It used to be that the Republican Party had candidates who had a reputation for foreign policy expertise, including Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush.
Now, we have Rand Paul, representing the isolationist viewpoint; and the viewpoint of the neoconservatives, which includes just about everyone else, all who have apparently learned nothing from the disastrous policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They want to commit US military forces to another war, but of course give not a care to veterans once they come home from war, often wounded physically and mentally by their experience.
And some have not a clue as to what is going on in foreign policy, demonstrating unbelievable ignorance, particularly Dr. Benjamin Carson and Donald Trump.
As this blogger has stated many times in the past few years, in the 2012 election cycle, ONLY Jon Huntsman had any legitimate background in foreign policy; and in the 2016 election cycle, only John Kasich demonstrates any experience in foreign policy, although inferior to that of Huntsman.
One may criticize Barack Obama in some areas of foreign policy, but his top aides and advisers on this have included Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and present Secretary of State John Kerry. Many would criticize all of them, but in comparison to the Republican camp, they are people of experience and awareness of the complex world we live in!
When it comes to foreign policy, this time there is no doubt that the Democrats with Hillary Clinton will emerge superior in knowledge, experience, and competence!
Half if not 3/4 of the world is up in flames after 7 yrs of disastrous Obama/Biden/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy. Time for a change.
All the problems caused by the Neocons–Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, or did you sleep for eight years, Ariel?
Agree about Huntsman. He knows Asia as well as anyone and has a solid grasp of all the players in the rest of the world as well.
LOL! Ariel the troll must have some kind of sensor that alerts him to new posts.
Professor’s right. Dumbya’s administration opened up Pandora’s box.
The Arab Spring was enthusiastically backed by Obama/Hillary everywhere, EXCEPT IN IRAN! I wonder why? Consequence? CHAOS. Egypt fell under the claws of the Muslim Brotherhood, fortunately Abdel Fattah el-Sisi saved Egypt from the radical Islamist. Libya? Syria? It’s all on Obama. The power vacuum in Iraq? It’s all on Obama. Even if we say invading Iraq was a mistake (though I don’t think so), but lets say for arguments sake it was. By 2009 Iraq was under control, pacified, and even had elections. But Obama’s solution was worse than the supposed first mistake! So lets continue. Ukraine and the for all intents and purposes the unopposed expansion of Russia (Ukraine, Syria etc), how is that Bush’s fault? The unopposed expansion of China , how is that Bush’s fault? Our enemies are on the move since 2009. So how is that Bush’s fault?
And lets not forget the expansion of Iran who is now thanks to Obama considered a LEGITIMATE NUCLEAR POWER in the middle east! The left fights tooth and nail against nuclear energy in the US, we haven’t built a nuclear power plant in decades thanks to the no-growth environmental leftist nut-jobs, but Iran? Oh yes by all means go ahead! Give me a break! Always screwing America and its people.
ROFL at his revisionist history of Iraq.
Wind and solar are safer and cleaner forms of energy than nuclear.
http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/toptenreasons.htm
The GOTP is getting desparate and is seriously considering drafting Romney to run again. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/13/republicans-worried-trump-carson-talking-drafting-romney.html
Excellent article debunking GOTP lies about President Obama and the Middle East. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/debunking-5-biggest-republican-lies-president-obama-middle-east/
Thanks, Princess Leia, for the article that demonstrates that our right wing troll Ariel Leis, is full of “you know what!”
The truth hurts that the neocons caused what happened, and want to intervene further and all for oil, ultimately, more than anything!
ec. 31, 2011—was set in the SOFA signed in 2008 by President George W. Bush. The only way Bush was able to get that SOFA was by inserting an end date. It was the hope of the Bush administration negotiators that some troops would remain after that point, but essentially Bush left it to his successor to figure out.
Also Obama promised to withdraw troops from Iraq. In fact, he likely shed few tears over the failure to extend the SOFA, and even grandly announced it. “Today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,†the president said on Oct, 21, 2011 in after the talks on the immunity agreement fell apart.
Obama then made the withdrawal a central part of his reelection campaign. “You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say,†Obama said in Hollywood, Fla. on Nov. 4, 2012. “I said I’d end the war in Iraq. I ended it.â€
During a presidential debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney, there also was this exchange:
ROMNEY: You and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a Status of Forces Agreement.
OBAMA: That’s not true.
ROMNEY: Oh, you didn’t? You didn’t want a Status of Forces Agreement?
OBAMA: No. What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.
The president has also tried to have it both ways. When asked recently whether he regretted not having troops still in Iraq, Obama pointed the finger at the Iraqi government, arguing it had not been his decision to end the U.S. troop presence. “The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq,†Obama said.
So which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.
Great article Leia. Exactly as the last line says, Teapublican’ts are going to believe what they want to believe, no matter what the facts ultimately tell them.
Paris terrorist attack is going to influence the election.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/14/3722272/trump-blames-obama-for-paris/
Southern Liberal: If nuclear is so bad, then why do you support allowing Iran to be a nuclear power???
Ariel, there you go again, demagogue par excellence!
