- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 8,761
- Reaction score
- 3,312
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Reuters, quoting an interview with The Atlantic:
Hillary Clinton distances herself from Obama's foreign policy
She directly seems to attribute the rise of ISIS to Obama's refusal to arm the Syrian rebels, which she was for.
She may have a point. I'm not sure if it would have worked, since it was hard to identify who should be armed, and they might easily turn against us afterwards.
Regardless of her having a point or not, it is disgraceful that for election advantage, she is now spitting at an administration she was a part of.
On the other hand, regardless of her antics, it is clear to me at this point that the Obama doctrine of non-intervention in foreign affairs is a disgrace. He is proving to be one of the worst US presidents in history, and the entire world is about to pay the price. No, I don't want the US to be the police of the world, but we can't disengage abruptly without a solidly supported international order to keep things going. We were fulfilling this role; we suddenly withdrew, and now the world is a mess.
By the way, we won't fix the ISIS mess with three airstrike sorties, taking down one convoy and one artillery piece. Obama's wishy-washy half-baked commitment will not solve anything.
I say so in spite of having voted for Obama twice, something I now regret and am ashamed of. Not that the alternatives were any good, anyway, but by now I'm sick and tired of Obama and wish he'd resign.
Anyway, I'm packing too much into this original post (because I'm so frustrated with Obama). Maybe we should just discuss what Hillary said - does she have a point, and is it disgraceful to speak up against her former boss (in order to earn votes)?
Opinions?
Hillary Clinton distances herself from Obama's foreign policy
"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad - there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle - the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," Clinton said.
Asked about Obama's slogan of "Don’t do stupid stuff" to describe his foreign policy thinking, Clinton said, "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle."
She directly seems to attribute the rise of ISIS to Obama's refusal to arm the Syrian rebels, which she was for.
She may have a point. I'm not sure if it would have worked, since it was hard to identify who should be armed, and they might easily turn against us afterwards.
Regardless of her having a point or not, it is disgraceful that for election advantage, she is now spitting at an administration she was a part of.
On the other hand, regardless of her antics, it is clear to me at this point that the Obama doctrine of non-intervention in foreign affairs is a disgrace. He is proving to be one of the worst US presidents in history, and the entire world is about to pay the price. No, I don't want the US to be the police of the world, but we can't disengage abruptly without a solidly supported international order to keep things going. We were fulfilling this role; we suddenly withdrew, and now the world is a mess.
By the way, we won't fix the ISIS mess with three airstrike sorties, taking down one convoy and one artillery piece. Obama's wishy-washy half-baked commitment will not solve anything.
I say so in spite of having voted for Obama twice, something I now regret and am ashamed of. Not that the alternatives were any good, anyway, but by now I'm sick and tired of Obama and wish he'd resign.
Anyway, I'm packing too much into this original post (because I'm so frustrated with Obama). Maybe we should just discuss what Hillary said - does she have a point, and is it disgraceful to speak up against her former boss (in order to earn votes)?
Opinions?
Last edited: