Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Foreign policy challenges

July 22, 2014

President Barack Obama has always preferred dabbling in domestic policy. It is apparent he doesn’t understand much about foreign relations....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jul-22-14 10:04 AM

By this logic the past actions of other world leaders, militants and terrorists are the fault of foreign policy weaknesses of America’s presidents emboldening them to commit their awful deeds. No one else would choose to do anything terrible if we just had the perfect leader with perfect policies. Seems we had them back in the days before Obama. Back when Senators didn’t immediately take to the airwaves to blame the president for the latest bombing, invasion, or outrage everywhere in the world, but instead placed blame on those responsible and pulled together to address problems. Except there never has been or can be a perfect president or policy, and other people make their own choices for their own reasons. Unless, for example, Bush II emboldened terrorists to attack on 9/11. Bush I emboldened Saddam to invade Kuwait. Reagan emboldened the embassy bombing in Libya, genocide in Guatemala. Guess none of them understood much about foreign relations either.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-22-14 12:34 PM

It is easy for the Journal to criticize the Preident, but when it does so, it should come up with a specific solution to the problem. Is it just Obama who makes policy or is/should Congress be doing something? It seems lately everything is the sole fault of the President. Should he be making more executive decisions?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 9:34 AM

If Obama can't take the heat...

Let's rewind for a moment. Bush went to congress got his approval to invade Iraq. He went ahead and did it. Guess what ? No WMD were found. After this "startling" revelation this became "Bush's War" and all those that gave him the green light including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry distanced themselves from their own decisions to go to war. The narrative was then changed. It became "Bush Lied !!!" No evidence of this grand lie has ever been produced. The only thing known for sure is both the white house and congress looked at the same intelligence. So if Bush did lie he also lied to himself.

Bottom line - no matter what a president does or doesn't do he or she is going to face criticism. It's in their job description.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 1:10 PM


Here are the words of your favorite president, JR.

"Right now. Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." UN address, 9/12/02

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." Radio address, 10/5/02

"The Iraqi regime...possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." 10/7/02

And, on and on and on for weeks and months.

If these weren't lies what were they? Fanciful truths? Big boo-boos? Silly oversights?

And, it went on long after the ugly truth were known.

Perhaps not a "grand lie" in your eyes, but I would call it the greatest presidential whopper of the past 100 years.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 5:17 PM

The Iraq intelligence was available to all members of Congress. Just like the ACA, the Democrats never read before they voted to pass resolutions and laws. Auntydem and Svensota, they are all to blame so stop defending your side of the issue and bringing up history to try explain away the current situations. What happened then was the solution for the times. Right know this current Administration does not know the answer, in fact, do not know of an answer except scedule another fund raiser. Remember, you voted for Hope and Change and boy have we got it. If you really are looking for someone to blame we could start with maybe Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson but then you would probably have a hard time fabricating something.;<)

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 5:20 PM

By the way, Svensota, I do believe they probably found most of Hussein's chemical weapons when Syria's chemical weapons were located, disarmed, and eventually destroyed(so they say).

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 5:53 PM


I know how to use quotes too:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi Dec. 16, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin Sept. 19, 2002

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 5:58 PM

So Sven,

Are Bush's lies simply built off of the truths of these Democrats ?

Or did these Democrats simply all lie in the hope of catching Bush in a trap ?

One last question: Where did those chemical weapons used in Syria and verified by the Obama Administration come from ? Nobody seems to know for sure. Hmmmm,maybe they came from the neighbor.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 6:02 PM

Let me see if I've got this straight, Advice.

You think Saddam's WMD's were in Syria, and yet you think I'm fabricating...what?...quotes from "W" the Doofus.

You're the one doing the fabricating, my friend. The "W" quotes are part of the historical record. The Saddam WMD's never existed.


I'm not bringing up history to defend anything by President Obama. If you had bothered to read this tread you would have seen that I was responding to JR's fantasy about Bush not lying.

Try to keep up and follow along, Advice. I know it's summer and your mind tends to wander.


0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 6:16 PM

Svensota, I think you have diagnosed me wrong. I think you were thinking of your mentor, President Obama, who recently stated he knew all along of what was happening in his Administration. I can remember him and his press person(Jay Carney)stating several time they had read of some incidents from news sources. While most facts I have stated have reliable sources, I think some from your mentor are a little on the shady side to being facts.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 6:19 PM


Maybe you have no idea where the WMDs came from.

Maybe you should start a citizens campaign to invade Syria to find out.

Maybe you should spend 4 trillion buckaroos and kill 400,000 Syrians to get to the bottom of this matter.

Maybe you should lead the attack.

Maybe you should wiggle and squirm and try to get the rest of the country to believe you had noble intentions.

Maybe President Clinton and Rep. Pelosi and Senator Levin didn't start Bush-Iraq War II.

Maybe Bush #2 did.

Maybe you should go buy a plot of land in Crawford, Texas and take up painting and become a swell pal with your favorite ex-president.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-14 6:36 PM


I'll try to put things into perspective for you, difficult as it may be for you to understand.

But, here goes.

The three greatest disasters of the 21st Century have been, so far:

1. Bush-Iraq War II

2. Bush Invasion of Afghanistan

3. Bush Great Recession

By comparison, what have ya' got?

Benghazi? (Big deal.)

The Affordable Care Act? (It's lookin' better and better every day.)

Or, some carping about what might or should have happened somewhere at sometime about something?


And you guys think you should get the White House back based on, what, your fabulous previous record?


2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-24-14 10:34 AM


The Democrats were beating the war drum just as loud as Bush was. That is a reality you simply refuse to deal with. At least Bush had the ability to garner bipartisan support on something. That is a much greater accomplishment than Obama has ever been able to achieve during his time in office.

You are free to believe what ever you wish. Just like Michael and his beliefs. No basis in reality or truth are required for either of you to construct your beliefs. Just don't try to pass your beliefs off as truths. You'll get busted every time.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-24-14 2:32 PM

Sven, if you remember, a certain Senator was in office and could have proposed a solution to avert the recession -- oh thats right, he always voted "present" -- which probably means he had no solutions(maybe he was at a fund raiser. By the way the first two have been surperceded by new ones. 1. CIC ability to return countries to chaos. 2. How to create a crisis a day and blame someone else for it.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-24-14 3:20 PM

Sven, Did you just say Benghazi (Big Deal)? Let me be the first red blooded veteran AMERICAN to punch you in the mouth! It was a BIG DEAL! As far as your "Point the finger" campaign... I'll point the finger at you MR Svensota, its the middle one.. saying your number 1 MR! Do us all a favor and move.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-26-14 10:48 PM

JR: Okay. Let's follow your brilliant logic.

Who gets hung--and rightly so--with the Vietnam War? Lyndon Baines Johnson or those dimwitted Republicans who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

The Republicans beat the war drums too, JR. But they were hoodwinked by a president who was a master at hoodwinking. Ipso facto, George W. Doofus took the same devious route.

The Vietnam War was Johnson's doing. Iraq-Bush War 2 was The Decider's doing.

Admit it. You, pal, are the one who has been busted.

Mission accomplished.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-26-14 11:08 PM


I'm a red-blooded American veteran, too. (Big deal.)

In the grand scheme of things, Benghazi was an unfortunate hick-up. Try to keep things in perspective, Magpie, and not get too emotional. And, thank you for your compliment. I think I'm #1 all the time. Everyone else seems to agree.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-27-14 9:09 AM

Sorry Sven, you had better turn around and look. You are not leading the crowd, you are the one being run of town. ;<)

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-27-14 9:10 AM

Oops, that should be "being run out of town".

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-27-14 9:54 AM

Oops, that should be "toast of the town".


2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-14 10:48 AM


You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth - imagine that !!!

Both sides are responsible for these wars unless of course you are not capable enough to see the obvious. Blaming one guy or one party is just another exercise in dumbing down the electorate. Looks like you've repeatedly taken the bait.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-14 2:32 PM


Oh, please.

LBJ led the rush to war. "W" did the same.

The votes in congress didn't mean diddly-squat.

The presidency is the "bully pulpit". Somehow you seem to think that congress is relevant when the drums of war are beat by the executive branch. (By the likes of: Johnson, Rusk. McGeorge Bundy and McNamara. Then: Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and every Neocon foaming at the mouth who happened to drift into D.C.

Since when? What war? Which party? Ever denied a president the votes to wage war?

Name one.

I'm waiting. (Tap. Tap. Tap.)


You lose.

Pick up a history book.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-14 5:16 PM

Obama, Syria - you lose. But I guess that doesn't count because it really wasn't a war of the boots on the ground variety and he didn't have the cojones to bring it to an actual vote anyway.

You did prove my point though. Congress votes to go to war and the president owns the outcome (either way) even if they didn't lie to get the ball rolling in the first place. If you accept the notion that Bush lied then you must also accept that he was able to dupe the Democrats to do his bidding. That makes the Democrats intellectually inferior to the likes of George W. Bush. Pretty scary when you think about it. The best intellectual minds in America upstaged by a Texas hick. Sven, those people you adore are dumber than Bush... I offer a moment of silence in your honor as your little world comes crashing down around you.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-14 12:46 AM


Nice try.

Bush 2 lied to Congress and started a disastrous war. LBJ lied to Congress and started a disastrous war.

The votes in Congress were irrelevant when compared to the big lies sent as truth by both presidents.

How hard is this for you to understand.

You are a Bush denier.

Congratulations. It's quite an honor.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-14 10:02 AM


If Bush lied please provide the proof. Enlighten all of us to where Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq but chose to knowingly deceive congress in order to get his authorization to go to war. You will also need to discern between Bush's lie and Bill Clinton's truth when Clinton emphatically stated on numerous occasions Iraq did possess those horrible WMD.

Give it your best shot. You can even quote the National Inquirer to bolster your claim if necessary.

The ball is in your court.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web