February 24, 2011

Remember when Sarah Palin was asked "What is the Bush Doctrine?"

It was a painful, embarrassing episode for her. Here's a question for producing new gotcha moments for selected politicians: What is the Obama Doctrine?

243 comments:

1 – 200 of 243   Newer›   Newest»
Kev said...

(the other kev)

Trick question. 'Doctrine' implies policy, thought and principles.

verification -'nospina'. Oddly appropriate.

Alex said...

It's HORRIBLE that Sarah Palin couldn't easily answer a trick question about the "Bush Doctrine". but the Obama Doctrine which is to appease dictators is GREAT.

Paddy O said...

"What is the Obama Doctrine?"

Obama.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshal said...

By Any Means Necessary.

The Crack Emcee said...

Remember when Sarah Palin was asked "What is the Bush Doctrine?" It was a painful, embarrassing episode for her.

Yea, continually showing she's smarter than everyone else has to be trying.

Not as trying as everyone else lying about it, but it's got to be tough.

PaulV said...

Which Bush doctrine? There were several.

Alex said...

Crack - there's putting lipstick on that pig...

hawkeyedjb said...

"Punish your enemies."

If they're other Americans.

shoutingthomas said...

The Obama doctrine:

Tell our friends to fuck off, kiss the ass of our enemies.

Brilliant in its simplicity.

Julius said...

Considering that Obama as Commander-in-Chief has used psy ops to manipulate Congressional leadership, maybe the Obama Doctrine is that Obama can do whatever the fuck he wants, legal or not, moral or not.

With liberals interpreting the Bush Doctrine as effectively saying Bush can do whatever he wants, legal or not, this is just the next logical step.

franglo said...

"the Obama Doctrine which is to appease dictators"

By letting them get overthrown? I don't get it.

Why do conservatives always want the American military to kill people? "If it ain't killin', it's appeasement." What are you, Lord Sauron? And spending money is always bad, unless it's for killing.

The existence of a doctrine sure did Bush and the world a lot of good. Nothing like self-imposed ideological rigidity to cope with a rapidly changing world.

PaulV said...

Alex, you mean Obama uses lipstick?
Crack beat me by a minute. He beat you by 2+ years.

bagoh20 said...

The Obama Doctrine?

I won!
I'm present!
Let's wait and see who wins?
Vote for me!

Jay said...

What is the Obama Doctrine?

Um, uh, "present"

kent said...

What is the Obama Doctrine?

"God damn America!"

Jay said...

The existence of a doctrine sure did Bush and the world a lot of good.

Actually, it did.

Remember when you silly ignorants were bashing Bush for not having "a plan" to stabilize Iraq? Would you like me to post quotes from your favorite Democratic politicians saying that?

Nothing like self-imposed ideological rigidity to cope with a rapidly changing world.


Beyond parody.

Kev said...

(the other kev)

Okay, franglo, here's an easy one: name one international relationship that is better now than when Bush was President. Not generic, name specific states.

Scott M said...

name one international relationship that is better now than when Bush was President.

Britain. It's Britain, right? Surely, it's Britain.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

"Nothing like self-imposed ideological rigidity to cope with a rapidly changing world."

Obama says: Let's wait and see who wins.

Then we can demonstrate our commitment to our shared principles.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

Then we can demonstrate our commitment to our shared positions

There. Fixed.

traditionalguy said...

In 2001 Bush had stated in a speech that any nation giving sanctuary to terrorists would immediately be treated by the USA military as a terrorist. Bush later varied that by going to the US Congress and to the UN for resolutions before attacking anywhere. Obama has always exercised a right to remain silent on that procedural issue, and NO ONE questions him. In 2008 Palin exercised her right to get an explanation of an interview question on Bush's foreign policy about something, and she was teased as a dunce for not guessing what the questioner meant.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

The Obama Doctrine: As leader of the free world no decision will be made before first factoring in the political fallout and how it directly affects the Commander in Chief, moi.

You know, I won.

Andrea said...

"Why do conservatives always want the American military to kill people?"

Um, because that's what the military is for?

peter hoh said...

Wait, wait. Don't tell me.

bagoh20 said...

I think eponymous "The Obama Doctrine" tells you exactly what it is.

Trooper York said...

The Obama Doctrine:

Heads "I won"
Tails "You lose."

Ben (The Tiger in Exile) said...

I think Palin nailed the Obama Doctrine on Facebook.

An "enemy-centric" foreign policy.

The Czechs can coin a phrase.

Phil 3:14 said...

Obama doctrine:

I'm not George Bush

madawaskan said...

OK so it looks like Obama doesn't have a policy-let me play devil's advocate-at least unlike Egypt-he's no longer prognosticating.

So there's that...

Who the hell do we have as statesmen?

Hillary- but really what are her qualifications?

And Richard Holbrooke is dead.

Who does Obama have again?

Robert Cook said...

The Obama Doctrine:

A rebranding and continuation of the Bush Doctrine: War, torture, murder, and rendering unto the wealthy that which they demand.

bagoh20 said...

Hey, this is fun! I may vote for him just for the laughs, but the tip jar is bottomless.

Trooper York said...

Robert Cook is a lefty with integrity.

I salute you my friend.

Robert Cook said...

"The Obama Doctrine: As leader of the free world no decision will be made before first factoring in the political fallout and how it directly affects the Commander in Chief, moi."

No points; this is the primary doctrine of every President.

pbAndj said...

Kev,

To answer your question you'd need to (at least annually) poll leaders in all of these countries.

Here is how the populations have changed their view of America.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Nothing like self-imposed ideological rigidity to cope with a rapidly changing world.


Is that kind of like standing outside the state house and demanding the taxpayers fund your pension and health insurance benefits?

Jay said...

Here is how the populations have changed their view of America.


Laugh out loud funny.

So um, a person in France has a "postive view" of Obama.

That benefits America because ____?

Alex said...

Tell the 4410 grieving families that the Iraq War was a great idea...

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"No points; this is the primary doctrine of every President."

True that, but never in broad daylight.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Here is how the populations have changed their view of America.


Yep:

Publics of other largely Muslim countries continue to hold overwhelmingly negative views of the U.S.

In other words, guilty white liberals of the world rejoice that an "articulate and clean" black man is elected President. Meanwhile, those who want to destroy America, want to do so even more.

Profit!

madawaskan said...

Go look up Tom Donilon's wiki.

See if your hands don't break out in a cold sweat.

Obama has left Obama in charge of foreign policy.

matt_manner said...

"Here is how the populations have changed their view of America."

Right, because the fundamental underpinning of American foreign policy is to have foreigners have a favorable opinion of us.

Thanks, Sally Field.

former law student said...

Where the people lead, the leaders will follow.

Real American said...

Equivocate during a crisis + Appease our enemies and insult our allies.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Tell the 4410 grieving families that the Iraq War was a great idea...


Tell the grieving families of the 88,000 Americans killed or wounded in the Battle of the Bulge or the families of the 12,000 Union troops killed at Antietam or the 12,600 dead at Fredricksburg…..That’s a silly game to play Alex.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Robert Cook said No points; this is the primary doctrine of every President.

I don't get you Robert. You obviously have an extremely low opinion of the United States. You insist everything we have done in the past was evil or at best, misguided. We're currently a regime of murder and torture. Every President has a doctrine of enriching himself and you have said in the past the American electorate is consistently misinformed. You appear to be quite genuine in your feelings so I take you at your word.

For the life of me I cannot fathom how you can bear to live in such a wretched hive of scum and villany and aren't on a fast plane to Switzerland or some other tolerable habitat.

I mean if I felt as strongly as you do my conscience would not allow me to live here.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That’s a silly game to play Alex.

That's because Alex just plays games.

former law student said...

a fast plane to Switzerland

Switzerland embodies many American ideals, most notably defending itself via the militia. Every able bodied man 18 to 45 (or so) is part of the Swiss military force. Officers can be older. Every Swiss military man has his assault rifle handy at home, and must practice. Shooting competitions with this rifle, held all over the country, include teenagers too young to serve.

J said...

Obama Doctrine?

Sort of the GOldman Sachs Doctrine. Hardly radical leftist, except to the Tweekbagger rightists.

And who cares what Ms Palin knows. She's got a hotsexxay voice. Hi Misstur SARKOZeeeee!

traditionalguy said...

One Obama Doctrine stated succinctly by Rahm is "Never let a crisis go to waste." Obama's double secret Doctrine is to always do all that it takes to undo what England and her independent North American Colonies achieved during the past 200 years...such as aiding the restoration of Jewish political authority over Jerusalem after a mere 1940 years. Obama plans to rule Jerusalem himself using a UN Peace Plan he imposes to aid Israel during the coming invasion of Israel by Iran and allies. Gaddafi has probably told Obama that he will help him, and Obama sees that as real friendship.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


For the life of me I cannot fathom how you can bear to live in such a wretched hive of scum and villany and aren't on a fast plane to Switzerland or some other tolerable habitat.


All the Imperial Storm Troopers on the Street Corners looking for ‘droids is a drag….and the Organized Crime has to be SEEN to be believed…though the metallic bikinis are nice this time of year.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Publics of other largely Muslim countries continue to hold overwhelmingly negative views of the U.S.

Which is interesting considering that that hate us for 'supporting' a dictator like Mubarak and hate us for 'toppling' a dicator like Saddam Hussein. If there is a tsunami in Indonesisa or an earthquake in Pakistan, the US military is johnny on the spot providing humanitarian aid and in return we're hated.

We're hated for 'stealing' their resources at $100 a barrel yet would be hated if we ran our cars on Crisco and they were starved for revenue.

We're hated for backing Mubarak and hated for opposing Ghadaffi.

I guess you just can't please some people.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Switzerland embodies many American ideals, most notably defending itself via the militia.

Militias are frowned upon in the US. They tend to draw the attention of the FBI.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Although, I would cheerfully support re-instating the Neutrality Act and withdrawing every single overseas serviceman. That's a Swiss ideal I can get behind.

Roux said...

I am.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Although, I would cheerfully support re-instating the Neutrality Act and withdrawing every single overseas serviceman. That's a Swiss ideal I can get behind.


Because that kept us out of World War II so successfully…oh wait. Sorry about the snark.

lemondog said...

O Doctrine Happy Talk

Everybody sing:

Happy talk, keep talking happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do,
You gotta have a dream, if you don't have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

Talk about a moon floating in de sky looking like a lily on a lake,
Talk about a bird learning how to flyMaking all the music he can make
Happy talk, keep talking' happy talk,Talk about things you'd like to do,
You gotta have a dream, if you don't have a dream,How you gonna have a dream come true?

hawkeyedjb said...

"For the life of me I cannot fathom how you can bear to live in such a wretched hive of scum and villany and aren't on a fast plane to Switzerland or some other tolerable habitat."

Switzerland isn't big enough to take all the Americans who feel that way.

Or stupid enough.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian said...

What are the alternatives to Switzerland? How about Canada? Or are they too militaristic, since they support the mission in Afghanistan also?

South Africa is a possibility now, since they have ended apartheid. Or Brazil? Japan? South Korea? Are there any other countries without sin?

Trooper York said...

Well Wisconsin is just like Switzerland.

The only thing they got is their cheese. Just sayn'

Hoosier Daddy said...

Because that kept us out of World War II so successfully…oh wait. Sorry about the snark.

I didn't say it would keep us out of war. If Japan decided to make a play for Pearl Harbor again we would obviously retaliate. On the other hand, if the NORKs decide to invade the ROK, I can't see any reason why our folks should be sacrificed. If Russia decided to make a play for Eastern Europe, I don't see why we should have to play the overwhelming role of defender. I mean especially when we're criticized for spending sooo much more on our military than everyone else combined.

EDH said...

You don't have to be Peter Ironrails to be curious enough to want to ask Palin "what is the Bush Doctrine?"

Hoosier Daddy said...

Are there any other countries without sin?

I think if they are but are reflexively anti-American they can be considered absolved in the mind of the left.

Chip Ahoy said...

The annually surveyed opinion of world leaders about the US. Ha ha ha ha ha.That's the best joke I heard all week.

Fancy, I've had many many MANY foreigners tell me in precise terms what the they think of the US, each one an expert in their own mind, but not a single one ever asked me what I think of them. A good thing too because they wouldn't get the answer they'd care to have.

Amartel said...

Um (all purpose summary of Obama Doctrine)

Present (Obama Doctrine re: all issues not interesting to Obama)

We are the One/I won/One voice (Obama Doctrine re: Other People)

Can I finish my waffle? (Obama Doctrine re: interrupting Obama)

Typical white person (Obama Doctrine re: White People)

Bitterclinger (Obama Doctrine re: People Who Don't Vote for Obama)

Never let a crisis go to waste (Obama Doctrine re: Events Helpful to Obama)

Let me be clear (Obama Doctrine re: Saying Things)

Threaten to bring gun to knife fight but then remember that Second Amendment clearly does not allow Americans to own guns so bring lawyer instead (Obama Doctrine on the Constitution)

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


On the other hand, if the NORKs decide to invade the ROK, I can't see any reason why our folks should be sacrificed. If Russia decided to make a play for Eastern Europe, I don't see why we should have to play the overwhelming role of defender.


So the East Asian Rim nations aren’t important to the US? And IF Poland falls, again, the US should not be concerned about a European Hegemony be established, be it Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or Putin?

RJ said...

The Obama Doctrine: No worse friend, no weaker enemy

edutcher said...

The Obama Doctrine?

What else?

Vote "present".

franglo said...

"the Obama Doctrine which is to appease dictators"

By letting them get overthrown? I don't get it.


Of course not. It should be, "the Obama Doctrine which is to appease America's enemies."

Why do conservatives always want the American military to kill people?

Only America's enemies, whom franglo regards as the salt of the Earth, just like The Zero.

Doug Wright said...

Exactly right that Obama has only one doctrine, appeasement: Appeasing Socialist dictators and Muslim dictators.

However, there were several Bush doctrines, including defending this country.

But, the MSM has only one doctrine too: Defend Socialists everywhere and attack anyone who supports this country.

Cheers.

Christopher said...

Cookie doesn't leave AmeriKKKa because he is, at heart, a typical parlor Bolshie. He'll damn the US to the high heavens, but wouldn't dare dream of denying himself the pleasures of living here.

"Fuck you, America! But gimme my bennies!" Cook's nothing more than your typical leftist writ large.

Erik said...

Yes, indeed, there is an Obama Doctrine, and it is clear to the naked eye what it is in the eyes of the Apologizer-in-Chief.

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2009/09/barack-obamas-dangerously-naive-foreign.html

"Should the United States indeed go that route [appeasement of Vladimir Putin's Russia], it will make plain to all the emerging 'Obama Doctrine' with its three ominous characteristics" wrote Frank Gaffney a year and a half ago:

* Abandoning our allies,

* emboldening our enemies,

* and diminishing our country

AJ Lynch said...

So far, his doctrine is "I was surprised to learn it is hard to change stuff I don't like [i.e Gitmo, wiretaps, etc] and I should have had a viable alternative before I opposed it. Thankfully the media ignores how naive I was and is reporting that I am pragmatic and practical. If I was George Bush they'd be calling me dumb and asking me to apologize and admit my mistakes.

Beldar said...

The reason the question to Palin was unfair is that there were several times that the popular press announced a new "Bush Doctrine." But Charlie Gibson only had one of those in mind, and seemed ignorant of all other possibilities.

Initially it was "If you're a rogue state supporting terrorism, we're going to treat you as a terrorist." That was right after 9/11, in his joint address to a joint session of Congress and the American people on September 20, 2001. (I'd give you the link, but the asshats who run the whitehouse.gov website in the Obama Administration have taken it down, at least from its original URL.)

Then in the 2002 State of the Union address, Bush announced that we would confront confront "grave and gathering dangers" preemptively, and that the U.S. would not "not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." He elaborated on this at an address at West Point and then again in the 2003 State of the Union address as we were about to invade Iraq.

But others will insist -- with considerable evidence -- that the "real" Bush Doctrine involves bringing democracy and the benefits of globalization to oppressed peoples. That's certainly, for example, the focus of the 2006 National Security Strategy, and of the continuing debate between the "nationbuilders" and the "global realists."

So Gibson's question to Palin was fundamentally, fatally flawed and unfair.

However, ANY of those "Bush Doctrines" is far more coherent than ANYTHING Obama has said or done. Indeed, the only coherence in Obama's foreign policy at all are in areas (Iraq & Afghanistan) where he's generally continued doing what Bush was doing.

Scott M said...

I was surprised to learn it is hard to change stuff I don't like

His admission about "shovel ready" along with "saved or created x million jobs" was pretty much all the proof necessary to paint our nation was in the very best of hands. I haven't seen much to alter that perception (or reality).

Scott M said...

paint = show that

I have no idea how that happened, lol

John said...

Hey Joe?

It was FDRs violations of the neutrality act:

Supplying arms to Britain

Bombing from planes and firing from ships on German subs.

Invasion of Iceland

Etc...

That got the Germans to declare war on us.

Had we truly stayed neutral, we would never have become involved in the European side of WWII.

But FDR wanted us in and kept violating our neutrality, and violating it until Germany finally declared war on us in Dec 41.

John Henry

Beldar said...

I've got the whole quote from the interview and links in a post I wrote contemporaneously in 2008.

It should have been Gibson who was subjected to national ridicule. When he tried to amplify on what he thought the "Bush Doctrine" was, he conflated at least two different "doctrines."

Prof. Althouse, by repeating the conventional wisdom that this was an embarrassment for Palin, you're unfortunately reinforcing the media's misleading narrative from the time. Or do you still buy into that? Or are you still waffling?

Paul said...

"Doctrine? What's that word 'doctrine'", Obama asked.

cubanbob said...

" former law student said...
a fast plane to Switzerland

Switzerland embodies many American ideals, most notably defending itself via the militia. Every able bodied man 18 to 45 (or so) is part of the Swiss military force. Officers can be older. Every Swiss military man has his assault rifle handy at home, and must practice. Shooting competitions with this rifle, held all over the country, include teenagers too young to serve.

2/24/11 12:39 PM

It also has the great virtue of being a safe place to keep your money and a government that won't debase the currency unlike the present group of corrupt communist incompetents.

Fred said...

Isn't that for Charlie Gibson to decide?

AJ Lynch said...

Scott:

I agree. That was the real petulant Obama on display. In so many words, he was whining "but everyone knows the only thing shovel-ready that comes out of DC are speeches".

MayBee said...

This is how Obama has defined his doctrine [wiki]:

The President replied that "the United States remains the most powerful, wealthiest nation on Earth, but we're only one nation, and that the problems that we confront, whether it's drug cartels, climate change, terrorism, you name it, can't be solved just by one country."[20] In addition, President Obama expressed a desire for the United States to seek friendship with all, harkening back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Good Neighbor Policy." "I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations," he said. "There is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values."

Translation: "It's not my job"

(I would say he broke with the no senior partner/junior partner portion in his lectures to Mubarak)

pumping-irony said...

What's the Obama doctrine? "Obama Uber Alles." I thought that was obvious by now.

Scott M said...

Had we truly stayed neutral, we would never have become involved in the European side of WWII.

Patently false. The Axis powers declared that an attack on any of them was an attack on all of them in 1940. In 1941, Japan attacked the US.

Even if, as you say, we would have been truly neutral in all the ways you cite, on April 18th, 1942 (or 19th, in a pre-internet world, lol), Germany and Italy would have declared war on us for Doolittle's raid.

deborah said...

I think Eli Lake's just-preelection article in TNR, about his prediction of a probable Obama foreign policy, regards terrorism, has proven prescient:

"Last November at a foreign policy forum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Obama said there may be "40,000 hard-core jihadists with whom we can't negotiate." He went on. "Our job is to incapacitate them, to kill them." In that spirit, he famously announced that he would strike terrorist bases in Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf ever refuses to move on actionable intelligence against Al Qaeda--a threat that earned him the chastisement of John McCain, among others."

TNR

It's an interesting article that hearkens back to Reagan's advisors and the philosphy behind the Contra situation.

I think Obama has a neoliberal, wilsonian, neocon outlook that moves us closer to a one world governance, which is more or less inevitalble.

turtle said...

Hate your friends, kiss up to your enemies, show both petty belligerence and weakness at the same time,

Yup it's Jimmy Carter all over again.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So the East Asian Rim nations aren’t important to the US? And IF Poland falls, again, the US should not be concerned about a European Hegemony be established, be it Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or Putin?

My thinking is that welfare and soverignty of the East Asian rim nations is more important to those nations than it is to us. Same with Europe.

Look at it this way. The US is roundly criticized (by our 'allies') for spending more on the military than all nations combined. If there is a credible concern that a Hitler part deux or Putin will launch another Euro conquest then my suggestion is those nations beef up their defense a tad beyond 1% of GDP. If they aren't willing to do so I don't see why we should for them and be mocked for it to boot.

Mr. Buford said...

Obama Doctrine: Well, enough about wonderful ol' me; why don't you tell me more about wonderful ol' me.

Paul Hogue said...

That's not fair. At least President Bush had made the attempt to articulate some sort of doctrinal statement regards foreign policy and terrorism.

Obama hasn't even attempted such...

The Ghost said...

I had no idea what "the Bush Doctrine" was, either; I thought it meant the proactive spreading of democracy through military invasion and undermining hostile regimes. The phrase largely disappeared in 2003, until wossisname brought it out to whack Palin with it.

I feel for Palin and think she'd be a fine president (the smoke signaling that passes for intellect in the salons of power is greatly overrated, see: Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan), but I wouldn't vote for her in a primary. It doesn't matter if the narrative of her shortcomings is true or not; media narratives make themselves true. A human being can prove intelligence, but not a lack of stupidity (for example, no one could have intelligently answered the Bush Doctrine question, because whichever definition she used, the media would have called it wrong). She is, essentially, a piece knocked off the board. It's unseemly the way some conservatives cry over it.

LakeLevel said...

The Obama Doctrine:

The U.S. is too wealthy and strong: do whatever it takes to knock it down a few pegs.

by the way, the Bush Doctrine appears to be working quite well: Establish a democracy in muslim middle eastern country and it will become peaceful and self sustaining and a good example for other peoples in the mid-east.

of course that's not Curric version, but who says the left wing media gets to define the Bush Doctrine

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


But FDR wanted us in and kept violating our neutrality, and violating it until Germany finally declared war on us in Dec 41.


You make that sound like a BAD thing….Unless you happen to like a world that includes Hitler in Europe and Stalin in the Rump USSR, I don’t find it bad that FDR “got us involved”…of course that whole Crypto Jew thing MAY be tripping me up!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


My thinking is that welfare and soverignty of the East Asian rim nations is more important to those nations than it is to us. Same with Europe.


That’s as may be, I assume the importance of maintaining the sovereignty of Poland, in 1939, was of MORE IMPORTANCE to Poland than Britain or France, but sadly Poland lacked the capacity to deal with the threat……

Hoosier Daddy said...

Patently false. The Axis powers declared that an attack on any of them was an attack on all of them in 1940. In 1941, Japan attacked the US.

Even if, as you say, we would have been truly neutral in all the ways you cite, on April 18th, 1942 (or 19th, in a pre-internet world, lol), Germany and Italy would have declared war on us for Doolittle's raid.


Possibly not. Hitler wasn't exactly pleased finding out second hand about Pearl Harbor. Then again, Japan didn't reciprocate by declaring war on the USSR in June 1941. Evidently their non-agression pact with the USSR took precedence over the Axis Pact.

My argument for neutrality is simply to avoid obvious entanglements that we really don't need to be in. Again, if the ROK or Europe feel their security is in peril then its incumbant upon them to deal with it. Not rely on the US and then bitch about what an international bully we are.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That’s as may be, I assume the importance of maintaining the sovereignty of Poland, in 1939, was of MORE IMPORTANCE to Poland than Britain or France, but sadly Poland lacked the capacity to deal with the threat……

Well they had a rock solid mutual defense alliance with France and Britain. What they lacked were allies that would honor said alliance.

Again, my issue is why it falls on the US to be the safeguard of liberty for Europe or Asia so they can spend the majority of their GDP on cradle to grave social programs? THAT is my issue, that and the inherent ingratitude that seems to go hand in hand with any assitance we provide.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Well they had a rock solid mutual defense alliance with France and Britain. What they lacked were allies that would honor said alliance.


They DID “honour the alliance” what they didn’t do was ATTACK GERMANY, but they declared war, and by declaring war set in motion the train of events that culminated in the Fuhrer bunker in April 1945…..

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





Had the US backed Britain, and in turn allowing Britain to back France, the whole war might have been averted after the Rhineland advance, or at the First Munich Crisis, it was America’s Neutrality that allowed the war to become so large in the end….

Scott M said...

Again, my issue is why it falls on the US to be the safeguard of liberty for Europe or Asia so they can spend the majority of their GDP on cradle to grave social programs?

A member of my extended family (all of us have served, with quite a few making it a career) has been stationed in Europe or ROK since the mid-seventies. Having said that, I have no idea why we need to maintain a military presence in Europe anymore. I believe a much better argument can be made for ROK, but we need to close/mothball the Europe points and redeploy.

Roger J. said...

IIRC there was no "Bush Doctrine." Dr Krautheimer wrote about a collection of ab out 20 Bush policies and labelled that the Bush Doctrine. Mr Gibson is of course a ignorant ass and cannot presumed to be able to pour piss out of his boot. So his question to Ms Palin is monumental in its stupidity.

As for Mr Obama--as many suggested his qualification for office (a brief stint in the US Senate) portended a disaster in foreign policy which seems to have happened.

As many posters have alluded, what ever happens in Mr Obama's world is always filtered thru the prism of "what is in it for me)

A shame, really, because with a coherent foreign policy Mr Obama MIGHT have had an impact--in the reality, Mr Obama's ignorance and self absorbtion has vitiated any decent outcome.

The man is a narcissistic ignoramus--the sooner he is gone from the national stage the better the United States will be.

Scott M said...

A shame, really, because with a coherent foreign policy Mr Obama MIGHT have had an impact

Might have had? Are you suggesting, sir, that President Obama's Nobel Peace prize is meaningless?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


I have no idea why we need to maintain a military presence in Europe anymore.


1) To tell Putin we still CARE about Western Europe and he might be well-advised to remember that; and
2) As a forward base/training/logistics area for our deployments in North Africa and the Middle East. The troops and the gear are thousands of kilometres closer than from CONUS.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


A shame, really, because with a coherent foreign policy Mr Obama MIGHT have had an impact


Hitler, Daladier, Chamberlain, President Buchanan all had an IMPACT, you make the assumption that to make an “impact” means to make a POSITIVE impact….Obama and Carter before him, had an IMPACT, just a deleterious one.

Scott M said...

Joe....have you seen the balance sheet lately? Don't give me the "it's more expensive to start up and fight a war in Europe". Frankly, that risk is one of the least of our problems.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Had the US backed Britain, and in turn allowing Britain to back France, the whole war might have been averted after the Rhineland advance, or at the First Munich Crisis, it was America’s Neutrality that allowed the war to become so large in the end….

Joe

In 1936 Poland had a better equipped and larger army than the US. I'm not sure our 'backing Britain or France' the two pre-eminent military powers in Europe to enforce the treaty they insisted on would mean much. Sorry but to argue that our neutrality allowed Hitler to run roughshod over Versailles is a bit of a reach.

desisk said...

Obama is an internationalist with little commitment to the USA, and a strong desire to be the leader of a New World Order. For this reason he is trying to strengthen the UN; to curry favor with the Muslim nations that dominate the UN; and to please the members of the UB Security Council. His bait for this position is the demolition of the US economy via strangulation of energy production and massive debt, the sacrifice of Israel, disparaging US allies, and creating treaties that favor America's enemies. I know of no other way to consistently explain is performance: The Obama Doctrine is to catapult Obama into the leadership of a (UN based) world government.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I believe a much better argument can be made for ROK,

I agree an argument can be made for it and in the case of the ROK, they at least are ponying up when it comes to providing for their own defense; that is, actually having a credible military force capable of withstanding a NORK invasion.

Hoosier Daddy said...

To tell Putin we still CARE about Western Europe and he might be well-advised to remember that;

Putin was bogged down in Chechnya for years. I douby Holy Mother Russia has the ability to get past Ukraine let alone Poland.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Joe....have you seen the balance sheet lately? Don't give me the "it's more expensive to start up and fight a war in Europe". Frankly, that risk is one of the least of our problems.


Ok, but it IS. We’ve been here before and in the end the cost was high, “Penny-wise, Pound foolish”

As to those who say Poland, Britain, and France yada yada…all I can tell you is that the British requested those assurances in the 1930’s…when they were NOT forthcoming Britain would not act to oppose Hitler….the rest is history. It wasn’t the size of the Army, but the fact that the US represented about 50% of the WORLD’S WAR-MAKING CAPACITY….Germany about 10%, Britain about 10% and France. Had the US and it’s tremendous CAPACITY to make war been firmly aligned with Britain Germany would have backed down and Hitler, most likely, deposed by the Wehrmacht

Roger J. said...

Joe--you are absolutely correct-you can make an impact by doing something or you can make an impact by doing nothing

good point

Scott M said...

In 1936 Poland had a better equipped and larger army than the US.

I'm persuadable on this, but highly skeptical. I had just finished a book on pre-war readiness before WWI and WWII (WWI was more interesting) so I'll have to check on that.

What are you using to measure this claim?

Louise said...

Obama Doctrine: America, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

John said...

Scott M said"

The Axis powers declared that an attack on any of them was an attack on all of them in 1940.


Well, yes they did. Though if you go back and read the treaty I think you are referring to (as I have) there was plenty of room for Germany to ignore it even if the US had attacked Japan. You might also read Germany's declaration of war against the US.(As I have)

Scott M also said

"In 1941, Japan attacked the US."


Do you read what you type? First you say that the treaty was if Japan was attacked. Then you say that it applied if Japan attacked someone else.

If you look, you will find that there was no obligation, not even a vague one, for Germany to come to Japan's aid it it attacked another country.

Go back to 10th grade history class. Sounds like you need to retake it. Perhaps also a 5th grade class on logic.

John Henry

Jeremy said...

Pretty easy to define: Negotiation versus confrontation.

For those of you who forget the Bush years.

Scott M said...

Go back to 10th grade history class. Sounds like you need to retake it. Perhaps also a 5th grade class on logic.

Wow, John. I'd say you'd better re-read the whole comment before you hurl insults like that. Give it another whack and let me know what you come up with.

Jeremy said...

Alex - "It's HORRIBLE that Sarah Palin couldn't easily answer a trick question about the "Bush Doctrine"."

It was a "trick" question?

Was the question regarding what she reads also one of those "tricky" thingies, too?

You're an idiot.

Jeremy said...

Crack Head - "Yea, continually showing she's smarter than everyone else has to be trying."

You mean, according to Charles Krauthammer.

Duh.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


In 1936 Poland had a better equipped and larger army than the US.

I'm persuadable on this, but highly skeptical.



Don’t be it’s true, the US fielded about 180,00 troops, Regular Army…had NO modern medium tanks, a few MK VIII Tanks, a few Renault FT-37’s, and a number of light “combat cars” for the cavalry…no modern air force to speak of…the one thing we had was a Navy, not that useful in a Polono-German War….

The US Army/Navy?US Army Air Corps/Marines had some great IDEAS and some great DESIGNS, but no real modern capacity or weapons…I believe the USS Army as still organized in the “Square Division” from World War One.

Poland had more troops, more artillery, and even if it had no greater armour capacity or air capacity, though it is arguable it had a decent air capability, for its needs…it still fielded more combat power than the US, simply by virtue of its larger army.

John said...

I forget who said it, Joe? but I do think that FDR getting us involved in WWII-E was a bad thing.

I think that Woodrow Wilson getting us involved in WWI was an even worse thing.

We had no dog in either fight.

If you want to defend getting into WWII-E, on grounds that the National Socialists were bad people who murdered 12 million in their camps, then you must agree that we were right to go into Iraq.

That we should have gone to war with the Soviets to take out Stalin.

That we should have gone to war in the 50's to take out Mao and stop the killing.

That we should have gone into Rwanda and gotten involved in the Hutu/Tutsi war.

And so on.

No, we had no business fighting on European soil. We could easily have stayed out of both WWI and II-E.

We should have

John Henry

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


For those of you who forget the Bush years.


Funny I don’t recall Bin Laden offering to NEGOTIATE, I remember 3,000 dead folks, but mayhap I’m just old and forgetful….

Jeremy said...

Louise "Obama Doctrine: America, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye."

We were attacked on 9/11 under Bush's watch.

We started two wars under Bush's watch.

The economy collapsed under Bush's watch.

You need to read more and post teabagger drivel less.

Roger J. said...

Jeremy--in the world of foreign policy, confrontation is a form of negotiation--Please tell us what negotiations Mr Obama has been privy to that have resulted in good foreign policy outcomes for the US.

Jeremy said...

Joe "Funny I don’t recall Bin Laden offering to NEGOTIATE, I remember 3,000 dead folks, but mayhap I’m just old and forgetful…."

No, he didn't.

But he did attack us while Bush was handling things.

Have you also forgotten the daily briefings warning of such an attack?

Remember whose desk it landed on?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


but I do think that FDR getting us involved in WWII-E was a bad thing.

I think that Woodrow Wilson getting us involved in WWI was an even worse thing.

We had no dog in either fight.

If you want to defend getting into WWII-E, on grounds that the National Socialists were bad people who murdered 12 million in their camps, then you must agree that we were right to go into Iraq.

That we should have gone to war with the Soviets to take out Stalin.

That we should have gone to war in the 50's to take out Mao and stop the killing.

That we should have gone into Rwanda and gotten involved in the Hutu/Tutsi war.

And so on.

No, we had no business fighting on European soil. We could easily have stayed out of both WWI and II-E.

We should have



Thank you Pat Buchanan…and the fact that the Nazi’s desired WORLD DOMINATION should mean nothing…and with the power of Europe and the USSR they could have achieved it.

Let’s have your little Pat Buchanan/Lew Rockwell world, in it there is Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo AND Mao…and d@mned little room for Freedom or Liberty….I’m sorry you’re an idiot if you believe this.

Roger J. said...

Jeremy--I made the mistake of trying to debate you yesterday assuming you were interested in debate--as it turns out your only interest is disruption so you can go back to your home room and describe how you fuck things up for people who actually might like to engage in debate--you are a worthless little asshole. And no, little man--I do not want to suck your dick--you dont have one.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


No, he didn't.

But he did attack us while Bush was handling things.

Have you also forgotten the daily briefings warning of such an attack?

Remember whose desk it landed on?



Jeremy you get smacked around EVERY time you try this…gee Khobar Towers, East Africa, the FIRST WTC Bombings, the USS Cole or did yo forget those and then the “warning”…*WOW* Bin Laden was planning to attack the US…that’s is sure some actionable intelligence.

You can trot this turkey out as often as you want but I’ll just throw the facts back at you, again, and again…

Brad said...

On the other hand, if the NORKs decide to invade the ROK, I can't see any reason why our folks should be sacrificed. If Russia decided to make a play for Eastern Europe, I don't see why we should have to play the overwhelming role of defender.

Ever think our presence there is why they haven't attacked?

cubanbob said...

The Obama Doctrine: "It's Bush's fault.' A broken clock is right twice a day and the Obama Administration has yet to reach that level of accuracy.

Jeremy said...

Roger J. "Jeremy--in the world of foreign policy, confrontation is a form of negotiation--Please tell us what negotiations Mr Obama has been privy to that have resulted in good foreign policy outcomes for the US."

Well, I guess I'll have to give the president a call and ask....(I think he tries to keep such matters private when possible)...but I do know one thing for sure, just as YOu do..

Bush created a massive fiasco by invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11...while ignoring the real terrorist leader who planned the entire affair. We've lost 1,000's of American lives, 1,000's of innocent civilian lives, over 33,000 wounded, who will need care for decades into the future...and to top things off, he left us mired down in two countries, with billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars being wasted while we at home struggle with a poor economy.

And here you are, evidently imolying that you would rather have a leader who uses "confrontation" versus one who does what he or she can to negotiate and coexist with the rest of the world?

And what is it with many here; continuing at every turn, to defend George W. Bush and his adminstration?

Do you not read newspapers, books or periodicals relating to his handling of our country's affairs?

I find it dumbfounding that so many continue to denigrate our present president, who has been in office for 1/4 the time of his predecessor, while lavishing praise on one of the worst ever.

Jeremy said...

Joe, with the exception of the towers in 1993, all were attacks that did not occur on American soil. (And Clinton rounded up and prosecuted the people behind the towers act...right?)

And can I assume you forgot about that little thing under Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan's watch? You know that 250 Marine thingie?

Defending Bush makes you look even dumber than I think you are...and that takes some doing.

Roger J. said...

Jeremy--no more discussion with you. you arent even worth denigrating. A troll whose only exercise is disruption. fuck off and die little man--

Ut said...

"What is the Obama Doctrine?"

That's easy.

The Obama Doctrine:

Every once in a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody. Get in their faces. I want you people mad. Punch them twice as hard. Punish your enemies. Take their shit. Give their stuff as a reward to your friends.

Michael said...

Jeremy: How does that "negotiation versus confrontation" DOCTRINE work in Libya? More talk? Less talk? Less listen? More Listen?

No do.

Jeremy said...

Roger, I answered your questions.

I'm not here to win friends and influence people like you...who says he wants to discuss and debate, but is really just carrying more water for the rest of the local far right "gang."

If you don't like, or can't provide a reasonable or understandable rebuttal to what I say...don't respond.

Just stick to what you and most of the others do best; suck up and agree.

Jeremy said...

Michael, do you think we should attack Libya?

Jeremy said...

Roger - Geeeee, does this mean we're not going to be friends?

You're just another teabagger interested in one thing only; denigrating our president and sucking up to The Queen and her loyal sycophant subjects.

Well, you're going to have about 6 more years of Mr. Obama...to howl, and whine, and bitch, so get used to it.

AntiCitizenOne said...

Obama (foreign Policy) Doctrine:
Piss off American Allies.
Kowtow to Americas Enemies.

Michael said...

Jeremy: I asked you a question. The answer to that question is not whether or not I would attack Libya. Can you explain the efficacy of the "Negotiation not Confrontation" DOCTRINE that Obama embraces? With respect to the situation in Libya? If you cannot then we all understand that you too do not know what The Obama Doctrine is.

Jeremy said...

AntiCitizenOne "Obama (foreign Policy) Doctrine: Piss off American Allies. Kowtow to Americas Enemies.

WOW...so original.

Did you just make that one up?

Geeeee...

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Jeremy: How does that "negotiation versus confrontation" DOCTRINE work in Libya? More talk? Less talk? Less listen? More Listen?"

Right now, I would have to assume the right courwe would be to keep a relatively low profile...you know, while there are Americans still in Libya...and considering the fact that you and I have no idea what is being done or said in the back channels of government...right?

And when have I ever said or intimated that "confrontation" is off the table?
Obama takes flack every day of the week for overusing drone attacks...correct?
Do you also feel he should back off?

What do YOU suggest we do in Libya...right at this moment in time?

M. Simon said...

Cut and Run.

WV: trotsi - Actually Trot No. I haven't been a Trot for decades. But maybe it was a reference to Obama.

Michael said...

Jeremy: When you wrote that "Pretty easy to define: Negotiation versus confrontation.

For those of you who forget the Bush years."

a careful reader would conclude that you favor negotiation over confrontation and in bringing in the hateful Bush the reader would further conclude that confrontation would not be an arrow in your quiver.

PETER V. BELLA said...

The Obama Doctrine:

Ah, eh, er, ah, heh, eh, ah, er

Michael said...

Jeremy: What would I do? I would rely on a president who was able to articulate what we as a country ought to do. We do not have such a president.

Absent that leadership I personally would recall that the leader of Libya has had two significant scares over the last two decades. Once, American planes bombed a building in which Gaddifi was supposed to be hiding. The bombs killed one of his sons and drove Gaddiffi into hiding and, some say, insanity. Item two. When we captured and killed Saddam Hussein Gaddiffi volunteered to surrender his nuclear program to the West.

One could conclude that he is afraid of being killed. I would kill him. If I failed to kill him I would rally those who would not.

That, Jeremy, is what I would do.

PETER V. BELLA said...

The Obama Doctrine is the Teleprompter Doctrine. Whatever the teleprompter tells him to do he does.

Scott M said...

Forgetting, always, that a word against the way the current administration does things is not ipso facto praise for the previous. Nowhere, apparently, is there room for questioning "shovel ready" and "x millions of jobs saved or created" types of statements on their face. They, apparently, must exist within a realm of A vs B, when that clearly not the case.

PETER V. BELLA said...

The Obama Doctrine:

1.) America is not exceptional

2.) America owes the world an apology for its existence.

3.) Patriotism is not love of country. Patriotism is paying taxes.

4.) Our enemies should be embraced and loved just like our allies (the ones we have left).

5.) I won. You lost. I will do what I want. Who cares about what the people want.

6.) Socialize, socialize, socialize.

7.) Business is evil even though they should give me money.

8.) Banks are evil, but they better give me money.

9.) Wall Street is evil, but they better give me big money or I will shut them down.

10.) Jobs? Who cares about jobs? There is a government to expand.

Jeremy said...

Michael, for once, someone has read me right.

Yes, I would certainly support negotiation over confrontation...as would damn near every president in our nation's history.

