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

ernie yearns for a Vichy administration. He should be happy withour pesent situation.

a capella on July 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:33 AM
unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Hear, hear! Excellent points.

BetseyRoss on July 1, 2010 at 11:56 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

Are military leads in tecnology. The recent space wepons of the China threaten our military advantage in space including our GPS systems. china is agreesivly building nuclear warheads and missles aimed at the USA as well as a top line Navy that matches ours. their capture of our spyplane during Bush’s term gave them a techonoloy leap of a decade. they have a massive cyberforce that could destroy or degrade our digital services blinding us and bringing our economy to its knees in short order. They have an economic weapon of mass destruction in their hands with our debt

To bury your head in the sand and think we can defeat china without an all out nuclear exchange at this time is wishful thinking.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 11:58 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

Her foreign policy position is just a slice of the pie. Military streghth. Economic strength. A FREE and prosperous population.

Obama’s demonstrated position is weakness, weakness and tyranny.

CC

CapedConservative on July 1, 2010 at 11:58 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

Offered without any evidence, of course.

Of course the system actually shoots down missiles…what I’m saying is that the missiles are imaginary.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2010 at 11:58 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

Precisely, we need -both- numbers and quality in order to successfully meet military/political challenges now and in the future. After a certain point, quantity trumps quality, especially if the qualitative difference is not great enough. Trevor N. Dupuy pioneered the discussion of this in Numbers, Predictions snd War, New York, 1978, 1985

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:59 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.

So you think it is in America’s best interests to wait until Iran has the long range missiles operational, perhaps even until they send one into eastern Europe, to be concerned about eastern Europe’s defence? Or that we should leave them to the tender mercies of Russia?

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

Flat out wrong. Every president since Nixon has agreed that Israel’s nonmembership in the IAEA, and their policy of “nuclear ambiguity”, serves both Israel’s and the US’ interests. But what does Obama do? He agrees that Israel’s refusal to submit its nuclear program to IAEA inspection is a more serious problem than Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; or at least that’s the way he voted, although he said afterward that he didn’t agree with the way he voted.

What would you make of that?

ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Ernesto, we are waiting for your solutions that Bama will use with his weakened defense and bowing and slobbering to our enemies with nothing in return.

garydt on July 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM

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

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
– Mark Twain

Beagle on July 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM

ernie yearns for a Vichy administration. He should be happy withour pesent situation.

a capella on July 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Don’t libel the Vichy government like that, at least they had the excuse of foreign conquest to act as they did.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM

its too late to change events, its time to face the consequence for delivering the proof in the policy of truth.

never again is what you swore the time before.

moonbatkiller on July 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Precisely, we need -both- numbers and quality in order to successfully meet military/political challenges now and in the future. After a certain point, quantity trumps quality, especially if the qualitative difference is not great enough. Trevor N. Dupuy pioneered the discussion of this in Numbers, Predictions snd War, New York, 1978, 1985

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Precisely. German tanks and aircraft in WWII were better qualitatively than American ones, and for much of the war their personnel were better too. But when we could spend ten Shermans in order to kill one Tiger…the advantage disappears.

VidOmnia on July 1, 2010 at 12:03 PM

We can’t spare this woman. She fights .

DeweyWins on July 1, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Look Ernesto, you came on here to ridicule Palin for lobbing bombs at Obama’s weird foreign policy stance. You are doing the exact same thing as her by critisizing Palin. The is a difference though, she is informed and understanding of the repurcussions of Obama’s actions. You are armed with one-sided talking points that do not seem to add up to any kind of informed foreign policy opinion.

caygeon on July 1, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I’m sorry folks, but Ernesto is right. Most of this was an attack that merely stated, ‘What Obama is doing is bad, let’s just do the opposite.’ She never hints anywhere in this piece that she even grasps the basics of military theory, foreign relations, or much else.

Stating that we need a powerful military, a good fleet of carriers, and to not coddle our enemies is hardly a policy paper and it’s in no way full of the substance folks like Ed want to pretend are to be found within it.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:05 PM

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

You do not understand and its people like you that fail to see that all of those things I mentioned are due to the fact that we are the world’s superpower. Without peace for 70 years we could not grow our economy, without peace for 70 years we could not have free trade, international law.

Without peace for the last 70 years we could not have advances in technology, medical discoveries, space age.

and the reason we had had peace for the last 70 year sis that ALl presidents both dems and rep (even Carter understood it to some extent)up to Obama understood that America power and its projection theroughout the world gave us and our allies that peace. FDR, truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, reagan, bush, clinton, bush ALL OF THEM.

You do not understand that the last 70 years has been the exception not the rule of international relations. that the entire history of the human race up to the last 70 years has been one of world conquest of endless wars, slavery, famine, disease, death and destruction. the entire 1000 years of the dark ages was due to the destruction of the world’s policeman of that time. Peace comes through strength. weakness invites dark ages and the rule of the jungle. It can be our peace or Russia’s peace or China’s peace. they are not the same.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:07 PM

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.

