there are people reading here who would like to see both sides clearly explained…
i would be interested in reading your thoughtful analysis of this piece…”
You made a sensible question. I would enjoy debating the points that don’t make sense or simply distort the truth. There is so much wrong in this piece that it would take pages and pages. That’s why my style is to be extremely brief and to the point. So they call me a troll and other stupid names. Most of the readers here have a confused patriotism, pay attention to the ones that differ, but are too egotistic to admit that they would change ideas: they are always right. When I have time, I answer serious questions with serious answers. Otherwise, pick their brains with exotic answers.
See you around.
46. Fragmentarian:
“Norma – That’s because, you know, they’re right and everyone else is wrong. Cool beans, eh? No wonder they’re so smug.”
No, I’m right and everyone else is wrong.
65. Meryl:
“Jack, my point was that the vast majority of kneejerk namecalling on all conservative news sites is done by lefties who can’t discuss ideas. Sorry I didn’t say it plainer. Duh.”
kneejerk namecalling . . . lefties . . . Duh.
79. AtheistConservative:
“We won in Iraq”
? ? ? ? ?
24. norma:
Look up Jack. He types faster or has more time, but his responses are close to what I’d say.
bbbb,
With regard to The Great Communicator and Iran’s decision to release the hostages you may recall the Iranians set them free the morning after the Gipper tidal wave swept little Jimmah Carter from the White House in Nov. 1980. The Gipper stood under an umbella the next morning and told newsies President Carter had worked tirelessly to free the hostages and Carter should be the one who meets their plane.
What a class act. That’s why this nation stood still for a week to say goodbye to President Reagan when he died in 2004.
Ah, yes! HERE, Mr. Bones, is that Kiddie Konservative who recently put us icky elitists in our place by showin’ that the Devil can cite Macchiavelli too!
Though Pajamastán be allegorically a Kingdom of Darkness, sir, yet one is not to take that proposition as Pol. Sci. or Comp. Gov. Neocomrade J. Hawkins is not THE Prince of Darkness, he is only one of a great number of little princelin’s of neo-Endarkenment. Pajamastán reminds me of Tsarist Russia, also a happy huntin’ ground for reactionary ding-a-lings, in that there are zillions and zillions of minor nobility, some of ’em so minor as to be pretty near invisible.
The scum that floats on top of the pond over at Neocomrade Mr. Mansfield of H*rv*rd’s summer palace may bear some faint resemblance to the niche market that Signior Macchiavelli was originally targeting with the _Il Principe_ product. Neocomrade J. Hawkins and the proles of Pajamastán are not in the Mansfield Park class, ‘class’ being the precise technical term for why not.
A vast gulf yawns between what the vendor was purveying in 1513 and what the neoconsumers of 2009 fancy themselves to be buyin’. Not being letter-perfect in my Chicagonomics, I hesitate to judge whether heretics might seize this opportunity to impugn that dogma of Absolute Free Trade that runs “The customer is always right.” If a neocomradess should wish to buy a Buick to be buried in rather than to travel about in, who shall impertinently announce that she is just plain WRONG? Not I, Mr. Bones! — though one cannot help noticing why somebody rasher than oneself might say such a thing out loud.
The “little princelin’s” issue lies at the heart of the marketplace incongruity. The hogen-mogens of Wingnut City like like Neocomrade Lord Karl of Rove and Neocomrade Baron A. Coulteress and — at the very tip-top of the Great Scale or greasy pole — Neocomrade Viceroy R. B. Cheney may wish to be feared personally and perhaps occasionally get what they wish for, but with run-of-the-mill GOP base-and-vile such as Neocomrade J. “Hawkins, a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News,” such pretension would only be ridiculous. Hawkinses are capable of terrorizin’ their enemies — includin’ their subjects, should they possess any — only when they act collectively. “The Union makes them strong.” (Pardon my French!)
It would be fun to speculate how Old Nick might have written differently if he had written for Wingnut City political trade unionists rather than for the (wannabe military-aristocratic) Medici at Florence. [1] It would also be a game without rules, I suspect. A great many dicrepant circumstances can arise in five centuries, and Nick himself was certainly not amongst those little friends of Eddie Burke with whom circumstances pass for nothing. In a sense the _Discorsi_ actually *were* an attempt to write for little princelin’s rather than One Big Prince, but between Nick’s distance from Livy, and Livy’s distance from L. Junius Brutus, and the distance of all of them alike from Rio Limbaugh and Outer Pajamastán, very little can sanely be expected to come of hunting that snark.
Still, I suspect it is not a coincidence that the passage the kiddies want to play with comes from Nick’s book on modern times. Though one certainly *could* draw the conclusion that the Roman Republic flourished mainly by terrorizin’ its enemies after the pattern of George XLIII Bush, puttin’ ’em in fear and keepin’ them there both before and after the Romans had turned enemies into subjects, the inference is not mandatory. Neither Livy nor Macchiavelli think that way at all. [2] Almost all the classical historians are high-minded beyond easy belief, and though Nick was not, he let them get away with it — I presume in order that he be able to needle his contemporaries as having degenerated. [3]
Meanwhile, back at the Pajama Palace, I believe one may take it for granted that rank-and-file Hawkinses will not care to worry about whether Old Nick may have thought that _An sit melius amari quam timeri?_ had one right answer for us epigones, but the opposite right answer for Noble Romans. Certainly *they* do not propose to start thinkin’ along any such correctness-riskin’ lines!
Perhaps they ought to, however, when their own _jihád_ careerist faction unwittin’ly raises a similar problem about our own Venerable Framers. Pipes Minor and Bob Cardinal Spencer (&c. &c.) tend to make Mr. James Madison and the whole Gang of Eighty-Seven out ignoramuses about human events and “human nature,” insofar as their general frame of mind was Enlightened and optimistic and postsuperstitious — and entirely oblivious of the existence or potential existence of Islamophalangitarian coackroaches in human form! (Shockin’, innit?)
In principle, I suppose Daniel Richardovitch Pipesides and his ideobuddies might persuade decent political grown-ups that cockroaches in human form are not to be classified with unicorns and GOP budget-balancin’. Once we have granted them that, and shed a pious tear or two for the diminished reputation of our “national Thors and Wotans,” [4] it would be easy enough to notice the absurdity of expecting to be loved by cockroaches, at which point Neocomrade J. Hawkins and his pajamatariat would have won the argument. Sort of.
_Mais que say-je?_
Happy days.
___
[1] Should some non-wombscholar and history-bunker read this, let her consider whether the fact that Signior Macchiavelli’s original marks were not *really* military and aristocratic has something to do with how the neogentry out at Mansfield Park rather disdain this author, despite lavishin’ amounts of time and attention on him that seem entirely uncalled for to those of us who have unfortunately lost that Leo Strauss Brand Magic Decoder Ring that came in the crackerjack box.
[2] Wombscholars and history-bunkers are not interested in any Romans, as far as I can make out. The only exception is the neocomrades of the strict observance, the Commentariat and the Weekly Standardisers, amongst whom it is factionally correct to despise a much later Rome, that of the first and second Christian-Christojudæan centuries, for having been cruel to certain palaeo-Semites. That cruelty is marginal substantively as well as chronologically, however, for their is no reason to suppose that Pontius Pilatus & Co. had decided to rule one Levantine province by terrorization but adopt Dale Carnegie methods everywhere else. But God knows best about neocomrades of the strict observance!
[3] The George XLIII product is available from Thucydides Inc. It seems really more or less the case that “the Greeks thought of everything.” But what one individual thought of once is to be distinguished from what is characteristically Hellenic or ‘classical’. Plus naturally also between what the ancients said (_ho men logos_) and how they acted (_to de ergon_) . . . .
[4] Henry Louis Mencken of Baltimore (1880-1956).
I wonder if it ever occurs to some people that no one is ever going to read their long drawn out discourse, if it begins with insults. I didn’t get past your first sentence. If you write just for the other trolls, really, get a life.
“60 more innocent Iraqis died today in a bombing and at least 125 were wounded so that we could “win.””
The US didn’t kill those innocent people. Do try to be honest with yourself once in a while.
How did Obama’s illegal immigrant aunt living in Government housing, get an extension to stay in the US after being in the US illegally for so many years?
And, WHY did she get an extension? Normally, people get deported when they’ve overstayed illegally in this country. How did she get an extension? Is Obama’s Homeland Security (Immigration Services) looking into the matter? Or, does she get special treatment because she is Obama’s aunt?
Funny to see so much disdain still for the Dreaded Neocons among the leftys here. They’re gone from government now. And the strangest thing is, that on 9/11/2001 they were the only ones around who had any idea of what was going on and how to effectively react to it. Certainly the liberals and leftists did not, and seven-and-a-half or more years later they still do not. They wander around clueless, still repeating the tired old lie that it’s all America’s fault. Obama would do much better if he recruited a few Neocons as advisors instead of the twits he wants to put into place.
Wow! I see where the US$1.2 billion that ACORN received in the Obama bailout is being spent. They needed it to fund all the liberal blogers. What is ACORN paying you freaks these days? Is it more then before the election?
PS ACORN liberal blogers: Obama has stunk up Airforce One and the White House, just ask the liberal press. Michelle, you can’t burn enough Nag Champa in there, girl, to kill that awful stank. At least the Bush’s were clean.
