Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Condoleezza Rice could not name a single area in which Obama had failed on foreign policy   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Condoleezza Rice, foreign policy, exceptionalism  
•       •       •

3444 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Aug 2012 at 8:40 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-31 11:12:02 AM  

Shaggy_C: Considering Obama foreign policy is essentially a continuation of Bush foreign policy, it would be pretty surprising to see anyone from the previous administration chastise his efforts. There have been some subtle improvements and some not-so-subtle improvements, particularly in our dealings with Europe and our deference to the UN on matters of international security.

You know the Republicans are in trouble when their message seems to be that simultaneously we are weaker in the world while also being too aggressive in our pursuit of terrorists. They want foreign policy off the table because they don't have a good grasp of what their plank needs to be.


They are probably embarrassed to admit to their base that their policy would have to be pretty much identical to Obama's.
 
2012-08-31 11:13:03 AM  

relcec: so this is why you dared me to bring up the NDAA? you were gonna go all out and hit me with an obama press release?


No, I had something come up at work and don't have the time to address your derp at the moment so I linked to a brief summary of why the brouhaha over the NDAA is bullshiat manufactured by congressional republicans. I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you but I don't have time to spoonfeed you at the moment.
 
2012-08-31 11:13:47 AM  
Wasn't Ms. Rice the person responsible for preventing a war with Iraq?
 
2012-08-31 11:14:33 AM  

beta_plus: His greatest foreign policy triumph:

Of course, that's only after his ordering the assassination of an unarmed man in front of his family while violating the sovereign territory of a country that never attacked us using intelligence gathered using torture.


I'm sure you know that a period of months passed between the last time KSM was waterboarded and the date when he disclosed information verifying the courier, correct? You are also aware that he was asked about said courier during waterboarding sessions, during which time he maintained that he never heard of the guy before. The most generous interpretation of this is that torture is the ultimate good cop/bad cop; after all, you got the information after you had waterboarded the guy, that obviously loosened the pickle jar for more standard interrogation practices to work, right? I mean, it's not like you weren't aware that former CIA interrogators will tell you that being able to get the person to believe you are empathizing with them.

I assume you know this because I've corrected you on it before, but you simply must have forgotten it.
 
2012-08-31 11:18:04 AM  

Foundling: Wasn't Ms. Rice the person responsible for preventing a war with Iraq?


well, she was the one responsible for keeping us safe from al qaeda. yep, she did a bang-up job on that front...
 
2012-08-31 11:19:16 AM  

Epoch_Zero: relcec: Epoch_Zero: relcec: you and the millions of political fanboys just like you are a big reason why American has such a dangerous foreign policy.

Yep, those damn libs and their never ending quest to conquer the Earth with the US military regardless of cost and kidnap their own citizens. Meanwhile, Republicans protest the wars and strive for more domestic spending and infrastructure.

To quote Barney Frank addressing a young woman accusing the jewish man of enacting Nazi-inspired laws "On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?"

There was immediate backlash in the liberal and democratic communities about the continuation of Bush policy. There was no encouragement or gleeful adoption, as you claim.

I should ask on what planet do you spend the majority of your time?

Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012 10:13 AM CST
Repulsive Progressive Hypocrisy
A new poll shows deep support among liberals for the very Bush/Cheney policies they once pretended to despise
By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/


Condi while having retarded and dangerous views, is at least being consistent. I can't even say that for most of you folks. The majority of you people condition your support for these policies almost completely on the party affiliation of the state actor that undertakes them.

From your link:
"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to close the brig at Guantanamo Bay and to change national security policies he criticized as inconsistent with U.S. law and values, has little to fear politically for failing to live up to all of those promises."

Perhaps due to the Republicans being responsible for the continued existence of Guantanamo, having filibustered all attempts to close it.

