"A large part of the answer is our leader's terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."
"Able leaders anticipate events, prepare for them, and act in time to shape them. My career in business and politics has exposed me to scores of people in leadership positions, only a few of whom actually have these qualities. Some simply cannot envision the future and are thus unpleasantly surprised when it arrives. Some simply hope for the best. Others succumb to analysis paralysis, weighing trends and forecasts and choices beyond the time of opportunity." (Read the whole thing)
Excerpts from a Mitt Romney Wall Street Journal Op-ed titled "The Price of Failed Leadership" The President's failure to act when action was possible has diminished respect for the U.S. and made troubles worse.
104 comments:
Obama is succeeding. He only seems to be failing if you don't understand what he wants to achieve. His goals are not our goals. Well, my goals. Many here support what he wants, which is the destruction of this country.
My theory, from 2008 when I first noticed, is that Obama is a moron.
It's not a leadership problem.
Obama doesn't even get as far as failed leadership.
I think that rh just won the thread.
Unlike Dubya, the Romster is not going gently into that good night.
While Dubya is rightly praised for his class act, good on the Romster for speaking up.
Sixty Grit said...
Obama is succeeding. He only seems to be failing if you don't understand what he wants to achieve. His goals are not our goals. Well, my goals. Many here support what he wants, which is the destruction of this country.
The corollary is that Choom is supposedly paving the way for the people to demand socialism, which I don't think is happening.
Nobody is going to listen to the Demos on health care, or foreign policy for that matter, for quite a while.
Ah....what could have been.
"Why, across the world, are America's hands so tied?"
Because this is the way the Urkle administration wants it. Duh. Everything Urkle has worked for is to the advancement of his ideology and in that advancement to diminish the US as a part of that plan. This is just another opportunity to do so. This is deliberate.
I'm with Harden's take. He's just not a smart or wise man. His ideology is just part of that. Dumb people believe dumb things. Sometimes dumb people put other dummies in charge of stuff. Then natural selection happens on a national scale.
I agree with Harding to a degree, but when Urkle gave away the intent of his nature to Joe the Plumber on tape, then what I saw is exactly as I've described in the past. A guy who is a moron, but a reality distortion field moron who believes the hype from the cult of his own personality in that his mission is righteous, his mission is sacred, his ideology is sacrosanct in that evil is steeped his stupidity and foisted on us all.
I don't know that are hands are all that tied. We've helped overthrow governments in Libya, Egypt (twice), Honduras, Ukraine. We also helped carve up Sudan. (Serbia got carved up before Obama was inaugurated.) We tried and failed in Syria.
Frankly, we were on the wrong side in Syria (everyone with the ability to actually hold power is at least as bad as Assad. Hell, there are groups in Syria that al Qaeda believes to be too extreme! Therefore support stability before those chemical weapons get into worse hands.)
And at the very least if we had butted out of the Ukrainian situation, we might have at least been able to pretend to be a disinterested third party looking to broker a peaceful settlement. As it is, we egged on a coup.
Also?
Mitt, you lost. And you lost because you couldn't offer a compelling vision that was different than what Obama was offering. Now THAT took some real ineptitude. Go away, enjoy your family and your fortune, and don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass.
Mitt sounds more and more like he's planning on running again. Do we really need that?
Which potential Republican candidate(s) know(s) more about the economy, the Federal Reserve, jobs creation, taxation, efficiency, and the nature of the leaders of foreign countries than Mitt Romney?
I'm neither for nor against a third Romney candidacy. I'm agnostic about all the potential candidates at this point.
I'm curious to know read others think about this.
Haz, the point is that Romney presented a case that failed against a very weak sitting President. (Presidents that win re-election after their first term generally do better the second time around in the electoral college and in % of popular vote. Obama did neither.)
As for what Romney does or doesn't know, he didn't make the case. Instead, for his economic proposals he endorsed his VEEP nominee's plans for government expenditures. Those plans included increasing defense spending, cutting taxes, leaving entitlements (other than Obamacare) alone, and somehow the budget was going to balance in a few years because the economy was going to grow at some ridiculous level because - MAGIC.
