Tongue and cheek I know but there is a strange truth to it. Remember during the Reykjavik summit regarding them wanting us to stop SDI and Reagan walked around the table to Brezhnev and whispered to him in Russian “NO” and then walked out of the room? Where has our leadership gone?

Originally Posted by dklassen

Tongue and cheek I know but there is a strange truth to it. Remember during the Reykjavik summit regarding them wanting us to stop SDI and Reagan walked around the table to Brezhnev and whispered to him in Russian “NO” and then walked out of the room? Where has our leadership gone?

So I take it you think Obama isn't a manly man.....


How about JFK and the missile crises

Really really poor comparison dkl. So, one must be a macho woodsman to make a good president? No thanks, President Obama is the one with the brains AND the brawn. Need we say more?

Obama is weak, an apologist and extremely naive especially on foreign policy. Although OB does assert himself quite well when it comes to spending other peoples money and raising taxes.

Regarding JFK, I think he was ten times the man OB is and he certainly wasn’t weak. Heck, by today’s standards he was downright conservative.

I'd trade OB for JFK in a heatbeat.

I agree, the Brezhnev incident was a feel-good moment at the time, but unfortunately, it's not the 80's any more.

Strength, resolve and principals are timeless. They worked back then and they still work today. All we need is a President that has them.

Originally Posted by barb1191

Really really poor comparison dkl. So, one must be a macho woodsman to make a good president? No thanks, President Obama is the one with the brains AND the brawn. Need we say more?

Curious...could you please expand on that statement? What brain and brawn are you referring to? Examples would be helpful for us to understand. Do you call it "brains" to spend taxpayer's money($$$trillions) to lead us out of a recession? Do you call it "brawn" to have no response to what is happening in Iran? ( his indecisiveness was nerve-wracking)

Yes....we need to say mucho-more!!!!!

Originally Posted by BobKat1

I agree, the Brezhnev incident was a feel-good moment at the time, but unfortunately, it's not the 80's any more.

Your right...it isn't the 80's anymore. And in what century do you think those people in Iran, Pakistan etc. are operating in? 1280's?

Originally Posted by dklassen

Obama is...extremely naive especially on foreign policy....

Lordy, I hate to return to using George W. Bush as an example. But you're the one who chose to contrast him with President Obama.

If you'll recall during Bush 43's initial campaign, his almost complete absence of knowledge of foreign policy was repeatedly exposed. His problem was so great that his father, Bush 41, lined up a series of foreign policy experts to conduct private tutoring sessions for him. The history written of the time describes the fact that Dubya seldom sought the counsel of any of the experts his Dad lined up for him with the exception of one--Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador from Saudi Arabia--with whom he was particularly friendly. So George W.'s foreign policy, particularly as regards the Middle East, tended to reflect the feelings and desires of the Saudi royal family. In addition, Bush 43 was known to reject the inclusion of any people experienced in foreign policy in his administration. He particularly rejected the idea of seeking the counsel of any from academia, who might have spent their lives studying foreign policy, history and foreign cultures.

Understanding Bush's experience, rejection of the idea of understanding various points of view, and a "snap judgement" decision-making style pretty fully explains why our foreign relations sank to such a low point during the terms of the last administration.

No, I think you're 180-degrees off, DK. President Obama didn't begin with any more experience than George w. Bush. But he has consistently sought out the advice and recommendations of a wide range of people experienced and expert in foreign policy. He is known for thoughtfully considering such input before making foreign policy decisions, or any other kind of decision. People may not always agree with the foreign policies he chooses, but for sure they are well-researched and thought out. I believe we're going to see a vast improvement in our relationships with other sovereign nations during the Obama administration. More importantly, I think we'll begin to see that we will begin to achieve many of our national objectives as the result of improved foreign realtions--which after all is the objective of foreign policy in the first place.

As John McCain said, that's who they are, it's not who we are.

Originally Posted by BobKat1

As John McCain said, that's who they are, it's not who we are.

You have to deal with people with what they understand. Nations are not one size fits all.

We liberated Iraq and now they are having free elections. We have / are liberating Afghanistan and now they are having free elections. The people of Iran are taking a close look at what’s going on around them and now they want the same. Obama had nothing to do with that at all. Obama’s apology tour servers nothing more than to make us look weak and North Korea is now taking full advantage of it. Maybe if we would have just apologized to Japan and Germany we could have avoided WWII?

Obama is no champion of freedom. He is only a champion of socialism, uncontrolled spending, private and public sector takeovers and massive government regulation and taxes in our daily lives. It serves his own personal power hungry agenda and nothing more. Obama doesn’t free people he seeks to enslave them to government and his twisted view of how America should look.

The tide is already turning against him and for good reason.

I thought he was comparing him to Reagan. Doesn't matter, compare him to any past president other then Jimmy and he is a weak, naive, and not ready for the job of president. And just what experience does BO have in foreign policy? He didn't even bother to get advice. All he knows how to do is spend your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren money. So continue to justify his existence by bashing Bush some more. As bad as he was, and I for one think he destroyed the republican party for which I will never forgive him, but he was so far ahead of BO there is no contest. BO will go down in history, if we survive him to have a history, as one of the worst presidents every elected. Be proud you supported him.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna;210962[B

]Lordy, I hate to return to using George W. Bush as an example. But you're the one who chose to contrast him with President Obama.
[/B]
If you'll recall during Bush 43's initial campaign, his almost complete absence of knowledge of foreign policy was repeatedly exposed. His problem was so great that his father, Bush 41, lined up a series of foreign policy experts to conduct private tutoring sessions for him. The history written of the time describes the fact that Dubya seldom sought the counsel of any of the experts his Dad lined up for him with the exception of one--Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador from Saudi Arabia--with whom he was particularly friendly. So George W.'s foreign policy, particularly as regards the Middle East, tended to reflect the feelings and desires of the Saudi royal family. In addition, Bush 43 was known to reject the inclusion of any people experienced in foreign policy in his administration. He particularly rejected the idea of seeking the counsel of any from academia, who might have spent their lives studying foreign policy, history and foreign cultures.

Understanding Bush's experience, rejection of the idea of understanding various points of view, and a "snap judgement" decision-making style pretty fully explains why our foreign relations sank to such a low point during the terms of the last administration.

No, I think you're 180-degrees off, DK. President Obama didn't begin with any more experience than George w. Bush. But he has consistently sought out the advice and recommendations of a wide range of people experienced and expert in foreign policy. He is known for thoughtfully considering such input before making foreign policy decisions, or any other kind of decision. People may not always agree with the foreign policies he chooses, but for sure they are well-researched and thought out. I believe we're going to see a vast improvement in our relationships with other sovereign nations during the Obama administration. More importantly, I think we'll begin to see that we will begin to achieve many of our national objectives as the result of improved foreign realtions--which after all is the objective of foreign policy in the first place.

Seems to me that he was comparing Obama with President Reagan...not Bush.

Originally Posted by BobKat1

As John McCain said, that's who they are, it's not who we are.

ANd "who we are" surely shouldn't be ones who bow and scrape to every $.10 despot who says he's offended because as his folk were beheading setting westerners ablaze, and then cheering around the headless and/or smoldering remains, we embarrassed a few chauvinists in front of women and made a few others wet their pants even when they were never in harm's way.

Foreign relations is all about parity and respect, not pandering and concessions. When you offer an inch to a despot, he takes the whole yardstick. Being respectful is one thing, but cowering down doesn't cut it at all - in public or in private.