« Remember, Sometimes Facts Don’t Matter
Saving Aimee Shines (A Review of Kathie Lee Gifford’s New Musical) »
Quote of the day
Oct 21st, 2011 | 5 responses
Romney’s rhetoric is more informed than Michele Bachmann’s, less nutty than Ron Paul’s, and less self-admiring than Newt Gingrich’s, but his line on Obama’s record on national security and foreign policy is a sham. Obama is responsible for an aggressive assault on Al Qaeda, including the killing of bin Laden, in Pakistan, and of Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen. Beginning with his 2009 speech in Cairo, the President has walked a deliberate, effective path on the question of Arab uprisings, encouraging forces of liberation in the region without ignoring the complexities of each country or threatening Iraq-style interventions. He has drawn down forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; awakened to the miserable realities of Pakistan and Iran; and, most recently, played a crucial role, without loss of American lives, in the overthrow of the world’s longest-reigning dictator. If a Republican had been responsible for the foreign-policy markers of the past three years, the Party would be commissioning statues. In Tripoli, Benghazi, and Surt, last week, Obama won words of praise; on Republican debate platforms, there was only mindless posturing. In an election year, the world is too little with us.
Simon Owens is a PR consultant and journalist. You can read his blog, follow him on Twitter, or email him at simon.bloggasm@gmail.com
5 Responses to “Quote of the day”
Obama’s handling of foreign affairs has been one of his selling points. Just another example of GOP talking points being repeated until the sheep belief that up is down and black is white. For the GOP to question this administrations handling things on the international scene is laughable hypocrisy and wishful thinking on their part.
Obama has been a flat out hawk since taking office…and I don’t mean that in a bad way. He has done an exceptional job on foreign policy.
SL, what do you think would be going on now if McCain had gotten in and followed the exact same course on I, A, and Gitmo, among other so-called Bush policies?
OWS might have changed to OWD.C., perhaps.
Same question to all the left leaning commenters on TMV.
Things would have been different.
Obama brought in a new team. A natural outcome of a party-switch in the White House (retaining SecDef was a definite anomaly). This enabled him to chart his own course.
McCain would have kept much of the same team, again a natural outcome of a same-party White House. Inertia would have been tougher to overcome.
Barky, come on, an honest answer would have been nice.
The silence from the rest of you guys tells me a lot.