Obama’s Foreign Policy Successes & the GOP Whining that Ensued

This may take a few posts......

Obama’s Foreign Policy Successes

By ThinkProgress on November 10, 2011 at 1:11 pm

KILLED OSAMA BIN LADEN, RAMPED UP CAMPAIGN AGAINST AL QAEDA


Obama’s policy: Soon after taking office, President Obama ordered then-CIA director Leon Panetta to “redouble” efforts to track down al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Just six months after 9/11, President Bush said of bin Laden, “I really just don’t spend much time on” bin Laden. In 2005, Bush shut down the CIA’s unit dedicated to tracking him because resources were needed to fight the war in Iraq. Nearly three years later, Obama ordered a Navy SEAL raid into bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, killing the al-Qaeda leader and obtaining troves of valuable intelligence on the terror network. Then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called President Obama’s decision to get bin Laden “one of the most courageous calls I’ve ever seen a president make.”

GOP’s response: The GOP refused to credit the Obama administration with planning and executing the raid and baselessly claimed the Bush administration’s torture program led to the killing of Bin Laden.
Outcome: Bin Laden’s death brought an end to a nearly decade long manhunt. No civilians or U.S. military personnel were killed. Indeed, as CAP’s Brian Katulis and Peter Juul note, “the Al Qaeda network over the past three years suffered its greatest losses since the United States and its allies evicted the terrorist organization from Afghanistan in 2001.”
MOBILIZED INT’L COALITION TO PROTECT LIBYAN PRO-DEMOCRACY DEMONSTRATORS


Obama’s policy: The Obama administration, led by Susan Rice at the United Nations, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at NATO, pulled together an international coalition to approve and successfully execute a no-fly zone over Libya to protect anti-Qaddafi rebels.
GOP’s response: Republicans parroted Qaddafi’s propaganda claiming that Al Qaeda was behind the rebel uprising. With Qaddafi’s death, Republicans again refused to credit Obama, mocked the White House for “leading from behind” and criticized the administration’s strategy for failing to use more U.S. air-power or putting American “boots on the ground.”
Outcome: In just seven months and spending only $1 billion, coalition forces helped the rebels successfully overthrow the Qaddafi regime on october 20, 2011.
ORDERED THE COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. FORCES FROM IRAQ BY END OF THE YEAR


Obama’s policy: Early in his presidency, Obama promised that U.S. troops would end combat missions by late summer 2010. Combat missions formally ended on August 31, 2010. On October 21, 2011, following Iraqi parliament’s unwillingness to support an extension of immunity for U.S. military personnel, Obama announced that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year.
GOP’s response: Despite the fact President Bush signed an agreement to withdraw all U.S. troop from Iraq by 2012, Republicans called the decision an “astonishing failure” and claimed Obama “lost the war in Iraq.” Despite once hailing the agreement signed by the Bush administration outlining the process of U.S. troop withdrawal, Fred Kagan charged that “this retreat will have great costs for the United States.”
Outcome: The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq brings an end to a costly and war, in both lives and treasure. The troop withdrawal will lower total U.S. government costs for operations in Iraq to $11 billion in 2012. A massive reduction from the $65.1 billion budgeted for Iraq in 2010.
ISOLATED AND WEAKENED IRAN


Obama’s policy: The Obama administration has worked to tighten and enforce sanctions against Iran and on June 9, 2010, the U.N. Security Council, at the Obama administration’s encouragement, passed a new round of multilateral sanctions. The following month, Obama signed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA) which, among other restrictions, banned Iranian-origin imports for items such as rugs, pistachios and caviar.
GOP’s response: The right wing continues to criticize Obama for failing to bring “crippling” — Iraq-style — sanctions against Iran or for not explicitly threatening military action. For example, while ignoring signs of progress in Obama’s pressure and containment strategy against Tehran, Mitt Romney inaccurately claimed that “our president has communicated in various subtle ways that there is not a military option that we would consider.”
Outcome: The IAEA reported recently that Iran is increasingly moving toward a weaponized program. But outside pressure has stalled and/or delayed progress. The Iranians have had difficulty in acquiring replacement parts for machines used to enrich uranium and damage from the Stuxnet computer virus — understood to have been developed as part of U.S. government program — led to a slowdown in program. Obama’s push on Iran at the United Nations has isolated the Islamic Republic internationally and the administration’s diplomats persuaded Russia and China to abstain from vetoing U.N. sanctions.
REPEALED DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL


Obama’s policy: Fulfilling his campaign promise to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Obama, along with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, formally certified the repeal of the law on July 22, 2011.
GOP’s response: Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who orchestrated legislative maneuvers to delay the repeal, said that the “homosexual lobby” is pushing for “a military takeover by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community.” Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) said, “I would reinstate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” None of the GOP presidential contenders immediately condemned the audience’s booing of a gay soldier during an Orlando GOP debate.
Outcome: As of September 20, 2011, gay and lesbians can serve openly in the U.S. military.

 

HALVED THE NUMBER OF RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN NUCLEAR MISSILE LAUNCHERS


Obama’s policy: Obama signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia as part of his push to reduce the emphasis on nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russia’s deterrence strategies. In the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the administration sought to limit the role of the U.S.’s nuclear deterrent by declaring the U.S. will not use or threaten the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
GOP’s response: Republicans, led by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), were outspoken about their opposition to New START, a treaty that even Henry Kissinger described as “modest.” House Republicans used procedural challenges to slow the ratification of New START and Mitt Romney inaccurately attacked the treaty for “imped[ing] missile defense, [sic] our protection from nuclear-proliferation rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.”
Outcome: Outside right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation opposing the treaty, the Senate consented to its ratification and Obama signed New START, completing the ratification process, on February 2, 2011. The treaty requires that both Russia and the U.S. reduce their nuclear warhead arsenals to 1,550 each, a 30 percent reduction from the 2002 Treaty of Moscow and a 74 percent reduction from the 1991 START treaty.
SUPPORTED DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION IN EGYPT


Obama’s policy: The Obama administration consistently called for Egyptian authorities to respect the rights of protesters during demonstrations against the Mubarak regime and helped negotiate a non-violent end to his decades-long rule. The administration also worked with Egyptian counterparts to set out the steps for an orderly transition of power and praised the military for showing restraint in responding to protests.
GOP’s response: Republicans said Obama thew “Mubarak under the bus” and warned that the pro-democracy movement was a “virus spreading throughout the Middle East.” Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) told reporters “I know President Mubarak personally, he’s been a friend of America. I feel sad that he’s going through this.”
Outcome: Mubarak resigned on February 11 and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces took control of the government. The Council indicated that it intended to suspend emergency laws that have been in effect for three decades and facilitate a transition to democracy. The Council maintains good relationships with the Obama administration and has declared that Egypt “is committed to all regional and international obligations and treaties.” Presidential elections are scheduled for March or April 2012 and a series of parliamentary elections will be held from November 2011 to January 2012.
KILLED SENIOR AL QAEDA LEADER ANWAR AL AWLAKI


Obama’s policy: President Obama ordered a drone attack that killedal Qaeda propagandist Anwar Al Awlaki, a U.S.-Yemeni dual citizen.
GOP’s response: Republicans inaccurately claimed that “enhanced interrogations” and intelligence gleaned from detainees at Guantanamo Bay were used in the operation and, downplaying the significance of Awlaki’s death, endorsed Yemeni strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh as “preferable to Al-Qaeda.”
Outcome: Al Awlaki’s death brought a damaging blow to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and removed one of Al Qaeda’s most powerful voices in spreading propaganda and recruiting foreign fighters. While there are legitimate questions surrounding the use of force in this case, the killing of al Awlaki and bin Laden undoubtedly weakens Al Qaeda’s ability to operate in the Middle East and plan and execute attacks.
STRENGTHENED U.S.-ISRAEL RELATIONSHIP


Obama’s Policy: Strengthen America’s military and intelligence relationship with Israel. In an interview in August, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “I can hardly remember a better period of support, American support and cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now.” According to one Israeli official, that coordination is now “even better than under President Bush.”
The GOP’s Response: Republicans and the right wing routinely say that Obama is anti-Israel and has thrown Israel “under the bus.”
Outcome: While there has been tension between the U.S. and Israel, over the settlement issue, this should not obscure the otherwise overwhelming support that President Obama has given Israel. The Wall Street Journal reported that, under Obama, “U.S. military aid to Israel has increased markedly,” an effort that stems from policy directives the White House gave the Pentagon early in Obama’s presidency to “deepen and expand the quantity and intensity of cooperation to the fullest extent.” Importantly, Obama has increased the level of strategic dialogue and the depth of intelligence coordination between the U.S. and Israel, particularly regarding Iran, a key Israeli security concern. President Obama’s efforts to increase US-Israel cooperation have resulted in the significant slowing of Iran’s nuclear progress.

 

I've always given President Obama props whenever he does the right thing...especially in foreign affairs as I did in the first thread on this subject. Even though I think he's making a big mistake with Iran, I give him credit for trying something different...to see how it goes.

However, I doubt he's very popular with the Israelis at the moment. It's also very unfortunate that he sacrificed four (4) brave Americans just for "appearance" of a light footprint in Libya.

 

It's not like the Israelis are the bellwether of peace in the region. They are believed to have as many as 400 nuclear warheads. I'm guess that at least in part, Iran feels that if Israel can have Nukes, why cant they? So rather than helping the peace process, Israel is actually making the region more dangerous but we should defer our foreign policy to them.

While you may acknowledge some of the Obama Administration's foreign policy accomplishments every now and then, you have to admit that you are a miniscule percentage of the Right-wing in your opinion. The huge majority will never credit Obama with any accomplishment simply because they are filled with hatred to the point that they cannot even acknowledge a single positive accomplishment on any front. There are zero presidents that have had no accomplishments but in the eyes of the fanatics that dominate the Right, Obama has managed to rate this judgement. That obviously can't be true.

As far as Libya goes, I tend to think of it this way...

View attachment 2130

 

View attachment 2131


@JoanWalsh : And you can't spell LIAR without ARI, go figure... @AriFleischer

 

Republicans simply do not believe in diplomacy. There is little profiteering in diplomacy while war rakes in the cash. At least that is consistent with their love of money.

 

Real "diplomacy" isn't kow-towing to the enemy...

 

"Real" diplomacy...
"Real" Americans...
"Real" Christians...

A distinction without a difference.

 

Um, yeah....as opposed to conveniently calling what BO just did "diplomacy".

 

Of course you do...

 

Bless your heart!

 

The Obama Administration has been involved with behind the scenes negotiations with the Iranians for the past year. This resulting agreement is a first step towards a wider deal that could lead to a much more comprehensive solution in the near future. It really depends how well the Iranians adhere to this initial first step. Even this opening which of course is being highly criticized by every corner of the GOP/Tea Party is far and away more than Bush accomplished in his 8 years when Iran went from 1 centrifuge to 8000 centrifuges. But let's not let the complete and total GOP failures of the past taint a good old fashioned criticism cabal. They have to rally around something and in the absence of any accomplishments, that only leaves criticism of other people's successes.

Bless their little black hearts.

 

What successes? Iran got everything they demanded.

 

And more than both USSR and China had agreed to 6 times in the Security Council's demands.

 

Yet, there was a resolution. Its really hard to blame a country for using the technology WE gave them in exchange for money used in the Contra scandal of the 80's. Obama has been the first president since Reagan's treasonous dealings with Iran, to actually man up and negotiate with them instead of building up an army of suicide militants in nearby Israel to cope with the aftermath of their threats and embargoes. The poor, substandard and cowardly diplomacy has been the lack of it until now.

 

The fact that you can't acknowledge obvious diplomatic successes doesn't mean they are not there, it just means that you are a pathetic political hack steeped in the culture of hatred the Right-wing is so well known for. The rest of us recognize progress when we see it. We don't have your illness.

 

Those of you interested in what is really going on might want to listen to the rest of Krauthammer's oration.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/26/krauthammer-iran-agreement-farce-worst-deal-munich-1938

 

FOX? CHARLES "GARGOYLE" KRAUTHAMMER?

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

View attachment 2132

Yeah, let's not to forget to get the NeoCons opinions.

 

You know when they have to break out the Hitler references, they have already lost the argument.


Conservative Media: Iran Is Munich

Conservative media reacted with horror to the United States' new nuclear deal with Iran, comparing it—just a tad hyperbolically—to the Munich deal that appeased Hitler.
The United States' nuclear deal with Iran was announced Sunday. Per the agreement, the U.S. will ease some of its sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran slowing down the development of its nuclear program.
The deal had conservative commentators freaking out, saying that Obama was the second coming of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who infamously let Hitler take parts of Czechoslovakia in a failed attempt to avoid war.
Of course, Hitler was slightly a cut above the Iranian regime when it came to genocidal mania, but many pundits seemed not to worry about that.
The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens had an entire column — entitled "Worse Than Munich" — comparing the Iran deal to Munich on Monday. Charles Krauthammer also called it "the worst deal since Munich,” while a column on FoxNews.com referred to the deal as "Obama’s Munich."
"It is catastrophic. It's worse than Munich because after Chamberlain sold the Czechs down the river to Hitler, although they suffered and many of them died, they weren't obliterated," David Horowitz told Newsmax TV.
Daniel Pipes of National Review Online wrote, "This wretched deal offers one of those rare occasions when comparison with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 is valid."
Ben Shapiro wrote on breitbart.com, "The easy comparison is to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in Munich in 1938, when he signed allowed Hitler to consolidate his gains in the Sudetenland on the bare promise of no further aggression in Europe."

 

I don't agree with Krauthhammer's opinions on this issue, and he's wrong as often as he's right on his predictions. But, he's hardly a conservative, even if he is on Fox. He's probably as liberal on many issues as I am, if not more so, which is why I'm surprised a far right winger would post anything from him. To each his own I suppose.