HRC....

over the weekend criticized the cowh for his lack of action in Syria which she said created a vacuum for militants to grow... Question... wasn't Hillary the Sec of State under the cowh?...

Not just Syria, she said his foreign "policy" of "don't do stupid stuff" is a total failure. WTH kind of policy standard is that?

The do nothing apologist is finally being called out for what he has been all along - an inexperienced, lazy narcissist.

nochain wrote:

Not just Syria, she said his foreign "policy" of "don't do stupid stuff" is a total failure. WTH kind of policy standard is that?

The do nothing apologist is finally being called out for what he has been all along - an inexperienced, lazy narcissist.

Difficult to distance yourself when you were touted as being the 'star' player of the team... Nice to see though that she's inherited the administration's policy of blaming someone/anyone else and accepting no responsibility if it doesn't work out...but quickly take a victory lap/photo op....

Well, that's not exactly what she said, and the press is taking her comments out of context and blowing them waaaay out of proportion.

Here's what she actually said in context ....

HRC: Great nations need organizing principles, and “Don’t do stupid stuff” is not an organizing principle. It may be a necessary brake on the actions you might take in order to promote a vision.

JG: So why do you think the president went out of his way to suggest recently that this is his foreign policy in a nutshell?

HRC: I think he was trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy. I’ve sat in too many rooms with the president. He’s thoughtful, he’s incredibly smart, and able to analyze a lot of different factors that are all moving at the same time. I think he is cautious because he knows what he inherited, both the two wars and the economic front, and he has expended a lot of capital and energy trying to pull us out of the hole we’re in.  So I think that that’s a political message. It’s not his worldview, if that makes sense to you.

Look, she's running for POTUS, so she has to differentiate herself from the current occupant somehow.

And, the media loves drama and conflict sells, so expect to see more of these stories as they seize on every little comment and try to spin it into a soap opera.

The fact is if there's even a dime's worth of difference between Obama's and HRC's foreign policy principles, it's that HRC is slightly more hawkish.

And, that doesn't appeal to me at the moment.

You're correct. It's interesting too if you look at various news outlets (including the Atlantic interview) how they arrive at sometimes contrary conclusions but it's also telling when well-known BHO supporter outlets don't even carry the story. To me that's a media attempt at forcing or heavily influencing public opinion in a biased direction simply by omission. And it's an important story if HRC does end up in the game.

One addition: I still believe BHO's foreign policy is nonexistent because he simply doesn't care enough about his job to really hit the grindstone.

nochain wrote:

You're correct. It's interesting too if you look at various news outlets (including the Atlantic interview) how they arrive at sometimes contrary conclusions but it's also telling when well-known BHO supporter outlets don't even carry the story. To me that's a media attempt at forcing or heavily influencing public opinion in a biased direction simply by omission. And it's an important story if HRC does end up in the game.

One addition: I still believe BHO's foreign policy is nonexistent because he simply doesn't care enough about his job to really hit the grindstone.

Amateur foreign policy....

salinsky wrote:

Yeah, if only John McCain were POTUS ....

Not a great example...there weren't many if any here that supported McCain's vision of going into Syria...BUT compared to what we've got....

I think we should have kept the Syria conflict at arm's length. We don't have a dog in that fight. And Russia does have ties to Assad and his regime.

With that logic aside, if we had supplied the original rebels early on, there might have been a different outcome. But we showed wringing of hands, calculated restraint, or whatever we want to call it... but it was a delay that allowed the ISIS boys to become entrenched in the fracas.

He who hesitates is lost.

Eric wrote:

He who hesitates is lost.

That pretty well sums up BHO's "foreign policy". IF he had authorized removal of Syria's Air Force at the very beginning it would have made a big difference. Too late now though. Just like all over the Mideast - BHO's lack of vision and inept too little too late responses have destroyed whatever progress had occurred after his much vaunted "Arab Spring".

He isn't saying much now. BHO has already quit even trying to act like a president.

nochain wrote:

Eric wrote:

He who hesitates is lost.

That pretty well sums up BHO's "foreign policy". IF he had authorized removal of Syria's Air Force at the very beginning it would have made a big difference. Too late now though. Just like all over the Mideast - BHO's lack of vision and inept too little too late responses have destroyed whatever progress had occurred after his much vaunted "Arab Spring".

He isn't saying much now. BHO has already quit even trying to act like a president.

Even our most staunch ally didn't want to join up with this administration....

Eric wrote:

He who hesitates is lost.

Haste makes waste...

The Free Syrian Army, of course.

Those guys were there from the beginning and started the conflict with al-Assad. The wackos came along afterwards.

The Koran forbids rape and murder...I wonder what book they are working out of ?

USA Today ran an op-ed which did a splendid job of presenting the persecution of Christians as un-Islamic. The author of the op-ed, a Muslim named Qasim Rashid, chided his coreligionists for persecuting Christians, and quoted the Prophet Muhammed against them: “Christians are my citizens, and by God, I hold out against anything that displeases them.” And: “We defend Christians. … No Muslim is to disobey this covenant until the Last Day.”

Rashid went on to catalog various horrendous punishments that have recently been meted out in Muslim countries to Christians, blasphemers, apostates, and so on. In response to these acts, Rashid insisted that all of them were at odds with the dictates of Islam, because, he insisted, “the Quran commands Muslims to protect churches from attack,” “Islam requires equal rights and protection for minorities,” “the Quran forbids punishment for blasphemy,” “the Quran forbids punishment for apostasy,” “Islam does not sanction the mixing of mosque and state,” “the Quran protects the rights of women and children, condemns rape, forbids inheriting women (let alone children) against their will, and forbids compulsion in religion,” and “Islam demands absolute justice in all affairs.” Islam, in short, is not the problem – it is the solution.

To be sure, Rashid is an Ahmadi Muslim – a member of a sect that really does believe in all these good things. Describing the Ahmadi movement as being “at the forefront of taking Islam back from the corruption of such ‘Muslim’ nations” as Pakistan and Iran, he explains that “Ahmadi Muslims believe in absolute justice, reject religious compulsion, are loyal to their nations of residence, uphold the absolute sanctity and equality of human life, believe in gender equity and spiritual equality, condemn religious aggression, and champion universal religious freedom.” Rashid identifies these as Islam’s “founding principles.”

Looks great on paper.

Eric wrote:

Looks great on paper.

Violent fatwa to follow by some shrieking extremist.

Well back in 1945 Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan and an all Christian crew in an American Bomber dropped an Atomic bomb on a Christian church in the middle of the city so...looks like most things look good on paper but don't make your houses out of paper ...they don't hold up under nuclear fission.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Well back in 1945 Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan and an all Christian crew in an American Bomber dropped an Atomic bomb on a Christian church in the middle of the city so...looks like most things look good on paper but don't make your houses out of paper ...they don't hold up under nuclear fission.

I don't suppose it would have been different if they just fire bombed cities instead - like Dresden would it?

Ain't NOTHING good about war or the weapons. Except full auto is fun......

Eric wrote:

The Free Syrian Army, of course.

Those guys were there from the beginning and started the conflict with al-Assad.  The wackos came along afterwards.

They recognized an opportunity and took it....

nochain wrote:

Not just Syria, she said his foreign "policy" of "don't do stupid stuff" is a total failure. WTH kind of policy standard is that?

The do nothing apologist is finally being called out for what he has been all along - an inexperienced, lazy narcissist.

Reports are that the cowh told some lawmakers at the White House that Hillary's criticism of his Syrian policy is "horseshit"....Guess perhaps the Clintons' and the cowh really don't care much for each other!... What an epic battle of egos here...