ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Washington DC and The Holy Land (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Obama Romney - Putin's better President than Obama (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=280981)

Prison Bitch 01-26-2014 10:30 AM

Romney - Putin's better President than Obama
 
Putin a better president than Obama: Romney
By Aaron ShortJanuary 25, 2014 | 3:18am


http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com...0&h=480&crop=1

Mitt Romney thinks Vladimir Putin is better at being president than Barack Obama.

Romney, who lost the presidential race to Obama, told NBC that the Russian leader “outperformed” the president “time and time again on the world stage.”
The former GOP nominee called the US and Russia “geopolitical adversaries,” blamed Putin for giving cover to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and said fugitive leaker Edward Snowden’s asylum in Russia was a “bit of a stick in the eye of America.”

But Romney gave Putin grudging respect as his nation prepares to host the Winter Olympics.

“I think most observers of the international political scene suggest that Russia has elevated itself in stature and America has been diminished,” Romney said.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said he “obviously disagreed” with Romney’s comments




http://nypost.com/2014/01/25/putins-...a-romney-says/

cosmo20002 01-26-2014 11:00 AM

JFC. Perfect.

So, he's really bitter. Or he's just as dumb as the right-wing CP crowd.

Cannibal 01-26-2014 11:04 AM

Fatzod just sprung a boner.

BigRedChief 01-26-2014 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10393968)
JFC. Perfect.

So, he's really bitter. Or he's just as dumb as the right-wing CP crowd.

When Putin allows an American to be killed in Sochi because he was too arrogant to allow us to help. I wonder if Romney will think he's so great.

stevieray 01-26-2014 11:14 AM

this will bring out the fringe on the left, cosmo might even update his avi..;)

stevieray 01-26-2014 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 10393981)
When Putin allows an American to be killed in Sochi because he was too arrogant to allow us to help. I wonder if Romney will think he's so great.

:I REALLY cared about those who died in Iraq under Bush, but Afghanistan and our CIC?, meh, not so much.

chiefzilla1501 01-26-2014 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10393968)
JFC. Perfect.

So, he's really bitter. Or he's just as dumb as the right-wing CP crowd.

This has been a horrendous year for Obama on the world stage. I don't think this is at all an endorsement for Putin, as much as it is an accurate statement that the US took a significant hit to their reputation. Couched in the idea that Romney was playing the part of good citizen by trying to reduce panic that Sochi could become a security disaster by claiming that Russia has everything under control.

HonestChieffan 01-26-2014 11:21 AM

Well, Romney is not alone in his assessment of Obama. Over 60% of the American people now see what an awful leader he is and how bad his policies are. Then there are experts overseas.....


Sir Hew Strachan, an advisor to the Chief of the British Defense Staff, made some ripples across the pond with his judgment on the U.S. president’s foreign policy. “Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” Strachan said.

Coming from a world-class military historian, it was a stunning rebuke.

Strachan gives Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy, specifically his muddled approach to Syria, two thumbs down. Obama’s initiative there, he says, has taken the situation on the ground “backwards instead of forwards.” That’s just one conclusion he delivers in his forthcoming book, The Direction of War, which evaluates how modern political leaders utilize strategy.

Portraying Obama as the Inspector Clouseau of foreign policy may pump Strachan’s book sales. (After all, it worked for Gates.) But his assessment seems a bit off the mark.

Since the start of his second term, Mr. Obama has exhibited a pretty clear idea of what he wants to do in the world—and that is to have as little as possible to do with it until he gets out of office. The President’s primary objective appears to be “no more Benghazis”—just ride out the second term, go build a library, and then mimic the line of his first former defense secretary: “Hey, everything was fine when I left!”

A penchant for risk-aversion seems to be the chief hallmark of U.S. foreign policy today. The “red line” over Syria’s use of chemical weapons, a particular target of Strachan’s academic scorn, is a case in point. It was a way of doing nothing about that nation’s spiraling civil war. No one appeared more unprepared than the president when it turned out that the red line would actually require the U.S. to get engaged. Likewise, leaping at the chemical weapons deal was all too predictable. It offered the White House a quick exit from getting drawn more deeply into the conflict.

But Obama faces an enduring dilemma. As Syria showed, while he might want to leave the world alone, the world doesn’t seem to feel the same way about the United States. There is just too much time left in office to coast till the end, pack up the Nobel Prize, and move back to Hawaii. The Oval Office has found it has to do something to fill the vacuum, opening space for other influences to drive foreign affairs—as long as they don’t push the president too far from his chosen path.

So a second vector has sprouted up to drive the direction of U.S. foreign policy, one not too far from the president’s heart: an infatuation with multilateral process. This scratches Mr. Obama’s progressive itch. It is an item of progressive faith that, as long as we’re “engaged in a process” and mean well, we must be making progress. Thus, multilateral process became the fallback solution for Syria, once the red line gave way. The U.S. is currently engaged in multiparty talks about Syria in Geneva. Likewise, the administration is upbeat about “progress” between the Israelis and the Palestinians, because Secretary of State John Kerry has worked hard to get peace “talks” going again. And then, there is the ultimate bright, shiny object: nuclear talks with Iran.

A third vector is emerging as well: a kind of magical thinking among administration officials which holds that vectors one and two are actually working so well that, by the end of the president’s term, the entire Middle East will have been transformed. So, for example, there is happy talk that engagement with Iran will lead to working with Tehran on helping the US disengage from Afghanistan, settle things down in Iraq, and end the war in Syria.
For now the president seems happy to bundle these three vectors to guide what he sees as his coherent vision of a low-risk, run-out-the-clock strategy.

Contrary to what Strachan asserts, the president does have a sense of what he is doing. The president’s only problem is there are no signs that the three vectors are converging on anything that makes the region look like the land of milk and honey.

The odds of the Geneva talks playing a decisive role in resolving the Syrian civil war grow longer by the day. Vicious infighting among the insurgent groups and ramped-up support for the Assad regime by Moscow and Tehran are far more likely to drive the outcome. The “best case” scenario thus is a Balkanized Syria, with an Al Qaeda safe haven, huge displaced populations, and an occasional stream of car bombings from Damascus to Beirut.

As for Iran, while the administration thinks it has bought six months of “wait and see,” the reality is that, when the clock stops ticking, the West will be no more confident it can shut down an Iranian nuclear program than it is now. Meanwhile, the once-effective sanctions regime will have fallen apart, and the long sought U.S.-Iranian rapprochement will remain but the stuff of dreams.

Meanwhile, the president’s policy of disengagement from Iraq is shaping up like a disaster. It is reaffirming Henry Kissinger’s truism, “Unilateral withdrawal is not victory.” And the Israeli-Palestinian peace process remains moribund. There are no talks, just U.S. officials talking about talks.

If Egypt successfully implements its new constitution, elects a government, and puts the Arab Spring back on course, it will be no thanks to a White House that has vacillated between displaying complete indifference and casting annoying catcalls from the sidelines.
Strachan’s explanation may be off, but the result is the same. It’s hard to see the vectors of Obama’s foreign policy leading anywhere but nowhere.

James Jay Carafano is vice president of defense and foreign policy issues at The Heritage Foundation.

Easy 6 01-26-2014 11:24 AM

When your own Secretary of Defense tells the world you dont have a coherent plan... theres a problem.

Gates doesnt strike me as some partisan hatchetman, he simply called it as he saw it.

Prison Bitch 01-26-2014 11:27 AM

Obama promised us all he would just talk to other leaders and that would work. Of course, it didn't and the Middle East blew up. He said you had to respect other nations and their customs, but then throws a bitch-fit over some anti gay comments ad boycotts the Olympics.


He's such a POS.

Prison Bitch 01-26-2014 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 10393981)
When Putin allows an American to be killed in Sochi because he was too arrogant to allow us to help. I wonder if Romney will think he's so great.

Gosh this is a new leaf for you. Didn't care about 4 Americans killed in Bengazi. Do care about zero Americans killed yet in Sochi. You're an odd duck.

cosmo20002 01-26-2014 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 10394003)
Obama promised us all he would just talk to other leaders and that would work. Of course, it didn't and the Middle East blew up. He said you had to respect other nations and their customs, but then throws a bitch-fit over some anti gay comments ad boycotts the Olympics.

That's up there among the dumbest statements ever said on here.

Middle East
1,000,000 B.C. - 2008: Just fine
2009 - 2014: Blew up

Prison Bitch 01-26-2014 12:05 PM

I would call having your embassy stormed and Americans murdered to be a blow up, same with having Egypt in civil war. I guess you'd just call those "bumps in the road."

cosmo20002 01-26-2014 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 10394080)
I would call having your embassy stormed and Americans murdered to be a blow up, same with having Egypt in civil war. I guess you'd just call those "bumps in the road."

Bumps--yes pretty much
For starters, see: Middle East 1940-2008

Prison Bitch 01-26-2014 01:01 PM

I'll be interesting to get Patteu's feedback on Romney's comments, since he said he preferred Obama>Putin as a leader.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.