Obama's Foreign Failures

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Lightningdog, Mar 26, 2009.



    March 25, 2009 --

    AMERICA'S enemies smell blood and it's type "O."

    All new administrations stumble a bit as they seek their footing. But President Obama's foreign-policy botches have set new records for instant incompetence.

    Contrary to left-wing myths, I wasn't a fan of the Bush administration. (I called for Donald Rumsfeld to get the boot in mid-2001.) But fair's fair. Despite his many faults, Bush sought to do good. Obama just wants to look good.

    Vice President Dick Cheney was arrogant. Vice President Joe Biden is arrogant and stupid. Take your pick.

    Don't worry about the new administration's ideology. Worry about its terrifying naivete.

    Consider a sampling of the goofs O and his crew have made in just two months:

    China: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (you know that gal married to the Saudi hireling) crawled to Beijing to tell the party bosses that human rights don't matter. Our "relationship" is more important than freedom and human dignity.

    Beijing's response? A staged military confrontation with an unarmed US Navy vessel; continued screw-America currency cheating; a renewed crackdown on dissidents and, yesterday, a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar.

    Thanks, Hill. You're a sweetheart.

    Pakistan: With viral corruption throughout and Islamist fanatics sweeping half of its territory, Pakistan's coming apart. Its Dem-adored prez tries to ban opposition parties and gut the judiciary. It has nukes and seethes with hatred of America. And Islamabad controls our primary supply route into Afghanistan, using it as an extortion tool.

    Obama's response? Billions in new aid for Pak pols to pocket. We'd be better off handing the money to AIG to pay out more bonuses.

    Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam. Am I the only American who remembers that candidate Obama had a plan to capture Osama bin Laden and fix our previous "mistakes" in Afghanistan? President Obama doesn't have a clue.

    Iran: Obama tried to reach out, to talk. After all, talking got him to the White House. But America-bashing is what keeps Iran's leaders in office, it's their political essence. After 30 years of fierce hostility, hasn't anyone figured out that the senior mullahs need us as an enemy? Without the Great Satan America to blame, they'd have some real explaining to do to their homies. So O got the left-hand finger.

    He wanted to chat with the Taliban, too. They told him he could stick it where the sun don't shine.

    North Korea: Obama wanted a fresh start. North Korea's response? Threats of war with South Korea and the kidnapping of two American journalists. And the renewed pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, along with rocket tests.

    Cuba: Obama would like to liberalize our relationship. The Castro boys told him to kiss off. They need an enemy, too. (Dear Mr. President: It's not always about us or how evil America is.)

    Venezuela: Guess who else needs an enemy?

    Mexico: The good news: Obama knows where it is on a map and recognizes that Mexico's government faces a narco-insurgency that threatens our country, too. His first action? Cave to the Teamsters, violate a lawful treaty on cross-border trucking, reignite fading anti-Americanism and undercut President Felipe Calderon.

    Poland: Obama's stance on our bravest ally on the European continent? The Russians are more important than you are. He's sending the same message to Ukraine and Georgia.

    Russia: Bolshie Biden, the commuting commissar, knows he's the man who can turn Russia into our best pal. After "Friend of Bill" Strobe Talbott tried and failed disastrously. And after poor W saw into Putin's soul, only to get his butt handed to him. "Uncle Joe" Biden has nothing to learn from past failures, though: He's got a re-set button.

    Moscow's response to the Obama administration's bid for a new start? It threatens NATO members it once occupied and continues to back Iran's nuclear program. Plus, it bribes Kyrgystan to kick us off the critical-to-Afghanistan Manas airbase (then offers to help replace that supply lifeline, giving Russia a choke-hold on our troops).

    Next, the Kremlin threatens massive re-armament and demands the abandonment of the dollar as the international reserve currency.

    Obama's response? Push that re-set button again. And again.

    At what point does naivete become cowardice?

    As for our allies, Obama apparently needs them less than Bush did. O treated Britain's prime minister like the deputy Paraguayan veterinary inspector, and he blindsided the leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, Mexico and Canada on issues ranging from missile defense to trade. But he'd like them to take the Gitmo terrorists off our hands, please.

    The one bright spot thus far has been Iraq, where Obama quickly tossed aside his campaign promises. The O-man doesn't want to be on the blame-line for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Baghdad. And his MoveOn.org supporters can throw all the tantrums they want. (Breaking news, folks: O's a professional pol, not the messiah . . . )

    Apart from Iraq a success Sen. Obama did all he could to prevent his foreign policy's an instant wasteland. By comparison, the Carter administration is starting to look like a model of manly strength, courage and patriotism.

  2. What would you expect from a former national security advisor to John McCain and a staunch Republican?

    Here's one of his infamous quotes:

    "There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."

    And this guy is an objective viewer of Obama's policy after 65 days???

    Get real.
  3. The whole admin is a bunch of hacks.

    However, people are waking up! You can see it everyday. And it's not just people who didn't vote for Obama.
  4. So let me get this straight . . .

    You are calling Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates a hack, along with National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Mike Donley, James Clapper, Mike Vickers, and head of the VA, Eric Shinseki?

    You are a bigger idiot than I first thought.
  5. It is his opinion. I noticed that you did not refute a single point he made. Instead you attack him personally. Why are you such a hater?
  6. I am not a "hater".
    Everyone has an opinion.
    But contrary to others on ET, I believe that it is important to know the background of the author in order to better understand if they have an "axe" to grind.

    The "points" that Ralph Peters attempts to make in order to advance his claim that "Obama's foreign-policy botches have set new records" are not supported by any facts in evidence in regards to Obama - - - Peters simply immerses himself in a bucket of rhetoric.
    You understand what rhetoric is right?

    On another note, Peters seems to be a bit confused as well.

    On the one hand he views Afghanistan as the next
    "Vietnam" - - - yet admits that Pakistan has nukes and seeths with hatred towards America. I guess he feels that Afghanistan has nothing to do with the current "terror" equation . . . and the FATA in Pakistan.

    It would appear that his opinion is not currently supported by those in the Pentagon, NSA, and CIA.

    But hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion,
    no matter how unsupported it is.

  7. I've always thought that people that use swear words to get their point across suffered from a lack of education and a low IQ.

    Given your claim that Jeb Bush will be the next President of the United States in 2012, the entire ET community now knows how mentally "twisted" you are.


    Your lack of intelligence is making new highs.