You sarcastically proclaimed that it's not OK to question Obama's FP, because he's not Bush. That's simply not true. Bush wasn't seriously questioned about his FP until well after the fact, when people woke up from their 9/12 trances realizing they'd been duped. And, by that time, it was too late. We got the "well, if we stop now things will get even worse!" and " you gotta finish the job!" arguments.
Still not sure what you're trying to say. For me, it's just tough to see every criticism of Obama's foreign policy be deflected with a response that basically comes down to "Hey, don't you remember how bad Bush was?"
Maybe I think that semantics do matter. Maybe I think it represents basic cowardice on the part of the people responsible for our national defense that they feel trepidation about using the words "terrorist attacks." The way people say things usually means more than what they're actually saying.
Considering what can legal qualify as "terrorism" in the nation now-- thanks to Obama, btw-- I'm not sure I'd ever argue that there's too much trepidation about using those words.
I guess this kinda gets down to the whole issue that this terrorist attack controversy is about.
Why is it Obama signs a bill expanding the conditions under which American citizens can be detained without due process, expresses reservations about those conditions in his signing statements, and then his justice department defends those expanded powers in court? Based on his actions, Obama seems to be just fine with expanded power to detain Americans without due process. Yet he said he didn't.
These are basic contradictions. Obama's handling of foreign policy reaks of this.
Take his military involvement in Libya in general. I'm not against what he did. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. On the other hand, I don't know why we benefit from this. And now one of our ambassadors has died for this cause. So... why was it worth it? Why did we do this? When we invaded Iraq, outside the WMD argument, there was the idea of trying to create democracies in the Middle East that would be friendly to use and reduce the potential situations from which terrorist acts can arise. With Libya I don't really know. It feels like what Obama did was use military force in a context where he could get away with it. If it's not for any bigger cause, then what's the point of launching a military attack except for its own sake. This is usually called warmongering.
And the way he's handled the assassination stinks of equivocation. This article
describes why there is a controversy better than I can.
This might be shocking, but a foreign policy based on seemingly contradictory actions isn't "realism." It looks aimless. And it might actually be aimless. Obama's handling of Afghanistan was the same way. He couldn't figure out if he wanted to make another honest stab at accomplishing our military objectives there or if he wanted to just leave.
I guess I'm really surprised that, having followed Obama's presidency for the last four years, you can find literally no meaningful criticism of him by his opposition. Really? Not a thing?
Plenty. None from Republicans.
Below, you indicate that you don't like the state of political discourse in this country. But, again, you're basically arguing for Obama's foreign policy and how he's carrying it out. You're basically taking his side. This is fine. But then you can't assault the validity of the Republicans and what they think. The biggest problem with political discourse is viewing your side as good and the other side as evil. And that's exactly what you're doing in your posts. You're being part of the problem.
I can't help but feel like I'm the only one who resents how people on the left feel like they should have a monopoly on the form of political debates. Who are you to say what the right issues are?
I don't know what to tell you. Plenty of people have expressed absolute disgust over the state of discourse in this nation. If you like it, good for you. What do you like about it?
I don't like it. I hate it in fact.
I saw Wyatt Cenac on Friday, who said "Libertarians are just anarchists with mortgages".
Libertarianism is like a gateway drug that turns idealistic middleclass whites into lifelong lukewarn supporters of the GoP nominee.
Well.... I'm not voting for Romney. Whatever that means.