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.

(Washington Post)   "For five years, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 318
    More: Obvious, President Obama, foreign policy, americans age, sea lanes, Crimean, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping  
•       •       •

1166 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Mar 2014 at 10:45 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 08:13:01 AM
Carter understood about 3 years in that the world wasn't as nice a place as he thought. Maybe Obama's just a little slow.
 
2014-03-03 08:14:36 AM
That Obama and his new world order.  I knew he was up to something sneaky.
 
2014-03-03 08:21:05 AM
Given WAPO's cheer leading for the Iraq war, They don't have much credibility when it comes to foreign policy critique.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/19/the-myth-of-the-liberal-w a shington-post-opinion/160657
 
2014-03-03 08:27:25 AM
If the world isn't operating as it should then in reality, it is not.
 
2014-03-03 08:41:05 AM
The US is a military might. But it is an economic empire. Wanna find yourself on the outside with an economy as strong as a cuban peso? Piss of the US.

We blew our military might wad with Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military and our ability to use it are no longer striking fear in the hearts of Russia, only because we failed where they failed. So we are not all powerful.

Bush's horrible policies are just starting to come to light and history will mark his 8 years as one of the worst for our standing on the world stage. And yes, I am aware Obama isn't a stark contrast.
 
2014-03-03 09:03:55 AM
I see the author courageously signed his name to this tripe.

Sure hope it wasn't Bezos.
 
2014-03-03 09:09:19 AM
I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just aren't up to the task of leadership in an international crisis. And that goes back to Dubya, but the age of US Presidents as respected statesmen is over.
 
2014-03-03 09:13:20 AM
If you want to hate yourself and your fellow citizens, just read the comments. Sure glad we live in a post-racial society.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 09:19:11 AM
The reality is that Lockheed Martin's earnings are in jeopardy and something needs to be done about it.
 
2014-03-03 09:35:17 AM

Nabb1: I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just aren't up to the task of leadership in an international crisis. And that goes back to Dubya, but the age of US Presidents as respected statesmen is over.


honest question: what should obama do here? putin knows we won't go to war with russia.
 
2014-03-03 09:43:39 AM
"They will great us as liberators" was, in no way, a fantasy then?
 
2014-03-03 10:08:39 AM
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man...
 
2014-03-03 10:20:29 AM
AMERICA IS A FAILURE!
WE MUST HAVE WAR!

/brought to you by General Dynamics
 
2014-03-03 10:24:16 AM
I've got a great idea.  We've got troops and equipment in Afghanistan don't we. Let's just ship them over to Ukraine as long as we're already in the neighborhood.
 
2014-03-03 10:24:31 AM

FlashHarry: Nabb1: I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just aren't up to the task of leadership in an international crisis. And that goes back to Dubya, but the age of US Presidents as respected statesmen is over.

honest question: what should obama do here? putin knows we won't go to war with russia.


Have some idea of what the "consequences" will be before actually saying that. If he's not willing to take any sort of leadership role in with regard to NATO's response then just say so. Putin saw what happened with Assad and the "red line." He knows Obama isn't going to take charge and be assertive. There's no point in making such pronouncements if we are just going to relegate ourselves to a supportive role. The man is a fantastic politician but I don't think he has any desire to directly tackle something on the international front. Just say this is a regional issue and we feel that NATO can handle this with us backing whatever they decide. Because that is how we are going to handle it.
 
2014-03-03 10:28:17 AM
sunyittechnologist.files.wordpress.com

We're a declining superpower - our once great nation is now aged, powerless, forgotten. Sure, we can entertain the delusion that we're still relevant, but it is just that - a delusion. We're has-beens. Yesterday's news.
 
2014-03-03 10:31:38 AM

vernonFL: We're a declining superpower - our once great nation is now aged, powerless, forgotten. Sure, we can entertain the delusion that we're still relevant, but it is just that - a delusion. We're has-beens. Yesterday's news.


We're still an economic giant, for now. But I think it's fair to say we are becoming a nation that, as Kissinger said, doesn't have friends but only has interests.
 
2014-03-03 10:37:19 AM

ZAZ: Carter understood about 3 years in that the world wasn't as nice a place as he thought. Maybe Obama's just a little slow.


Carter and Obama would be remembered quite differently if Obama would have crashed 2 helicopter is getting OBL instead of 1 and Carter would have crashed 1 helicopter instead of 2 in trying to rescue the hostages.

They both called the shot but fate also gets a say.

Bush had OBL cornered at Tora Bora and didn't take the shot.
 
2014-03-03 10:41:57 AM

Nabb1: Have some idea of what the "consequences" will be before actually saying that. If he's not willing to take any sort of leadership role in with regard to NATO's response then just say so. Putin saw what happened with Assad and the "red line." He knows Obama isn't going to take charge and be assertive. There's no point in making such pronouncements if we are just going to relegate ourselves to a supportive role. The man is a fantastic politician but I don't think he has any desire to directly tackle something on the international front. Just say this is a regional issue and we feel that NATO can handle this with us backing whatever they decide. Because that is how we are going to handle it.


are you saying that he should threaten military action?

and as for assay's "red line," thanks to that deft "off the cuff" remark by kerry, assad admitted to and is dismantling his chemical stockpiles as we speak. i think obama may be smarter than you realize.

but with regard to putin, i'm not sure anyone could deal with him. the man is a mad dictator. the fact that his little foray into the crimea may bankrupt russia has no bearing on his actions. he is a brute and a thug. so i'm not sure what anyone could do to confront him that wouldn't escalate to all-out nuclear war.
 
2014-03-03 10:42:07 AM

Nabb1: vernonFL: We're a declining superpower - our once great nation is now aged, powerless, forgotten. Sure, we can entertain the delusion that we're still relevant, but it is just that - a delusion. We're has-beens. Yesterday's news.

We're still an economic giant, for now. But I think it's fair to say we are becoming a nation that, as Kissinger said, doesn't have friends but only has interests.


Friendship is overrated.  See: the USS Liberty.
 
2014-03-03 10:46:23 AM

FlashHarry: the man is a mad dictator.


He's not mad. He has a very clear objective of ensuring Russian hegemony and a projection of power in the 21st Century. He may be ruthless and brutish, but he's not mad.
 
2014-03-03 10:48:17 AM
The Washington Post foreign policy is neo-con. The defintion of non-realistic foreign policy.

They should be ashamed, but shame has been removed from them surgically.
 
2014-03-03 10:49:29 AM
I substitute your reality and insert my own
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 10:50:18 AM
The translations to that is, "I don't know he is doing wrong, but we're not at war so something is wrong."

Or, maybe more succinctly, "I don't like Obama."
 
2014-03-03 10:50:22 AM
Isn't that the point of having a foreign policy -- to steer the world toward what we want it to be?

Kissinger's 'realpolitik' simply threw our support behind the nastiest people who murdered their way to the top of their respective countries.  Is that what the U.S. should be?
 
2014-03-03 10:50:24 AM
Where are all the projector.jpgs? They seem called for.
 
2014-03-03 10:50:52 AM
As opposed to the fantasy that we could tell Russia what to do to their next door neighbor?

Say Obama was President in the 1968 or 1979: what could he have done to prevent the Soviets from invading Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan?
 
2014-03-03 10:51:02 AM
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
 
2014-03-03 10:51:08 AM

FlashHarry: Nabb1: Have some idea of what the "consequences" will be before actually saying that. If he's not willing to take any sort of leadership role in with regard to NATO's response then just say so. Putin saw what happened with Assad and the "red line." He knows Obama isn't going to take charge and be assertive. There's no point in making such pronouncements if we are just going to relegate ourselves to a supportive role. The man is a fantastic politician but I don't think he has any desire to directly tackle something on the international front. Just say this is a regional issue and we feel that NATO can handle this with us backing whatever they decide. Because that is how we are going to handle it.

are you saying that he should threaten military action?

and as for assay's "red line," thanks to that deft "off the cuff" remark by kerry, assad admitted to and is dismantling his chemical stockpiles as we speak. i think obama may be smarter than you realize.

but with regard to putin, i'm not sure anyone could deal with him. the man is a mad dictator. the fact that his little foray into the crimea may bankrupt russia has no bearing on his actions. he is a brute and a thug. so i'm not sure what anyone could do to confront him that wouldn't escalate to all-out nuclear war.


Putin knows exactly what he is doing. There is a calculated method to his actions. He is aggressive, he is willing to use force, and he knows no one has the will to stop him right now. He's sized up all the potential opponents and knows what he's doing. We'll let him do this and he knows it. It's only madness to take what you want if there is someone to stop you. He's playing with house money. I certainly don't want to resort to hostilities, but since we all know that's off the table, the best we can do is try to obtain some favorable terms of surrender for the Ukraine.
 
2014-03-03 10:51:32 AM

Nabb1: FlashHarry: Nabb1: I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just aren't up to the task of leadership in an international crisis. And that goes back to Dubya, but the age of US Presidents as respected statesmen is over.

honest question: what should obama do here? putin knows we won't go to war with russia.

Have some idea of what the "consequences" will be before actually saying that. If he's not willing to take any sort of leadership role in with regard to NATO's response then just say so. Putin saw what happened with Assad and the "red line." He knows Obama isn't going to take charge and be assertive. There's no point in making such pronouncements if we are just going to relegate ourselves to a supportive role. The man is a fantastic politician but I don't think he has any desire to directly tackle something on the international front. Just say this is a regional issue and we feel that NATO can handle this with us backing whatever they decide. Because that is how we are going to handle it.


Apparently you've forgotten about Bin Laden and Obama's sneaky drone attacks in Pakistan.
 
2014-03-03 10:51:49 AM

yakmans_dad: The Washington Post foreign policy is neo-con. The defintion of non-realistic foreign policy.


Gotta keep those high level contacts at the Pentagon happy, so they'll drop you a scoop next time.
 
2014-03-03 10:52:25 AM

Nabb1: FlashHarry: Nabb1: I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just aren't up to the task of leadership in an international crisis. And that goes back to Dubya, but the age of US Presidents as respected statesmen is over.

honest question: what should obama do here? putin knows we won't go to war with russia.

Have some idea of what the "consequences" will be before actually saying that. If he's not willing to take any sort of leadership role in with regard to NATO's response then just say so. Putin saw what happened with Assad and the "red line." He knows Obama isn't going to take charge and be assertive. There's no point in making such pronouncements if we are just going to relegate ourselves to a supportive role. The man is a fantastic politician but I don't think he has any desire to directly tackle something on the international front. Just say this is a regional issue and we feel that NATO can handle this with us backing whatever they decide. Because that is how we are going to handle it.


If you were President, what steps would you take?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 10:53:10 AM

mrshowrules: Bush had OBL cornered at Tora Bora and didn't take the shot.


images.usatoday.com

"I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' "

She thought that was vague.

One of the worst Advisers and Sec of State in history under one of the worst Presidents in history.
 
2014-03-03 10:53:27 AM
Idiocy. What exactly should be do?  If you want a full bore NeoCon diplomacy where we police everything in the world, just say it.  Otherwise shut up.  We have ZERO strategic interest in Ukraine.
 
2014-03-03 10:53:40 AM
I see the latest talking points have been distributed...
 
2014-03-03 10:54:06 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: He's not mad. He has a very clear objective of ensuring Russian hegemony and a projection of power in the 21st Century. He may be ruthless and brutish, but he's not mad.


Yeah, he isn't mad. But the way he's handled the whole Ukraine situation certainly puts the lie to the idea that he's a "brilliant strategist."
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 10:55:06 AM

Komplex: Nabb1: FlashHarry: Nabb1: I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just aren't up to the task of leadership in an international crisis. And that goes back to Dubya, but the age of US Presidents as respected statesmen is over.

honest question: what should obama do here? putin knows we won't go to war with russia.

Have some idea of what the "consequences" will be before actually saying that. If he's not willing to take any sort of leadership role in with regard to NATO's response then just say so. Putin saw what happened with Assad and the "red line." He knows Obama isn't going to take charge and be assertive. There's no point in making such pronouncements if we are just going to relegate ourselves to a supportive role. The man is a fantastic politician but I don't think he has any desire to directly tackle something on the international front. Just say this is a regional issue and we feel that NATO can handle this with us backing whatever they decide. Because that is how we are going to handle it.

If you were President, what steps would you take?


gLaSS pARkinG lOT!!

YEAH RUMSFELD!
 
2014-03-03 10:55:58 AM

vpb: The reality is that Lockheed Martin's earnings are in jeopardy and something needs to be done about it.


QFT
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 10:56:04 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I see the author courageously signed his name to this tripe.

Sure hope it wasn't Bezos.


If they really cared about freedom, they would bomb Amazon.com distribution centers.
 
2014-03-03 10:56:43 AM

DarnoKonrad: Idiocy. What exactly should be do?  If you want a full bore NeoCon diplomacy where we police everything in the world, just say it.  Otherwise shut up.  We have ZERO strategic interest in Ukraine.


Obama makes us look weak, therefor, comma reasons...
 
2014-03-03 10:56:45 AM

Nabb1: FlashHarry: Nabb1: I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just aren't up to the task of leadership in an international crisis. And that goes back to Dubya, but the age of US Presidents as respected statesmen is over.

honest question: what should obama do here? putin knows we won't go to war with russia.

Have some idea of what the "consequences" will be before actually saying that. If he's not willing to take any sort of leadership role in with regard to NATO's response then just say so. Putin saw what happened with Assad and the "red line." He knows Obama isn't going to take charge and be assertive. There's no point in making such pronouncements if we are just going to relegate ourselves to a supportive role. The man is a fantastic politician but I don't think he has any desire to directly tackle something on the international front. Just say this is a regional issue and we feel that NATO can handle this with us backing whatever they decide. Because that is how we are going to handle it.


Ukraine is not a NATO member.  NATO is not going to war with Russia any more than we are.  Hell, at this point, even the country being invaded isn't going to war with Russia (IE, the Ukrainians aren't fighting back).

