Can We Finally Admit US Foreign Policy is a Disaster?

[DC Tom]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush opened his second term Thursday with a promise to the people of the United States and the world -- vowing to promote democracy both at home and abroad.

 

Http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.speech/

 

Yeah. Third line of my summary.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Yeah. Third line of my summary.

Baloney, read the man's actual words in his address. There's no distinguishing between allies and those who harbor terrorists. Its a generalized support of democracy with a near-religious conviction that it will address mankind's ills

 

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world"

Edited August 28, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

Baloney, read the man's actual words in his address. There's no distinguishing between allies and those who harbor terrorists. Its a generalized support of democracy with a near-religious conviction that it will address mankind's ills

 

Line five of my summary. You're nothing if not predictable.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Line five of my summary. You're nothing if not predictable.

Your "Yes, promoting democracies in other countries that harbor terrorists. Not in allies ...."

 

... has been utterly refuted by the man's own words. You're nothing, period

[DC Tom]

Your "Yes, promoting democracies in other countries that harbor terrorists. Not in allies ...."

 

... has been utterly refuted by the man's own words. You're nothing, period

 

Still not the Bush Doctrine.

[Rob's House]

 

 

So you have been in a coma for the past ten years.

 

Ignoring the fact that Obama's "support" of the Syrian uprising was nothing of the sort...please, enlighten us and explain in some detail how Obama's "support" of the Syrian uprising was an "extension" of the "Bush Doctrine"...

 

No, he's right. It's just like how Mike Martz and Dick Jauron are basically the same guy. Sure one's a highly aggressive offensive minded coach while the other is an ultra conservative defensive minded coach, but they both coached Fitz for a bit.

[Deranged Rhino]

No, Obama's foreign policy bad because it's the same as Bush's. Even though they're totally different.

 

They share one commonality: short-sightedness.

[truth on hold]

http://youtu.be/8p_wdn8cfCo

 

Edited August 28, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[GG]

 

 

They share one commonality: short-sightedness.

 

Actually Bush's vision was very longsighted, it was the short term execution that was lacking.

[B-Man]

SMART DIPLOMACY: Russia invades Ukraine, Obama expresses ‘concern.’

 

“There is no better example of the ruinous Obama foreign policy than Ukraine. The president has issued empty threats, diminished sanctions and refused to allow Ukraine to protect itself. If you are the leader of a Baltic state, you’re probably and justifiably panicked. The president will no doubt issue more empty threats. But that doesn’t do Ukraine any good, and it surely won’t protect other potential victims.

 

 

Hillary Clinton‘s reset policy, it seems, has been a complete failure. Or is she going to blame others for this one as well?” If I were the Poles, I’d be trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

.

[/dev/null]

If I were the Poles, I’d be trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

 

Sounds like the beginning of a How man Pollocks does it take... joke...

[truth on hold]

Bombs Away Over Syria! Washington Has Gone Stark Raving Mad

 

by David Stockman •

 

August 28, 2014

White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday tried to tamp down the notion that action against the Islamic State group could bolster Assad, saying,

“We’re not interested in trying to help the Assad regime.” However, he acknowledged that “there are a lot of cross pressures

In fact, there is apparently an option emerging from the bowels of the war machine that calls for an odd/even day plan to bomb both sides, thereby making clear that Washington is an equal opportunity spanker. Apparently, whether you use a 12th century sword or 20th century attack helicopter as a means of rule, you will be bombed by the “indispensable nation”, as Obama put it, adding that “no other nation can do what we do”.

Well, that involves some “doing”. According to AP, it appears that Syrian airstrikes are imminent, but could be carried out under the odd/even day plan:

“In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets.”

Is any more evidence needed that Washington has gone stark raving mad than even the possibility that such an absurd option could be under consideration?

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/bombs-away-washington-has-gone-stark-raving-mad/

[/dev/null]

“In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets.”

 

Socialist foreign policy. Redistribution of destruction

 

https://twitter.com/JessicaTaylor/status/505082802883559424/photo/1

 

smrtust prezadint evah

[Nanker]

But the US needs Syria's permission to attack ISIS inside their borders. See, a country's sovereign borders are important and not just anybody can go traipsing across them anytime they want to. That's serious stuff, and B. O. certainly respects all other country's laws, culture, religions, demands, and won't do a thing to upset them... even in time of war.

[B-Man]

'We don't have a strategy yet': Obama stuns Washington by admitting he is clueless about tackling ISIS

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz3BmfkYJQA

 

 

 

 

Fox’s Ed Henry: Obama’s ‘No Strategy’ Remark a ‘Disaster’ for WH

 

http://www.mediaite....isaster-for-wh/

 

 

 

 

 

WH Clarifies Obama’s ‘We Don’t Have a Strategy’ Comment: We Have One, Just Not in Syria

 

Within a couple hours of President Obama’s telling reporters that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for taking on the Islamic State, White House press secretary Josh Earnest clarified that President Obama does have a strategy, or at least part of one.

 

He told CNN that the White House has outlined an approach for addressing the Islamic State’s efforts in Iraq, but is still awaiting to hear back from the Pentagon on military options in Syria, which is what the president was referring to. In part, Earnest explained, the Pentagon is exploring a broader strategy beyond just American military involvement.

[/dev/null]

'We don't have a strategy yet': Obama stuns Washington by admitting he is clueless about tackling ISIS

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz3BmfkYJQA

 

 

 

 

Fox’s Ed Henry: Obama’s ‘No Strategy’ Remark a ‘Disaster’ for WH

 

http://www.mediaite....isaster-for-wh/

 

 

 

 

 

WH Clarifies Obama’s ‘We Don’t Have a Strategy’ Comment: We Have One, Just Not in Syria

 

Within a couple hours of President Obama’s telling reporters that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for taking on the Islamic State, White House press secretary Josh Earnest clarified that President Obama does have a strategy, or at least part of one.

 

He told CNN that the White House has outlined an approach for addressing the Islamic State’s efforts in Iraq, but is still awaiting to hear back from the Pentagon on military options in Syria, which is what the president was referring to. In part, Earnest explained, the Pentagon is exploring a broader strategy beyond just American military involvement.

#BringBackOurStrategy

[DC Tom]

'We don't have a strategy yet': Obama stuns Washington by admitting he is clueless about tackling ISIS

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz3BmfkYJQA

 

 

 

 

Fox’s Ed Henry: Obama’s ‘No Strategy’ Remark a ‘Disaster’ for WH

 

http://www.mediaite....isaster-for-wh/

 

 

 

 

 

WH Clarifies Obama’s ‘We Don’t Have a Strategy’ Comment: We Have One, Just Not in Syria

 

Within a couple hours of President Obama’s telling reporters that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for taking on the Islamic State, White House press secretary Josh Earnest clarified that President Obama does have a strategy, or at least part of one.

 

He told CNN that the White House has outlined an approach for addressing the Islamic State’s efforts in Iraq, but is still awaiting to hear back from the Pentagon on military options in Syria, which is what the president was referring to. In part, Earnest explained, the Pentagon is exploring a broader strategy beyond just American military involvement.

 

Thus the White House finally realizes what the rest of us know about two years ago with his "red line" bull ****.

[B-Man]

Prime Minister Cameron today in his speech on ISIS.

 

Cameron: “Adhering to British values is not an option or a choice, it is a duty for those living in these Islands.”

 

 

He also noted that “openness” does not accommodate “intolerance” and hinted there is no place for people in Britain who won’t assimilate.

 

Cameron calls this a “generational struggle against a poisonous ideology.” He says we’ll be fighting for “years” and possibly “decades.”

 

Cameron also dismisses the idea that ISIS is the product of poverty or the like, but is instead “a poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism.”

 

 

Cameron reiterates: “The threat we face today comes from the poisonous narrative of Islamist extremism” and not from the Iraq War.

 

 

 

 

 

Today, the president will take a break from his ISIS "strategy" deliberations and fly to the Northeast for (what else?) two political fundraisers. He will raise money in Westchester, N.Y., for the Democratic National Committee and in Newport, R.I., for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

 

 

 

.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Thus the White House finally realizes what the rest of us know about two years ago with his "red line" bull ****.

What's bull is saying the red line was crossed when there's no direct evidence linking it to Syrian forces, credible stories have come out pointing to Turkish involvement, and the beneficiary of such an attack would clearly have been the rebels/isis from US strikes on Assad.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

What's bull is saying the red line was crossed when there's no direct evidence linking it to Syrian forces, credible stories have come out pointing to Turkish involvement, and the beneficiary of such an attack would clearly have been the rebels/isis from US strikes on Assad.

 

This post is mitigated by the fact that you're a !@#$ing idiot.