Searching for the Elusive Obama Doctrine
Does he have one? Or is he applying campaign strategy to international policy?
Most American presidencies come to be associated with specific foreign policy approaches (the word “doctrine” might sometimes imply too much systematic thinking on the part of people involved). For FDR it was internationalism by stealth followed by open anti-fascism; for Truman, it was containment. Ronald Reagan wanted to actively confront, bankrupt, and roll back communism; Bill Clinton lunged into full-throttled multilateralism; George W. Bush got associated with neo-conservatism and its agenda of confronting terror head-on, preemption, and exporting democracy (it’s debatable, though irrelevant here, to what extent W.’s presidency reflected and implemented such doctrines — much less, how successfully).
So what is Obama’s foreign policy doctrine? What is he actually doing overseas? What is he trying to achieve and how is he going about it? When pondering these questions, it struck me that Obama is doing abroad what many presidents, though not Obama himself, tend to do at home. Let me explain.
It’s a well-known piece of political wisdom that candidates in presidential primaries tend to run to the right for the Republicans and to the left for the Democrats in order to capture the support of the respective party bases which select them. Then, during the campaign proper, the endorsed candidates are supposed to shift to the center, because “that’s where the votes are” and “the middle wins the elections” — although, to be more precise, it’s not the middle per se, but the combination of the base and the middle that a successful candidate needs in order to build the winning majority. The move to the center is justified on the pragmatic grounds that the majority of the base will stay with you anyway, while at the same time you will attract more independent supporters than will peel off your base. As with the campaign, for many so with the presidency. In recent times, Bill Clinton governed — or at least the common political wisdom says he governed — from the center even if his appeal to the base and the independents never actually translated into an absolute electoral majority.
Obama has never followed this path, at least not so far. In the primaries he had run broadly on the left, though the “hope and change” was such an ideologically nebulous set of concepts and images that it could — and did — mean anything to anyone. In power, however, Obama clearly did not move to the center. The result is that opinion polls now show him hemorrhaging the independent support. He is increasingly not seen as the post-partisan, transformational, healing presence in the White House he originally marketed himself as.
But what of the world beyond America’s borders?
Think of America’s allies (Great Britain, Australia, Israel, Poland, Colombia, and others) as the party of America’s base. Think of countries like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and a few others as the other party — the party of anti-America, the party of evil, or whatever you want to call them. Think of the rest of the international community — ranging from the vaguely friendly (Western Europe) to cautiously competitive (Russia, China) — as the center.
Obama is a multilateralist, which in this scheme of things means he wants to govern from the center. For Obama, that’s where the “votes” are — in the great middle that comprises the majority of states and the majority of the world’s population. In order to appeal to the middle — Russia, China, the European Union, the Organization of American States, the United Nations — Obama is willing to slap down, snub, or sideline the allies, the traditional party of America. He might justify it under the rationale that the allies can take it. After all, and just as with the voters of a domestic base, where else can they go? And even if some of them do peel off and “stay at home on the election day,” it’s still worth it because the new-found respect, friendship, and cooperation from the center will compensate for any loss from the base.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Arthur Chrenkoff is a former blogger, creator of the “Good news from Iraq” series, and author of Night Trains, a supernatural alternate reality war thriller.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
40 Comments
1. Poor Citizen:Obama’s strategy concerning multi-lateralism is smart, but not surprising. With two wars in a region chock full of hatred of the US his administration is trying to undo the damages of the past while taking on Iran “with international support”. Bush took the advice of folks like the heritage foundation and other whacko organizations that basically said once America shows up over there and prays…those folks will see the errors of their ways and love us forever, they will build wal marts and mcdonalds and live happily ever after. They were wrong. Obama is changing course and wants to engage with other countries for a. their cooperation and b. influence the thinking enemy into eventual peaceful negotiations instead of a “hundred years war” which is also, very expensive. Its a risky strategy, more of necessity, rather than “einstein theory”. Will it work?..well, if it dont this president will at least be guaranteed a great job in the private sector. If it works………oh my….
Sep 26, 2009 - 1:00 am 2. patmanshardt.blogspot.com:This article is based on the assumption that Obama is merely naive, instead as some are increasingly begining to fear, malicious, towards the country he now leads.
