text:
By Jamie Crawford
When North Korea launched a rocket earlier this month in a failed attempt to supposedly put a satellite into orbit, U.S. President Barack Obama was quick to condemn the latest provocation and then canceled a deal to resume nutritional assistance.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president, offered a blistering statement of his own. But his statement was not entirely directed at the new leader in Pyongyang. It was also directed at the U.S. commander in chief.
"Instead of approaching Pyongyang from a position of strength, President Obama sought to appease the regime with a food-aid deal that proved to be as naive as it was short-lived," Romney said in a written statement. "At the same time, he has cut critical U.S. missile defense programs and continues to underfund them," he added, digging at another area of Obama foreign policy.
As the Republican candidate transitions from the long primary slog into the general election battle, his effort to cut down Obama on foreign policy and national security will sharpen. Naivety, appeasement, apologist and a menu of other unflattering descriptions are likely to be emanating from Romney's attack machine trying to cut down the president's perceived advantage on foreign policy. The president and his campaign team will be doing their best to ensure that advantage is maintained.
Romney's positioning in this particular battle arena is not new.
"Romney is going to do what presidential candidates, Democrat and Republican, have done for years when going up against an incumbent, and that's to run to the right" of the incumbent, said James Lindsay with the Council on Foreign Relations.
North Korea is not the only global hot spot where Romney has taken on the president's record in foreign policy and national security. Iran, China, Russia and the war in Afghanistan are among the areas that have been targeted as ripe for criticizing Obama's stewardship.
When an open-mic caught Obama last month telling the Russian president that he would have more flexibility to deal with missile defense after the election, Romney smelled blood in the water.
"These are very unfortunate developments," Romney said the same day in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Russia is "without question our number one geopolitical foe, they fight every cause for the world's worst actors, the idea that he has some more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed," he said.
In what is likely to be a continuing theme throughout the general election, the Obama campaign was quick to put out statements from foreign policy surrogates painting Romney as a foreign policy novice unprepared to take the reins in a time of war.
"Does Mitt Romney think Russia is a bigger threat to the U.S. today than a nuclear armed-Iran or the terrorists of al Qaeda?" asked Colin Kahl, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. "This is yet another example of Mitt Romney's willingness to say anything to get elected, no matter how reckless it may be."
In a speech earlier this year to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, Romney excoriated the administration's "policy of engagement with Iran," but erroneously asserted the president had opposed sanctions against Iran at that point. Supporters of the administration were quick to point out that the most crippling set of sanctions against Iran, since legislation was passed in the late 1990s, has occurred under Obama's watch.
When it comes to China, Romney has been critical of the administration's approach, saying he would penalize the country for its currency policy. He has also accused the administration of gutting the defense budget and of abandoning Israel, a dependable ally in an unsettled part of the world.
And from the beginning of his candidacy, Romney has criticized Obama's plan to drawdown the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan. Such decisions were driven by politics and failed to heed the advice of senior military officials, Romney has said. Romney says the scheduled pullout of troops is premature and could jeopardize any gains that have been made. But Romney himself has said troops need to come out as soon as possible, as judged the commanders on the ground.
Most polls on the subject show even the president's policy of a phased withdrawal by 2014 from Afghanistan to be to the right of the American public, with a majority calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. His handling of counterterrorism, highlighted by the killing of Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan compound, has handed the president some high-profile foreign policy triumphs.
Romney's campaign has added a list of foreign policy heavyweights from past Republican administrations who served in positions at the White House, State Department, Pentagon and the intelligence community. In an open letter to Obama, the team said Obama's inadvertent comments to the Russian president raised "questions about whether a new period of even greater weakness and inconstancy would lie ahead if you are re-elected."
The Obama campaign has in turn branded Romney an untested leader unsure of his standing on issues beyond the waters' edge.
"Gov. Romney has been all over the map on the key foreign policy challenges facing our nation today, offering a lot of chest thumping and empty rhetoric with no concrete plans to enhance our security or strengthen our alliances," Ben LaBolt, Obama's campaign spokesman, said in a statement last month.
So far, the power of incumbency seems to be playing to Obama's benefit. In a CNN/Opinion Research poll of 1,015 adult Americans conducted earlier this month, 52% said they saw Obama as being the candidate better able to handle the duties of commander-in-chief. Some 36% of those surveyed sided with Romney. The poll had a sampling error plus or minus 3 percentage points.
As the calendar draws closer to November, analysts who follow the race say Romney needs to remain cognizant of the risk of appearing too tough in his foreign policy rhetoric that presents an opening for the Obama campaign to paint him as reckless. At the same time, he can't appear to deliberately tone things down so much thereby inviting charges of changing his positions for political expediency.
With the economy and other domestic issues largely drowning out the discussion of foreign policy so far, it's unlikely to be a major discussion point in the campaigns, absent an unforeseen event, until later this year when the candidates debate each other. And that will be where the true test for Romney will likely emerge.
"It's easy to say Mr. President, I can do better on Iran, on China, on North Korea," says Lindsay with the Council on Foreign Relations. "What we have yet to see is whether or not Romney can generate in the answer to the obvious counterquestion from Barack Obama: 'OK, what would you do, and why should we believe it would work?' "
Mitt Romney is a community organizer of the rich and famous!
Thanks Buzzer, this is the dumbest post I've ever read on here...
"Russia is more "adversarial" to us than China because we are tied much more closely on economic issues with China and depend on each other (China more so). China puts more effort into not being as much of an obstacle to us a Russia. Russia has less interest in cooperating with us on "geopolitical" issues precisely because of the "economics", so no, Russia is our greatest "geopolitical" foe...you can't just rank a country based on capabilities alone...mind set and attitude (based on in this example economic "relationships") are the other half of the equation..."
China does has more to "lose" economically by being adversarial towards the U.S., so in the context of "geopolitical" issues, one of them being economic relationships, I said Russia does more to impede our interests overall than China. But, in reading davec.0121's response to me at the bottom of this article I'm tending to agree with him in his favoring China as being #1. The premise of "irritating" those who you do business with isn't as much a concern to China when I think about it as I initially thought.
If you're saying that the practice of not "bucking" the other country that you have close economic ties is the stupid then whatever makes sense to you...I apologize if my initial statement wasn't clear/coherent enough...
Romney is like a puff of wind, and one never know in which direction it will blow.
There's a tropical storm brewing in the Cayman Island! That's where his puff of wind is blowing!
Romney has lots of international experience. He can tell you the banks with the best interest rates and banking charges in all the countries he has his money parked. I can't believe we're talking about electing a guy who believes so little in his own country that he has his money in foreign banks – so he doesn't have to put funds towards fixing the economy!! And he wants to give more tax cuts – to people like him hiding their income overseas!!! What a country!
The cry of the chickenhawk fills the air again! If Romney wins we'll just have to have another war to prove what a big d*ick he is (has?).
Wow Mitt that was really pathetic, embarrassing and clearly out of touch. Bush and his team let 911 happen.. what do you have to say about that? Instead of ripping on Obama why dont you tell us how YOU would solve the problem.. oh that would be that you dont have a clue huh? No experience huh? No plan huh? Got a stupid GOP grin on your face though.. how many votes do you really think thats going to get? You think relying on the redneck states where knowledge hasnt prgressed in 60 yrs is going to save you? LOLOLOLOLOL Why dont you just stay home?
Mittens has NO foreign policy credentials or experience. On top of that, all he does is attack, attack, attack our nation's current foreign policy. Which leaves the simple question–what is Mittens' proposed foreign policy? Aside from a war with Iran, I mean?
So when North Korea kept shooting rockets over Japan during Bush Jr.'s presidency, and when North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon also during Bush Jr.'s term, what was that great, conservative, republican strategy we resorted to? We went crying to the Chinese to help put a stop to it. Yeah, republican foreign policy is so much tougher...
You said "you think I and other members of the US military weren't doing everything to get OBL in Toro Boro?" Really? In 2002 the US State Department had reported that the US military had cornered OBL and his regime in Toro Boro and that they had no place to escape to! Then fourty eight hours later, GWB instructed General Tommy Franks to RETREAT because in his words, "the terrain is too tough and the mission too risky! So just imagine GWB, the coward instructing Gen. Tommy Franks to have the best trained and equipped military in the world retreat because the terrain too tough and the mission too risky! I guess that was the softer side of Dick Cheyney and Donald Rumsfeld! Cowards!
I seriously doubt that it had anything to do with the *softer* side of Bush/Cheney. I'm guessing the retreat order had more to do with keeping OBL alive. Without OBL, there was ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION for the military/industrial complex to remain in Afghanistan and for the US Govt to keep funding an un-budgeted war. IOW – it was GOOD FOR BUSINESS!!
@ Buzzer, It's Tora Bora–in Pakistan. I believe Toro Boro is a town in Spain........
@ Blah Blah the wheel's off your trailer – thanks for all your posts–very true and applicable.
Yes I know its Tora "Bora", I checked all my references to this area of operations post 9/11 in my posts and Tora Bora is a range of mountains that span the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan...we operated in the Tora Bora "area" in the Afghan side of the border.
I agree w/Anonymous010 that national security is the wrong area to try and attack President Obama. The Repugnants need to move on to something else because we would still be waiting for Bin Laden to be captured if it had not been for Obama.
Don't you recall that President Bush had bin Laden in the cross hairs, but he was told he could do nothing. I believe it was the UN that told him he was practicing unfair attack. It was President Bush's intelligence that continued to keep track of bin Laden. It was President Bush's intelligence that assisted Obama in the killing of bin Laden. Like President Clinton who would draw a line in the sand telling the enemies to not cross it or else. When the enemy did cross the imaginary line it was Clinton that backed down. We need more strength in the all of D.C.
Sorry – Bush tried hard to find Bin Laden. He finally gave up and pulled the funding. Obama came in and made that the priority of his defense department. They got him. I don't think we should trash Bush over this – but i don't think he should get much credit, except to thank him for his service to the campaign. He couldn't even bring himself to the celebration of Bin Ladens death, because he knew he didn't deserve to share the stage.
I agree that attacking Obama on foreign policy is a losing battle for the GOP but what would they attack him on, the economy? After all, we suffered the worst economic crisis in our nation's history under the GOP's leadership! Let's face it, attacking Obama on anything is a losing cause for the GOP period! The only thing the GOP can successfully beat Obama at is dividing this country with their blatant bigotry and racism!
This guy is a big naysayer but he NEVER ONCE says what he would have done.that is a cowards way out. I would never trust this guy with that 3am phone call he hasnt a clue about foreign policy!
Right on Romney that is why Bin Laden is dead because of the stupid decisions of the president. seriously you conservatives live in lala land.
coming from a man who has hired the bush team that said there were wmd's is too funny.he has absolutly no experience in this area and the american people know who has done the most agains't al queda and it awsn't the republican party.
Bush and Republicans let 9/11 happen...WHY do we want more that?
Romeny attacks Obamas policy, because he has no policy of his own...on any level!
How much experience does Mitt has in foriegn policy?
But Ann has been talking to a lot of women about this and he KNOWS what he's talking about! Really! And the Book of Mormon is real, too!
Once again Mitt is wrong on facts and has no alternative plan. I seriously think this guy has a personality disorder. Maybe Ann can be his foreign advisor in addtion to his economic advisor? Yikes.
I'm voting for Romney. Mormons don't believe in the Holy Trinity like Christians and if Mitt becomes POTUS he'll convert more people to the Mormon cult thereby further eroding Christianity in this country and creating more atheist's like us!
Mitt believes that his election to the Presidency will fulfill the LDS "White Horse Prophecy" where the USA is RULED by the Mormons as a theocracy. Atheism won't help you there...time to move to Canada.
Why the long face? And why are you so envious and jealous of President Obama's successful leadership? Well, if you can't handle the success of the greatest President in US history, then go drink Kool-Aid!
Greatest President is US Hostory??? OBama? HAHAHA..OK..Explain why that is? Tell of us on here what accomplishments Obama has in 4 years that make him the greatest President pof all time. WOW..I cant believe I just heard that.
President Obama, will go down as on the top 10 best presidents. But it will be years before this happens because of all the negativity spoke about him. When this country become civil again, I believe then it will be written. It will state facts about how bad the recesion really was and how he stablized the economy, rebuilt foreign partnerships, put the american people before the american corporations, and how his foreign policy was a great startegy during his presidency.
not even going to bother read what mittens has to say..... We know what has happened in the world and all that mittens and the GOP does is take the complete opposite side... so whatever Obama did he will say is totally wrong and done.
North Korea didn't just happen. It has been a problem for many decades and through many administrations. Each has had their chance and all have failed. How do you motivate the leadership without killing the population?
Romney will say anything to get elected . Then flip flop . Other Countries know this about him and dont trust him.
In fact, the presidential race is already over.
For all their huffing and puffing, the right-wing nutters have run out of gas.
The Republican stalling tactics can't be allowed to continue for another four years,.
The real question is whether enough Democrats can be elected to end Congressional gridlock.
I don't mind a criticism...but each one should include some kind of "this is what I would do"...but we don't get that from Mitt. He'll be critical about every, and I mean EVERY thing the President does...but he offers no altervatives. Pure political BS.
I agree, its always 'you did it wrong' but it never includes a 'here is how I would do it'
Oh they talk a good game such as 'common sense conservative ideas' but they never actually go into details as to what that actually means, I guess its because they don't actually have any concrete ideas.
Foreign policy is the wrong place to attack Obama. All of the complaints that Romney had about Obama's policy are the sort of thing that every President has done (on both sides of the aisle). Plus, Obama is the President that got Bin Laden. On top of all that, foreign policy has never been that important to Americans, especially not now.
I'm not going to say that Obama has been a perfect President or that he hasn't made mistakes, but foreign policy is an area where he's done very well. He's done a great job repairing our image to the rest of the world after Bush dragged it through the mud. Romney comes off as a nitpicking nutjob by attacking Obama here. He'd be better off focusing his attacks on the economy.
Yes, I agree that foreign policy has been a strength of this administration. Mitt should stick to the economy if he wants to make inroads with the independents.
The GOP solution: Turn all the Old, Sick, Poor, Non-white, Non-christian, Unemployed, and Gay people into slaves. Then whip them until they are Young, Healthy, Rich, White, Christian, Employed, and Straight. Or until they are dead. Then turn them into Soylent Green to feed the military.
Wow !!!!
NeoCons Foreign policy: Go to war – borrow money – make Cheney/halliburton rich – screw-up economy – Then BLAME POOR for all their miseries.
LOL. Never laughed so hard. Romney has the least amount of foreign policy experience of any prospective Republican candidate. Hosting tea parties for Olympic members hardly qualifies. Look, the OCC selected Romney because he was not too bright, he smiled a great deal, and had a lot of money to buy his way into the position. That's the truth. Obama on the other hand, with the amazing and talented Clinton, has propelled the U.S. into a longterm international relation recovery program correcting all of the terrible policies set by the Bush family for decades.
"So, Romney admits he'd just go right back to the failed Bush foreign policies that added trillions to our debt, and he wants to add more to a bloated military budget that already gets a 5% increase every year while other government programs get cut.
Somehow, on top of all that, Romney wants to give the wealthiest another huge tax cut on top of the already historic low tax rates.
More Republicans is just something America can't afford anymore folks."
^this Best post in the thread!
It seem that Mitt Romney and the Republican are In to big of hurry to send are kid to another war. And I bet they won't send any of there own kid. And Mitt Romney don't know what he taking about to begin with.
Mittens kid won't ever enlist. They've got 250 million dollars from Daddy's in trust fund to spend.
Are you kidding? Did you forget about Romney saying his kids were serving their country by working for his campaign... rather than going to Iraq or Afghanistan?
The only foreign policy Mittens is capable of understanding is hiding taxable income from the US government and refusing to pay his fair share of it.
You display your lack of any serious knowledge of the current tax code and the fact that Obama helped to create it! You also know nothing about investments. If you have a 401k, you likely have money "hidden" overseas as well. Mitt has a diversified portfolio. The money in the Caymen is in a trust that he DOES NOT control and he paid ALL taxes that he was required to under current tax law... AGAIN... that Obama helped to create! Mitt Romney is a private businessman and former governor. He did not write the tax code.
Mitt Romney is a crook!
Obama, helped create the current Tax code? Yeah and he walked with Martin Luther King, brought the black over here on cruse ships to work for the cotten plantations to help then get away from the povery in Africa. You gotta be a birther too, anybody who could beleivbe such nonsense has to believe all of it.
Please cite the year that President Obama implemented the tax code allowing offshore accounts. Back up your statement.
Tax code or not... it's favored toward the 1%. The GOP has proven (again) with the vote against the 30% tax that they have no intent of supporting anyone outside the 1%. The 1% today, have the LOWEST tax rate in at least 100 yrs. Factor in Cap Gains and its basically free money. Do a little research girl. It's NOT about taxing the wealthy – altho' that has proven to work VERY WELL for GDP/Economic growth under prior Dem administrations – it's about paying their FAIR share. It's not about the dollar amount. It's about the very REAL PERCEPTION that the 99% are getting screwed over by the 1% – even IF what Mittens is doing IS completely legal. Perception is REALITY in POLITICS !
Republican Foriegn Policy: invade first; ask questions later (and sell a lot of bullets.)
Obama foreign policy: aplogize and kowtow to the worst of today's global governments. Wait till you think your mic is off, then tell the Russians that this is has last election so he be more "flexible" after he wins
NeoCons Foreign policy: Go to war – borrow money – make Cheney/halliburton rich – screw-up economy – Then BLAME POOR for all their miseries.
Did you come up with this on your own or did you copy and paste from fixnews? I think the latter....
Economy maybe, but Obama's approach to foreign policy is very effective. Mittens needs to put his focus on the economics of this current administration. That is the only platform he has a chance of competing.
You must of drank two glasses of the Koch brothers Koolaid.
I remember an issue being made of President Obama bowing to the Japanese Emperor. Is Japan considered one of the 'worst of today's global governments'? Does the fact that President Obama tries to mend old wounds and show that the United States can have a civil discourse with countries that we don't necessarily get along with, bother you? and what makes you think that the United States should never apologize? The United States isn't always right in what we do around the world. Why shouldn't we admit it?
He can see Canada from his back door. Very odd a man whose grandfather couldn't face the governmenmts anti=polygomaus laws fled to Mexico for salvation and didn't trust in God.
Really his expert knowledge of hiding wealth overseas is better than most wealthy people, so that is the highlite of his policy, if in trouble run to Mexico if you have money hide it in Cayman Islands.
"Instead of approaching Pyongyang from a position of strength, President Obama sought to appease the regime with a food-aid deal that proved to be as naive as it was short-lived," Romney said in a written statement. "At the same time, he has cut critical U.S. missile defense programs and continues to underfund them," he added, digging at another area of Obama foreign policy.
"Instead of approaching the 1% from a position of strength, a President Romney would seek to appease them with a campaign fundraising dinner deal that would prove to be as naive as it was short-lived. At the same time, he wants to cut critical U.S. education and health programs and continues to underfund them."
Your post makes no sense
All of these guys have the Herman Cain thing going on (see Cain's meltdown on the Libya question). Their mind automatically starts off with "I do not agree with President Obama for the following reason..." and then they frantically look for ways to complete the sentence 🙂 🙂
LOL! Astute observation and so true.
Mitt – the only foreign policy you should be hammering is how to get our jobs back from China and how to get China to buy more from us. Americans on both the left and right are sick of war. Don't even go there – the left will try to paint you as another dumb Bush neocon war candidate – don't give them the ammo to do that. America First – you heard the applause Ron Paul got at the debates when he said we should get out of all those countries – middle class America wants this listen to them, not the war lobbyists or the rich donors or think they are saving the world....
Appeasement. Try diplomacy and not trying to inflame the crazy people with missiles. If we go around acting tough, then WE are the crazy people with missiles.
I agree. Civil discourse. What a concept.
Is that the policy that gets Bin Laden shot in the face?
Yes, that's the very same Obama policy that got OBL shot in the face that Mitt is complaining about! But don't be mistaken because as Mitt said following the killing of OBL, if he was president he would have gone about the mission differently! In other words, if Mitt was president he would have done exactly what GWB did and that is give OBL a slap on the wrist and safe haven in Pakistan to plot to attack us once more! And rest assure, if Mitt had been president, OBL would have still been alive today and threatening to attack us once more! Mitt you're dellusional and incompent! Obama/Biden 2012!
You think I and other members of the U.S. military weren't doing everything we could to get OBL in Tora Bora? Another ignorant post from an individual that gets his knowledge about "military related events from the web...you and others that weren't even remotely involved in the military operations in Afghanistan post 9/11 really need to take a break and shut it.
You mean the Bin Laden who was found after using water boarding tactics of the Bush administration? Obama will take credit for that even though he went after the CIA for the use of those tactics. He will blame Bush for everything else including his own failed policies of the last three years
It had nothing to do with waterboarding. Bin Laden was betrayed by one of his younger wives.
No Skeptical, not that Bin Laden. You're confusing Imaginary Bin Laden with Osama Bin Laden.
What would you describe as Obama's failed policies and GWB's successful policies? And if the Bush administration's water boarding policies is what contributed to the demise of OBL, then why didn't they go after him instead of harboring him? Pathetic!
Water boarding failed miserably or didn't you get the memo from thoose soldiers administrating the water boarding...FActs not reported on FOX...
No need to worry about Mitt though! According to news from the Romney camp, the RNC and Mitt are considering making Jeb Bush the nominee! That is so he could finish what his father, I mean his brother started! America is going to be in good hands!
300million+ Americans in this country and republicans still only consider a Bush for VP.
The 1% GOP/Corporations wants a monarchy to further enriching their pockets and they have the dittoheads/teabag/beckies aka sheeple to fight for it. Amazing how dumb these Faux viewers really are.
Romney is another GOP blowhard with nothing but money.
Romney can say or do what ever he wants but come November he won't be president mark my words. His own party doesn't like him. Keep buying into Romney madness wake in Romney Sadness Woot.
"At the same time, he has cut critical U.S. missile defense programs and continues to underfund them,"
Apparently our gvt doesn't have a "spending problem" anymore?
Aid to N Korea under Bush = 2.8 Billion dollars
Aid to N Korea under Obama – 0 dollars
Your going to line up behind a candidate none of you trust because you can't come up with anything better.
What does that say about your party and it's principles.
Fear and Hate seem to be your only platform.
What's Romney going to say "sure you can't trust me but that other guy is worse".
Romney has no foreign policy experience-Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize.
I disagree with those who say Mitt Romney has no foreign policy experience! What do you call investments in Cayman Island and Swiss bank accounts? And what do you call American jobs shipped overseas? Its called foreign policy experience! Obama/Biden 2012!
Obama was nothing more than a community organizer and state senator who has one of the worst attendence record to vote... where is/was HIS foreign experience?
Obama has done very well on the foreign policy front, hunting down Bin Laden as just one quick example. Think Mitt's got a tough sell on that one. Beating the war drums and macho posturing seems to be the Republican Party's only stance on foreign policy. They nearly destroyed our economy based in part on their horrifyingly inept foreign policy, combined with tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the poor and middle class. Good luck with this attack Mr. Robotic Vulture Capitalist.
So let me get this right, feeding starving people is wrong, but going to war is a good thing? Hmm, that's opposite of what the Bible says. Oh yeah, then there is the book of Mormon. Maybe that's where Romney gets his morals from. It must teach that it's okay to lie too. All Mormons should feel ashamed to have such a person representing them.
I always felt the Mormon theology could be interpreted as something between nonsense and blasphemy, but that the practitioners lived according to the highest moral standards. ... until I saw Romney in action!
is just making things up as he comes and goes.
Romney needs an angle to try to justify change. Telling the truth ain't going to work. The truth is Obama's decisive and thoughtful decision making helped bring us back from the brink of depression to the point we have now had 25 consecutive months of private sector job growth and ten consecutive quarters of economic expansion. Not to mention the stock market up about 100 percent since March of 09 a few weeks after Obama took office. This after the wreckage eight years of GOP Presidential leadership left us with. We have also regained much of the international respect that we lost under the cowboy diplomacy the last Adminisrtation offered the world. Romney's starting to sound a lot like Bush used to sound.
Easy to talk tough when you, your family, and your friends will never get hurt in a war:
Mormon: "to live a good life and serve in other less dangerous capacities is equal to serving in the military in times of war. "
Mormons believe in the peace corps, not the military.
And yet Romney is talking tough about war.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...................................................................................................
blah blah blah blah blah blah.................................................................................................................................................
blah blah blah blah blah.........................................................................................................................................................
blah blah blah blah.................................................................................................................................................................
blah blah blah.........................................................................................................................................................................
blah blah.................................................................................................................................................................................
Wow why do Republicans hate having the international community helping in foreign affairs? Why is it that Republicans want us to be some empire in the world? Republicans your foreign policies (if you even had any) always have failed. Get over it. Democrats are better at foreign-policy then your party.
Unless you count JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Clinton, etc etc etc...The last president worth a s@#$t in foreign policy was HW Bush and Reagan before that.
