Obama's weird, mushy foreign policy views

[LA Ute]

OK, by now you've got the drift of this post. The president said this to a group of Russian college kids during his visit there:

The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.

The sentences in italics drove me up the wall. Yes, this is defensible rhetorically, but it makes me want to barf. I am sure I will seem jingoistic to some, but doesn't that statement reflect a pretty watered-down view of what actually happened?

Here's another one, made at a NATO meeting in France in April:

I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

On reading this I am transported back to the late 1970s where I am listening to some of my poli sci TA's at the U. (even the most lefty profs didn't spout stuff like this), or some of my buddies who were in the Young Democrats of the era (fresh from the McGovern campaign). No, the president doesn't need to believe in the more extreme versions of American exceptionalism, but he could have pointed with some pride to American contributions to the world, while acknowledging the country's shortcomings.

It all looks like standard liberal moral relativism and reluctance to praise the USA. Yuck.

Just to liven up the discussion, I'll say I think Liz Cheney (oh, dear, there's that evil surname) nailed Pres. Obama on these statements here.

[Jarid in Cedar]

OK, by now you've got the drift of this post. The president said this to a group of Russian college kids during his visit there:

The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.

The sentences in italics drove me up the wall. Yes, this is defensible rhetorically, but it makes me want to barf. I am sure I will seem jingoistic to some, but doesn't that statement reflect a pretty watered-down view of what actually happened?

Here's another one, made at a NATO meeting in France in April:

I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

On reading this I am transported back to the late 1970s where I am listening to some of my poli sci TA's at the U. (even the most lefty profs didn't spout stuff like this), or some of my buddies who were in the Young Democrats of the era (fresh from the McGovern campaign). No, the president doesn't need to believe in the more extreme versions of American exceptionalism, but he could have pointed with some pride to American contributions to the world, while acknowledging the country's shortcomings.

It all looks like standard liberal moral relativism and reluctance to praise the USA. Yuck.

It's as if the world has been able to be successful despite our best efforts.

[il Padrino Ute]

Lech Walesa begs to differ, Mr. Obama.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005204

[LA Ute]

Lech Walesa begs to differ, Mr. Obama.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005204

So do Vaclav Havel and Natan Sharansky and a host of other people who know what they are talking about because they lived (just barely) through that era.

[Grumble-snort . . . .]

[myboynoah]

So do Vaclav Havel and Natan Sharansky and a host of other people who know what they are talking about because they lived (just barely) through that era.

[Grumble-snort . . . .]

What grates the most is that Obama, who was in high school or younger when the wall came down, is reading a speech prepared by an aide 10-15 years younger than himself. They have no idea.

[il Padrino Ute]

What grates the most is that Obama, who was in high school or younger when the wall came down, is reading a speech prepared by an aide 10-15 years younger than himself. They have no idea.

Not to defend Obama's view of the world, but he's a few years older than I and I had finished college by '89.

Still, your point is very valid.

[myboynoah]

Not to defend Obama's view of the world, but he's a few years older than I and I had finished college by '89.

Still, your point is very valid.

I stand corrected. He should know better.

[Hallelujah]

What grates the most is that Obama, who was in high school or younger when the wall came down, is reading a speech prepared by an aide 10-15 years younger than himself. They have no idea.

Hey, don't knock him. He such a great communicator!

[Hallelujah]

Thank goodness for great leadership!

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...,2265146.story

"The president has been a cheerleader for reform, but he'll soon need to address specifics: how to pay for it, and whether government-run insurance should be involved."

A great leader = cheerleader.

"And for those naysayers and cynics who think that this is not going to happen, don't bet against us."

Thanks coach. How about a game plan? Actually he sounds like those noisy sports parents that just yell from the sideline but have no plan of their own.

He wants something done. He just doesn't have a way to pay for it or have any details. Perfect.

[DU Ute]

Lech Walesa begs to differ, Mr. Obama.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005204

GREAT article, IPU! I especially liked the beginning

When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty.

Can you imagine someone making a statement like that about W someday? I can think of a few people who's heads would explode.

[SeattleUte]

OK, by now you've got the drift of this post. The president said this to a group of Russian college kids during his visit there:

The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.

The sentences in italics drove me up the wall. Yes, this is defensible rhetorically, but it makes me want to barf. I am sure I will seem jingoistic to some, but doesn't that statement reflect a pretty watered-down view of what actually happened?

Here's another one, made at a NATO meeting in France in April:

I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

On reading this I am transported back to the late 1970s where I am listening to some of my poli sci TA's at the U. (even the most lefty profs didn't spout stuff like this), or some of my buddies who were in the Young Democrats of the era (fresh from the McGovern campaign). No, the president doesn't need to believe in the more extreme versions of American exceptionalism, but he could have pointed with some pride to American contributions to the world, while acknowledging the country's shortcomings.

It all looks like standard liberal moral relativism and reluctance to praise the USA. Yuck.

Just to liven up the discussion, I'll say I think Liz Cheney (oh, dear, there's that evil surname) nailed Pres. Obama on these statements here.

I think you're overreacting, and exhibiting some unfortunate chauvinism here. First, he was talking to Russian young people, for Pete's sake. College kids. You want him to lord LDS jingoism over them?

