Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More at the sourceAs American foreign policy continues its long string of failures—not a series of singles and doubles, as President Obama asserted in a recent news conference, but rather season upon season of fouls and strikes—the question becomes: Why?
Why does the Economist magazine put a tethered eagle on its cover, with the plaintive question, "What would America fight for?" Why do Washington Post columnists sympathetic to the administration write pieces like one last week headlined, "Obama tends to create his own foreign policy headaches"?
The administration would respond with complaints, some legitimate, about the difficulties of an intractable world. Then there are claims, more difficult to support, of steadily accumulating of minor successes; and whinges about the legacy of the Bush administration, gone but never forgotten in the collective memory of the National Security Council staff.
More dispassionate observers might pick out misjudgments about opportunities (the bewitching chimera of an Israeli-Palestinian peace, or the risible Russian reset), excessively hopeful misunderstandings of threats (al Qaeda, we were once told, is on the verge of strategic defeat), and a constipated decision-making apparatus centered in a White House often at war with the State and Defense departments.
There is a further explanation. Clues may be found in the president's selfie with the attractive Danish prime minister at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in December; in State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki in March cheerily holding up a sign with the Twitter TWTR -0.41% hashtag #UnitedForUkraine while giving a thumbs up; or Michelle Obama looking glum last week, holding up another Twitter sign: #BringBackOurGirls. It can be found in the president's petulance in recently saying that if you do not support his (in)action in Ukraine you must want to go to war with Russia—when there are plenty of potentially effective steps available that stop well short of violence. It can be heard in the former NSC spokesman, Thomas Vietor, responding on May 1 to a question on Fox News about the deaths of an American ambassador and three other Americans with the line, "Dude, this was like two years ago."
Often, members of the Obama administration speak and, worse, think and act, like a bunch of teenagers. When officials roll their eyes at Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea with the line that this is "19th-century behavior," the tone is not that different from a disdainful remark about a hairstyle being "so 1980s." When administration members find themselves judged not on utopian aspirations or the purity of their motives—from offering "hope and change" to stopping global warming—but on their actual accomplishments, they turn sulky. As teenagers will, they throw a few taunts (the president last month said the GOP was offering economic policies that amount to a "stinkburger" or a "meanwich") and stomp off, refusing to exchange a civil word with those of opposing views.
In a searing memoir published in January, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates describes with disdain the trash talk about the Bush administration that characterized meetings in the Obama White House. Like self-obsessed teenagers, the staffers and their superiors seemed to forget that there were other people in the room who might take offense, or merely see the world differently. Teenagers expect to be judged by intentions and promise instead of by accomplishment, and their style can be encouraged by irresponsible adults (see: the Nobel Prize committee) who give awards for perkiness and promise rather than achievement.
My first clue?Eliot Cohen nails the administration's character in today's WSJ. We knew there was something wrong here. Now we know. The president is 16 years old.
More at the sourceAs American foreign policy continues its long string of failuresnot a series of singles and doubles, as President Obama asserted in a recent news conference, but rather season upon season of fouls and strikesthe question becomes: Why?
Why does the Economist magazine put a tethered eagle on its cover, with the plaintive question, "What would America fight for?" Why do Washington Post columnists sympathetic to the administration write pieces like one last week headlined, "Obama tends to create his own foreign policy headaches"?
The administration would respond with complaints, some legitimate, about the difficulties of an intractable world. Then there are claims, more difficult to support, of steadily accumulating of minor successes; and whinges about the legacy of the Bush administration, gone but never forgotten in the collective memory of the National Security Council staff.
More dispassionate observers might pick out misjudgments about opportunities (the bewitching chimera of an Israeli-Palestinian peace, or the risible Russian reset), excessively hopeful misunderstandings of threats (al Qaeda, we were once told, is on the verge of strategic defeat), and a constipated decision-making apparatus centered in a White House often at war with the State and Defense departments.
There is a further explanation. Clues may be found in the president's selfie with the attractive Danish prime minister at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in December; in State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki in March cheerily holding up a sign with the Twitter TWTR -0.41% hashtag #UnitedForUkraine while giving a thumbs up; or Michelle Obama looking glum last week, holding up another Twitter sign: #BringBackOurGirls. It can be found in the president's petulance in recently saying that if you do not support his (in)action in Ukraine you must want to go to war with Russiawhen there are plenty of potentially effective steps available that stop well short of violence. It can be heard in the former NSC spokesman, Thomas Vietor, responding on May 1 to a question on Fox News about the deaths of an American ambassador and three other Americans with the line, "Dude, this was like two years ago."