Not a bad analysis of the Republican presidents, but I would include Clinton as OK on foreign policy, and JFK as one of the 3 or 4 best all time.
Al, you can't be serious about JFK. Bay of Pigs? Oh, and lets not forget the fact that he gave the go ahead to assassinate the elected president of South Vietnam. Sure, he was scum, but he was also the only one strong enough to keep the North in check. We know what happened after that. Fine, you can take Clinton, although his turning away from Rwanda is pretty unforgiveable and "Blackhawk Down" set up the Somalia of today...
You seem to miss the point that in the last 100 years Democrats have lead us into 6 wars while Republicans have given us 2. In fact it was a Democrat who helped create the state of Israel.
Romney is a nut case.
"It must be comedy hour here on CNN and Slippery Pete must be the main attraction. Bush's policies aren't what caught Bin Laden. The president's decision is what did. Furthermore a lot of Bush's policies were reversed by the Supreme Court and had to be modified, so a lot of what you're claiming were Bush's policies were in fact NOT. Implying that by retaining the SECDEF under Bush is the same as maintaining Bush's policies is a childish argument and nothing short of laughable."
Ok, Obama's decision? what decision? Hey, boss, we have Osama. Should we go ahead and kill him. Umm, yeah, sure. Really? That was a win for teh intel community, the same community dragged over teh coals by candidate BHO.
As far as the ending of the war in Iraq, all Obama did was follow the timetable he was legally obligated to follow as per the SOFA signed by Bush. If troops can be claimed to be pulled out too early then it's certainly Bush's fault for making such an agreement that Obama is legally obligated to follow.
-Do you know what a SOFA is? I do. Your comment proves you are ignorant.Obama spiked the ball too soon and now Iraq is on the brink of collapsing.
As far as the Libyan situation you are harping on Obama "breaking the law" whilst totally avoiding commenting on the outcome of said situation. Yet it's people like you who want Obama to break the law and unlawfully attack Iran unprovoked.
-Outcome? Ok, I'll comment. We killed a dictator, that's the good news. Bad news? The Muslim Brotherhood is now in charge and we had NO PLAN for what happens next. going back to the orginal point, why didn't Obama ask for authorization? Because it wasn't a real war? It was a contigency? tell that to the folks over there dropping bombs.
As far as the NK situation. More mindless drivel "Oh he needed to send a stronger message", and immediately proceed to NOT tell us what said message should be or how it should have been delivered. People like you just stand on the sidelines from your mama's basement and criticize everything whilst contributing NOTHING. Obama is handling this exactly the way it needs to be handled, and not naively LYING his way into conflict as Bush did with Iraq.
-Sidelines? I'm in the military currently working in an embassy. What are you doing? Yeah, I was on a carrier when we parked ourselves outside NK to send them a message. And it worked. It got them back to the table. Obama and lying? Ha! I'm waiting for Gitmo to close (remember he said it was closing in 1 year..that was in 2008.) I'm waiting for uemployment to stay under 8%. I'm waiting for free helathcare for all. I'm waiting for the earth to heal and oceans to stop rising. I'm waiting for more transparency and bipartisanship. 'Cmon. Even the most staunch BHO supporter has to be inredibly disappointed over the past 3 plus years....
You must be disappointed in the fact that you have spouted the most propaganda across the board. Waiting for Gitmo to close? Why don't you talk to the Republicans on the reason why they filibustered any funding in transferring prisoners to the United States.
What about when Obama had his filibuster super majority? Oh, wait, he realized he had no ther plan and all his bs was just that, bs. That's all you got?
Seriously Pete? A super majority? I think the Blue Dog Dems showed that to be a myth.
Ahh yes, Ghadafi. A man who did nothing aggressive against the U.S. or any of its allies, providing free education and free health care for his people; and was murdered for no reason.
To Slippery Pete: Once your hypocrisy is exposed for all to see you then debase the argument with distractions and red herrings.
What happened under Obama is NO DIFFERENT from any other president. If an opportunity arises the generals come and tell the Commander in Chief and gives him the options and the risks and he makes an executive decision. This is not unique to the Obama presidency and has been the SOP for most administrations. Obama made the right call and got Bin Laden. The fact that you're trying with all your heart and soul to rob him of the credit he deserves especially given the fact that has this operation failed he (Obama) would have received 100% of the blame for said failure says more about the virulent strain of hypocrisy encompassing your system and the disingenuous nature of your arguments.
Yes I know what a SOFA is. Again you make claims but can't back them up with any salient points. Calling me ignorant is not an argument. It's just your fallback position when you've lost an argument. How did Obama "spike the ball too soon" when that's the timetable he was legally obligated to follow via the SOFA signed by Bush??? Why don't you explain that instead of asking me irrelevant questions and dancing around the issue by making false claims and hurling invective?
As far as Libya I never agreed with Obama on that one. However with good news there's usually bad news. The good news is that a dictator is gone and the bad news (if you can call it that) is that we don't know what comes next i.e. we at the time being have uncertainty, but that's not some unequivocally bad situation. Furthermore you called me ignorant but YOU are the one who's spewing rubbish. You claim the Muslim Brotherhood took over Libya. The Muslim Brotherhood is in Egypt. You don't even seem to have your ducks in order with your convoluted nonsense.
Your being in the military or not is neither here nor there. My point stands. You criticize Obama for not sending a stronger message without stating what said "stronger message" should be OR how it should be delivered. Your response was just one big avoidance by dancing around my questions with distractions irrelevant banter.
"Your being in the military or not is neither here nor there". It is here and there since you told me I was "hiding in my mom's basement." I felt the need to tell you I'm not. Also, i did tell you a stronger message with an example. Park a carrier outside their waters and tell them if they launch we will shoot it out of the sky. It has worked before. There are plenty of carriers floating around. I don't have time to address the rest right now...
So SlipperyPete what happens if they launch, we shoot it out of the sky and we miss, then they do something unpredictable like nuke South Korea. What are you going to claim then: "Oh I really didn't think they were gonna do that"??
"Well at least it was only a bunch of Koreans who got killed"?? or "Luckily I bought enough flat screen Samsung TV's"?
Only fools exacerbate and provoke situations when they don't need to prove they have the bigger johnson. You didn't give an example of a "stronger message". You gave one of a wantonly unnecessary reckless message.
Oh, OK, Mike. So you are saying Obama couldn't deliver his own party to shut down a prison? Real effective.
Romney and Bush 2012??? Well here we go down the crapper again. Sorry folks but bin there shot that Obama '12
What's Romnet going to do, ground North Korea? Start a new war?
Wait a minute, if anyone knows about foreign policy is has to be the flip flopping bishop. Didn't he send American jobs overseas?
This is the man who thinks Russia is our biggest threat at present? Clueless is what he is. He wouldn't know a threat if it hit him in that no hair out of place haircut of his. That is unless you are a dog then he knows exactly how to torture you for hours going at 70 mph! Shows a lack of clear thinking which is what we need in a president . . . . . sort of like President Obama who, unlike the shrub, thinks and gets the facts before he acts.
Ok Mitt, so explain to me what contributions to foreign policy you have made? In this American's eyes, you'd have to have done some pretty hefty positive actions to match up with Pres. Obama's tenure. I certainly was not impressed under the Bush administration. Areas I give Pres Obama credit on: 1. of course, killing bin laden 2. libya (outstanding military action in which no American died) 3. i am glad Israel has not been encourage to move unilaterally 4. Iranian sanctions 6. pull out of Iraq only slightly off schedule 7. reduction in afghanistan 8. killing over 20 top taliban commanders ... ah Heck, Mitt seriously buddy, what have u ever done and what policies did u vote for? I honestly want to know so I can compare. Right now, you are just full of hot air.... -signed, Former Republican...
Better a Mitt in the White House than a mutt.
Really? Why?
Pure breds are more likely to be mentally unbalanced... I prefer mutts, it's widely known, the bigger the gene pool, the more likely it is for actual intelligence.
Thinly veiled racism. but not that thinly.
Settle in KKK boy, you're in for 4 more.
You silly people who label others as racists are the worst offenders. (and usually of limited intelligence)
Apparently Doglover didn't read the post by Bonez2 above or like Bonez2 above is racist and trying to deflect that fact. Either way it looks like the truth is a rare commodity on his end.
Correction: Bonez2 isn't the racist here. That privilege goes to DogLover.
And here we go with Democrats complaining about what is said about O'bama. Guess we forgot about all the democratic rhetoric spewed against the Republicans in the last election. Business as usual in Washington. How about actually helping the American people survive, instead of trying to line your own pockets? SO MUCH FOR CHANGE IN AMERICAN POLOTICS,HUH?
