A recent article by Jack Kelly published at www.realclearpolitics.com notes the following:
"Because he so often has “led from behind,” blustered and retreated, our enemies don’t fear our president; our allies don’t trust him; neither do they respect him. American influence has shrunk along with the president’s stature. During the crisis there, Ukraine’s defense minister refused to accept calls from our secretary of defense. Not even the hapless Jimmy Carter made so big a mess. Relations have soured even with Canada, which is tired of being jerked around on the Keystone pipeline. It’s time the news media noticed."
Is President Obama's foreign policy record even worse than that of President Carter?
Our foreign policy has been a joke through out the years. The inbred casualty of having to elect a new administration every four to eight years leads to sporadic foreign policy continuity over many administrations. Democrats come in and try something to appease or attack our foreign relations with troubled states. And then the Republicans come in with their brand of policy to placate or challenge our foreign relationships with those same countries. Each President trying to find a legacy enacts legislation and policy to make that happen and finds the next one that comes along only wants to either dismantle or re-invent it to make their mark.
Obama is not the only one to make a shambles of foreign relations as others have lost embassies, overthrown solvent governments, supplied arms to terrorists and invaded countries with no apparent motive, etc............. What is peculiar is in the American psyche and their ability to change and manipulate history to garner support for or against whoever is in the hot seat at the time. To invent change you must have a grasp on and respect for the past and all its lessons before moving forward.
"A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it." Sir Winston Churchill
"History is a vast early warning system." Norman Cousins
How exactly---with specific examples from the historical record, has American foreign policy "been a joke throughout the years"?
What policies were "jokes"?
That said, do you really believe that it just only Americans who manipulate history for political ends?
I don't have the time to go into dates but here are a few examples of the lopsided hoopty do politicking this country goes into. How about the particular attention that the US paid to Serbia and Croatia when the Kenyan Genocide was ignored. Was it a political issue or perhaps racial? What about our foray into Lebanon? We were sent packing when we had our tails kicked by one bomb in a military debacle of security for the Marines. How about some government overthrows that some of our former presidents were involved in. How about the United Fruit company in Guatemala? Critics often accused it of exploitative neocolonialism and described it as the archetypal example of the influence of a multinational corporation on the internal politics of the banana republics. Guess who held a significant interest in the company. Georgy Bush the senior! How about the Baby Doc situation in Haiti where the brutal dictator was supported by the Nixon administration and hailed as a peacekeeper in the country while many dissidents were whisked away and never heard from again.
You must really look up some topics on failed and ridiculous US foreign policy that has exploited and killed many people in the "interests" of US (Corporate Exploitation). Get your head out of the sand!
So, if I disagree with you as to what is a failed foreign policy, then I am uninformed and need "look up some topics" and "get my head out of the sand"?
You might consider an effort to demonstrate the knowledge you think you have about this issue by engaging in informed conversation about the issue, rather than going immediately to the demeaning of those with whom you disagree.
I apologize for my less than gracious attitude to your request. I was mistaken about your intent with what you requested. Many times people in these forums ask such questions with the intent of humiliating or just to be argumentative with their political zeal. I mistook you as one of those and I am sorry. Really though you will find it very informative if you type into your browser such things such as "Americas overthrow of Foreign Countries" or "Dictators installed by America" and such things along those lines. It will open your eyes to the meaning of America being the cradle of liberty and justice.
I've been studying US foreign policy and US history---it's my profession, my career, for some 40 years.
We all know that the US has supported many problematic nations and leaders through the years. Don't bother suggesting that because my foreign policy orientation differs from yours that I don't know history and don't know what we have done---good and bad, as a nation on the international scene.
Clearly, the US has engaged in a Machiavellian "real politick" of diplomacy and foreign policy, but this cannot be read as meaning, therefore, that the US cannot be liberal democratic state or a just state.
You need to understand that foreign policy and domestic policy are often night and day policies; policies ideologically worlds apart.
We see this with Obama whose domestic policy is entrenched in social justice, but whose foreign policy tolerates those (whether in Syria or Russia) who reject social justice within their own borders.
We saw this with George W. Bush whose domestic policy was entrenched in an undoing of domestic social justice, but whose foreign policy was intolerant (Iraq or Afghanistan) of those who rejected social justice within their own borders.
My reference to the "joke" American Foreign Policy enjoys is in my first answer as over time America has reversed it position as business and politics dictate. Therefore any continuity is merely by chance and not by design and moreover often ignored by convenience of whoever is in charge at the time. This is unsettling to many foreign nations and supports pause by them in many instances to review their actions and reactions. This administration as well as the past administration has refused to subject their actions to review by the World Court because why? What is it that the most powerful country in the world and the cradle of freedom and justice afraid of? That is why when one reviews American Foreign Policy it is a joke as it operates under its own code of ethics and morality. Picking one administration may serve some individuals agenda to attack that administration but that is more like picking a piece of sand off of a beach and saying it is different than the others.
I think "joke" is a poor choice of words and is not at all demonstrative of the facts and history of US foreign policy---including its policy over time and through presidential administrations.
I suggest leaving the blogs and web behind and reading some scholarship on US foreign policy.
Here is a good places to start---good in the sense that they offer extensive suggestions for reading and study:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/political-sc … materials/
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocu … -resources
As I said I haven't the time to show you the dates and many instances of flawed and failed Foreign Policy. Reading more on the topic to try and refute what I have discovered in my readings, which also doesn't come from the web, would be too long winded and time consuming. Besides what you are asking of me is to prove myself wrong when in fact my studies are quite the opposite. Calling it a joke may offend and not describe what you consider a good description of it but I would digress if I were to continue giving you more examples that you refute by definition. Thank you for your time and input but I think we must agree to disagree.
Yes, you are UNINFORMED and DISINFORMED. Have you ever heard of John Perkins? Since you don't seem to know anything (since you waited for Rhamson to guide you in our debacles and scandals) why don't you start reading his books?
Perkins is a conspiracy theorist whose books lack any documentary evidence whatsoever.
His work, according to informed critics, is total "fabrication".
Just because something is on the best seller list does not make it worth reading.
And there you go again...
Anyone who disagrees with you and those who exalt is automatically uninformed and disinformed and a total know-nothing.
Good lord... so what does America need to do? Send in the army again? Bomb the hell out of Russia because otherwise America won't be respected?
Why don't you walk down the street, punch someone in the face, and announce to the world that you should be respected?
I also have a problem with Obama's foreign policy. Not because he's making empty threats, but because he's making threats in the first place. America shouldn't be threatening or "warning" other countries like this. Would it outrage your patriotic instinct if China or France had warned America about Iraq, speaking of "consequences" and "economic sanctions". I bet you'd blow your top.
And for the record: The US is NOT acting unilaterally in this. The US is acting in concert with the European Union and other nations who understand that Putin has just successfully completed Stage 1 of a larger plan of remaking of the Soviet Union.
What region will Putin claim next? Eastern Germany? Poland?
Oh, it's stage 1 is it? Please show me this plan of different stages so I can book my holidays accordingly.................
If the government of Poland holds a referendum in which over 90% of the population want to join Russia, and they subsequently apply to join the Russian Federation, then, as someone who stands for democracy and the right to self-determination, I will support them.
If Putin wants to claim Poland against the wishes of the Polish people, then I will still support the wishes of the Polish people.
My unflinching support for the democratic process doesn't dissolve when the interests of the United States or Europe are not served by it. Sorry, but I'm not a fascist.
You are mocking me now, but here is some news coming just now onto the wires:
Speaking in support of Putin, Mikhail Gorbachev noted that the "Crimean referendum has set an example for people in Russian-speaking in eastern Ukraine, who also should decide their fate."
This language---even more than Putin's, is reminiscent of Hitler's language as he marched through Europe annexing parts of sovereign nations and entire sovereign nations using the excuse that he was simply liberating German-speaking people and people of German descent.
Oh yes, yes the Nazi's are on the move again! Let them figure it out for themselves. Do we really want to have a pi$$ing match with Russia? I can't think of anything more ridiculous than to get into it with them. Sanctions if we must but establishing missiles and troop placements is the last thing that should be on the table. If Putin wants to stretch his legs and acquire more land and the inhabitants are willing then it is their right to do so.
Sorry, but I have to mock fear-mongering like that, and you're at it again in your last comment.
So Gorbachev has an opinion? I don't understand how it's relevant, but okay.
My Dad's opinion is that people in the Ukraine have a right to decide what country they want to be part of. This language, even more than mine, is reminiscent of Moses' language as he marched up to the Pharaoh and said "Let my people go!", using the excuse that he was simply liberating the Jewish people.
Now you're bringing up the Nazis? You should look up something called "Godwin's Law". It's basically a humorous take on the notion that because the Nazis did something, then that makes it wrong. For example, you could say that in Nazi Germany there was a movement called the Hitler Youth. It resembled the boy scouts in many ways. Therefore the boy scouts must be a fascist organization intent on turning our youth into anti-Semitic soldiers.
To be serious for a moment, it isn't the same though. The people of Crimea voted in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. For Hitler's annexation of Austria: "Under considerable pressure from both Austrian and German Nazis, Austria's Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg tried to hold a referendum for a vote on the issue. Although Schuschnigg expected Austria to vote in favour of maintaining autonomy, a well-planned coup d'état by the Austrian Nazi Party of Austria's state institutions in Vienna took place on 11 March 1938, prior to the referendum, which they canceled."
In other words, Hitler illegally annexed Austria because he cancelled the referendum and took the country by force. I "think" it was the same for the Sudetanland. He denied the people's right to choose (though for the Sudetanland they probably would have chosen to join Hitler). Putin did no such thing. If Putin does what Hitler did here, I would never support him. Currently, there is no reason to think he will.
Godwin's Law is a dodge used by those annoyed with the reality that the most formative world experience in the last hundred years was the horror of Nazism. (Despite the far greater evil and far more American liberal favored Communism) When dealing with any form of political bullying, race hatred, propaganda, ramp up to war, invasion of sovereign nations and centralization of all authority in a secretive, police state it is inevitable that comparisons must be made to the Communist Bloc and The Nazis.
You also have Godwin's Law wrong.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"
It says nothing about the moral implications of that comparison.
Then I was spot on. He made a comparison with the Nazis. Score one for Godwin's Law!
Hitler youth = boy scouts - not covered in Godwin's law, yet a morally relativistic comparison non-the-less.
"Out damned spot!"
Your exact quote, sir.
and it gets Godwin's Law totally wrong and implies a moral component
"You should look up something called "Godwin's Law". It's basically a humorous take on the notion that because the Nazis did something, then that makes it wrong."
Comparing the boy scouts with `Hitler Youth' in order to make the argument that the boy scouts are a bad organization would be an example of Godwin's law. There is nothing in Godwin's Law that says the comparison can't be to make a moral case against something. It just states there needs to be a comparison. Why are we even discussing this? It's meant to be a joke.
No bringing up "Hitler Youth" in any capacity fulfills Godwin's Law. it might help if you studied the meaning of the law more closely. It has nothing to do with comparisons. It deals exclusively with mentioning the Nazis or Hitler in an online conversation. That is all, there is no ambiguity to it. It does however become a misused means of dismissing any mention of Nazis or Hitler as automatically trivial or irrelevant. It is a dodge.
I was right that he violated Godwin's Law, but you're right that my example didn't describe the law properly. I'm confused as to why you care so much though. You're right that it can be used as a dodge, which is why I followed my example by providing a historical comparison with Hitler's annexation of Austria, and explained why it's not the same (Hitler cancelled the referendum and didn't honor the will of the people).
Godwin's Law does not involve any comparison at all. It merely states that the longer an on line conversation continues the more likely it is that the Nazis or Hitler will be brought up in the conversation.
First of all, Gorbachev has a lot more insight into the situation than your father because he was the leader of the USSR. What does your father do that has any bearing on this situation? Watch the news? Is he a janitor at the embassy?
Most people take a great deal of interest in what Gorbachev has to say, unlike your father. Your father and his opinion is insignificant in this situation because his opinion has no substance or backing, so that is a child-like comparison. Hardly fitting of an academic.
Secondly, you made a comparison of a hypothetical situation where Poland wants to join Russia, but you made an obvious and simpleminded mistake; All of Ukraine did not vote to join Russia, only part of it did.
So what if Alaska voted to join Russia? Does Russia have a right to send troops and defend that vote? I think not.
And now it looks like Putin is "encouraging" pro-Russian groups within Ukraine (for the time being) to engage in what is being read by most international security analysts as civil war.
I am sure that in your mind, Putin is blameless, heroic, and the great force of good against the great American and NATO forces of evil.
No, that's your straw man again. It was a simple question. How does it "look like" Putin is encouraging conflict in Ukraine?
I had forgotten that you (and apparently your father) support Putin's annexation of Crimea and claim it to be a legitimate act that resulted from a substantive internal democratic process in Ukraine.
I would actually be more interested to hear your take on Scotland separating from the UK. I watched a very interesting interview on Wall Street Journal Live with Alex Salmond. I don't know much about it, but he did seem to write off any negative data as being a lie and any good data as being true, which kind of made him sound bad, in my view.
The Obama Administration already sold part of Poland's self determination for Russian good will when it withdrew an offer to sell the Poles a missile defense system. Self determination often means avoiding the gangster burning down your house by paying him protection money. General Wojeich Jaruzelski clamped down on Solidarity for no other reason than to keep the Russians from invading Poland, like they had Czechoslovakia and Hungary when their patriots wanted self determination.
The Ukrainians were agitating for a more lucrative connection to the EU, Putin and the Russians weren't keen on that connection - never have been that is why they poisoned Viktor Yuschenko - and so they installed their bully boy, Yanukovich. Not much self determination when the thug with the gun says, "Nice country. Wanna keep it? pay up!"
Let us also not forget that the highly touted self determination, so loved by liberal feather heads like Woodrow Wilson, has led to decades of brutal warfare across Africa.
Besides, democracy is crap where there is no civil, social order and no rule of law. We have seen, time and again, throughout history where democracy installs brutal, red handed regimes all in the name of self determination and democratic principles. That is fine when your country has a moral, legal tradition that places it on a plain with civilized, settled, law driven societies like Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc. Let us not forget that Kim Jung Un was just elected to office with 100% voter turn out and 100% of the vote and that great champions of civil legal society like Saddam Hussein routinely received near universal acclamation from the Iraqi people.
"Installed their bully boy, Yanukovich"? Do you mean when he was democratically elected? Your bizarre nitpicking earlier makes so much more sense now.
"Liberal feather heads"... flipping heck. Fox News watcher are we? I'd love to know how the right for self-determination can be blamed for decades of brutal warfare in Africa but it would be like asking someone to justify why democracy is crap. Oh wait... never mind. It's because dictators sometimes wriggle their way to the top. Good to know...
I believe Obama's foreign policy to be the worst of any US president ever. His actions in regards to other nations have been bizarre and close to treasonous. His foreign policy initiative started with his 'Apology Tour" of belittling America to nations around the world. His Nuclear disarmament policy was to disarm America and its allies while doing nothing to prevent our enemies or potential enemies from amassing nuclear weapons. Obama was even caught telling the Russian foreign minister to be patient because he'd have more flexibility after the 2012 election. The flexibility Obama was discussing involved his attempts at American disarmament while at the same time requiring little restraint for the Russians.
Our allies such as Israel and the Ukraine have experienced Obama's policy first hand. Israel has been warned not to defend itself while they themselves are surrounded by hostile nations and targeted by terror groups. Obama even suggested Israel return land acquired for defense purposes while defending themselves against a nation set on wiping them out.
Then of course there's the Ukraine, a friend of America, that looks up to America as a beacon of hope.
What does Obama tell them, he says " we believe in your cause keep fighting the good fight." But in reality the Ukraine is totality on its own with absolutely zero help from Washington.
Obama certainly rivals Woodrow Wilson in terms of failed foreign policy---particularly in terms of not engaging in international policy realism.
The good news: US foreign policy changes with every new president...
The again, it was Franklin Roosevelt who recognized the USSR as a legitimate nation---something even Wilson would not do.
Obama stands out in that i believe he's the first president to actually want to diminish America's standing in the world. Not that he hate's America (but I'm not really sure about that either) but that he believes America to be an imperial nation that needs to be downsized for its own good and the good of the world.
This is a common believe in our leftist colleges but so far no American president has acted in this manner.
Woodrow Wilson was cut from the same cloth as was Jimmy Carter---and each acted in ways very similar to Obama.
This said, while unlike either Obama or Carter, Lyndon Johnson was a foreign policy disaster!
This said, I come from academe and many of us in history and political science as much LESS left of center than you might think. Many of us are realists as realism is the end-product, it seems, of studying history generally and diplomatic or international history more specifically.
I think you're right in your assessment of President Obama. He is an idealist in terms of foreign policy who believes that cooperation is achievable---even with guys like Putin; he believes that America's role should be one of team player not leader---certainly not leader in terms of our roles as global superpower since 1945.
I find this article interesting in terms of successes and failures in foreign policy:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa … /242781/4/
Interesting article. While writing my rant, I didn't realize that we were on different ends of the political spectrum. I do agree with some of what was written in the Atlantic article but mostly differ on the conclusions surrounding the facts.
I agree that Wilson and Carter had very poor records for foreign policy. Wilson and Carter were certainly naive as was mentioned. Where I differ from the conclusions of the Atlantic is that I see their policy blunders not so much as incompetence but because of their progressive ideology.
I think we're probably very close politically in terms of foreign policy issues---particularly if we agree that Obama's foreign policy is a failed one.
That said, I too see their foreign policy failures as ideological; ideological in the sense that none of these guys are realists, and therefore, they presume that talk works; that diplomacy without threat works; that we can and should compromise; that we should embrace cultural and political relativism, etc.
The problem is not a Progressive ideology. After all, Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Truman was a progressive, Eisenhower was a progressive, as were Kennedy and even Nixon to some extent---at least in terms of domestic politics.
My sense is that the problem is liberal idealism in matters of foreign policy.
At the core of it, in terms of matters of foreign policy, I am a Bush-Cheney era neoconservative.
In Obama's case I don't think we're talking about just an ideological blindness or lack of realism, although I believe progressive ideology lends itself to that because its based on false assumptions about people.
I don't think for example that Obama is naive enough to believe if we unilaterally disarm that other nations like north Korea and Russia will do likewise or that Iran will sense our good intentions and not seek to acquire nuclear weapons.But this is the policy he's been pursuing. Politically his policies aren't winning him approval with his own nation or their allies and America's enemies will only despise us for our weakness. So you have to ask why? The only reason that I can think of is that he believes America should leave a smaller footprint in the world, so he's acting in a way to weaken America's influence to make that happen.
In short, Obama is getting the results he's looking for, he's not blinded by ideology he's a realist who's undermining America's standing in the world. He believes this to be in the interest of America (i think) and in the interest of the rest of the world.
I didn't realize he had a foreign policy. I guess he does:
1. Apologize to other countries.
2. Complain about wars and then send more troops.
3. Make fictional, rhetorical red lines that won't be enforced.
4. Watch as the Russians outmaneuver us.
5. Make excuses.
6. Make sanctions and keep doing so even when they aren't working.
He did give the order not to inform Pakistan that we were coming for Osama Bin Laden. Had he not done so, Pakistan would have likely informed Bin Laden ahead of time. President Obama got this right, but what other foreign policy decisions has he made that were effectual?
Too bad he isn't Bush. We would of invaded New Zealand by now! You must be a Rush Limbaugh fan. I'm sorry.
To understand that the Obama Administration is failed in terms of foreign policy is not a marker of being a "fan" of uninformed right-wing conservative radio talk show hosts.
It is a marker of being able to assess something as simple as current news in terms of policies---successful and failed.
Nah, New Zealand isn't on his hit list. Libya was - he got that one. Syria was - Putin stopped him there. Now, it appears he had a hand in encouraging the opposition that ousted the duly-elected Ukrainian President, which is what triggered Putin's incursion into the Crimea. We have a bad situation brewing over there - and Obama's in it up to his eyeballs.
Yeah - he's probably the worst at foreign policy that we've seen in at least a century. Even worse than Carter.
So you are a Putin apologist? Do you really understand so little as to think Putin some saviour angel of Syria and Ukraine?
So far, again, your knowledge are LIMITED. It is interesting that you hurry to question people's knowledge and yet appear arrogant as for your uncertitude if not your ignorance on the subject. How can you pretend to debate?
Putin has designs on Crimea because Syria is increasingly problematic. Putin is a spook and I would not be surprised if the flames of Ukrainian anger weren't fanned by his agents as an excuse to acquire the valuable Black Sea naval assets in Crimea.
Exactly. Putin was, is, and will always be KGB.
Crimea provides Russia's only access to a warm water port and because it is Step #1 in Putin's plan to recreate a Russian/Soviet Empire.
I had to laugh when I heard yesterday that the voting in Crimea resulted in a 95% pro-join the former Soviet Union result.
Really? I had predicted that the "vote" would be set at 80-85%. Putin going to 95% demonstrates that he is, in some ways, a hack---a dangerous hack, but a hack nonetheless.
Romney got this one right in 2012 when he made very clear that Russia was a geopolitical threat to the US.
Putin is hinging his next annexation on a contorted geological argument regarding the polar region and Russia's "rightful" claims to it.
Putin's argument is that it is the continental shelf---not geopolitical borders, that determines whether or not something is part of Russia.
These claims were in the news a while ago and have resurfaced today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … monds.html
None of this is a peculiarity of Putin's, Peter the Great did much the same things for the same reasons. The Russia historical experience compels Russian leaders to seek buffers between their country and the outside world.
I hear you.
Is it historical experience our paranoia?
Nations are formed by their experiences, for the Russians it is historical. The Mongols, Vikings, Communism, Anti-Communist invaders following the Revolution and the Nazis were all external invaders or threats that destroyed or destabilized Russia. It may seem irrational, but so does American energy and exuberance; French nationalism and confidence; British pride; Israeli dedication and love of Jerusalem to those not American or French or British or Israeli. Russians have tried to overcome a certain self image as the outsider, while preserving their isolation, in relation to Europe - and later the US - since the 18th century.
International security analysts (including those who do analyses for the international business sector) are reporting today that they believe that Putin/Russia will now do the following: (1) Work to gain control of Eastern Ukraine; (2) Work to destabilize the Baltic states and Caucasus; (3) Work to undermine the European Union.
They are reporting that such efforts may be either (1) military in nature or (2) economic in nature.
Only time will tell.
What should we have done after 9-11? Should we have apologized for being attacked? Let's hear your great solution.
What's this apology crap beside one of Rove's rumors? Show me exactly where Obama apologized for anything.
You answered my question with a question. Tell me what you would have done after 9-11.
When Obama apologizes, he seldom actually uses the word apologize. For proof of this, look at how he "apologized" for lying to America about whether or not people could keep their health insurance.
Here are some clips:
Here he is bowing to a Saudi king:
Here he is bowing to the Japanese Emperor:
Here's one just for fun. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to know that the first time Michelle Obama was proud of her country was when it served her personal interests:
I don't quite understand what it is you find wrong with the idea that if America has made some mistakes that they should be ignored and glossed over. How can anyone or any country move onto a better relationship in any regard if there is not an acknowledgement of wronging another? To not address the error or regression is disingenuous and allows an air of suspicion to continue. Is it that in order to gain or maintain respect one has to be too prideful to show respect to another? Remember George Washington rejected the idea of being called King because we had just declared our independence from one but did we gain our independence through disrespect and deceit? If that was the case the Revolutionary War would have been an unseemly aberration of a bunch of spoiled colonist radicals. For some odd reason along the line America became too big for her own britches and humility was lost as we bought our way into the hearts of those less fortunate through our "humanitarian" endeavors. I am reminded of the quote, "Be modest! It is the kind of pride least likely to offend" Jules Renard. And this quote, " The more things a man is ashamed of, the more respectable he is" George Bernard Shaw.
So apologizing isn't all that bad if you want to gain any respect and ground. But to continue in offending ignorance can be more costly than you can imagine.
Of course the US has made mistakes---all countries make mistakes.
What bothers we is the relentless blame America first crap that permeates the Hubpages environment.
What bothers me is the relentlessness of apologists for everything and every leader that is not American; not among America's allies.
That said, apologists are those who defend decidedly problematic ideas and people. Apologists are not those who are "sorry", but those who advocate for something that most people understand is a problem to be solved.
I don't think that this is a continual problem and that America needs to apologize time after time. But those who beat the patriotism drum at the cost of responsibility and for the greater good are the ones of which I have a problem. Idiots like Hannity and O'Rielly drive me crazy with their zeal in making all things Obama their agenda for thing's to criticize as was referenced by the original poster. I don't defend Obama for a lot of what he does but if patriotism is mixed in with ignorance I begin to squawk a little.
"You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race." George Bernard Shaw
I agree about Hannity and O'Reilly---they're just entertainers who have figured out that they can make money by slamming anything and anyone that is not part of some imagined extreme right-wing (including John McCain).
Unfortunately because they are nothing more than entertainers they know how to get attention AND how to convince people of the reality of their imagined world.
The only reason I mentioned his apologies is because of a response I received from Paul Wingert. In an attempt to sidestep a question I asked him, he asked me to prove that Obama has made apologies. He posted, "What's this apology crap beside one of Rove's rumors? Show me exactly where Obama apologized for anything."
It's obvious we've made mistakes, just as it's obvious President Obama has apologized. There's a time and a place for stating these obvious realities. His "tour" came off as an apology tour, one that was, frankly, not received as well as he imagined.
I understand what you are saying. Yes, it is important to admit mistakes and make sure they do not happen again. However, bowing down to people, both literally and figuratively, and accepting total blame makes us appear weak to some. How would Putin respond to American apologies?
What specific mistakes did he apologize for, arrogance? Great. Frankly, I'm pretty sure Germany, Israel, and some of our best allies would appreciate an apology for President Obama's foreign policy mistakes, but apparently, President Obama can only apologize for "mistakes" or "character flaws Americans possessed" before his presidency.
Paul, what's your answer? What would you have done?
I have repeatedly asked this question for five weeks. . .
Paul, what's your answer? What would you have done?
Actually, the historical community---particularly that segment which deals with presidential history, is now suggesting that Obama has been more "publcists" of his presidency than president.
Here is an interesting article:
Frankly I wonder if Obama haas a foreign policy. He just reacts
I think you're on to something with this.
He and his advisers are reacting not leading; reacting not preparing.
So what are we supposed to do, invade Russia?
John McCain got exactly right when he said yesterday that Russia was a "gas station masquerading as a country" and that it should be treated as such.
McCain called for the right things---for now:
Non-lethal military support
Marshall Plan-like support for the Ukrainian public
And, bring realism back into American foreign policy.
McCain correctly noted: "Crimea must be the place where President Obama recognizes this reality and begins to restore the credibility of the United States as a world leader."
Credibility lost - is not easily regained. Obama will issue a sternly worded memo that that will be that. Our State Dept. is a a bunch of Keystone Kops - after all the NSA revelations, why would Victoria Nuland think she could dictate on a phone who should be the stand-in replacement for the ousted Ukrainian president and tell the EU to "f-off?" The fact that her conversation was tweeted the next day by Russia should tell you they've been one step ahead of us for a long time.
Had the EU and the US kept their fingers out of the Ukrainian leadership - we wouldn't be having this issue right now. The Ukraine wasn't perfect - but it was better than it is now with Crimea going to Russia.
McCain genuflects between extremes, I think Obama would be better off listening to Cheney.
I sincerely pray that you are wrong that that Putin and his henchmen are not, as you state, "one step ahead of us for a long time."
I understand and I hope I'm wrong as well, but recent events of the past few years indicate that Putin is a step ahead of us. Right when Obama cut military aid to Egypt, Russia stepped up and buddied up as our relationship of 30 years soured. When Obama drew his red line in the Syrian sand - Putin prevailed and Obama turned away. Snowden sits comfortably in Russia making speeches from undisclosed locations.
A Russian spokesperson just described the situation as Russia being the only country that could turn the USA to ash. This is not a good situation. Obama made the dubious decision to stop the nuclear defense program for Poland and Czech right after he took office and systematically reduced our military spending. Obama and crew have successfully demoted the U.S. to a nation weaker than Russian.
I have absolutely no faith that Obama can remedy this. His meddling in Ukraine paved the way for this. He doesn't have the ability put forth a strong face to the world.
Russians are notorious for exaggerated rhetoric. While Kennedy was president Kruschev said that within 50 years that the Soviet Union would "bury" the US and prevail globally. There ain't no more Soviet Union.
That said, you are right that Obama's decisions to basically leave our eastern European allies defenseless is problematic (shameful and inexplicable, in my opinion) and has greatly reduced our geopolitical dominance and posture, but I do not believe that Russia is in any meaningful way stronger than the US.
We just need to "rattle some sabers" and fast; channel Kennedy in the 1960s; Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
I am terrified of the thought of needing to do this before late January 2016 because I don't think that President Obama or anyone in his inner circle has what it takes to do this.
Why not comparing what is comparable? Why the analogy with Carter whereas we have a paradigm at our disposal? Bush, right? What did Bush do that Obama didn't? We invaded, killed, destabilized...
America is not respected because we are belligerent. We have nothing to offer but our drones! People saw in the African American that Obama represented another vision of the world. Peaceful. As a professor in Law, the respect of any law national or international...
Where is his "yes, we can"? To the service of the corporations. It's the last time that one of those thugs will get my vote!
What you have to remember about foreign policy is the fact that you are usually having to choose the least objectionable from a list of only objectionable choices.
I think Presedent Obama is worst in foreign policy then Jimmy Carter. But then Bush was also bad on foreign policy. Bush was like Teddy Roosevelt on steroids if it fit American interest or fit his version of democracy were going too stuff it down 3rd world country's throat. While Teddy was bad Obama's Woodrow Wilson who not understanding other countries, other way of lives, regional hatred, promoted an ideology of pacifism. "Hey if we give up are guns no more war", Wilson idiocy and not understanding that France and Britain wanted a peace of Germany led to a failed treaty that led to WW2. President Obama today wants to scale back are military, he has crippled are economy (and Bush left it a mess), and he alienated us in front of are ally's. He is unfortunately a joke.
by lizzieBoo5 years ago
I'm just curious what people think, and whether you think it would change the country and how?
by Credence215 months ago
Be it not for me to speak ill of a fellow Democrat, but Hillary Clinton disappoints. Please read the articles, I confess that Salon is a left leaning publication, but I have included the article placed by H. Clinton in...
by Jack Lee3 weeks ago
Now that the dust has settled, after the 2016 election and a new administration in place, what grade would you give Obama? (A, B, C, D, F)?There is no right or wrong answer. Just your honest assessment of what he...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 years ago
Election time is nearer and nearer. It is time now for President's Obama assessment. What grade you give President Obama so far? Please detail what grade you would give and why?
by Holle Abee4 years ago
To Obama, I'd say to be more engaged and show a little more passion. Act like you WANT to be POTUS for 4 more years.To Romney, I'd say, "Calm down!" I thought he did a good job in the last debate, but at...
by WeStand4Freedom7 years ago
Impeachment of a President One would think that the impeachment of a president is not conducive in showing him support.”Give him a chance,” people say. President Obama, to be exact, has been in office...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.