Liberals hate America because they hate themselves.
First, after watching the election occur, I can honestly state my opinion that Obama was elected mostly on race. Why, because if he had been white with all the stuff brought up in his background (the Reverend, Ayres, no real political experience, no foriegn affairs experience, no military experience, no national or global economic experience) he wouldn’t have even made it through the primaries.
Secondly, Reagan was by far one of the best presidents this nation has had in a long time, to bad no other candidates out there are like him. He never placated to any foriegn official or idealogy (or the media). He said he was going to do something and he went out and did it. He spoke honestly, and above all, represented the United States with honor. Obama hasn’t done any thing like this yet. Sure he talks but only to placate those listening at the time. He may have a gift of a silver tongue, but he is using it selfishly, not for the greater good of the US.
One thing we learn early on is, talking is by far the best road, but if you don’t have the means to inforce your stance, no one will truely listen.
Third, With Obama’s extravegant spending spree that he is doing, what does he do? He cuts spending from the military. He wants to help stimulate the economy and save jobs, yet he takes funding away from the largest employer of military, civilian, GS, and contractors in the nation. When you take away funding (even if you intone it to be from the war) it effects everything that is going on in the military, because the war takes priority! Keeping the men and women who are serving in harms way safe, by providing them the best equipement, training, and support they can, until they bring them home out of harms way.
Fourth, This whole economic mess originaly started in the Clinton term. He is the president that was in office when the “Everyone should be able to buy a home” program started. The very same program that started the whole housing bubble crash, which led to the banks not trusting everyone, which led to the economic down turn.
Fifth, Bush II may not have been the brightest president we have had, but at least he had established plans, plans that while they may have helped fill some peoples wallets, where still to protect the country. How many terrorist attacks have happened since 9/11 on US soil, once Bush started taking the fight to al Queda and the Taliban?
#96 Raszaron –
“[Reagan] never placated to any foriegn official or idealogy (or the media). He said he was going to do something and he went out and did it.”
That sounds like Bush II as well, although it was done a lot more poorly in the second case. Which means it isn’t just the strategy, but the man. I still believe (wavering a bit) that Obama the man can push his strategy through to the right ends, but time will tell.
And Obama didn’t cut the military, he actually increased spending by about 3-5% as I recall. The Republican talking points say that he cut the military because he cut (Gates cut) some of the programs they like, such as the missile defense.
According to Hannity, Carter started the housing bubble based on that bill in 1977 that tried to get poor people to be able to buy homes. Even if that were true (which is crazy) does that mean that the Republicans were so incompetent that in 32 years they weren’t able to solve this problem? They certainly weren’t screaming about it until well after the bubble broke…
And only time will tell how sage Bush kept us. One domestic attack under Clinton, one under Bush. I’ll wait and see, but there isn’t any public info available yet on what was being planned in LA so who knows how much of a miss that was. And if you believe Ron Suskind (and all of his well cited sources in the Bush administration), Bush played politics with the London trans-atlantic plot and forced the Brits to move prematurely (against their strenuous objections) to help in the elections over here(and some of those plotters had to be released due to insufficient evidence).
Jack
JACK:Just a riff off your typo:Only time will tell how sage(sic)Bush kept us. Obviously not very ,since the nation, in a fit of dementia, voted for Obama. Since 9/11,we have not sustained a single attack thanks partly to the “torture” which Obama has outlawed. A massive attack WILL occur partly because we will lack actionable intelligence,and partly because Obama is being perceivedby our enemies as a pandering wimp.Why negotiate and compromise when you can intimidate? Your statement that Nixon opened relations with China, is valid, except that you omitted the context:Nixon was correctly perceived as ruthless(remember the carpet bombing of Hanoi),proud of his country,(The kitchen debate),and appointed an amoral,and capable REALPOLITIKER(Kissinger),as secretary of state. Obama is a marxoid, gotten-up rabblerouser,who is at best, ambivalent towards his country,panders to his nation’s enemies, and is manifestly out of his depth in the world of diplomacy.He has appointed a shyster lawyer as his secretary of state,and a manifest idiot as head of homeland security.He simply lacks the credibility needed to negotiate from strength and achieve real diplomatic progress. When North Korea fired its missile at Japan,Obama answered by cutting funds for missile defense;whe North Vietnam stopped negotiating to end the Vietnam war,Nixon sent the B-52s to ravage Hanoi.Nixon was serious,feared.and respected,Obama is proving to be a celebrity-obsessed punching bag.