For his foreign policy he offered warmed over George W. Bush policies. Which is essentially what Obama is attempting, though with his own ideas on how to implement things.
The sad fact of the matter is that Romney had to work to lose, and in that, like so many other things Romney has set his mind to, he succeeded.
"Mitt sounds more and more like he's planning on running again. Do we really need that?"
What could be worse...?
What with stolen votes in urban precincts and the MSM piling on, Republican candidates need to win by >5% to have a chance.
Why didn't Romney take advantage of his own flood tide? That would be after the first debate when he had the punk on the ropes. So what did he do at that flood tide moment? Didn't lay another glove on Hussein. Played nice. In reality played dead. And lost. Big talker now. At the moment he had the scum...nothing.
@Haz: I think Romney deserves some higher position of authority and public service than he's got now...I'm just not sure that POTUS is the place.
What an intelligent, well-informed man Romney is, much more than I actually gave him credit for in 2012. Very depressing to read that article and to think of what might have been were he now president.
All that he wrote also speaks to the caliber of the advisors he has around him. And then think of who’s advising Obama.
Icepick said…And at the very least if we had butted out of the Ukrainian situation, we might have at least been able to pretend to be a disinterested third party looking to broker a peaceful settlement. As it is, we egged on a coup.
I prefer Romney’s approach: “When protests in Ukraine grew and violence ensued, it was surely evident to people in the intelligence community—and to the White House—that President Putin might try to take advantage of the situation to capture Crimea, or more. That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion.”
These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion.
We were supporting the overthrow of the government that had been elected in order to put in a government that was explicitly anti-Russian. And in fact, the people that toppled the old government were immediately expressing their displeasure that the new government wasn't anti-Russian enough. So that would not have been credible.
The reality is that after the end of the cold war, we kept fighting the cold war as though it hadn't ended. (With a brief period of sending in Harvard trained economists to completely fuck up the post-Soviet economy.)
The Russians, correctly, view us as enemies. And we've got no one to blame for that but ourselves.
Romney was a wimp during the campaign. Nice guys finish last. Politics ain't beanbag. One and dunne, Mitt, now go away.
We were supporting the overthrow of the government that had been elected in order to put in a government that was explicitly anti-Russian.
True? Or Russian propaganda?
From The Economist:
"Ukrainian fascists, nationalists and anti-Semites, sponsored by America, seize power in Kiev, overthrowing the legitimate (if ineffectual) president, Viktor Yanukovych. These new overlords humiliate Russian-speakers by outlawing the language and stand poised to sack Russia’s naval base in Sebastopol. Ethnic Russians run to Vladimir Putin for protection; he duly comes to their rescue. Mysterious military men with Russian rifles save the peace-loving people from the fascist threat.
So runs the plot invented by Russian propagandists to plunge Ukraine into chaos and seize the Crimean peninsula. Surreal as it sounds, the plot has been given some substance: parts of it only in the rantings of Russian politicians and journalists, parts—notably the bit about the rifles—in boots-on-the-ground reality. This spectacle of deception has jeopardised European security and pushed Russia into a confrontation with the West unlike any seen since the cold war."
Now Ted Cruz on the other hand is Billy Martin.
Scott Walker is Jim Leyland.
Chris Christie is Birdie Tebbits ( that's for real old guys like ricpic and Sixty Grit)
Marco Rubio is Ozzie Guillen.
Marco Rubio is Ozzie Guillen.
Rick Santorum is Cap Anson.
They have exactly the same political views. Just sayn'
Lydia, it doesn't matter if we gave them money and pushed behind the scenes. Our diplomats got caught on 'tape'* discussing their efforts to co-ordinate with the opposition groups. That was the point of the whole "Fuck the EU" phone call.
The article you linked to mentions that the Parliament didn't exactly do anything other than exacerbate anti-Russian ethnic tensions:
The Kremlin was greatly assisted in its task by Ukraine’s parliament which, despite the obvious tension between the Russian-speaking east of the country and the Ukrainian-speaking west, irresponsibly passed a bill (later dropped) that repealed the status of Russian as an official language on a par with Ukrainian. Parliament also failed to bring politicians from eastern Ukraine into the government.
So it doesn't matter how much support we gave the opposition, as they are clearly our guys and opposed to Russia. That IS who we are supporting.
And the person that made that statement is the daughter-in-law of one of the Ur-neocons, and was a foreign policy adviser to Dick Cheney when he was VEEP, among other positions she has held in other administrations. The folks running our foreign policy are deeply entrenched within both parties.
* Does anyone still use tape?
Now on the other hand Hillary is Marge Schott.
(They feel the same way about Jews)
Marco Rubio is a Republican party hack-insider who is as anti-American in his way as Barack Obama is in his. Marco wants to give 100,000,000 Third World peasants US citizenship because he thinks it will make him President. Fuck him. Also, it will crush wages in this country and exacerbate ethnic tensions. It's the exact same agenda as Barry Soetero's when you get right down to it.
And I still wonder why Cruz, Rubio and Rand Paul are such darlings with you guys. The biggest problem with Barack Obama was that he had (and continues to have) no idea how to be President. The three Senators mentioned are basically Barack Obama with an (R) after their names instead of a (D): Inexperienced Senators with no claim to fame other than that they're new faces and can speak well.
Even getting behind Crack's boy Chris Christie makes more sense. At least he has run a large traffic jam, er, I mean, state. Mitch Daniels and Scott Walker also make sense: they can actually point to successes governing, as opposed to talking. And if the country is going to get anywhere (and I doubt it will as most of the Republican leaders hate the country as much as the Dem leaders do), we're going to need people that can actually DO THE WORK.
Yeah, let's get Santorum and Perry to run too. Because what the country really needs most of all right now is another bout of politicians attempting to discuss moral issues that they effectively can't do anything about, instead of talking about governance issues that they CAN do something about.
Rick Perry is Tony LaRussa.
Now if we really want to have fun lets figure out which Real Housewife that these candidates most resemble.
Marco Rubio is Adrianna from Miami.
Ted Cruz is Vicki Gunvaldson.
Chris Christie is the bizzaro Brandi Glanville.
Scott Walker is Gretchen Rossi.
Of course President Obama is Phaedra Parks of Atlanta.
OK...Icepick. We get it. You don't like Romney, Rand, Cruz, Rubio, Christie and a whole bunch of other Republicans/Rinos/Tea Party type.
(I must admit that I don't like any of them 100% individually to be completely excited. Perhaps we could put them in a big blender and puke out the perfect candidate?)
Enlighten us. Just who is pure enough or tough enough or smart enough to be your candidate of choice. Anyone? Or are you just going to bitch about each and every one. Knock them all down until we end up with Hillary?
"Mitt, you lost. And you lost because you couldn't offer a compelling vision that was different than what Obama was offering. Now THAT took some real ineptitude. Go away, enjoy your family and your fortune, and don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass."
I have a problem with this. Why? Because it's not as though Mitt failed to make his case against Obama... Mitt failed to make his case against Obama and the entire mass media of this country.
That doesn't make it Mitt's failure except that he didn't manage any better than Sisyphus did. The media isn't at all interested in helping citizens make the best decision by making sure that we've got neutral information... what *does* this candidate or that candidate think about the issues? No... even at their very best they're going after sensationalism... at their worst they're going after sensationalism in one direction.
I don't think that Romney was that great. But I also don't think that "he wasn't able to easily handle an uneven playing field so screw him" is an answer that is good for our nation. Same with Palin... oh, well, she couldn't stop the attacks and lies so that's on her...
Notice that this is going to be the approach to every single last Republican candidate... The DNC clutches pearls and gasps racism and twists and spins anything it can... and we ought to be able to trust the MEDIA to step in and say, "Wow, desperation much? That's not at all the content of Paul Ryan's remarks." But it will not do that. Instead the story will be "Paul Ryan walks back comments after charge of racism..."