Moreover, the Cold War, like WWII, was more about Europe and its history than the United States, if in fact any distinction can be made (it's you who wants to highlight the US role in this over that of any other nation). Not to discount the enormous US contribution to the progress of liberty in Eastern Europe and Russia; we were a but for cause of it. But hundreds of millions of Europeans died in WWII and its aftermath including the Soviet purges, and 500,000 Americans, virtually all soldiers, died.

NATO fulfilled its mission of containment and permitted Western Europe to flourish (Western Europe paid for it too, allowed ICBM's to be placed on its soil, etc.). But the evil Soviet Empire failed because the West (most of all Western Europe, only next door) succeeded economically, culturally, artisitically, intellectually, technologically, to a spectacular extent, and the Soviet system failed to feed, clothe, and house its people. Lest we forget, it was a triumph of liberty in actual practice, including capitalism, not a victory on the battlefied. And for that all citizens of the affected countries can be thankful and PROUD. It was their achievement as much as ours.

I agree with Obama, especially since he was speaking to Russian young adults.

As a bonus I'll add my Mormon critique zinger: The irrestible forces that brought down the Soviet Union are undermining authoritarianism, including mind control, everywhere. That's the irony of your post.

[DU Ute]

I think you're overreacting, and exhibiting some unfortunate chauvinism here. First, he was talking to Russian young people, for Pete's sake. College kids. You want him to lord LDS jingoism over them?

Brings it back to the Church in one paragraph! Well done!

[SeattleUte]

Lech Walesa begs to differ, Mr. Obama.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005204

This supports Obama's point. You don't understand any of this. Stay out of it.

[myboynoah]

I think you're overreacting, and exhibiting some unfortunate chauvinism here. First, he was talking to Russian young people, for Pete's sake. College kids. You want him to lord LDS jingoism over them?

Moreover, the Cold War, like WWII, was more about Europe and its history than the United States, if in fact any distinction can be made (it's you who wants to highlight the US role in this over that of any other nation). Not to discount the enormous US contribution to the progress of liberty in Eastern Europe and Russia; we were a but for cause of it. But hundreds of millions of Europeans died in WWII and its aftermath including the Soviet purges, and 500,000 Americans, virtually all soldiers, died.

NATO fulfilled its mission of containment and permitted Western Europe to flourish (Western Europe paid for it too, allowed ICBM's to be placed on its soil, etc.). But the evil Soviet Empire failed because the West (most of all Western Europe, only next door) succeeded economically, culturally, artisitically, intellectually, technologically, to a spectacular extent, and the Soviet system failed to feed, clothe, and house its people. Lest we forget, it was a triumph of liberty in actual practice, including capitalism, not a victory on the battlefied. And for that all citizens of the affected countries can be thankful and PROUD. It was their achievement as much as ours.

I agree with Obama, especially since he was speaking to Russian young adults.

As a bonus I'll add my Mormon critique zinger: The irrestible forces that brought down the Soviet Union are undermining authoritarianism, including mind control, everywhere. That's the irony of your post.

You'd best stick with the geopolitics of ancient cultures bordering the Mediterranean Sea.

I'll give you the playing to the audience argument. Not good form to come in and say, "We really kicked your asses!"

But discounting the U.S. contribution to the outcome of the Cold War is ignoring history. The continued U.S. presence is the major reason for Western European political and economic development post WWII. The Cold War was very much about the United States and it's willingness to expend resources to stay and stand against Soviet aggression, and not just in Europe. Your cute talk of "ICBMs" in Europe aside, the U.S., at great expense, provided the nuclear umbrella under which the free world could succeed "economically, culturally, artistically, intellectually, technologically, to such a spectacular extent." You haven't been paying attention.

[Flystripper]

I think you're overreacting, and exhibiting some unfortunate chauvinism here. First, he was talking to Russian young people, for Pete's sake. College kids. You want him to lord LDS jingoism over them?

Moreover, the Cold War, like WWII, was more about Europe and its history than the United States, if in fact any distinction can be made (it's you who wants to highlight the US role in this over that of any other nation). Not to discount the enormous US contribution to the progress of liberty in Eastern Europe and Russia; we were a but for cause of it. But hundreds of millions of Europeans died in WWII and its aftermath including the Soviet purges, and 500,000 Americans, virtually all soldiers, died.

NATO fulfilled its mission of containment and permitted Western Europe to flourish (Western Europe paid for it too, allowed ICBM's to be placed on its soil, etc.). But the evil Soviet Empire failed because the West (most of all Western Europe, only next door) succeeded economically, culturally, artisitically, intellectually, technologically, to a spectacular extent, and the Soviet system failed to feed, clothe, and house its people. Lest we forget, it was a triumph of liberty in actual practice, including capitalism, not a victory on the battlefied. And for that all citizens of the affected countries can be thankful and PROUD. It was their achievement as much as ours.

I agree with Obama, especially since he was speaking to Russian young adults.

As a bonus I'll add my Mormon critique zinger: The irrestible forces that brought down the Soviet Union are undermining authoritarianism, including mind control, everywhere. That's the irony of your post.

I was going to type pretty much the same thing but you said it better than I could.