Southern Liberal, you can be assured, does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, anymore than Barack Obama, and the agreement of the six major powers insures that Iran is NOT going to have such weapons, but if Iran breaks the agreement, and so far they are obeying it from all indications, then they will have hell to pay!
Stop being a demagogue, and make valuable use of your extensive time to troll and do harm to political discourse!
Ronald, I never said nuclear WEAPONS! I said Nuclear POWER! If you would have read my previous entry you would have notice I was talking about NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! — “And lets not forget the expansion of Iran who is now thanks to Obama considered a LEGITIMATE NUCLEAR POWER in the middle east! The left fights tooth and nail against nuclear energy in the US, we haven’t built a nuclear power plant in decades thanks to the no-growth environmental leftist nut-jobs, but Iran? Oh yes by all means go ahead! “
Ronald maybe you can answer this questions. Did Bush or Obama end the US occupation in Iraq? Because Obama says first that he did it , like during the campaign, but then that Bush did it when someone points out that leaving Iraq caused a power vacuum that was filled in by Isis. Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.
Ronald, you say: “but if Iran breaks the agreement, and so far they are obeying it from all indications, then they will have hell to pay! How so? Are they going to pay hell just like North Korea is paying hell today? And lets say this non-compliance leads to war, are you telling me its preferable to go to war with a nuked up Iran than to economically strangle the regime and support the opposition now, before they get the nukes?
The names of the people responsible for the massacres in France are as follows:
1) François Hollande, president of France
2) Angela Merkel, prime minister of Germany
3) David Cameron, prime minister of the U.K.
4) Stefan Lofven, prime minister of Sweden
…as well as most of the other prime ministers and European heads of state. Oh, and we must include the pope, too, who insistently called on Europe to take in more Muslim refugees.
All these people — and their predecessors in office — have the blood of the dead French citizens, and the other victims of radical Islam, on their hands. They willingly and knowingly have imported millions of Muslims from barbaric Middle Eastern cultures. They knew that many were military-age young men. They knew that a substantial minority of them were supporters of radical Islam.
And then, when the unthinkable occurs, they act surprised and outraged and vow to secure their borders. Well, it’s a little too late for that now, isn’t it?
Just as George W. Bush is indirectly responsible for the deaths and maimings at the Boston Marathon by letting the Muslim extremists who perpetrated the act into the country, so are these European leaders responsible for the carnage that has happened.
Many of these people are not even refugees. Some are not even from Syria. Syrian refugees who are Sunni should be taken in by the Arab Gulf states, who have plenty of land and money to support them with. Syrian refugees who are Shi’ite should move to government-controlled areas or Iran. There is no need for them to bring their radical ideology to Europe, no need for all these Europeans to die.
It’s especially imperative that Republicans don’t nominate someone like Jeb Bush, who calls for letting more of these potential killers in, or Marco Rubio, who says he wants more once they are “vetted,” an impossibility when people are coming from a destroyed country with no records.
I feel sorry for the French dead, but Europeans, at least a majority of them, voted for the policies that led to this by electing these leaders.
Ariel, it is Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice et al who caused what has happened, by their neocon intervention in Iraq for OIL interests!
They are the cause of everything that has happened since, and in fact, it goes back to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990, when father Bush decided to go to the aid of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, again for OIL interests more than anything!
Bringing in Christian forces to the Middle East and having Americans in the cities of Mecca and Medina, is what caused everything that has happened since!
If we had kept our noses out of the Middle East and stopped cozying up to the corrupt Saudi leadership, which should be held responsible for September 11 along with a lax Bush II, we would not have the mess we have today!
And if earlier under Eisenhower, we had not overthrown Mosaddegh and put back a corrupt Shah, we would not have had the disaster that Iran has become, with justifiable reasons to be anti American, based on interference in their national sovereignty!
But our necons had to back the oil industry, and the Pentagon had to build up its budget on the backs of losses of Americans and massive wasted spending that could have been avoided over the decades, all under Republicans and conservative interests!
Does that answer your questions, Ariel Leis?
Ronald, my question was: Did Bush or Obama end the US occupation in Iraq? Which one is it because Obama can’t have it both ways. Clearly you did not answer my question but went on a typical leftist anti-American, blame America first and blame America for all the worlds problem rant. You seem not to be able to help yourself. But I again ask, which one is it? Was it Bush or Obama that ended the occupation? Was Bush or Obama responsible for the withdrawal?
LOL! In our TP/R troll’s fantasy world, the GOP can do no wrong.
During last night’s debate, it was so refreshing to see Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley talk about terrorism like adults trying to find real solutions, not clowns “talking tough†to pander to simpletons.
Ariel, Bush ended it by agreement with Iraq, and Obama followed through, but that is not what is important, as Bush is responsible for the rise of ISIS by invading Iraq!
This whole problem might have been avoided after World War I. It was at that time that countries like Iraq were formed. It was at that time that the “west†divided up the region into their own spheres. Promises to the Arabs were broken in favor of control of the oil in the middle east. We are still living under the consequences of those decisions.
You are correct, Rustbelt Democrat!