Because this is the world we've got and the reality we've got.
Will anyone worthy, or even competent, decide to play this game? Does Scott Walker have a chance? Is he ambitious enough to want to try?
If Cruz wins... maybe that's not the best result because of the experience issue... but those Governors who might run won by appealing across the board, playing nice, and being nice guys... and nice guys aren't going to win on the national level. And we should be clear on this...
THIS IS THE REALITY WE HAVE CHOSEN.
So if Cruz wins, that's awesome. Because he's not concerned with being nice, and I'll bet he won't walk back under pressure or cede the floor.
Will we get the best President? No. Probably not. But that's not really an option, is it.
As for Romney... more power to him. I hope he lays it on and keeps playing this game outside of the "rules" that the Media can control. We don't have or need gatekeepers anymore. Nor do we need a self-annointed "speak truth to power" horde of psychophants pretending they are adding value.
Screw em.
@Synova rebutted Trooper: I have a problem with this. Why?
I forget who the last person Trooper supported for POTUS was. I think maybe Giuliani? Troop likes hardball players, so I'm surprised that Cruz doesn't appeal to him.
Wait, Icepick said that! Now I'll have to walk that back. ..partially.
@Icepick: You are a bit like Crack in the sense that he's forever telling people who he doesn't like. You need to provide a little sweet with the sour.
I've been saying it's too early to be getting serious about 2016 for a while now. I'll stop saying that after election day this year. This election will reshape 2016 in a profound way.
Lol. How did I guess you would blog about this? Ha.
The hands are tied due to war fatigue from the trillions wasted by Bush. Duh.
Also, it's good to know a guy with no foreign policy creds and a loser of presidential elections is so willing to offer his $0.02. But at least it's for a good cause, like hectoring everyone into believing that America should be a global policeman. And that swagger is more important than strategy. And that any moral bone to pick is an IMMEDIATE AND LIFE-THREATENING STRATEGIC DISASTER UNLESS MASSIVELY REPULSED.
Anyway, yeah. As I was saying, I can see another reason why this schmuck lost the election now.
But as a consolation prize, we should offer him a leather cop's hat, with the phrase "GLOBAL POLICEMAN" emblazoned on the front. And maybe some leather suspenders to go with it also.
Like this.
Mittens can suck himself.
He had his shot. He lost it. Now it's time for him to do open some of those famous "behind closed-door sessions" he likes so much and do some consulting for Putin, which is pretty much what he's all about anyway.
So I thought... huh... maybe Romney said something in that article that I didn't expect him to say, that wasn't encapsulated in the quoted bit...
After all... he apparently was calling for the US to be the world's policeman.
How amazing... it wasn't there. The only way to make the article say anything remotely like what Ritmo was on about, was to make it up.
Shocking.
But maybe the notion that being able to see the shape of events and likely future developments so that opportunities can be grasped before events fall in the crapper....
... is an evil capitalist ability that would soil the purity of non-profitable thinking.
LOL. Speaking of sucking, here's Ritmo automatically fellating Barack Obama.
I think that's putting worts in R&B mouth because he hasn't gone there--yet. He is just reliably anti-Romney. Always has been.
I didn't say anything about Barack Obama. But you can't say anything decent about Candidate Has-Been's recent brain dropping, and you know it!
Go ahead. Attempt to defend his stupid We Are the World BS. You know this is exactly the reason Ron and Rand Paul generate the sort of enthusiasm that can only make Mittens squeal. Mittens thinks the most important thing in the world is to be a nanny to a petty Russian thug. LOL! What a loser.
Mittens thinks the most important thing in the world is to be a nanny to a petty Russian thug.
Got link?
My favorite part of that whole thing is where the three journalists, Halaprin, or whatever, among them, shoots off on Twitter:
"I suppose we cannot expect part #2 where Romney offers solutions."
Good one, Sport. Ugh, ya got 'im. *clutches heart, twirls to ground."
You also said without knowing you said it, "Please Mr. Grownup, please Mr. Romney, Mr. Fixit, give us suggestions how to fix this" Odd, a self-awareness so finely tuned and apparently unaware of that.
Twitter! Is how we know you.
I"m anti phony, anti-anti-47% and anti-Russia's baby-sitter. So if those things make me anti-Romney then so be it.
But then, so is half your party. They knew they couldn't get excited about that Cracker Jack box prize of a presidential figurine. And his recent foreign policy non-thoughts only go to show why the Paul's actually get the excitement he never would. Sorry to say it, boys, but there's limited enthusiasm for the America World Cop Fever of yore, which is as it should be. Why is it taking you guys so long to see it?
Hell, even Reagan withdrew from the tiny country of Lebanon, and that was after losing 240-some odd marines in a terrorist attack. Can you imagine if Obama did something like that? The mind boggles!
If you feel so worried about Putin, go on over there with a bunch of your biker friends and take him on yourself.
As I said, not every petty thug threatens our interests or can arouse enough of a coalition to something about their every little stupid power-grab - as wrong as it is.
You know this is exactly the reason Ron and Rand Paul generate the sort of enthusiasm that can only make Mittens squeal.
Rand Paul is Mitt Romney's unkempt heir. Neither is known for their foreign policy.
Got link?
His statement proves it. What other conclusion can you or anyone else draw? He wants us to be Global-Cop.
Watch Parker and Stone's Team America World Police. This road is a joke and the Paulites in your midst know it. And their crowd is where the votes are. For good reason. You can't define every moral-legal quibble as a vital strategic interest. YOu just can't. It's insane and an insane way to conduct foreign policy. Just insane.
Rand Paul is Mitt Romney's unkempt heir. Neither is known for their foreign policy.
YOu must be joking. Rand says less than his dad but it's safe to assume he's not a hawk who sees mice on every square inch of global soil to uproot. Come on. And uNtil he's a candidate for the sort of office his dad was, we shouldn't assume otherwise, either.
After all... he apparently was calling for the US to be the world's policeman.
How amazing... it wasn't there.
Incredible! It's all over the damn article. The subtext is to have him point out the litany of abuses and instances of failed leadership around the world, and then blame that on the American presidency! Well, let me tell you, the American president isn't responsible for every petty tyrant and thug around the world, nor should he be. Are you in the habit of avoiding conclusions as obvious (if unstated directly) as Romney wants people to reach?
@Ritmo: I think there is a huge unspoken movement away from foreign entanglements. They feeling is that the domestic situation is so fucked up that we had better fix things here first. People must be blaming Democrats, given the way the midterms are looking from here.
The hands are tied due to war fatigue from the trillions wasted by Bush. Duh.
Going on 6 years now and you're still blaming Bush. I wonder if FDR's supporters were so vindictive towards Hoover? I guess so, because he and his henchmen insisted on calling the greatest public works project Boulder Dam.
Petty is as petty does.
"The world is fucked up, therefore American presidency has failed" is a direct invitation to see the American president as Global Cop. How do you think we got into these situations, anyway? How do you think Ron Paul got as much traction (if ignored by the establishment idiots at FOX - who have their own agenda, anyway) as he did?
Come on. Connect the dots. Put that brain into gear.
I wonder if FDR's supporters were so vindictive towards Hoover?
...in 1940!
Wait! I meant 1938!
Hey, wait another second...1938...that was a big year in world history...one which we slept through.
How do you think Ron Paul got as much traction (if ignored by the establishment idiots at FOX - who have their own agenda, anyway) as he did?
Ron Paul got traction?
Chickie - my last response was to Synova. As for your comment, We could have had things fixed, if the T.P. hadn't slashed 2 million jobs in a recovery. Never been done before and I'll never stop banging on about that, because that's the only thing that's been done differently in policy in this recovery. A rational person assumes that the unusual effects of this recovery might actually result from the things we're doing differently, THIS TIME. It's simply irrational to pretend that away.
And yes, BIG policy decisions have long-term consequences. The construction of the Hoover Dam has long-term consequences, for instance. It's folly to pretend that everyone gets a blank slate and remakes the entire country top-to-bottom in his image every 4 years. Give me a break. Some new changes can be made, some things can be stopped. Or slowed. But 180 degree reversals take much longer.
Ron Paul got traction?
Hell yeah. Are you playing a word game with me or are you seriously questioning that? The MSM of FOX did their best to push it under the rug, but that's what FOX does.
I think there is a huge unspoken movement away from foreign entanglements.
It's not unspoken. Or not "as" unspoken as you think. Go check out Ron Paul videos on YouTube. Compare the views there with anything that any other GOP candidate gets. Analyze the results and bask in the difference. Watch how fervent his supporters get in the comments. You almost can't NOT see it.
It's folly to pretend that everyone gets a blank slate and remakes the entire country top-to-bottom in his image every 4 years.
That is pagan idolatry. You MUST stop pretending that we want the world remade in Obama's image.
Maybe Haz was right about you up thread. Your mouth is opening but you haven't engaged yet.
No, you're just not listening.
But then, you disbelieve that Ron Paul generates much more enthusiasm than the the other pageant models. So I'm not sure your powers of observation are working well enough to make that sort of conversation a realistic one.
Tea Party slashed 2 million jobs in a recovery
I tried googling that...the first hit goes instead to a story about ObamaCare causing a loss of 2M jobs.
That is pagan idolatry. You MUST stop pretending that we want the world remade in Obama's image.
Who said anything about what you, specifically, want? Whether in jest or serious, this is a massive mis-reading of anything I said.
My contention, and it's an obvious one, is that you and Mittens don't mind pushing to have the world redone in America's image - and won't tire finding examples where it isn't or where you whisper surreptitiously about how more force should have been somehow deployed to make it so. Even when you know that's not the answer.
Anyway, the statement was about policy generally and about change - which most people did want in 2008. You just thought more of them wanted more conservative change than they cumulatively did. And those points are also true. Change is a bitch.
I tried googling that...the first hit goes instead to a story about ObamaCare causing a loss of 2M jobs.
No doubt by a tabloid site. Were there sidebar ads for gold and surveys for how horrible Obama is?
I'm not sure of the exact number but it was on the order of at least a million and resulted directly from funds denied to state/muni workers as had never been done before in a recovery. If you're seriously having trouble finding a reputable link and want one that badly just ask.
Lets recap, R&B:
Hate Sarah Palin -- check
Hate Mitt Romney -- check
Hate Tea Party -- check
Love Ron Paul -- check
Love Barack Obama -- check
Vociferously defend SM marriage -- check
Vociferously defend pot's rights -- check
Dude, you have to start reading outside The Dish.
Whatever. We know who you read.
But we also know where your open-mind-for-everything-but-sanity is leading. And it's not far enough away from intervention-fever.
You seem to be having trouble sticking to the topic. You do revert to the ad hominems and over-politicization when that happens.
Convince me that Romney isn't a chicken-hawk. Come on. You can do it.
I'm not sure of the exact number but it was on the order of at least a million and resulted directly from funds denied to state/muni workers as had never been done before in a recovery.
It sounds like a stretch to say that the Tea Party was organized enough to affect hiring and firing in all 50 states. And if this was some sort of Federal action -- my first question is was this appropriate for Congress to address in the first instance?
Obama has created an unprecedented economic bubble in Washington, D.C. I'll give him that.
I'm going to make some shakshouka and see how well a job Chickie can do of convincing us that Mittens isn't a chicken-hawk by the time I get back.
I predict more noise about how bad it is to read people he doesn't approve of.
I have to go run an errand too, R&B. I'll check in later.
It sounds like a stretch to say that the Tea Party was organized enough to affect hiring and firing in all 50 states. And if this was some sort of Federal action -- my first question is was this appropriate for Congress to address in the first instance?
States and cities needed funds to keep a million laborers affected by recessionary budget shortfalls employed. And the GOP (T.P.-run or not) said no.
Ok.
HALF-TIME! it is, then. ;-)
HALF-TIME! it is, then. ;-)
Cue the half time entertainment!
All I saw in the article was the claim that all opportunities to have influence while influence was possible were ignored or unseen and that the result is an inflated situation where no good options exist.
I did not see Romney calling for the US to now undertake any of the all-bad options that are left to us because it's somehow our responsibility.
All of it was "nip it in the bud" participation, with international partners, on issues that have since blown up to unmanageable proportions.
This isn't claiming we ought to be in charge of things, or even that it's our responsibility... unless we're going with an isolationist policy (and honest, if honesty is possible, have you turned into an isolationist and are you condemning Obama for mucking about for no good results overseas, Ritmo?) it was nothing more than comments made under the assumption that we are expected to engage with the world.
I'm the first to argue that we should NOT try to cure the world's ills and I'm certainly not proposing any action (as even sanctions are pointless) related to the Crimea... because, at this point, what difference does it make.
That Obama seems to have BY POLICY made a show of leaving things until they become a crisis doesn't make him adverse, quite provably not adverse, to foreign adventuring and intervention. He LOVES him some of that sh*t.
But he lets it goes and mucks about and seems to view every situation as an island of actions that lead to nothing else... he can't imagine the long term results of appeasing Russia by crapping on Poland because he's a MORON. Not because he has some principle of not being a world Bully... because he's plenty happy to be a Bully... but maybe it lets him suck up to his psychophants and trick them into thinking that he's going hands-off on principle instead of obliviousness.
Reading into Romney's simple argument that the opportunity to influence world events happened Way Back There and is now gone forever is not, in any way but in a fevered fantasy world, a call for a greater level of control and involvement in other countries affairs.
If Obama was, in any way, proven to be reluctant to dictate to the world instead of simply SUCKING at it... Romney might be seen to be proposing more intervention.
He wasn't.
More than Ron Paul... sure... because Ron Paul is an isolationist fruit cake... but Obama is no Ron Paul.
Chick... imagine pom poms...
/half-time entertainment over.
All I saw in the article was the claim that all opportunities to have influence while influence…
But why need I even read further? Even if you long desperately, needingly so for influence short of military influence, you're still saying that what we should feel like having some control over in the world is more important than it really is.. to US.
I hate to break it to you, Syn. But newsflash. Bad shit will happen in the world. It will happen all the time. Sometimes there will be even good shit that takes a lot of bad shit to happen - revolutions for instance. (Just as wars claim lives so do revolutions). And then there will be just a lot of bad shit that looks bad but where the outcome is murky.
The question for you, as someone who cares so much about some kind of persuasive (but never coercive, right?) "influence", is, how much of what goes on in the world do we need to influence?
I thought Giuliani would have made a good President. Everyone would have ended up hating him but he would have put us on the right track.
I agree with Ritmo that there is a real movement to avoid foreign entanglements.
Of course I come to that from a Charles Lindbergh/Robert Taft kind of view.
Rand Paul is interesting to me. He is anti-interventionist on the foreign scene and free market in the domestic. He has a lot of interesting positions and he is not afraid to mix it up with the Democrats.
The question for you, as someone who cares so much about some kind of persuasive (but never coercive, right?) "influence", is, how much of what goes on in the world do we need to influence?
Influence is important.
Synova is right about Romney here. You seem to be conflating him with John McCain or something.
Yes! And also, think of how many tax cuts one less war could afford!
Influence is important.
I understand that part. My question was about something specific. Influence over what? How much or how little? How much of what the rest of the world does should it be allowed to to, without our say-so?
This influence-envy (which is really just a lesser form of "control") can become very unhealthy.
Synova is right about Romney here. You seem to be conflating him with John McCain or something.
