Ryan: Obama’s foreign policy is unraveling before our eyes

posted at 10:41 am on October 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

What a difference a month makes in politics. At this point in September, Democrats bragged about Barack Obama’s big advantage in foreign policy over the Republican ticket, which they scorned as the least-capable major-party ticket in that area in decades. John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama himself all attacked Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on foreign policy at the Democratic National Convention, and pundits wondered whether Democrats could successfully change the narrative of the election from the economy to foreign relations and national security — including me. Now, both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have gone on offense, and the administration’s the side looking lost and unable to competently deal with crisis abroad.

First, Paul Ryan attacked Obama on the collapse of American strategy in the Middle East and north Africa in an exclusive interview with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace.  Ryan wouldn’t take the bait when Wallace asks if the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up, but attacked Obama’s “policy of weakness”:

Ryan called President Obama’s foreign policy, “one of weakness.” He added, “We’re seeing the ugly fruits of the Obama foreign policy unravel around the world on our TV screens. Syria, you’ve got 20,000 dead people. Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. The Middle East peace process is in shambles and we have our flags being burned all around the world. Russia is thwarting us at every stage in the process. This is a weak foreign policy with terrible results which makes us less safe.”

Wallace said there isn’t a big difference between Romney and Obama’s foreign policy plans, and when it comes to Iran, Romney’s red line seems to be about where Obama’s line has been drawn. Ryan said the difference is that the president’s policy lacks credibility. He stated, “The president has moved his rhetoric a bit to look more like ours, and that’s good, but the problem is it’s built upon a mountain of non-credible actions.”

He said, “When you hesitate, when you don’t speak with clarity, when you don’t project your confidence in American values, it projects weakness and equivocation. When you gut the military, as the president’s proposing to do, that shows that we’re weakening our resolve or weakening our military.”

This morning, Mitt Romney followed suit with a Wall Street Journal op-ed emphasizing the weakness of Obama’s “smart power” diplomacy and foreign policy:

Disturbing developments are sweeping across the greater Middle East. In Syria, tens of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power, and the country’s peace treaty with Israel hangs in the balance. In Libya, our ambassador was murdered in a terrorist attack. U.S. embassies throughout the region have been stormed in violent protests. And in Iran, the ayatollahs continue to move full tilt toward nuclear-weapons capability, all the while promising to annihilate Israel.

These developments are not, as President Obama says, mere “bumps in the road.” They are major issues that put our security at risk.

Yet amid this upheaval, our country seems to be at the mercy of events rather than shaping them. We’re not moving them in a direction that protects our people or our allies.

And that’s dangerous. If the Middle East descends into chaos, if Iran moves toward nuclear breakout, or if Israel’s security is compromised, America could be pulled into the maelstrom.

We still have time to address these threats, but it will require a new strategy toward the Middle East.

The question now isn’t whether Obama can distract from the economy by shifting voter focus to foreign policy.  It’s now whether Romney and Ryan can avoid distracting from the economy with these attacks on Obama’s foreign policy, or whether they can succeed in creating an attack on Obama’s competence that now exceeds domestic policy.  Voters will still have the economy primarily on their minds when they go to vote, and the poor performance of Obamanomics will be the big issue — whether the recovery has been sluggish because of what preceded Obama or whether his economic policy is just incompetent.  Demonstrating Obama’s incompetence on foreign policy could go a long way to proving Romney’s point on Obamanomics, as long as it doesn’t overshadow the point.

Be sure to watch all of Ryan’s interview with Wallace below.


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

Don’t go all liberal tactic on me and change the goal posts scrumpy. SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmm, I am not a liberal No1! No2, unless you attack Islam everywhere it is, what you propose is just a fantasy…

It would work in one country maybe, I’ll give you that.

I also agree that western countries do not have the
testicular fortitude…

Kill Islam in the Middle East and it’s a snake and head thing, cut the head off and the body dies.

As in killing the head of Al Qaida and many of their leaders? Not working is it.

Islam is like a Hydra, many headed snake, kill one and 2 grow back to take it’s place.

If the people who seemed to value democracy, had been supported, perhaps we would be seeing a difference in the ME… didn’t happen.

On many points I agree with you, but the reality is harsh, I am a realist…

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Flora Duh on October 1, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Yeah, but bin Laden’s dead!!! *fist bump*. Obama is a jackazz.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Obama is a jackazz.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 12:35 PM

*fist bump*

Flora Duh on October 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM

“policy of weakness”

I’d call it a policy of refraining to act upon any and all evidence of any possible threat.

The approaching anniversary of 9-11 was not seen as a reason for additional security at Benghazi.
The 3-day advance warning of a possible attack, from Libyan security officials, was not seen as a reason for additional security at Benghazi.
The “unmistakable” heightened risk of terrorism, that became obvious during the months preceding the attack, according to a risk and security analyst specializing in N.Africa, was not seen as a reason for additional security at Benghazi.
Ambassador Stevens own writings in his journal mentions concern for his own safety, and in all probability was also brought to the attention of the State Dept., and was not seen as a reason for additional security at Benghazi.

A policy of weakness? Or a policy of refusing security under any circumstance?

lynncgb on October 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM

bush was right in trying to spread democracy and obama just continued that policy.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

if its back to the bush years policy of imposing democracy by force? than hell no!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

jimver on October 1, 2012 at 12:05 PM

the main difference is, that bush imposed democracy with boots on the ground on an hateful population. this cost us a great deal of blood and treasure!!!!!
Libya cost very little and, we might say, cost us 4 lives so far, and if don’t build bases there, it will never cuts us more than that in the foreseeable future. I still prefer an non interventionist approach, because any intervention might have unforeseeable implications decades from now, but I really cannot see much disadvantages on the libyan war so far.
I think any politician, either from left or right, are generically supportive of democracy in any country of the world, no? if not, just tell me what kind of tyrants should we support, I am curious!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 12:38 PM

SWalker: I would gladly like to continue our discussion, but I have an appointment… perhaps later we can pick it back up?

Have a great day!!

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Because, if you paid attention, during these past 40 years, these countries exported their fanatical elements all over the civilized world, western Europe (ever been to France, UK, Germany??? are you aware of the muslim populations currently in these countries??) US, you name it…if these ‘nations engage in self destructive political systems’ (sic!), do you think their exports and implants over here will just sit quietly and watch it happen?? You don’t think they will engage in shenannigans over here too, if we get to a point of having failed states pretty much everywhere in the middle east…you are seriously either incredibly stupid or incredibly stupid, or both….

jimver on October 1, 2012 at 12:19 PM

if you really believe this, then the right thing to do is just to nuke these countries, because occupying all the islamic countries in the world and force them out of islam is just beyond Americas power!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I see the idiot is still pimping the “blood and treasure” meme straight out of the hippie handbook.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Would it really make a difference what they told you? You are going to believe that they will embrace W’s plan regardless. The funny thing is that we don’t know what W would have done, the circumstances are never the same.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I not really sure what is RRs foreign policy. they seem neocon, but maybe they tilt non interventionist. RR2 should really flesh out their foreign policy, because if what they propose is more neocon, then I really dont like it!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM

As in killing the head of Al Qaida and many of their leaders? Not working is it.

Islam is like a Hydra, many headed snake, kill one and 2 grow back to take it’s place.

If the people who seemed to value democracy, had been supported, perhaps we would be seeing a difference in the ME… didn’t happen.

On many points I agree with you, but the reality is harsh, I am a realist…

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Yes, reality is harsh, it so damned harsh that anyone who though that Osama bin Laden was calling the shots for Al Qaeda hasn’t woken up and faced reality yet.

That’s why killing Bin Laden seemed to have so little impact. Al Qaeda wasn’t the head of the Snake. Al Qaeda was only the militant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. To cut the head off of Islam one has to understand Islam.

Islam is a Hydra, it’s many heads are it’s clerics,that’s why you have to kill them. You also have to physically destroy Mecca, Medina and Qom. If those cities are ever destroyed Islam suffers a mortal wound.

Because of the Koran’s strict insistence that the Prophet’s words were utterly absolutely perfect and cannot be changed in any way shape or form, the destruction of those cities and the deaths of the clerics would destroy Islam.

Islam is an incredibly inflexible religion/political ideology, but it is also a martial religion/political ideology.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Anyone wondering what happens when a fried Occupy Wall Streeter wanders onto HotAir likely has had their questions answered this morning.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 12:53 PM

nathor it appears that there is a consesus as to the validity of your arguments this morning here on Hot Air.

It appears your analysis of America’s Foreign Policy ranks right up with Rosanne Barr’s singing of the National Anthem.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Nobody could possibly be this stupid, ergo you must be a democrat Moby and that would define you as just plain evil. The revolution was not widely supported, that’s why the United States and NATO had to overthrow the Gadhafi’s regime for the Muslim Brotherhood.

it seems you followed the libyan war looking at russian\iranian propaganda. they said exactly the same things.

Gadhafi’s regime enjoyed the support of around 60 percent of the Libyan population, he may have been a horrible dictator by Western Standards, but by Middle Eastern Standards he was an incredibly popular leader. In the entire Middle East (not counting Israel) their is only one other leader that is more popular or has more support from his people and that would be Jordan’s Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein.

loved leaders don’t call good portion of their population rats and drug addicts. again, seems you are eating up iranian\russian propaganda|

No, make no mistake about it you evil little ba$tard, Libya was overthrown against the will of the Libyan people by the Muslim Brotherhood who had Barack Insane Obama’s do their heavy lifting for them.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 12:10 PM

are you sugesting obama is a secret muslim infiltrating the US goverment and secretly aiding the MB?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 12:59 PM

nathor it appears that there is a consesus as to the validity of your arguments this morning here on Hot Air.

It appears your analysis of America’s Foreign Policy ranks right up with Rosanne Barr’s singing of the National Anthem.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM

what is your policy? anything RR2 says is ok with you?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I see the idiot is still pimping the “blood and treasure” meme straight out of the hippie handbook.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM

ugh, that is insulting! the hippie handbook thinks iran is a nice regime and 9|11 was an inside job!
there is nothing wrong in being pragmatic about our foreign policy and really ask if our wars are worth their blood and treasure!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

My policy is to drop nathor into Mecca wearing a Porky Pig outfit bearing a good will basket full of tasty ham sammiches then counting the seconds until he says: “Dabeeble-dabeeble-dabeeble. That’s all folks!”

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Islam is an incredibly inflexible religion/political ideology, but it is also a martial religion/political ideology.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

The way this needs to be approached in order to not violate first amendment rights is to recognize that islam is not a religion. Islam is a governmental and legalistic philosophy with a religion wrapped around it. To be islamist means to support a specific form and pattern of government and associated control of not only one’s own life, but of the lives of those around them. The political philosophy of islam should be treated in the same way as the political philosophies of communism and marxism. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. are all religions that can influence government around them, but are at their core, belief systems that inform how the individual believer lives and acts toward others, not implementing by force a belief system on those around them. To the detractors, yes Christians and others may support various laws regarding morality, but those are the kinds of laws that even secularists would agree are healthy for societies and those societies that adhere to those moral codes are healthy and thriving societies.

To detractors, yes, those calling themselves Christian did, in the past, implement statist societies controlled by those in the church hierarchy and sometimes attempted to convert by force people living in those societies. That was a heretical distortion of Christianity as outlined in scripture, it is not a proper interpretation of those scriptures. Islam on the other hand has forcible conversion or submission baked into its writings.

AZfederalist on October 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

My policy is to drop nathor into Mecca wearing a Porky Pig outfit bearing a good will basket full of tasty ham sammiches then counting the seconds until he says: “Dabeeble-dabeeble-dabeeble. That’s all folks!”

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 1:09 PM

thats pathetic!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM

A return to trqaditional, strong American Foreign Policy is what we need. We don’t need the dhimmitude called Smart Power! and we certainly can not afford to be isolationists, ala Father Coughlin and your role model.

We will have to rebuild our relationships with our allies, and establish Peace through Strength. Obama’s devotion to Arab Spring has the entire region at the brink of war.

It is time to get back to being America.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Trot your slow little self over to the mirror. Look yourself squarely (pun optional) in the eye and emphatically say:

“Can’t fix stupid.”

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

thats pathetic!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

The waste of perfectly good ham sandwiches? Most certainly.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM

What makes my day in foreign policy. If Chavez loses next Sunday then Obama will lose too.

Schadenfreude on October 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM

A return to trqaditional, strong American Foreign Policy is what we need.

what is this, invade\bomb coutries that cross us? do to iran what we did to iraq?

We don’t need the dhimmitude called Smart Power! and we certainly can not afford to be isolationists, ala Father Coughlin and your role model.

non interventionism is not isolationism. and something is wrong if the wars we are fighting are on the other side of the world.

We will have to rebuild our relationships with our allies

who exactly are our allies? middle east tyrants? israel is an ally but we should no also back up their foreign policy blindly.