So you think it is in America’s best interests to wait until Iran has the long range missiles operational, perhaps even until they send one into eastern Europe, to be concerned about eastern Europe’s defence? Or that we should leave them to the tender mercies of Russia?

ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Precisely, in addition to the fact that stationing the defenses on Czech and Polish soil shows American commitment to their independence from the Russian bear, much the same as our force commitments in South Korea protects them from NK.

That’s why Ernesto’s 2nd love, Putin, wanted to squelch those defense plans, and the America-hating hell-filth we have as President went along with the gross betrayal of our real friends in the region.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Bluesite, cutting the defense won’t discourage our enemies from doing aggressive acts. Where in history has cutting your defense has created peace in the world? It is a good policy paper to be serious with your defenses to insure peace rather then gutting it and encouraging our enemies.

garydt on July 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Your right Blue. We should expect private citizens commenting on their facebook page to provide highly detailed military references and sound, highly involved foreign policy plans.

Should we expect the same from the president? Hold him to the same standard? Umm, not so much.

The fact that you hold Palin to this high of a standard speaks volumes more than you’s like to admit.

caygeon on July 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Palin completely distorted Obama’s line on America being a dominant super power (in fact, she once again completely cut off his quote in mid-sentence in this post). Shocker.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004140015

Since Palin is too dishonest to properly quote Obama, I’ll do it for her:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon. Given the progress you have cited in recent days on your foreign policy agenda, to what extent do you feel like you have gained political capital with which to take further to the international stage for the rest of this year, to perhaps rejuvenate some initiatives in trouble spots such as the Middle East and elsewhere?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the work that we’ve done in recent days around nuclear security and nuclear disarmament are intrinsically good. They’re good just in and of themselves. And so we’re very pleased with the progress that we’ve made. And we could not have done this without extraordinary cooperation first from President Medvedev when it came to the START treaty, and then from my colleagues who were here today when it came to this Nuclear Security Summit.

What I think it signifies is the fact that so many of the challenges that we face internationally can’t be solved by one nation alone. But I do think that America’s leadership is important in order to get issues on the international agenda and to move in concert with other countries to have an effective response.

There are a host of other issues, obviously, that have to be addressed and one of the points that was made actually during the communiqué is we’re talking here about the instruments of potential war or terrorism, but obviously there are also the reasons, the rationales, the excuses for conflict, that have to be addressed as well.

And I remain committed to being a partner with countries around the world, and in particular hot spots around the world, to see if we can reduce those tensions and ultimately resolve those conflicts. And the Middle East would be a prime example. I think that the need for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and the Arab states remains as critical as ever.

It is a very hard thing to do. And I know that even if we are applying all of our political capital to that issue, the Israeli people through their government, and the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority, as well as other Arab states, may say to themselves, we are not prepared to resolve this — these issues — no matter how much pressure the United States brings to bear.

And the truth is, in some of these conflicts the United States can’t impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism. I think it was former Secretary of State Jim Baker who said, in the context of Middle East peace, we can’t want it more than they do.

But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it’s also in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

So I’m going to keep on at it. But I think on all these issues — nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, Middle East peace — progress is going to be measured not in days, not in weeks. It’s going to take time. And progress will be halting. And sometimes we’ll take one step forward and two steps back, and there will be frustrations. And so it’s not going to run on the typical cable news 24/7 news cycle. But if we’re persistent, and we’ve got the right approach, then over time, I think that we can make progress.

All right? Thank you very much, everybody.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

I disagree that Bush did nothing with Iran. Debate the Iraq War and removal of a mass murdering dictator family all you want, but the fact is, now we’ve got armed forces right next door to Iran (and offshore now too!) to keep them in check just in case they wanna try some funny business like, say, attack Israel. With forces also in Afghanistan and offshore, we’re well-positioned to put a major hurt on Iran if necessary.

It’s not talked about in public that I’ve seen, but that’s the way I see it.

..and to get back on topic, I’m with those who see Palin as a “Peace through Strength” leader, a la Reagan, not that progressive Bush.

ornery_independent on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Ernesto the parrot

polo grande

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

Bushs policy made plenty of headway and scared tha sheet out of the commie left here

as you well know by now Ernie, the left consistantly supports regimes and ideals of absolute power

see zelaya in Honduras as a small example

despite our issues with Iran only a fool could say that a hussein ( the other) would have made the problem easier

the left loves despots and only tries to look like they have nothing in common with the ones they admire

see congressional black caucus relating Castro on trip to cuba

SP leaves no doubt with me that she would be more suited for the big job since she wouldn’t even have to consider bogus cost savings through our defense because she wouldn’t have supported gov healthcare, gov bank control, bogus public sector pocket lining in the misnomer called sti
ulus

she wouldn’t support a coup attemt in Honduras, she wouldn’t attempt to castrate out energy creation

pure and simply she is more in the mold of our forefathers than whatever our current manchurian pres

punk

Sonosam on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Stating that we need a powerful military, a good fleet of carriers, and to not coddle our enemies is hardly a policy paper and it’s in no way full of the substance folks like Ed want to pretend are to be found within it.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:05 PM

My God! We are surrounded by idiots!

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

The fact that you hold Palin to this high of a standard speaks volumes more than you’s like to admit.

caygeon on July 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM

the funny thing is that Palin’s facebook page is more detailed than the POTUS foreign policy.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Stating that we need a powerful military, a good fleet of carriers, and to not coddle our enemies is hardly a policy paper and it’s in no way full of the substance folks like Ed want to pretend are to be found within it.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Another gibbering idiot heard from. Those are the -MINIMUM- necessary things that we should be doing in foreign policy, and Obama doesn’t want to do them.

He wants to destroy “American exceptionalism” and he doesn’t care if it makes him a one-term president to do so.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:13 PM

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Using Media Matters as a site for reference is idiotic.

Back under the Bridge blue-boy.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I’m sorry folks, but Ernesto is right. Most of this was an attack that merely stated, ‘What Obama is doing is bad, let’s just do the opposite.’ She never hints anywhere in this piece that she even grasps the basics of military theory, foreign relations, or much else.

Hy Shannyn – how is Anchorage these days?

callingallcomets on July 1, 2010 at 12:15 PM

caygeon on July 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Huh? That’s my point. Palin wants to pretend she’s a policy wonk, but this is what she is. She’s a celebrity pundit who has been made famous not by her intellectual prowess or her mastery or any field, but rather the fact that millions of people, most of whom have no idea what’s going on, have pinned their hopes on her, as if she’s some sort of messiah for the downtrodden, the poor, and the uneducated. She’s been all too happy to let people see that in her. She’s a female conservative Obama in that sense. She’s too willing to act as a screen, allowing anyone to project onto her what they want her to be.

She can’t have it both ways though. She can be this celebrity who posts very general complaints to facebook with no real meat, or she can be the woman who thinks she can lead the free world. You just can’t have it both ways. Her supporters, sadly, seem to think you can.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

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

Why do we need to gain leverage on Russia and China?

Jocundus on July 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

and to get back on topic, I’m with those who see Palin as a “Peace through Strength” leader, a la Reagan, not that progressive Bush.

ornery_independent on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

bush kind of had the correct policy. His problem was he did not have the will and/or courage to do what was needed. When the army took baghdad he should have sent the tanks left and right. One colume to damascuss and the other to Tahran. bush wanted a small surgical strike when what was called for was a massive mobilization and an all out conflict. bush tried to do it piecemeal instand of all at once. Now there were geopolitcal as well as logistcal reasons for the decisions that Bush made but they were still the wrong decisions. Not enough men, not as wide of a war, not the correct goal in mind etc.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:19 PM

She can’t have it both ways though.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Oh, Cerulean Idiot, Prince of Irony!

She’s actually addressing the issues more than Captain Golf-clubbing Platitude Spewer.

But, then again, she actually had more experience for the job of President than Obama did, so your lying hypocrisy is once again duly noted and denounced.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:20 PM

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

OOOOOOO! A powerfull policy statement! I can see why you think Obama has a strong defense/foreign policy! There is a need for peace in the middle east but it’s hard to do! He thinks we can achieve this! Ithink I can, I think I can, I think I can, makes for a good children’s book but not foreign policy!

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 12:20 PM

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 12:14 PM

That’s lame. I think media matters is almost completely packed with dolts with so much free time they can watch loops of Fox News to pull out 1 word in an entire new days to cause a controversy over. But, the point was the full quote and the context of that quote. Palin is lying about what Obama said and how he feels. A quote is a quote, doesn’t matter what site it came from.

He wants to destroy “American exceptionalism” and he doesn’t care if it makes him a one-term president to do so.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:13 PM

That’s ridiculous. I can’t imagine any president has ever wanted to destroy American exceptionalism, and to make such a claim is stupid. What would Obama have to gain by attacking the US and wishing it to fail? Nothing at all, that’s what.

My God! We are surrounded by idiots!

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

You’re right Vince. I take it back. This post was full of substance. “We need a strong military” is the meatiest bit of policy since…well, let’s be honest, since anyone ever in the history of the world.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

She can’t have it both ways though. She can be this celebrity who posts very general complaints to facebook with no real meat, or she can be the woman who thinks she can lead the free world. You just can’t have it both ways. Her supporters, sadly, seem to think you can.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Huh? Someone with a resume and experience can’t be well liked too?

Electrongod on July 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM

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

One quick way would be to open up drilling, mining and increase the supply of oil/coal and nat gas into world markets. decreasing the cost and driving russia’s economy back 10 years.

As far as china goes we could increase arming to Tawian, stir up trouble in the N Korea. Increas eimprots form Japan and increase the cost of doing business in China. We could also cut spending so that china has less leverage on us. which would mean we have greater leverage and freedom of movement. Outsourcing is building china while destorying us.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Using Media Matters as a site for reference is idiotic.
Back under the Bridge blue-boy.
portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 12:14 PM

But remember, he’s not a Lib…he’s a Mod…Bwahahahahahahahahahaha…I’m sorry…I can’t say it…

kingsjester on July 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM

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

Of course the system actually shoots down missiles…what I’m saying is that the missiles are imaginary.

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Just one example of how wrong you are….China is expanding their ability to challenge the US Navy in the western Pacific theater by building up their submarine force, investing in new anti-ship cruise missiles, they are even shopping around for an aircraft carrier. They are purchasing advanced 4th gen Sukhoi Flankers from Russia, they are developing a 5th gen stealth fighter to challenge the F-22 Raptor that may be ready for deployment as early as 2015, while we have canceled ours. They are organizing their force structure around denying the US Navy the chance to prevent their taking Taiwan by force.

That does not even include the Iranian and North Korean ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.

Then there is the unforeseen of the future.

Brian1972 on July 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

ROFL…envy is a bad color on you. Palin is running circles around you all and you just stand there saying she can’t do that.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Palin hits a homerun, once again.

Trolls confirm it.

Norwegian on July 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM

You’re right Vince. I take it back. This post was full of substance. “We need a strong military” is the meatiest bit of policy since…well, let’s be honest, since anyone ever in the history of the world.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

The all knowing jerkoff has returned to defend Obama once again.

Tell us all how conservative you are again, will you?

We love to be regaled with the tale.

Brian1972 on July 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM

and to think it was only one year ago that Palin resigned and went on the offensive against Obama and his thugs.

can anyone imagine where this country would be if Palin made a different decision last year?

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Yes, yes, her stuff might be thin and totally generic, but she’s so much better than that communist American hating muslim Ogabe…err Obama!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Brian1972 on July 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:30 PM

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Quoting Media Matters ain’t gonna help you, kid.

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2010 at 12:31 PM

He wants to destroy “American exceptionalism” and he doesn’t care if it makes him a one-term president to do so.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:13 PM

That’s ridiculous. I can’t imagine any president has ever wanted to destroy American exceptionalism, and to make such a claim is stupid. What would Obama have to gain by attacking the US and wishing it to fail? Nothing at all, that’s what.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Obama has reduced the concept to mere chauvinism rather than principled strength. He has been taught from birth that America is flawed, if not actively evil, and thus does not really deserve preeminence. If one leaves aside incompetence, then all of his actions since taking office become explicable once this is kept in mind.

http://www.the-right-idea.com/2010/05/obama-marginalizes-american.html

As for what he gains, it will be the satisfaction of a job well done.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/obama-says-hed-rather-be-a-really-good-one-term-president/

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM

You’re right Vince. I take it back. This post was full of substance. “We need a strong military” is the meatiest bit of policy since…well, let’s be honest, since anyone ever in the history of the world.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Thank you! I don’t understand why you hate Palin so much. I was not a big fan of Palin initially but she has earned my respect. She is the only one who will even attempt to call Obama out on his ineptness. She does not have to have a policy paper every time she wants to bring Obama’s stupidity out into the open.

We are a military power and I like it. There is no “or not” even considered. We do have responsibilities to the free world whether YOU like it “or not”.

Since you have exhibited PDS I will not take you seriously any more when on a Palin thread. You are a waste of time. So let it be written. So let it be done.

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2010 at 12:31 PM

I didn’t quote media matters, I quoted Obama. That happened to be the first site to pop up.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Who’s the idiot who keeps demanding more specifics and detail? We just want to know her core philosophy, because we got so burned by Obama’s sleight of hand.

All the Left wants is a smooth-talker.

John the Libertarian on July 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Oh look. Blue and ernesto is trying to control the thread… again.

Who would have thought that. You can see the hate steaming off their pointy little heads.

upinak on July 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM

You’re right. Anyone who doesn’t fawn over a facebook post as substantive and brilliant is deranged and hates Palin. I totally see where you’re coming from.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM

I disagree that Bush did nothing with Iran. Debate the Iraq War and removal of a mass murdering dictator family all you want, but the fact is, now we’ve got armed forces right next door to Iran (and offshore now too!) to keep them in check just in case they wanna try some funny business like, say, attack Israel.
ornery_independent on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Well du-uh. Obviously it’s moronic to claim that placing 100,000 troops on Iran’s border is nothing.

And it’s significantly beyond moronic to use that as a defense of Barack Obama, let alone (somehow) an attack against Sarah Palin.

Once you’ve gone beyond “entirely braindead” you just run out of words.

There’s really only one word left: “liberal.” I know that sounds mean-spirited and all. But, sadly, America’s enemies leave us no choice.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM

I didn’t quote media matters, I quoted Obama. That happened to be the first site to pop up.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM

That’s who quoted him and the place you got it from. It’s called a source. Sheesh.

kingsjester on July 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:29 PM

thanks for explaining to us why ALL liberal policies fail. There is no false dilemma in most basic human interactions. Most human’s have undertood this since time began. good/evil. Balck/white. Liberals will always say there is gray areas to stop themselves from making a choice.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Who would have thought that. You can see the hate steaming off their pointy little heads.

upinak on July 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM

That’s what happens when OFilth-Zombies eat the fascist sewage and then come here to regurgitate nonsense.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM

But, the point was the full quote and the context of that quote. Palin is lying about what Obama said and how he feels. A quote is a quote, doesn’t matter what site it came from.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

That quote was not taken out of context. Obama made the statement, and his actions back up his statement 100%. Your legalistic approach to picking apart Palin’s argument is petty and fits right into the Media Matters narrative you so spew out on que.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Stating that we need a powerful military, a good fleet of carriers, and to not coddle our enemies is hardly a policy paper and it’s in no way full of the substance folks like Ed want to pretend are to be found within it.

TheBlueSite

The misogynist Palin troll returns!! Just can’t stay away from a Palin thread can you? Bash, smear, bash…We all get it. You have shown your misogyny many times when it comes to Palin. What no references to her good looks today? Been called on that a few times too many, huh? Go away. You add nothing to any conversation concerning her especially when you defend the won’s non-policy positions and weak America=good in contrast to Palin’s vision of a strong America. As someone stated above, she need not lay out any comprehensive alternative, she isn’t a politician anymore remember? She is a private citizen who is critizing her president’s pathetic performance on the world stage. Why aren’t you asking for more from Obama??

JAM on July 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

John the Libertarian on July 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM

According to this post, which Ed said was full of substance (which is my point), her stance is – America is great (I agree), we need a strong military (I agree), and we can’t coddle our enemies (I agree). So her stance is that of at least 37, 000 conservative bloggers whose most shallow and generic positions match hers listed here perfectly.

So, I guess, congratulations, Sarah Palin has joined the ranks of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Newt Gingrich? These boilerplate views are, from what I can tell, shared by all and they pretty much share the same lack of substance (which is fine for a talk show host, not so much when it’s a woman touted as the next president).

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

She can’t have it both ways though. She can be this celebrity who posts very general complaints to facebook with no real meat, or she can be the woman who thinks she can lead the free world. You just can’t have it both ways. Her supporters, sadly, seem to think you can.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

yo, Bluee, give her time. A year from now, she will be much more vocal, and on the campaign trail. Secondly, I agree that she can lead the free world, as opposed to the idiot, who is willing to turn America’s exceptionalism over to the rest of the world

ConservativePartyNow on July 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Y

ou’re right. Anyone who doesn’t fawn over a facebook post as substantive and brilliant is deranged and hates Palin. I totally see where you’re coming from.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM

So, who’s doing a better job on our foreign policy? Obowma?

And what would you have Sarah do to please you and convince you that she knows what she’s talking about and that she has sense, reason, tradition and history in her favor?
Another book? What?

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 12:41 PM

JAM on July 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

That’s a new tactic. Disagree with those who see Palin as brilliant, and you hate women! Nice. Sounds like Obama-supporting idiots who claim you’re a racist if you disagree with him.

Keep up the gold standard Palinistas. No one will ever accuse you guys of being over the top. Never.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Who would have thought that. You can see the hate steaming off their pointy little heads.

upinak on July 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM

That’s what happens when OFilth-Zombies eat the fascist sewage and then come here to regurgitate nonsense.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM

they are just upset because since given power they have failed at everything they have done while since resigning power Palin has turned to gold everything she touches. and yet they fail to see the irony in that simple statement.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:42 PM

kingsjester on July 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM

It’s a transcript of what the man said. They didn’t edit him, they didn’t put words in his mouth. The source isn’t media matters, the source is Obama’s lips…unless you’re claiming that media matters didn’t accurately quote him?

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Huh? That’s my point. Palin wants to pretend she’s a policy wonk, but this is what she is. She’s a celebrity pundit who has been made famous not by her intellectual prowess or her mastery or any field, but rather the fact that millions of people, most of whom have no idea what’s going on, have pinned their hopes on her, as if she’s some sort of messiah for the downtrodden, the poor, and the uneducated. She’s been all too happy to let people see that in her. She’s a female conservative Obama in that sense. She’s too willing to act as a screen, allowing anyone to project onto her what they want her to be.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

You just described O’bama perfectly. Thanks for sharing that.

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2010 at 12:43 PM

I didn’t quote media matters, I quoted Obama. That happened to be the first site to pop up.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Epic Fail.

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2010 at 12:44 PM

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:37 PM

1. I’m not a liberal, but you’re adorable trying to convince yourself I am.

2. The false dilemma is Palin or Obama.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

That quote was not taken out of context. Obama made the statement, and his actions back up his statement 100%. Your legalistic approach to picking apart Palin’s argument is petty and fits right into the Media Matters narrative you so spew out on que.
portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 12:39 PM

“Picking apart” an argument requires analytical thought — a capacity which, by definition, no liberal has.

All he did was reprint Obama’s entire freaking speech, and type – really, really intently – that people who have jobs are all too stupid to properly understand what The Most Articulate Man In The World really meant to say.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

I think media matters is almost completely packed with dolts with so much free time they can watch loops of Fox News to pull out 1 word in an entire new days to cause a controversy over.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

“But I will cite them anyway”

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

they are just upset because since given power they have failed at everything they have done while since resigning power Palin has turned to gold everything she touches. and yet they fail to see the irony in that simple statement.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:42 PM

He isn’t failing at his -real- job, the destruction of America’s economic strength…

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/01/gop-remains-firm-against-further-deficit-spending-on-jobs-benefits/

and political liberty.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/01/famously-right-wing-news-org-obama-administration-blocking-media-access-to-gulf-response/

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Stating that we need a powerful military, a good fleet of carriers, and to not coddle our enemies is hardly a policy paper and it’s in no way full of the substance folks like Ed want to pretend are to be found within it.

TheBlueSite

Which is why TR and Reagan are never quoted and are mainly remembered for their utter failures as presidents. And why the institution of the Roman Army had nothing to do with its centuries-long success as the dominant advanced power of the ancient world.

Wait…

Beagle on July 1, 2010 at 12:46 PM

America is great (I agree), we need a strong military (I agree), and we can’t coddle our enemies (I agree).
TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

and yet you defend Obama/Mitt who’s policies and postions do the exact opposite of all three. Either you are nuts are your hatew for Palin blinds you to reality.

the difference between Palin and BOR/hannity/rush is Palin has the power to put those views and policies into effect whereas they do not. and thus why the left and you attack her.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

The point is, sprite, the website that published the quote was Media Matters. I don’t know which is worse, your crusade to hijack each and every Palin thread that Ed and AP dare to post,in an effort to disrupt Conservative discussion, or your pseudo-intellectual conceit and hubris which you communicate at HA with absolutely nothing to back it up.

kingsjester on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Nonsense. She quoted HALF of his sentence, totally cutting out the last half. He’s never ever said he’s upset that we’re a super power, he’s never implied he’s ashamed of that, and he’s never given any impression he wants that to change.

This is the guy who has spent the past year blowing up terrorist after terrorist via drone strikes in Pakistan. I get a feeling, thought I might think he’s wrong on nearly every issue, that he’s pretty confident in the US as a super power and would do nothign to change that.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

1. I’m not a liberal

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

LOL.

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM

1. I’m not a liberal, but you’re adorable trying to convince yourself I am.

“I just play one on Hot Air.”

2. The false dilemma is Palin or Obama.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

A false dilemma vended by those of BS’s ilk in 2008.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM

This is the guy who has spent the past year blowing up terrorist after terrorist via drone strikes in Pakistan. I get a feeling, thought I might think he’s wrong on nearly every issue, that he’s pretty confident in the US as a super power and would do nothign to change that.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

You’re precociously naive.

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2010 at 12:49 PM

It’s a transcript of what the man said. They didn’t edit him, they didn’t put words in his mouth. The source isn’t media matters, the source is Obama’s lips…unless you’re claiming that media matters didn’t accurately quote him?

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:43 PM

You keep referring to the transcript. Palin quoted Obama correctly. Obama’s own actions back up his words. I know your OCD probably makes you repeat yourself 5 times, but come on BlueSite, your just being manic now.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Oh, and FYI BS, a hypothetical comparison of the qualifications and policies of two people for a particular office is NOT a false dilemma fallacy.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:50 PM

So, I guess, congratulations, Sarah Palin has joined the ranks of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Newt Gingrich? These boilerplate views are, from what I can tell, shared by all and they pretty much share the same lack of substance (which is fine for a talk show host, not so much when it’s a woman touted as the next president).

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

O’Reilly, Hannity, and Newt are all Conservative leaders, as is Sarah Palin.
Just because it’s “boilerplate” American exceptionalism, doesn’t mean it isn’t worth repeating by one and all.
And it’s definitely NOT being repeated by the Precedent, which was Sarah’s point, her worry and her concern.
When U.S. Presidents talk like Obama does, it signals to the world that he and America under his “leadership” is weak and then real trouble follows quickly–like 9/11 (after Clinton), like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (under Jimmy Carter), like the missiles of October when JFK showed weakness to Kruschev.
No talk show host is wondering why Obama bemoans America’s leadership of the free world.
Sarah Palin is being touted as the next President because it’s quite clear she’s ready to lead the Free World and would do so fully cognizant of the responsibility we have to do so, as the POTUS is supposed to do and not give it away to the world’s thugs!

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM

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

Ok, since Obama is actually the President, let’s try it this way:

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

As to “treading water”, if I remember correctly 9/11 happened when GWB was President, his response was far from “treading water”. He removed one of the most hienous dictators (and his even more despicable sons) from control of an important Middle Eastern country and established a democratic government in his stead (albiet, one still working out the kinks). He invaded the stronghold of the Taliban and Al Queda, taking the fight to them instead of sitting back and waiting for them to hit us again then handing the problem over to the police to take care of. He place enemy combatants into detention at a location that isolated them from contacting their fellow terrorists, isolated them from Americans and rendered them useless in the ongoing conflicts. He got information from captured terrorists that helped avoid additional attacks.

AND – If I remember correctly, during those 6-7 years of alleged “treading water”, out country did not suffer a single terrorist attack. In less than 18 months of Obama’s wonderful foreign policy approach, we get soldiers slaughtered on their base IN AMERICA, we get terrorists nearly bringing down an airliner full of people over American soil, and so on and so on.

So, if the choice is GWB’s “treading water” vice Obama’s “apologize to our enemies and scorn our allies” approach, I’ll take the water treading any day.

Although, the preferable choice would be a return to a policy that saw the end of the cold war, an increase in America’s stature around the world and evil actually called evil (as in the Axis of evil) – Thus, Palin is making a lot of sense, just like REAGAN did!

::sheesh::

Fatal on July 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM

That’s a new tactic. Disagree with those who see Palin as brilliant, and you hate women! Nice. Sounds like Obama-supporting idiots who claim you’re a racist if you disagree with him.

Keep up the gold standard Palinistas. No one will ever accuse you guys of being over the top. Never.

TheBlueSite

Waaahhhhh!!!!!! Boo Hoo!!!!!! Own it! You are a misogynist pig!! You hate her b/c she is a woman! For months you brought up her looks (as if that’s a bad thing) as a way to marginalize her opinions and mock anyone who takes her seriously, especially men, as supporting her only b/c they are attracted to her. You don’t like being labeled what you are now? Too bad.

So why don’t you demand more in-depth foreign policy from your president??

JAM on July 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM

You can think whatever you want about Sarah Palin, but this smack down on our President’s schmoosy loosy foreign policy is legit.

His statements are runny and concerning, and I honestly wonder how much time it will take to repair the international damage. We need a heck of a leader to stand up. I refuse to belittle any person, but as a leader, Obama deserves removal at this point.

Amy Ritter on July 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Folks I would be happy to debate the merits of foreign policy and national security as envisioned by Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee but when the last time they even gave a speech or detailed account of what American foreign policy should look like, or when the last time that anybody ever asked how conversant either Romney or Huck is on the subject?

Instead the entire focus of attacks regarding the subject fall on Palin’s shoulders. I think it is about time we focus more on Mitt and Huck. What qualifies them as hotshot foreign affairs/national security gurus?

technopeasant on July 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

the fact is that Obama was stupid enough to say what he said.

unseen on July 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Put Sarah next to The Messiah and close your eyes. Does Obama and his Marxist minions more and more make you want to throw up…………….especially when Sarah is there to state common sense conservative ideas. Obama is a dangerous joke……………

Cinday Blackburn on July 1, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Nonsense. She quoted HALF of his sentence, totally cutting out the last half. He’s never ever said he’s upset that we’re a super power, he’s never implied he’s ashamed of that, and he’s never given any impression he wants that to change.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Obama stated that it is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.”

Wow. Those extra 14 words that Palin didn’t quote change nothing. NOTHING BlueSite. NOTHING.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Nonsense. She quoted HALF of his sentence, totally cutting out the last half. He’s never ever said he’s upset that we’re a super power, he’s never implied he’s ashamed of that, and he’s never given any impression he wants that to change.

She quoted him correctly.
There was even a post (perhaps more than one) on that quote here at HA.
He’s given plenty of indications he wants that to change, as recently as last weekend at the G-20.

This is the guy who has spent the past year blowing up terrorist after terrorist via drone strikes in Pakistan.
Links? Cites? Source?
Also, is Oilbama now exactly like LBJ during Vietnam–does he have to personally order each and every strike?
Could it be that our success killing jihadi bad guys is down to our fine military and not the Precedent?

I get a feeling, thought I might think he’s wrong on nearly every issue, that he’s pretty confident in the US as a super power and would do nothign to change that.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Well, if he does, no one can see it or hear it.
Sarah’s hit the nail on the head–that Obama’s been sending the wrong message to our allies and friends and to our enemies alike.
Our relations with Israel and Britain–iron-clad alliances for years–are in tatters.
Obama gave Russia a tally of how many missiles we had and pulled Missile Defence out of Eastern Europe: Russia’s response? More incursions into their former satellites in Eastern Europe…and Russia is behind Iran developing nukes.

My one disagreement with Ed is that the enemy we should fear the most isn’t China, but Russia. Still.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Instead the entire focus of attacks regarding the subject fall on Palin’s shoulders. I think it is about time we focus more on Mitt and Huck. What qualifies them as hotshot foreign affairs/national security gurus?

technopeasant

I couldn’t agree more. As we get closer to the next election, conservatives need to take a critical look at what these two and many more would-be candidates espouse and dissect what exactly qualifies them for the job. We all know Obama had NO foreign policy experience and Joe Biden was supposed to be the “expert”. I think we can agree that has been a disaster!!

JAM on July 1, 2010 at 1:01 PM

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

What are you going to do about Breitbart’s $100,000 offer? Tempted?

a capella on July 1, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Nonsense. She quoted HALF of his sentence, totally cutting out the last half. He’s never ever said he’s upset that we’re a super power, he’s never implied he’s ashamed of that, and he’s never given any impression he wants that to change.

This is the guy who has spent the past year blowing up terrorist after terrorist via drone strikes in Pakistan. I get a feeling, thought I might think he’s wrong on nearly every issue, that he’s pretty confident in the US as a super power and would do nothign to change that.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

How’s life in the parallel universe? By, the way, you’re doing a great job of quoting Media Matters and DNC talking points.

Nobody say anything about how incompetent Odumbo is because we don’t want to see the troll cry.

bw222 on July 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM

We all know Obama had NO foreign policy experience and Joe Biden was supposed to be the “expert”. I think we can agree that has been a disaster!!

JAM on July 1, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Very few Presidents come into office with foreign policy experience (and for God’s sake, don’t even talk about Hillary…)

That being said, you could tell during the campaign what Obama’s foreign policy position would be by one single thing: He’s a Leftist.
He learned about America from Rev. Jeremiah Wright to whom this country is Amerikkka, “land of greed and home of the slave.”
IOW, our foreign policy is basically based on Black Liberation Theology.

Sarah Palin, to her credit, did try to warn America of this during the campaign before it was too late.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 1:07 PM

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

You keep saying Palin will take us back to Booosh. We keep asking you to look further- Reagan.

This is a strong statement of what she would like our nation to do, contrasted with what the current POTUS is doing.

We need to spend more on “stimulus” programs that line the pockets of union cronies, but pare down our defense spending?

I. Don’t. Think. So.

cs89 on July 1, 2010 at 1:07 PM

If Palin were the only person making similar conclusions this would be a credit to her. Lots of Pundits have been making the case as well.
What I would rather see from people who are seriously considering a run for POTUS are their takes on things such as
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
Lots of good information that requires serious thought as to where we are going and how.

As far as the military goes the reality is that our end strength in personnel will be reduced by a third in the next 15 years or so. Better technology, more UAV utilization, etc. are supposed to offset this. Good if it works as it puts less Americans at risk on the front line.

Oh, and FYI BS, a hypothetical comparison of the qualifications and policies of two people for a particular office is NOT a false dilemma fallacy.

ebrown2 on July 1, 2010 at 12:50 PM

either or fallacy is the better term. Olbermann was good at doing this “either George Bush is replaced or the country fails”.
Sarah and Obama are not the only choices – just the most vocal ones at this point in time.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 1:08 PM

You keep saying Palin will take us back to Booosh. We keep asking you to look further- Reagan.

cs89 on July 1, 2010 at 1:07 PM

God, I would love to go back to Bush!
I could sleep nights.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 1:09 PM

As far as the military goes the reality is that our end strength in personnel will be reduced by a third in the next 15 years or so. Better technology, more UAV utilization, etc. are supposed to offset this. Good if it works as it puts less Americans at risk on the front line.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 1:08 PM

It doesn’t matter how big or small your military is or even what weapons you use if you either don’t use them properly at the right time or if you abuse them (the way LBJ did in Vietnam).

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 1:11 PM

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…

You said “a rebuttal”, but I think you meant “further ammunition”.

I’m supposed to be impressed with the “depth and heft” of a piece that lifts a catchphrase from SNL’s Weekend Update? Um, really?

orange on July 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Obama stated that “it is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.”

Wow. Those extra 14 words that Palin didn’t quote change nothing. NOTHING BlueSite. NOTHING.

portlandon on July 1, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Actually, that last part makes what Obama said even worse.

It’s bad enough to commiserate America’s status as the world’s superpower. But then Obama goes on to blame not just America’s power – but also every use of that power – on the random whims of an uncaring Universe.

And (although an awful lot of people constantly forget this) Barack Hussein Obama is technically America’s Commander In Chief. That would be an incredibly bizarre statement for anyone to make. But for a sitting U.S. President….

What’s a word that means “beyond bizarre?”

Oh well, I guess we’re stuck with that the “jingoistic,” albeit perfectly accurate, standby once again: Liberal.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM

I’m supposed to be impressed with the “depth and heft” of a piece that lifts a catchphrase from SNL’s Weekend Update? Um, really?

orange on July 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM

It’s only peripheral to the whole piece and merely serves to make her thoughts more accessible to “normal people.”

Have you read her whole post, because I don’t think you have or you wouldn’t be dismissing it so cavalierly.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Purifying the World:
What the New Radical Ideology Stands For

by Ernest Sternberg in Orbis, Winter 2010 (pdf.)

This, plus Black Liberation Theology, explains what Obama is about as well as anything I’ve seen.

petefrt on July 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM

As I said when Palin’s piece was posted in the headlines, this is not a policy paper. And it was not written as a Facebook note.

It is a transcript of Palin’s speech, which she gave to an honor the military event called Freedom Fest in Virginia.

Also.

This is 2010. Palin is not running for any office.

So those of you who keep talking about “I want a presidential candidate to be doing this and saying that” are arguing against a straw man.

There is no presidential campaign at the present time.

There is jockeying and positioning, sure.

Romney, Huck, Pawlenty, are trotting around setting up PACs in the only states that matter to them, the primary states.

But there are no presidential candidates at this time.

And this Facebook entry is notes from a speech. Not a policy paper. Stop arguing that straw man as well.

hrh40 on July 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Iran won’t develop and use dirty weapons as long as Obama is talking to thm.

Rea1ityCheck on July 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3