Obama to people: understand me. Must read for next Prez.

The Obama Doctrine

The U.S. president talks through his hardest decisions about America’s role in the world.


"Friday, august 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington, D.C. The subject of Kerry’s uncharacteristically Churchillian remarks, delivered in the Treaty Room at the State Department, was the gassing of civilians by the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.

Why he’s proud of not striking Assad in 2013
Obama, in whose Cabinet Kerry serves faithfully, but with some exasperation, is himself given to vaulting oratory, but not usually of the martial sort associated with Churchill. Obama believes that the Manichaeanism, and eloquently rendered bellicosity, commonly associated with Churchill were justified by Hitler’s rise, and were at times defensible in the struggle against the Soviet Union. But he also thinks rhetoric should be weaponized sparingly, if at all, in today’s more ambiguous and complicated international arena. The president believes that Churchillian rhetoric and, more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq. Obama entered the White House bent on getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan; he was not seeking new dragons to slay. And he was particularly mindful of promising victory in conflicts he believed to be unwinnable. “If you were to say, for instance, that we’re going to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and build a prosperous democracy instead, the president is aware that someone, seven years later, is going to hold you to that promise,” Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national-security adviser, and his foreign-policy amanuensis, told me not long ago.

But Kerry’s rousing remarks on that August day, which had been drafted in part by Rhodes, were threaded with righteous anger and bold promises, including the barely concealed threat of imminent attack. Kerry, like Obama himself, was horrified by the sins committed by the Syrian regime in its attempt to put down a two-year-old rebellion. In the Damascus suburb of Ghouta nine days earlier, Assad’s army had murdered more than 1,400 civilians with sarin gas. The strong sentiment inside the Obama administration was that Assad had earned dire punishment. In Situation Room meetings that followed the attack on Ghouta, only the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, cautioned explicitly about the perils of intervention. John Kerry argued vociferously for action..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
 
The Obama Doctrine

The U.S. president talks through his hardest decisions about America’s role in the world.


"Friday, august 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington, D.C. The subject of Kerry’s uncharacteristically Churchillian remarks, delivered in the Treaty Room at the State Department, was the gassing of civilians by the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.

Why he’s proud of not striking Assad in 2013
Obama, in whose Cabinet Kerry serves faithfully, but with some exasperation, is himself given to vaulting oratory, but not usually of the martial sort associated with Churchill. Obama believes that the Manichaeanism, and eloquently rendered bellicosity, commonly associated with Churchill were justified by Hitler’s rise, and were at times defensible in the struggle against the Soviet Union. But he also thinks rhetoric should be weaponized sparingly, if at all, in today’s more ambiguous and complicated international arena. The president believes that Churchillian rhetoric and, more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq. Obama entered the White House bent on getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan; he was not seeking new dragons to slay. And he was particularly mindful of promising victory in conflicts he believed to be unwinnable. “If you were to say, for instance, that we’re going to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and build a prosperous democracy instead, the president is aware that someone, seven years later, is going to hold you to that promise,” Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national-security adviser, and his foreign-policy amanuensis, told me not long ago.

But Kerry’s rousing remarks on that August day, which had been drafted in part by Rhodes, were threaded with righteous anger and bold promises, including the barely concealed threat of imminent attack. Kerry, like Obama himself, was horrified by the sins committed by the Syrian regime in its attempt to put down a two-year-old rebellion. In the Damascus suburb of Ghouta nine days earlier, Assad’s army had murdered more than 1,400 civilians with sarin gas. The strong sentiment inside the Obama administration was that Assad had earned dire punishment. In Situation Room meetings that followed the attack on Ghouta, only the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, cautioned explicitly about the perils of intervention. John Kerry argued vociferously for action..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

This is a good in-depth article. However future candidates should read it so they avoid the failed foreign relation policies of the Obama administration. This article basically outlines Obama's complete record of failure after failure.
 
Everyone knows I detest Obama and regard him as one of our worst presidents ever, and that is a long time. But I can't fault him for resisting the neo-con demands that we get involved in every dispute that pops up.

Exactly how long are we supposed to stay in afghanistan? Another 50 years, like we have done in south Korea? Syria? We fell for the "dictator killing his own people" propaganda in Libya, and look how great that turned out. Assad is a thug but most dictators are. He's a lot better than what will follow him, that we can be sure of.

The republican "hawks" want to arm Ukraine. What's the next step if Putin sees that bet and raises? Send troops there? Get into a nuclear war over a country most people can't find on the map?

And Iran? Terrible deal, terrible country. So why did we turn Iraq over to them and why are we basically allies with them against ISIS? And WTF have the Saudis done for us, other than rip us off via OPEC for 40 years, that we put ourselves at risk for their sorry asses? Repression in some countries is awful and we need to take action, but in others, even worse repression is ok and we are supposed to use our military to defend them. Very confusing.
 
The Obama Doctrine

The U.S. president talks through his hardest decisions about America’s role in the world.


"Friday, august 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington, D.C. The subject of Kerry’s uncharacteristically Churchillian remarks, delivered in the Treaty Room at the State Department, was the gassing of civilians by the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.

Why he’s proud of not striking Assad in 2013
Obama, in whose Cabinet Kerry serves faithfully, but with some exasperation, is himself given to vaulting oratory, but not usually of the martial sort associated with Churchill. Obama believes that the Manichaeanism, and eloquently rendered bellicosity, commonly associated with Churchill were justified by Hitler’s rise, and were at times defensible in the struggle against the Soviet Union. But he also thinks rhetoric should be weaponized sparingly, if at all, in today’s more ambiguous and complicated international arena. The president believes that Churchillian rhetoric and, more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq. Obama entered the White House bent on getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan; he was not seeking new dragons to slay. And he was particularly mindful of promising victory in conflicts he believed to be unwinnable. “If you were to say, for instance, that we’re going to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and build a prosperous democracy instead, the president is aware that someone, seven years later, is going to hold you to that promise,” Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national-security adviser, and his foreign-policy amanuensis, told me not long ago.

But Kerry’s rousing remarks on that August day, which had been drafted in part by Rhodes, were threaded with righteous anger and bold promises, including the barely concealed threat of imminent attack. Kerry, like Obama himself, was horrified by the sins committed by the Syrian regime in its attempt to put down a two-year-old rebellion. In the Damascus suburb of Ghouta nine days earlier, Assad’s army had murdered more than 1,400 civilians with sarin gas. The strong sentiment inside the Obama administration was that Assad had earned dire punishment. In Situation Room meetings that followed the attack on Ghouta, only the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, cautioned explicitly about the perils of intervention. John Kerry argued vociferously for action..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
That's a first rate article by Goldberg. Thank you so much, Nitro, for calling it to my attention.
We are inundated by so much slipshod reporting that it is a real pleasure to find something of that quality.
 
The half breed Kenyan's administration went all out trying to sell this country on going to war against Assad. After the country let him know in no uncertain terms that it wanted no part of his crazy mission, he backed down. And now he throws John Kerry under the bus and pretends that Kerry was just a loose cannon or attempting to sell an idea to the public that was crosswise with O'hammed's beliefs. Who's stupid enough to believe that?

Do they think that nobody can even remember three years back as to what really happened?
These people think they can just say anything and get away with it. And I blame the republican party. Once they let that criminal put forth a phony birth story and birth certificate, and an almost certainly stolen ssn on top of that, it's only natural that this crowd of people think they can get away with anything.

NY Times: Obama Jump-Started Arab Spring - Clarion Project
Otherwise known as the destabalization of the entire middle east.
An epic failure that is attempting to be rewritten. How pathetic, but right in line with everything else we've seen from these people.
 
Last edited:
The half breed Kenyan's administration went all out trying to sell this country on going to war against Assad. After the country let him know in no uncertain terms that it wanted no part of his crazy mission, he backed down. And now he throws John Kerry under the bus and pretends that Kerry was just a loose cannon or attempting to sell an idea to the public that was crosswise with O'hammed's beliefs. Who's stupid enough to believe that?

Do they think that nobody can even remember three years back as to what really happened?
These people think they can just say anything and get away with it. And I blame the republican party. Once they let that criminal put forth a phony birth story and birth certificate, and an almost certainly stolen ssn on top of that, it's only natural that this crowd of people think they can get away with anything.

NY Times: Obama Jump-Started Arab Spring - Clarion Project
Otherwise known as the destabalization of the entire middle east.
An epic failure that is attempting to be rewritten. How pathetic, but right in line with everything else we've seen from these people.
images
 
These people think they can just say anything and get away with it. And I blame the republican party. Once they let that criminal put forth a phony birth story and birth certificate, and an almost certainly stolen ssn on top of that, it's only natural that this crowd of people think they can get away with anything.

Just goes to show that Republicans and DemoCraps are actually TWO SIDES OF THE SAME FACE! Also explains why "Republican" front-runner Trump is being so vehemently opposed by his "own" party.

The elites of both parties like things the way they are*... don't want no outsider muckin' things up for them.

*Also explains Romney's "taking a dive" in the '12 election.

:(
 
Back
Top