We Tried To Warn You, Libs...

[Soggy in NOLA]

Hannity is an entertainer. He makes money off of being a carnival barker and tricking his gullable audience members.

Uh.. how does this drivel correlate to Obama's incompetence?

 

[rightwinger]

To parse the above, 'un-necessary" by some level of hind sight? Did most folks, most nations, virtually all politicians support it at the time?What does that do to your premise?

In answer to your question...no they didn't

While most of the world supported the invasion of Afghanistan as justified, the world was decidedly against the value of invading Iraq. Hence, such a sparse "Coalition of the willing"

Most Democrats also voted against the invasion

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many of you noticed that there really wasn't any substantive evidence supporting the contention that the world sees Obama as incompetent?

And keep in mind, the anti-Obama crowd offered us what as an alternative? Four more years of Bush via the doddering political chameleon I-never-said-I-was-a-maverick McCain...

...that's all you need to know about the wisdom of these armchair general Obama haters. They thought McCAIN was the answer! lolololol

I don't recall having claimed that you are dishonest, simply that we disagree on everything.

So it would be of more than passing interest if you would expand on your post as follows:
"there really wasn't any substantive evidence supporting the contention that the world sees Obama as incompetent."

Is this merely a speed-bump of a sticking point, designed to slow up the avalanche, a demand for further proof, beyond the article and your own experience, or do you actually disagree that President Obama has shown very little competence...?

Are you looking at a competent handling of the oil spill, economy, foreign policy, two war theatres, and vetting of numerous appointments?

Remember, this is not an Obama vs. Bush, as in "Four more years of Bush" defense. This is the job the President has done vs. an hypothetical President Obama who acted adroitly in the areas listed above, the premise being that there was ample warning prior to the election that this man is an inexperienced ideologue.


It is completely understandable if you choose not to answer.

I thought your thread was about how foreigners view Obama's foreign policy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many of you noticed that there really wasn't any substantive evidence supporting the contention that the world sees Obama as incompetent?

And keep in mind, the anti-Obama crowd offered us what as an alternative? Four more years of Bush via the doddering political chameleon I-never-said-I-was-a-maverick McCain...

...that's all you need to know about the wisdom of these armchair general Obama haters. They thought McCAIN was the answer! lolololol

I don't recall having claimed that you are dishonest, simply that we disagree on everything.

So it would be of more than passing interest if you would expand on your post as follows:
"there really wasn't any substantive evidence supporting the contention that the world sees Obama as incompetent."

Is this merely a speed-bump of a sticking point, designed to slow up the avalanche, a demand for further proof, beyond the article and your own experience, or do you actually disagree that President Obama has shown very little competence...?

Are you looking at a competent handling of the oil spill, economy, foreign policy, two war theatres, and vetting of numerous appointments?

Remember, this is not an Obama vs. Bush, as in "Four more years of Bush" defense. This is the job the President has done vs. an hypothetical President Obama who acted adroitly in the areas listed above, the premise being that there was ample warning prior to the election that this man is an inexperienced ideologue.


It is completely understandable if you choose not to answer.

I thought your thread was about how foreigners view Obama's foreign policy.

I understand your non-answer.

That's what I call adroit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How many of you noticed that there really wasn't any substantive evidence supporting the contention that the world sees Obama as incompetent?

And keep in mind, the anti-Obama crowd offered us what as an alternative? Four more years of Bush via the doddering political chameleon I-never-said-I-was-a-maverick McCain...

...that's all you need to know about the wisdom of these armchair general Obama haters. They thought McCAIN was the answer! lolololol

I don't recall having claimed that you are dishonest, simply that we disagree on everything.

So it would be of more than passing interest if you would expand on your post as follows:
"there really wasn't any substantive evidence supporting the contention that the world sees Obama as incompetent."

Is this merely a speed-bump of a sticking point, designed to slow up the avalanche, a demand for further proof, beyond the article and your own experience, or do you actually disagree that President Obama has shown very little competence...?

Are you looking at a competent handling of the oil spill, economy, foreign policy, two war theatres, and vetting of numerous appointments?

Remember, this is not an Obama vs. Bush, as in "Four more years of Bush" defense. This is the job the President has done vs. an hypothetical President Obama who acted adroitly in the areas listed above, the premise being that there was ample warning prior to the election that this man is an inexperienced ideologue.


It is completely understandable if you choose not to answer.

To some Obama has acted adroitly and to aver he is an "inexperienced ideologue" is utter bull shit. It is doubtful no other president met with an enemy so determined that he fail, or was handed a nation as divided as it was and remains, though President Lincoln does come to mind. The enemy of course was the R party, banished for incompetence in foregin and domestic affairs in two elections, the R's and their fellow travellers, needed Obama to fail and worked tirelessly in that effort.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is nice example of how phoney Zuckerman is. In the OP he tries to exemplify Obama's foreign policy 'incompetence' over not getting 2 countries to agree to a UN resolution.

When did the UN become important to Zuckerman? Apparently sometime since 2003, when he said the following:

We cannot be put in a position of having our security decided by the U.N. Security Council, some of whose members merely vote to serve their own national commercial interests, while others just blindly hope for the best.

Mortimer B. Zuckerman: Midnight for Baghdad - US News and World Report

So Zuckerman's argument, in summary, is as follows:

Obama is incompetent because he couldn't get 2 countries to vote with him, 2 countries in the irrelevant UN, composed of self serving countries,

that we shouldn't pay attention to in the first place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't recall having claimed that you are dishonest, simply that we disagree on everything.

So it would be of more than passing interest if you would expand on your post as follows:
"there really wasn't any substantive evidence supporting the contention that the world sees Obama as incompetent."

Is this merely a speed-bump of a sticking point, designed to slow up the avalanche, a demand for further proof, beyond the article and your own experience, or do you actually disagree that President Obama has shown very little competence...?

Are you looking at a competent handling of the oil spill, economy, foreign policy, two war theatres, and vetting of numerous appointments?

Remember, this is not an Obama vs. Bush, as in "Four more years of Bush" defense. This is the job the President has done vs. an hypothetical President Obama who acted adroitly in the areas listed above, the premise being that there was ample warning prior to the election that this man is an inexperienced ideologue.


It is completely understandable if you choose not to answer.

I thought your thread was about how foreigners view Obama's foreign policy.

I understand your non-answer.

That's what I call adroit.

I said there's no substantive evidence in your man Zuckerman's opinion piece that supports his assertions. A lot of anonymous hearsay.

And France's president disagreed with him somewhere along the line; is that a standard of measure now for whether or not a president has a competent foreign policy - whether or not the French approve of it?

That's an answerable question. So answer it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Hannity is an entertainer. He makes money off of being a carnival barker and tricking his gullable audience members.

Uh.. how does this drivel correlate to Obama's incompetence?

It doesn't. It was a diversion from the OP.

I know. Shocking that such a thing would happen here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To parse the above, 'un-necessary" by some level of hind sight? Did most folks, most nations, virtually all politicians support it at the time?What does that do to your premise?

In answer to your question...no they didn't

While most of the world supported the invasion of Afghanistan as justified, the world was decidedly against the value of invading Iraq. Hence, such a sparse "Coalition of the willing"

Most Democrats also voted against the invasion

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I must say that you are correct, as more nations were opposed than in favor...I was basing the post on UN 1441.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I thought your thread was about how foreigners view Obama's foreign policy.

I understand your non-answer.

That's what I call adroit.

I said there's no substantive evidence in your man Zuckerman's opinion piece that supports his assertions. A lot of anonymous hearsay.

And France's president disagreed with him somewhere along the line; is that a standard of measure now for whether or not a president has a competent foreign policy - whether or not the French approve of it?

That's an answerable question. So answer it.

Ah, ah, ah...I see you peeking out...but answer what you wish.

 

[geauxtohell]

Just like the Democratic party which uses a primary system to determine who will run, so does the Republican and just like the democrats the incumbent almost ALWAYS wins.

In 2004 Bush had no chance. No one was happy with him but he won the Primary as expected. No one expected him to win reelection though. Until you dimbulbs and morons selected Kerry. The ONE guy in your stable that was dumber and more disliked then Bush. Kerry was so bad that Independents once again cast their vote with Bush.

Of course he won the primary. He was uncontested. Furthermore, let's not be silly here. To act like the GOP was less than enthusiastic about W.'s re-election in '04 is silly.

I also agree that it's virtually impossible for an incumbent president to lose (which is why I find the talk of Obama being "doomed" in 2012 to be really funny). However, the DEMs had a chance in '04. Not because the GOP wasn't happy with Bush, but because the independents weren't. I also completely agree that if one single person could screw up against Bush it would be Kerry. I think he's a good Senator and an honorable man (that's my opinion, so no need to debate it further), but he's a terrible politician.

John Kerry would actually walk across a room to find a foot to stick in his own mouth.

So basically we agree. However, let's not act like the GOP was going to vote for anyone but Bush.

The Democrats LOST in 2004, Bush did not win. You dumb fucks screwed up a sure win by being so dense and stupid you actually picked the one guy that people disliked more then Bush.

Look in the mirror, YOU liberals are why Bush had 8 years in office. You took a sure thing and gave it away. Dean was more electable then Kerry. You managed to dreg the bottom of the barrel and pull out a real loser and you lost a sure win.

When you start whining about Bush pull yourself to your mirror, look in it and see one of the people responsible for Bush having 8 years.

Again, I don't disagree completely with you. Though, I think it's asinine to foist the disaster that was George Bush on Democratic ineptitude.

I think Dean might have been able to win, but it would have been a long shot. In the end, He was much more valuable as the DNC chairman who went on to stomp mudholes in the GOP in multiple elections.

 

[geauxtohell]

To parse the above, 'un-necessary" by some level of hind sight? Did most folks, most nations, virtually all politicians support it at the time?What does that do to your premise?

In answer to your question...no they didn't

While most of the world supported the invasion of Afghanistan as justified, the world was decidedly against the value of invading Iraq. Hence, such a sparse "Coalition of the willing"

Most Democrats also voted against the invasion

Tough to keep it honest in here sometimes.

Oh and on the subject of honesty:

A guy flipping the camera off is obscene.

Tens of thousands of innocent civilians dead as a direct result of our foreign policy is not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I understand your non-answer.

That's what I call adroit.

I said there's no substantive evidence in your man Zuckerman's opinion piece that supports his assertions. A lot of anonymous hearsay.

And France's president disagreed with him somewhere along the line; is that a standard of measure now for whether or not a president has a competent foreign policy - whether or not the French approve of it?

That's an answerable question. So answer it.

Ah, ah, ah...I see you peeking out...but answer what you wish.

Is that a yes, a no, or a non-answer?

 

[geauxtohell]

This is nice example of how phoney Zuckerman is. In the OP he tries to exemplify Obama's foreign policy 'incompetence' over not getting 2 countries to agree to a UN resolution.

When did the UN become important to Zuckerman? Apparently sometime since 2003, when he said the following:

We cannot be put in a position of having our security decided by the U.N. Security Council, some of whose members merely vote to serve their own national commercial interests, while others just blindly hope for the best.

Mortimer B. Zuckerman: Midnight for Baghdad - US News and World Report

So Zuckerman's argument, in summary, is as follows:

Obama is incompetent because he couldn't get 2 countries to vote with him, 2 countries in the irrelevant UN, composed of self serving countries,

that we shouldn't pay attention to in the first place.

