FINALLY, Americans Approve Of Bush’s Foreign Policy

100% of readers using “tfhr” as a pseudonym agree with this poll analysis.

Larry W: Obama just ended the “War on Terrorism.” Fairly radical change of direction.

Yeah… that’ll stop the global Islamic jihad movements from further activities… Obama basically “bans” the phrase, and bingo… all is well and the world is at peace. I guess if you don’t discuss it, it just doesn’t plain exist. LOL

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Mata pretty much sums up my first thoughts about your comments but would you please explain how the conduct of our current “overseas contingency operations”, as well as or current foreign policy differs from that practiced by the Bush Administration?

@Aye Chihuahua: Apparently names made a huge difference during the green revolution. Why, Obama single-handedly caused the Mousavi-ites to lay down their protest posters and head to the bar instead because he didn’t call Ahmadinejad “worse than Hitler” or something. And it wasn’t that long ago that Obama’s “apology tour” was touted as an act of Sharia-initiating appeasement. Apparently Obama’s words can only trigger more and more terrorists to be spawned like a cancer; but to consider that they can similarly put a damper on recruitment – why that’s unthinkable!

Look, I agree that Obama is similar to Bush in that he believes that American intervention can play a positive role; heck, give it a few more years and I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re off on some other Iraq-style crusade – it’s the double-edged sword of nationalism. But either the way he frames those positions is tantamount to a significant policy-shift or it’s not – you can’t have both. Or are you saying that conservative opposition to Obama’s foreign-policy is just opposition to Obama?

Of course, a good portion of neo-cons seem to think there’s a huge difference between Obama’s bow and Bush’s kiss … so maybe this is just a game of partisan ping-pong.

@openid.aol.com:

I haven’t said anything negative whatsoever regarding you professionally and I certainly don’t think I have given you any reason to think that I feel that way because, in reality, my feelings toward you professionally are nothing but positive.

I believe anyone who is fighting to find cures, effective treatments, or anything that helps make cancer more manageable is doing a yeoman’s work. I put people who are doing work with Alzheimer’s in that same category.

Both of those dread diseases have taken away people that were close to me so anyone who prevents others from suffering what I, and my family, have been through will earn a gold star from me.

As to your personal character, sorry, but you’ve made that fair game.

Anyone who spends the amount of time you have spent here railing against tax cuts only to have it later discovered that you have accepted the very tax cuts that you railed on and on about deserves the well earned scorn they are given. Don’t feel lonely because you’re not the first person I have called out on this very issue.

When the same person who railed about tax cuts, but accepted them anyway, then states an opposition to stimulus money while reaching his hand out for the $4,500 clunker check, sorry your protestations at being called out, and rightfully labeled, ring hollow.

I’ll tell you what Larry, I’m willing to be fair with you.

You return all of the money that you have received as a result of the Bush tax cuts and the CARS program and then I will stop pointing out your words/actions mismatch.

Of course, as an alternative, you could espouse positions on the pages here which are not in conflict with your own personal actions thus eliminating the obvious mismatch.

Until then, the continued goring of your ox is well deserved.

Larry said; “The Obama foreign policy is nothing like the Bush foreign policy.”

No, it really isn’t. Obama’s policies are hardly different from Bush’s. In fact, I recall a group who supported him threatening to sue him for continuing more of Bush’s policies than reversing them. The plan that Obama supports for withdrawing troops from Iraq is the plan that was being discussed before the November 2008 elections, which Obama didn’t support until after he had won the election.

The plan included a withdrawal that had already started at the time that would continue until 2010, leaving only a small contingency force that would stay near the American Embassy. Obama defended his choice to support this plan, despite having a different stance not too long ago. Even Obama’s plan to close down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba hardly has any discrepancies to Bush’s plans.

President Obama’s plan to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay was almost entirely the same as Bush’s plan word for word. Just look at the steps Obama outlined in his plan to Congress to close Guantanamo Bay, it’s almost word for word the same as the steps outlined by Bush in his plan that he presented in his state of the union address in regards to closing Guantanamo Bay. Coincidence? I hope so, but one must really be an Obama zombie in order to put 100% faith in the idea that this similarity in Bush and Obama’s plan is nothing more than a coincidence.

