Crossfire | Weeknights @ 6:30 pm ET on CNN

Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

July 25th, 2014
10:12 AM ET

Reloaded: Obama's foreign policy problem

S.E. Cupp compares Obama's foreign policy strategy to that of an indecisive driver. What do you think?

FULL TRANSCRIPT:
S.E. Cupp: What is the Obama doctrine? I don’t know. Do you know? What, where is it? I don’t know, does anyone know?

So people talk a lot about Obama’s foreign policy and right now obviously there’s a lot of talk because of what’s going on in Russia and the Middle East but I think what we’re going to learn is that the consequences of Obama’s foreign policy, in that he has one, are that our allies are now skeptical of us and our enemies are no longer intimidated by us.

The ramifications of that are huge, and it always makes me chuckle when the non-interventionist anti-W crowd applauds the Obama administration for keeping us out of these entanglements overseas when of course he doesn't.

We are involved because he half involves us almost everywhere.

Take Syria for example. Syria should be up to the Syrians to figure out. Sure, we’re not going to send folks in but we draw red lines, we broker chemical weapons deals, we are absolutely half involved.

Take Ukraine. Well that’s for Ukraine to figure out we’re not gonna get involved.

Well, we did get involved, we told Putin exactly what he should do.

So we half involve and it reminds me of something my dad told me when he was teaching me how to drive.

He said being a hesitant driver is as dangerous if not more dangerous than being an aggressive driver.

And I think these half involvements can be just as dangerous if not more than the full on aggressive intervention and we’re gonna see how that plays out.

My dad was a very smart man.

Posted by
Filed under: Foreign policy • Obama • Reloaded • S.E. Cupp
soundoff (77 Responses)
  1. AlGoreStill Lies

    Ahhh...but there would be no foreign policy if there were no other nations to go out and meddle with and call it "spreading democracy".
    Short of magically wishing all countries away, especially Israel, I would say end all foreign aid, intervention.

    August 14, 2014 at 11:39 am | Reply
  2. ezrydn

    The White House is gonna be in need of a good, in-depth cleaning and fumigation when this is over!

    August 12, 2014 at 2:44 pm | Reply
  3. jtchop

    The problem is he doesn't have a foreign policy.

    August 10, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Reply
  4. GENE KUEHN

    There aint no problem at the border ! Since the parents keep getting sent back they decided to send thier kids !! And guess what they still get into the USA what security

    August 4, 2014 at 8:30 pm | Reply
  5. Tom1940

    And just what "foreign policy" would that be? Devoid of either a foreign or domestic policy, (or economic, etc., etc.,), this Administration has been flying "blind" since day one. Neither friend nor foe has any idea where the U.S. is "officially" on any subject. Even the press sect'y hasn't a clue. Just wandering down to the oval office to sign legislation naming a post office in podunkville, "somewhere", then jetting off in Air Force One to the next fund raiser/Golf Date and that's about it.
    Writing a summary of what this President has accomplished in his tenure, is going to require some real creative and imagination to stretch beyond one very small paragraph in the history books.
    I think the folks that put the outhouse on a trailer in a parade with the sign "Obama's Presidential Library" probably was closer to the truth that might be imagined.

    August 4, 2014 at 10:57 am | Reply
  6. BTLProd

    Obama's Foreign Policy Problem? That would imply he actually had a Foreign Policy.

    The problem is simply that he doesn't have a Foreign Policy.

    August 4, 2014 at 12:22 am | Reply
  7. Shafique Pappa

    Mr. President,

    I write this letter as a supporter and a friend. Your handling of our ally and friend Israel is deeply troubling. When the President of the United States can be manipulated by the Prime Minister of Israel, America is in danger. You Mr. President have been deceived. There is no getting around it. You may be wondering how you were manipulated.

    The secretary of State, Mr. Kerry worked very hard to bring the parties to the table to agree to a cease fire on July 31, 2014. However, 90 minutes after the cease fire went into effect, the story line was that Hamas had broken the cease fire by attaching Israel with a suicide bomber and kidnapping a soldier. Notice the carefully crafted trifecta. First, Hamas had attacked Israel. Hamas did not attack Israel, the soldiers were nowhere near Israel. Hamas operatives were in Rafah, ½ kilometer from the Egyptian border operating against Israeli soldiers conducting an offensive maneuver to destroy tunnels. Second, it was reported that a suicide bomber blew himself up before additional Hamas soldiers attacked the remaining soldiers. To date in this conflict there have been no suicide bombings. Suicide bombing against Israeli soldiers is highly ineffective as all Hamas fighters (and many who are not) are shot on site. The third trifecta was the kidnapping. We now know that the reported captured soldier was killed in the original firefight and there never was a kidnapping

    Mr. President, you and your government’s inability to detect the manipulation much less thwart is dangerous for America. Our adversaries are looking at you and wondering how weakly we are being led. The United States of America is a strong nation. But our strength is no guarantee of our safety. It is your and the administrations judgment and exercise of power that keeps our enemy from challenging us. When your administration and you can be so blatantly manipulated, they wonder what they can do to take advantage of the situation.

    It would not be surprising at all to see Russia or China test you in the coming months. Mr. President, you have failed and need to take corrective action as soon as possible to remind friends and foe alike that manipulation has a price. That it will be punished. Mr. President, I don’t need to tell you how to do that. I do know that the world is watching. If you allow this blatant act of manipulation to stand, all Americans will play the price. So act now and act decisively and wisely.

    August 4, 2014 at 12:19 am | Reply
  8. countingdown

    Kurt
    This is presidential weakness and a prime example of why you are so very much wrong. I hope you are not proud of this. At the time of the interview Clinton was laughing but it was just hours before 9/11.

    "He [Osama bin Laden] is a very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him – and I nearly got him once," Clinton said. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”

    Bin Laden would infamously go on to be the mastermind behind the September 11 attacks that killed 2,977 people. After going into hiding for years, bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011 by U.S. Special Forces during an early morning raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

    August 1, 2014 at 8:35 am | Reply
  9. countingdown

    kurt
    The "bad leader" line is something people throw around when there isn't an actual policy point that detractors can point to. It's an opinion based statement that can't be supported or contradicted by actual facts.

    Wrong
    When a leader warrants a "bad leader" title it means that the organization, in this case The Presidency, has been riddled with constant problems and the person in charge, in this case Obama, is incapable of providing the necessary leadership strengths. In this case it includes both domestic and foreign leadership. A strong leader also knows how to chose his or her support staff to provide the highest degree of strength to complement their leadership to which Obama failed miserably. Anyone without prejudice would accept the problems of Obama's presidency as weakness in leadership, unpreparedness, incompetence and in general lack of understanding in problem solving both before and after problems. Your unacceptance of the problems in Obama's presidency only proves why you post in generalities. I don't know how anyone can deny "actual facts" in this presidency. Especially when, as his own team boasted in response to just one of the mounting problems in leadership, the president is leading from behind.

    July 31, 2014 at 8:25 am | Reply
    • kurt

      I'm not sure how I'm posting in "generalities" when yours included not a single example of an actual decision or policy that is "bad leadership".

      In the foriegn policy theater:

      – Organized widespread escalating sanctions against Russia that began nearly immediately after their non-invasion invasion of Crimea. Got them kicked out of the G8 as well.
      – Through diplomacy (and threats of military action) got Syria to agree to destroy their chemical weapons stockpiles. 1300 tons of various chemical agents have already been destroyed (believed to be nearly all of Syria's stockpiles).
      – Participated in multinational plan to overthrow Libyan government without putting "boots on the ground" or being tied into rebuilding the nation afterwards.
      – Expanded sanctions to Iran which eventually led to them to agree to an interim accord that significantly capped their nuclear enrichment capability in exchange for a tiny part of their own money that we had frozen.

      I believe these are all fairly major exaples of positive leadership actions on Obama's part. I await your listing specific negative examples.

      July 31, 2014 at 4:10 pm | Reply
      • countingdown

        To kurt, part 1 of 2

        I don't have to provide examples, his lack of leadership is so obvious that it is embarrassing and sad. But I shall provide some because your specific examples though partially true they are insufficient in fact.

        In today's news conference he constantly belittled the House Republicans and while smirking, laughing, for not passing an emergency immigration bill when all know that he and reid said it was all or nothing. There are several problems with this.

        The democrats also had a proposal that could not even pass with the nuclear option enforced.

        The president should have been working on this issue sooner but waited and when the House started to act on their own, only then said this is what you will do, A tactical decision based on politics not humanitarian. A real leader would say I need a solution to this problem immediately, so Congress bring me several options to consider and I will work with you.

        You are going to say what he said, so I will say it for you, but the Republicans won't bring me something. What are they to bring him? He and reid both say all or nothing. That is not leadership that is political blackmail!

        If the House does send the senate a bill and it make it passed Reid, Obama said if it wasn't what EVERYTHING he told them he wanted he would veto it.

        That is not leadership that is the same as a child saying to other kids (it is my football if you don't let me play like I want I will take my ball and go home). That was not meant in fun. In that one speech there were multiple leadership problems concerning issues both foreign and here at home. Multiply that by the number of days in office and you have an answer why it is unnecessary to make a list. You will refuse to accept any of this but just look at all of the poll data for him. In every category his numbers are falling to historical lows.

        A repost to you!
        countingdown
        Kurt, I just saw the replay of Obama's speech on the Malaysia airliner crash and the Israel /Hama's conflict and seen something different from him. He is scared sh itless. Besides his normal appearance of weakness and indecisive action he had the look and sound of a man genuinely afraid, unsure of what to do. This is not a good trait from a leader and this makes me sad for our country.
        July 18, 2014 at 3:35 pm |

        August 2, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
      • countingdown

        To kurt, part 2 of 2
        There was so much information available I had to delete half.
        Now let's take a look at your non-generalalities!

        – Organized widespread escalating sanctions against Russia that began nearly immediately after their non-invasion invasion of Crimea. Got them kicked out of the G8 as well."
        †*********************************

        "At the same time, the so-called sanctions against Russia forced through Europe by Obama, on behalf of his mistress Queen Elizabeth II, are not hurting Russia at all, but they are tearing the guts out of the Western European economies. They will ultimately lead to 300,000 more jobs lost in Germany and 100,000 in France, with tens of thousands in other countries. Rather than being against Russia as advertised, they are designed to punish Western Europe, to break it from Russia. We are now much closer to war and to total economic blowout of the trans-Atlantic system, than we were before these sanctions were announced,— with still more and worse sanctions on the way, unless world war, or Obama's ouster supervenes."

        The Crimea people were not wanting separation, Russia had alleged embedded forces training people for a takeover. Shame on Obama for turning his back on a people who were a free people begging for our help. He waited weeks then all he could do was (some sanctions).
        WHY, IF THIS IS HIS ENTIRE STRATEGY, DIDN'T HE SECURE STRONGER SANCTIONS IN THE BEGINNING?

        Obama did not kick out Russia from g8. Russia refused to join the group but this was seen as a victory by liberal media in US, thus boosting the claims.
        Continuing, with no end in sight and with very little effort I found these quotes:

        "When Russia seized Crimea in March, it acquired not just the Crimean landmass but also a maritime zone more than three times its size with the rights to underwater resources potentially worth trillions of dollars. Russia portrayed the takeover as reclamation of its rightful territory, drawing no attention to the oil and gas rush that had recently been heating up in the Black Sea. But the move also extended Russia’s maritime boundaries, quietly giving Russia dominion over vast oil and gas reserves while dealing a crippling blow to Ukraine’s hopes for energy independence.

        Eric L. Hirschhorn, the United States under secretary of commerce for industry and security, said sanctions against the Crimean business would send “a strong message” of condemnation for Russia’s “incursion into Ukraine and expropriation of Ukrainian assets.”"nytimes

        CONDEMNATION IS NOT ACTION!

        "Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted a shot of Russian President Putin petting a leopard, next to a posed portrait of Obama with a poodle."

        "Putin continues to outmaneuver Obama in the area of foreign policy —including sheltering spy Edward Snowden, protecting Syria, and ensuring Iran will not give up their nuclear capabilities. America continues to be weaker in the world."

        Sorry, there are just so many negative articles about Obamas weakness in all of the things you mentioned I forgot which articles some came from.
        ================================

        – Through diplomacy (and threats of military action) got Syria to agree to destroy their chemical weapons stockpiles. 1300 tons of various chemical agents have already been destroyed (believed to be nearly all of Syria's stockpiles).

        **************************************
        Key word was (believed), but Assad is as shrewd and conniving as Putin.

        "Exodus from Syria Interactive guide to how the Syria war created one of the biggest refugee crises since WWII,"BBC

        "Violence rages in Syria and has gotten worse in Libya. With human rights groups reporting 1,600 deaths over 10 days in July, gruesome images emerged of militants raising their victims' severed heads on poles."cnn

        "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the United States is providing almost $378 million in additional aid to help those affected by the war, bringing to $2.4 billion the total spent to help more than 4.7 million people inside Syria and almost 3 million refugees in neighboring countries." cnn
        MEANING, his non _ policy is not working.

        "(Criticism) of President Obama’s announcement that American forces would leave Afghanistan by the end of 2016 has begun to come not just from his Republican adversaries, but also from another quarter: former military officers and civilian officials who worked for years to develop and defend his administration’s strategy in Afghanistan."

        "Like virtually every other aspect of his foreign policy record, President Obama’s lack of credibility on the Taliban trade and Afghanistan more generally can’t be written off as political harping by political opponents. The sense that he is not only misguided but downright incompetent is shared by nearly 60 percent of voters."
        ===============================

        – Participated in multinational plan to overthrow Libyan government without putting "boots on the ground" or being tied into rebuilding the nation afterwards.
        ***********************************
        √√√√ You really want to point out Libya, a place where 4 Americans died and the administration blamed it on a video to protect an election!
        OK, I take your challenge.

        "For the U.S., policy options are limited. It has already played its military card, leading the early stages of NATO's intervention by bombing Gadhafi's air defense capabilities. And there is fierce resistance from Congress to ramping up U.S. aerial attacks anew. Politically, meanwhile, the oft-repeated U.S. demand that Gadhafi must leave power and leave Libya has left the Obama administration with little wiggle room for a creative diplomatic solution."usatoday

        "The White House reasoning, included in a 32-page report to Congress, is the administration’s first detailed response to complaints from lawmakers of both parties, who say President Obama has exceeded his authority as commander in chief by waging war in Libya without congressional authorization. The report came on the same day a bipartisan group of lawmakers filed suit in federal court against Obama seeking to end the U.S. participation in Libya, pushing what has been a slow-moving confrontation over the power of the president at a time of war toward the center of the political debate."Washington Post

        In Benghazi, "there are so many bodies that they don't know who they belong to because many of them are not even Libyans, as a result of the influx of so many foreign fighters in the country," Libyan author Mansour El-Kikhia told CNN.

        Staff at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli evacuated July 26, following U.N. officials, and the Tunisian border is packed with people trying to flee the country.

        OK, HOW HAS LIBYA WORKED OUT?
        WE ABANDONED A PEOPLE DUE TO OBAMA'S WIMPY VIEW OF LEADING! JUST LIKE IN IRAQ, WHERE THOUGH WEAKENED BUT GAINING STRENGTH, WE LEFT THEM, THEN SAY ITS YOUR PROBLEM (Friday 8/1/14)!

        THIS WAS A POLITICAL WAR TO CURB THE RISING DESCENT OF OBAMACARE AND HE FAILED HORRIBLY. POLITICALLY, BY NOT GETTING CONGRESS APPROVAL AND MORALY, BY ABANDONING THEM.
        ===========================

        – Expanded sanctions to Iran which eventually led to them to agree to an interim accord that significantly capped their nuclear enrichment capability in exchange for a tiny part of their own money that we had frozen.

        **********************************
        "Iranian opposition leaders press Obama administration to back them, seek regime change" Fox News – 1 day ago

        √ The US secretary of state flies to Vienna to secure final nuclear agreement -but warns of "significant gaps" with Iran,telegraph.co.uk.

        AFP 3:55AM BST 25 Jul 2014
        Three Americans, including a reporter for The Washington Post, appear to have been detained in Iran. The other two Americans, who have not yet been identified, work as freelance photojournalists.
        =======================

        In conclusion, there has been only one action Obama has done that was even close to being presidential and it was the killing of Osama. Obama didn't find osama as most liberals claim, a Pakistan doctor informed the US where he was located. The special forces op was planned and executed very well, to their credit. To this I say thanks President Obama and the military personnel involved in planning.

        That been said, it was obvious the whole operation was for political gain but we don't care Osama was dead and that was in national interest.

        Then Obama turned to mush!

        August 2, 2014 at 9:09 pm |
    • GENE KUEHN

      Look fpriegn trade is easy its all about what can i get from you and how much and what do you want from me and how many in trade ? Its kinda like LETS MAKE A DEAL!!! But when the president doesnt come threw on his word everyone wonders "why "

      August 4, 2014 at 8:27 pm | Reply
    • greg

      I agree with your assessment. Examples of ineptness and incompetence of this Administrations Foreign Policy are Our meddling in Ukraine's revolution; The Red Line in Syria, Our "Leaders," constant reprimanding of Foreign Leaders and Governments, and currently, a redux of Pin-Prick response to a terrorist threat. Under President Clinton we lobbed a couple of cruise missiles against Al-Qaeda, ineffectual, and what followed was 9-11. A few 500lb bombs on 8 vehicles and one artillery location is also providing a false sense of action. America needs to eliminate ISIL with extreme prejudice. Take the gloves off!

      August 9, 2014 at 10:27 am | Reply
  10. Free Man in the Republic of Texas

    Obama's foreign policy problem ???

    Ahhhhhh... Ummmmmm...

    Let "Me" be clear

    CODE PINK

    July 30, 2014 at 5:12 pm | Reply
    • mickey

      newsflash for everyone this backroom democrat from Chicago has no domestic or foreign policy. he the biggest loser for secretary of state and a criminal for attorney general.

      August 5, 2014 at 9:21 am | Reply
  11. Marty

    The administration does not have a foreign policy problem. They continually inform us that the southern border is secure and the US is more well liked than at any time in the last 40 years. Just listen to them because they know. Myself I think they have spent to much time in CO eating the cookies but many people believe them.

    July 30, 2014 at 3:18 pm | Reply
    • BTLProd

      To have a Foreign Policy Problem, the first thing you have to have is a Foreign Policy. Continuing his Senate tradition of "Voting Present" is not a Foreign policy.

      July 31, 2014 at 8:07 pm | Reply
    • james

      I agree that the president doesn't have a foreign policy problem. To have a problem you have to have a foreign policy and he has none. I always love Teddy Roosevelt's quote "Speak quietly and carry a big stick". Then their is Obama who said " Speak loudly and carry a twig"

      August 2, 2014 at 7:42 pm | Reply
  12. Tom Dester

    Liberals need to face the facts......Obama has screwed up every single issue he's touched....period.
    No more Bush this and Bush that...it's all been Obama and Biden.

    We'll see in Nov if the American voter wakes up, and if not....the country will continue to decline.

    July 30, 2014 at 1:59 pm | Reply
  13. Wideawake

    This Cupp is one dumb broad! She is loud and appears to be so intelligent, Obama is not the World's leader he is a world leader- a big difference cupp! I have no doubt your dad was very smart but too bad you didn't inherit any of it!
    If you and the hapless GOP care to notice the Europeans are driving the negotiations with Russia as it is there neck of the woods, Obama as an Ally is instrumental is solidifying the pressure from a non interventionist position with sanctions levied against Russia- It is how international diplomacy and politics work! The gung ho attitude of the crude American mentality does not solve matters of this sophistication which is somewhat over your minute capacity when coming to thinking!

    July 30, 2014 at 3:58 am | Reply
  14. JJO

    Barack Hussein Obama is the best and worst thing to happen to this country. The worst is that he has destroyed the economy, military, job market, middle class, foreign policy, stature in the world, healthcare, energy industry, immigration system and everything else he touches and it will take years to reverse this destruction. The most important and best is that he will have destroyed the Democratic Party for at least a decade. Thank you Barack “Commie” Obama.

    July 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Reply
    • Bmike

      You need a reality check plain and simple.

      July 28, 2014 at 2:39 pm | Reply
      • Smitty

        If you get out from Obammys back side, maybe you could think for yourself.

        July 28, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
    • The REAL Truth...

      Ignorance remains bliss for those on the right who believe that foreign policy requires constant wars and carrying a big stick.. The world, and much of America is VERY TIRED of sending our kids off to be cannon fodder so the 1% can profit!!

      July 28, 2014 at 2:52 pm | Reply
      • topfuel500

        Thank you and very well said, I am a vet of foreign war with 2 purple hearts. My wife knows I hardly ever talk about it, I always tell here it's not pretty and no person should ever have to witness the every day workings of war. I know people who glorify it and talk about it like they are rambo but, when asked if they have ever seen action they go quiet.

        July 28, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
      • southerngent

        topfuel500

        War is hell, but not having freedom is worse. To ignore the atrocities of events such as 9/11 is national suicide. To bury our head in the sand while the world collapses around us is unconscionable. To not try to coach freedom to the suppressed is shameful. To not help those crying for help UNFORGIVABLE!

        July 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
      • kurt

        southerngent

        The US has often sided with dictators who are sympathetic toward the US rather then help those fighting for freedom. Heck we overthrew a popular democratic government in Iran to put a dictator back in power because the democratic government was too socialist for our tasts. That got us the Ayatollah calling the shots in Iran instead. Thanks Eisenhower.

        In theory, I agree that we should generally side with the "will of the people" in any given nation... but that doesn't mean we have to provide direct aid. The Syrian rebels are mostly people we don't really like. They're supported by the majority of the people, but that doesn't mean we need to give them guns. It doesn't mean we need to support Assad either. Sometimes there is no good choice, and standing back IS the best option.

        July 30, 2014 at 11:40 am |
      • Marty

        You can fight them in their backyard or your backyard. You pick

        July 30, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
      • southerngent

        kurt
        southerngent

        "The US has often sided with dictators who are sympathetic toward the US rather then help those fighting for freedom. Heck we overthrew a popular democratic government in Iran to put a dictator back in power because the democratic government was too socialist for our tasts. That got us the Ayatollah calling the shots in Iran instead. Thanks Eisenhower."

        ***This is an outright LIE which puts YOU in the same category as obama. You tried to find something help you defend Obama stupidity and gutless leadership so you went to Wikipedia and read the first line and said ah ha I got em! OK, you sorry pos read the second paragraph!

        "Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to renegotiate the terms of the company's access to Iranian oil reserves. Upon refusal of the AIOC to cooperate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize the assets of the company and expel their representatives from the country. [7][8][9] Following the coup in 1953, a military government under General Fazlollah Zahedi was formed which allowed Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran (Persian for an Iranian king), [9] to effectively rule the country as an absolute monarch. He relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979. [7][8][9][10] In August 2013 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. [11][12] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S.[13]"

        ***WHO WAS PRESIDENT IN 1979, PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER, ANOTHER DEMOCRAT WHO HAD NO CLUE ABOUT LEADERSHIP!

        "In theory, I agree that we should generally side with the "will of the people" in any given nation... but that doesn't mean we have to provide direct aid. The Syrian rebels are mostly people we don't really like. They're supported by the majority of the people, but that doesn't mean we need to give them guns. It doesn't mean we need to support Assad either. Sometimes there is no good choice, and standing back IS the best option."

        ***YOU ARE RIDICULOUS, I SUSPECT YOUR DEFENSE OF OBAMA FAILURE AS PRESIDENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS LEADERSHIP!

        July 31, 2014 at 10:00 am |
      • southerngent

        kurt
        "I believe conflict breeds more conflict"
        ***What you believe is of little consequence to the free world.

        "I don't think attacking people prevents attacts, I think it encourages them. Historically, the more punitive the actions of a nation even if they "win", the more likely you have future conflict."
        ***Wrong again! There will always be wars because there will always be people like Hitler and Saddam who would murder their own people for power! Not trying to prevent the spread of this kind of power is ludicrous, and the reason strong leaders of free nations is necessary. This is why THE WORLD HAS A PROBLEM WITH OBAMA'S WEAKNESS.

        "Military force should be the last option when the alternative cannot be accepted. Being attacked (Pearl Harbor) could not be accepted. But could we accept a brutal dictator controlling a country in the middle east? Of course we could. We accepted it for decades. Using violence when it's not the last refuge leads to decades of future conflict. Andthat's what we did with Iraq."
        ***WRONG AGAIN, for reason stated above!
        How long do you wait?
        ISIS, Will not hesitate to use WMD against all people they view as a threat. Do you wait until millions upon millions are murdered?
        Do you wait until millions here in America are murdered?

        "As for Vietnam... it was a horrible choice to send troops in. It's not a Democrat vs GOP thing, it's the idea that sending in the US military to fight a conflict that isn't an issue of protecting direct american interests or deemed necessary by the vast majority of nations is a poor decision. It was with Vietnam."
        ***Wrong again! It was an issue of rightness that became a unparalleled lack of leadership by an incompetent president.

        "It was with Iraq when GWB did it. Party is irrelevant. Again... if it's a matter of near universal agreement among nations like the first Iraq war was, then okay. If it's a matter of protecting direct US interests like respondin to an attack (WW2)... then okay."

        ************ This was posted on another thread by someone else, but an excellent piece. Unlike your ramblings.
        Bill Clinton said February 17, 1998 "So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering….There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us..Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AND THE MISSILES TO DELIVER THEM, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

        The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a TERRIBLE ARSENAL, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used CHEMICAL WEAPONS, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people….In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

        It admitted, among other things, an offensive BIOLOGICAL WARFARE CAPABILITY notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs…UNSCOM inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION than was destroyed during the Gulf War….This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents….In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed…And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren."

        Bill Clinton threatening war on Iraq because of WMDs

        Source CNN
        posted on article http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-martin-omalley-2016/index.html?hpt=po_c1

        OKAY! NOW WHAT! HOW ABOUT THIS.

        "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorist, including alqaeda members. It is clear however that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

        Senator Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002

        "But when we aren't being attacked and there is not a widespread worldwide movement toward military action... we really need to back off and pursue other means such as diplomacy and sanctions. Economic force appliedby Reagan ended the cold war... not military force."

        ***America was asked for help more than once and Obama turned his thus our back on people who desired freedom from suppression and brutality. Why? Because we have a leader who does not understand freedom or leadership.

        July 31, 2014 at 11:24 am |
      • kurt

        Southern Agent... I'll try to respond to yoru statements but the thread is getting muddled a bit. If I miss one it's not intentional.

        1. You seemed to insinuate I was lying when I said the US overthrew a democratic Iranian government and put a dictator back in power. Your quoted text pretty much confirms what I said. In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected secular government... that socialized their power industry. We didn't like that and overthrew their democratically elected government to put a pro-US dictator back in power and supported him financially. This dictator was overthrown later and instead of a France-like democracy we got a theocracy that now hated the US for their support of the dictator over the prior 16 years. We only got this because we killed the democracy they had fought for. The overthrow of Mosaddegh (who was not overtly religious) gave the Islamic uprising a secular martyr in 1979 to rally non-islamist support (the same non-islamist support which PREVENTED the theocratic muslims from taking power in Iran's 1951 revolution). Again... your quoted text confirms this... I'm not sure why you think that was a "gotcha".

        2. You seem to have issue with my statement that the US has been okay with brutal dictators in the middle east for decades.

        Why? We tolerated (and at times supported) Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Even after the first gulf war we tolerated him. We supported the Shah in Iran and overthrew their democratic president Mosaddegh because Mosaddegh nationalized their oil industry and our ally Britain wanted it back.

        3. You seem to think the Vietnam war was a good idea.

        I strongly disagree.

        4. Text explaining diplomatic efforts of Clinton regarding Iraq.

        Valid information. In the end Clinton fired a cruise missle into Iraq and that flare up provided a lot of justification for the second Iraqi war. It was again a bad call. The UN inspections had already destroyed a huge amount of Iraqi WMD production. That STOPPED after the missle attack. Again... it's not a matter of party... Clinton made a mistake using force when we shouldn't have.

        5. We were asked for military help and didn't provide it.

        True. I'm not sure you realize how many revolutions and rebellions are happening in the world every year. Pretty much all of them claim to be democratic and clamor for US aid. We almost NEVER aid them... because we end up getting pulled into the conflic long term and the end result is often a government that hates us as much as the prior one did. It happened in Iraq. It happened in Afghanistan. It ALWAYS happens, regardless of the leader. We simply never gain from it.

        6. War is necessary because people like Hitler and Hussein attack their own people.

        Again, we RARELY do anything about situations where rulers kill their own people, other then occasionally supporting them if they rebel (and we don't do that all that often). Where wars become necessary (and looked upon favorably in history) are when we resist those that attack OTHER nations (and we rarely resist with armed combat unless personally attacked). We didn't resist Hitler because he killed his own people (though he did). We resisted economically when he invaded his neighbors. We didn't FIGHT him... until the Japanese attacked us. We were viewed positively for the first Iraq war... because Saddam invaded Kuwait. We were not viewed positively for the second... because he didn't invade anyone.

        As for the rest of your posts which seem to be mostly insults.... you are welcome to your opinion. I still believe conflict tends to breed more conflict and I think the sum of the history of mankind tends to support that.

        July 31, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
      • southerngent

        kurt

        1. wrong!

        "The shah reversed Mosaddeq’s nationalization. With U.S. assistance he then proceeded to carry out a national development program, called the White Revolution, that included construction of an expanded road, rail, and air network, a number of dam and irrigation projects, the eradication of diseases such as malaria, the encouragement and support of industrial growth, and land reform. He also established a literacy corps and a health corps for the large but isolated rural population. In the 1960s and ’70s the shah sought to develop a more independent foreign policy and established working relationships with the Soviet Union and eastern European nations.

        The White Revolution solidified domestic support for the shah, but he faced continuing political criticism from those who felt that the reforms did not move far or fast enough and religious criticism from those who believed westernization to be antithetical to Islam."E.B.

        Note the part "and religious criticism from those who believed westernization to be antithetical to Islam."

        "Opposition to the shah himself was based upon his autocratic rule, corruption in his government, the unequal distribution of oil wealth, forced westernization, and the activities of Savak (the secret police) in suppressing dissent and opposition to his rule. These negative aspects of the shah’s rule became markedly accentuated after Iran began to reap greater revenues from its petroleum exports beginning in 1973. Widespread dissatisfaction among the lower classes, the Shī ite clergy, the bazaar merchants, and students led in 1978 to the growth of support for the Ayatollah Ruhollah" E.B.

