Leading from behind foreign policy.

[Guest]

Barack Obama (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100085078/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-leading-from-behind-foreign-policy-no-wonder-the-us-president-looks-weak-and-confused/)

Less of a John Wayne type of image of the US abroad in foreign policy and more of a supporting actor role like with the roles of Philip Seymour Hoffman.

[Guest]

Barack Obama (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100085078/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-leading-from-behind-foreign-policy-no-wonder-the-us-president-looks-weak-and-confused/)

Less of a John Wayne type of image of the US abroad in foreign policy and more of a supporting actor role like with the roles of Philip Seymour Hoffman.





That is very good - don't need another cowboy in the WH.

[Guest]

did you read the article? i don't think it was meant to be a compliment.

[Guest]

did you read the article? i don't think it was meant to be a compliment.

The John Wayne comparison seems to be a compliment from an Obama advisor.

The article, however, does attack Obama's lack of a grand strategy in foreign affairs.

Would like to see what the GOP candidate will do once he/she emerges from the Tampa GOP Convention. Hopefully, he/she will not be someone with a cowboy mentality with respect to foreign affairs.

[Guest]

The John Wayne comparison seems to be a compliment from an Obama advisor.

The article, however, does attack Obama's lack of a grand strategy in foreign affairs.

Would like to see what the GOP candidate will do once he/she emerges from the Tampa GOP Convention. Hopefully, he/she will not be someone with a cowboy mentality with respect to foreign affairs.

This, from your link, nails it...

"As even Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski noted in the same New Yorker article, President Obama “doesn’t strategize. He sermonizes.” That’s a pretty strong indictment from one of the most influential Democrats in the world of US foreign policy, and himself a former adviser to Obama."

Folks have been saying this from day 1....and why the comments on Bush are made is not understood, since the subject is Obama's foreign policy (or lack thereof) I can see only one reason to mention Bush....Obama has maintained just about 100% of what Bush was doing in the war against terror....all those things that he ridiculed the Bush administration have been embraced and in some cases made a bigger part of the policy. He is now allowing US citizens to be killed overseas if a suspect (not saying bad but that was one his additions) and is using drones a lot (sometimes kills innocent folks and that is not meant to be a criticism either)...the two items in parens are mentioned because of the tone of his campaign toward the Bush administration...he would have "sermonized" on both at that time.

This man has always been a lecturer...that is his forte and what he has done all of his life, thus the "sermonize" remark.

You cannot conduct foreign relations by giving sermons. Sermons are and have been his answer to almost everything.

Also not sure why the comment about he Rep candidates...the thread and the article are about what a sitting President has done or not done.

[Guest]

Leading from behind is an oxymoron and not a very clever one at that. The characteriztion of John Wayne is not only slanted its just wrong. But what should one expect given liberals define the ideal man as metrosexual which by the way was an unfortunate byproduct of the femnist movement.

[Guest]

Leading from behind is an oxymoron and not a very clever one at that. The characteriztion of John Wayne is not only slanted its just wrong. But what should one expect given liberals define the ideal man as metrosexual which by the way was an unfortunate byproduct of the femnist movement.

Column: U.S. can capably lead from behind (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-11/libya-lead-behind-arab-spring/50733046/1)

[Guest]

Column: U.S. can capably lead from behind (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-11/libya-lead-behind-arab-spring/50733046/1)

This article is SPECIFICALLY addressing the Arab Spring and most folks will agree with most of it but it DOES not address his foreign policy. It addresses that we stayed out of some armed conflicts, that frankly we could not afford to get into. I will also say that I reluctantly agree with us staying out, we will see in the future how much damage has now been done. We are giving arms and assistance to people we dont even know so time will tell.

Again, the subject, THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, is Obama's foreign policy in total which appears to be very short of the mark.

I also would still like to hear what Bush has to do with anything, as Obama is conducting all of the same ploys used by Bush and derided by Obama during the campaign...never understood how you who worship at his feet and complained so loudly about Bush just simply ignore all of this.

Actually and I hope you do not take this personally because it is not meant as such, but what do YOU think. You keep posting links as if you are desperatly trying to find something good to post about the man. Tell us what YOU think...why you agree with him, why you disagree with all the stuff here. THAT would be more interesting. I apologize if you take this personally, it is not intended as such...I enjoy reading other posters views AND their links

[Guest]

Column: U.S. can capably lead from behind (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-11/libya-lead-behind-arab-spring/50733046/1)

Hi Taltarzac: Obama's is a withdrawalist. Look at his foreign policy decisions. In fact he ordered a successful surge in Afghan then withdrew the troops. This nonsens of leading from behind is only masking his inability to stay committed. The open mic incidented with the Russian President outed this man's inability to make a commitment and stick to it. He can't lead because he is an idealogue meaning that his vision irrespective to the real situation at hand will always prevail. The real world does not work that way. This is why he is in so much trouble.

[Guest]

to be fair we really need to understand the different allegations assigned to the terms "cowboy", "cowboy mentality", "another cowboy".

None are appropriate as they are used here regarding select individuals actions....maybe where they are from....but not the actions.

Or else we could go wild with character categorization of the incumbent based on his roots....eh!!