His move to put more troops in Afghanistan as the Iraq troop withdrawals progressed was also a policy that Bush’s administration had supported. The fact that Obama supported this policy from his predecessors administration actually started one of the first anti-war protests against President Obama. I remember seeing a protester waving a sign which read; “Obama, Afghanistan is not the good war” watching the news with family. Obama actually did not support this policy until after he won the election much like the Iraq withdrawal plan. Despite having advocated for troop increases before in a few speeches.

Other examples of Obama’s administration having similarities to Bush’s administration in foreign policy would include the efforts to stop countries who desire to obtain nuclear weapons. His administration’s talks with North Korea and Iran are hardly different from Bush’s. Both administrations talked tough with both Iran and North Korea alongside our allies. When it came to these examples, the only difference I can see is Obama’s ability to change his mind in an effort to suit his best interests in terms of winning political battles. Nothing more.

@Aye: I wasn’t referring to your “hypocrite” charges, which I continue to challenge; I was referring to your use of the “L” word.

By the “L” word I am guessing you mean leukemia. Is that right?

Well, I was sort of half joking with my question to you Larry. My best friend really has just been diagnosed with leukemia and I was using that as an example to demonstrate the silliness of your name change argument. Simply calling it something different doesn’t change the facts.

The technique I used is called illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

As to the hypocrisy label, it fits you Larry. It fits you perfectly. You should either wear it proudly or resolve yourself to square your words with your actions.

Either fully embrace the tax cuts and the stimulus without a whimper or don’t. Fence straddling half measures while cashing checks that you “oppose” casts you in a negative light and sets you up for well deserved scorn.

As to the war in Iraq, yes I did support it. I still do. Just because I was unable to serve doesn’t make me hypocritical on that matter. On the other hand, if I came here claiming to support the war and then went on to attend anti-war rallies, hurling insults, or perhaps spitting on some troops (or some other vile behavior that those on the left have perfected) that would be hypocritical.

If, on the other hand, I came here and vocally supported the war as well as the troops and then turned around and did everything that I possibly could do to give life to those words then that would not be hypocritical.

If you’re really interested, I’ll tell you sometime about the portable air conditioners, the care packages, the 200 dozen cookies, the cards, the letters, the drawings by our children, the magazines, the new socks, the baby wipes, the bug repellent, and all of the other items that I sent over both personally, and in connection with local schools, churches, and civic organizations.

Hypocritical? No, I don’t think so.

You really don’t want to go down the road of questioning my support for the troops and the fine work that they do for our country and, by proxy, for all of us. That’s an arrow best left in the quiver.

In the remainder of your post you go on to whine some more about tax cuts and deficits and money that I have borrowed from your children while, presumably, you still haven’t written out that check to the IRS to reimburse your children for the money that you yourself have borrowed from them.

Yes, Larry, that fits right in the hypocrisy category too because you can’t have it both ways.

Pot. Kettle.

Don’t dare lecture me about things that you are engaging in yourself.

All of this self-righteous strutting and foot stomping coming from a guy who proudly admits to voting for Obama and is still openly supportive of his money printing, check writing, wrecking-ball approach to governance.

All of this coming from a guy who calls himself a true conservative.

I find it laughable.

Again, I’ll extend my earlier offer to you:

You return all of the money that you have received as a result of the Bush tax cuts and the CARS program and then I will stop pointing out your words/actions mismatch.

Of course, as an alternative, you could espouse positions on the pages here which are not in conflict with your own personal actions thus eliminating the obvious mismatch.

Until then, the continued goring of your ox is well deserved.

As for your question regarding whether I have ever “accepted a government sponsored benefit which you oppose on theoretical, academic grounds?” The answer to that would be NO.

Here’s a perfect example for you:

When my wife was pregnant with our third child she had all sorts of health issues including, but not limited to, gestational diabetes. Problems which ultimately lead us to decide to stop at three children.

In the hospital, after she had the baby by C-section (her third), and prior to discharge for her and the baby, the financial services office of the hospital sent up some paperwork. I glanced it over briefly and then put it back in the folder figuring that there would be no need to complete it because of our income level.

Several weeks after getting home, the hospital called. They wanted to know about the paperwork. As it turned out, in the state of GA, her pregnancy was considered “high risk” because of it being a repeat C-section and there was money available to pay off all of our pre-natal expenses, all of our co-pays, all of our deductibles, every dime of the pregnancy that was not covered by our insurance, right down to the pre-natal vitamins and our mileage back and forth to the hospital. All we needed to do was fill out four pages of paperwork and FAX it over.

