Cheney says what we’re all thinking about Obama’s foreign policy
“I think his actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst president we’ve ever had”
Will 2016 be the year of the foreign policy presidential cycle?
It might be, if President Obama keeps up his march to mediocrity. The President’s time in the White House has been plagued with an apparent desire to make America look as weak (I’m sure he would say “humbled”) as possible. Challenges to the idea that the U.S. should be taking a backseat are met with borderline frenzied opposition. Blame for vulnerabilities on the international stage is quickly placed on other players. Questions about goals and direction are shuffled to the side in favor of domestic pop culture outreach.
If we know what’s good for us, we’ll encourage the brave fools throwing their hats in for the 2016 Republican primary to do something different—focus on foreign policy. Normally, this isn’t something we like our candidates to focus on because the knowledge base required to speak intelligently about international relations is significantly broader and more nuanced than that required for domestic issues.
Still it won’t be that hard to at the very least start a conversation about America’s role in the world. On a recent episode of the Hugh Hewitt show, former Vice President Dick Cheney managed it in a 30 second soundbite:
“I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing,” Cheney said when asked whether he thought the president is naïve or something else.
“I think his actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst president we’ve ever had,” he said.
Boom. Done. The worst.
Fortunately, key Republican players have already begun to establish foreign policy credibility. It’s a high learning curve, but making their instruction as hands-on and public as possible will help our candidates distinguish themselves from the disastrous policies that Democrats in Washington have chosen to support.
That being said, it will become increasingly important for Republicans to not beat around the bush when it comes to criticizing foreign policy. General election voters may not understand the ins and outs of tribal feuds in the Middle East, but they do understand things like alliances, wars, and nuclear weapons.
Our greatest advantage will come at the expense of Obama’s most foolish, dangerous, and reckless decisions. It’s time to seize it.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
To paraphrase the great Mark Steyn…
“If Obama was working for the other side, what would he do (have done) differently?”
“March to mediocrity”? Hardly. More like the race to ruin.
“Still it won’t be that hard to at the very least start a conversation about America’s role in the world.”
and…
“That being said, it will become increasingly important for Republicans to not beat around the bush when it comes to criticizing foreign policy.”
Have you read a newspaper or online news lately?
—————-
There are two basic camps in the GOP. One GOP camp avoids such conversations, might upset independents, you know. The other camp ‘started the conversation’ about foreign policy before Obama’s first term was a year old and haven’t stopped ‘conversing’ since, given the constant stream of bad foreign policy emitting from the Obama administration. (Every reader will know of which two camps I speak without me naming them, which ought to show how ubiquitous knowledge of these camps is. This informs us on those don’t know or pretend not to know.)
Are we sure this isn’t just some attempt to reframe an existing ‘conversation’ in the terms preferred by the first GOP camp? As in, ignore what conservative politicians have been talking about for eight years, and approach it from the GOP Rinobushville position, using Dick Cheney, deputy mayor of Bushville, to make the tie-in. (Karl Rove is mayor).
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.
(Or perhaps the writer is just very, very young and believes that, if a concept is new to her, it is a new concept. In either event, it doesn’t make for a very stimulating post. Maybe you should apply for a position, HH?)
Maybe it’s just me but it’s beginning to look like some false flag situation. Or perhaps LI wants to open up the market, so to speak, beyond a conservative following. On the other hand, there is no overall indication of this among other contributors. It seems localized.
I respect all political positions, within reason, but I really really loathe any writing that purports to emit from one position while purposely hiding the real position. So much has been ‘concern troll’ type cautions about conservatives ought to proceed.
In terms of political awareness, involvement, and investment, this may be a case where the conservative readership is way out ahead of the author.
“Maybe you should apply for a position, HH?”
I am sincerely flattered, but I’m considering running for president and may be quick busy in the near future.
(I’ve already retired once, sold 90% of my business off, and work part time, mostly to get out of the house. I really am thinking about a *faux* run for the presidency, you know, that quirky guy without any real chance looking for a little face time to push conservatism and willing to act the interesting interview to do it (“The rent is too damn high!”).
A former colleague, Dr. Skillen MD of Wake County NC, ran for president against Clinton just to promote his libertarian positions. He acted very professional and did nothing provocative, accordingly getting almost zero press. I would not be so shy. I am incapable of shyness. I also do better speaking than posting in terms of explaining or persuading, that is, Henry got him some mad extemporaneous speakin’ skills.
It would also embarrass the crap out of at least a couple of my kids, a feature not a bug in my eyes. Heh. You steal daddy’s last chocolate chip cookie in 1987, you pay for it in 2015.
I think she meant as a contributing writer here. It would be metaphysical justice, you know…
As should be well known to all, any sort of “_____ justice” is no justice at all, just revenge.
Missed this, sorry R-man. I’d be absolutely honored and flattered to contribute an article to LI, but I don’t it happening.
“somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing”
Many have said this for years, or even from Obama’s beginning. But Obama has the race card, and now he plays the “Christians are BAD people, Crusaders” card. So cops are racists, white men are rapists, Christians are bigots, border enforcement is racist, America is an invader … these are the memes paving the way for dishonest Hillary’s campaign of hate.
The problem is Christians have been TOO NICE about all this invasive, racist, anti-American communist crap. I guess we have to let the left destroy, till another 10% of voters figure it out. Hillary aids Obama and profiteers every step of the way. It feels like the global crime syndicates are running governments now. Lying to and obstructing congress is laughed at, IRS alters a major election, no one is punished. Certainly our executive branch has been feeding the monster of evil. They are Alinsky subversives, after all.
If you read the comments at Politico, the real reason our country has become weak-willed and the world is in flames is revealed. Where we see chaos and a rapidly decaying society, they see peace and prosperity. There are two words that describe this thinking: delusion and denial.
Third word: progressivism. Fourth: liberalism.
Fifth: public.
Sixth: education.
I’m going to be that guy. Obama is Carter two. First we offer the olive branch. We offer carrots from our peaceful idiot. If our enemies don’t accept … We bring out the stick.
The hands have been played. The cards are lined up. Syria ready to fall at a word. Ukraine. The Baltic states embracing NATO. Venezuela edging closer to the flip. Greece and Cyprus handled.
Saudi ramps production. Iraq ramps production. US and Canadian production at all time highs verging on keystone and talks of legalizing exports. Israel/Repubs/Hillary ready to strike Iran.
If Iran falters. They will be hit very very hard militarily and economically. I wonder how many decades we’d send them back? BUT there are 4 miles of tankers lined up in the Persian gulf(5% of the international fleet). That much money means? sanctions will come down? Iran will cooperate?
Will Russia put down it’s arms or lose them? They better choose. The election has already begun.
Obama makes Carter look like a foreign policy genius.
I have a young friend who credited Carter with ending the Iranian Hostage Crisis, as it was known, where Iranians took the US embassy hostage. He had no idea that the hostages were not released until Carter lost reelection to Reagan, a US president the Iranians did not want to tangle with.
Quite right – in fact, they were released on the day Reagan took the oath.
And to show the sort of man he was, tough but generous of spirit, he appointed Carter to greet the hostages when they set foot on American soil.
Of course, Carter proved an ungrateful little weasel, but that’s not Reagan’s fault.
Obama makes Carter look like a brain surgeon/nuclear scientist engineer!
What a racist statement!
He should have said “I think his actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst **BLACK** president we’ve ever had,” he said.
That’s how you make it non-racist. You add the race!
He’s the worst white President, too!
It’s like two, two – two awful-tasting mints in one!
Saying what we’re all thinking? Well, maybe what we were all thinking about 5 1/2 years ago. At this point what we’re all thinking is “at what point does this lying piece of shit get impeached or simply thrown in jail?”