        Tried to bring them into the 20 century by himself. Islamic control of its people and the dependency on sharing wealth is what took him down. Which is why we keep telling you fkng idiots, the liberal policy of government for me can not work!.

        Whoever answered at "Level 9" is correct and I cannot add much to his answer. Please give him five stars. I was in Iran in 1976 advising the Shah on intelligence operations. Although he was pro-western, he certainly was repressive to those who disagreed with him, namely the religious leaders, who were even more fanatical. Then we had President Carter who wasn't much of a diplomatic president who understood cultural differences. He embarked upon a dogma of human rights, which many countries (particularly the Middle East do not understand). Thus, Carter sided with the religious sects rather than the Shah, despite the recommendations of the State Dept and CIA. Instead, he listened to his staff and appointees like Andrew Young at the U.N. Remember, Young was the guy who said Castro was a stabilizing force among the Caribbean nations. Carter naively thought by supporting the religious leaders in Iran (he himself is an ardent baptist), they would respond in a friendly way. Instead, those Islamic zealots stormed our embassy and took our marines as hostages in the name of Allah. In my opinion the Ayatollah and Carter were stupid.yahoo.com/question/index?

        2. You make so many wishy washy statements like "Why?". Then try to justify it by contradicting statements, "We tolerated (and at times supported) Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Even after the first gulf war we tolerated him. We supported the Shah in Iran and overthrew their democratic president Mosaddegh because Mosaddegh nationalized their oil industry and our ally Britain wanted it back.". Why?

        3. lack of comprehension on you part does not constitute the same for me.

        "At the heart of the conflict was the desire of North Vietnam, which had defeated the French colonial administration of Vietnam in 1954, to unify the entire country under a single communist regime modeled after those of the Soviet Union and China. The South Vietnamese government, on the other hand, fought to preserve a Vietnam more closely aligned with the West."

        "Under considerable pressure from China and the Soviet Union, both of which wanted to reduce international tension at this time, the Viet Minh decided to accept the Geneva Accords, and gamble by giving up territory in the short run in order to win control of all of Vietnam in 1956. The division of Vietnam was supposed to be purely temporary. Who was likely to prevent the two sections from being rejoined in 1956? The French had given up hope of retaining control in any part of Vietnam. The United States and the State of Vietnam had made it clear at the Geneva Conference that they did not like the results of the conference, which recognized Communist control of North Vietnam immediately, and created a likelihood that the Communists would take the South in two years. Both the US and the State of Vietnam conspicuously refused to promise that they would obey the Geneva Accords. (A great many books say that the US promised that it would not violate the Accords. This is an error based on careless misreading of the US declaration at the final session of the Geneva Conference, July 21, 1954.) However, the State of Vietnam was virtually powerless, and the influence of the United States was quite limited. The American leaders themselves were by no means confident that they would be able to prevent the reunification of Vietnam from occurring on schedule in 1956."clemson.edu

        A rightness to try and preserve South Vietnams effort to become a free people! A wrongness in execution!

        4. weakness in leadership evidentiary. wrong on WMD, the perception is those weapons had been move to Syria, except for some to give an illusion of being all they had but could retrieve them in a short time frame. However, there were enough chemical weapons found to kill ten of thousands with a delivery system in place.

        5. True. "I'm not sure you realize how many revolutions and rebellions are happening in the world every year. Pretty much all of them claim to be democratic and clamor for US aid.". However, there is a difference in providing aid and providing support against aggression.

        "We almost NEVER aid them... because we end up getting pulled into the conflic long term and the end result is often a government that hates us as much as the prior one did. It happened in Iraq. It happened in Afghanistan. It ALWAYS happens, regardless of the leader. We simply never gain from it."

        Wrong, on so many levels that I'm not sure I can counter it. We AID almost every nation in the world, with money, with business support, with humanitarian efforts, with educational efforts and other support. Yes, we struggle with middle eastern countries because they have produced so much fear in their people and control them by oppression, genocide, withholding education, educating with pure hate and other methods. But turning our back tells the people their leaders are right, that America does not care. This is why it was wrong to leave Iraq completely. Our efforts were paying off! The children were receiving secular education, their businesses were gaining progress on the world stage, their people were learning there was(no longer) something more than hate for America. But to not try is tantamount to world wide disaster.

        "One Hugh failure of our policies is African nations controlled by rebels and killing million of their own people. Obama has virtually ignored Africa, Why? Non policies.

        "which United States president will go down in history as the greatest humanitarian to have served in the office? The Republican Herbert Hoover is often known as the "Great Humanitatarian" for his work administering famine relief in post-World War I Europe (and Bolshevik Russia) in the 1920s - but he did all that before he actually became president. Others might make the case for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Democrat who succeeded Hoover in the White House, whose New Deal initiatives relieved poverty and sickness on a grand scale within the United States.
        But I'd suggest that there's one president whose contribution dwarfs all the others. Unlike Hoover, he launched his program while he was in office, and unlike FDR, he received virtually no votes in return, since most of the people who have benefited aren't U.S. citizens. In fact, there are very few Americans around who even associate him with his achievement. Who's this great humanitarian? The name might surprise you: it's George W. Bush.

        I should say, right up front, that I do not belong to the former president's political camp. I strongly disapproved of many of his policies."

        ***"As foreign policy crises rage on, Obama turns attention to Africa CBS News – 2 hours ago WASHINGTON - As President Obama immerses himself in talks on Africa's regional security, democracy building and business investment this ..."8/4/14

        This is Obama's policy here at home and abroad! When an issue gets too hot DIVERT! After 5 7\12ths years he is just now turning attention to Africa. If YOU can't see the reality of this then you are turning your head to prevent seeing the truth!

        6. So, your solution is do nothing, like Obama. Waiting proved to be a mistake in WWII, 2001. But no leadership at all is shameful.
        I do care what your opinion is because we certainly don't need a another non leader like obama, and your contempt for anything different is troubling.

        August 4, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
      • southerngent

        kurt
        Addition to above.
        6. War is necessary because people like Hitler and Hussein attack their own people..

        I did not present war a a first resort as you tried to suggest. The problem arises in today's world when the UN fails to take action due to the strengths of Russia and China and other socialist nations, and the weakness of obama on the world stage to challenge them. So shove your liberal war only, bs.

        August 4, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
      • kurt

        The fact you just spent time defending the Shah of Iran leads me nowhere to go with you.

        If you honestly believe the US support for the Shah, orchestrating a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government and return a repressive dictator in the Shah to power was in any way the correct move then I'm not sure there's much more to say.

        Your view of history is simply not shared by many others. The US effectively ENDED the last democratically elected Iran ever had in 1953 by orchestrating the coup. 60 years later... they still haven't ever gotten back to a democratic form of government. And WE are to blame.

        Siding with democracy over dictators is what the US SHOULD do. It doesn't mean we need to support them with arms or money in every case, but we sure shouldn't be overthrowing them and sticking puppet emperors in place like we did in Iran.

        If you understand what we did (which you appear to) and believe it was correct... well there isn't much more to say to you. I don't believe the US should be on the side of dictators and against the people of a foriegn nation. You do. We obviously aren't going to agree on that.

        August 14, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
    • Ben Amster

      You are nutso. that is all.

      July 29, 2014 at 7:24 pm | Reply
  15. kurt

    Cupp has a very odd viewpoint of what foreign policy should be.

    Obama actually has a fairly well defined foriegn policy that he's held to throughout his presidency. He engages in talks, uses economic sanctions and reserves the use of military force for situations where either we're: 1) already involved (Iraq/Afghanistan), 2) Our interests are in direct danger or 3) The world acknowledges a direct humanitarian need (Libya, and Syria using chemical weapons).