After questioning the financial services rep I discovered that the income limit for the program was much higher than I had imagined and that we would qualify after all. However, I then asked her where the funding for the program came from. When she told me that it was taxpayer funded, I declined to participate.

So, yes, I have turned down money that could have legally been mine based on personal principle.

I choose to actually give life to what I believe rather than just type words on a page.

YMMV

From Aye:

In the remainder of your post you go on to whine some more about tax cuts and deficits and money that I have borrowed from your children while, presumably, you still haven’t written out that check to the IRS to reimburse your children for the money that you yourself have borrowed from them.

Yes, Larry, that fits right in the hypocrisy category too because you can’t have it both ways.

Pot. Kettle.

Don’t dare lecture me about things that you are engaging in yourself.

All of this self-righteous strutting and foot stomping coming from a guy who proudly admits to voting for Obama and is still openly supportive of his money printing, check writing, wrecking-ball approach to governance.

Good grief, Aye. Will you stop manipulating/twisting things?

“Self righteous strutting and foot stomping?” Did you read my post? I’m merely taking your arguments against me and turning them around against you. You threw the first stone; I didn’t.

I’m not “lecturing” you about things I’m engaging in myself. I wasn’t the one who took the breathtakingly self-righteous position that one could not oppose tax cuts while accepting tax cuts, when they were passed over my opposition. And, worse, for taking the breathtakingly self-righteous position that it’s hypocritical to support increased taxes (to pay for what we insist on spending, as opposed to borrowing money from our children), while not voluntarily remitting more money to the government. I opposed cutting marginal tax rates from 39% to 36% and you call me hypocritical for not just sending in the extra 3% in to the government.

It takes no sacrifice whatsoever to support financing one’s own tax cuts with money borrowed from other people’s children. It takes no leadership whatsoever to grant people tax cuts with money borrowed from other people’s children. It does take both personal sacrifice and leadership to promote the concept of paying for our own government and paying for our own wars with our own money. It is so smugly easy to take the sanctimonious position that one cannot favor changes in government policy without making voluntary personal cash contributions to government, when one’s own personal policies are those which never call for such personal sacrifice.

Do you understand: you started this; I didn’t! I was merely pointing out the contradictory hypocrisy in your own position. You claim that the “stimulus” is fiscally irresponsible, because it is creating more debt. Yet you had no problem yourself, accepting the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush 43, when they created a much greater increase in the national debt load (relative to the size of the overall economy). Don’t you get it? When you accept tax cuts from a GOP administration which is simultaneously increasing government spending, you are stealing money from my children, no differently than when I steal from your children to pay for my cash for clunkers rebate. There is no difference whatsoever.

Once again, however, I wasn’t the one to go down this road. I wasn’t the one engaging in “self righteous strutting and foot stomping.” This was entirely you. I was merely trying to explain to you how your charges of hypocrisy can be turned right back at you.

If you’re really interested, I’ll tell you sometime about the portable air conditioners, the care packages, the 200 dozen cookies, the cards, the letters, the drawings by our children, the magazines, the new socks, the baby wipes, the bug repellent, and all of the other items that I sent over both personally, and in connection with local schools, churches, and civic organizations.

Yes. I would like to hear about this. Just tell me the total cash value of your own contributions. Not the aggregate value of contributions by the schools, churches, civic organizations. The cash value of your own, personal contributions. And then tell me the aggregate value of the tax cuts you accepted over the past 8 years (including cuts in inheritance taxes, were any received), while you were pursuing an elective war being financed with money stolen from my children.

Ryan (#12) wrote about deplorable conditions in military facilities. In all previous wars, including Vietnam, Commanders in Chief had the guts to ask the nation to pay more taxes to support the wars being fought. Aye cheers the war effort, accepts tax cuts paid for with money borrowed from my children, and sends baby wipes, bug repellant, and cookies, and he considers himself to be square.

Whatever.

By the way, Ryan (#!2), it was Defense Secretary Gates himself who stated that the money from the cancelled F-22 program (cancellation opposed vocally on this blog, but supported by John McCain, among many other military experts) was being redirected to increased spending on special ops forces and special ops transport vehicles.

@mata: Yes, Bush played straight into Bin Laden’s hands. Bush facilitated the rise of “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” precisely through the mechanisms I described in comment #4, above. This was a direct contributing factor to the deaths of hundreds to thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. Perhaps you are now arguing that the tactical blunder of declaring global war (as explained by John Brennan, Comment #2) was worth it, just so that “Al Qaeda in Iraq” could be given the opportunity to burn bridges with fellow Muslims; I don’t accept that.

As for celebrating improving conditions in Iraq, yes, of course, I do. But here’s the thing. It wasn’t worth it. It simply wasn’t worth it. All the death and all the destruction. Americans, Iraqis, homes, museums, Mosques. The rise of an unchecked Iran, daring Bush to bomb or invade, knowing that he wouldn’t, because he couldn’t, because he’s already played his hand and demonstrated the limits of American military power.

And, with regard to global Jihad, the next shoe has not yet dropped. The lessons in Iraq for the Al Qaeda movement is that it is folly to engage the US military, even with purely guerilla tactics. Iraq has validated Bin Laden’s doctrine that it will take the death of 4,000,000 Americans to achieve the goals of global Jihad. It was 100 years before Saladin re-took Jerusalem from the Crusaders. Those guys work on God’s time.

The only thing the jihad movement wants is all western troops and influence removed from Islamic lands. Nothing less will do. Therefore Obama, or anyone, is incapable of making peace with jihad unless they just pull everything western… from troops and bases to Mickey D’s and Starbucks… from any territory they decide to claim as their caliphate.

True, but grossly exaggerated. Mickey D’s and Starbucks. Umm, no. Look at Dubai. Western troops, yes. But here’s the thing: what the US has to fear is not the low life Al Qaeda in Iraq types, it’s European university students and Pakistani university students and Iranian university students and Egyptian university students. It’s Islamic high rollers. These are the ones with the capabilities of acquiring and deploying the type of WMD to bring about the deaths of 4,000,000 Americans. What is vitally important is that we do what is reasonable to reduce the motivation of these people to kill us, and that we increase the motivation of intelligence and police agencies around the world to work with us in preventing them from killing us.

Finally, @Aye, relating to story of turning down available money from a government-financed health care program. Very good, I commend you. If it makes you feel virtuous to claim moral superiority over me, then go for it.

You are also morally superior to all your Southern GOP politicians who accepted stimulus money, despite being opposed to the stimulus, as a matter of macroeconomic principle. Also, the vast majority of clunkers traded in were Explorers and large pick up trucks. I’d wager that the majority of people taking advantage of cash for clunkers were Republicans. Goodness knows, I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of participating auto dealerships are owned by Republicans. All us us fall short, in God’s eyes and also, it would seem, in Aye’s eyes.

My two most consistent political positions, over my entire lifetime, have been that the government, number one, should never engage in elective wars, from Vietnam to Iraq. And, number two, the government should pay for every penny it spends with tax revenues and should never cut taxes without simultaneously cutting expenditures to pay for these tax cuts.

I would argue that both positions are the positions of a true conservative. A true conservative matches spending to revenue and does not cut revenue and borrow money to support spending. A true conservative does not support sending troops into harm’s way and spend national treasure on wars of choice, as opposed to wars of necessity. When a true conservative declares war, he supports increasing taxes to pay for these wars, as opposed to cutting taxes and borrowing yet more money. I generally support and vote for candidates who come closest to supporting these positions.

P.S. The “L” word was liar. Aye’s word.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

If your claim is correct that “Obama is practicing supply side anti-terrorism. A would be Jihadist dissuaded from joining Jihad is better than a Jihadist killed, because a Jihadist killed leaves behind brothers and friends to take his place.”, then you must be really disappointed in the Wednesday death of the Taliban leader in Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8188859.stm

With your line of thinking it would be preferable for the man that ordered and facilitated the assassination of Benazir Bhutto to be alive and recruiting, leading, and sponsoring more operations for the Jihad. It must be a terrible disappointment to you that the Obama Administration departed from your cherished “supply side anti-terrorism” strategy. I’ll bet Robert Gibbs really rubbed salt in those wounds when he thoughtlessly pronounced Mehsud to be nothing more than a “a murderous thug”. How insensitive. We’re you driven to tears when Gibbs continued to fan the flames by crowing that the “Pakistani people would be safer if he was dead”?

I think you should contact the White House and register your complaint immediately. I understand that the process is simple – just send an email to flag@whitehouse.gov!