PDA

View Full Version : President Obama Shreds Fox News For Their Bogus Criticisms Of His Foreign Policy



Cigar
04-28-2014, 06:27 PM
During his press conference in the Philippines, President Obama took apart Fox News and the Republican Party’s claim that his foreign policy is weak.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/28/president-obama-shreds-fox-news-bogus-criticisms-foreign-policy.html

President Obama engaged in one of his favorite press conference hobbies. The president handed Ed Henry his head for asking yet another Fox News fueled stupid question that was entirely based on Republican talking points. As soon as Henry broke out the phrase red line, it was easy to see the utter BS question coming.

Obama went through and debunked point by point the right’s bogus criticisms of his foreign policy. The president got in an immediate jab at Fox News by suggesting that the network ignored the complimentary pieces about his foreign policy. Obama directly took on the Republican talking point that Fox News pushes on a daily basis that his foreign policy isn’t strong or manly enough.

The president hit Fox News and the Republicans hard by saying that haven’t learned the lessons of the decision to invade Iraq, and that they keep hitting the same note over and over again. He called out Fox and the GOP for being wrong about Syria, and for advocating military strikes that the American people want no part of. He made it clear that his foreign policy decisions aren’t made because some clown at a cable news network thinks that they will make him look strong.

President Obama ate Ed Henry and his talking points for breakfast, and demonstrated why Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to foreign policy. Military action and waving the flag is not foreign policy. The nation learned that painful lesson under George W. Bush.

Obama is showing Fox News what a strong president looks like by intelligently shoving their talking points right back in their face.

(I usually don’t include the whole lengthy transcript, but this one is worth reading in order to appreciate Obama’s foreign policy.)

Transcript:

Q Thank you to both Presidents. President Aquino, as a journalist, I’d like to ask you why 26 journalists have been killed since you took office. And I understand that there have only been suspects arrested in six of those cases. What are you doing to fix that?

President Obama, as you grappled here with all these national security challenges, I have two questions. One, back home we’ve learned that 40 military veterans died while they were waiting for health care, a very tragic situation. I know you don’t run the Phoenix Office of Veterans Affairs, but as Commander-in-Chief, what specifically will you pledge to fix that?

And, secondly, more broadly — big picture — as you end this trip, I don’t think I have to remind you there have been a lot of unflattering portraits of your foreign policy right now. And rather than get into all the details or red lines, et cetera, I’d like to give you a chance to lay out what your vision is more than five years into office, what you think the Obama doctrine is in terms of what your guiding principle is on all of these crises and how you answer those critics who say they think the doctrine is weakness.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, Ed, I doubt that I’m going to have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine. And there are actually some complimentary pieces as well about my foreign policy, but I’m not sure you ran them.

Here’s I think the general takeaway from this trip. Our alliances in the Asia Pacific have never been stronger; I can say that unequivocally. Our relationship with ASEAN countries in Southeast Asia have never been stronger. I don’t think that’s subject to dispute. As recently as a decade ago, there were great tensions between us and Malaysia, for example. And I think you just witnessed the incredible warmth and strength of the relationship between those two countries.

We’re here in the Philippines signing a defense agreement. Ten years ago, fifteen years ago there was enormous tensions around our defense relationship with the Philippines. And so it’s hard to square whatever it is that the critics are saying with facts on the ground, events on the ground here in the Asia Pacific region. Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question I think I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget? And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?

My job as Commander-in-Chief is to deploy military force as a last resort, and to deploy it wisely. And, frankly, most of the foreign policy commentators that have questioned our policies would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures that the American people had no interest in participating in and would not advance our core security interests.

So if you look at Syria, for example, our interest is in helping the Syrian people, but nobody suggests that us being involved in a land war in Syria would necessarily accomplish this goal. And I would note that those who criticize our foreign policy with respect to Syria, they themselves say, no, no, no, we don’t mean sending in troops. Well, what do you mean? Well, you should be assisting the opposition — well, we’re assisting the opposition. What else do you mean? Well, perhaps you should have taken a strike in Syria to get chemical weapons out of Syria. Well, it turns out we’re getting chemical weapons out of Syria without having initiated a strike. So what else are you talking about? And at that point it kind of trails off.

In Ukraine, what we’ve done is mobilize the international community. Russia has never been more isolated. A country that used to be clearly in its orbit now is looking much more towards Europe and the West, because they’ve seen that the arrangements that have existed for the last 20 years weren’t working for them. And Russia is having to engage in activities that have been rejected uniformly around the world. And we’ve been able to mobilize the international community to not only put diplomatic pressure on Russia, but also we’ve been able to organize European countries who many were skeptical would do anything to work with us in applying sanctions to Russia. Well, what else should we be doing? Well, we shouldn’t be putting troops in, the critics will say. That’s not what we mean. Well, okay, what are you saying? Well, we should be arming the Ukrainians more. Do people actually think that somehow us sending some additional arms into Ukraine could potentially deter the Russian army? Or are we more likely to deter them by applying the sort of international pressure, diplomatic pressure and economic pressure that we’re applying?

The point is that for some reason many who were proponents of what I consider to be a disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again. Why? I don’t know. But my job as Commander-in-Chief is to look at what is it that is going to advance our security interests over the long term, to keep our military in reserve for where we absolutely need it. There are going to be times where there are disasters and difficulties and challenges all around the world, and not all of those are going to be immediately solvable by us.

But we can continue to speak out clearly about what we believe. Where we can make a difference using all the tools we’ve got in the toolkit, well, we should do so. And if there are occasions where targeted, clear actions can be taken that would make a difference, then we should take them. We don’t do them because somebody sitting in an office in Washington or New York think it would look strong. That’s not how we make foreign policy. And if you look at the results of what we’ve done over the last five years, it is fair to say that our alliances are stronger, our partnerships are stronger, and in the Asia Pacific region, just to take one example, we are much better positioned to work with the peoples here on a whole range of issues of mutual interest.

And that may not always be sexy. That may not always attract a lot of attention, and it doesn’t make for good argument on Sunday morning shows. But it avoids errors. You hit singles, you hit doubles; every once in a while we may be able to hit a home run. But we steadily advance the interests of the American people and our partnership with folks around the world.

patrickt
04-28-2014, 07:09 PM
Cut and Paste from "Real Liberal Politics" again. It is silly. President Obama has no foreign policy. On the bright side, we're about as likely to see another Georgia peanut farmer in the White House as another communist in the next twenty years.

keymanjim
04-28-2014, 07:18 PM
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/fox.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/keymanjim/media/fox.jpg.html)

patrickt
04-28-2014, 07:19 PM
Actually, I was wrong. President Obama's foreign policy is to fuck our allies and suck up to our enemies because our enemies are his friends and his enemies are us and our allies.

Bob
04-28-2014, 07:25 PM
Cut and Paste from "Real Liberal Politics" again. It is silly. President Obama has no foreign policy. On the bright side, we're about as likely to see another Georgia peanut farmer in the White House as another communist in the next twenty years.

Every time I see Obama barking at Putin, over something that clearly is none of his business, braying he got Europe to go along, I can't help recalling just what a narcissist Obama really is.

He wants us to ignore Syria, Egypt, Libya, and, yes even his bungling with Iraq and Afghanistan, so he can pretend he is king of the world and badger Putin over an event that Putin did not create?

Normally a US president would back the elected guy. The guy running Ukraine never was elected. HE seized power. Yet Obama ignores that and won't discuss this, but only discusses that Putin welcomed with open arms a group in Crimea that actually voted to be part of Russia.

Nobody voted for the leader of Ukraine. Were this nation to be taken over like that, the person would face charges of treason. But this is who Obama backs.

Yes, Obama is well known for leading while behind. But he is the last and not the first.

zelmo1234
04-28-2014, 07:27 PM
In my life I can't remember a president complaining about a news channel

Maybe I am wrong? But even when they had Clinton over the Lewinsky barrel, I don't remember him being a cry baby about the questions that the media was asking

texan
04-28-2014, 07:42 PM
Hilarious. Shreds! I won't react to this attempt to draw people offsides.