Former Obama Advisor: Our Foreign Policy is a Mess — Especially in the Middle East

reply to post by flice

Yeah yeah yeah, its Bush's fault. You know he has big shoulders, he can handle it, because evidently the democrats can't or won't handle it. Who does the Pope blame for his problems? The one before him? That was a joke made where both the President and Romney were present. The President was being roasted, literally! Even the President got up and roasted himself. A Catholic fundraiser event.
Is this how we ive our lives? When we have a problem do we blame it on a fellow collegue, or do we take responsibility. It is time for this president to take responsibility for his time in office. If he isn't willing to what the heck is he doing there in the first place. The "empty chair" comes to mind. We wouldn't be able to get away with this in our job/business. Why should the President.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Although I have defended the Obama administration regarding the scuttlebutt surrounding the Benghazi attack, and feels the right-wingers, Obama haters and GOP faithful just want to use this as a pretext/excuse/reason to vote for Romney, I agree that Obama's foreign policy -- hell, his domestic policy for that matter -- have been no great shakes, I am quite confident Romney is would be far worse, to wit: the way he handled himself on his trip overseas this summer, and his professed joined-at-the-hip-with-Israel sentiments.

But back to the OP, yes, Obama's foreign policy has been a mixed bag at best, and he hasn't focused on many parts of the world. I do think this has in no small part to do with his choice of Secretary of State Bilary. Her choice as SoS was clearly a political calculation to win the presidency. She was a sitting senator and should have stayed there. I also didn't think she would make for a good SoS -- nor for a good president for that matter. I really hope that if Obama gets re-elected he 86's her or at least move her to a different cabinet position.

That said, I don't think we've had a competent SoS since James Baker in Bush I's administration. And I am no fan of Bush I or the Republicans, but Baker was an effective SoS, and the US hasn't had once since. Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright, Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice were all clowns of one sort or another, and none should have been SoS. The person who should've been SoS for Obama was William Hollbrook, but he was passed over for Bilary and he has since died.

I'd make Noam Chomsky SoS and start an era of moral and sensible foreign policy. No doubt the right-wingers will just say I am madder and more un-American than even Obama for suggesting this appointment, but for Americans who want a sensible and moral foreign policy not tied to corporate interests, with person of intellect and knowledge behind it, Chomsky would be the person to fit the bill.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Yea, I just read about this, posted it somewhere as well, anyone who has been following the events in the middle-east has got to admit it is a mess, and yes Obama helped create this problem.

I would not say Obama helped create the problems in the ME, but he clearly has not helped the situation at all. Our problems in the ME were started long ago with our constant interventions and meddling.

Originally posted by jimmyx

open a history book...the middle east has been a mess for decades...now, Obama created this problem...right...sure he did.....everything in the world that goes wrong, Obama helped create

You are right of course...the proper rhetoric is "Bush is responsible for it."

You know, there are no other Chief Executive jobs around (unless Uncle Harry owns the Company), where for four years you just keep blaming the former CEO for everything that is wrong with the Company...you don't turn the Company around (in fact you take it much farther into debt)...

...and then when your contract comes up for renewal, you expect to get an extension...while still blaming the guy who had the job four years ago...and still not offering anything new that is going to get the results turned around.

Sorry, but Obama has failed as Chief Economic Officer of the USA...he has failed as Commander in Chief...the Country is more divided, and discouraged - and much poorer - than when he entered office.

If you are a fan of the United States "leading from behind" (which is another way of saying the USA is going to take a back seat to other nations), and of losing its economic and political edge (which is another way of saying the USA will quickly become a second-tier power), if you are a fan of Food Stamps and Poverty and the "Nanny State"...then Barrack is your man.

If he is re-elected...mark my words...in two years he will still be saying that he can't get anything done because of "the economic mess" he inherited in 2008...he will still be whining about an "obstructionist" Congress...he will still be standing on the sidelines watching other Nations fill the power gap he has left for them.

Will Romney be any better? Well, that is certainly open to debate.

However, what is very clear is that Obama is not up to the job (unless the job is all about smiling, waving and spouting the words "hope"). He has had 4 years to put some substance behind the speechifying, and he hasn't done it.

Obama needs to be fired.

Do people on here still believe the POTUS gets to decide policy... on anything?

The like sof Obama, and Bush before him (and others) are nothing more than front men for the big money and power elite. Sure, they are portrayed as being "in charge" but are simply not and do as they are told by the real powers pulling the strings. To them, a few dead citizens along the way, or a few thousand, or tens of thousands of foreigners mean nothing if it fits with their aims and agendas.

Simply blaming Obama, or Bush before him is indicative of how well the polarisation campaigns of the media really work, when in fact it doesn't matter who is in the big seat representing the two big parties, as long as business as usual is maintained.