Published: Sunday, March 9 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
Another, typical article. Criticism with no suggestions or proposed
solutions.This is not a winning strategy. Although it probably plays
better with the American people than the GOP's unspoken strategyWhich is armed conflict, as usual.
Another excellent article by Dr. Krauthammer! His facts are irrefutable but
liberals, as they always do, will personally attack him, because that's all
they can do!
Yes, but what about Bush's strange foreign policy? Everything is shadowed
by the desire of the entire American population, regardless of party or
ideology, to not do another Iraq.
@Thid BarkerA slightly lower "largest defense spending in the
world" did not cause this decision by Putin. A missile defense
system wouldn't stop tanks from rolling in. Obama wasn't
saying he'd be more flexible on missile defense after the elections, he was
saying it'd be more flexible on nuclear arms reduction (the new START
treaty signed earlier was in the lameduck period after 2010 elections). We wouldn't be any better off if we didn't try to
"reset" (and maybe somewhat worse off). Obama got
Syria's chemical weapons to be agreed to be gotten rid of without firing a
shot. And yeah... Putin actually fought Georgia under Bush, is that
Obama's fault too?
You would also most likely find my foreign policy confusing...because I, like
Obama, don't have a clue how to fix the world's problems.
Charles Krauthammer: The president's foreign policy is puzzling========= And here I thought he was going to address BUSH's
puzzling foreign policy.
"The President's foreign policy is puzzling?" Not to me.He is doing what he thinks is best for the American people, and he's
doing a pretty good job, considering the willingness of
“Conservatives” to obstruct all progress.Charles
Krauthammer's actions are not at all puzzling. He's acting like the
double-talking Right Wing Propagandist he is.He is basically saying
that Russia would not have invaded the Crimea if a Republican had been
President, just like the Russians didn't invade Georgia in 2008 when GW was
President . . . Except the Russians DID in fact invade Georgia during the GW
Bush years. Oops.Once, I would have found it hard to imagine that
anybody would have taken a confused hater like Krauthammer seriously. Not
anymore though. Confusion and hate reign supreme in “Conservative”
circles, and being willfully ignorant is a badge of honor.So FOX
"NEWS" and other RW propaganda outlets continue to feed the
"Conservative" appetite for misinformation and targets to hate."What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It
created an alternate reality," according to Krauthammer.
LDS LiberalFarmington, UTThat's because Bush isn't
the president. While I sympathize with Mr.Obama's lack of direction, he
certainly has not fulfilled his promise to restore the US to a position of
respect and leadership in the world's eyes. The "flexibility" he
promised Mr.Putin has turned into spineless. The joke in Russia is that Mr.
Obama's drawing a line in the sand is equivalent to drawing a line in
GaryO. News flash; Disagreement does not equal hatred. Obama's approval
numbers are at a record low according to several public opinion polls. All that
means is very few people AGREE with Obama but very few hate him. There are
"haters" on both sides of the isle and your side has their share!
When Russia invaded Georgia, Krauthammer said it was inevitable and Bush was not
to blame. It's their back yard, he said. What can we do about it?Now
when they do EXACTLY the same thing in Crimea, Krauthammer is all over Obama for
being a weakling. Well, Crimea is even more in Russia's backyard than
Georgia was. So which is it, Dr. K?
@ Joe-BlowI don't get your comment President
Obama's job is to figure this stuff out, isn't' that why guys
like you re-elected him?He has all day to do this with advice from the
military, foreign advisers, intelligence community etc.Oh, wait, he's
on a family vacation now...President Obama is weakening our country.
People who voted for him are as equally responsible.
His policy is not at all puzzling.Here it is Charles. The President
chooses not treat those different than us as enemies, and evil empires.
That's it.Somehow conservatives believe that difference
deserves hatred. Of course there are groups and individuals that
are enemies of America because they seek us harm, but Russia is not one of those
groups. To treat Russia as a participant in world events is not weakness. To use Russia as a partner in Syria was brilliant not weak. To
carefully interact with Russia as old boundaries are being re-set is wise not
weak. Now if Putin tries to renew the old Soviet Union through multiple
invasions, that will be something entirely different, but there's no
indication of that now, and to simply re-has Neville Chamberlin is backward not
Rico.My comment is very clear. Those who criticize the way Obama is
handling (insert issue here)are always without a plan.They
dont like what he is doing, but don't seem to have any better
suggestions.Yes, it is his job, and he has lots of advice from
various experts. Do you have access to the same experts? Does Krauthammer?
If not, how do you know that he is not taking the best course of
action.Since you clearly know that what he is doing is wrong, what
is your suggested course of action.Dr K obviously does not know or isnt
saying. As are most of the GOP leaders.I will wait patiently for
your informed and detailed suggested plan of action.
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and
trustworthy….I was able to get a sense of his soul." --President
Bush, June 16, 2001.
Sad sad administration. They have NO foreign policy, blind leading the blind.
@JoeBlow,Perhaps your search for an informed and detailed suggested plan
of action would best be found somewhere other than the 200 word limited DesNews
comment board. It's hardly the venue for detail on anything. But, back to
the issue at hand and that is the weak foreign policy we currently labor under.
Projecting power is more than aiming a missile or sending a few airstrikes. Mr
Clinton learned that lesson during his terms. We must have economic power,
diplomatic power, sanctions and trade power to curb the ambitions of guys like
Putin. I noticed that the first option played was military, yet you projected
that onto someone else. There must be a plan, a cogent and viable plan in place
prior to the crisis erupting, which the current President does not seem to have.
Dr K just pointed that out for anyone not paying attention.
The plan would be so much easier if we had already begun developing our natural
gas resources. Then Europe wouldn't refuse sanctions against Russia fearing
that Putin will cut off their energy supply. We could just replace it, revving
up our economy and protecting former Soviet States from being re-absorbed (taken
over) by Russia. But that would make too much sense for this
administration, and they have shunned laying the groundwork needed for us to
have that card to play.Carter was better at diplomacy than Obama.
But should we be surprised? Obama has yet to broker a deal, any deal, with any
group that doesn't agree with him at least 98%. He has no idea how to do it
with his own countrymen. Why would we suppose he can do it with another country
in the world. They have even less common ground, and Obama can't bridge a
gap small enough that my 90 year old mother could step over it (about 3
inches).GaryO - It is not the republicans' fault Putin invaded
Ukraine with no fear of repercussions. Nor is suggesting that the invasion is an
'old fashioned behavior' a repercussion.
"The president's foreign policy is puzzling"The
president himself is puzzling.@marxist: "Yes, but what about
Bush's strange foreign policy?"Bush has been outa the Casa
Blanca for over five years. Obama promised significantly better stuff.
That's why he got elected. So far we haven't seen anything better.
Thid Barker:As of today, President Obama's approval rating at
Gallup is 45%; Rasmussen has him at 46%. Granted, it's not fantastic, but
it's hardly at a "record low." George W. Bush was in the 20s by
the end of his second term.
Oh this is too funny. Krauthammer, for all his bluster, provides not
one single suggestion as to what should be done with Russia. Nobody that is
criticizing the president on this thread has presented any ideas on what should
be done. One person complains that he just cannot express his plan in the few
words the D News allows (800 not the 200 he claims). He complains he just
can't give any suggestion in only 200 words. The only person that gets
close to providing some suggestion is a person that complains we are not
developing our natural gas resources (really?), because if we were then we could
somehow transport all the natural gas to Europe to replace what Russia provides
so European countries will support sanctions. Sanctions. Really? Well okay.
Never mind that there are a lot of business interests in this country that are
aggressively lobbying against any sanctions being put in place, but does this
person really think sanctions is going to sway Putin? Well, but
anyway, at least he gave some indication of what he thinks should be done.
That's more then most other critics, including krauthammer.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments