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 19
    More: Interesting, Condoleezza Rice, foreign policy, exceptionalism  
•       •       •

3438 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Aug 2012 at 8:40 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-31 12:36:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:10:01 AM  
2 votes:

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


As opposed to farking what, exactly? What trophy did the Bush/Cheney administration ever garner?

You, EnviroDude, are a sad and pathetic little man.
2012-08-31 08:57:41 AM  
2 votes:

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


And yet, it's light years ahead of any Republican foreign policy in decades. I mean, Bush launched two wars to do it, at ruinous cost to America's finances, and FAILED.
2012-08-31 08:49:46 AM  
2 votes:
The best thing the GOP could do about foreign policy this cycle is never mention it.
2012-08-31 08:29:53 AM  
2 votes:

Voiceofreason01: FTFA: "the Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security"


/Not only does Condi have the nerve to be both black and a woman but now she insists on being honest, contrary to the party line, she must not care if she ever gets to run for President.


That would be true if she had written the editorial.
2012-08-31 10:59:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 design from Geocities circa 1999, eesh.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/26/1086488/-21-reasons-why-I-w il l-never-again-vote-for-Obama
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/04/20/the-ever-expanding-surve il lance-state-that-has-grown-under-obama/

Going forward, from your article:
"Fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year."

Not putting American lives in danger by using drones instead of sending in wave after wave of infantry? Good god, man! How.... pragmatic.

FTFA: "
Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen."

Al-Aulaqi was an Al-Queda recruiter and was promoted to "regional Commander" inside that organization. He was a terrorist with clear ties to terrorist bombings and was already being tried in absentia by the Yemenis, who wanted him dead or alive.

His American citizenship is meaningless in this context, as we kill domestic terrorists as well.



I hope you stretched before all this reaching.
2012-08-31 10:51:47 AM  
1 votes:

sprawl15: relcec: Please explain how bush is responsible for Obama revoking Habaes Corpus for U.S. citizens in the NDAA which was signed December 31, 2011, starting a war with Libya

The NDAA signed December 31, 2011 was responsible for starting a war with Libya that ran from March 19, 2011 to October 31, 2011.


I was primarily thinking about how the Habeus Corpus bit reclec's going on about was added to the NDAA by congressional Republicans as a poison pill and passed with a veto proof majority but pointing out his poor recollection of the order of events doesn't hurt.

reclec: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-presid ent-hr-1540
2012-08-31 10:08:10 AM  
1 votes:

trotsky: But it didn't. The execution by the SEALs and the go order given by the President all worked in synch. And I bet the micromanagement was absent as well.


As the planning meetings proceeded-the president and his aides often had a model of the compound before them-a critical point about a unilateral U.S. assault caught Obama's attention: How would these covert warriors return safely from the compound, especially if they were to encounter hostile Pakistani military forces? He noticed that in the initial planning the assault force was small. He asked McRaven if such a force could fight its way out if necessary.

McRaven had based the planning on an assumption that if his commandos were confronted by the Pakistanis, they would protect themselves without attempting to defeat the Pakistani forces, while waiting for the politicians in Washington and Islamabad to sort things out. He calculated that his team could hold off any Pakistani assault for one or two hours.

Obama nixed the idea of commandos hunkering down to await diplomatic rescue. He worried that the Navy SEALs conducting the mission could end up as hostages of the Pakistanis, and he told McRaven to ensure that the U.S. forces could escape the compound and return to safety, whether or not they encountered Pakistani resistance.

"Don't worry about keeping things calm with Pakistan," Obama said to McRaven. "Worry about getting out."

McRaven added additional forces; a second group of SEALs would be prepared to take on any Pakistani forces that might try to intervene.

(source)
2012-08-31 09:22:06 AM  
1 votes:

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.


Wait a minute, Osama Bin Laden is now getting sympathy from folks? Fark that. I'm pretty left of center, but this is one instance where I don't give a fark. OBL could have been killed holding an olive branch, white doves, and a box full of puppies and kitties in view of a bus of nuns and the Vienna Boy's Choir and I wouldn't be defending him. Sorry, I think you're pretty much alone with a fringe group on that.
2012-08-31 09:21:51 AM  
1 votes:
only because she is also an authoritarian war monger who believes in the unitary executive. where have the actual liberals gone?
2012-08-31 09:11:57 AM  
1 votes:
The smarter and stronger Rice

upload.wikimedia.org

One hell of a diplomat
2012-08-31 09:06:19 AM  
1 votes:

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!


Hear that, guys? If we all vote Republican, they'll go obstruct somebody else's government for a while!
2012-08-31 09:03:36 AM  
1 votes:
She was likely our biggest failure as foreign secretary and is in no position to lecture anyone.

I mean, her big area of expertise was supposed to be Russia, and Putin made a fool out of her.
2012-08-31 09:03:13 AM  
1 votes:
I always admired Condi. Sure, she was working for the bad guys but I think she's cool anyway. Like a Republican Boba Fett.
2012-08-31 09:00:14 AM  
1 votes:

EnviroDude: If the sole trophy...


Let's see... at least those that won't completely offend your delicate constitution...

47 nations rise to the challenge at US nuke summit and agree to four years of non-proliferation efforts.
G-20 Summit produced a $1.1 trillion deal to combat the global financial crisis.
Renewed loan guarantees for Israel.
Pledged $400 million in aid to Gaza civillians.
Iran Sanctions Act.
Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Webb to secure the release of an American held captive.
Nuclear arms agreements with India
Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009.
Nuclear arms agreements with Australia
Nuclear arms agreement with Russia.
Agreed with Switzerland to bolster tax information exchange.

And then there's OBL and Gaddafi.
2012-08-31 08:57:26 AM  
1 votes:

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


Do YOU know the names of the dozens of other terrorists that were killed under Obama? The ones that would have remained alive since Republicans were panty-wearing pansies who didn't want to upset our "ally" Pakistan, while Obama had the balls to say "fark them, there are parts of the Pakistani government that actively support the terrorists, we are going to go after them on our own terms". Now that's what Republicans wish they could do.
2012-08-31 08:51:33 AM  
1 votes:
Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. Under a Romney presidency, the opposite would have been true, according to Romney.
2012-08-31 08:51:32 AM  
1 votes:
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!
2012-08-31 08:42:06 AM  
1 votes:
Didn't he give the Queen of England a bunch of DVDs that were formatted for american DVD players?

FOREIGN POLICY FAIL
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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