Another, typical article. Criticism with no suggestions or proposed
solutions.This is not a winning strategy. Although it probably plays
better with the American people than the GOP's unspoken strategyWhich is armed conflict, as usual.
Another excellent article by Dr. Krauthammer! His facts are irrefutable but
liberals, as they always do, will personally attack him, because that's all
they can do!
Yes, but what about Bush's strange foreign policy? Everything is shadowed
by the desire of the entire American population, regardless of party or
ideology, to not do another Iraq.
@Thid BarkerA slightly lower "largest defense spending in the
world" did not cause this decision by Putin. A missile defense
system wouldn't stop tanks from rolling in. Obama wasn't
saying he'd be more flexible on missile defense after the elections, he was
saying it'd be more flexible on nuclear arms reduction (the new START
treaty signed earlier was in the lameduck period after 2010 elections). We wouldn't be any better off if we didn't try to
"reset" (and maybe somewhat worse off). Obama got
Syria's chemical weapons to be agreed to be gotten rid of without firing a
shot. And yeah... Putin actually fought Georgia under Bush, is that
Obama's fault too?
You would also most likely find my foreign policy confusing...because I, like
Obama, don't have a clue how to fix the world's problems.
Charles Krauthammer: The president's foreign policy is puzzling========= And here I thought he was going to address BUSH's
puzzling foreign policy.
"The President's foreign policy is puzzling?" Not to me.He is doing what he thinks is best for the American people, and he's
doing a pretty good job, considering the willingness of
“Conservatives” to obstruct all progress.Charles
Krauthammer's actions are not at all puzzling. He's acting like the
double-talking Right Wing Propagandist he is.He is basically saying
that Russia would not have invaded the Crimea if a Republican had been
President, just like the Russians didn't invade Georgia in 2008 when GW was
President . . . Except the Russians DID in fact invade Georgia during the GW
Bush years. Oops.Once, I would have found it hard to imagine that
anybody would have taken a confused hater like Krauthammer seriously. Not
anymore though. Confusion and hate reign supreme in “Conservative”
circles, and being willfully ignorant is a badge of honor.So FOX
"NEWS" and other RW propaganda outlets continue to feed the
"Conservative" appetite for misinformation and targets to hate."What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It
created an alternate reality," according to Krauthammer.
LDS LiberalFarmington, UTThat's because Bush isn't
the president. While I sympathize with Mr.Obama's lack of direction, he
certainly has not fulfilled his promise to restore the US to a position of
respect and leadership in the world's eyes. The "flexibility" he
promised Mr.Putin has turned into spineless. The joke in Russia is that Mr.
Obama's drawing a line in the sand is equivalent to drawing a line in
GaryO. News flash; Disagreement does not equal hatred. Obama's approval
numbers are at a record low according to several public opinion polls. All that
means is very few people AGREE with Obama but very few hate him. There are
"haters" on both sides of the isle and your side has their share!
When Russia invaded Georgia, Krauthammer said it was inevitable and Bush was not
to blame. It's their back yard, he said. What can we do about it?Now
when they do EXACTLY the same thing in Crimea, Krauthammer is all over Obama for
being a weakling. Well, Crimea is even more in Russia's backyard than
Georgia was. So which is it, Dr. K?
@ Joe-BlowI don't get your comment President
Obama's job is to figure this stuff out, isn't' that why guys
like you re-elected him?He has all day to do this with advice from the
military, foreign advisers, intelligence community etc.Oh, wait, he's
on a family vacation now...President Obama is weakening our country.
People who voted for him are as equally responsible.
His policy is not at all puzzling.Here it is Charles. The President
chooses not treat those different than us as enemies, and evil empires.
That's it.Somehow conservatives believe that difference
deserves hatred. Of course there are groups and individuals that
are enemies of America because they seek us harm, but Russia is not one of those
groups. To treat Russia as a participant in world events is not weakness. To use Russia as a partner in Syria was brilliant not weak. To
carefully interact with Russia as old boundaries are being re-set is wise not
weak. Now if Putin tries to renew the old Soviet Union through multiple
invasions, that will be something entirely different, but there's no
indication of that now, and to simply re-has Neville Chamberlin is backward not
Rico.My comment is very clear. Those who criticize the way Obama is
handling (insert issue here)are always without a plan.They
dont like what he is doing, but don't seem to have any better
suggestions.Yes, it is his job, and he has lots of advice from
various experts. Do you have access to the same experts? Does Krauthammer?