In the last election campaign all Democrats had to do was point to the sorry record of military debacles, diplomatic blunders, and rank incompetence. Romney has nothing like that to point to because Obama has restored sanity to our foreign policy and has elicited the respect of other countries and world leaders, the ones who rightly despised his buffoon predecessor.
In the last Presidential election, Republicans had just finished more than doubling the US debt, running the annual deficit up to $1.3 trillion, doubled unemployment, collapsed the housing and stock markets and possibly permanently eroded our position as a leader in foreign affairs. Rhetoric spewed against the Republicans? It's called THE TRUTH.
Well said SMC.
U.S. missile defense programs?? You have 46 million people on food stamps and you're talking about spending money protecting from or fighting an imaginary danger?
Someone from the press needs to ask Romney to explain the parallels of Mormonism's "United Order" and Communism . . . and to explain the associated oath Romney took in the Temple . . .
Nobody cared when Obama refused to salute the flag in elections then later changed his mind. Or when he cancelled national prayer ceremonies at the white house and later had a Muslim gathering. You attack Romney for being an LDS but know nothing about it. Plus that's his personal beliefs. Not his political ones. For anything I would say he will care more for people, have morals and want to help our country not just push his own agenda.
Obama has never refused to salute the flag.
Why are you lying ?
@Mil.wife . . . Grow up, get off the front porch, walk around the block a few times, come back and then make a statement based on the actualities along your short but eye opening experience.
" Or when he cancelled national prayer ceremonies at the white house and later had a Muslim gathering."
The president had a 'muslim gathering' in the same way that each year he has a 'jewish gathering' in the form of a Seder. Not to mention that the 'muslim gathering' for the end of Ramadan was started by Bush.
Plus he never refused to salute anything, and he didnt have a prayer ceremony in the white house the same way that most of the other presidents never had one in the the white house.
Lets see................. Matters of money, investment and the Economy. Romney or Obama????? hhmmmmmmmmm lol Now that is a real tough choice. whew! Romney 2012 Romney 2012 Romney 2012
You're exactly right. Real tough choice. Obama 2012!. I wouldn't trust Romney with running the corner convenience mart.
Mitt. It is very easy to criticise. But keep in mind what did GOP achieve with gun in holster policy of Bush. A total alienation on international scene and complete hatred. US was isolated internationally. It is with positive policy of engagement that world is again warming up to US and that goes to the credit of Obama. I guess GOP's suffer from being naive or stupid. They think they own the world.
That's the flex-word in Romney's statement. Where everyone will focus on the word "threat", he has given himself a way to redefine this comment by varying the definition of "geopolitical". Russia isn't a military threat (let's be honest, do we even have a real one?) and they are not an economic threat (that would be China who holds one third of our debt), so how do we define them as a "geopolitical" threat? Their invasion of Georgia would possibly qualify, but that just makes them a threat to Eastern Europe, and even then, no real threat. Is it their voting record in the UN? No real surprise there seeing as how they never vote against parties they have economic ties to. So all we are left with is the idea that they don't fall inline with the West and used to be Communist. The vagueness of the word "geopolitical" allows Romney to make a bold statement without really saying anything at all.
Atleast you understand what "geopolitical" means...unlike a couple of individuals here...
So, Romney admits he'd just go right back to the failed Bush foreign policies that added trillions to our debt, and he wants to add more to a bloated military budget that already gets a 5% increase every year while other government programs get cut.
Somehow, on top of all that, Romney wants to give the wealthiest another huge tax cut on top of the already historic low tax rates.
More Republicans is just something America can't afford anymore folks.
Mitt is in violation of Section 63, verse 17 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Mormon Church by constantly lying.
Russia does side with syria, china, north Korea, and Iran, Mitt is right on russia we should not trust them
But, does that mean that Obama doesn't think the same of them too? You can say anything you want when you're "running" for President but once the Oval Office is your home base, you have to moderate your rhetoric for the greater good. I certainly don't want Romney to win the election, but I think if he did, his policies would not differ greatly from the current President, who should not be replaced. That is exactly why Romney will lose. Substantially (politically), he's got nothing to differentiate himself from Obama except his complexion and people like, or even love, Obama because he's a black Prisident. Hang it up Mitt. You're gonna get spanked big time in the general election. As always, don't believe a frigging thing you hear on Fox.
A well written argument, even though I'm no fan of Obama. American politics are expensive and decadent for the common man.
Republican National Committee (RNC) approves a strategy of their candidate to attack, attack, attack (does not matter if correct or valid) as to pull down the opponent of Mr. Romney in the public eye so he can "win". Has anyone considered if this strategy of pulling another guy down, sometimes based on fabricated viewpoints, is an indication of how Mr. Romney would be able to build the nation up?
There is NO limit to the depths Mittens will go to get his mitts on the White House. HE must owe some people big...he will destroye the country if made President.
Slipperypete, no disrespect, but it appears your full of pink slime. Please become better informed before listing your Faux propaganda. Thanks.
Mitts foreign policy!! sell more Bain Capital surveillance equipment to communist regimes call it blind trust and shove the llot in Cayman.
Romney said in a written statement. "At the same time, he has cut critical U.S. missile defense programs and continues to underfund them,"
You're slime Mitt...say anything, do anything to attact your political opponent is not leadership.....you couldn't hold a candle to President Obama....
Slither away now, let the leave the leadership to a real man.....
Mitt will crumble during election season
That really depends on what happens beyond his control between now and november.
Romney, just another GOP Koch gang boot licker. Nothing new to offer out of that pie hole mouth of his. His only backers are the gun swinging racist group and a few religious nut cases. I do believe 2012 will be the armegedon year of the GOP and they loose big. Why no wonder.
Obama has to have brass ones for making the call on Bin Laden. Delta had him cornered in Tora Bora broadcasting his depression and hopelessness on the radio and Bush couldn't even call down the thunder on him. This is a no contest battle 22 of the top 30 Al Qaeda operatives have been taken off of the field since Obama came into office. I say let's see what he can do with four more years
I think you are confusing Obama with military intelligence and special forces. These are two different things.
President Obama shifted U.S. foreign policy away from occupational nation building efforts and toward an increased counter-terrorism approach with the use of those special forces and military intelligence. Being that we are a military run by a civilian, "logic" dictates that the President's foreign policy is what enabled the successful elimination of Al Qaeda forces.
No he isn't confusing the commander in chief of the military intelligence and special forces with military intelligence and special forces. The one that's confused here is you Logic with your twisted logic.
To help you live up to your screen name:President Obama had to make a decision as to whether to 'get' the guy via missile/drone or to send via helicopter Seal Team Six and be sure he was got.Being aware of what befell President Carter in his hostage rescue bid, it was courageous. to take the risk in order to be sure the guy was got.Romney or 'W' would have gone with missile/drone.Daddy Bush would have done what President Obama did.
Hell was raining down on OBL in Tora Bora and there was no "call" for President Bush to make...I and everyone else in theater were doing everything we could to kill him...if you weren't there (and you weren't) you can now have a big can of "shut the hell up"...you're a monday morning QB typing about what "should have happened"...until you've served and spent 110+ days away from you family working 12+ hours for 110+ days straight, you again, need to shut your mouth.
Shut up "Buzzer". You're a keyboard warrior, nothing more.
From the facts:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that
important. It's not our priority" - 3/13/02 George W Bush
"CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. [...]
That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops."
'Keyboard warrior'... I've thought the same thing. Oh, and read Buzzer's other posts, everyone else is 'ignorant'.
1stSgt- 15 years active duty USAF...deployments: x 2 Operation Southern Watch, x1 Operation Northern Watch x2 Operation Enduring Freedom (one out of Thumrait Oman the other out of Al Dhafra, UAE), presently doing 6 months in the CENTAF CAOC at Al Udeid, Qatar..."keyboard warrrior"? whatever you want to "think" there "1st Sergeant".
My comment was "everyone IN theater" in 2002...that was Afghanistan proper. I got a little emotional when what I perceived was a "lack of effort" on behalf of U.S. military members on "getting" OBL at Tora Bora. Now re-reading Thor's comment I will retract my statement on the responsibility of Presiden Bush on what decisions were made back in Tampa at CENTCOM and D.C. on what do and not do...that was Bush's final call. I was just making sure everyone didn't think members of the 101st Airborne, SOCOM and CENTAF in theater at the time weren't making every effort to the best of OUR knowledge and ability to kill OBL...yes I did fly combat missions in Afghanistan post 9/11...December 2001 through Operation ANACONDA in April 2002.