    We don't use our military when we can use economic sanctions. We have used those in Iran (to good effect). We are using those with Russia (too early to tell). We also don't use our military if we can achieve the goal through diplomacy. We didn't have to use military in Syria because Syria met our demand (in regards to chemical weapons).

    Now you can say the goals we're pursuing aren't correct. You can believe we shouldn't have been focusing on chemical weapons with Syria and rather building a case that we needed to topple Assad at all costs. But it's not like we aren't following a distinctive pattern of policy in a constistent manner. We are.

    The 8 years of George W. Bush have made many forget the value of actually talking before acting with military and building consensus even when military action was needed. He wasn't a big fan of that approach. His dad actually became a fan after the international outrage at the US invasion of Panama. His handling of the Gulf War was an exercise in diplomacy and coallition building.

    And let's not forget that Reagan won the cold war through diplomacy and economic power, not through military might.

    That same coalition building that Bush used in the Gulf is what Obama has engaged in. While he didn't drive it in Libya, he took part in a unified international coalition to oust Khadafi. He is driving it in building economic sanctions for Russia in regards to their aggression (despite the fact enacting these sanctions HURTS the european nations taking part).

    The idea that the US has to constantly flex their military muscles is a relatively new thing. While we occasionally did use military might under other presidents without coalition building, we did it close to home (Grenada, Panama) when the presidents in question felt there was a direct threat rather then far abroad (Iraq/Kosovo) which were done under the auspices of the UN. We have rarely rushed into conflicts outside of the Americas until GWB was president. In those rare cases the actions taken tended to be very limited (12 minute bombing of Libya).

    Obama isn't taking us into a new direction. In fact, he's simply taking us back to pre-GWB foriegn policy where economics and diplomacy were the weapons used much more often then guns and tanks.

    July 28, 2014 at 12:22 pm | Reply
    • southerngent

      Obama isn't taking us into a new direction. In fact, he's simply taking us back to pre-GWB foriegn policy where economics and diplomacy were the weapons used much more often then guns and tanks.

      Obama is taking us in the wrong direction. Over 58, 000 were killed in Nam during a war by a democrat where is your outrage. That was prebush. How many died and would have died under Saddam, and Obama just turned his back on their people and our soldiers that sacrificed their lives for freedom. I prayed every day for a family member who served during the years in Iraq who returned safely but told me that it was the right thing to do, and is sick of what Obama has done to our nation and our allies. How many died for freedom during WWII. How many died during the revolutionary war and other wars for freedom.

      And Kurt here is the kicker. What would you do when America is attacked again. Do YOU actually believe Obama's policies would deter them?

      July 28, 2014 at 6:56 pm | Reply
      • kurt

        I believe conflict breeds more conflict. I don't think attacking people prevents attacts, I think it encourages them. Historically, the more punitive the actions of a nation even if they "win", the more likely you have future conflict. Military force should be the last option when the alternative cannot be accepted. Being attacked (Pearl Harbor) could not be accepted. But could we accept a brutal dictator controlling a country in the middle east? Of course we could. We accepted it for decades. Using violence when it's not the last refuge leads to decades of future conflict. And that's what we did with Iraq.

        As for Vietnam... it was a horrible choice to send troops in. It's not a Democrat vs GOP thing, it's the idea that sending in the US military to fight a conflict that isn't an issue of protecting direct american interests or deemed necessary by the vast majority of nations is a poor decision. It was with Vietnam. It was with Iraq when GWB did it. Party is irrelevant. Again... if it's a matter of near universal agreement among nations like the first Iraq war was, then okay. If it's a matter of protecting direct US interests like respondin to an attack (WW2)... then okay. But when we aren't being attacked and there is not a widespread worldwide movement toward military action... we really need to back off and pursue other means such as diplomacy and sanctions. Economic force applied by Reagan ended the cold war... not military force.

        July 30, 2014 at 10:21 am |
    • capt chetco

      Nicely put, but misses the point. Obama appears indecisive, uninvolved and very uncertain. Things happening around the world right now are because of those attributes. He does not lead.

      July 29, 2014 at 2:47 am | Reply
      • kurt

        The "bad leader" line is something people throw around when there isn't an actual policy point that detractors can point to. It's an opinion based statement that can't be supported or contradicted by actual facts.

        While he didn't use troops if you compare Obama's response to the Ukraine with Bush's response to Georgia what do you see? Obama enacted sanctions (and more importantly got a reluctant Europe to enact sanctions) swiftly and ramped them up as Russia pressed forward. Bush enacted no sanctions, got a group to study the situation and eventually said it was all Georgia's fault. So who displayed firm and decisive leadership there?

        Objectively, I'd say the world views Obama as someone reluctant to use force but willing to do so with little concern over how his actions will be taken afterwards. While they may see weakness, it's likely they don't see it in him personally, but rather in the opposition he has domestically that they can use against him. THere's a reason that Syria agreed quickly to give up their chemical weapons once congress got behind Obama on a potential military response to the issue. It wasn't because they viewed him as weak. It was because the thing preventing him from acting (congress) had gotten out of the way. They said "oh crap... wait... take the weapons!" as soon as that happened.

        I also don't think Putin ever believed that Obama would be able to convince (or "lead" if you prefer) Germany to take part in the sanctions that are now ramping up. Especially not after the NSA spying on Merkel's phone incident. But that's exactly what Obama did. For all the "weakness" and "poor leadership" barbs that are being thrown at Obama in regards to foreign policy, what is being lost is how decisively his policy is working in the Ukraine at the moment.

        Now could he manage to create peace between Israel and Palestine? Well no. But it's not like anyone else has accomplished that either.

        July 30, 2014 at 11:30 am |
  16. The GOP Solution

    The GOP Prayer/Mantra/Solution: Dear God...With your loving kindness, help us to turn all the Old, Sick, Poor, Non-white, Non-christian, Female, and Gay people into slaves. Then, with your guidance and compassion, we will whip them until they are Young, Healthy, Rich, White, Christian, Male, and Straight. Or until they are dead. God...Grant us the knowledge to then turn them into Soylent Green to feed the military during the next "unfunded/off-the-books" war. God...Give us the strength during our speeches to repeatedly yell........TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!..........and........GET RID OF SS AND MEDICARE!!!
    In your name we prey (purposely misspelled, or is it?)........Amen

    July 27, 2014 at 11:13 pm | Reply
    • CALIFORNIA

      Deflection no longer works.

      These aren't the drones you're looking for?

      July 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm | Reply
      • Really

        You really like your party's mantra don't you.

        July 29, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
      • Don't

        Don't you just LOVE your party's mantra?

        July 29, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
    • Your Solution

      Gots to keep copy/pasting hate maybe I won't appear as dumb!

      I don't care about the old, sick, poor, white, Christian, female, straight as long as obama and my dimorats gives me free stuff.

      I hopes they die so I gets all dar stuff.

      Tax da rich more and more and more and more and more and more cause I ain't gonna work for me free stuff!

      My comment of soylent green is sicking but I don't care I gots to have my free stuff.

      I can lie better dan enybody seping obama so who cares.

      I don't need ss or medicare cause da gubermant man gives me free stuff and I just go er any howls.

      I can't speal enyhow an I hopes god do not read my stuplid sick stuff.

      Did I manchon I wants more free stuff!

      July 28, 2014 at 1:54 pm | Reply
      • Really

        Typical republican.

        July 29, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • You

        You voted for Palin didn't you.

        July 29, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
      • really_really

        Really
        Typical republican.

        July 29, 2014 at 2:13 pm |

        Really! Really, "The GOP Solution" Dumb Ass liberal democrat who is an uninformed voter.

        August 1, 2014 at 11:57 am |
      • you_you

        You
        You voted for Palin didn't you.