If not, how do you know that he is not taking the best course of
action.Since you clearly know that what he is doing is wrong, what
is your suggested course of action.Dr K obviously does not know or isnt
saying. As are most of the GOP leaders.I will wait patiently for
your informed and detailed suggested plan of action.
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and
trustworthy….I was able to get a sense of his soul." --President
Bush, June 16, 2001.
Sad sad administration. They have NO foreign policy, blind leading the blind.
@JoeBlow,Perhaps your search for an informed and detailed suggested plan
of action would best be found somewhere other than the 200 word limited DesNews
comment board. It's hardly the venue for detail on anything. But, back to
the issue at hand and that is the weak foreign policy we currently labor under.
Projecting power is more than aiming a missile or sending a few airstrikes. Mr
Clinton learned that lesson during his terms. We must have economic power,
diplomatic power, sanctions and trade power to curb the ambitions of guys like
Putin. I noticed that the first option played was military, yet you projected
that onto someone else. There must be a plan, a cogent and viable plan in place
prior to the crisis erupting, which the current President does not seem to have.
Dr K just pointed that out for anyone not paying attention.
The plan would be so much easier if we had already begun developing our natural
gas resources. Then Europe wouldn't refuse sanctions against Russia fearing
that Putin will cut off their energy supply. We could just replace it, revving
up our economy and protecting former Soviet States from being re-absorbed (taken
over) by Russia. But that would make too much sense for this
administration, and they have shunned laying the groundwork needed for us to
have that card to play.Carter was better at diplomacy than Obama.
But should we be surprised? Obama has yet to broker a deal, any deal, with any
group that doesn't agree with him at least 98%. He has no idea how to do it
with his own countrymen. Why would we suppose he can do it with another country
in the world. They have even less common ground, and Obama can't bridge a
gap small enough that my 90 year old mother could step over it (about 3
inches).GaryO - It is not the republicans' fault Putin invaded
Ukraine with no fear of repercussions. Nor is suggesting that the invasion is an
'old fashioned behavior' a repercussion.
"The president's foreign policy is puzzling"The
president himself is puzzling.@marxist: "Yes, but what about
Bush's strange foreign policy?"Bush has been outa the Casa
Blanca for over five years. Obama promised significantly better stuff.
That's why he got elected. So far we haven't seen anything better.
Thid Barker:As of today, President Obama's approval rating at
Gallup is 45%; Rasmussen has him at 46%. Granted, it's not fantastic, but
it's hardly at a "record low." George W. Bush was in the 20s by
the end of his second term.
Oh this is too funny. Krauthammer, for all his bluster, provides not
one single suggestion as to what should be done with Russia. Nobody that is
criticizing the president on this thread has presented any ideas on what should
be done. One person complains that he just cannot express his plan in the few
words the D News allows (800 not the 200 he claims). He complains he just
can't give any suggestion in only 200 words. The only person that gets
close to providing some suggestion is a person that complains we are not
developing our natural gas resources (really?), because if we were then we could
somehow transport all the natural gas to Europe to replace what Russia provides
so European countries will support sanctions. Sanctions. Really? Well okay.
Never mind that there are a lot of business interests in this country that are
aggressively lobbying against any sanctions being put in place, but does this
person really think sanctions is going to sway Putin? Well, but
anyway, at least he gave some indication of what he thinks should be done.
That's more then most other critics, including krauthammer.
No need. I think Palin laid it out at CPAC."The only way to
stop a bad guy with a nuke is with a good guy with a nuke"And
the crowd cheers? I don't get it? Most sensible, thinking people would be
horrified. Unfortunately, this is the kind of lunacy that connects with the GOP
base. How sad.While I consider myself a fiscal conservative,
comments like Palins, and the GOP supporters who love these kinds of comments,
has pushed me away from the GOP.If the adults take charge again, I
will be back.
Pragmatistferlife:Russia has invaded two sovereign countries in
violation of treaty obligations. How have we punished them? By pulling out of
agreements we had with countries that used to be under their control to install
missile defense systems. Syria uses chemical weapons on its own
people - crossing Obama's red line. Instead of doing anything he brings in
Russia and actually strengthens Russia's hold on Syria and to date the
chemical weapons are still in Syria's arsenal.No wonder the U.S
has lost any credibility in foreign policy. We consistently lose and the left
cheers the losses.BTW, it sure look like Romney was right on Russia.
"The plan would be so much easier if we had already begun developing our
natural gas resources. Then Europe wouldn't refuse sanctions against Russia
fearing that Putin will cut off their energy supply."Another
conservative talking point that has no basis in reality. Natural gas has to be
liquefied to transport. Gas liquification plants cost over a billion dollars to
build with years of construction. We have two now with two more planned and a
couple more approved with no plans of construction because of cost. Take as much out of the ground as you want but it has nor will it have any
effect on this situation. Just more nonsense from the right.
"Would Putin have lunged for Ukraine if he didn't have such a clueless
adversary? No one can say for sure. But it certainly made Putin's decision
easier." Great description of the community organizer clueless
This op-ed piece is astounding! It is, in reality, a convoluted, confused
attack from the right wing for no reason except as a partisan attack. This is
consistent from Krautahmmer. For example, he states "There is no U.S.
financial emergency, no budgetary collapse." Are you kidding me? After
Republicans scream about government spending and deficits, cutting domestic
spending to the bone without the military taking any commensurate cuts, and now
you say there is no reason to cut military spending? You talk about Syria, and
from the get-go, you have been talking out of both sides of your mouth. You
push for military action, then not, and the people never wanted it, so the
President, who was ready to act, gave diplomacy a try. Now are you saying we
should militarily intervene? The puzzle is the position of Krauthammer and the
other neo-cons. They talk tough, offer absolutely nothing, and present an
inconsistent approach. I am grateful we have a President who can take a nuanced
approach, as not all situations are alike, rather than rushing U.S. soldiers in
as was the case under Bush (and Reagan, for that matter). Krauthammer has no
What is especially disappointing about all of this is that we've already
gone through this cycle. In the early 20th century we submitted humbly to
Russia's dishonesty and ridicule, gave them what they wanted at our own
expense, and they misused it, and it went on through WW2. Following World War
II, the same shenanigans went on and precipitated the Cold War. Now we're
doing it all over again.Ronald Reagan knew what he was talking
about. Both George Bushes knew what they were talking about, though the younger
wasn't quite as committed to it. Mitt Romney knew what he was talking
about. It hasn't changed since the Bolshevik revolution.
While going heavy on criticism of Obama, Krauthammer is silent on the issue of
what level of immediate U.S. intervention is warranted. Since Putin’s bold
gamble ten days ago, none of the critics of the President’s foreign policy
want to go there. The cheap seats are a safe vantage place from which to
critique. But the President has to weigh risks and consequences. That's
what we elected him to do.
Personal opinion the Deseret News wastes their money paying for
t702, haha, I love a good comedy routine. You guys are funny. You make a good
team, you guys should go on the road. But of course I notice neither
of you, just like the conservatives' intellectual champion, Krauthammer,
offer any suggestions on what the President SHOULD do. But keep on talking.
You've got a fine dog and pony show going. The truth is, this
president has done a fine job with foreign relations, all the conservative
blather aside. He has effectively navigated numerous foriegn crisis without
getting the US involved in any foriegn entanglements. It's easy to imagine
that if the republicans had gained control of the White House we would still be
involved militarily in Iraq, and be at war in Iran right now (what do you think
THAT would do to the debt?) and perhaps at war with Libya and Syria, and maybe
Egypt (there are conservative voices that called for intervention in all these
lands). I would imagine that most conservatives that are complaining
about Obama's response to Russian actions in Crimea can't find Crimea
on a map. Frankly, no one seems that worked up about this except conservatives.
I don't think it's all Obama's fault, or his foreign policy.
The world is just difficult (as it was when Bush was President).Obama didn't ask for Putin to invade Ukraine, just as Bush didn't
ask for 9/11. Difficult challenges happen, regardless of your foreign policy.
No President is smart enough to foresee everything and find a solution for
everything before it happens.We need to quit the partisan sniping.
It does no good (unless scoring political points is your motivation).I hope Obama-Fans can grow up a little now too, and realize that being
President is difficult. It was difficult when they were blaming Bush for every
bad thing that happened anywhere in the world. And the world is just a
difficult today.Obama isn't the only American President to have
something difficult happened on his watch. Maybe we shouldn't have been as
harsh on Bush. And maybe we should give Obama a little slack as well.The sniping back then was mostly motivated by partisanship (Sandy Sheehan and
others). Evidenced by their total silence when only the President's party
changed, but similar things keep happening.
After reading all these comments, I feel like saying: Thank goodness I'm an
independent. Dems freak out and make personal attacks. GOP freak out and make
personal attacks. Both sides reduced to sensationalist squabbling, either
unwilling or incapable of communicating clearly without insulting each other.
Blecch. Personally I think Mr. Putin is gearing up to takeover the rest of
Ukraine, sometime further down the line.
Thid BarkerPlenty of people among America's Right Wing
absolutely despise Obama. How else can you explain the fact that Ted
Nugent's stock rose so high in "Conservative" circles after he
called Obama a "subhuman mongrel?" Now Republican politicians seek him
out to speak at their campaign gatherings.No, Charles Krauthammer
never called Obama that per se. You can tell from the context of his rhetoric
that he holds Obama in low esteem.I guess you should expect that
from the Party that launched the Republican Southern Strategy (look it up) to
lure angry Southern White Racists away from the Democratic Party . . . Not that
I'm unhappy they left.Yes Obama's poll numbers are at a
record low. I'm unhappy with Obama too. I think he spun his wheels far too
long trying compromise with "Conservatives." He should have resorted to
executive decrees long ago to get things done. Today's poll numbers on
Obama's handling of the Ukraine-Russia affair have received high marks
though. Of the 43% who oppose Obama's handling of that issue, a solid 40%
will oppose Obama's handling of every issue.
Conservative wanted the following responses to foreign issues -- 9/11 - attackAfghanistan - attackIraq - attackSyria -
attackIran - attackNorth Korea - attackCrimea - attackThen have the audacity to call Obama a weak leader for showing restraint
and NOT attacking, yet call Russia's Putin an international bully?Ha-Ha and Ha!I just don't get it.
The author is also a Fox News commentator? Oh, that explains it. No
news…just our views! Again I say, if Obama walked on water the far right
would come out with the headline, "Obama can't swim". Even the
Sunday morning network shows could see this wasn't a Putin vs. Obama thing,
it's Putin letting the world know he's still in the news despite the
domestic issues he's having in his own country.
No confusion at all. Obama is our Neville Chamberlain.Of course he
will do nothing RE Russia's aggression to "come to the aid of ethnic
Russians," which sounds very familiar from another time and place where a
country's leader went to the aid of ethnic people's in not one, but
two neighboring countries. If you are familiar with history, you can see the
patterns.The question I have is were operatives from Russia sent in
to Crimea and SW Ukraine to rough up ethnic Russians in those areas thus
prompting Putin to resume his reconstitution of the USSR? After all Putin
called the rise of freedom in Russia and former USSR states a "geopolitical
catastrophe."Besides the Ukraine people are not Muslim, so of
course Obama is not going to do anything (really) to support them, previous
president agreements to do so notwithstanding.Putin is evil; Obama
is his ally.
Re: Lone Eagle "No confusion at all. Obama is our Neville
Chamberlain." Not true at all. There is no reasonable comparison. Read
Pat Buchanan on Neville Chamberlain for background.
"....Next weekend's Crimean referendum will ask if it should be
returned to Mother Russia. Can Putin refuse? He can already see the history
textbooks: Catherine the Great conquered Crimea, Vlad (the Great?) won it back.
Not bad for a 19th-century man."______________________________America is holding it's own in the competition, Mr. Krauthammer.
The last I heard, the U.S. is still hanging onto Puerto Rico and Guam which were
ceded to the U.S. in 1898 although the U.S. had no prior historic claims to
either. Guam, in case you’re wondering where it is on the map, is halfway
around the globe.
@ Lone Eagle, all we can conclude from your comment (attack) is that the U.S.
should go to war with Russia. Are you ready for that? More shots from the
cheap seats, as noted by a prior comment. If you have a more constructive
comment, put it on the table.
The thing that disturbs me about President Obama doing nothing but talk when
Russia invades Ukraine is... we all promised to defend them from Russian
aggression (and threats to their territorial integrity) IF they would give up
their Nuclear Weapons.Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal
between 1994 and 1996. They were very able to defend themselves. But we
(USA, UK, and Russia) convinced them to give up their defenses and ship all
their weapons to Russia... in exchange for our promise to defend their
territorial integrity if needed (google "Budapest Memorandum on Security
Assurances"). Meaning we would not let Russia or any other country annex
them (especially by military force). This pledge has now been
broken. By Russia AND America.Now America (and apparently all of
Europe) is backing out on those commitments. Russia will not only not defend
them, but they are the AGGRESSORS actually annexing them!When we let
agreements like this be broken... and not do what we promised... how can we
expect any country to make agreements with us again and trust us again?Weakness on this agreement will chill on our ability to make future treaties.
@marxistI did read Buchanan RE event leading up to WWII. Eastern Prussia
(western Poland) is ethnic German. Sudetenland is ethnic German. Hitler sent
his brown shirt thugs to cause unrest to undertake military intervention (read:
occupation) of those areas. What I am seeing is Putin going into Crimea and
southeast Ukraine (both heavily ethnic Russian). Why? Is it just to safeguard
the Russian naval and other military bases in the area? The news reports are
that he went in because of mistreatment of ethnic Russian peoples. Sounds a lot
like what Hitler did. Ukraine is a big wheat producer of the area.
Previous despots have used that as pretext to invade and take over (Marxists of
Russia caused starvation of Ukrainian people -- millions starved to death).
Interesting that you would deliberately have the handle of Marxist.@esquireShould the US stand by commitments, made by your presumed hero
Bill Clinton, in preserving Ukraine sovereignty? What if Hitler had been
stopped with the Rhineland remilitarization? Or should we repeat Prague of 1968
and do nothing? I don't want war. Obama will wring his hands
in earnest (actually Kerry will). more...
Lone Eagle… not sure what your source of information is… but not
sure I would call it reliable…. and definitely not factual. And the
Muslim bit…. good grief, let it go. Here are some basic
facts, this ha to nothing to do with Obama…. unless he was born in the mid
1800s and had something to do with the Crimean Wars. ( am sure some will try to
make the linkage ). This has been actively disputed territory between Russia
and Western Europe for nearly two centuries. To think this has anything to do
with Obama shows too many are relying on pop-news sources, and too little on
history.This has nothing to do with any American President, past or
present. I know there are media people trying to make a name for
themselves…. but they are hardly doing so with the constraint of facts in
@esquire (cont'd) I do not want war. I do not want my son put in
harm's way. I don't want it. But when we have an aggressor with a
thin skin as Putin, should be not stop him in some way? But that is not the
crux of the article is it?Obama lost significant credibility with
his "red line in the sand" with Syria. Chemical weapons were used and
the US and allies did nothing but wring hands. What should have been done?
What options did we have? What options do we have now?What happens
when Iran gets its nuclear weapon and starts to (potentially) threaten Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, Israel? What should we do? What are our options.I don't want war. Sometimes it is thrust upon us and we must
respond. What would you have us do?
Reading the bulk of the Obama apologists making excuses for their hero's
lack of any substantial direction with his so-called foreign policy and then end
with their cynical little "ha-ha" laughs is actually quite sad. I now
understand where the term "low-information voter" comes from. This article is actually about Obama, not Bush, which many of the apologists
keep bringing up. By doing so shows they've got nothing of substance to
defend Obama with... nothing. KVB1: The latest polls actually have
the president's overall approval rating at 38%, which is undisputedly his
lowest since taking office... also a record low for him any 5th year incumbent
since WW2. The majority of this country are no longer siding with the president
or his policies. His approval rating has been consistently dropping. It's
mostly his lack of direction and his inability to show any international
leadership strength.These are also valid reasons why Obama's
popularity numbers are dropping internationally as well. They correlate with the
dropping respect for America in general which Obama is largely responsible for.
A person doesn't need a detailed replacement plan to accurately observe the
current one isn't working.
The reality is that: 1. Russia invaded Georgia (well South Ossetia after being
shelled into near oblivion by Georgia) and Bush did what about that? Nothing
because we were already fighting two (count 2) wars. 2. The purpose of the
missile defense was to supposedly stop Iran from firing missiles into Europe
right? Does Iran have ICBMs? No 3. See number 2, what’s the point of the
missile “defense” system anyway? To provoke Russia? 4. There is
no “Syria debacle” the reality is you either side with the devil you
know, or the devil you don’t know. In this it has become quite apparent
that the Assad regime is much better than the alternative, which is A.) Al
Queada; and B.) a group worse than AQ. Even with all that defense budget
cutting, and even with all the increased spending from the other countries, they
are still nowhere near our spending and military might, everyone knows this.
Military spending is just another form of corporate welfare, we have warhouses
full of tanks we’ve never used and hangers full of aircraft we’ll
airnaut,Show me a Conservative who said "Attack".Just because you assume something... and post it... doesn't make it so.
He gets paid alot to spin negatively exclsively.
When Greece loved war more than peace, and sort for it continually - they were
destoyed.When Rome loved war more than peace, and sort for it
continually - they were destoyed.When the Nephites loved war more
than peace, and sort for it continually - they were destoyed.When
Germany loved war more than peace, and sort for it continually - they were
destoyed.When America loves war more than peace, and seeks for it
continually - we will be destoyed.[See the pattern uber-Cons, it has
nothing to do with same sex marriage.]
"Show me a Conservative who said "Attack"."True.
But, all they DO say is that anything and everything Obama is doing is wrong.Why do they not provide a brief overview of what they think he SHOULD be
doing?Possibly because that is harder than criticizing? And it then
leaves them open to the same kinds of criticism that they level against
Obama.What do you think that Palin made by her "nuke"
comment? I am not saying that she is suggesting an "attack" however her
comments serve no one any good as usual. She is an embarrassment. I do not
understand why the right loves her so much.
Lone Eagle, my, aren't we testy. What does Bill Clinton have to do with
any of this? You say you don't want war, then say "What if Hitler had
been stopped with the Rhineland remilitarization? Or should we repeat Prague of
1968 and do nothing?" (among other statements. The only way to have stopped
Hitler or the Prague invasion is war. Let's talk Syria, since you raised
it. The President threatened to attack. The right wing screamed no AND yes.
Both. In the face of a variety of factors, Obama resorted to diplomacy, which
is what the AMERICAN people wanted (except for the confused neo-cons). Guess
what, the option of military intervention is still there.In the end,
you want war. That is the only solution that you (and the neo-cons) ever come
up with. It is an impatient, short-sighted approach. It is not nuanced. It
doesn't take into consideration the views of the rest of the world,
including those right in the middle of it. War with Russia means a World War,
and would make WWII look tame. The religious right may think that's cool,
but it isn't.
Don't worry everyone.I have it on good authority that the
problem in Ukraine is Bush's fault.Whew!.....I'm glad we
got THAT settled.
It was a quite different picture a year or so ago when Republicans kept silent
as Obama’s use of drones to take out al Qaeda targets was criticized
abroad for being heavy-handed and indiscriminate. That's what makes it all
the more fascinating to now see Republicans awkwardly fidgeting and
repositioning in an effort to make Obama look weak.
@Objectified - here is the problem with your claims here. No president has a
foreign policy unto himself. Reagans policy was based off of what
Carter's was. Carters policy was an extension of the disarray the US
foreign was left in after the Ford/Nixon debacle of cut and run from Vietnam.
US foreign policy in the middle east has been a continuum for nearly 40 years
with not much different between any of the administrations, because there are so
few options. Obama's foreign policy is an outgrowth of Bush policy. The
two are tied together - no matter how much you want to pretend they are distinct
events. As to why no one takes far right statements serious
anymore.... you for example make the claim that Obama's approval rating is
37%. And yet if you refer to Real Clear Politics survey off all Presidential
survey results, none of them back that statement up. Today's range goes
from 43% to 47% percent. Look it up... its just not that hard to find. So hate Obama all you want, but lets not just make stuff up.
Objectified - It is no mystery where the term "low-information voter"
comes from.It comes directly from Rush Limbaugh, who sneers at
"elite" well-educated Liberal academics, while simultaneously claiming
they're not educated enough to vote.Limbaugh and his following
would be funny if they didn't represent a clear and present danger to this
@Objectified"Reading the bulk of the Obama apologists making excuses
for their hero's lack of any substantial direction with his so-called
foreign policy and then end with their cynical little "ha-ha" laughs is
actually quite sad. I now understand where the term "low-information
voter" comes from. "As opposed to those on your side who
mock the President and have literally nothing to offer as an alternative for
what we're supposed to have done? The most I've seen is people wanting
a larger military/defense budget which we still wouldn't fight Russia with
anyway so it wouldn't change a thing. "The latest polls
actually have the president's overall approval rating at 38%"That is the latest Fox News poll which is legitimate but you ignored other
recent polls. Using the RCP average of those polls (including Fox News) Obama is
at 43.1% approval to 52.4% disapproval."a record low for him any
5th year incumbent since WW2."We're in year 6 now."The majority of this country are no longer siding with the president or
his policies."Disliking Obama doesn't necessarily mean
agreeing with Republicans.
"a record low for him any 5th year incumbent since WW2."See,
that is again another stretch. Go to Gallup's Presidential Approval center
and compare the presidents. Yes, there have been some stronger - Ike for one.
But there have also been plenty right there in the same neighborhood or worse -
look at Johnson's numbers, or even Bush II's numbers.It is
strange how many are so obsessed with trying to prove they were right to vote
otherwise, all the while not providing even the slightest or faintest indication
of a solution themselves. Oh sure, its fun to find fault in others, its a whole
other thing to actually step up with a solution.
“[I]f Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s
outpost against the other -- it should function as a bridge between them.”
-- Kissinger.Well said, Henry.
Schnee - I think you’re being overly-generous in calling the FOX
"NEWS" Poll legitimate. FOX “NEWS” is one of many Right Wing
propaganda outlets owned by would-be-plutocrat Rupert Murdoch. FOX is not a
legitimate news organization, let alone a legitimate polling organization.Even Rasmussen, whose polling in the past has been markedly pro-Right
Wing, is showing better approval numbers for Obama than that."The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows
that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job
performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove" - from Rasmussen, March 10
2014It's interesting that Obama’s handling of the
Russia-Ukraine issue seems to be increasing Obama's approval numbers; and
all the while Right Wingers keep insisting this Russian show of aggression means
President Obama is cowardly, worthless as a leader, lacks international respect,
and is unfit for office.Apparently Republicans never tire of being
This case in Ukraine is a sad case of a people that throughout 2600 years of
history have had the bad fortune on owning the most strategic place of real
estate in Europe.The Greeks were there, as were the Romans. Mongol
hordes passed through there and the first civilization of Russia started there.
Historically it has been the home of a people that have looked for more freedom.
Russia became more autocratic when it moved its capital to Moscow.What we are seeing here, is Russian AND American/W. European influence trying
once again to subjugate the native Ukranian population to their points of view
in the world. Split Ukraine along the language fault line, giving
the east to Russia. The western part should remain Ukranian. This is the best
solution to evade war in the area.As for Obama, he has not been
acting from a strategic point of view and neither did his predecessor. It was
and is a strategical blunder to go in guns blazing like what McCain and Graham
want or for Obama to plead to Putin to get out of Crimea when Crimea is more
Russian than Ukranian.
Mexican Ute,"....Split Ukraine along the language fault line,
giving the east to Russia. The western part should remain Ukranian. This is the
best solution to evade war in the area...."______________________________Putin might be agreeable to that
proposal. Other parties will not be so easily persuaded. As long as warring
factions seek control of the same territories, drawing borders to
everyone’s satisfaction is the rub that lays the groundwork for the next
war. Nearly every war comes down to the question of borders.