Going further, your article - an op-ed, btw - does not mention anything other than the Obama administration continuing the policy of domestic wiretapping, and avoids the backlash when he did this:

Warning: Site ...


wait, do you actually think that when you personally argue that obama's adoption of bush war on terror policies are fully justified by circumstance that you are actually providing a counter argument to the contention that liberals have completely flip flopped on these core issues of authoritarianism and presidential overreach at home and hyper aggressive and arbitrary war making abroad and which you personally and vociferously disagreed with just a few moments ago?

god damn you people are stupid. your most effective form of *argumentation* is obviously repeating well worn fark political memes and cliches. I recommend you stick with those next time brainiac.
 
2012-08-31 11:22:17 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: relcec: so this is why you dared me to bring up the NDAA? you were gonna go all out and hit me with an obama press release?

No, I had something come up at work and don't have the time to address your derp at the moment so I linked to a brief summary of why the brouhaha over the NDAA is bullshiat manufactured by congressional republicans. I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you but I don't have time to spoonfeed you at the moment.



ahhh, gym 26 minutes.
hehe.
I'll be sure to never again ever cross you when you next warn me about your rhetorical prowess!
 
2012-08-31 11:27:45 AM  

relcec: Monkeyhouse Zendo: relcec: so this is why you dared me to bring up the NDAA? you were gonna go all out and hit me with an obama press release?

No, I had something come up at work and don't have the time to address your derp at the moment so I linked to a brief summary of why the brouhaha over the NDAA is bullshiat manufactured by congressional republicans. I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you but I don't have time to spoonfeed you at the moment.


ahhh, gym 26 minutes.
hehe.
I'll be sure to never again ever cross you when you next warn me about your rhetorical prowess!


Nope, just called having a job
 
2012-08-31 11:34:20 AM  
there is a way out that I couldn't possibly argue against. you could just say yes obama is an authoritarian douchebag but you prefer him to the authoritarian douchebag alternative. what am I going to do then, argue that romney isn't an authoritarian douchebag? that would probably go about as well as this went for you.

and I hate Romney anyway. I'm pretty sure I've never once defended him on anything ever here at fark, even the ridiculous stuff. my indictment of Obama has just about as much to do with my contempt for you hypocritical and unreasonably self-assured pricks personally as my desire that the reasonable progressive ideas that I agree with that are shut out of the democratic party by republican light democrats like obama and thus the political conversation get a hearing somehow.

I know Romney will be a horrible president on just about everything just about everything just as Obama is. the only difference is Romney would be a big improvement on immigration while also a horrible step back on creating a rational healthcare system someday. they are both almost equally awful for this country. both sides are bad, do whatever you want because we are f*cked either way.
 
2012-08-31 11:42:14 AM  

beta_plus: His greatest foreign policy triumph:

[pub.mathaba.net image 420x263]

Of course, that's only after his ordering the assassination of an unarmed man in front of his family while violating the sovereign territory of a country that never attacked us using intelligence gathered using torture.


Well, I think it's finally time that you find my ignore list, fark face.
 
2012-08-31 12:01:55 PM  

PanicMan: Mugato: trotsky: You forgot the extensive Extended Universe where Boba Fett was the baddest ass ever to be a bad ass motherfarker. The EU also killed Chewie. So take that with what you will.

And there are furry worms that absorb the Force and clones spell their names with extra silent vowels.

If it didn't happen in the movies it didn't happen. I hate that retcon revisionist bullshiat.


The only ones I ever thought should be included was the Zahn trilogy. Everything else is crap.
 
2012-08-31 12:07:04 PM  
an extraordinary reinvention of history - that his party rallied behind President Obama when he won in 2008, hoping that he would succeed.

Yeah no shiat. That part killed me too. We really wanted him to succeed but he didn't. Bullshiat. Man I hope Obama calls him out on that claim.

Also, subby, it wasn't just limited to Condollezza Rice. If you listened to all of the speeches, in general no one gave any specifics. We'll see if the Dems do it any better but Romney's speech summed up was "Obama is bad, I'm not Obama (implying I will do better), therefore vote for me." How will he do better? He didn't say. What will he do differently? He didn't say. But he will fix the economy. How will he fix the economy? Didn't say.
 
2012-08-31 12:10:48 PM  

relcec: they are both almost equally awful for this country


You really haven't looked at either Ryan's or Romney's tax plans, have you.
Because, really, one side is a LOT worse for the country than the other.
 
2012-08-31 12:12:49 PM  
Obviously she can't since the Obama White House just took the Bush foreign policy outline, made a few changes and called it theirs.
 
2012-08-31 12:16:26 PM  

Cinaed: relcec: they are both almost equally awful for this country

You really haven't looked at either Ryan's or Romney's tax plans, have you.
Because, really, one side is a LOT worse for the country than the other.


You have to admit, when the best the partisan hacks on the right can muster is "both sides are equally bad" you know you've won the argument. They don't even bother arguing that Republcians are good.
 
2012-08-31 12:16:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: xanadian: EnviroDude: When you look at how things turned out in Egypt, if you are a pro-militant Muslim, it went very well.

Sometimes, in a democracy, the other guy wins.

Why do you hate democracy?

Actually I think in this case "the other guy" was a Mubarak supporter.


So, even the Egyptians are faced with choosing the lesser of 2 evils. ;)
 
2012-08-31 12:17:23 PM  

lennavan: How will he do better? He didn't say. What will he do differently? He didn't say. But he will fix the economy. How will he fix the economy? Didn't say.


Maybe they saw that Obama won in 2008 on a similar message and thought "It's just crazy enough it just might work again."
 
2012-08-31 12:17:52 PM  

EnviroDude: When you look at how things turned out in Egypt, if you are a pro-militant Muslim, it went very well.

/in other words, if you like Iran, you will love how the Muslim Brotherhood will run things there. Thanks Obama!


So it would have been better for us to invade and force them to vote the way we wanted them to? That's your idea of better foreign policy?
 
2012-08-31 12:20:12 PM  

ManRay: lennavan: How will he do better? He didn't say. What will he do differently? He didn't say. But he will fix the economy. How will he fix the economy? Didn't say.

Maybe they saw that Obama won in 2008 on a similar message and thought "It's just crazy enough it just might work again."


Tell me again about Obama's broken promises if, as you just claimed, he didn't actually make any.

// Emptysuit Americadestroyerbama
 
2012-08-31 12:24:45 PM  
So this means liberals agree with Bush's foreign policy now?
 
2012-08-31 12:28:40 PM  

Gyrfalcon: EnviroDude: When you look at how things turned out in Egypt, if you are a pro-militant Muslim, it went very well.

/in other words, if you like Iran, you will love how the Muslim Brotherhood will run things there. Thanks Obama!

So it would have been better for us to invade and force them to vote the way we wanted them to? That's your idea of better foreign policy?


Considering the content's of the voter ID laws and who they target, and a host of other authoritarian style domestic polices their idea of better domestic policy is quite similar.

So basicaly yes, yes is the answer to your question. Apparently they haven't learned from the various regimes we propped up in South America, the debacle that was putting the Shah up in Iran, etc.

/you can try to ignore blowback as much as you want, it still exists and we are paying the piper.
 
2012-08-31 12:30:42 PM  

ManRay: lennavan: How will he do better? He didn't say. What will he do differently? He didn't say. But he will fix the economy. How will he fix the economy? Didn't say.

Maybe they saw that Obama won in 2008 on a similar message and thought "It's just crazy enough it just might work again."


Obama actually gave specifics, dipshiat. I know all you remember is "Hope and Change" but there were actual policy proposals back then. He actually promised to increase the troops in Afghanistan for instance, so when you were super poutraged at his broken promise for increasing troops in Afghanistan, the rest of us were like "yeah, you did say you'd do that."
 
2012-08-31 12:34:12 PM  

lennavan: ManRay: lennavan: How will he do better? He didn't say. What will he do differently? He didn't say. But he will fix the economy. How will he fix the economy? Didn't say.

Maybe they saw that Obama won in 2008 on a similar message and thought "It's just crazy enough it just might work again."

Obama actually gave specifics, dipshiat. I know all you remember is "Hope and Change" but there were actual policy proposals back then. He actually promised to increase the troops in Afghanistan for instance, so when you were super poutraged at his broken promise for increasing troops in Afghanistan, the rest of us were like "yeah, you did say you'd do that."


He also stated he would go after Bin Laden if he was in Pakistan. McCain and the Republicans practically shiat the bed about pissing off an ally. Obama has an extremely good record relative to other politicians for following through, despite all the deliberate obstructionism.
 
2012-08-31 12:34:46 PM  

lennavan: Obama actually gave specifics, dipshiat. I know all you remember is "Hope and Change" but there were actual policy proposals back then. He actually promised to increase the troops in Afghanistan for instance, so when you were super poutraged at his broken promise for increasing troops in Afghanistan, the rest of us were like "yeah, you did say you'd do that."


I'm getting a lot of mileage out of this today.

Obama's 2008 nomination acceptance speech at the DNC, cntl+f for "let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am president".
 
2012-08-31 12:36:29 PM  

relcec: there is a way out that I couldn't possibly argue against. you could just say yes obama is an authoritarian douchebag but you prefer him to the authoritarian douchebag alternative. what am I going to do then, argue that romney isn't an authoritarian douchebag? that would probably go about as well as this went for you.

and I hate Romney anyway. I'm pretty sure I've never once defended him on anything ever here at fark, even the ridiculous stuff. my indictment of Obama has just about as much to do with my contempt for you hypocritical and unreasonably self-assured pricks personally as my desire that the reasonable progressive ideas that I agree with that are shut out of the democratic party by republican light democrats like obama and thus the political conversation get a hearing somehow.

I know Romney will be a horrible president on just about everything just about everything just as Obama is. the only difference is Romney would be a big improvement on immigration while also a horrible step back on creating a rational healthcare system someday. they are both almost equally awful for this country. both sides are bad, do whatever you want because we are f*cked either way.


I get what you're saying in that you don't think Obama is any less of an authoritarian douchebag than Bush was, and so all of those who were against Bush's authoritarian policies should also be against what you see as Obama's authoritarian policies. To some extent, I agree with you. However, I don't personally see the policies that you cite as authoritarian extremes.

For example, you bring up the NDAA, specifically 1021 and 1022, which supposedly allow for military detention of civilians. Now, when this was first being fought over, the liberal wing of the Senate tried to get an amendment passed that would clarify what was going on, but were unable to do so. Instead, they eventually compromised on the language that states basically "this changes nothing from what we've done in the past." Now, Republicans (and I'm guessing you as well) think that this means that indefinite detention is legal, while Democrats (and myself) think that this means the opposite. You'd have to get into cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and start splitting those hairs before you found the specific nuances of what the law is. Personally, I don't blame Obama for signing this bill, as I believe that detention wasn't allowed previously and will continue to not be allowed.

Now, you've also made references to the Osama mission and the drone strikes carried out on Obama's watch, as well as military action in Libya. These are definitely aggressive foreign actions against other governments and forces, but I'm not sure that they weren't warranted. For example, I, and many other Democrats that I know, have always felt that invading Afghanistan, while poorly executed, was not an incorrect response to 9/11. It wasn't a disagreement with Bush's overall policy of anti-terrorism that I disagreed with, but his specific implementation of that policy. In other words, I've always thought we should get Bin Laden, but I was pissed at Bush for being so terrible at it, not to mention the lies that took us into Iraq.

Now, Obama's successes in this area are exactly what I would have wished for a decade ago. He has identified foreign policy goals that I support (like killing Osama or freedom for Libya) and has accomplished them with honesty to the public, minimum military presence, international support, and specifically targeted goals. While Bush's foreign policy was using howitzers to kill houseflies, usually by aiming the howitzer in the wrong direction, Obama has been using scalpels to remove melanomas. You might still disagree with his foreign policy goals or his means of accomplishing them, but I don't think it's hypocritical to be happier with the way Obama has approached them compared to Bush.

Now, on the home front, he's fought tons of obstructionism and backlash from the right, which has led to many disappointments for me. I don't think he's actively working against any of the goals which he campaigned on, however, and except for a few areas, I believe that he will continue to work towards those goals. And even if he fails, or screws up, the situation would still be much worse if the Republicans were to succeed. Ideally, in my mind, we'd have a single payer option, the Bush tax cuts on the highest bracket would have been repealed, the pentagon's budget would have been slashed, GITMO would have been closed, capital gains taxes would be much higher, tougher financial regulation would have been enacted, additional infrastructure spending would be approved, intellectual property laws would have been reformed in favor of less corporate power, and DOMA would have been completely repealed. I believe that Obama will work towards some or all of those goals, whether he accomplishes them or not, while Romney would be completely opposed to all of them. 

/holy wall of text batman
//tl;dr: Calling Obama supporters hypocrites re: foreign policy ignores differences in goals, methods, and results between Bush and Obama
 
2012-08-31 12:58:45 PM  

relcec: there is a way out that I couldn't possibly argue against. you could just say yes obama is an authoritarian douchebag but you prefer him to the authoritarian douchebag alternative. what am I going to do then, argue that romney isn't an authoritarian douchebag? that would probably go about as well as this went for you.

and I hate Romney anyway. I'm pretty sure I've never once defended him on anything ever here at fark, even the ridiculous stuff. my indictment of Obama has just about as much to do with my contempt for you hypocritical and unreasonably self-assured pricks personally as my desire that the reasonable progressive ideas that I agree with that are shut out of the democratic party by republican light democrats like obama and thus the political conversation get a hearing somehow.

I know Romney will be a horrible president on just about everything just about everything just as Obama is. the only difference is Romney would be a big improvement on immigration while also a horrible step back on creating a rational healthcare system someday. they are both almost equally awful for this country. both sides are bad, do whatever you want because we are f*cked either way.


So you are sitting this one out?
 
2012-08-31 01:03:07 PM  

relcec: the only difference is Romney would be a big improvement on immigration while also a horrible step back on creating a rational healthcare system someday. they are both almost equally awful for this country.


You gotta be shiatting me. I mean, you're completely wrong about Obama on immigration, unless you're pro-illegal immigrants. I mean literally you support illegal immigration. But we'll ignore that. However bad you totally imagine Obama is on immigration, you think the issue of immigration is anywhere near as relevant as health care? It's okay to have a health care system a lot of people don't have access to because they can't afford, so long as we're keepin the mexicans out or what?
 
2012-08-31 02:09:55 PM  

relcec: the only difference is Romney would be a big improvement on immigration


I understand where a reasonable person might think that Romney's stance on immigration is maybe harsher than Obama's if they have only really pulled his position from his website and not what he says.

Romney is a question mark for every position he has implied. I say implied, because he hasn't taken one explicitly. Well, he'll create 12mm jobs in his first term, so he has low expectations (really, that's what, 250k a month?).

I can understand voting FOR someone other than Obama, but simply voting AGAINST Obama isn't going to work any better for anit-Obama people than it did for anti-Bush people in 2004.
 
2012-08-31 03:24:34 PM  

EnviroDude: ghare: Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. Under a Romney presidency, the opposite would have been true, according to Romney.

If the sole trophy from your foreign policy is killing OBL, then the trophy case is rather bare and embarrassing


Are you going to repeat that endlessly between now and November? Because that would be embarrassing.
 
2012-08-31 06:12:39 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: I always admired Condi. Sure, she was working for the bad guys but I think she's cool anyway. Like a Republican Boba Fett.


Actually she was pretty much useless. Check out Princess Sparkle Pony's take on her.
 
2012-09-01 12:13:37 AM  

PanicMan: Mugato: trotsky: You forgot the extensive Extended Universe where Boba Fett was the baddest ass ever to be a bad ass motherfarker. The EU also killed Chewie. So take that with what you will.

And there are furry worms that absorb the Force and clones spell their names with extra silent vowels.

If it didn't happen in the movies it didn't happen. I hate that retcon revisionist bullshiat.


How is it a retcon when it occurs after the movie events? The EU is a continuation of the saga, not a remake.
 
2012-09-01 01:19:21 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: PanicMan: Mugato: trotsky: You forgot the extensive Extended Universe where Boba Fett was the baddest ass ever to be a bad ass motherfarker. The EU also killed Chewie. So take that with what you will.

And there are furry worms that absorb the Force and clones spell their names with extra silent vowels.

If it didn't happen in the movies it didn't happen. I hate that retcon revisionist bullshiat.

How is it a retcon when it occurs after the movie events? The EU is a continuation of the saga, not a remake.


The EU was created to fill up the holes and explain all the continuity errors in the movies. What it sounds like is, somebody doesn't know what a "retcon" is; but the point is still valid. Imo, of course.
 
2012-09-01 01:58:08 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: PanicMan: Mugato: trotsky: You forgot the extensive Extended Universe where Boba Fett was the baddest ass ever to be a bad ass motherfarker. The EU also killed Chewie. So take that with what you will.

And there are furry worms that absorb the Force and clones spell their names with extra silent vowels.

If it didn't happen in the movies it didn't happen. I hate that retcon revisionist bullshiat.

How is it a retcon when it occurs after the movie events? The EU is a continuation of the saga, not a remake.

The EU was created to fill up the holes and explain all the continuity errors in the movies. What it sounds like is, somebody doesn't know what a "retcon" is; but the point is still valid. Imo, of course.


Eh, most of the EU I find cool. Fleshing out characters like Boba Fett and Palpatine, introducing awesome new characters like Grand Admiral Thrawn, letting a lot of minor characters like Ephant Mon, Momaw Nadon, Wedge, etc to get more screen time. The Vong invasion and the several cyclings between Sith, new Empires, and other "let's redo the original trilogy in the future" stuff did get annoying though.
 
2012-09-01 04:05:37 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: PanicMan: Mugato: trotsky: You forgot the extensive Extended Universe where Boba Fett was the baddest ass ever to be a bad ass motherfarker. The EU also killed Chewie. So take that with what you will.

And there are furry worms that absorb the Force and clones spell their names with extra silent vowels.

If it didn't happen in the movies it didn't happen. I hate that retcon revisionist bullshiat.

How is it a retcon when it occurs after the movie events? The EU is a continuation of the saga, not a remake.

The EU was created to fill up the holes and explain all the continuity errors in the movies. What it sounds like is, somebody doesn't know what a "retcon" is; but the point is still valid. Imo, of course.

Eh, most of the EU I find cool. Fleshing out characters like Boba Fett and Palpatine, introducing awesome new characters like Grand Admiral Thrawn, letting a lot of minor characters like Ephant Mon, Momaw Nadon, Wedge, etc to get more screen time. The Vong invasion and the several cyclings between Sith, new Empires, and other "let's redo the original trilogy in the future" stuff did get annoying though.


It's really no different than the flurry of bad fiction and endless Guides, Manuals and Handbooks that circulated endlessly after Star Trek I was cancelled in 1969. Only the accessability has been changed.
 
2012-09-01 07:03:59 AM  

Bocasio: The smarter and stronger Rice

[upload.wikimedia.org image 229x286]

One hell of a diplomat


A known Muslim. They'll purge her this January. Hopefully bury her alive with Jarrett, Koh, and the rest.
 
Displayed 35 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report