Comments about ‘Obama faces complicated world issues, Scowcroft says’

Did anyone at BYU actually attend this event? I remember these events as a BYU student. No one showed up, except when a General Authority spoke. You could bring someone famous and the turnout was embarassingly low.

Oh, come on now Scowcroft. Don't be so serious. It's more imporant to take a day off and run to New York so the President can sit in Dave Letterman's chair and chit-chat. Or run off to Denmark on a whim (on our tax dollars) to shill for his Chicago cronies on the Olympics. Quit bringing up all of that hard and challenging stuff like Iran, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, North Korea.

Perhaps you were one that never attended this kind of event because you failed to read enough of this article to notice the part that read: "packed audience".

The article said that it was "a packed house." That would indicate to me that someone attended the event. The attendance will naturally vary according to the speaker, but I don't ever remember "no one" showing up for a featured guest. Most were quite well attended.

Scowcroft is a man of integrity. Is is practicing LDS?

Who cares how many attended or didn't attend, or how many attend today. The real point is the merits of what Scowcroft said. He is a real natioanl security and foreign policy expert with real-world credentials. Reading his remarks, it is really alarming to realize that Obama is subjecting us all to his "on the job training." He has made so many blunders already, and is projecting weakness everywhere he goes. So far, I give him a D- on foreign policy.

Scowcroft doesn't mention that Iran's leader is a religious zealot fanatically bent on the the destruction of Israel and the USA (see UN speech, etc). Even the Ayatollah Khomeini thinks he's extreme.. Do we really ruthless, unreasonable man to have nuclear weapons. How long will we let him stall for time? Until after he has a nuclear capacity to fulfill his wishes? Is that smart?

Why is it so difficult to articulate a response as to why we are at war in Afghanistan? If he can't do so, either 1) he is not that expert, or 2) there are ulterier motives for our governments actions.

Scowcroft gives a rational, balanced view of the Obama Administration's foreign policy, not one driven by hate and partisan bickering. But that more on the right would do the same, and put the interests of America ahead of their partisan hang-ups. To "Attendance, Shamendance", I really doubt you know anything at all about the matter. There have been no mistakes, and there have been some remarkable achievements in these first few months. Diplomacy rather than war works best in the long run, even if the results are sometimes slow in coming.

>Diplomacy rather than war works best in the long run,

Exactly! It worked for, um, well, uh, let's see...

Unfortunately, diplomacy never has, does not now, and never will work against evil.

If terrorists were the kind of people with whom diplomacy worked, they wouldn't be terrorists in the first place.

Scowcroft is a real American. Scowcroft is an excellent leader and I am a big fan. I wish that our former President had listened to him instead of those so called experts.

To Anonymous quoting Anonymous on diplomacy: So, we can assume you are a terrorist in that you also do not advocate diplomacy.

Yes Obama faces difficult challenges. Also true is Obama and Jimmy Carter are very much the same - WEAK - and therein lies the problem. Obama has shown thus far that he is great at campaigning but TERRIBLE at governing. Obama also resorts to campaign mode when trouble arrises instead of metting with members of congress or business leaders he appears on David Letterman and a thousand other talk shows to tries to smooze the listening audience as he did during the campaign. I can only think that because he has NEVER been a Governor or a chief executive of any kind his lack of experience forces him to rely on the only thing he knows and that is his oratory gifts - which simply don't cut it after the campaign is over. Obama is clueless with foreign policy as he is with economic policy so the chances of either having a good outcome are slim to none!

In response to Anonymous (a popular name in this forum). What I know about the matter is that Obama, whose only real-world job experience and training prior to seeking the highest office in the land (and the world) was being Lawyer for corrupt-ACORN, has no foreign policy achievements to date, and only blunders. His first trip abroad, he visits King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, and "bows" to him which has symbolic meaning in Islam. He ignores Democratic uprising in Iran, complicitly approving of that regime's slaughter of innocent freedom seekers, he criticizes the US at the UN in his narccissitic speech about "he and I" and condemned Bush over unilateralism, and then proceeds to unilaterally stop a NATO-backed plan for missile defense in Poland and Czech republic without consulting with NATO or either of those countries. (sometimes, called hypocricy). He is the most blatantly anti-Semitic, Anti-Israel president in modern times in his speeches, cuts our national defense and gives-in to Russia and Putin's demands without getting antying back in return. Now, Obama wants to unilaterally (there's the pesky word again) cut our Nuke forces weakening America. Goes on and on!

@Anonymous at 9:14: Didn't work well when the Natives tried diplomacy either, did it? I wonder how they would define "evil."

Scowcroft’s speech was excellent and it was so refreshing to listen to a clearheaded realist. The implicit criticism of the neocons of the Bush administration was obvious to those who follow the foreign policy debates. I’m sure that the Republicans in the audience were disappointed when Scowcroft gave Obama high marks for his good start on rehabilitating America’s reputation around the world after an eight-year disaster under Bush. As for negotiating with “evil”? Scowcroft highlighted the very successful and bipartisan U.S. foreign policy toward China–a repressive, human rights violating, freedom suppressing regime that has been transformed into a free market global trading giant–something 30 years of trying to isolate China didn’t accomplish.

Can't people in this forum move beyond politics and comprehend what Brent Scowcroft said? Here we have a statesman, a foreign policy expert, and a Republican complimenting and supporting the efforts of our new president. According to Scowcroft, President Obama IS having success in rallying international support for the U.S. in this dangerous and complex world. Why is so hard for Americans to move beyond politics and support the positive efforts of our president regardless of party affiliation? Forget the campaign sound bits; try thinking a bit more deeply and acting a bit more responsibly.

You partisan Repubs are a bunch of nutballs. I'd try to be more eloquent, but you apparently don't understand anything more complex.

Did you read the article? Scowcroft--who knows more about successful international polity than you ever will--opposed Bush's policies (until he retracted under partisan pressure) and apparently likes what he sees with Obama. Wow. How hard is that to understand? Guess it's an indication of your comprehension abilities.

So I'll speak slooowww and use simple words:

Nutballs--Obama is doing fine. Go back to the woods and hide for the next three years.

How many nukes do we need to destroy the world?

Actually, Obama is doing fine because he's following the same military policies in Iraq and Afghanistan as George Bush did. After all, who originally hired Defense Secretary Gates?

A hint: It wasn't Barack Obama.

And Scowcroft is the quintessential Washington insider, always keeping his finger in the wind and sucking up to the Media. He is loved by the pundits today only because he has been criticizing Bush for the past 8 years, and now he's praising Obama.

Prior to that, he was a has-been from failed Republican Administrations. But as many in Washington have figured out, you can be popular again if you are willing to publicly blame everything on George Bush.