Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think she laid out her case very well, as far as obama's foreign policy is concerned;
And he has done all three of those things, hasn't he?
His apology tour is infamous - on nearly every stop abroad, that is really all we hear. But this is NOT surprising, since that was how obama was brought up, thinking America is evil.
Abandon our allies: the list is long, starting with Israel, Honduras, Poland and other E. block countries, India, Chili, not to mention the snubs and insults he has given to UK, France.
Who knew this is what he meant when he talked about resetting relationships that didn't need any resetting?
Like her Dad, Liz Cheney is above and beyond any liberal when it comes to knowledge of the subject.
Very intelligent lady who can hang with any loon out there easily.
She is a thorn in liberal sides because she puts the fact on the table that confuses the neo-com liberals.
The Cheney branch's foreign policy is based entirely on the appearance of strength through bellicose posturing. They are the epitome of weak bullies trying to convince the rest of the school yard how tough they are. This may have worked in grade school but the rest of the class do not bully worth a damn. Most of the world realizes just how strung out our military forces are and how few reserves we have if we are trapped in a major conflict. They also realize our foreign policy is destroying our economic competitiveness. They are sitting back and waiting for us to collapse and get out of their way.
We are such wonderful warriors that we cannot control a wilderness such as Afghanistan or a formerly industrialized Iraq. These wars of aggression had nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with controlling the access to the petroleum in or near these countries. Wars of aggression to steal resources are an international sign of weakness. Strong countries with strong economies buy what they need and do not steal the resources. The Cheney’s neocon nonsense has left us as relatively weak thieves and the world knows it.
We might recover our position as a dominant power but we really do not need to bother. We do not need to control the Middle East or South America we just need to be able to trade our manufactured goods for their raw materials. We can remain an economic superpower but not by following the Cheney policies based on borrowing from enemies and spending on Imperial fantasies. That way leads to both military weakness and economic destruction.
The only people that would benefit from the neocon policies are the few people that own the international business in the petroleum and war industries. Making these ever richer is the goal of these traitors no matter the cost to America’s prestige, economic success or even sovereignty. They are willing to sacrifice our country for their ambitions and greed.
It's fine for you to like Liz, but please don't try to present her as anything but a hyperpartisan low-level mouthpiece
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Obviously, you didn't watch the speech or read the article I linked to.....since she was not talking about economics, but foreign policy and national security. So, can you address any of those issues and tell us where she is wrong.
OK, I'll be glad to hit your moving target.
"Obama and his team was taking the measure of the world. Knowing who would push and how was key to them moving from a reactive foreign policy, managing what they inherited, to one in which they could devise their own strategies. Whether this was a plan or not, it seems likely that it will be a consequence of the events of the past year and an Obama policy process that is nothing if not carefully analytical of the world.
When National Security Advisor Jim Jones meets tomorrow in an outreach session with most of his predecessors in the post, it is quite likely that the discussion they have will turn on the lessons learned from the past year. And the resulting drift may be surprising to some who have seen the Obama administration's last year as one that was fairly "soft" in the face of challenges.
The story is likely to be the same worldwide whether in dealing with the Chinese on economic issues or in taking tough stances with our "allies" in Baghdad, Kabul or Islamabad. There is evidence of such a shift in each of these areas. It's not exactly the flower petal strewn world of engagement and "can't we all get along" that some saw from Obama but it is, it evolves in this direction, a sense that as in his dealings with the U.S. Congress and his Republican opposition, Barack Obama is first and foremost a pragmatic president who is capable of learning and adapting on the job."
Surely you're aware of the deadlines that have come and gone, without consequences? They are laughing at him abroad.
Deadlines, you say? Something like, "Bin Laden, dead or alive" perhaps? Please list deadlines met by demands of the previous administration. Seems to me another big one was "Saddam has 48 hours to leave Iraq". Missed that deadline, too. And Bush launched his stupidly mismanaged war more than seven years ago as a result. A war that was clearly not in the national interest. A war that he left unresolved. A war he started under false pretenses and his apologists still squirm over. A real mess of a war that must have bin Laden laughing to this day.
Your sudden concern with meeting deadlines rings hollow.
But feel free to cite instances of foreign leaders laughing at Obama's policy.
Quote:
Not a leftist? Please, it's too early in the morning for jokes like that.
What's comical is you setting yourself up to judge anyone's political compass. Surely even you can see the humor in that.
Deadlines, you say? Something like, "Bin Laden, dead or alive" perhaps?
That's not a deadline, with a specific date.
Quote:
Please list deadlines met by demands of the previous administration. Seems to me another big one was "Saddam has 48 hours to leave Iraq". Missed that deadline, too.
I think he made that deadline about the invasion of Iraq.
Quote:
And Bush launched his stupidly mismanaged war more than seven years ago as a result. A war that was clearly not in the national interest. A war that he left unresolved. A war he started under false pretenses and his apologists still squirm over. A real mess of a war that must have bin Laden laughing to this day.
All leftist hyperbole and all untrue, as usual.
Quote:
Your sudden concern with meeting deadlines rings hollow.
But feel free to cite instances of foreign leaders laughing at Obama's policy.
Obama has set three deadlines for sanctions on Iran, they have come and gone, which shows weakness to our enemies.
I disputed Cheney's "facts". Why not respond to my post oh sacred master of the right - sanrene?
Those aren't facts, just leftist hyperbole, which we have all heard ad nauseum for years.
Btw; Where is all that oil we supposedly control?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's fine for you to like Liz, but please don't try to present her as anything but a hyperpartisan low-level mouthpiece
Good morning