Yet another newsman in an ivory tower that thought Iraq was a good idea.

Tell me again why anything this motherfucker says is taken for a grain of salt?

Oh, I said "motherfucker". How offensive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The elegant stupidity of this thread is borne out in the fact that, ironically, the AMERICAN PEOPLE give the president his highest marks, favorable by good margins across the board,

on how he's handling foreign policy.

Obama Administration Just scroll down through and look for the foreign policy numbers.

So, deranged as the anti-Obamist's are in their desperation to find SOME angle, any angle, to negatively portray the president on foreign policy, they turn to some vague hodge-podge of foreign opinion, never quite elucidated, that supposedly justifies a proclamation of Obama's foreign policy incompetence.

Imagine if you will a Republican president who was getting widespread approval from the AMERICAN PEOPLE in his handling of foreign policy, then imagine some liberal coming in and posting some article claiming that foreigners didn't think much of that Republican president...

 

[geauxtohell]

The elegant stupidity of this thread is borne out in the fact that, ironically, the AMERICAN PEOPLE give the president his highest marks, favorable by good margins across the board,

on how he's handling foreign policy.

Obama Administration Just scroll down through and look for the foreign policy numbers.

So, deranged as the anti-Obamist's are in their desperation to find SOME angle, any angle, to negatively portray the president on foreign policy, they turn to some vague hodge-podge of foreign opinion, never quite elucidated, that supposedly justifies a proclamation of Obama's foreign policy incompetence.

Imagine if you will a Republican president who was getting widespread approval from the AMERICAN PEOPLE in his handling of foreign policy, then imagine some liberal coming in and posting some article claiming that foreigners didn't think much of that Republican president...

Well, if elections were decided by Mort Zuckerman, Obama would be in big, big trouble.

And the US would most likely have invaded Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Kuwait and Sudan by now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is the first line:

President Obama came into office as the heir to a great foreign policy legacy enjoyed by every recent U.S. president.

What?!

Does someone really have to spell it out for you?

Not being George W. Bush while apologizing for America's purported sins is not a foreign policy.

Ronald Reagan came into office with the idea of rolling back the Soviet Union. Reagan hoped that such an evil empire might collapse from its inability to match a newly confident United States.


George H.W. Bush sought to oversee a peaceful dissolution of the Soviet empire, the reunification of Germany and a new Western-led world order that thugs such as Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein could not disrupt.


Bill Clinton pushed Western-inspired liberal globalization to lift the Third World out of poverty.


After 9/11, George W. Bush sought to keep America safe from another round of Islamic terrorism while promoting Middle East constitutional government as a way of weakening Islamic terrorism.

RealClearPolitics - 'I'm Not George Bush' is Not a Foreign Policy

 

[geauxtohell]

This is the first line:

President Obama came into office as the heir to a great foreign policy legacy enjoyed by every recent U.S. president.

What?!

Does someone really have to spell it out for you?

I think you might be the one who missed the point which is this:

The opinion of anyone who would lead with that sentence is highly suspect.

 

[Jack Fate]

Does anyone else agreee with this logic......

Since BO is continuing Bush's wars and Bush has been called a war criminal by the far left, does that mean BO is also a war criminal?

 

[rdean]

Seriously, does the right "practice" stupid? What other possible explanation could it be?

90 percent express confidence in Obama and U.S. policy in Germany, 87 percent in France, 84 percent in Britain and 69 percent in Spain. European countries also gave Obama high marks on handling two issues of importance to Europe -- climate change and the economic crisis.

Poll: Obama remains popular abroad - UPI.com

Out of the entire world, two very similar groups give Obama low marks. Very similar.

Group one: American Conservatives

Group two: Muslim Conservatives

Two very similar groups. Isn't that a hoot?

An even bigger "hoot"? American conservatives accuse Obama of BEING a "Muslim". Could they be any more ridiculous. The American right deserves only derision and disgust, no respect.