The complainers on the right are all "Obama should do something", but when you ask them what he should do that he isn't already doing, all you hear are crickets.
 
2014-03-03 10:56:54 AM

aaronx: Where are all the projector.jpgs? They seem called for.


It looks like we're getting in some early comments about the subject before going to the obvious.

But seriously, someone talking about reality related to something negative perceived about the president? Irony.
 
2014-03-03 10:57:32 AM

keylock71: I see the latest talking points have been distributed...


I agree...but doesn't it seem like they aren't even trying anymore?  This has to be one of the weakest attacks on Obama I have seen...I have a feeling that the people in control of the right wing are kind of bored at this point...
 
2014-03-03 10:57:52 AM
No, WP, the Project for a New American Century was established in 1997.
 
2014-03-03 10:59:04 AM

Geotpf: Nabb1: FlashHarry: Nabb1: I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just aren't up to the task of leadership in an international crisis. And that goes back to Dubya, but the age of US Presidents as respected statesmen is over.

honest question: what should obama do here? putin knows we won't go to war with russia.

Have some idea of what the "consequences" will be before actually saying that. If he's not willing to take any sort of leadership role in with regard to NATO's response then just say so. Putin saw what happened with Assad and the "red line." He knows Obama isn't going to take charge and be assertive. There's no point in making such pronouncements if we are just going to relegate ourselves to a supportive role. The man is a fantastic politician but I don't think he has any desire to directly tackle something on the international front. Just say this is a regional issue and we feel that NATO can handle this with us backing whatever they decide. Because that is how we are going to handle it.

Ukraine is not a NATO member.  NATO is not going to war with Russia any more than we are.  Hell, at this point, even the country being invaded isn't going to war with Russia (IE, the Ukrainians aren't fighting back).

The complainers on the right are all "Obama should do something", but when you ask them what he should do that he isn't already doing, all you hear are crickets.


NATO has already taken the position that the action is a threat to regional stability, not a direct threat to a NATO country. Which is why NATO is not compelled to do anything.
 
2014-03-03 10:59:49 AM

Nabb1: FlashHarry: Nabb1: I think it's pretty clear at this point that we just aren't up to the task of leadership in an international crisis. And that goes back to Dubya, but the age of US Presidents as respected statesmen is over.

honest question: what should obama do here? putin knows we won't go to war with russia.

Have some idea of what the "consequences" will be before actually saying that. If he's not willing to take any sort of leadership role in with regard to NATO's response then just say so. Putin saw what happened with Assad and the "red line." He knows Obama isn't going to take charge and be assertive. There's no point in making such pronouncements if we are just going to relegate ourselves to a supportive role. The man is a fantastic politician but I don't think he has any desire to directly tackle something on the international front. Just say this is a regional issue and we feel that NATO can handle this with us backing whatever they decide. Because that is how we are going to handle it.


And, again, since you dodged the question, what would this kind of hypothetical assertive directly-tackling President do in this situation?

Because, for all the people I know who are railing Obama on this (and maybe you're right that he shouldn't have made any "consequences" threats), exactly zero-point-zero-percent have any interest whatsoever in going to war in eastern Europe.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 10:59:55 AM

Tarl3k: keylock71: I see the latest talking points have been distributed...

I agree...but doesn't it seem like they aren't even trying anymore?  This has to be one of the weakest attacks on Obama I have seen...I have a feeling that the people in control of the right wing are kind of bored at this point...


They ran out of ideas for how to help the common man two decades ago and were paid to retreat into the ideology of class warfare (the true type of class warfare where lobbying money is the ammunition: the rich trying to live free off of society).

Now they are running out of "attack the other guy" ideas.
 
2014-03-03 11:00:02 AM
The interesting thing about critiques of Obama's handling of this is that so many of them are transparently insane.
 
2014-03-03 11:00:41 AM

Karac: As opposed to the fantasy that we could tell Russia what to do to their next door neighbor?

Say Obama was President in the 1968 or 1979: what could he have done to prevent the Soviets from invading Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan?


Send in the guys from SNL!

[distant sounds of Soulfinger]
 
2014-03-03 11:01:26 AM

Dinki: Given WAPO's cheer leading for the Iraq war, They don't have much credibility when it comes to foreign policy critique.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/19/the-myth-of-the-liberal-w a shington-post-opinion/160657



True, but between pieces like this and people like Lindsey Graham telling the Sunday talk show hosts that Obama's not macho enough and all the other recent foreign policy squawking from the right, I think we're seeing the GOP laying some groundwork for the 2016 campaign. Post-Bush, foreign policy's been a Republican weakness, and they're trying to create a narrative more to their liking.
 
Displayed 50 of 318 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report