Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    WaPo Getting Nervous About Obama’s Foreign Policy Skills

    WaPo Getting Nervous About Obama’s Foreign Policy Skills

    Who did the Washington Post endorse for president in 2012?

    https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/505100489952722945/photo/1

    A new editorial from the Washington Post takes an unusually sober look at President Obama’s foreign policy chops and his non-reaction to the world that’s burning around him:

    President Obama needs to focus on how the United States can meet global challenges

    PRESIDENT OBAMA’S acknowledgment that “we don’t have a strategy yet” in Syria understandably attracted the most attention after his perplexing meeting with reporters Thursday. But his restatement of the obvious was not the most dismaying aspect of his remarks. The president’s goal, to the extent he had one, seemed to be to tamp down all the assessments of gathering dangers that his own team had been issuing over the previous days.

    This argument with his own administration is alarming on three levels.

    The first has to do with simple competence. One can only imagine the whiplash that foreign leaders must be suffering. They heard U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power denounce Russia as “today . . . they open a new front . . . Russia’s force along the border is the largest it has been . . . the mask is coming off.” An hour later, Mr. Obama implicitly contradicted her: “I consider the actions that we’ve seen in the last week a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now . . . it’s not really a shift.”

    If you read on from there, you’ll notice that the editors use the word “disturbing” twice to describe Obama’s response to the situation in Ukraine and the rise of ISIS.

    This is quite a departure from the Post’s endorsement of Obama in 2012.

    Here’s what they wrote approximately two years ago:

    Washington Post endorsement: Four more years for President Obama

    MUCH OF THE 2012 presidential campaign has dwelt on the past, but the key questions are who could better lead the country during the next four years — and, most urgently, who is likelier to put the government on a more sound financial footing.

    That second question will come rushing at the winner as soon as the votes are tallied. Absent any action, a series of tax hikes and spending cuts will take effect Jan. 1 that might well knock the country back into recession. This will be a moment of peril but also of opportunity. How the president-elect navigates it will go a long way toward determining the success of his presidency and the health of the nation.

    President Barack Obama is better positioned to be that navigator than is his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

    Then comes this part, emphasis is mine:

    Even granting the importance of the fiscal issue, a case might still be made for Mr. Romney if Mr. Obama’s first term had been a failure; if Mr. Romney were more likely to promote American security and leadership abroad; or if the challenger had shown himself superior in temperament, capacity and character. In fact, not one of these is true.

    And finally, this:

    OVERSEAS, TOO, there were successes and failures. Mr. Obama’s administration vigorously pursued al-Qaeda and tracked down its leader, Osama bin Laden. He supported a popular uprising against Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi. He recognized the importance of bolstering allies in Asia against Chinese bullying, and he opened trade talks with Asian nations intended to encourage an alternative to China’s state-sponsored, often corrupt capitalism.

    One has to wonder if the editors of the Washington post would choose differently today.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Good Lord. When was the last time Barack Obama teamed up with the TOTUS for one of those awesome inspirational speeches ?

    Dude, it’s been months

    “On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright …” — March 18, 2008, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Apparently, there was too much attention to the wrong end of the spectrum.


     
     0 
     
     3
    Voyager | August 31, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    [quote]One has to wonder if the editors of the Washington post would choose differently today.[/quote]

    No, they wouldn’t. They are partisan to the core, and would rather see the world burn around them than allow someone who might possibly not be a hyper leftist run the country.


     
     0 
     
     1
    tarheelkate | August 31, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    He has foreign policy skills? Who knew?

    At this point, it’s every man/woman for themselves.

    If ISIS attacks along the Southern border after an Obama “executive
    action” on immigration and his refusal to enforce current immigration
    law to have an “open border,” the Democrats will be toast.

    The clock is ticking …

    I bet the DNC wishes the election were today so they could limit their losses.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend