Palin blasts Obama foreign policy as “enemy-centric”

posted at 10:55 am on July 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Sarah Palin’s critics sometimes poke fun at her regular messaging from her Facebook platform for a supposed lack of depth and heft.  Her comprehensive look at military and foreign policy yesterday provides a rebuttal to those critiques, as well as a direct challenge to Barack Obama’s assertions of “smart power.”  Palin blasts Obama for his “enemy-centric” foreign policy and criticizes Democrats who seek to score points on fiscal responsibility at the expense of the military:

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.

It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy “enemy-centric.” And this “enemy-centric” approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because “we pretty much know what they are going to say.” Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.

This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities.

Ironically, this is a charge usually leveled at Republican Presidents.  The Left regularly criticized Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush for their alliance with countries opposing Soviet and Cuban expansionism, especially in the Western Hemisphere.  Their defense of socialist revolutions almost always rested on the human-rights violations of the anti-communist governments that the US supported, or in some cases, the anti-communist insurgents, such as the contras in Nicaragua.   George W. Bush really transformed that dynamic, making the Left a lot more Scowcroftian in their opposition to his foreign policy, and Obama takes that even farther than Brent Scowcroft himself would go.

Palin sees this as an indication that Obama sees America far differently than most of his fellow Americans:

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?

Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just see a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check.

Most of this relates back to Palin’s main topic, defense spending.  Democrats have made a lot of noise of late about reducing the military budget in order to demonstrate fiscal discipline, but Palin reminds her readers that defense is the main Constitutional duty of the federal government.  There is certainly room for improvement in efficiency and procurement, which is a morass even in the best of times, but reduction of forces is a bad idea for a nation at war.  The Navy appears to be their main target, but our Navy remains the protector of trade routes and the basic extension of American power around the globe.  The problem with retreating from that position will be the question of who fills the vacuum — and the answer to that question would almost certainly be China.

Be sure to read it all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

America’s armed forces are begging for this kind of leadership.

wheelgun on July 1, 2010 at 10:58 AM

There she goes again…Go get him Gov. Don’t stop till his policies are dead and buried….

hawkman on July 1, 2010 at 10:59 AM

How does the military survive without a Commander-in-Chief? I guess we will find out because there is no chance of having one until 2012.

volsense on July 1, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Who in the MSM has commented on Obama’s incredible comments regarding exceptionalism and “like it or not…?” For the umpteenth time, thank goodness for the Internet, the so-called new media, and now Facebook.

Drained Brain on July 1, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Be sure to read it all.

I read it all about three times through, last night. :^)

No wonder the lefties are so afraid of her. “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”

Fishoutofwater on July 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Jingoism isn’t a foreign policy. For all the complaining she does here, there is precious little on how a Palin foreign policy would generate solutions to the issues she brings up. For all his bravado and “ally-centricricity”, Bush’s foreign policy approach brought zero movement on the issues of Iran or NK, generated a crisis in Iraq, and made no progress whatsoever in Israel.

Anyone care to explain why on earth we should consider Palin’s assessment valid, or her position preferable to that of Obama’s?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

I would say this administration is “enemy-centric” because they ARE the enemy.

Military use of space gets short shrift in new US space policy:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf

pseudonominus on July 1, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Anyone care to explain why on earth we should consider Palin’s assessment valid, or her position preferable to that of Obama’s?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Because, unlike OFilth, she won’t deliberately insult our allies with garbage like speech-filled IPOD’s, incompatible DVD’s and gross and open insults.

She’ll also show up for the job, which, as noted Obamafascist-lover Woody Allen points out, is 90% of success.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Anyone care to explain why on earth we should consider Palin’s assessment valid, or her position preferable to that of Obama’s?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Uh….because Obama’s have failed?

bloggless on July 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Uh….because Obama’s have failed?

bloggless on July 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM

And, according to the accolades that the pro-fascist Obamazombies give Rev. Deke O’Malley, such failure can only be -deliberate- on his part, given his powers and genius.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM

bloggless on July 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM

But so has her own position. She’s arguing, essentially, for a return to Bush era policy, which was one 8 year exercise in treading water. None of the developing crises were addressed. After less than 2 years of an Obama administration that’s done much of the same, why is one any preferable to the other?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM

The Dems are correct that we spend far too much on the military. Their problem is that’s the only thing they think we spend too much money on. I’d be willing to compromise a certain portion of military spending for most of the other BS spending they support.

Notorious GOP on July 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM

This is Churchillian. Her writings and speeches exude common sense to a much greater degree than our government and press corps.

This is very much like Winston Chirchill being focused on the rise of a certain leader and party in Germany, only to be treated with distain by his party and the press.

The book The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940 by William Manchester is a most entertaining, if depressing, recounting of how Churchill tried his best to avoid WWII, only to fail again and again. He kept going, to his credit and our lasting benefit. But over 60 million died for the British government’s preventable failures.

NaCly dog on July 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Once again, Sarah Palin washes away the phony facade of President Obama and reveals him for the socialist, anti-American that he is.

Damn you Mr. President, and all of your Eurocentric bullsh*t.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Because, unlike OFilth, she won’t deliberately insult our allies with garbage like speech-filled IPOD’s, incompatible DVD’s and gross and open insults.

She’ll also show up for the job, which, as noted Obamafascist-lover Woody Allen points out, is 90% of success.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:09 AM

As if that’s what really matters?! I’m glad to see conservatives have successfully trivialized the greatest game with tabloid nonsense.

Anyway, you’ve not answered my question. How would a Palin approach actually solve anything?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Anyone care to explain why on earth we should consider Palin’s assessment valid, or her position preferable to that of Obama’s?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Uh, because Palin understands that in a .38 caliber world, you bring a .45 caliber M-1911 to the gunfight.

And you stick by your friends. And you let your enemies know it.

Chicago Jesus never learned that lesson. He probably read the Cliff Notes version of The Peloponnesian War.

victor82 on July 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

What a delicious and glorious smack-down! She’s out there fighting for us. We’re right behind you, Sarah! We’ve got your back!

BetseyRoss on July 1, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Walk softly and carry a big nightstick

Jocundus on July 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM

He is supposed to be an advocate for America. Not its’ greatest detractor.

kingsjester on July 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Anyone care to explain why on earth we should consider Palin’s assessment valid, or her position preferable to that of Obama’s?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Some people think climbing down the ladder doesn’t move you further up it. Palin is the only voice that dares to decipher the boy-president’s rhetoric. The MSM so heartily backs it, that everyday citizens never have a chance to grasp the realities of the current administration’s policies.

caygeon on July 1, 2010 at 11:18 AM

The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease.

I wasn’t aware of this, or a lot of the other details she brought up.

Pretty scary stuff.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Jingoism isn’t a foreign policy…

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Yes it is. You just don’t like it.

I do.

Jaynie59 on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Speaking of foreign leaders unfriendly to the US. A little OT: Elian Gonzalez finally speaks out “forgiving” his family in FL for fighting to keep him there.

DrAllecon on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Anyway, you’ve not answered my question. How would a Palin approach actually solve anything?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

She has gone on record in interviews(I believe with O’Reilly) that she’s open to a naval blockade of oil imports to Iran. She’s also said that Israel has a right to defend itself against the threat of a nuclear Iran and that the US must stand with them.

Now Obama may not have unequivocally stated he’s opposed to either policy, but based on his rhetoric and actions thus far, I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Doughboy on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

victor82 on July 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Ok, but Bush did that just fine…where were the solutions to developing crises? Acting tough is not in and of itself a solution to anything, its a style…its fluff, really, when you’re talking about public speechifying and whatnot. Palin’s foray into legitimate policy has been nothing but an attack on that which she barely understands…her “position” is not one that offers any actual solutions.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

But so has her own position. She’s arguing, essentially, for a return to Bush era policy, which was one 8 year exercise in treading water. None of the developing crises were addressed. After less than 2 years of an Obama administration that’s done much of the same, why is one any preferable to the other?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM

No you idiot! She’s arguing for a return to Reagan era policies and our country’s greatness.

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Ernesto,
Can you put into words exactly what Obama is up to with his foreign policy? What is he trying to actually achieve by alienating our allies and patting dictators and despots on the back?

caygeon on July 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM

testicular fortitude

jp on July 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM

When the president becomes an embarrassment to the EU and a laughingstock to the entire world, what comes after enough is anough?

volsense on July 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Give it up ernesto, you got nothing, just like your fuhrer

golfmann on July 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Jingoism isn’t a foreign policy. For all the complaining she does here, there is precious little on how a Palin foreign policy would generate solutions to the issues she brings up.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

you are so full of sh*t Ernesto. You demand a 13 point solution from Sarah Palin for every foreign policy problem, yet Obama who is suppose to be the brilliant scholar has repeatedly screwed the pooch on every foreign policy issue he’s faced since he took office.

You want exact solutions from Palin, but are more than happy to allow Obama to get away with platitudes and rhetoric?

Please.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Sarah Palin’s critics sometimes poke fun at her regular messaging from her Facebook platform for a supposed lack of depth and heft.

They’ve always been heavy on policy…at the beginning, she even footnoted all her sources until she apparently figured out how to link. Her critics obviously don’t even read her notes or listen to her speeches, just to the snippets the LSM wants the sheep to hear in order to portray her as STOOPID.

VidOmnia on July 1, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Jaynie59 on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Well let’s just thank our lucky stars that you’re nowhere near the foreign policy apparatus.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Palin’s foray into legitimate policy has been nothing but an attack on that which she barely understands…

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Sexist Pig.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 11:23 AM

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM

No she is arguing, essentially, for a return of Reagan’s policy. Peace through strength. I have no idea what bush’s policy was something about peace through democracy or some such crap. Reagan and Palin believe we have peace by being the toughest Son of a bi*tch on the block. Being in a quagmire in Afganistain and retreating across the globe is not strength. Bush refrained form unleashing the dogs of war in Iraq and Afgan. He wanted a kindler gentiler war. And 9 years later we are still paying for that. Palin would have sent the B52′s

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Palin’s foray into legitimate policy has been nothing but an attack on that which she barely understands…her “position” is not one that offers any actual solutions.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

I dunno. I’d say from this piece she’s not in favor of downgrading missile defense systems.

a capella on July 1, 2010 at 11:24 AM

How would a Palin approach actually solve anything?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

What needs to be solved Ernesto?

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 11:25 AM

The Dems are correct that we spend far too much on the military. Their problem is that’s the only thing they think we spend too much money on. I’d be willing to compromise a certain portion of military spending for most of the other BS spending they support.

Notorious GOP on July 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM

My position exactly. Every branch of spending needs reigning in; ‘defense’ spending is just one of the most visible kinds simply because of its destructive nature. Spending a ridiculous amount on another research group is just as bad, but they don’t go out with a mission of ‘kill people and blow things up’, so they don’t get near as much attention.

Dark-Star on July 1, 2010 at 11:25 AM

As if that’s what really matters?! I’m glad to see conservatives have successfully trivialized the greatest game with tabloid nonsense.

Anyway, you’ve not answered my question. How would a Palin approach actually solve anything?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

How can you honestly say that insulting one of our closest allies is trivial or “tabloid nonsense?” How can you honestly say that Obama waiting for months to respond to his general’s request for more troops is a better policy than listening to his generals?

Despite your claim of “treading water” Bush’s approach removed a dangerous, mass-murdering dictator from his command along with his rapist/torturing sons. Iraq has held free elections and is getting stronger every day. Palin’s policy would be a return to that way of thinking which doesn’t involve bowing to foreign leaders figuratively or literally.

DrAllecon on July 1, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Anyway, you’ve not answered my question. How would a Palin approach actually solve anything?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

She’s obviously arguing for a return to a Reaganesque policy, with clear enemies and friends, good guys and bad guys. That’s the approach that won the Cold War.

VidOmnia on July 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM

The book The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940 by William Manchester is a most entertaining, if depressing, recounting of how Churchill tried his best to avoid WWII, only to fail again and again. He kept going, to his credit and our lasting benefit. But over 60 million died for the British government’s preventable failures.

NaCly dog on July 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM

That’s moral courage, the rarest quality in a politician.

Honorless, resentment-loving cowardly punks like Ernesto and Ofilth will never be able to comprehend it.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM

No you idiot! She’s arguing for a return to Reagan era policies and our country’s greatness.
Vince on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Idiot? Oh yes, very very obviously so.

But too stupid to understand this? No. Even the most drug-addled moonbats are painfully aware of this.

And that is why they hate Sarah Palin more than life itself.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM

her “position” is not one that offers any actual solutions.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Why does she have to offer solutions? She explains the problem in this piece and by her criticism offers initial solutions in that Obama should stop denigrating the US and kowtowing to foreign dictators.

If she runs for office, then ask her to embellish on that.

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM

I’m not at all satisfied with Obama’s policy. What I’m curious about, given that this is a thread about Palin, is just what a change in policy will actually bring about. So far, I’ve got nothing…care to try?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM

But so has her own position. She’s arguing, essentially, for a return to Bush era policy, which was one 8 year exercise in treading water. None of the developing crises were addressed. After less than 2 years of an Obama administration that’s done much of the same, why is one any preferable to the other?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Treading water always beats Obama’s policy of sinking like stone.

CC

CapedConservative on July 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM

You don’t, CAN’T solve evil…
You eliminate it or defend against it.

Simple, huh?
Even Sarah Palin can understand it cause she’s SO dumb!

I repeat, you got nothing!

golfmann on July 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM

VidOmnia on July 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM

With gross oversimplifications like this, has anyone ever taken you seriously?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Palin’s foray into legitimate policy has been nothing but an attack on that which she barely understands…

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Sexist Pig.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 11:23 AM

You are a master of understatement.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Palin’s foray into legitimate policy has been nothing but an attack on that which she barely understands…

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Sad… little ernesto doesn’t remember a time when people actually cheered for the USA. Can’t remember a time before Bush, Bush, Bush,… that damned Bush. Dude there’s 2000 years of history (minus the 4 from 76 to 80) where people were proud to be American because being American meant having the solution.

lm10001 on July 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Well let’s just thank our lucky stars that you’re nowhere near the foreign policy apparatus.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Not directly…but don’t ever forget that jingoists can vote, same as every other citizen.

Dark-Star on July 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM

“Enemy-centric” is the new “death panels”.

Man, can that lady turn a phrase.

No wonder the Left hates with such mouth-foaming rage!

Heh.

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

How would a Palin approach actually solve anything?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

I’m giving Ernie a break here because I remember how he slammed Obama the candidate and all the other foaming-at-the-mouth liberals mercilessly for criticizing GW Bush back in 2003-2008.

/s

Patrick S on July 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

I’m guessing that Obama would not see any validity in the point of view of this article. He thinks,apparently, that the old ways have failed and he will be the instrument of change. Loses sight of the fact that the old approaches have become old simply because they work. How long before these ever increasing failures and burgeoning problems become obvious to the 40 some % of folks who still approve of his job? and the MSM? Are they just mis or under informed or plain blind and stupid.

jeanie on July 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

I disagree. Bush did nothing with Iran.

Amadeus on July 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Well let’s just thank our lucky stars that you’re nowhere near the foreign policy apparatus.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Why? Because I’m a proud promoter of American jingoism? I welcome the label you mean as an insult. Sorry.

Jaynie59 on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM

She has gone on record in interviews(I believe with O’Reilly) that she’s open to a naval blockade of oil imports to Iran. She’s also said that Israel has a right to defend itself against the threat of a nuclear Iran and that the US must stand with them.

Now Obama may not have unequivocally stated he’s opposed to either policy, but based on his rhetoric and actions thus far, I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Doughboy on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

And perhaps most significant, he’s given Iran no reason to think that he has the spine to take such steps.

ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Give it up ernesto, you got nothing, just like your fuhrer
golfmann on July 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM

All-consuming, rabid, mindless hatred is most definitely not “nothing.”

We must never forget that, even for a second.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM

No wonder the Left hates with such mouth-foaming rage!

Heh.

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

As evidenced by “ernesto” crawling out from under his assigned rock to trash Palin threads.

CC

CapedConservative on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Palin’s policy would be a return to that way of thinking which doesn’t involve bowing to foreign leaders figuratively or literally.