Unknown- Only "ignorant" if they're making claims about events that they got 2nd hand from news reports vs actually being involved or one that was common sense... the whole idea of one poster here agreeing with Mr Kahl that putting Russia in the same category of "threats" as al Quaeda and Iran was correct.
""Does Mitt Romney think Russia is a bigger threat to the U.S. today than a nuclear armed-Iran or the terrorists of al Qaeda?" asked Colin Kahl, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East."
What... Wait.. I'm sure the libs were just screaming that Iran is "no treat" and "have no plans of developing nuclear weapons.." but, now the counter argument suits the fray so lets us jump on the band wagon...
What wait?? What does this have to do with the "libs"? Why the distraction about Libs. This is about Romney making claims that contradict what his base is saying. What the 'libs' feel or think have nothing to do with this contradiction.
See my post below as the 1st comment on this article and you'll be the second individual to get "educated".
Bush had this Iran problem sitting on his desk for eight years and did nothing.
Suddenly its all Obamas fault.
Republicans are pathetic.
I agree.
Pathetic….. Typical right-wing approach. Attack on anything, despite the FACT that foreign policy has been off-limits in partisan politics. The idea is that we give aid and comfort to our enemies by attacking the President. Viet Nam was (correctly) an exception.
Mittens, really dumb move attacking this President's foreign policy is just not smart. His foreign policy moves of not showing his hands and talking big. Like mission accomplished, or I don't care where bin Laden is. The rest of the world knows Obama has ice in his veins and when you cross America he will kill you dead, dead, dead. Ask bin Laden, Ghadaffi and Al Awlaki.
Let's examine certain facts:
1. Obama, in a gutsy call, disposed of OBL. Bush could never do that.
2. Obama has ended the Iraq War and is on track to end the Afghan War sometime in 2014 if not sooner.
3. Obama handled the Libyan mess in the right way. He got NATO to take the lead with us in a support role. BTW, we still hold over $42B in Libyan funds from which we can deduct the cost of our involvement.
4. Obama did encourage NK's new leader to refrain from nuclear weapons. The alternative would have been to ignore
the opportunity. Of course, Romney would have criticized differently had Obama ignored the opportunity.
What sickens people is that Romney believes that the way to get elected President is to constantly criticize Obama with no real concrete alternatives at the time events occur.
Well put, Bob. It is nice to see someone use facts to address an issue!
Romney hasn't a clue in dealing w NK. He doesn't like the sanctions of the current administration, what does he propose? WAR?
But he's got magic underpants, maybe THEY are foreign policy experts
1. Obama, in a gutsy call, disposed of OBL. Bush could never do that.
-HUH?? Bush's policies (including many criticized by BHO) is what finally caught Osama. Obama taking credit for it is ridiculous, specially when he blames Bush for every issue in the World today. you can have it both ways.
2. Obama has ended the Iraq War and is on track to end the Afghan War sometime in 2014 if not sooner.
-Again, BHO followed Bush's policies in Iraq. His only mistake is to pull troops out too early which has jeopardized the peace. Christ, he even kept Bush's SECDEF.
3. Obama handled the Libyan mess in the right way. He got NATO to take the lead with us in a support role. BTW, we still hold over $42B in Libyan funds from which we can deduct the cost of our involvement.
– He broke the law by engaging us in a war without Congerss past 30 days. Bush took his invasion of Iraq to the table in COngress and it passed.
4. Obama did encourage NK's new leader to refrain from nuclear weapons. The alternative would have been to ignore
the opportunity. Of course, Romney would have criticized differently had Obama ignored the opportunity.
-"Encourgaed"? By holding food over the heads of millions of starving people? It failed. We needed a stronger message other than "we aren't shipping you rice this month.
Get a freaking clue.
It is an established fact that when President Obama took office, he shifted his focus toward a counter-terrorism mission with a renewed effort to get Bin Laden. President Bush had rather lost interest, and his foreign policy is reflective of that. If having to determine who put more focus on the capture or kill of Bin Laden, it is without question President Obama. So I'd invite you to get a clue yourself.
I'll add that Obama DID NOT "lead" and get NATO to take the lead...that was all France's leadership in getting NATO to act...period.
"It is an established fact that when President Obama took office, he shifted his focus toward a counter-terrorism mission with a renewed effort to get Bin Laden. President Bush had rather lost interest, and his foreign policy is reflective of that. If having to determine who put more focus on the capture or kill of Bin Laden, it is without question President Obama. So I'd invite you to get a clue yourself."
Ok, it's hard to even begin a reply to this ridiculous statement. Here is what Obama did when he took office. He maintained the COIN strategy started by Patreus under Bush. when things started to wind down in Iraq, he redirected those forces and strategy to Afghanistan. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but it was BUSH's policies he was following. Afghanistan has been a failuer (Bush/BHO can share the blame), so now we have this artifical 2012 deadline motivated by politics. As far as Bin Laden goes, Bush held weekly meetings with the intel community and his #1 priority was catching Bin Laden. All these "enhanced" techiniques taht put BHO on his pedestal during the campaign paid off and they got the guy. For BHO to take credit is a complete joke.
On Lybia, I'm not sure you guys realize this, but NATO's SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER is a US NAVY Admiral. HE HAD THE LEAD. We drop missiles and bombs on them. Again, I'm not criticizing military action in Lybia, but lets call a spade a spade. BHO SHOULD have gone to CONGRESS for authorization, but he didn't therefore he was in violation of the Constitutuion. Am I wrong?
It must be comedy hour here on CNN and Slippery Pete must be the main attraction. Bush's policies aren't what caught Bin Laden. The president's decision is what did. Furthermore a lot of Bush's policies were reversed by the Supreme Court and had to be modified, so a lot of what you're claiming were Bush's policies were in fact NOT. Implying that by retaining the SECDEF under Bush is the same as maintaining Bush's policies is a childish argument and nothing short of laughable.
As far as the ending of the war in Iraq, all Obama did was follow the timetable he was legally obligated to follow as per the SOFA signed by Bush. If troops can be claimed to be pulled out too early then it's certainly Bush's fault for making such an agreement that Obama is legally obligated to follow.
As far as the Libyan situation you are harping on Obama "breaking the law" whilst totally avoiding commenting on the outcome of said situation. Yet it's people like you who want Obama to break the law and unlawfully attack Iran unprovoked.
As far as the NK situation. More mindless drivel "Oh he needed to send a stronger message", and immediately proceed to NOT tell us what said message should be or how it should have been delivered. People like you just stand on the sidelines from your mama's basement and criticize everything whilst contributing NOTHING. Obama is handling this exactly the way it needs to be handled, and not naively LYING his way into conflict as Bush did with Iraq.
Slippery Pete really is slippery. Here's an example of his twisted hypocrisy.
He says "he (Obama) maintained the COIN strategy started by Petreus under Bush..." basically acknowledging that it was a military strategy that was agreed to by Bush, and not a Bush strategy that the military used...yet he categorizes this as a Bush policy. Now when Obama is in office and plays by the same rules i.e. agreeing to a military strategy to capture Bin Laden that was presented by his generals it's all of a sudden (somehow magically) a Bush policy (even though Bush has been out of office for 3 years by that time and this is UNDER OBAMA).
Basically Sippery Pete is trying to have it both ways. He's crediting Bush for successes occurring during the Obama administration because Obama like Bush before, like Clinton before, et al all held weekly meetings and followed/approved what they (said presidents) thought were the best strategies conducive to the situations at hand. Bush declared for all to hear that he didn't know where Bin Laden was and didn't really care, so for Slippery Pete to now claim that Bush's #1 priority was catching Bin Laden is an invented lie designed to fill in the gaping holes left by his twisted, convoluted and hypocritical arguments.
acutemind- You talk about "illegal" what is "illegal"? So we were "provoked" by Libya? Really? So how is striking Libya any less "illegal" than striking Iran? Just because you have a group of nations (NATO for short) that because their economic interests were threatened (two letters for you..."BP") and they see an opposition group they can hide behind for justification it makes its "legal"?...again who's defining and under what authority is a military action defined as "illegal"? What about Syria? Its "legal" to strike Syria? They clearly have a viable opposition group...no one will act because they have no "national interest". What about Iran? What if in the near future duing the next Iranian elections the opposition we saw a few years back gains strength, then its OK and "legal" as long as everyone in NATO agrees? NATO, which are comprised of western the countries are the "defining" authority on what's legal and illegal? So as long as these "NATO" countries say its OK to strike Iran we're all good right?
In reference to Iraq...ALOT of other countries and a couple of other prominent political figures were then lying as well...Russia, France, Great Britian, President Clinton...should I go on?
Get yourself a clue Slippery Pete. Bush's stated policy was that he would NEVER put US troops on the ground in Pakistan. Obama (and admittedly McCain) campaigned on exactly the opposite, that he would take whatever action necessary in Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden. Obama has pushed hard in Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda, in ways that the Bush administration never would've done. Bush's policies NEVER would've captured or killed Bin Laden, PERIOD.
smc- You don't think Special Operations Forces were on the ground in Pakistan post 9/11?...ignorance is bliss and you're up to your eyeballs in it...
Just for the record Buzzer – I don't agree with what Obama did in Libya and I was on these blogs and others vociferously protesting and arguing against it.
My point is that Slippery Pete's post was nothing but a hypocrisy filled convolution. As far as Russia, France, GB et al all being liars when it came to the runup to the Iraq war – that's nonsense. It was primarily the US and Great Britain. Those two countries were the ones running a campaign of lies and distortions. Yes other countries "intelligence" (more like suspicions) showed that Iraq could have WMD, but the empirical EVIDENCE (or lack thereof) on the ground kept contradicting it. Evidence rarely lies. Intelligence is another matter subject to subjective interpretations by parties with ulterior motives. Furthermore "intelligence" is used in lieu of a mechanism for getting "evidence" and we had inspectors on the ground from H. Scott Ritter who claimed that Iraq had no WMD to Hans Blix who said the same thing. These were teams who had the means of getting the evidence and the evidence or lack thereof for WMD kept contradicting the "intelligence". So the other countries weren't LYING. They knew that intelligence could be wrong and opted to not join the "gang of the willing".
Slippery Pete
Good name for you.
You slip right past any resemblence of the truth.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that
important. It's not our priority" - 3/13/02 George W Bush
acute- Never called Russia, France and Great Britian "liars"...just lumping them in with the U.S. because of the MULTIPLE public statements about Iraq's WMDs that fell closely along the lines the U.S. was stating...they didn't act because their country didn't just have 3,000+ of its own citizen murdered...kind of makes you a little less hesitant does it? the U.S. didn't have confidence in Hans Blix and Ritter because there were multiple impediments that Saddam's regime placed on these individuals during the inspections (this was reported over and over by the media) and we opted to trust our own folks instead...if you want to "read into it" and say that the Bush administration, since there were obviously no WMDs found were knowingly stating false information, then you can lump every single other U.S. military servicemember in a leadership position into the category of "liar"...you weren't in the Pentagon (I had buddies that were) and you have no idea of the exhaustive efforts they made to gather information to present to the Bush administration, so he could make a decision on such a huge effort. Again, the "decision" may have been negligent in hindsight, because there turned out to be "inconsistencies" in the information, BUT the "intent" was ABSOLUTELY HONEST and WAS NOT malicious...again, you can call me a "liar", but you are not privy to the conversations I had with people directly involved with the decisions to got to war in Iraq. Active duty 15+ years USAF....and presently in a very "desert like" environment away from my family for 6 months...
Buzzer I'm not going to belabor the argument. It's pretty much established now that Bush and Co. lied and I don't feel the need to indulge birther like stragglers on this issue except to quote Donald Rumsfeld: " We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
That statement by Rumsfeld is what's called an unequivocal statement, and I only use it because it's indicative of other unequivocal statements made by the Bush admin. It's also a PROVEN LIE. David Kay (Bush's point man i.e. the CIA's chief weapons inspector and a man who during the runup to the war was constantly on TV claiming Saddam had WMD) himself stated "we were almost all wrong" before Congress ("almost" because some like Scott Ritter was right) and confirmed there were no WMD "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
So YES you're a LIAR.
Oh by the way Buzzer when you have to resort to tricks like put an article in the NY Times and then claim even the Times confirms what you say – trying to give the impression that the Times independently confirmed some info you already had, or when you claim aluminum tubes are for something they are unsuitable for, or when you produce fake invoices claiming to show Iraq purchasing yellowcake from Nigeria, or when you claim you found Iraqi mobile weapons labs which also turns out to be a lie because in actuality you didn't, but they were just handmade drawings of a description by some informant who claimed to see them, or taking the word of some cherry by the name of "curveball" whose lies couldn't be independently confimed – all of that is considered to be an orchestrated campaign of LIES and deceit, and the INTENT is same. It's an intent where in lieu of conclusive empirical evidence to support their false claims they LIED.
You trying to argue that they aren't guilty of lying on account of they actually believe said lies is NONSENSE. A lot of people believe stuff that isn't true. If you can't reach the minimum threshold for confirming what you believe via conclusive empirical evidence you're not necessarily a liar, BUT WHEN YOU proactively embark on gimmicks and deceit and questionable methods for supporting your beliefs/accusations then you're a LIAR.
Somebody should remind Romney that we have allies (South Korea and Japan) that we would prefer not be obliterated.
It's easy to have a "position of strength" when the people who have to put up with the artillery shells are a continent away.
Romney would re-instate the same economic policies that produced the worst financial meltdown since the great depression.
When dealing with Obama Romney has a target rich environment.
Romney isn't going to do anything except gut the whole country and hand it to the cronies who fund his campaign. You've got a 150+% increase in Defense / bogus war on terror spending since 2001, that's swirling our country down the bowl, and this shill wants to throw old ladies outta nursing homes etc. etc. to increase that funding even more. Like we need more Chernoff airport radiation machines, that can't even see a gun strapped under someone's arm. They've got all the good ol boys riding the taxpayer funded safari. To bad nobody paid attention to Eisenhower when he warned us about these Big-Govt. raiders. Almost a trillion bucks a year they're up to now. Add in all the secret stuff and it's way more than a trillion. Romney is going to turn us into North Korea, where the whole country goes to pot to feed Defense cronies. The GOP aren't protecting us, they're raping us.
North Korea gained nuclear weapons on Bush's watch.
Actually is was clinton and madeline notbright that gave No. Korea nuclear technologies
He said weapons.
Why must opposition views use defamatory words (names) to make a point ? It seems so childish and reeks of bullying.
It scares me just to think Romney will be our next president. He keeps his money in foreign bank accounts, says the most ridiculous lies about President Obama, and about every candidate that went against him, he is untrustworthy and has no clue on foreign policy or deplomacy. He has got his nerve of talking about getting tough on other countries. Is he going to send any of his five sons into harms way or does he expect us to send our children to fight wars that he so stupidly put us into. Romney is going to have the same advisors as Bush. We are in deep sh....if this happens.
I guess that Mitt doesn't understand the "balanced" approach to foreign policy objectives. The USA cannot and should not always threaten other countries to get the best deal for ourselves. The the GOP boy hawk ever go to war personally? I think not!
The sooner Obama joins the un-employment line, the better off America will be.
You are right. As soon as Obama is gone everything will be perfect. Our debt will be gone. Unemployment will go away. Our health care will get super cheap and everybody will be able to afford it. No more wars and everybody will love America again. As soon as Obama is gone all this will magically happen overnight because Romney and the Republicans are so smart and honest.
Sure Bush doubled the debt, started two wars, one illegally based on fabrications and lies, but who cares if we kill 200,000 people for no reason and spend $1,000,000,000,000 doing it. Who cares that Bush and CO. led us into the second worst recession in American history. I'm sure they would never do it again because they are so honest, trustworthy and SO smart. Besides its so easy to blame the other side for everything anyway.
I'm sure you are right and All our problems will magically disappear as soon as Obama is gone.
... and all the poor people will become 1%'ers just like Mitt and his supporters.
Lets not forget how donald rumsfeld announced the pentagon had lost 2.3 trillion dollars during the bush admin too. so somewhere they had an extra 2.3 trillion and it wasnt enough?
Once again, another ignorant "spin and inflation" of the casualities caused by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan... go do some research on the "body count", who is VASTLY RESPONSIBLE for the civilian casualities in Iraq and Afghanistan... Military servicemembers like myself that bust our butts by painstakingly going through hoops to minimalize civilian collateral damage and put ourselves in harms way to adhere to the Rules Of Engagement (ROE) take great offense to ignorant individuals like yourself that get your information second-hand and think that the #s your spewing out of your mouth are in anyway accurate...you sir have NO CLUE to the real story on the ground because you've never served...
Not sure where you got your figures from but Iraq alone will cost us $2,000,000,000,000 ($2 trillion).
It's funny how Buzzer claims the figures on Iraq casualty counts are spin and inflated yet doesn't explain why nor provides us any contradicting quantifiable evidence. Basically it's wrong because he "feels" it's wrong. He thinks because the military took "pains" and followed Rules of Engagement to avoid civilian casualties, the fact that civilian casualties caused by the military still occurred should be overlooked or looked upon less discerningly. Looks like he can't handle the truth. General Tommy Franks said "we don't do body counts". So if the US doesn't do it how would Buzzer qualify his statement that the figures given are inflated??
That country was raped by us over a lie. Independent and credible 3rd party western counts put the body counts anywhere between 100,000 and 250,000. I've seen video on news magazine programs (dateline NBC) where a legit cab driver looking for the house to pick up their fares are incorrectly presumed to be lookouts for insurgents and killed first by US troops before being determined to be just a cab driver. They interviewed the fare – a lady who was waiting for hours before finding out from the cab company that her driver was killed by trigger happy US troops. I saw the wikileaks helicopter incident, so please spare me your Rules of Engagement nonsense and your arbitrary claims that the figures are wrong.
Acute Mind, i dont disagree with your casualty figures, it was a long war and some really messed up stuff happened. But that is part of war, your undertone is one that blames the troops for civilian deaths when in reality it is splitting hairs. This is what happens in war. Civilian casualties are a part of any way. Try to put yourself in a situation where cab drivers are sometimes suicide bombers, everyone around you wants you dead, your buddies have been killed, they've already tried to kill you.................i would have an itchy trigger finger because thats the adaptive thing one does in order to stay alive in a war zone.
But this is why much of our modern weapons of war are built with civilians in mind. Both the weapons and their delivery systems are built in a manner that will maximize effect on targets and minimize collateral damage. I.E. we could have literally shot a Tomohawk down the crack of Ghaddafi's ass had we known where he was originally. Or, if one so chooses, it couldve also been shot directly down his urethra. Now thats accuracy.
Acute- you're a ignorant schmuck...you're right civilians did die as collateral damage during U.S. miltary combat operations and I NEVER said that Iraqi civilian deaths "should be overlooked or looked upon less discerningly" because we put in the effort to minimize casualities...HOW DARE YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT...U.S. military men and women "concern" themselves with human life (ALL human life) EVERYDAY in combat because death in all around them. I don't "feel" anything, I "know" because was engaged in the actual combat operations on the ground in Iraq, I saw the body bags and took I comprehensive reports of the civilian casualties that my fellow service men and women were reporting (yes, contrary to General Frank's public and political statement, we did keep tabs on casualities both civilian and military). The # of civilian casualities caused by direct U.S. military involvement numbering the hundreds of thousands IS A LIE...PERIOD. You get your "factual" information from where exactly? Not even second hand, but 3rd? Wikileaks and a couple of videos from the comfort of you own residence?...out of the THOUSANDS of "engagements" that occured in theater) and you take this as "the norm"? Really? That's completely naive and foolish. Can I just make some blanket statement about young black males and say they're all "thugs" because of a couple of "COPS" episodes I watch on G4? Just like my retort on the Iraqi invasion, you can call it "FUNNY", but you don't know what I know, you haven't seen what I've seen and your perception of the "truth" is EXACLTLY what you find on the web....ALOT of it being inaccruate. This conversation concerning "truth data" on Iraqi civilian deaths due to U.S. military operations with you is OVER.
So now Buzzer is calling General Tommy Franks a LIAR If one cannot trust a general in charge of the Iraqi campaign what makes Buzzer think his claims are any more trustworthy. Again Buzzer's argument is "it's true because I say it is", which is saying a lot of NOTHING. That's all it boils down to. No more, no less.
When I point out an official declaration that contradicts Buzzers drivel, his argument is "oh well contrary to what was officially declared my argument is the truth" "My friend tell me different" "unlike General Franks I am the one with the true info". Like I said Buzzer's argument is "it's the way I say it is because I say so".
Buzzer wants us to believe that like God he is omnipresent – that he knows every incident of military civilian casualties that occurred in all theaters, those he was present in and those he wasn't, that he knows what occurred after his rotation was up and he was no longer in Iraq. It's a bunch of NONSENSE. I will take General Franks at his word until and unless Buzzer could quantify or qualify his statement with some real evidence other than the "take my word for it" blather spouted by Buzzer. I don't even know if Buzzer is a real soldier, and if he is I don't know if what he tells me is truthful or if he's just someone in denial because of a bad conscience.
Please – next time you come up here bring something better that "it's the way I say it is" as your argument.
for these guys they have to basically be in opposition to any thing Obama has ever proposed.it sounds demented but that's the reality of GOP stance these days.Am sure if Obama supports 100% christian lifestyle , we may possibly see REPS turn into voodoo worship if that's what it takes to be different.
More political BS. No matter what Obama does Romney will say its the wrong thing along with every Republican. That goes without saying. If Republicans were President Democrats will say everything they did was wrong no matter what too. It's all just blaa, blaa, blaa anymore. They are all full of it. You want to believe in Romney because he is so honest and good? I say you are a sucker.
All he does is badmouth the current President. Never says what he will do. I know.. he will make McCain Sec of defense and then we can have many many wars.God help us if he gets elected..He can move the rest of the money to a swiss bank. UGH!
and this is the best they can do?
So am I to understand I am supposed to accept foreign policy critiques from a man that holds government in disdain anyway? And to suggest Russia is the predominant threat to the US is beyond ridiculous. You won't find anyone at State that even buys that.
See my post below yours and you'll understand in what context he's referring to as a "threat"...then you'll "buy it"...
""These are very unfortunate developments," Romney said the same day in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Russia is "without question our number one geopolitical foe..."
""Does Mitt Romney think Russia is a bigger threat to the U.S. today than a nuclear armed-Iran or the terrorists of al Qaeda?" asked Colin Kahl, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East."
Does Mr Kahl know difference between a geopolitical foe like Russia and an outright adversary like Iran and al Qaeda? Obviously not. One has to do with influence mainly with the U.N. Security Council and on the world stage as a "rival", the other 2 don't have anything to do with the U.N. Security Council because that don't have permanent Veto Power and they are not "rivals" (economically or militarily).
Nice job of ignorance or twisting a statement into something that any commonsense person can see would have been a foolish remark for even the person who has only a basic understanding of world events/issues.
Buzzer, sadly many that follows FoxNews has no clue as to world events or issues. Remember they thought Sarah palin have foreign policy credentials because she can see Russia from her house.
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." –Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience,
Billy, I watch Fox News and CNN and their reporting minus the "opinion", is the same. Both just seem to emphasize in propping up the right (Fox) and CNN (center left) and MSNBC (left) the left when their "commentaries"...
If examining who would be the biggest geopolitical threat currently and in the future, it would be China and not Russia. China has a greater economy, greater military, greater relative power, greater influence in regional affairs, greater influence in world affairs. And all these items render them as a greater geopolitical threat than Russia.
Russia is more "adversarial" to us than China because we are tied much more closely on economic issues with China and depend on each other (China more so). China puts more effort into not being as much of an obstacle to us a Russia. Russia has less interest in cooperating with us on "geopolitical" issues precisely because of the "economics", so no, Russia is our greatest "geopolitical" foe...you can't just rank a country based on capabilities alone...mind set and attitude (based on in this example economic "relationships") are the other half of the equation...
Facts is right. Russia is adversarial on some issues, cooperative on others, depending on how it impacts their perceived national interests and their domestic political situation. Much of Putin's U.S. bashing is for Russian public opinion. However, Russia is a fading power, and is in danger of becoming a 3rd World country due to severe social problems and an economy based on oil and arms sales. China is much more expansionistic and aggressive than Russia, both economically and politically/militarily, and less cooperative in international affairs (e.g., it's actions trying to restrict our access to the South China Sea area, it's economic penetration of Africa and South America). Our geo-political problems will be much more with China's attempt to dominate the Far East and to restrict access to areas and resources than with Russia's attempts to remain a great power.


text:
Please visit our Open House at 342 25TH ST E in North Vancouver.
Open House on Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm
Attention all Builders! Build, Renovate or hold!! Spectacular Upper Lonsdale View property, situated on a beautifully manicured 5687 square foot lot. This 2081 square foot ranch bungalow features 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, with a lowerlevel perfect for a nanny or in-law suite. Within blocks to Larson Elementary (0-7) and close to Argle Secondary. Excellent value for the area!

subset: commoncrawl