Rebutting Critics, Obama Seeks Higher Bar for Military Action

[Stephanie]

poor dear leader, he couldn't just Allow these kid to graduate without HIM hitting back at his critics. We don't have a leader we have a narcissistic man/child in charge of protecting us
it's always about HIM

SNIP:

WASHINGTON — As President Obama listens to assessments of his foreign policy these days, he grows deeply frustrated. Syria? Ukraine? Afghanistan? What more do his critics want him to do? Get into another war? Keep fighting one that has already become America’s longest?

After more than five years in office, Mr. Obama has become increasingly convinced that while the United States must play a vital role beyond its borders, it should avoid getting dragged into the quicksand of international crises that have trapped some of his predecessors. It is time for an end to what he called “a long season of war.”




To his critics, mainly on the right but also some on the left, this is a prescription for passivity, an abrogation of decades of bipartisan leadership on the world stage. Stung and irritated, Mr. Obama used his commencement address to West Point cadets on Wednesday to mount a sustained rebuttal and to define an approach to foreign policy that he believes is suited to a new era and that he hopes will outlast his presidency.

ALL of this Obama cultish whine at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/u...s-higher-bar-for-military-action.html?hp&_r=1

 

[rdean]

Ever notice how the GOP solution is to threaten and drop bombs? They love the big "boom" so much, they aren't even aware it doesn't work.

 

[Edgetho]

Ever notice how the GOP solution is to threaten and drop bombs? They love the big "boom" so much, they aren't even aware it doesn't work.

Yes it does work, douche.

Every time.

Just ask your political forebears, the National Socialists, if the big 'boom' works.

moron

 

[Stephanie]

well, if you Obama followers want to just sit there and lets other's drop bombs on you, have at it

Too bad your aren't a Majority in this country who does want that

 

[Sallow]

poor dear leader, he couldn't just Allow these kid to graduate without HIM hitting back at his critics. We don't have a leader we have a narcissistic man/child in charge of protecting us
it's always about HIM

SNIP:

WASHINGTON — As President Obama listens to assessments of his foreign policy these days, he grows deeply frustrated. Syria? Ukraine? Afghanistan? What more do his critics want him to do? Get into another war? Keep fighting one that has already become America’s longest?

After more than five years in office, Mr. Obama has become increasingly convinced that while the United States must play a vital role beyond its borders, it should avoid getting dragged into the quicksand of international crises that have trapped some of his predecessors. It is time for an end to what he called “a long season of war.”




To his critics, mainly on the right but also some on the left, this is a prescription for passivity, an abrogation of decades of bipartisan leadership on the world stage. Stung and irritated, Mr. Obama used his commencement address to West Point cadets on Wednesday to mount a sustained rebuttal and to define an approach to foreign policy that he believes is suited to a new era and that he hopes will outlast his presidency.

ALL of this Obama cultish whine at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/u...s-higher-bar-for-military-action.html?hp&_r=1

This was an entirely appropriate occasion to clarify his position on intervention as he was talking to future military leaders.

Additionally this doctrine was more in keeping with the vision of the founders and rolled back the extremely radical and dangerous "Bush Doctrine" which dictates first strike, military action on perceived threats (real or not).

 

[Edgetho]

Obama receives standing ovation from less than 25% of West Point cadets - Washington Times

the Daily Mail reported.

Obama insists US must lead the world by example | Mail Online

“Receiving tepid applause and a short standing ovation from less than one-quarter of the audience upon his introduction, Obama argued for a contradictory foreign policy that relies on NATO and the United Nations while insisting that ‘America must always lead on the world stage,’ the paper reported.

They should have turned their backs on the scumbag

 

[Sallow]

well, if you Obama followers want to just sit there and lets other's drop bombs on you, have at it

Too bad your aren't a Majority in this country who does want that

Actually, the majority of the country doesn't want another Iraq. Which is one of the reasons President Obama won 2 terms.

 

[Edgetho]

poor dear leader, he couldn't just Allow these kid to graduate without HIM hitting back at his critics. We don't have a leader we have a narcissistic man/child in charge of protecting us
it's always about HIM

SNIP:

WASHINGTON — As President Obama listens to assessments of his foreign policy these days, he grows deeply frustrated. Syria? Ukraine? Afghanistan? What more do his critics want him to do? Get into another war? Keep fighting one that has already become America’s longest?

After more than five years in office, Mr. Obama has become increasingly convinced that while the United States must play a vital role beyond its borders, it should avoid getting dragged into the quicksand of international crises that have trapped some of his predecessors. It is time for an end to what he called “a long season of war.”




To his critics, mainly on the right but also some on the left, this is a prescription for passivity, an abrogation of decades of bipartisan leadership on the world stage. Stung and irritated, Mr. Obama used his commencement address to West Point cadets on Wednesday to mount a sustained rebuttal and to define an approach to foreign policy that he believes is suited to a new era and that he hopes will outlast his presidency.

ALL of this Obama cultish whine at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/u...s-higher-bar-for-military-action.html?hp&_r=1

This was an entirely appropriate occasion to clarify his position on intervention as he was talking to future military leaders.

Additionally this doctrine was more in keeping with the vision of the founders and rolled back the extremely radical and dangerous "Bush Doctrine" which dictates first strike, military action on perceived threats (real or not).

The Founders opinion on Isolationism changed at almost exactly the same time as the War of 1812.

That War wasn't about a minor disagreement with Britain, it was about the 2nd Revolutionary War. Britain was trying to re-conquer us. But, you wouldn't know that. You're a dimocrap, aka; Stupid.

Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

How about the Barbary War?

How about when Congress authorized the raiding of slave traffickers off the Coast of Africa?

How about when we invaded Greece in 1825 looking for Pirates?

How about in 1831 when we invaded the Falkland Islands and burnt one of their towns to the ground?

How about when we invaded Sumatra in 1838?

How about when we attacked Fiji in 1840 for fucking with our Shipping?

In 1841 we attacked Samoa and burned a Village to the ground for murdering an American Sailor.

Here, there's about a 100 more at this site

Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You people are just stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here are Reagan's rules for military intervention, formulated after his blunder in Beirut:

Reagan Rule 1: The United States should not commit its forces to military actions overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

Reagan Rule 2: If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

Reagan Rule 3: Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)

Reagan Rule 4: Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.


Where is the above so different than Obama's 'rules'?

 

[Iceweasel]

The problem is that Obama's decision making skills are limited to community activism and blaming everyone else for the consequences.

 

[Katzndogz]

oama's disappointing address outlining his reliance on international norms to direct our foreign policy will not outlast his regime. The cadets knew this which is why the bloviating was met with a tepid response.

obama did it again. He took THEIR graduation and made it all about him. What a pitiful excuse he is. He's just sooooo abused. He'll tell it to the world. Every day.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Obama receives standing ovation from less than 25% of West Point cadets - Washington Times

the Daily Mail reported.

Obama insists US must lead the world by example | Mail Online

“Receiving tepid applause and a short standing ovation from less than one-quarter of the audience upon his introduction, Obama argued for a contradictory foreign policy that relies on NATO and the United Nations while insisting that ‘America must always lead on the world stage,’ the paper reported.

They should have turned their backs on the scumbag

This would have been acceptable....and hilarious.
snopes.com: Crossed Fingers