DrAllecon on July 1, 2010 at 11:25 AM

But what will that actually accomplish, besides putting your paranoid, aggressive mind at ease? What did it accomplish for Bush?? A manufactured crisis; a bungled, expensive response.

I understand that chest-thumpers and the extremely proud like to throw their weight around rhetorically…but what has it actually accomplished? Precious little.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Palin’s foray into legitimate policy has been nothing but an attack on that which she barely understands

Well she couldn’t possibly do a worse job than the guy who’s doing it now. Go Sarah!

jeanie on July 1, 2010 at 11:31 AM

I wonder if ernesto has the word CRAFTSMAN embossed on his forhead (he’s a tool)…

Otherwise, I just love this woman. She keeps getting better and better. Go get ‘em, Sarah!

turfmann on July 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM

yet Obama who is suppose to be the brilliant scholar has repeatedly screwed the pooch on every foreign policy issue he’s faced since he took office.

You want exact solutions from Palin, but are more than happy to allow Obama to get away with platitudes and rhetoric?

Please.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM

FIXED!

dhunter on July 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM

“BOOM! Taste my nightstick!”

ornery_independent on July 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM

I understand that chest-thumpers and the extremely proud like to throw their weight around rhetorically…but what has it actually accomplished? Precious little.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Saddam dead.
Taliban no longer in power.
Zero terrorist attacks on our soil after 9/11.

Yep… precious little.

CC

CapedConservative on July 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM

You want exact solutions from Palin, but are more than happy to allow Obama to get away with platitudes and rhetoric?

Please.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM

She gave exact solutions.

1) support our allies
2) deal with russia and China from strength not weakness
3) support human rights with countries like iran, China, russia
4) continue funding at levels to ensure we have the strongest military in the world
5) threaten and browbeat our enemies until they come to the table (i.e peace through strength)
6) embrace our standing in the world as the world’s policeman.
7) Do not issue apologies for our history, our strength, our exceptionlism. Instead embrace them and use them for a force for good across the world
8) Do not give our enemies timelines of withdrawal. Stay the course till voctory is achieved
9)cut spending on other programs to ensure the military has the funds needed to do all of the above.

the fact that the trolls can not see exact solutions from this post and her Norfolk speech does not mean they are not there. In fact this post of hers is the most detailed foreign policy view committed to for a national politican since Reagan.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:33 AM

With gross oversimplifications like this, has anyone ever taken you seriously?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Suck it up, ernie. You picked this fight. We all know what you are.

a capella on July 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Ernesto thinks the Cold War just magically ended in our favor for no apparent reason.

VidOmnia on July 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM

“Enemy-centric” is the new “death panels”. Man, can that lady turn a phrase. No wonder the Left hates with such mouth-foaming rage! Heh.
Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Concision is the new “jingoism.”

I haven’t heard any of them comment in the past year or so, but I can’t help but wonder how all that “hope and change” is working out for the libtards?

logis on July 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM

But what will that actually accomplish, besides putting your paranoid, aggressive mind at ease? What did it accomplish for Bush?? A manufactured crisis; a bungled, expensive response.

I understand that chest-thumpers and the extremely proud like to throw their weight around rhetorically…but what has it actually accomplished? Precious little.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Calling me names doesn’t really make your point, ernesto. It’s also silly as I’ve said nothing even remotely paranoid, and if you think MY mind is aggressive, I can’t imagine how you felt about Sadam Hussain’s. But when you get like this, it’s tough to talk to you. To say removing a man who murdered 200,000 people with a deadly gas is “Precious little” is so intellectually dishonest there’s not much point in continuing.

DrAllecon on July 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Sad… little ernesto doesn’t remember a time when people actually cheered for the USA. Can’t remember a time before Bush, Bush, Bush,… that damned Bush

This is the problem with people like ernesto. They are too young to know what they heck they are talking about. Their education was slanted left and that’s all they have to go on.

Get some life experience ernesto before you venture out to converse with the adults.

Putz!

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Saddam dead.
Taliban no longer in power.
Zero terrorist attacks on our soil after 9/11.

Yep… precious little.

CC

CapedConservative on July 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM

2 and 3 are being deliberately reversed. If Obama had the power, he’d revive Saddam and personally grovel to him in apology.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM

emesto is still looking for paradise?

Keep looking, pal.

Just like you wouldn’t mess with a 6’9″ 300lb biker one on one also WORKS for me as a nation. STRENGTH talks volumes.

What are Obamas solutions? I have yet to see him help with ANYTHING. Can you name one?

golfmann on July 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I understand that chest-thumpers and the extremely proud like to throw their weight around rhetorically…but what has it actually accomplished? Precious little.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Hey, you know what would really work with Iran? Dialogue and sanctions. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

a capella on July 1, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Ernesto,
Granted this thread is about Palin, but can you do a compare/contrast with the boy-president. What about Obama’s actions do you find particulary stellar and how do you see these actions benefitting the U.S.? What in Palin’s remarks do you find destructive to U.S. foreign policy?

Illustrate for us how the U.S. benefits under Obama policies vs. Palin’s so called “dumb” ideas.

caygeon on July 1, 2010 at 11:38 AM

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:33 AM

1) We currently support our allies
2) What are we seeking to gain when dealing with Russia and China, and what does a position of strength relative to their position look like?
3) To what extent? How far is she willing to go in terms of harming relations with Russia and China?
4) We could do that while cutting funding significantly.
5) Where has that worked before? For all his browbeating, where did Bush get us with regards to Iran or NK?
6) Why?
7) Why? Are we not above petty propagandizing?
8) Fair enough
9) Why? The military is already more generously funded than most of the world put together.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

What are Obamas solutions? I have yet to see him help with ANYTHING. Can you name one?

golfmann on July 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I can. Golf course green fee revenue.

CC

CapedConservative on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

If she wants to be president, all she needs to do is repeat the themes in that last part over and over.

Kafir on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Palin’s policy would be a return to that way of thinking which doesn’t involve bowing to foreign leaders figuratively or literally.

DrAllecon on July 1, 2010 at 11:25 AM

But what will that actually accomplish, besides putting your paranoid, aggressive mind at ease? What did it accomplish for Bush?? A manufactured crisis; a bungled, expensive response.

I understand that chest-thumpers and the extremely proud like to throw their weight around rhetorically…but what has it actually accomplished? Precious little.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM

The world is safer when America’s enemies fear her. Obama is trying to get them to like her, and he’s too naive to realize that that simply isn’t going to happen. He has actively taken steps to eliminate their fear, by removing any ambiguity about when he would consider a nuclear strike an appropriate response, as just one example. Removing the fear emboldens them. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

In fact this post of hers is the most detailed foreign policy view committed to for a national politican since Reagan.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Yep. Best I’ve seen since Reagan.

Amadeus on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Why would anyone listen to her critics who poke fun of her postings on Facebook?

Obama was praised for his contemporary use of social media during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Palin’s critics are cynics who look for any reason to try to diminish her, that’s their job. Why pay any heed?

Captain America on July 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM

As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check

Which is precisely why Obama and his administration are doing all they can to weaken our military and our relationships with our allies. 2012 cannot come fast enough. The enemy in office is going to destroy in 4 years what took over 200 years to achieve.

theenforser on July 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Sad… little ernesto doesn’t remember a time when people actually cheered for the USA. Can’t remember a time before Bush, Bush, Bush,… that damned Bush

This is the problem with people like ernesto. They are too young to know what they heck they are talking about. Their education was slanted left and that’s all they have to go on.

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Are you kidding? The moonbats have the same impression of those days that the average conservative has of the Holocaust.

Get some life experience ernesto before you venture out to converse with the adults.

Granted liberals, pretty much by definition, don’t know anything about doing productive work that benefits their fellow man in any actual way.

But they know how to hate; and they know how to think very very highly of themselves. And that is all they need.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 11:41 AM

“1) We currently support our allies”

ROTFL!

Man, this punk can’t even get past Point 1 without pathologically lying!

The last time I checked, Iran and Hamas did not consider themselves “allies” of the U.S., despite Obama’s devout support.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:41 AM

understand that chest-thumpers and the extremely proud like to throw their weight around rhetorically…but what has it actually accomplished? Precious little.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Saddam dead.
Taliban no longer in power.
Zero terrorist attacks on our soil after 9/11.

Yep… precious little.

CC

CapedConservative on July 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM

70 years without a world war
Nato
the greatest human longevity in human history
the highest standard of living
the greatest economic power the world has ever known
the lack of nuclear weapons in the hands of all states
the rule of law instead of the law of the jungle in international dealings
the greatest medical system in the world
the lack of famine across the majority of the world for the last 70 years
the outlawing of slavary in the international arena

the list goes on and on on what a strong America has done for the world. All due to the fac tthat over the last 70 years it has been the world’s policeman

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:42 AM

1) We currently support our allies
ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

By selling out the Czechs and the Poles on missile defence? By selling out Israel at the UN?

ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM

We can expect ernesto’s supervisor to come on soon…
This isn’t going well against the talking points he was given.

You got nothing!

golfmann on July 1, 2010 at 11:45 AM

ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Czech and Polish missile defense was strategically near useless. When coupled with the issues it presented in terms of dealing with Russia, the answer was clear: it wasn’t in our interest to hand east europe a security system designed to counter a non existent threat. As for Israel, for all intents and purposes the American position has remained unchanged…you’re referencing irrelevant rhetoric.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

9) Why? The military is already more generously funded than most of the world put together.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Do you understand that china’s $98 billion in military spending is the same if not more than USA’s $663 billion in spending. there is a reason for USA to ship jobs to China they cost less. thus your dollar goes farther. (i.e it cost china less to feed, clothe and pay a soldier than the USA in dollars.

china can build a destroyer for a lot less than the USA. Liberals can not grasp basic economics

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:48 AM

70 years without a world war
Nato
the greatest human longevity in human history
the highest standard of living
the greatest economic power the world has ever known
the lack of nuclear weapons in the hands of all states
the rule of law instead of the law of the jungle in international dealings
the greatest medical system in the world
the lack of famine across the majority of the world for the last 70 years
the outlawing of slavary in the international arena

the list goes on and on on what a strong America has done for the world. All due to the fac tthat over the last 70 years it has been the world’s policeman

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:42 AM

You forget that burning hatred for reason and human progress is the high point of thought for leftist filth like Obama and his terrorist friends. As long as -THEY- get the cakes and ale and power, everyone else (ESPECIALLY the poor and minorities) can rot in h@ll.

“A jackboot into a human face forever” is their greatest dream. We can already see it with their Chitown thuggishness and suppression of press freedoms.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:48 AM

5) Where has that worked before? For all his browbeating, where did Bush get us with regards to Iran or NK?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Bzzzt! Throws penalty flag for misrepresentation. Perhaps you just forgot to mention the falsified CIA intelligence estimate which effectively neutered Bush with regard to Iran. Why was that done?

a capella on July 1, 2010 at 11:48 AM

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:42 AM

I fail to see how you can attribute all that to the Palin position on foreign policy. Each of the items you bring up involve much, much more than outward posture. All this oversimplification is ridiculous…no wonder all anyone has to do is thump their chest to send you all swooning.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:49 AM

“Czech and Polish missile defense was strategically near useless.”

The lie parade just keeps on coming:

http://www.mda.mil/news/10news0008.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/29/will-obama-kill-missile-defense-in-new-treaty/

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:51 AM

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Not far enough where it counts, I’m afraid. Let’s talk carrier groups, or stealth capability. You and I both know China’s glorified civil defense force is in no way comparable to ours. We could cut military spending and still keep things this way.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Ernesto,,,,,How does shrinking the navy and revealing how many nukes we have help the Iran, North Korea situations. As for Israel you won’t have peace there ever because Israel’s enemies vow to destroy Israel completely. I rememeber the Carter years when the Defense dept was shrunk invited the Soviets to be more agressive. Seems like every time we shrink the military we invite enemies to be more on the move. Sarah Palin is only speaking the obvious that insulting our friends and bowing to enemies only invites trouble later on. Sarah’s solutions is simply PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH.

garydt on July 1, 2010 at 11:52 AM

What I’m curious about, given that this is a thread about Palin, is just what a change in policy will actually bring about. So far, I’ve got nothing…care to try?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM

A Palin Foreign policy would be:

A strong & Firm stance with Russia, and a missile shield in Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe wouldn’t be bullied by Russia, as we would have allied with the smaller countries.