        July 29, 2014 at 8:53 pm |

        You, you, I don't have to ask who you voted for because you are a Typical Dumb Ass liberal democrat who is an uninformed voter.

        August 1, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
  17. Coley

    Obama's foreign policy issue is simple: He doesn't have a foreign policy....

    July 27, 2014 at 9:41 pm | Reply
    • Bmike

      Yeah and the rightwing does..REALLY wake up.

      July 28, 2014 at 2:41 pm | Reply
      • southerngent

        Bmike
        Yeah and the rightwing does..REALLY wake up.

        Yeah! And obama doesn't...REALLY, SO GO BACK TO SLEEP! ! ! !

        July 29, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
  18. jtchop

    Media,

    Please start holding our President accountable for what he is NOT doing. You have not held him accountable on

    – IRS targeting
    – Benghazi
    – Veterans Associate problems
    – Syria
    – Crimea invasion
    – NSA Spying
    – Flood of Illegals crossing the boarder

    If a Republican was is in office you'd slay them. Just like you did with Bush and the gas prices. Gas has been close to $4.00 a gallon for over a year and never once have you said a word to the President. Wake up! This President is a Socialist and you are taking the bait.

    July 27, 2014 at 11:22 am | Reply
    • Bmike

      Who appointed you judge and jury..NOT

      July 28, 2014 at 2:43 pm | Reply
      • southerngent

        Who appointed you the kings jester? Duh!

        July 29, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
      • countingdown

        Obama, when he began his first term by screwing working Americans with obamacare then lied to all Americans, not to mention all the other things he has done as president.

        July 30, 2014 at 7:54 am |
  19. Dave

    Only a moron would compare Communism w Capitalism. Those of us w more than 1/2 brain know, CONSERVATISM is the real ENEMY of human-kind. President Obama is now and has always been, a CENTRIST. Look at his policies! He took a CONSERVATIVE health care proposal from DOLE and the HERITAGE FOUNDATION in 1993, and made it law! This was in SPITE of the UNfounded opposition of the Republicans. He has always been known as someone who works w opposition to GET SHIT DONE!!! The RePUKes must eventually admit to their UNfettered R A C I S M.

    July 27, 2014 at 11:14 am | Reply
    • southerngent

      "Only a moron would compare Communism w Capitalism. Those of us w more than 1/2 brain know, CONSERVATISM is the real ENEMY of human-kind."

      ***OK freak, why does the world want to be like us? Why worry about border patrol? Because our way of life is so bad our people are leaving in droves to get out, right!

      "President Obama is now and has always been, a CENTRIST. Look at his policies!"
      ***He has NO POLICIES D HEAD.

      "He took a CONSERVATIVE health care proposal from DOLE and the HERITAGE FOUNDATION in 1993, and made it law!"
      ***LIES, This from politiFact:
      "Is the Affordable Care Act really the same as "the Republican plan in the early '90s?"

      Short answer – sort of. There was a Republican bill in the Senate that looked a whole lot like Obamacare, but it wasn’t the only GOP bill on Capitol Hill, it never came to a vote and from what we can tell, plenty of conservative Republicans didn’t like it."

      ***Please note the last sentence above.***

      ***"President Bill Clinton took on an ill-fated effort to reform health care in 1993. As the president’s task force (led by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton) worked behind closed doors to craft solutions to ever-rising health care costs and a growing number of uninsured families, Republicans scrambled to forge an alternative." ***

      "This was in SPITE of the UNfounded opposition of the Republicans."
      *** UNFOUNDED? WHERE IN THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN LATELY TO MISS WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THIS FKUP LAW THAT IS SO BAD EVEN THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE OVER 40 CHANGES AND DELAYS AND THAT ON HIS OWN AND IT IS ONLY GETTING WORSE!

      He has always been known as someone who works w opposition to GET SHIT DONE!!! The RePUKes must eventually admit to their UNfettered R A C I S M.

      BULL SH IT,

      ALL LIES, AND IF YOU CAN'T DEFEND OBAMAS ACTIONS WITHOUT MENTIONING ==== R A C I S M ======THAT MAKES ######(YOU)######## THE RACIST!!!!!!!!!

      July 29, 2014 at 11:24 am | Reply
  20. CALIFORNIA

    Reloaded: Obama's foreign policy problem
    ----
    YEAH IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!

    July 26, 2014 at 10:18 pm | Reply
  21. mark

    The world is no longer Capitalist or communism but its mix of both.

    July 26, 2014 at 5:51 pm | Reply
  22. Smitty

    removed my post gutless cnn

    July 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm | Reply
  23. Smitty

    Whats the difference between Putin shootin down a plane and Obammys fast and furious??? Just a guess but I would think the weapons Holder and Obumbles sent to the big M have killed as many. Either way it just shows how stupid we and Russia are by putting morons in charge.

    July 25, 2014 at 4:07 pm | Reply
    • topfuel500

      On Nov. 13, 1986, President Reagan declared in a national address, “We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages — nor will we.” His assertion ran counter to covert operations that had been ongoing for several years. Reagan was faced with an uncomfortable question, transposed from the Watergate scandal, which threatened to strike at his credibility. What did the president know and when did he know it? Having secured a landslide win against Walter Mondale in 1984, Reagan’s second term appeared to be one in which the Cold War, arms control and relations with the Soviet Union would dominate the presidential agenda. Instead, Reagan found himself in the midst of a crisis that threatened his presidency.

      Covert arms transactions with Iran and the diversion of profits of the sales to the Contra guerrilla force in Nicaragua lay at the heart of the controversy. The arms sales in the first instance were supposed to act as leverage to assist in getting American hostages released from Lebanon. Missile shipments were significant. Two thousand and four TOW missiles were transferred, along with 18 HAWK missiles. The arms sales were covert. Both Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger claimed at the time to have been unaware of the actions. I'm just guessing but I do believe a Tow Missile carries more of a punch than a Assault Rifle, but that's ok it's Reagan .

      July 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm | Reply
      • countingdown

        So fkng what, if you have direct evidence of his involvement then present it, otherwise this is old news and we are now in the 21st century. Reagan was a hundred times more effective as President than obama both foreign and domestic.

        July 29, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
  24. Marty

    Indecisive backseat driver

    July 25, 2014 at 3:52 pm | Reply
  25. countingdown

    "Reloaded: Obama's foreign policy problem"
    This title should read: Americas foreign problem, because Obamas foreign policy is uhm, is uhm, is uhm, is, well none!

    July 25, 2014 at 1:49 pm | Reply
    • Bmike

      And you mean to tell Bush had foreign policy..oh yeah him and Putin were close.

      July 28, 2014 at 2:45 pm | Reply
      • countingdown

        Bmike
        And you mean to tell Bush had foreign policy..oh yeah him and Putin were close.

        July 28, 2014 at 2:45 pm | Reply

        Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, another crying liberal still Spouting Bush, Bush, Bush. Bush not only had a foreign policy but the BALLS back it up!!!!!!! Not Retreat, retreat, retreat!!!!!!!! Ha, ha, ha, ha, BTW, the last few years Bush cut communication with Putin and didn't whisper on hot mick " Mr. Obama then elaborated in a portion of the exchange picked up by the cameras: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Mr. Medvedev said, referring to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who just won an election to succeed Mr. Medvedev."
        Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

        YEAH! YOU TOLD US OFF BIG TIME! (N)(O)(T) HA, HA, HA, HA, HA,

        July 28, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
      • Smitty

        GW was somewhat respected, Obammy is just walked on. Once he coward with Syria we were done. Its sad but Obumbles just isn't up to the task,

        July 28, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
  26. frankdio

    When I see what Socialism and Communism has done and is doing to this world and the Millions upon Millions of PEOPLE MURDERED and Destruction these two Sick Political Theories have caused these last two centuries, I am amazed people like Van Jones are allowed on any American TV station. CNN giving this Mini PaPa Doc a voice explains CNN's decline over the years. They push the Jihad Sociaty for only one reason. POWER! They have shown they will destroy Whole Nation's after they attain that power. The Jihads are just Their tool! More innocents will die.

    The Richer These fools who cannot see, GET THRU CAPITALISM the more they believe his lies about Communism & Socialism. The Media just like the 1930's is part of this destruction and Collusion and Corruption, and the Very Sad part is THEY KNOW IT! Very soon they will be told WHAT TO SAY AND WHEN TO SAY IT, if not already.
    S.E. Cupp is right EXCEPT...OBAMA is just a Cog in the Machine Nurtured by these wretches. He doesn't know his ass from his elbow and is just enjoying the Perks of his office. He could care less. Like the owners of your Station. As an ex Democrat, "And I thank God every day that I am"

    July 25, 2014 at 12:38 pm | Reply
    • kurt

      I'm not sure you really get what socialism is.

      Socialism is simply government control (or at least heavy involvement) in an industry.

      Every nation has some degree of socialism. In the US we've socialized defense and internal security (police). We've socialized education to a large degree. We've socialized our transportation networks. Most prisons as well. Most people are okay with those areas of socialism... because deep down they realize that it actually makes sense for the government to control certain industries.

      The question is... what industries should be socialized and what industries should not. Some other countries socialize medicine (which we do but not to the same degree). Others socialize energy creation and delivery. Some go even further into what we keep in our private sector.

      There's plenty of room for debate on which places the government should control completely, where they should take part in a limited fashing, where they should regulate and where they should be completely hands off. But let's not use the blanket "socialism is bad" statement when it's clear that few people if anyone actually want a COMPLETELY unsocialized nation. Many people like socialist programs that try to keep our drinking water safe to drink or harmful chemicals out of our food supply. Let's actually debate if government involvement in specific areas is useful or not.

      July 28, 2014 at 12:30 pm | Reply
      • countingdown

        Bs, bs, bs,bs,. Half truths again!

        Marx believed that those structural contradictions within capitalism necessitate its end, giving way to socialism, or a post-capitalistic, communist society: Wikipedia Explore: Karl Marx

        Socialism – Merriam-Webster Online http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies ... Communism – Capitalism – Utopian socialism – State socialism

        socialism - Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist ...

        Socialism has its roots in visions of imaginary ideal societies, from thinkers who drew up elaborated designs and concepts for creating what they considered a more equal society, along collectivist lines or abolished private property; the primarily ideas came from British and French thinkers like Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Louis Blanc, and Robert Owen preceded by Thomas More, Tommaso Campanella, and Jean Meslier. One of Karl Marx's titles was the father of socialism.

        One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) which was headed by the fascist, evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler.

        The Pilgrims were initially organized as a Collectivist society. Their contract with their European sponsoring businessmen stipulated that they would function as a Socialist group with each person contributing to the common good and in turn each receiving an equal share of the produce. The Plymouth Colony, its buildings, and its lands would all be owned in common.

        It became evident during this first crop year that few worked hard to produce crops and other goods for the benefit of the Colony. As a result, there was not that much food and prosperity after that first growing season.

        DIDN'T WORK THEN, WON'T WORK NOW, WILL NOT WORK IN THE FUTURE AND REMAIN A FREE NATION!

        Damn, damn, damn, stop these half truths and posting in generalities.

        July 28, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
      • You

        @countingdowntoHillary – You must really hate your SS and Medicare then. How about your mom and dad? Do they hate their SS and Medicare too?

        July 30, 2014 at 10:04 am |
      • kurt

        Your dictionary definition is correct. But the point is that it's not "all or nothing". Socialism exists in the US and every other nation in various degrees in various industries.

        Our national defense is almost completely socialist... as is the national defense of almost every nation. Capitalist principals apply very little. The decisions on defense are based almost entirely on the social welfare of the group (our country) rather then economic factors.

        Education is heavily socialized, but not to quite the same degree. We have a socialized system that exists through the 12th grade, but we also have a capitalist system of private schools.

        The root of socialism isnt' idealistic... it's practical. There is a belief that certain necessary functions of a society are not based on monetary measurements, and thus need to be managed to the collective benefit of those in society rather then pitting individuals fighting for their personal benefit against each other to get the most efficient outcome. Few would want to help pay for a military for example because the benefits (security) are not easily measured. By the time people see the need... it would often be too late. Those without children in school often fail to see why they should pay for schools... even if they are employing people who come from that school system and would like a more skilled workforce. There are separate debates to be had on each facet of society in terms of what degree (if any) of socialism would be most beneficial. But it's not and never has been an "all or nothing" discussion. Few really believe that we want a controlled communist economy. But many think public education and public health care are desireable things even if they want government to stay out of manufacturing or the finance sector.

        As someone who grew up about 25 miles from Plymouth, I have to say your history of the Plymouth colony is flawed. The Mayflower Compact (their governing document) essentially affirmed that they were under the jurisdiction of the English crown and that there would be a basic democratic (majority rules) method of local governance. This was essentially the way EVERY english town of the time was governed.

        They struggled the first winter because they landed in NOVEMBER. They didn't have time to farm and harvest. They did quite well with their first harvest a year later... the harvest feast which later became known as the "first thanksgiving". But they weren't collectivist beyond what any other colonial town at the time was. Individuals trapped and traded with the natives for furs and made personal profit, and farming was largely for your personal survival (though they tended to help out their neighbors).

        The contract with Merchant Adventures didn't have any stipulations about land ownership. It simply specified a series of payments required from the colony. The democratic government of plymouth determined how those would be collected, but it was done through an informal tax system (a percentage of your goods went to paying off the colony's debt). It took just 5 years to pay off Merchant Adventures, despite the ship with the first payment being pirated.

        While any colonial endeaver has a certain amount of colectivism, there was never any dictated sharing of goods. Just the normal informal process by which settlers tended to help their neighbors through hardships in the hopes that they would return the favor if needed.

        July 30, 2014 at 11:06 am |
      • countingdown

        You
        @countingdowntoHillary – You must really hate your SS and Medicare then. How about your mom and dad? Do they hate their SS and Medicare too?

        You The GOP Solution hate poor people so who cares what you think!

        July 30, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
      • countingdown

        No! The collectivism that our nation is derived from is from the Constitution.

        "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

        Your half truth generalities confuses forced sharing of wealth by government intrusion with collective acceptance of personal responsibility derived by reasonable taxation.

        The collectivism you advocate and want because of your belief that government should provide for every need regardless of effort is unobtainable and still maintain freedom. This is for multiple reasons some of which are: No matter how much you provide to the underachiever he / she will desire and demand more. The cost is unsustainable because the more you provide, more and more people will want to be a receiver; which is where we are headed now because we can no longer provide for the people who truly need our help because of the takers. There will always people who will desire more than the government owes me low lifes because of desire for betterment of life. In the same token there will always be those who only want what other people have but without the effort, sacrifice and joy of achievement.

        Modern day Communes were experiments in socialism. How many if any are in existence?

        There are no societies who are absolute in equality, never have been, never will be, which is your desire. In every human society known there were/are the haves and have nots, even in socialist countries or absolute dictatorships.

        What you really want is communism, herein lies our quantry, America will never be what you want because freedom is more precious than your hate for conservative values. I once responded to you with "I feel sorry for you". Not any more because it is obvious you are driven by hate and are saying it is OK to be a government taker. That makes you and most liberals THE PROBLEM. Because for every taker there is someone in need who gets less. Shame on you!

        Before you reply read this, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/.

        July 30, 2014 at 8:25 pm |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 91 other followers