Are you saying you believe otherwise?

Jim Treacher said...

Why do conservatives always want the American military to kill people?

Why do liberals always want the American military to lose?

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Jeremy: What would I do? I would rely on a president who was able to articulate what we as a country ought to do. We do not have such a president."

Well, you pretty much lost me with that little nugget.

But please, tell me exactly where and when we should start the bombing mission you apparently feel is the best course of action. Are you saying we should bomb Tripoli right now...to scare Gaddiffi into doing what?

He's apparently already leaving so what would be the purpose...other than of course, to show that our president would like to prove that he's willing to "confront" versus negotiate a more peaceful solution?

And how would you explain this strategy to those who are killed?

All you're doing is whining about literally anything Obama does or does not do.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"Well, you're going to have about 6 more years of Mr. Obama...to howl, and whine, and bitch, so get used to it."

Maybe so but when the Senate flips in'12 Obamas nuts will be severed, we'll then see who'll be bitching and whining.

Michael said...

Jeremy: I would imagine that after dozens of UN resolutions and back channel attempts it could be said that the evil GWB attempted to negotiate. You probably have never been in a situation where negotiation is a waste of time but you will. And then you will learn that there are some people who are not subject to reason.

By the way, what do you think about my idea? I think the US should kill Gaddaffi, or try to. Immediately. Pretty nuanced, eh?

Jeremy said...

Jim Treacher - Provide evidence that liberals want us to "lose."

Otherwise, shove it.

Scott M said...

lol

2006 comes to mind.

Michael said...

Jeremy: You may have read that we have technologies that can pinpoint pretty much within a meter or so of where a bomb is going to fall. Our friend Gaddaffi has been out and about. I would guess we have a pretty good idea of where he is.

We should bomb Gaddaffi to kill him, not to get him to do anything.

This does not mean carpet bombing Tripoli. It means putting a bomb on top of his head.

Jeremy said...

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said..."Maybe so but when the Senate flips in'12 Obamas nuts will be severed, we'll then see who'll be bitching and whining."

We had Bush for eight years, along with a GOP majority in the Senate & House...and look what that got us.

Two wars and a collapsed economy.

Duh.

Locomotive Breath said...

Even his footsoldiers don't know

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oqIP9yagkQ

Jeremy said...

Michael, you're reading too many military comic books.

You think Gaddaffi is on some rooftop sunbathing?

You think we can have a drone fly over and plant a bomb on his head, and his head only?

Ridiculous...and once again, the more important question is this: Why do you think we have the right to do that?

AllenS said...

The Bill Clinton Doctrine --

Watch this, Monica!

Ut said...

"Why do liberals always want the American military to lose?"

They don't.

They want America's military men and women to die.

And the reason is because those are the people who bring democracy to other countries.

So, liberals like Jeremy want them dead.

Jeremy said...

Ut - What are you, twelve years old?

John said...

Sorry you feel that way, Joe.

So the Germans wanted world domination.

Think they could have gotten it?

Were they any danger to the US? Certainly not in 1941.

Might they have been a danger at some point in the future?

Perhaps. But probably not. We have a big ocean separating us and they had little means of crossing it.

If and when they became a danger to us is when we should have gotten tangles up with them.

Not unless.

And not before.

You mention Stalin and Mao. They certainly wanted world domination and caused a lot of problems. Many more than Germany could have, most likely. So should we have gone to war with them. (Hot war of defeat, not cold war of containment)

If not, why not?

As for Tojo, wasn't he Japanese? Didn't the Japanese go to war with the US? Didn't they attack us?

Funny, I seem to remember that they did. I seem to remember that I was speaking about our involvement in WWII-E (meaning the European portion of the war). Our war with Japan was 100% legitimate.

John Henry

John Henry

Jeremy said...

Allen - Up the meds, Dude.

Bill's been gone for quite a while.

shiloh said...

Ann, since you asked ~ it's really quite basic ...

Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States ... forming a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

And one could argue to carry out said doctrine in an era of mass media, scorched earth political hatred, it's probably a tad more difficult than previous presidencies, especially since Reagan/Bush41/Bush43 increased America's debt exponentially.

Which is great 'cause that's what "we" do here ~ argue ;)

btw, must compliment your readers who included Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo and Mao yada yada yada lol in a discussion thread about Obama's doctrine. Lest we forget Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya ...

take care

sheik yer'mami said...

Obama’s Diabolical Plan: Overwhelm the System to Destroy Capitalism & Freedom

The Real Obama: Overwhelming the System to Destroy Capitalism and Freedom.

Wayne Allyn Root

http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100508-212223

Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate ( Columbia University , class of ‘83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival … and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.


– Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100508-212223

DADvocate said...

must compliment your readers who included Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo and Mao yada yada yada

Let's add Idi Amin to that list, just for fun.

Jeremy said...

sheik yer'mami - Do you also believe all of his sports picks?

Duh.

Revenant said...

Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States ... forming a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Boy, Obama really sucks at implementing the Obama doctrine.

And one could argue to carry out said doctrine in an era of mass media, scorched earth political hatred, it's probably a tad more difficult than previous presidencies,

One could argue that the moon is made of cheese if one wished.

Michael said...

Jeremy: Bush dropped a bomb right on top of his kid's head. Obama not a good shot?

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"Two wars and a collapsed economy."

Jeremy, I'm sayin I'll take the Senate and House, you can have a toothless Obama as he pile-drives the Dem party into the ground for the last 4 years of his political existence.

I don't expect this country to give the reins back to one party rule any time soon.

Marshal said...

"Funny, I seem to remember that they did. I seem to remember that I was speaking about our involvement in WWII-E (meaning the European portion of the war). Our war with Japan was 100% legitimate.

John Henry "

Your views here are wishful thinking. Hitler declared war on us, and not because we were lend-leasing. He wanted the Japanese to attack the Soviets from the rear and naively believed once Japan entered a shooting war with Europeans they would coordinate their plans according to Germany's priorities.

He was unconcerned with America for two reasons, one of which is the same reason you think we should have been unconcerned with him: an ocean lay between us. This obstacle proved surmountable for both America and Japan.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"Bill's been gone for quite a while."

But the stain lingers....

Jay said...

We had Bush for eight years, along with a GOP majority in the Senate & House...and look what that got us.

Bozo:
Tom Daschle was the majority leader in the Senate until 2002, and in fact he sponsored the AUMF for Iraq.

Further, Nancy & Harry took over with a 4.6% unemployment rate.

Look what that got us.

Jay said...

Two wars and a collapsed economy.

As a point of fact, Obama was in the Senate during most of Bush's term.

As an additional point of fact, you can't name a single policy the Republicans proposed or enacted that led to a "collapsed economy."

Dumbass.

bagoh20 said...

"If Japan decided to make a play for Pearl Harbor again we would obviously retaliate."

I'm not so sure about that under the Obama Doctrine, unless they were after the birth certificate. Then they would see what the U.S. is packing.

PaulV said...

Hoosier Daddy, If you knew any history you would know Germany declared war on US after we declared war on Japan. If you knew any economic history you would know that selling war material to allies being in 1938 rebooted economy, developed the the Arsenal of Democracy and got the US out of Great Depression. US rebuilt western Europe and began NATO because we were tired of having to go back "over there" and end those world wars. What we spend on defense is a cheap price to "have war no more".

Cedarford said...

Scott M said...
Had we truly stayed neutral, we would never have become involved in the European side of WWII.

Patently false. The Axis powers declared that an attack on any of them was an attack on all of them in 1940. In 1941, Japan attacked the US.


================
If you read the history it is pretty clear that the Axis Pact did not obligate the Japs to jump in and fight the Soviets, nor the Germans to fight the USA if another Axis power was on the attacking side.

It is also pretty clear that the Germans were mainly in the right about Danzig and the plight of the German population. And Polish pig-headedness cost them 1/4th their population killed in war (highest of any country by% in WWII) and ultimately half their country grabbed up and made permanent Russian soil. And 50 years of lost freedom and self-determination. It finished off the French and Brits as major powers and ended their colonial empires.

Truth is, the Europeans don't much regret Munich as a prelude to WWII - that is a Jewish media meme. They regret not handling Danzig better.

ThePathToTyranny said...

The Obama Doctrine: Blame Bush, go golfing, attack tea party movement, golf some more, meet with the union bosses, vacation with family, sue Arizona, and more golf.

Jeremy said...

Michael - You're just another nitwit who thinks we can and should bomb anybody we want.

I asked you what makes you think we have the right to anything of the kind and you have no answer...because we don't have the right.

You need to do some reading instead of posting silly and childish drivel about dropping bombs on people's heads.

Jeremy said...

ThePathToTyranny - It really takes some guts to whine about president Obama...and any vacation time.

Bush was the master, spending a full 32% of his tenure...on vacation.

Maguro said...

Cedarford, surely even you can't believe that Hitler was genuinely concerned about "Danzig and the plight of the German population".

Good lord, man. It was nothing but a pretext, surely that much is obvious.

Cedarford said...

PaulV said...
Hoosier Daddy, If you knew any history you would know Germany declared war on US after we declared war on Japan
==========
I think what Hoosier was saying is that we should have stayed out of WWII, and that would have required not engaging in blatant, wholesale violation of the Neutrality Act. By summer of 1941, besides the obvious commercial violations, FDR had covertly made the US Navy in the Atlantic into an auxilliary of the British Royal Navy engaged in active though low scale combat ops.

If you go to Yales Avalon Project and read the German declaration of war on the US - each charge the Germans make that the US had already demonstrated it was a belligerant nation in the war already - are established as true.

YOu can say it was a great miscalculation by the Germans as history showed..but at the time, the war against the Soviets was going well. And the Germans had every reason to think that the division of naval assets since the Pacific Fleet was badly crippled by the Japs would allow the German U-boat fleet to wreak havoc on the USA merchant marine lifeline of oil and other strategic supplies and weaponry going to the UK.

Jeremy said...

Jay - "As a point of fact, Obama was in the Senate during most of Bush's term."

So Obama was running the show from the Senate? (DUH)

The GOP was running the show as the economy turned south, did little if anything to avoid it, and left it behind for president Obama to clean up.

The recession began in December of 1007.
(Bet you didn't know that...did you?)

George W. Bush was president.

PaulV said...

Jeremy, are you referring to those PDBs that Bush got in 8/2001 based on stale 1998 intel that Clinton did nothing about? I think you made the argument that it was Clinto's fault for not taking effective action against Osama

Jay said...

So Obama was running the show from the Senate? (DUH)

Never said that.

The recession began in December of 1007.
(Bet you didn't know that...did you?)

George W. Bush was president.


And then what?

As an additional point of fact, you can't name a single policy the Republicans proposed or enacted that led to a "collapsed economy."

Jeremy said...

bagoh20 - Why would someone as dumb as yourself, want to make yourself look even dumber by identifying yourself as a birther?

Stick to being the dummy you are.

Jay said...


Bush was the master, spending a full 32% of his tenure...on vacation


You are a liar.

Jeremy said...

Jay - "And then what?"

Well, the last thing little Georgie did was sign the 800 billion dollar bank bailout bill. (Didn't know that either, huh?)

He inherited a surplus, blew it, left us with two wars and an economic meltdown.

You're an idiot for defending him.

Jay said...

and left it behind for president Obama to clean up.

And how's that going?

John said...

Marshal said:

Your views here are wishful thinking. Hitler declared war on us, and not because we were lend-leasing. He wanted the Japanese to attack the Soviets from the rear and naively believed once Japan entered a shooting war with Europeans they would coordinate their plans according to Germany's priorities.


Oh, really?

Have you read the German declaration of war against the US on Dec 11, 1941?

Here is the relevant part

"The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941.

RIBBENTROP.

That is pretty much all of it. Show me where it says anything about Japan and Japan's declaration of war on the US.

You say it was not because of lend-leasing but the Germans say it was:

"The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries."

I suggest that you go back and read what we were up to. It was considerably more than lend-lease. It was attacking and sinking German submarines and ships (Think the Ruben James and the Geer were out trolling for tuna when they were "attacked"? they initiated the attack, the German shot back.)

Read the declaration. Then perhaps you will know what you are talking about.

http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/resource/document/DECWAR.htm

John Henry

BTW: I've never said that we should not have been involved after Dec 11, when the Germans declared war on us.

My beef is that we had already initiated hostilities while still claiming neutrality way before that date.

Jay said...

I love this.

First,
The GOP was running the show as the economy turned south, did little if anything to avoid it

Then,
Well, the last thing little Georgie did was sign the 800 billion dollar bank bailout bill.

Don't worry, incoherence is your strong suit.

Jay said...

He inherited a surplus

Yet another lie.

As an additional point of fact, you can't name a single policy the Republicans proposed or enacted that led to a "collapsed economy."

paul a'barge said...

The Barack Hussein Obama doctrine:

(1) do nothing for several days
(2) then say you're working up something
(3) then say something, sort of ...
(4) then say something opposite, sort of ...
(5) then shut up for several more days and deny everything
(6) play some golf and then play some basketball with your cronies in the White House

that's about it, is it not?

Jay said...

Well, the last thing little Georgie did was sign the 800 billion dollar bank bailout bill.

Obama & the Democrats wrote that bill.

Dumbass.

Jeremy said...

Jay -
January 16, 2009

According to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, today's trip marks Mr. Bush's 149th visit to the presidential retreat. The planned three-day stay, during which the president is being joined by family and former and current aides, will bring his total time spent at Camp David to all or part of 487 days.

Yes, that's 487 days. And Camp David is not even where the president has spent the most time when not at the White House: Knoller reports that Mr. Bush has made 77 visits to his ranch in Crawford during his presidency, and spent all or part of 490 days there.

Do the math...if you know how.

Jay said...

You're an idiot for defending him.

Um, in 2006 the deficit was under $300 billion and the unemployment rate was 4.6%

Then Harry & Nancy were sworn in and all that changed.

You are an idiot for attacking him.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 243   Newer› Newest»