Often, members of the Obama administration speak and, worse, think and act, like a bunch of teenagers. When officials roll their eyes at Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea with the line that this is "19th-century behavior," the tone is not that different from a disdainful remark about a hairstyle being "so 1980s." When administration members find themselves judged not on utopian aspirations or the purity of their motivesfrom offering "hope and change" to stopping global warmingbut on their actual accomplishments, they turn sulky. As teenagers will, they throw a few taunts (the president last month said the GOP was offering economic policies that amount to a "stinkburger" or a "meanwich") and stomp off, refusing to exchange a civil word with those of opposing views.
In a searing memoir published in January, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates describes with disdain the trash talk about the Bush administration that characterized meetings in the Obama White House. Like self-obsessed teenagers, the staffers and their superiors seemed to forget that there were other people in the room who might take offense, or merely see the world differently. Teenagers expect to be judged by intentions and promise instead of by accomplishment, and their style can be encouraged by irresponsible adults (see: the Nobel Prize committee) who give awards for perkiness and promise rather than achievement.
I'm waiting for the usual "But the Republicans" response.
I'm waiting for the usual "But the Republicans" response.
Embracing social media won the election and millennial voters for Obama.
So much so the republicans are trying to duplicate the tactic with Facebook, Twitter et al.
So yeah, the republicans are doing it too to reach out to the youth. It's just not working. Rich old white men don't use those venues.
I'm waiting for the usual "But the Republicans" response.
Embracing social media won the election and millennial voters for Obama.
So much so the republicans are trying to duplicate the tactic with Facebook, Twitter et al.
So yeah, the republicans are doing it too to reach out to the youth. It's just not working. Rich old white men don't use those venues.
I think it's excellent that the OP and others like him do not want the Conservatives to step into the 21st century.I'm waiting for the usual "But the Republicans" response.
Embracing social media won the election and millennial voters for Obama.
So much so the republicans are trying to duplicate the tactic with Facebook, Twitter et al.
So yeah, the republicans are doing it too to reach out to the youth. It's just not working. Rich old white men don't use those venues.
I'm waiting for the usual "But the Republicans" response.
Embracing social media won the election and millennial voters for Obama.
So much so the republicans are trying to duplicate the tactic with Facebook, Twitter et al.
So yeah, the republicans are doing it too to reach out to the youth. It's just not working. Rich old white men don't use those venues.
I'm waiting for the usual "But the Republicans" response.
Embracing social media won the election and millennial voters for Obama.
So much so the republicans are trying to duplicate the tactic with Facebook, Twitter et al.
So yeah, the republicans are doing it too to reach out to the youth. It's just not working. Rich old white men don't use those venues.
"More at the source", without a source.
Good job, Republican.
The sheer arrogance, propensity to serial lie, and behind it all a dedication to big govt - in fact a desire to install a totalitarian govt - is what makes these people so dangerous. They remind me of the Borg in their relentlessness.The intolerance for opposing views, the self-centeredness, the belief in your own rightness and invincibility, the inability to take responsibility for failure. Yup. I have two kids aged 21 and 19. While they were never like that, some of their friends sure exhibited those traits in the earlier teen years.
Ladies and Gentlmen, we have elected the least mature president and gotten the least mature administration in history. It is like the Deltas have taken over government.
I'm a white woman and not rich. I know many more like me. Hell will FREEZE OVER SOLID before any of us will ever vote for a democrat.I'm waiting for the usual "But the Republicans" response.
Embracing social media won the election and millennial voters for Obama.
So much so the republicans are trying to duplicate the tactic with Facebook, Twitter et al.
So yeah, the republicans are doing it too to reach out to the youth. It's just not working. Rich old white men don't use those venues.
"More at the source", without a source.
Good job, Republican.
And you wonder why I call dimocrap scum STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS.
Take another look at the OP, moron.
See something in there about the WSJ?
Ever heard of them? You know, the BIGGEST NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA?
Probably not. You are THAT stupid.
Now, make sure you report this and make sure you tell the Mods how they're unqualified to do their jobs because you don't approve of being called stupid when you clearly are