But that's the thing. He seems to be doing a very fine job of that already all by himself. Just because he uses some slick legerdemain to leave unsaid how he wants this vague "influence" to accrue, doesn't make its expression any less dangerous. It makes it more dangerous because it inflates the sentiment without ever expressing its ends, let alone its means.
Yes, why aren't we World's Big Daddy anymore? Why don't all those kiddie countries listen to us anymore? Is it that our wallet is rather empty, or perhaps they're just too big to spank now.
Anyway, its a bummer - and I blame Obama. If only he was as smart as Mitt...sigh..It was such a thrill to be Big Daddy and tell Russia and a whole bunch of more obscure countries what to do. Why China used to stand up and bow when Big Daddy USA walked by, now, they just wave our I.O.U's in his face.
Sads.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Yes! And also, think of how many tax cuts one less war could afford!
Tax cuts haven't happened under a Dem Administration since JFK.
And wars are unpredictable. Only Reverend Wright and Ward Churchill correctly predicted 9/11.
I read somewhere that the most assigned book in high school is Howard Zinn's history of America. The Zinn book points out that all of our country's crimes and failures were the result of the greed and ambition of rich, white men. It follows from this that if we follow the leadership of someone who is not white and not rich, then we will behave morally and successfully......It has not worked out as planned. Perhaps if we tried a woman instead of a black man, the thesis will be proven correct.
And wars are unpredictable. Only Reverend Wright and Ward Churchill correctly predicted 9/11.
Lol. As did a guy named Osama bin Laden. Did you know he was giving interviews to 60 Minutes in the 90s outlining exactly what he wanted to do? I did. But then, back then there was some sensibly reported in-depth tv one could watch in order to get a sobering separation of issues of serious concern from issues of entertainment and suspense.
Mitt would've made a great Secretary of Commerce. Too bad he decided to run for President.
Sadly, voters don't give a damn how much the POTUS knows about the Fed Reserve, they assume they'll nominate people who do. They want a POTUS who connects with them and looks out for THEIR interests, and is will fight for THEM. Mitt always came off as the guy who fired your Dad and shipped his job overseas.
I wasn't surprised by 9/11 at all. Not because I thought there was anything "deserved" by it, but because I actually had bothered to be informed enough up until that point to have been familiar with what the guy carrying it out was up to and what he was all about.
"I read somewhere that the most assigned book in high school is Howard Zinn's history of America."
Zinn was a commie and his book is full of lies by omission, half-truths, and deliberate distortions.
He hated America because the USA let his family in the country and treated them well - those capitalist swine.
"Rand Paul is interesting to me."
I agree. Him and Cruz.
Shakshouka's good but you can't be afraid to take it out of the oven while the eggs are still runny.
If Chip blogs about this dish I would consider it the biggest olive branch ever. And not because anyone would be conceding anything. I'd consider it a display of strength, through greatness.
"He has a lot of interesting positions and he is not afraid to mix it up with the Democrats"
Yes, i love the way he stuck to Bill "I love sexual harassment" Clinton. Remember when Billy Bob Clinton had a trooper send up a girl up to his room so she could "kiss his pecker"?
Paul has made sure people don't forget that kind of war on women.
Well we are at a 100 or so comments and as far as I can see amongst all the angst for lack of machismo on the part of the US no one mentioned the Europeans. They don't want any part of Ukraine. They already have more corrupt economic basket cases than they can handle.
The US can hardly act unilaterally, since they are nominally acting in the interests of the Europeans, who view the Ukraine as a tar baby.
I think we can all agree that its great that Bill Clinton is not in charge. Judas Priest that Horndog could never be trusted on Foreign Policy always swinging from passivity to bombing and intervention without any justification. Maybe, it all depended on whether Billy Bob got a blow-job in the oval office that day.
Been a while since anyone's gone near your penis, rc?
Ritmo is bad faith.
Lapdogs, unite! Obama’s ‘team of merry manchildren’ mocks Romney Russia op-ed
manchildren. I'm so stealing that.
April is bad thought.
Post a Comment