This article is about how the Republicans will not let President Obama’s success in the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden be praised for too long based on his foreign policy. I believe that they are trying to give him as little credit as possible to be able to gain more Republican seats in Congress. Republican speakers say about Obama that “He’s made a number of other decisions relating to our security here and around the world that I don’t agree with.” The Republicans criticize Obama by saying that the only thing he’s done right was “following Bush’s foreign policies.” I somewhat agree with this because our troops are still overseas but I think we should cut Obama some slack. America is full of problems and we cannot expect our President to solve all of them like magic. I believe we should congratulate Obama right now for his mission’s success. The article later goes on explaining about possible candidates the Republicans have for their presidential nominee.
I believe that the Republicans are just trying to prevent President Obama’s popularity from rising for the next presidential elections. What do you think? Do you believe that the Republicans are just sore because they can’t get any praise for the things they were able to do? Do you think we will have another Democratic president in office? What do you think will be the future of Congress? Will they be able to work together with the Executive Branch?
Tuesday Late Night Open Thread
1 hour ago
6 comments:
"Republicans" is mentioned 7 times in this main post. Republicans (8) don't need to tell the American people or the international community just how botched of a job Obama has done with his foreign policy. As a man who supposedly won a Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic action, Obama has certainly done some sketchy things in these past few years. Not only has Obama managed to single-handedly shaft the entire Middle East situation, but our relation to other isolationist countries such as Pakistan ( do you seriously think that they had no problem and cooperated with the US invading their "holy land" to kill Osama?) and Korea. Obama managed to shaft his own "NEXT PRESIDENTIAL [ELECTION" by being unable to fulfill all of the ridiculous promises he made to the American people. If you want proof, why do you think the Dems lost the House ENTIRELY and their grip on the Senate? BECAUSE AMERICAN PEOPLE (at least the educated ones) REALIZE THAT HE CANNOT UPHOLD HIS PROMISES OR LEAD THIS NATION AS WELL AS PREVIOUS AMERICAN LEADERS. Certainly, you have to give Obama some credit for attacking issues such as health-care(despite the fact that his socialist bill angered many Americans) and for trying to uphold his "withdrawing from Iraq" policy (only to put more troops in other Middle Eastern Nations!!!).
@cchu: If you want to use Republicans (9) as a scapegoat, fine. But if you read my post above, you'll see that such a belief is just blind naiveté and ignorance. To all of the questions, the answer would logically be, "NO!" except for the one question where the answer is, " the future of Congress is GOP control."
p.s. good post though, a lot of good discussion material
captcha: "dubbs"
Of course the Republicans don't want Obama to have his cake and eat it too. They aren't criticizing this operation for the right reasons, like what comes after this killing or what purpose does it serve to finish off the lingering war in Afghanistan, but for petty and vague reasons designed to make them look better. I don't think that Obama's foreign policy is as bad as Tim thinks he is. While it is much more confusing and multi-faceted when compared to Bush's, we live will in a world that has become so complicated, even more so than the world that Bush lived in. Obama inherently wants to promote world unity, which is a lofty goal, but he also has to finish what Bush (and the Republicans!) haphazardly started and he also has to look out for the US' self-interest to some degree as emerging nations like China are doing the same thing. It's such a delicate balancing act that seems inevitable to fail, but compared to the last hobo who ran the White House and some others out there, he is not doing a bad job! And, from my view point, it's okay if the US has put strains on our relation with Pakistan. They can't ignore their short comings and flaws for not getting rid of Osama who was in their backyard. Plus considering the weakness of their economy and the generous military donations we have given them, they need us more and they can't afford to assauge their wounded pride by getting snarky with us. I know I make the US sound like a big bully, but Pakistan is no harmless puppy! Well, the poor civilians of Pakistan are, but not the establishment that drowns their voices. Countries like Pakistan and Korea love to play the game of hurt feelings; they are like neurotic girlfriends who love to play mind games and milk sympathy but will never leave you in the end because they need you to survive!
From this tangent that was more a response to Tim, I think the Republicans are sore naturally. While I think it is premature to guess if we will have a Republican or Democratic pres, I think Obama will get reelected not just because of this, but because people will realize that he has his mixed bag of achievements and shortcomings, and he is not as bad we thought he was before. Plus, what charasmatic and well-qualified Republican is coming out of the wood-work to challenge. I can't even think of one who has that potential! I agree with cchu on the Republican motives for criticizing Obama and he is not using them as a scpaegoat as previously suggested.
And your counting of the times he used Republicans was a little pretentious Tim, not gonna lie...
"Republican" has now (with this post been mentioned 17 times! "Tim" has (with this post included) been mentioned 4 times (excluding the name titles for who posted), nearly as many times as "Bush" has been mentioned (5 times).
@Anjana:
1.)"I don't think that Obama's foreign policy is as bad as Tim thinks he is" --> what does "he" refer to, and what does this sentence mean?
2.)"From this tangent that was more a response to Tim, I think the Republicans are sore naturally." --> not only does this sentence not make sense, it is also grammatically incorrect. I'm so "sore" that I wrote a tangential rant about "Tim" and "Republicans"(18), oh wait, I didn't really do that, YOU DID!
3.)I'm going to need the space for this... You wanted me to rant? Okay! Let me rant!
Anaja quoted, "It's such a delicate balancing act [the presidency's actions in foreign affairs] that seems inevitable to fail, but compared to the last hobo who ran the White House and some others out there, he is not doing a bad job!"
Okay. Lets start with the word "hobo". Do you know how politically incorrect and crass such a term is in our modern society! I can not believe that someone with respect for the oppressed such as the "poor civilians" of Pakistan (who you might vulgarly refer to as "hobos!") would use that vernacular so freely!
Next...
As a high school student you can obviously insult past Presidents of the United States because you are in such a "high" (you would need to literally be so to insult the POTUS) position to do so. Also, I really want to be educated! When and where did you attain the knowledge to know that the Middle East and US foreign policy are fragile matters which Bush(6) OBVIOUSLY(based on your calculations) couldn't handle?(maybe you should have given him YOUR "wise" advice and won the War on Terror for us!)
Finally...
You say that Obama(18, a lot more popular than "Tim" or "Bush" combined) is "not doing a bad job" in said "delicate" foreign affairs? Obviously your definition of "delicate" and "not doing a bad job" include going on bombing crusades in the Middle East, disregarding international sovereignty of many nations, thus causing international uprisings and anger, this would also include ruining the US economy further as we up defense spending to get ourselves involved in more conflicts around the world than at any other time in US history! (Even G.W. (1 or 7 tricky tricky) didn't screw up that badly!)Based on this, I would hate to know what you consider "not doing a bad job" on a test would be.
CASE AND POINT! Obama (19!) has failed the US with regards to foreign policy and any "belief [to the contrary] is just blind naiveté and ignorance.
Tim stop being a devils advocate. The bigger joke is the Foreign Policy expertise of the GOP candidates who are running for president in 2012.
@Chris: If by "devils [sic] advocate" you mean that I use infallible logic and undeniable ingenuity when forming my assertions and arguments, then I have to apologize because that will never stop being so. I don't understand your meaning of the word, "joke." Are you referring to all two sentence comments which attempt to portray the GOP, the life-breath of American society, then I must agree that such statements (like the ones adjacent to this) are "jokes" of the most severe kind.
Post a Comment