Palin would have been more forceful during the Iranian Green movement, by vocally showing support and pounding Iran over the head with the will of the people. She would have rubbed the Mullah’s faces in it.

Palin would have seen that the deficit direct threat to the nation, not be going to Europe demanding they spend their way to prosperity.

A Palin foreign policy would be a complete about face to Obama’s “Peace through appeasement” failure.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM

2) What are we seeking to gain when dealing with Russia and China, and what does a position of strength relative to their position look like?
ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

ROFL you are clueless. We are seeking to gain that our views, national interest and desires aretaken into consideration and implemented IRT to Russia and China. russia and China have different end results in mind that the USA. They have different concerns, power implications, and desires than the USA. If you do not deal form a position of strength with Russia and China their power grows while ours recedes. Unlike economics world power is a zero sum game. There is a finite of world power the pie is finite. In economics wealth can grow. In world affiars power can not. You either have it and can project it or you do not. You are either master or slave or freeman.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Of course the system actually shoots down missiles…what I’m saying is that the missiles are imaginary. No one’s going to be hitting poland with missiles. Thus protecting poland from imaginary missiles becomes completely useless.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM

There are three classes of Nations in regards to foreign policy:

- Friends and allies – those who support you and with whom the US shares common values of individual liberty and freedom. We should support that with free and unfettered trade as individual freedom and liberty are the highest of all aspirations for people. Together we work, together we live and together we confront those who oppose such liberty and freedom for individuals no matter how powerful that country is.

- Neutrals – Those that are indifferent to the United States, don’t really see why they should support us but do not want to confront us. These Nations should get friendly indifference in return, to bespeak about how we embrace liberty and seek others to willingly do so. These Nations should have a minor tariff placed upon them so that they understand the cost of liberty and freedom in a material way, and of course we expect that to be reciprocated in this world of ours. And when they demonstrate moderation, advancing personal liberty and personal freedom, we then incrementally lower those barriers so that the abundance of liberty can be encouraged and tyranny discouraged.

- Our Enemies – Those that despise us, attack our values of liberty and freedom for individuals and offer none to their own people. They get nothing. Trade to free peoples is a reward for hard personal work, we should not trade with those Nations that allow no liberty or freedom for their people. And those that attack us get no succor, no support, and must be convinced that their attack upon a free people is most unwise and that they will be hounded to the ends of the Earth when they do so.

For these things we need a strong military.

To support our friends and allies, and share the burden of our defense together, so that each of our Nations can be secure from attack.

To demonstrate to those Neutral to us that we do mean what we say and are not to be trifled with.

To our Enemies to insert uncertainty, fear and dread of ever angering these people who adore liberty and freedom.

Thus our foreign policy should follow those outlines.

That has some nasty meanings due to the way we have played games with foreign policy and have tried to treat dread enemies as friends, when they are no friend of liberty and freedom. There is a deep, dark and steep cost to doing otherwise and it is that cost of our own liberty lessened because we will not stand up for liberty as a whole. That cost is coming due… our choices will be limited by events. Those that choose to support ‘perfect’ outcomes will seek tyranny, for it is the most perfect form of government that outlaws all other things. Those that support working with our friends and allies, and seeking to engage those who are neutral on a friendly basis but on a path to liberty for their people will yield much better results.

When you consult with our enemies and do not confront them, everyone loses.

I would be more than willing to see this stark yet clear-cut form of foreign policy enacted. It would clarify who we are, who our friends are and who our enemies truly are. It would be a revolution in world affairs to step away from Realpolitik. And when it becomes our last option we will take it as it is the only one that offers a way out for us and yet retain and support liberty and freedom for all mankind.

ajacksonian on July 1, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Ernesto, what do you think China is doing????? They are increasing their navy to be a major blue water fleet. The Russians brag that they have the best fighter in their air force. What are we doing? Seems every war starts when the enemy sees weakness. This has happened in the past world history.

garydt on July 1, 2010 at 11:55 AM

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM

That was an entire paragraph of platitudes. You should take up communications.

Where can we gain leverage on Russia and China? Where would President Palin apply pressure, and to what ends?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3