Deguello – Um, that wasn’t a typo…um, I was wondering how ‘wise’ Bush kept us…you know, sage…um…ahem
I think Obama is being lambasted as a wuss in one breath and then being told he is just continuing Bush policies (re: Iraq and Afghanistan) in the next. Yes, he stopped the missile defense program, but the treaty that Bush had abandoned was part of what helped cool down the arms race many years ago (along with the balistic missile treaty, which Bush also renegged on) and as a response, Russia is doing things like invading Georgia. We can’t muscle Russia around, so if we aren’t going to play nice, they aren’t either.
Someone said the handling of the pirates showed Obama’s weakness but three dead pirates and one in jail looked like a pretty good show of resolve to me. And North Korea did missile tests while Bush was in office too and he didn’t do anything at all in response.
Jack
Jack,
You give credit of the three dead pirates to Obama? Obama had nothing to do with the Navy’s decision to have SEALs take the shots. The Navy had everything to do with it, if the Hostage at any point appeared to be in danger, the SEALs (who’s leaders had the authority from their positions as leaders) were to take the shots required. Obama wasn’t on a phone giving the word “go”. It’s like a SWAT team sniper situation, SWAT team is in place, they have the shot, they don’t call the Chief of Police to get permission, they take it. Due to the way they train and our laws and governing documents, that have been around since before Obama was even born, work.
The president has power to declare war, for 90 days, then needs to get permission from congress to carry forth, he doesn’t deal with hostage situations, even though he will eat up the publicity and take the credit. Or those who support him will say he had everything to do with it.
My statement above is the beauty of the military. Certain leaders, not just senior leaders, have authority to carry out attacks without going higher in their chains of command. Hence if our most senior leaders were to be taken out, the military would run just fine doing what they do, only a lot of field promotions would probably start occuring. It’s also why most other countries find our military very confusing.
And to your point on increasing the defense budget, while increasing it 5%, he shut off the supplementals (15-20% of the current budget) of additional spending, which are not a part of the set budget. When he stopped the “supps” to the military branches, yes, the programs suffer, but it isn’t just the missle defense program, its the surface warfare program for ship building, the aviation programs for aircraft development and flight training, the troop and mechanical programs for advancement of armor and equipment to keep the men and women on the ground safe, that ultimately loose the money, because the war is still going on and still costing money that comes from the defense budget so he can have programs like the trains to every where, large water park, and other pork programs initiated by the democrats. (Yes, I know that some of those were cut out or added by other Dems)
If Obama was smart (or any Democrat) they would stop their selfish issues and organize their party. Get their priorities straight and start fixing things one by one, instead of throwing money at everything all at once. If Health care is the majority leading priority, fix it first, use what money you need to get it running properly and then maintain. Then start on your next priority, ex. Education. But while doing that, you have to keep funding the essentials properly, which until every US citizen is home and safe, the war should be taking priority (whether it is a just war or not).
As for my last comment, I should probably clarify:
The Democrats are notorious for spending tons of money on way to many projects all at the same time, so the projects don’t get the true attention they deserve.
Republicans on the other hand, usually have one major item that they tend to fund properly, and maintain the rest, in order to cut down the chances of blowing the budget. Unfortunately, Bush II’s war on terror, was a financial nightmare due to the poor contracts written and paid for to support the war.
If Obama wants to fix something and wants to prosecute people for wrong doing, then he needs to go after the companies that took government money, but did not carry out their end of the contracts.
He needs to properly fund the war, until the timely pull out of Iraq occurs, but must still fund Afganistan.
He has to be firm with North Korea, becuase they are just plain crazy and probably will use Nukes to either get South Korea back or just destroy it because they can not have it.
He cannot just cozy up to Chavez or Abadajon [IRAN](sp?) thinking that they will become our friends because he is nice to them and agrees with their political views.
He must as our leader, defend us from rhetoric and attack.
At all times holding that Big Stick just in case he needs it.
He cannot spend a Trillion dollars in his first 100 days in office, and plan on another 4 Trillion in spending during his first term, and complain about how much was spent in the Bush’s Eight years in office. (4 Trillion)
He can no longer blame Bush for everything that has happened, as a leader, he should take responsibility for what is going on (not saying claim everything that has happened as your fault) but he is now our leader, stop playing the blame game, and deal with it. That’s why Obama ran, not to win a popularity contest, but to be our leader.
One last thing, anyone who has ever served in an angency or the military and gone through some of the more “fun” training, has been “tortured” the same way to show those service members what it will be like if they were caught by the enemy.
So if waterboarding saves one life whether it be a US citizen or some one abroad, then it’s worth it, because al Queda doesn’t think twice about cutting some ones head off, civilian or military, you cannot persuade a fanatic to change their ways, but you can get information. Some times its valid, some times its not. But we treat them a thousand fold times better, than they would ever treat us!