Just Jack Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Tonight’s Foreign Policy Debate: A Preview The President’s Narrative. Sunday morning on Fox News Sunday, Senator Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said “We [the Obama administration] have responsibly ended the war in Iraq, we are going to end the war in Afghanistan. . . . Al-Qaeda as a shadow of its former self . . . and we’ve now put enough pressure on Iran with the sanctions regime so they won’t develop a nuclear weapon that they want to sit down and talk.” Call them President Obama’s Big 4 Foreign Policy talking points — I suspect President Obama will go back to them repeatedly tonight: Ended Iraq, ending Afghanistan, killed bin Laden, and Iran now wants to talk. Wash, rinse, repeat. Governor Romney should dissect each point individually, just as he categorically dismantled many of the president’s talking points in the first debate. The Iraq War may be over, but why didn’t we follow through and complete a Status of Forces Agreement? With no influence on the ground, Iraq is cozying up to Iran. The Afghanistan War may be ending, but the political withdrawal deadline the president set has undercut the mission, and the opportunity for a stable outcome. Afghanistan is teetering toward chaos in 2014, and the president’s policies share the blame. Killing bin Laden was spot on, but the leaks that followed—for political gain—are shameful and detrimental. As for Iran, rumors of “talks” are (a) not substantiated (even by the White House); and (b) dangerously naïve. While we talk, Iran continues to build toward a nuclear weapon. The president will attempt to paint Romney as a war-monger, but it’s important the American people understand why deterring Iran matters and ultimately prevents future wars. The Impact of the Economy and Debt. President Obama is perceived to have an advantage on foreign policy, while Romney has the edge on jobs and the economy. While I don’t agree that the president really does have an advantage, Romney will try to both chip away at the narrative above and play to his own strength. He should go to this theme, early and often: Our military strength is ultimately determined by our economic strength. And with anemic economic growth, lagging job creation, and mountains of debt—a diminished U.S. economy will eventually mean a diminished U.S. military. {snip} President Obama’s foreign policy has been rudderless and dangerously ideological (meaning he’s wedded to the ideology that if we give enough speeches, and pretend the enemy doesn’t exist, then we’re safer). He’s been willing to rhetorically, and in reality, undermine allies (think Israel and Egypt) while soft-peddling enemies (think Iran and Syria), and he’s been unwilling to name the threat (“they’re extremists, not radical Islamists”). This dichotomy could be exposed, and emphasized tonight. Again, Romney will be painted by Obama as a war-monger, which he should push back hard against. The president’s proposals make America look weaker, which invites future challenge. Strength, on the other hand, can deter conflict. In making this point, Romney should present an optimistic view of America’s role in the world and call for the U.S. to take the lead again. Our allies will be supported, our threats named, and our enemies defeated . . . end of story. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Is Romney going to have to debate the President and the moderator again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Well speaking of the moderator. Will Schieffer Ask Obama About That ‘Cancer’ Called Guantanamo? During the last administration, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer was a red-hot advocate of closing the terrorist holding pen at Guantanamo. "This is just a boil. It's a cancer. This thing is not doing anybody any good,” he ranted on MSNBC’s Imus In The Morning show on June 9, 2005. Schieffer’s ardor cooled considerably once Obama was elected. Will Schieffer bring up the “cancer” of Gitmo in tonight’s debate? Back in the Bush years, he repeatedly suggested it made us just like the terrorists we were fighting. http://newsbusters.o...o#ixzz2A4PVq1rL and; The bias of Bob Schieffer: Top 7 moments http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/22/the-bias-of-bob-schieffer-top-7-moments/ Tonight, Schieffer takes the stage. Here is the format and topic order he selected: America’s role in the world Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan Red Lines – Israel and Iran The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World . Edited October 22, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Funny enough having the foreign policy debate tonight...my girlfriend just got home telling me her Moroccan friend at work (the warehouse part of her company hires a lot of refugees and immigrants ..he was one he got his citizenship only 6 months ago) asked her if she would help him do his ballot tomorrow to make sure he fills it out correctly (I guess he's heard there are problems with that I can't blame him). She said his quote was "Democrats are more peaceful, Republicans are more war prone. This is why I'm democrat." Not saying this to get anyone riled but just an interesting thing to have her tell me on a night where no doubt certain pundits will claim it isn't an issue Americans care about. I think being the nation of immigrants we are, for some people it actually is the most important issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Funny enough having the foreign policy debate tonight...my girlfriend just got home