The Obama Foreign Policy Doctrine

Sounds very reasonable to me. Prediction, "This answer means President Obama believes appeasement will make all our problems go away" quote by a host of Republicans later today and all day tomorrow and assorted FoxNews hosts. Doesn't matter that he said the exact opposite of it. Of course its like shooting fish in a barrel predicting Republican behavior nowadays. If they really wanted to shake up the world they would praise his words. But they know one thing and one thing only....ATTACK!!!

Lowering the temperature of international discourse at this junction is very peudent imho. BO is not perfect, but I think he is steering this ship in the right direction

For my entire life, I've watched as our misguided foreign policy has produced more enemies than freinds, feeding a vicious cycle of self perpetuating antagonism.
.
All of which kept breathing life into policies that kept us backing the wrong actors on the world stage, and/or, breeding extremism on the streets of other nations.
.
We were the ones who helped create Iran, Hamas, the current Israeli government, Venezuela, Al Queda, Cuba and a host of other antagonists.*
.
I see Obama's policies as the first real change in our country's stance since WWII.
.
*We bear some responsibility, not all, for some of these, and other, antagonists.

I imagine that the press corps immediately burst into applause afterward. I know I would have.

redraven
.
You must not be familiar with Tapper/Henry/Reid. They probably booed him and went off to call Drudge to give him a heads up on the articles they were about to write about it.

Contrast Obama's response with Boehner on climate change
.
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001193/

Obama is playing chess while the GOP plays checkers
.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090419/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cb_obama_summit
.

As for Venezuela, Obama's friendly encounters with Chavez at the summit drew intense publicity — partly, Obama said, because Chavez is good at getting in front of TV cameras. Chavez's anti-American rhetoric has, in the past, led Obama to call him a demagogue.
.
Before he even got back to Washington, Obama was facing condemnation from some Republicans about how he dealt with Chavez. The president brushed that aside, noting that Venezuela has a defense budget about one-six hundredth the size of the United States' and owns the oil company Citgo.
.
"It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States," Obama said. "I don't think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so."

Chavez is a buffoon outside (and, to a degree, inside) his country. Every time the Republicans open their mouths, a terrorist and/or tin plated dictator gets his wings to a higher status in the world media.
-
If Republicans stopped fighting to keep us addicted to oil then Chavez and most terrorist funding would dry up and blow away.

It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States," Obama said. "I don't think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so."
.
"Now put on a fresh set of diapers, you babies," Obama added, "because I sure as hell ain't gonna do it for you."

I think we should do just what Obama did with respect to Chavez and Cuba. Neither country can attack us, and having a better relationship with them reduces the likelihood of them going to other nations more threatening to the US for help.
.
The Venezuelan - Russian entente is an example of this. We basically, because, and only because, he's a socialist, drove him into their arms.
.
Freinds are a lot easier to talk to than are enemies...

On top of that, think of the markets these countries have...

If you turn an emeny into a friend, you have one more friend and one less enemy. That's going to be too much for the RW to comprehend. It just might be possible that the leaders of countries like Venezuela and Cuba wouldn't be so anti-American if they thought we wouldn't try to topple their governments. How well has the ban on Cuba worked to our advantage? Would you say it an outstanding success and that a country only 90 miles from us is an open market to us? Reality based diplomacy coming from Washington is something new. It's worth a try. It's also possible that foriegn nations might look at the RW republicans bashing Obama on every single thing he does and think that maybe if the opposing party hates him and his ideas so much that it could be mutually beneficial to work with this administration. Looking at us as a potential trading partner instead of as a possible invading force is a no brainer.

Would you say it an outstanding success and that a country only 90 miles from us is an open market to us?
.
Only dirty communists want accessible nearby markets for our goods. How dare you.

I think those two countries alone have a population of some 42 million. And Cuba?
.
Of that, about 11.5 million. Not exactly a threat to the US.
.
If we could instead be partners in growth and prosperity, and lead by example instead of fiat, we might even solve the immigration problems in such a way that everyone might be happy.
.
Europe did it. Why can't we?

Plus, Cuba has great beaches and weather. The sugar cane is a nice little bonus but tourism could greatly benefit both of us. Gitmo has a terrible reputation already, so turning it into an S&M destination for those into kink could kill two birds with one stone. (Possible snark)

[...] It’s amazing to have a president who is able to articulate a sane foreign policy doctrine. [...]

This is why the teleprompter meme is so ridculously absurd. Brilliant, off the cuff answer.

I was annoyed at CNN for asking a question about the Chavez handshake,(a topic they are actively stoking on their website as the controversy du jour). My annoyance passed quickly because it gave Obama a chance to smack the stupid out of that reporter.

Halperin listed 16 reasons why Obama is "exceptionally good" at what he does."On major decisions, almost without exception, Obama does what he thinks is right, rather then what might appear to be the politically expedient thing to do; in the end, doing what he thinks is right actually turns out to be better politics."

http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-why-obama-is-exceptionally-good-at-his-job/

"The Obama Foreign Policy Doctrine"?

-

Answer: Appear in foreign countries before adoring crowds of virulent, militant America haters and denounce the United States.

Again, predictable.

"Appear in foreign countries before adoring crowds of virulent, militant America haters and denounce the United States"

The good news is that paranoid delusion is very treatable these days. Good luck with that.

America haters? textee, do you speak of the world (broad brush), or the RW seccessionists?
.
I saw the whole press conference until CNN lost the signal as Obama was asking about a stray wallet left on the podium. I switched to Faux and he had come back to talk about the American lady in Iran.
.
Every time I see him it is a cool fresh breeze in my world, even as my mind flashes contrasts with Bush.

Cliff: I take very strong exception to being called a "dirty communist". I just got out of the shower less than an hour ago.

Only dirty communists want accessible nearby markets for our goods. How dare you.
-
All I could think of after reading this statement was Nike shoes and Viet Nam...
-
Halperin listed 16 reasons why Obama is "exceptionally good" at what he does.

-
Perfect example of a blind squirrel and an acorn. Possible pun terminology intended.

yutsano: We can only hope that their slave labor isn't cheaper than our slave labor.

This is probably a breach of etiquette or something, but as it was suggested to continue the conversation over in the new thread, I guess I'll try to.
-
SG:
Actually HA didn't come out with anything within 24 hours. I didn't say anything until the day after the OLC memos came out.
-
And you didn't take back the claim of sucky patriotism once Ed posted, did you? Oh well. It's easier to attack.
-
Second the report didn't say the veterans having problems reengaging were more suceptible, it said that those were the ones the right wing extremists were more likely to target.
-
From the report, page 2:
-
"The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the possible emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
-
Again, the qualifier would not be there if it did not indicate increased susceptibility to extremism.
-
Third I questioned patriotism on the issue of wingnuts wanting to seceed from the country and thats a valid argument.
-
I wasn't referring to this. Obviously, Rick Perry is not a particularly patriotic (among other qualities) individual.
-
formerlyjames:
If you don't feel offended, that's cool. However, I still believe the report's language is sloppy.
-
53:
If you look for names of current RW extremist groups in the text, you will find none (on the other hand, the LW file is rife with them). In their stead is written this metric:
-
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
-
The last sentence is the stickler, as it is a) entirely unnecessary and b) by its nature paints a broad brush. As it is, it curries suspicion of anti-abortion or anti-illegal groups. The "in favor of state or local authority" excerpt is also a point of contention, because big-government federal intervention is supposed to be what conservatives stand against, and one could construe that definition to encompass a wide range of harmless political groups. (for example, those that argue for state control and utilization of resources, such as those in Alaska. No, the AIP is only a segment of that sentiment).
-
As another aside, Yoshi, I don't think you can make a case for there not being a lot of motivation on the part of the right for partaking in violent behavior.
-
A few dozen people does not the right make. We have our crazies, just as you do. I don't think you'd seriously argue that people like Bill Maher and art-film directors enamored with the thought of presidential assassinations represent anywhere near the majority of the left.