, and establish Peace through Strength.

how did that work in iraq and Afghanistan? you really want more of that?

Obama’s devotion to Arab Spring has the entire region at the brink of war.

that region has been on the bring of war since…. ever!

It is time to get back to being America.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM

FVCK YEAH! /

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM

.
It is time to get back to being America.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM

.
It’s time to get back to the cultural standards and policies of the United States during WWII, WITH ONE OBVIOUS EXCEPTION.

I’m not even going to say what the “exception” is.

I’ll just wait and see if Nathor “figures it out”.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM

How articulate. Does Mom have your Spaghettios ready, yet?

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM

How articulate. Does Mom have your Spaghettios ready, yet?

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM

i just remebered team america for some reason… the ” time to get back to being America” is hugely empty statement. your policy suggestions are do not define America.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Foreign Policies HaHa!

Last week Iran announced that they have DRONES that can attack Israel. I wounder where they got the technology from? Oh yes the presidents Foreign Policy Programs. We know he’s good because he tells us “it is so”. It’s just that I’m not sure which side he’s on.

jpcpt03 on October 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

What makes my day in foreign policy. If Chavez loses next Sunday then Obama will lose too.

Schadenfreude on October 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM

how will he lose? another America’s enemy bites the dust!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Obama, with your taxes, is buying votes, again, by EO.

Schadenfreude on October 1, 2012 at 1:31 PM

how will he lose? another America’s enemy bites the dust!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I never expect that you get it.

Schadenfreude on October 1, 2012 at 1:32 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Look back on this thread. Please point out one post that agress with your cockamamie viewpoint. Just one.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Seems like conservatives are making the point about the Libyan embassy attack occurring on September 11, but overlooking the fact that date is also the 11th ANNIVERSARY of 9-11-01.

Wouldn’t that also suggest a need for world wide security ramp-up?

matthew8787 on October 1, 2012 at 1:33 PM

It’s just that I’m not sure which side he’s on.

jpcpt03 on October 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Like Bill Clinton, he likely gave them the code.

Schadenfreude on October 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM

“Unraveling” exactly as Obuma planned!

aposematic on October 1, 2012 at 1:35 PM

*fist bump*

Flora Duh on October 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Schadenfreude on October 1, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I never expect that you get it.

Schadenfreude on October 1, 2012 at 1:32 PM

and I am sure that conservatives that think obama has the same ideology as chaves will not convince any independent of their arguments.

to be clear, Obama is not a secret muslim or a radical socialist\comunist like chaves. far from it. and its this kind of ridiculous beliefs that make many ppl turn off from the GOP. so, YOU ARE NOT HELPING!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Still waiting. Plese. Go ahead and keept floundering.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:39 PM

to be clear, Obama is not a secret muslim or a radical socialist\comunist like chaves. far from it. and its this kind of ridiculous beliefs that make many ppl turn off from the GOP. so, YOU ARE NOT HELPING!

nathor
on October 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM

.
NEITHER of them are “secret”, which makes them exactly alike.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Look back on this thread. Please point out one post that agress with your cockamamie viewpoint. Just one.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:32 PM

so what? is it mandatory? reply my arguments like I replied to yours and don’t coerce me into agreement.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM

and don’t coerce me into agreement.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM

???

Help ! Help ! I’m being repressed !!!

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM

You are on a Conservative website.We are not going to change our viewpoint to match yours, either. I told you the way I felt about Foreign Policy.

You opinion does not, in any way, match that of the majority here, and yet you insist on filling up threads with it, and insulting those who disagree with you. Then, like your fellow traveler, Dante, you become offended when the same is done to you.

That is called Trolling. And, that is why you are identifyied here as such.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM

The fact that Obama’s team has killed or gotten rid of a few terrorist/middle eastern leaders gives him a lot of credibility in my eyes.

I dont see the terrorist simplying stopping their hate for America once Romney gets in office, lol, if anything I see it getting more intense since historically its Republicans that like to start wars that we cant pay for.

“We got money for wars but cant feed the poor” – Tupac

We were attacked IN OUR BORDERS during George Bush’s watch and thousands of people died, was that due to a weak proceeding foreign policy?

I think this is where Ron Paul has it right. It shocks me that people think that those in the middle east hate us “because of our freedoms” when in reality they hate us because we occupy their countries. I guess most people would be okay with someone moving in your house, kicking your dog and drinking your kids juice box but me for one would be pretty p.o’ed at that person and THAT would be the reason not because I “hate their freedom” or some other weird convoluted reason that our war industrial complex tries to come up with.

Politricks on October 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM

.
???

Help ! Help ! I’m being repressed !!!

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM

.
Bloody peasant !

listens2glenn on October 1, 2012 at 1:58 PM

You are on a Conservative website.We are not going to change our viewpoint to match yours, either. I told you the way I felt about Foreign Policy.

and I disagree and explained to you point by point why! we can leave it at that or you can refute me.

You opinion does not, in any way, match that of the majority here, and yet you insist on filling up threads with it, and insulting those who disagree with you.

you are for some reason, not interested in arguments or debate, you seem to be more interested in imposing consensus and make HA an echo chamber. I guess we see and act in this forum in radical different ways.

Then, like your fellow traveler, Dante, you become offended when the same is done to you.

That is called Trolling. And, that is why you are identifyied here as such.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM

think what you want…

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Nobody here wishes to debate with you. Everyone is tired of the goalposts constantly moving, and the circular nature of your “debating” skills.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Bloody peasant !

listens2glenn on October 1, 2012 at 1:58 PM

lol!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Nobody here wishes to debate with you. Everyone is tired of the goalposts constantly moving, and the circular nature of your “debating” skills.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 2:02 PM

fine! stop stalking me then!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Stalking? Get over yourself.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Stalking? Get over yourself.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

no its not, I have noticed many times that his only contribution to some thread was to question my motives.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I didn’t think it was possible, but I think we’ve finally found someone with less intelligence and critical thinking skills than getalife.

Flora Duh on October 1, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I didn’t think it was possible, but I think we’ve finally found someone with less intelligence and critical thinking skills than getalife.

Flora Duh on October 1, 2012 at 2:11 PM

at least I replied to every argument, even if I thought they were complete delusion!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 2:17 PM

even if I thought they were complete delusion!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 2:17 PM

That’s fine, as long as you realize that it’s a two way street. You expect answers to questions that are so hypothetical as to be useless. Are you expecting a full blown denunciation of Pres. Bush and how happy are you with Obama’s foreign policy over the past three plus years? Had Obama been asked in 2008 about drone attacks do you think he would have said he would do what he has done?

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 2:38 PM

the iraq war was bush fault, that’s for sure!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

This alone shows what’s wrong with your thinking. The “rush to war” in the Iraq war took well over a year with warning after warning to Saddam Hussein, after about 10 years of his breaking the ceasefire agreement after the Gulf War, trying to obtain more WMDs in violation of both the ceasefire agreement and multiple UN resolutions, and was voted for and approved by Congress. There was a compelling national interest in getting rid of someone who was known to have invaded a neighboring country, and was intent on becoming a major power player in WMDs in the Middle East.

Libya, on the other hand, was purely an Obama action. It was never submitted to Congress ahead of time, and Obama violated the War Powers Act by refusing to notify Congress and get approval after committing forces. There was no attempt to get UN approval. And the result was the turnover of Libya to radical elements.

Face it: in every possible way, Obama was the more meddlesome, arrogant, and high-handed in his foreign policy than Bush, and with worse results.

Yes, Bush said the spread of democracy would be an aftereffect of the Iraq War, and he was right. But if Saddam had complied with demands, is there even the faintest hint of doubt that he would have been able to go on as ruler of Iraq indefinitely? If his government had not been overthrown, there would have been no new democracy in Iraq. So the claim that we “imposed democracy” in Iraq fails. Completely.

If you want to talk about meddling in other nations without a compelling national interest, then Libya was by far the bigger disaster, starting with the fact that Congress never authorized it, and continuing with the fact that we had no compelling national interest.

taking out an erratic regime that supported anti american terrorism is not reason enough?
nd by the way, iran and syria supported kadafi, I wonder why?

You could make a case for intervention in Libya based on historic support for terrorism, but you could make the same case in much of the Middle East. But Kaddhafi had been mostly neutered, and — unlike Saddam Hussein — was not causing problems for the US.

But the real problem with Libya is this: No one ever made that case! Obama never tried to win approval in Congress to take action in Libya. Obama just acted without consulting Congress, which was authorized by the War Powers Act in case of emergency. But that same act required the president after a period of time to notify Congress of what he had done and why he had done it. Obama just ignored that.

And the results tell the tale. Iraq is still in the Middle East, and no one claims it’s perfect, but they’re not currently in the control of radicals. Libya, on the other hand, has been taken over by radicals. Egypt has been taken over by radicals.

Compare Bush to Obama on foreign policy, and Obama’s foreign policy has been nearly as big a disaster as his economic policies.

tom on October 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

That’s fine, as long as you realize that it’s a two way street. You expect answers to questions that are so hypothetical as to be useless.

just to be clear, you arguments were not delusional.I do have a thing with ppl that think or make innuendo that obama is a secret muslim\comunist. this stuff hurts the gop and there are not many denouncing it. insted there is a strange tolerance for such opinions.

Are you expecting a full blown denunciation of Pres. Bush and how happy are you with Obama’s foreign policy over the past three plus years?

actually, their policy was not so diferent. to only thing that I really think bush messed up was the iraq invasion.
also, obama was given an pro-democracy sentiment in the arab world that unfortunate bush never had.

Had Obama been asked in 2008 about drone attacks do you think he would have said he would do what he has done?

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 2:38 PM

well, not sure, found some article on it:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/05/john-fleming/should-obama-apologize-policy-shift-drone-strikes-/

he did say:

But let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. …. and (if)President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

so would bush I am sure. and probably romney

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Nobody could possibly be this stupid, ergo you must be a democrat Moby and that would define you as just plain evil. The revolution was not widely supported, that’s why the United States and NATO had to overthrow the Gadhafi’s regime for the Muslim Brotherhood.

it seems you followed the libyan war looking at russian\iranian propaganda. they said exactly the same things.

Gadhafi’s regime enjoyed the support of around 60 percent of the Libyan population, he may have been a horrible dictator by Western Standards, but by Middle Eastern Standards he was an incredibly popular leader. In the entire Middle East (not counting Israel) their is only one other leader that is more popular or has more support from his people and that would be Jordan’s Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein.

loved leaders don’t call good portion of their population rats and drug addicts. again, seems you are eating up iranian\russian propaganda|

No, make no mistake about it you evil little ba$tard, Libya was overthrown against the will of the Libyan people by the Muslim Brotherhood who had Barack Insane Obama’s do their heavy lifting for them.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 12:10 PM

are you sugesting obama is a secret muslim infiltrating the US goverment and secretly aiding the MB?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 12:59 PM

1) You are an absolute and complete imbecile

2) Personally I believe that Obama is a narcissistic Atheist with delusions of deityhood, not a Muslim.

3) You’re a phucking ignorant imbecile…

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 3:21 PM

This alone shows what’s wrong with your thinking. The “rush to war” in the Iraq war took well over a year with warning after warning to Saddam Hussein, after about 10 years of his breaking the ceasefire agreement after the Gulf War, trying to obtain more WMDs in violation of both the ceasefire agreement and multiple UN resolutions, and was voted for and approved by Congress. There was a compelling national interest in getting rid of someone who was known to have invaded a neighboring country, and was intent on becoming a major power player in WMDs in the Middle East.

look, there are many bad regimes out there in the world, and many with WMD and we dont invade them all. I really dont think that bush would have invaded iraq if he had foreseen the quagmire it had become and that was his mistake. is intentions were not bad.

Libya, on the other hand, was purely an Obama action. It was never submitted to Congress ahead of time, and Obama violated the War Powers Act by refusing to notify Congress and get approval after committing forces. There was no attempt to get UN approval. And the result was the turnover of Libya to radical elements.

no, libya is not yet in the hands of radical islamists. and the ones in power now are better than kadaffi. yes, the libya war as an abuse, but… little, because it cost very little $ and no blood. I also allways hear the argument that since a long time, the presidents do not ask permition to go to war from the congress.

Face it: in every possible way, Obama was the more meddlesome, arrogant, and high-handed in his foreign policy than Bush, and with worse results.

the worse results I dont agree. at least not yet. maybe history will prove me wrong if iran gets a nuke or syria conflict spreads and those arab nations really become new somalias and heavens for al qaeda.

Yes, Bush said the spread of democracy would be an aftereffect of the Iraq War, and he was right. But if Saddam had complied with demands, is there even the faintest hint of doubt that he would have been able to go on as ruler of Iraq indefinitely? If his government had not been overthrown, there would have been no new democracy in Iraq. So the claim that we “imposed democracy” in Iraq fails. Completely.

look, if we depose a tyrant by force of arms with little support from the local population, we are imposing democracy.
a serious distinction is that we had not to have boots on the ground in libya, it was the libyans themselfs dying for their freedom, we just helped.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 3:24 PM

1) You are an absolute and complete imbecile

2) Personally I believe that Obama is a narcissistic Atheist with delusions of deityhood, not a Muslim.

3) You’re a phucking ignorant imbecile…

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 3:21 PM

the only thing I agree is that obama is an atheist. look, you are the one trying to white wash the kadaffi regime using iranian\russian propaganda. I know this because I was in other forums calling the mindless lefties that defended the kadafi regime fools.
and why you do this?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 3:29 PM

You could make a case for intervention in Libya based on historic support for terrorism, but you could make the same case in much of the Middle East. But Kaddhafi had been mostly neutered, and — unlike Saddam Hussein — was not causing problems for the US.

ok, agree!

But the real problem with Libya is this: No one ever made that case! Obama never tried to win approval in Congress to take action in Libya. Obama just acted without consulting Congress, which was authorized by the War Powers Act in case of emergency. But that same act required the president after a period of time to notify Congress of what he had done and why he had done it. Obama just ignored that.

does not bother me much, mostly because the Libyan intervention cost little $ and no blood. but you are constitutionally right.

And the results tell the tale. Iraq is still in the Middle East, and no one claims it’s perfect, but they’re not currently in the control of radicals.

ok

Libya, on the other hand, has been taken over by radicals.

dont agree!

Egypt has been taken over by radicals.

also dont agree! not yet!

Compare Bush to Obama on foreign policy, and Obama’s foreign policy has been nearly as big a disaster as his economic policies.

tom on October 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

again, I do not agree.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Libya, on the other hand, has been taken over by radicals.

.
dont agree!
.

Egypt has been taken over by radicals.

.
also dont agree! not yet!
.

Compare Bush to Obama on foreign policy, and Obama’s foreign policy has been nearly as big a disaster as his economic policies.

tom on October 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

.
again, I do not agree.

nathor
on October 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM

.
Thank you for your honesty, if nothing else.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Obama is an Atheist pretending to be a Christian, Jew or muzzie-understander/sympathizer, depending who’s in front of him. He is a charlatan, a hoaxter.

Yes, he is at best a socialist and at worst a commie.

Schadenfreude on October 1, 2012 at 3:48 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 3:05 PM

My guess is that Obama considers himself too sophisticated to believe in any higher power and thinks that all people of faith are quite stupid. I think he is far to forgiving of the indiscretions and outright viciousness of Islam in an effort to appear worldly and cosmopolitan. Instead he looks like a dupe.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

My guess is that Obama considers himself too sophisticated to believe in any higher power and thinks that all people of faith are quite stupid.

I have no idea what goes on for real in his head. but his religious are probably fake because he calculated he cannot achieve a political career without pandering religious ppl.

I think he is far to forgiving of the indiscretions and outright viciousness of Islam in an effort to appear worldly and cosmopolitan.

I have many problems with islam as well, but how to move forward from the realization that islam is a very bad religion?
kill them all? – horrible!
occupy all islamic countries and deconvert them by force? – we are not that powerfull
support tyranies to keep them under control for a few more years? – horrible and kicking the can down the road!
abandon islamic lands and let them fight it out? – cold but might be the only solution.
promote democratic revolutions in the hope extremists stay under control? – might be naive, but if it fails, we have the previous option and costs little to try.

Instead he looks like a dupe.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

even bush sometimes praised “islamic moderates”. at this point, all western leaders are suspicious of islamists. but they still have to be diplomats.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Yes, reality is harsh, it so damned harsh that anyone who though that Osama bin Laden was calling the shots for Al Qaeda hasn’t woken up and faced reality yet.

That’s why killing Bin Laden seemed to have so little impact. Al Qaeda wasn’t the head of the Snake. Al Qaeda was only the militant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. To cut the head off of Islam one has to understand Islam.

Islam is a Hydra, it’s many heads are it’s clerics,that’s why you have to kill them. You also have to physically destroy Mecca, Medina and Qom. If those cities are ever destroyed Islam suffers a mortal wound.

Because of the Koran’s strict insistence that the Prophet’s words were utterly absolutely perfect and cannot be changed in any way shape or form, the destruction of those cities and the deaths of the clerics would destroy Islam.

Islam is an incredibly inflexible religion/political ideology, but it is also a martial religion/political ideology.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Well SW, there really isn’t that much we would disagree on, since you have expanded your thought, I have always thought to myself that if one destroyed Mecca Medina and Qom, it would suffer indeed a mortal wound, as for the clerics, I agree that they also would need to find their way to their ‘heaven’… but since they are so many in so many countries, not just in the Near ME, we would need many many people to make sure they met with their demise…

As you noted and I said before, the West doesn’t have the testicular fortitude to even contemplate probably haven’t even formulated the idea…they have become so infested with multiculteralism and being oh so PC…it is frightening…

The war against Islam has been going on since it’s inception, it has had 1400 years to ‘perfect’ and replicate itself…and now in recent history we see the radicals coming out brazenly telling the whole world what they want to do…

Is anyone truly hearing them? Phuck no…

The western politicians and govts remain oblivious to this menace, either too afraid to do anything, or are in their back pocket hoping to save their necks…hence the billions of dollars being poured into the region, and other western monies…

I am taken aback that you would have thought I was a damn liberal…

Sometimes I don’t articulate myself well…

No sweat…

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 5:44 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Far too many people who do not break the law in the name of Islam for me to consider mass removal but I would be lying if I didn’t wish a portion of those very same “moderates” would speak up for their faith and against these crazed criminals. They are a huge part of the problem.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I have to also believe that many many millions of people would clamour for freedom and once the leaders are out of the way, I do think muslims would embrace the idea of more freedom…and would reform the Koran…for the better…

The logic of the Koran is totally illogical, and these people are caught up in its vast web of deceit, they have allowed themselves to be ‘imprisoned’…

Logically I have to think that not every muslim is a lost cause…

Reform is necessary…and a total mind wipe!!

I believe had we supported the Libyans and Syrians in their quest for freedom, they would be well on their way.

It is unfortunate what is happening in Egypt, Mubarak was an ally a cruel and unjust one to his own people, but an ally, he was disposed of far too quickly, without a decent democratic govt in place.

For weeks they were leaderless, the army stepped in and months later Lo and Behold they have elections and wow who gets in but the MB!!!

I do not have a solution that fits all, but still have to believe that the muslims still possess some humanity… they can’t ALL be cold hearted killers…

I know you will enlighten me SW!

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM

If only they would speak up!! Not enough do…

Understanding the illogic of the Koran, is it any wonder more don’t actually speak up!

It’s called self preservation on their behalf…

They are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t…

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Obama is as insidious as any snake could be…

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I know but our folks are willing to die for them, they need to suck it up and either speak up and live a “moderate” life or I will consider them part of the problem. That’s a pretty big group to be given hostage categorization.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Far too many people who do not break the law in the name of Islam for me to consider mass removal but I would be lying if I didn’t wish a portion of those very same “moderates” would speak up for their faith and against these crazed criminals. They are a huge part of the problem.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM

it is really up to those “moderates” and we should support them and the secular democrats(not the secular tyrants like assad). if we fail, no biggy, it will be much worse for them, because Islamists never brought anything good to the lands they dominate.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Cindy I don’t disagree with you… yes they should…

Our folks are dying, and now I wonder do they truly know why? From what I remember didn’t they rewrite the military training handbooks to exclude saying negative things about muslims and Islam? I don’t quite remember…

In a more perfect world, I want everyone to live in peace and harmony, but that isn’t reality…

We have far too many leaders to weak to make a difference…

I am frankly frustrated at western govts…

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 7:14 PM

because Islamists never brought anything good to the lands they dominate.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I’m sure they have done something good but so much bad overshadows whatever it is. Not to worry. It won’t be long before we have an Islamic History Month or maybe it will be the Western Civilization Month.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I’m sure they have done something good but so much bad overshadows whatever it is. Not to worry. It won’t be long before we have an Islamic History Month or maybe it will be the Western Civilization Month.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM

islam in its early days was actually more tolerant and open than its neighboring dark ages christians, but that was 1000 years ago. most islamic nations that achieved some development in the last 100 years was in part due a strong secularist ideology but for some reason, secularism seems to failed and fallen out of fashion (exception of turkey) because of the abuse of secular dictators (assad, saddam and mubarak).

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 8:25 PM

VERY” eyes………”Obama’s Foreign Policy is Unraveling before our VERY eyes!…..”

williamg on October 1, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2