telling me her Moroccan friend at work (the warehouse part of her company hires a lot of refugees and immigrants ..he was one he got his citizenship only 6 months ago) asked her if she would help him do his ballot tomorrow to make sure he fills it out correctly (I guess he's heard there are problems with that I can't blame him). She said his quote was "Democrats are more peaceful, Republicans are more war prone. This is why I'm democrat." Not saying this to get anyone riled but just an interesting thing to have her tell me on a night where no doubt certain pundits will claim it isn't an issue Americans care about. I think being the nation of immigrants we are, for some people it actually is the most important issue. What makes you think Republicans are more war prone? We (Conservatives) happen to believe in Ronald Reagan's way of preventing war rather than Neville Chamberlain's way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 What makes you think Republicans are more war prone? We (Conservatives) happen to believe in Ronald Reagan's way of preventing war rather than Neville Chamberlain's way. If you notice I was telling you what a recently nationalized Moroccan immigrant thinks. But if you are asking me if I subscribe to a cold-war strategy in 2012...my answer would be no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 If you notice I was telling you what a recently nationalized Moroccan immigrant thinks. But if you are asking me if I subscribe to a cold-war strategy in 2012...my answer would be no. "Peace through strength" or "walk softly but carry a big stick". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 What makes you think Republicans are more war prone? We (Conservatives) happen to believe in Ronald Reagan's way of preventing war rather than Neville Chamberlain's way. Or, what if Bill Clinton had been advised to go after Bin Laden by Susan Rice, the same "it was a video" lady, rather than her telling him there was some law enforcement nonsense hangups? Since when do we arrest people who declare war on us? But, that was Susan "youtube did it" Rice's advice. What if Clinton had been a little "less peaceful", and captured Bin Laden, when the Sudanese were offering him up? He didn't even have to kill him. We could have picked him up at the airport. Just slightly less costly of a decision. Yes, nothing like being "more peaceful", exactly like Chamberlain, letting bad get out of hand, and then leaving the problem for the next guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 "Peace through strength" or "walk softly but carry a big stick". In what universe do we not have more strength than anyone else now, and for the foreseeable future? We strong armed the Soviets, in a bi-polar world during the cold war, they fell apart and we became the sole hub of power which we still are. Looking toward the future, the world will become increasingly multi-polar and regional as the rest of the world gets their act together. This is not a problem, this should be celebrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 In what universe do we not have more strength than anyone else now, and for the foreseeable future? We strong armed the Soviets, in a bi-polar world during the cold war, they fell apart and we became the sole hub of power which we still are. Looking toward the future, the world will become increasingly multi-polar and regional as the rest of the world gets their act together. This is not a problem, this should be celebrated. "Strength" is not just more ships and bombs than the other guy. "Strength" includes letting the other people know you'll use it. "Strength" is Qaudaffi seeing us invade Iraq and voluntarily giving up terrorism. "Strength" is making sure that the enemy knows that the schitstorm that will come down on them for messing with us isn't worth overunning an embassy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 "Strength" is not just more ships and bombs than the other guy. "Strength" includes letting the other people know you'll use it. "Strength" is Qaudaffi seeing us invade Iraq and voluntarily giving up terrorism. "Strength" is making sure that the enemy knows that the schitstorm that will come down on them for messing with us isn't worth overunning an embassy. It's basically nonsense to actually believe that there is some sort of strength we should have/could have shown that would have stopped a radical group of militants from seeing an opportunity to sucker punch us by attacking our consulate in chaotic-post revolutionary Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) It's basically nonsense to actually believe that there is some sort of strength we should have/could have shown that would have stopped a radical group of militants from seeing an opportunity to sucker punch us by attacking our consulate in chaotic-post revolutionary Libya. See, the Republicans are dicks. And the Democrats are pu$$ies. And Kim Jong-un is an ass hole. Pu$$ies get mad at dicks, because dicks fuuck pu$$ies. But dicks also fuuck ass holes. Edited October 23, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 It's basically nonsense to actually believe that there is some sort of strength we should have/could have shown that would have stopped a radical group of militants from seeing an opportunity to sucker punch us by attacking our consulate in chaotic-post revolutionary Libya. Maybe some of the contingent of Marines the ambassador had been begging for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 A president and the nation he leads require a mission and a vision for the