Sep 26, 2009 - 1:07 am 3. stuart williamson:Mr. Chrenkoffs theme is intriguing and his analysis, in my opinion, cannot be faulted; his perception of three flawed and dangerous assumptions is compelling. My only disappointment was that he does not offer, at his conclusion, his capsule definition of The Obama Foreign Policy Doctrine.
My version wold be: Appeasement and Accommodation. For the three reasons given, and because I believe that other major nations, despite their accusations of American arrogance, WANT the U.S.A. to remain assertive and maintain the role of prodigal patron as an essential of its doctrine.
It is ironic that this inconsequential mediocrity, unqualified for statesmanship to an appalling degree, is such an egomaniac that he perceives himself in the role of a global leader. That he would adopt such a “doctrine” in the light of that vain ambition is a measure of his inadequacy and self-delusion.
Sep 26, 2009 - 1:49 am 4. Dr.Chemical:Perhaps Charlie Gibson can explain the Obama Doctrine to us.
Sep 26, 2009 - 3:27 am 5. John Kennett:Another excellent piece by this insightful writer. I can’t wait for another article by him! Arthur Chrenkoff needs to writing for you on a daily basis!
Sep 26, 2009 - 4:41 am 6. LeighB:I don’t know how the historians will describe the Obama Doctrine, the MSM won’t get it right and neither will I (not my area of expertise).
He does seem to be providing comfort to our enemies by apologizing for America, cutting our military strength, having friendly relations with dictators and snubbing our historical allies. His solution to everything is to talk, so convinced is he that others will see his superiority.
Of all the approaches described in the article, Reagan’s makes the most sense to me. A strong military, economic strength, the ability to distinguish between friend and foe–the combination of these would allow a “just words doctrine” to be more effective.
Perhaps off topic, the two speeches given at the UN this week that made an impact on me were Sarkozy’s and Netanyahu’s. Thought-provoking. Realistic. From positions of strength. Clear.
Sep 26, 2009 - 5:27 am 7. Aureliano:This is a misdiagnosis, and too clever by half.
Obama simply believes that the West is responsible for most of the problems of this world, either directly or indirectly. America, as the most powerful nation of the West, wealthy and capitalist, is therefore most responsible for the problems of this world, either directly or indirectly. To a true American Leftist such as Obama, it is an unshakable article of faith. Details aren’t important. Obama simply KNOWS that in regards to any issue anywhere, America (the West) is at fault, some how, some way — one need only troll ivy league universities for a theory to support this proposition. (Heck, one could order up any customized theory you desire from the university, ready for distribution in just a few months.)
Obama’s goal is to minimize America’s influence. He believes that the world will then align itself in a more proper and ‘just’ arrangment, free of the nefarious distortions caused by capitalist and Euro-centric (aka, ‘white’) exploitative machinations.
Obama has not and will not do anything to strengthen America. That is not the goal. The goal is to weaken her, thereby strengthening Leftist governments everywhere and bringing us one step closer to a collectivist utopia (run by elites such as himself).
To him a weakened America is a form of reparations, a way for colored peoples everywhere to get even with ‘white’ America and Europe.
Once one comes to understand that Obama doesn’t like America very much, or the vast majority of its people, the next question becomes: Why would someone who doesn’t even like his country or his countrymen want to lead it? What are the goals of such an individual?
It sure isn’t to strengthen the country he dislikes. Obama will spend his entire tenure weakening the country militarily and supporting Leftist governments everywhere. And while he doesn’t explicitly want the economy ruined, he simply doesn’t care if any of his redistributive policies destroy the economy. In his view an America with a weak economy is a good thing because he considers American wealth ‘unfair’ and wrongly earned.
It’s all about the reparations. ‘Foreign policy’ is just a subset of the reparations superset.
Sep 26, 2009 - 5:30 am 8. Cybergeezer:As with everything Obama has done to date, details are always sketchy. But platitudes are plentiful. He thinks he is a master of smoke and mirrors. Just your average, basic incompetence.
Sep 26, 2009 - 6:40 am 9. Parabellum:I’m a cynical enough fellow to understand the concept of snubbing nation X to get a desired action from nation Y, but to snub X with no payoff from Y is just insane.
Leftists operate on Wishes and Hopes.
Sep 26, 2009 - 6:45 am 10. Benedict. A:A POTUS who voted present most all his political career has got to send a thrill up the legs and centrifuges of tyrants and dictators everywhere.
Unlike the buffoons in msm they know a pushover in a heartbeat. They’ve been waiting for an Obama to materialize for ages, he’s the one they’ve been waiting for and going by the euphoria expressed for Obama at the U.N it looked like they hit the jackpot – they were besides themselves. They’re going to play him like a fiddle, and waltz him anyway they like because they know Obama’s doctrine very well is to grab his ankles, shove his head up his own @** and listen to the echo of his own brilliance. That is, while they pursue every nefarious goal to bring about another holocaust and WW3, they could care less how much Obama wants the world to adore him.
He’s sick obsession with wanting to be loved by everyone and everything is playing right into their hands. Despots are smelling Obama hope alright and it’s making them giddy with delight.
Sep 26, 2009 - 7:06 am 11. Now and Then:In what respect, Arthur?
Sep 26, 2009 - 7:26 am 12. EscapeVelocity:Aureliano knocked it out of the park.
The Obama Doctrine is Anti Americanism combined more broadly with Anti Westernism.
Sep 26, 2009 - 9:03 am 13. adam:I agree with the other commenters here who reject the assumption that Obama is simply pursuing the interests of the U.S. in a different way. He barely even discusses American interests, except when he wants to pivot, with a “but,” into his real concerns–a new world, beyond differences, or embracing differences, or whatever. He is a transnationalist progressive, and he represents the interests of transnational progressivism through his office as President. This political identity is completely unproblematic for Obama–it is surely the only one he has ever had, he is no convert, is completely comfortable in the role, and even seems unaware that there are other ways of thinking about the world that rational people could take seriously. So, his foreign policy involves weakening American sovereignty and stengthening “international law” (as interpreted and implemented by the transnational progressive activists and monitored by the global media)–the best way to do this is to disrupt alliances that bind free, Western, countries against the rest of world (which, according to the transnationalist creed, justly resents us for our wealth gained through exploitation) and promote anti-Western, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic countries and forces throughout the world. Is there any part of Obama’s actions so far that doesn’t fit this frame?
Sep 26, 2009 - 9:06 am 14. DoctorT:Obama will have his hand out for the quid pro quo he expects as repayment for the concessions and retreats from foreign policy that he has initiated.
If he is simply naive then the likely outcome will be:
1. Nothing at all.
or
2. He’ll get his hand cut off.
If however there is a hidden agenda here, which I do believe is possible, then the outcome will be far worse.
Every action and every policy that his czars, supporters, supporting organizations (e.g. ACORN), and liberal left congressman as well as what he has allowed us to see of his foreign policies are either:
1. intended to isolate us from the rest of the world and change America into a socialist, fascist, or communistic country (Which I do not know).
or
2. Intended to throw America and possibly the rest of the world back to the stone age.
The likely outcome of these policies I believe are likely to push the world into upheaval and possibly a new World War.
The American people need to stand up for America. It is clear that President Obama will not.
Sep 26, 2009 - 9:20 am 15. Hung FED:7. Aureliano:
“To him a weakened America is a form of reparation”
Yet another insight straight out of Limbaugh’s pooter.
This should help clear things up:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/09/26/watch-colbert-blackwashing-obamas-critics/
Sep 26, 2009 - 9:42 am 16. don:Yea, there’s an Obama doctrine. It’s called the three M’s. Multilateralism–which means nothing happens and nothing ever gets done, because everyone can’t agree on a single course of action. Multiculturalism–which means always having to say you’re sorry to other cultures for forcefully improving their life styles (and a value loaded Western biased “progress” term anyway). And then there is the last M, the Me–which means that all of the above prior M’s is never really about Obama and just unexceptionable talk by a President representing a mundane, banal American culture over which he flies like butterfly and stings like a wasp in the eternal struggle of good racism against bad racism. Fortunately when your foreign relations are defined by such a doctrine, it does make unilateral domestic “improvements” in health care difficult to achieve among the unwashed ignorant natives.
Sep 26, 2009 - 10:16 am 17. Professor Guvinoff:Yes, it would be nice for our president to articulate a doctrine, a referencial document that would define the thrust of his efforts. Doctrines cannot receive universal approval, but a leader who consistently adheres to a clearly stated doctrine earns the respect of his people, and sometimes even other people in the best cases.
Right now, we are left to guess, infer and speculate as to whatever the Obama’s doctrine might be if he has one, which for whatever reason he has not declared, yet. Listening to his UN speech, I was hearing a teenager explaining the world. I almost wished I was a teenager, because then I would at least have been able to relate.
The left fringe shares a fundamental yearning with teenagers: The impulse to kill some dragons. Among the favorite dragons are capitalism, “the military-industrial complex”, “the greed-driven corporations”, “America, the poison that makes the world sick”, “the selfish planet soilers”, etc… They even include vaguely defined “peace spoilers”, of which they are a highly combustible part.
So, we should not be too surprised if our president’s initiatives are domestically destructive, and if he invites our enemies to participate in the demolition derby. We need a president of the United States of America, not a president of the liberal fringe and a president of the world rolled into one. A true leader should be able to offer something more substancial than an implicit Harry Potter doctrine.
It is often said that the tea party protests lack cohesion, but in fact they are more cohesive than the impulses of our titular leader. The protestors have a doctrine: Individual liberty, freedom of speech, The US constitution.
Sep 26, 2009 - 10:17 am 18. pedro:Like a teenager at war with his parents, our president is at war with his electorate! Mr. President, you are most welcomed to join us and adopt our doctrine. If you have an alternate proposal, state it. Don’t just vote “present”, because we understand what it means. it means AWOL.
Barry Hussein Obama mmm,mmm,mmm
Sep 26, 2009 - 10:22 am 19. GRACIE:There is no Obama doctrine…Gibson could probably help him with that.
If Obama’s policy was to be “transparency”, why did the Dems vote to NOT let the public see the healthreform b.s., bill they want to pass?
Kerry was in good form saying the public just wouldn’t understand the arcane language, barf! This is a man that would be “no where” with out the wife’s money to prop him up, yet he dictates to us!!
So much for policy or doctrine.
Sep 26, 2009 - 10:31 am 20. David W. Lincoln:Obama has a doctrine. It has been shaped by the likes of Ayers, and that racist preacher in Chicago: namely the dead white men are wrong.
Well, it is sufficient for enough people to say, “I
Sep 26, 2009 - 10:44 am 21. Homero:am not _____”. However they don’t see because they
don’t want to see the harm they are doing to themselves.
obama and his new era of “me”
socialism isn’t new.
why does russia or china not worry about Iran …
…one. Iran is not threatening them.
…two. they would crush Iran if it did something against them.
this leaves the USA as capitulating to Iran and to think there can be a meaningfull dialog with Iran or any of the other despotic nations is laughable. it is like trying to have a meaningfull dialog with a troll. you just get talking points and gibberish.
regards
Sep 26, 2009 - 11:29 am 22. Homero:I would like to add to my previous post…..
..russia or china would not ask the UN if Iran did something against their interests. they would retaliate swiftly and descisively.
Obama only does that against americans
Sep 26, 2009 - 11:32 am 23. George S.:the obama doctrine ?? isn’t that the Saul Alinsky guide.
obama really is predictable …he is following the guide book.
obama passing his book off as an autobiography is just another lie. well written Bill Ayers, getting royalties or some back-room goodies??
Sep 26, 2009 - 11:36 am 24. Sherab Zangpo:Obama’s doctrine is called marxism.
The goal of the marxists is to cause the fall of what we call FREE economy and they call “command of the capital”.
They don’t see history as the unfolding of human creativity but as a simple war.
What we call THUGS, the marxists call allies (exactly in the same way and for the same reasons they foment and cultivate crime and disorder).
America has never fought the cultural war to defeat marxism and is now in serious danger, invaded from inside, and literally disarmed (culturally).
The analysis here above at #7 is correct, but the “reparations” ideology is only a cover for the hidden marxist agenda.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sep 26, 2009 - 12:48 pm 25. ETAB:aureliano, don, adam and prof. Guvinoff.. and others clearly recognize that Obama is anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic.
Obama doesn’t have a doctrine, himself. He is too intellectually ignorant and lazy to have an ‘intellectual rationale’ for his actions. Certainly, the radical left who ‘run’ him have a clear agenda – of destroying America’s freedoms, democracy, capitalism. But Obama’s own agenda is personal; he wants to control you and ensure your adoration of Him.
This is clear in all his speeches, which always focus on how He has Changed the World; how Before Obama, all was lost and terrible..and now, Since Obama’s Coming, the world is changing….He’s demented.
There’s not much difference, except in years, between him and Gaddafi. And they both talk endlessly…
Obama’s actions are driven by his psychological need for dominance and control of others, which means, the weakening of everyone around him, inluding Congress, the Supreme Court, the Military, and the People. This also means that he reduces the elected power of the people, and puts in his sycophant czars whom he controls.
Multilateralism, as don points out, is empty; holding hands in a circle won’t get anything done. Indeed, multilateralism specifically prevents action. And that’s why Obama encourages it..everyone holding hands means that no single nation can be strong. He, Obama, keeps them constrained and weak, arguing among each other, jostling each other.
Obama’s deliberate insults to western leaders, his kowtowing to dictators, his indifference to the Iranian people’s desire for democracy, his support for Zelaya’s agenda of dictatorship…Obama is anti-democracy and anti-American.
His multiculturalism or relativism, where he equates a dictatorship with a democracy is incomprehensible until you realize that this is part of his psychological need to reduce the power of Others around him.
His pathological narcissism means that he must weaken all others, all peoples around him.
Obama is enabling three imperialist and totalitarian agendas to strengthen; that of Russia over Eastern Europe; that of Iran in the Middle East, and that of Venezuala in C. America.
Sep 26, 2009 - 12:55 pm 26. Crusader:The Obama Doctrine so far is talk, talk, talk to our enemies and alienate our allies(Poland, Israel, Czech). This is par for the course from the hard-lefties. I think it would have been no different had Mondale been elected in ‘84. Amazing how low this country has fallen to elect this clown.
Sep 26, 2009 - 1:03 pm 27. Paul M Hupf:The President is playing fast and loose with the safety of the United States. He has not given any serious thought to international matters and their effect on the United States other than casual assumptions that if he is nice to the adversary nations they will be nice to him. Experience dictates otherwise. The President is naive to say the least, but we will suffer seriously for his careless assumptions. Theodore Roosevelt expressed it succinctly: “Speak softly but carry a big stick!” Bret Sephens, former editor of the Jerusalem Post and now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal recently cited a Roman adage: “Si vis pacem, para bellum!” (If you wish peace, prepare for war).
Sep 26, 2009 - 1:13 pm 28. billslayer:The lowest form of stupidity is weakness. Barack Obama is defined by this stupidity.
Sep 26, 2009 - 1:19 pm 29. Sebastian Shaw:That is not to say that he is a weak person in all ways. He has proven devastatingly effective against the well being and future of his country. He will bankrupt us at home so that we cannot afford to be the peacekeeper or peacemaker in a world of aspiring tough guys.
This is a man who cares more about his ideas about your prosperity safety or future. Remember that phrase and never stop using it until this vermin is removed in 2012:The lowest form of stupidity is weakness.
President Obama’s doctrine is to weaken the West, specifically, the United States of America by appeasement & supplication to dictators, compromise our national security with moral equivalence by treating terrorists as common criminals & politicizing National Security as a whole (see the McChrystal Report), trying to turn our Republic into a Dictatorship via his many power grabs in the private sector for “emergency reasons” such as Health Care, Card Check, Cap & Trade, Treasury trying to control price wages, etc al. Obama’s true goal is absolute control of everything. The irony is the man cannot control anything. He needs a diaper for his pants & a teleprompter for his mouth. He’s an empty suit of epic proportions. Obama loves to vote “Present” when given the chance, but as POTUS cannot vote “present.” This has already damaged him beyond repair. He’s a lame duck.
Sep 26, 2009 - 2:36 pm 30. savage24:Maybe Obama could go on the Sunday TV talk shows and explain his doctrine or lack of doctrine. Has he tried that? Maybe the Letterman show too.
Sep 26, 2009 - 4:38 pm 31. AThinkingPerson:Surely Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and N. Korea (to name but a few) will succumb to Obama’s charms sooner or later. How could they not? He wears a suit well, has cocktail Wednesday’s at the White House and has elementary aged children everywhere singing tomes to his very presence (”Mmmm, Mmmmm, Mmmmm, Barack Hussein Obama…”). If Israel gets obliterated off the map and Iran aims nukes at North America, well, that’s just a price America must be willing to pay for having such a cool, hip President.
Sep 26, 2009 - 6:28 pm 32. e:I had hoped our trolls would have suggested a doctrine that might make sense at least in their eyes; but it appears they have nothing to say.
The closest thing we have so far is:
Sep 26, 2009 - 6:48 pm 33. howiem:“11. Now and Then: In what respect, Arthur?”
The answer this question is of course: FOREIGN POLICY, WHAT THEY HECK IS OBAMA TRYING TO DO?
An overall astute analysis, but I disagree with onw point. Obama sees multilateralism not as an end, but as a stepping stone towards a unilateral world government, which will have the power to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor until everyone is equally poor except the elite rulers, of course, after all, some pigs are more equal than other pigs). It makes absolutely no difference what Obama says, it is what he and the left wing Democrats in power actually do that we need to watch and block by any necessary means. There are arguably 4 critical areas which must be under government control for the state to gain ultimate power: Education, Health, Communications and Defense. The left through their unions already runs education for the state at some levels and the overwhelming majority of academics “teaching” at the university level are leftists. The proposal for national health control (believe me, those proposing it do not “care” about anything except their own power) is well underway; but even if it fails, there will be more and more proposals worded differently with the same ill intentions. In the area of Communications there are proposals for Obama to get an Internet ‘kill switch” (which will give him an arbitrary control); there are proposals for government content filtering (meaning that the user will get what the government dictates, and the user will have no say). The left would prefer to legislate these things as making laws provides a cover of legitimacy. If they are successful in these three areas, and can get foreign antagonists to hold off by the nebulous foreign policy that Arthur cites, they will control Defense as a result (provided they have enough followers to infiltrate the armed forces and make it subservient to those in power. There are many countries on the verge of Statism, and if those countries follow suit, the result will be a push towards an International Ruling body. This administration has out-spoken advocates of such control. If enough people fall for Statism, those who dissent will have to be forced to comply. Then it becomes merely the means which are used to exert the force. Getting back to foreign policy, Obama is using the Muslims, poor and illegals as ploys. In his vision of a perfect world there can be no poor or anyone else that does not contribute to the state, and since this world is not perfect, taking care of them will be a burden to the state. Obama has said these things in so many ways so many times that only those who only remain enthralled by the sound of his voice still fail to hear what he is saying, and do not want to know when he is lying, changing his position. If what he is trying to do would not end in disaster, his “presidency” would be merely a historical joke.
Sep 26, 2009 - 7:40 pm 34. David D::I like the suggestion that he go on the Letterman show and tell us what his foreign policy is. He ran on the platform of change and that impressed the trolls. Unfortunately, the dictator thugs were not as impressed.
My guess is: Foreign leaders that do not follow Obamma will get nasty letters.
Sep 26, 2009 - 8:30 pm 35. John "birther" Samford:The Usurper is barely qualified to manage a McDonalds. A bunch of fools put him in charge of the worlds largest bureaucracy. What do you expect? His greatest management experience was a pick-up basketball game and now he is in charge of about 5 million employees. What flavor was that kool-aid?
Sep 26, 2009 - 8:33 pm 36. Ann:His doctrine is easy to define:
Kiss our enemies and f*** our friends.
Sep 26, 2009 - 9:11 pm 37. ic:Obama Doctrine: Me. I am not naive, I am not a liar. The Americans love me, the world loves me, they really love me.
Sep 26, 2009 - 11:08 pm 38. rachel peepers:I sense that the pro Obama forces who worked so hard to get Obama elected nine months ago, (and this includes the slow witted Acorn people who, like common street thieves, worked so hard to steal votes), have been taking a special delight in seeing conservative/Republicans squirm and sweat everytime Obama pulls another page out of his signed Saul Alinsky play book.
Hee. Hee. Hee. We won. You conservatives lost. Hee. Hee. Hee.
Well, as they say, be careful what you libtards wish for, (and chortle at) because you just may get what you want. And then some.
Probably first and foremost, in Obama you got a liar.
“I’m a uniter” Obama said. No, Mister Obama, you’re a liar.
“I’ll have a transparent Presidency”, put bills on the internet 72 hours before voting on them. No, Mister Obama, you’re a liar.
“I’ll have no earmarks.” Next lie.
“I’ll chase Bin Ladin to the gates of hell.”
Mister Obama, you’re denying your general on the ground in Afghanistan the troops in needs to win the war and minimize American casualties.
“I’ll be a post-racial President” Another lie.
First, agreeing in your first Presidential week that white American men constitute a nation of racist-leaning cowards.
Second, sticking a racist on the Supremes. Sotomayor who constantly repeats that asinine dame claim “any Hispanic female is intellectually superior to a white American male”.
And third, calling one of our best and brightest white police officers a “stupid acting (implied) racist” for arresting a Harvard Barack buddy who clearly was resisting arrest while throwing out racial slurs like the jerk was raised in a New York City sewer.
Of course, the President that ordered the fecal left teachers union to have school kids hum praises of Obama like nappy headed indoctrinated Marxist zombies is much more dangerous than having a simple pathological “liar” would be. (joe wilson, Sept 9, NY Post).
He’s an extremist left of the worst kind.
Spending the U.S. to death.
Totally shelving all action to end our dangerous dependence foreign oil.
Trying to shove Socialized Medicine down our throats, and fining anybody who doesn’t buy into the Saul Alinsky driven socialist plan to the tune of $3,000 per year. A three grand fine. That’s what you get if you choose not to be uninsured. What happened to pro choice, Mister President?
Moreover, Mister Obama’s convinced the Russians he won’t follow the Kennedy Doctrine of a full retaliatory response if Israel is attacked.
Worse, he’s convinced most Russian hardliners that if Russia decided to take out, say, Las Vagas, in a test bomb run, briar Rabbit ears would run into his bomb shelter like a feckless coward, knocking women and children out of the way in the style of George Costanza. Remember the “yell fire” Seinfeld episode?
And as if all that isn’t bad enough, Obama’s ordered the position paper be written for dismantling our entire missile defense system (I’m not even going to comment on Obama’s decision to leave Poland and the Czech Republic defenseless. Scrapping missile defense is something only someone certifiably insane would do. It’s unconscienable.
So libtards, once again I ask, “where does this leave us”?
With you guys still laughing your butts off when Black Panthers beat an air tight case of voter intimidation. All thanks to a corrupt beyond corrupt attorney general, Eric Paxil-boy Holder, the same one who helped Marc Rich, poster boy for corruption get a pardon from poster boy for vulgar Presidents.
Where oh where does (emphasis on “does”)that leave us?
With you libtards primped and prinked up, totally titivated when you hear the brown eyed handsome man lie like an assault rifle through his sparkling white teeth about state meted out medicine.
This one was a dilly:
“Finding costly corruption and increasing efficiencies will pay for “Universal Healthcare”. (To be included in the upcoming best seller, “Biggest lies ever told”.
Honestly, you’d have to be the dumbest of the dumber libtards to believe that whopper.
Well, parders’, what you wished for you gots. An imminent nuclear showdown.
If that’s not news to you, then get your heads out of your newspaper.
Another nice feature about the show. You libtards don’t need a ringside seat because you’re in the middle of the ring. You’s the bull with the ring in its nose.
And I (and 300 mill Americans) are right there beside you. You see, unlike Presidents who make fine, nuanced distinctions, weapons of mass destruction don’t.
Does I have to spell out the scenario?
Israel attacks Iran.
Russia nukes Israel.
Obama has a hissy fit. Gives a speech the NY Times lavishes with praise. But does nothing.
And now the bad news.
Sep 26, 2009 - 11:14 pm 39. Exactly!:The “Obama Doctrine” is to obtain marching orders from George Soros on a daily basis and have David Axelrod spin it into a commercial with Obama playing the part of a world leader.
Sep 27, 2009 - 4:27 pm 40. AL:Mr. Cherenkoff (isn’t it right spelling?), your highly logical rationale for Obama politics has mortal flaw. Obama does not have any policy or doctrine, rational or otherwise. Obama has ideology, and all his decisions are dictated by this ideology plus narcissi sentiments, real consequences will be damned.
Not all historical political figures operated on the premise to empower their country, or even increase their personal power. Some quite selebrated political figures were just jesters, who projected their egomaniac fantasies into real politics. Luis XIV is the prime example.
Sep 29, 2009 - 2:29 am