future.Central to that, I would argue, should be American leadership — not because we want to be No. 1, not because it’s good to be king, but because there is no acceptable alternative to American leadership. Iran’s rulers are eager for the job. Vladimir Putin would grab the reins in a New York minute. Maybe China, too. Do I need to explain where those roads would lead? And it is beyond naive to believe that we can rely on the U.N. to function as some kind of global government. In the U.N. Security Council, both Russia and China have vetoes. The biggest block in the General Assembly is the Non-Aligned Movement, which has just elected Iran as its president. The Non-Aligned Movement is largely controlled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, most members of which are unfree, undemocratic, and Islamist — if you don’t know the difference between Islamic and Islamist, I’ll explain in a minute. It should be acknowledged that what is being waged is a war Against the West. And it’s being waged by Islamists, those who believe in Islamic supremacy; those who believe, as the late Father Richard John Neuhaus put it, that “it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to employ whatever means necessary in order to compel the world’s submission to Islam.” There are Islamist movements, Islamist regimes and Islamist ideologies. If we’re to prevail, we’ll have to battle them all. That means not just fighting kinetic wars but also covert wars, and wars of ideas. Third, if America is not strong economically, we can’t be strong in any other way. Conservatives and liberals have different views on how America regains its economic strength but surely we should at least be wary about emulating Europe’s economic approach. There no is longer a single European nation that is militarily strong. In other words, the European-style welfare state correlates with military weakness. And there is reason to suspect a causal link between the two, as well. From: Seven Issues That Should Be Covered In Tonight’s Debate . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) It's basically nonsense to actually believe that there is some sort of strength we should have/could have shown that would have stopped a radical group of militants from seeing an opportunity to sucker punch us by attacking our consulate in chaotic-post revolutionary Libya. Are you trying to wrap yourself in a "Libya is the only example of where Obama foreign policy has failed" cloak, even before the debate? How has the Russian Reset button worked out? Has anybody in the EU taken Obama seriously, when he tells them they have to stop spending money? Did we lead in the Arab Spring, or, was that the British? How good of a leader are you, when you are being out-lead by France? You can cry all you want to about the Rs making Libya political, but, in fact, you did that with "youtube did it" long before. And, if the Libya is the only thing discussed tonight in terms of foreign policy failure...that's lucky. EDIT: Do you think Obama will be able to find a way to talk about abortion or contraception in this debate? Do you think he won't try? Edited October 23, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Are you trying to wrap yourself in a "Libya is the only example of where Obama foreign policy has failed" cloak, even before the debate? How has the Russian Reset button worked out? Has anybody in the EU taken Obama seriously, when he tells them they have to stop spending money? Did we lead in the Arab Spring, or, was that the British? How good of a leader are you, when you are being out-lead by France? You can cry all you want to about the Rs making Libya political, but, in fact, you did that with "youtube did it" long before. And, if the Libya is the only thing discussed tonight in terms of foreign policy failure...that's lucky. EDIT: Do you think Obama will be able to find a way to talk about abortion or contraception in this debate? Do you think he won't try? Personally, I do not see Obama's foreign policy as a failure due to a number of retarded right-wing talking points. I would hope tonight there is substantive discussion about an array of real foreign issues, and limited "leading from behind" tag lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Personally, I do not see Obama's foreign policy as a failure due to a number of retarded right-wing talking points. I would hope tonight there is substantive discussion about an array of real foreign issues, and limited "leading from behind" tag lines. Well, too bad for you...because it is now as I said it would be above: Romney just ran down the entire list of FAIL. And, he just took away the Bin Laden thing by congratulating Obama for it. These are not tag lines, these are real outcomes directly tied to real failed policies and approaches....or did you forget about bowing to the Saudi King? Russia is selling weapons right now to Syria, and a ton of other places. That's not a talking point: that's a long term reality and a set of conditions that Obama's policy has created. Edited October 23, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Is Romney going to have to debate the President and the moderator again? No kidding. That last one was brutal, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 yeah....bob...Romney is killing Obama...so "let's give the President a chance" So transparently pathetic. Obama just walked into a real problem: Now there are Al Queda training camps in western Iraq...because you left...moron. Opinions? How about facts moron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts