Friday, Dec. 9, 2016    Login | Register        

What is U.S. foreign policy anyway?

Cal Thomas's picture

If there were an award for stating the obvious when it comes to the Middle East it would go to The New York Times. On its front page last Friday, the newspaper ran a story headlined, “Muslim Group is Rising Force in New Egypt.”

What group would that be? Why, the Muslim Brotherhood, of course. We have been repeatedly assured by certain pundits and members of the Obama administration that the Brotherhood are a small minority with no major influence in Egypt and that those Cairo protesters clamoring for “democracy” that led to the downfall of President Hosni Mubarak would be the ones to chart the country’s future. Each time another myth is busted, the deniers of what is happening throughout the region simply create a new myth, one they desperately cling to against all evidence to the contrary.

It would be well for the willfully blind to memorize the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood: “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Got that?

The London Daily Telegraph interviewed Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, leader of the rebellion in Libya. He admitted some of the rebels have ties to al-Qaeda, but not to worry. Hasidi claimed that even members of al-Qaeda “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists.” Sure they are. We should take them at their word, even though they have been known to lie. At what point do we begin to wake up to this nonsense? Is anyone at the State Department paying attention? How about the White House?

President Obama has been forced by growing criticism to better explain his non-policy in Libya and his reasoning behind bombing the country without deposing Moammar Gadhafi. The president went to the United Nations Security Council for a resolution, not Congress, for constitutional approval to launch air strikes on Libya. Perhaps this is an extension of his stated belief that America is no more exceptional than any other country. “While regime change in Libya is the U.S. policy,” reports ABC News, “Gadhafi’s removal is not the goal of the operation.” No, President Obama tells us the U.S. is in Libya “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.” Huh?

What about Syria where security forces are shooting civilians in the streets on the apparent orders of President Bashar al-Assad? Under the new “humanitarian” rules of engagement, shouldn’t president Obama send bombers to Syria? Will the U.S. seek authorization from the U.N. for military air strikes there? And then there is Bahrain where thousands of protesters spilled into the streets last week after Friday prayers and were confronted by security forces firing tear gas and pellets. Can live ammunition be far behind?

If humanitarianism is the new standard for U.S. military intervention, what about bombing North Korea, liberating Tibet, strafing The Congo, Darfur and scores of other countries where authoritarian regimes deny basic human rights to their people?

In last Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) wrote that what is taking place in the Middle East “could be the most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall.” That’s the wrong analogy. When the Berlin Wall fell, people were liberated. What is happening in the Middle East could be the most important geostrategic shift since communists came to power in Russia and China, oppressing and killing millions.

This is just the beginning. Saudi Arabia is next and already the fault lines in that creaking monarchy are visible. The hand of Iran is behind much of this turmoil and behind Iran is al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s vision for the toppling of every regime in the region, each to be replaced by the most religiously fundamentalist and politically repressive of leaders.

While President Obama fiddles, the Middle East burns.

At a private dinner last week in Washington, attended by a group of conservative journalists, someone said if a Democrat must be president, he would rather it be Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. There was general head nodding. Mine was among them.

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at] ©2011 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.


Observerofu's picture

[quote=NUK_1]I'm sure JeffC has his own list, but here's mine on why I think Bachmann is a horrible candidate:

-Wants "intelligent design" taught in public schools and discounts evolution as just a theory[/quote]

Why is teaching both Theory's wrong? Let the parents and students decide which they believe not some educator with an agenda. Do you believe the NEA has no agenda? Really?

[quote=NUK_1]-Said Obama was "anti-American" and "holds anti-American views." Then, she apologized for saying that as misspeaking, only to a few weeks later say it again. [/quote]

Obama is Anti-American or at least Anti-Capitalist and hate us as a Colonialist Nation. This is why he has almost broke ties with England.

[quote=NUK_1]-believes the whole "death panel/forced euthanasia" BS that Palin trumpeted during the health care debate[/quote]

The "death Panels" have been proven Nuk it is called the "End of Life" counseling not to mention that if Government funds it and the funds are short someone is not going to get that expensive care that "might" prolong their lives.
Remember the Granny speech from Robert Reich? <cite>"And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too we're going to let you die."</cite>

[quote=NUK_1]-wants not only a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, but also even "civil unions" or any other legal equivalent[/quote]

Most in America feel this way Nuk. America is not a Center Left Country that you think we are. We are a Center Right and most Americans do not want Government to destroy our traditions. If you want true freedom get the Federal Government out of the Marriage business and send it back to the States.

[quote=NUK_1]-said that gays target children specifically to recruit and to molest[/quote]

Uhh they don't? Ever heard of MAMBLA?

[quote=NUK_1]-is heavily backed by Focus on the Family, a hard-right fundie organization that is 100% about social issues and could care less about conservatism unless it's their own brand[/quote]

I guess being funded by the Open Society groups and Unions are ok?
So a Conservative politician can't have standards or principles they have to be totally free of any group that has a agenda? Does your standard apply to the left as well?

[quote=NUK_1]-wanted a constitutional amendment to ban the US from replacing the dollar with a foreign currency....I mean, what the hell? Its already the law that no foreign currency can be recognized[/quote]
So what is your problem with an amendment? George Soros wants the dollar to be replaced with a, as yet un-named,
"Global currency". This administration is tied at the hip with Soros. So her suggestion is merely prudent to head off allowing it. Most of the World are now making such noises. Do want to carry a dollar or an euro?

<a href=" wants new global currency to replace dollar</a>

[quote=NUK_1]-tried to organize a national boycott of the Census until talked out of it later by Lynn Westmoreland of all people.[/quote]

Many people had issues with the Census being moved under the purview of the Whitehouse Nuk. A move by the way that was never explained.

[quote=NUK_1]-said that Obama's Asia trip would cost over 200million a DAY and that 30+ warships were going with him. Bizarre and totally false[/quote]

The report that she quoted was the same report that the AP picked up and reported. This was her actual Statement: <cite>"“We have never seen this sort of an entourage going with the president before,” Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in an interview that aired on Wednesday.</cite>

<cite>“And I think this is an example of the massive overspending that we’ve seen, not only just in the last two years, really in the last four.”</cite>

Note she was commenting on the report from the Britain’s Daily Mail when she was asked to comment. They reported it Nuk not Bachman.

[quote=NUK_1]-said she thought Americorp would lead to mandatory servitude to the govt. Her son is a teacher in that program now[/quote]
How old is her son Nuk? Do you have kids? Are they old enough to make up their own minds? Do they always follow your suggestions?

Americorp IS a gateway to Government service. Obama said it was himself. There are now more Union members in Government then all other industries combined.

[quote=NUK_1]-showed she has no clue on American history by stating that John Adams the founding father was totally opposed to slavery when it was actually John Quincy Adams. Thinks Lexington and Concord are in New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts[/quote]

I guess Obama's 57 states qualifies him to teach history?

[quote=NUK_1]-has so many similar public "misstatements" that even once-benefactor Palin wouldn't endorse and tout her for a leadership position in the Repub Party.[/quote]

Have you ever listened to Joe Biden Nuk?

[quote=NUK_1]While Bachmann has some views shared by old-school conservatives and even libertarians, her seeming lack of intellect, bomb-throwing gaffes and fringe thinking along with a hard right-wing fundie stance on social issues makes her very unelectable.[/quote]

Nuk just who in your world would make a good candidate?

I mean just from your little rant here it would have to be:

1. Someone with no ties personal or professional with any group that might be considered even part of any religious entity.

2. So scared of making any statements that might be construed as "unintelligent" as to not be able to speak at all.

3. Have no opinions other that what everyone agrees to. See #2

4. Be a scholar in all subjects and a master of human dialog.

5. Be a man because you do seem to have a problem with just the women of the party.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

NUK_1's picture

I don't think so, but I am not surprised that a psuedo-conservative like yourself would embrace them. Any candidate with a heavy fundie background is NOT going to get elected because contrary to what you state, America is NOT a Center Right country and hasn't been for quite a while. People may be sick of the progressive overload right now, but they have been sick of the fundies for even longer.

Do I think the NEA has an agenda? EVERYONE has an agenda! The intelligent design agenda has zero scientific basis and is a farce. There's plenty of evidence of evolution from the very beginning of recorded history. It's not some whack-job opinion with no evidence. America needs to teach faith at home and places of worship, not the public school system.

As far as you stating that the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage/gay civil unions, you're wrong. Poll after poll for a while now has shown the majority in fact does favor either gay marriage or the legal equivalent of gay marriage.

It's already THE LAW that the dollar is the ONLY recognized currency in the USA. The only reason for a redundant constitutional amendment is POLITICS and GRANDSTANDING. I thought conservatives viewed the Constitution as an almost sacred document, not something you add to just for the sake of making your base all happy.

I haven't heard of MAMBLA but have NAMBLA. Considering that the overwhelmingly vast majority of children molested are done by heterosexuals and not homosexuals, further demonization of gays seems to serve only one purpose: firing up the knuckle-dragging fundies and trying to scare their feeble minds some more. NAMBLA might have had a few dozen members at one time that law enforcement constantly hounded not for their actions but for their opinion. I think they are disgusting freaks myself, however, they have a right under the constitution to advocate for changing the law on the age of consent just like anyone else does.

As far as your utter nonsense about me only having a problem with dumb women, maybe you missed the part about TP candidate Joe Miller that I called a bozo? Maybe you missed me calling Haley Barbour terrible? Newt nothing more than a neo-con? Maybe you.....didn't read anything and saw my criticism shared by quite a lot of people on how awful O'Donnell, Palin, Bachmann and Angle are and some how extrapolated it into "he has a problem with women." Talk about being very lazy intellectually and I'd expect that from some "progressive" not someone who claims to be a libertarian yet espouses the same BS as the social conservatives who are the opposite of libertarian thought.

I guess if I state that I cannot stand the policies of Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, and other female progressives that means I hate women?

I don't really care about all the gaffes of Bachmann except it does show her fringe thinking at times. It's her stands on the issues that I have a real problem with, especially the big fundie background that is opposite of what libertarians like myself believe.

I voted for Romney in the Repub primary so any of your goofy assumptions that I some how want a candidate with no religion or religious affiliation is another issue you're totally wrong about. I wonder about your level of reading comprehension and the absurd conclusions you reach based on apparently whatever pre-conceived idea you have. If you don't understand that a group like Focus on the Family is fundie bunch that goes against most of the tenets of libertarianism, you're not paying attention. If you can grasp that the whole Tea Party concept took off because the TP wanted to concentrate on fiscal and NOT social issues whatsoever, you can understand why it became a "force" and can understand how people like Bachmann are seeking to coattail ride on it and who don't share that same opinion at all.

Observerofu's picture

You see some nefarious leanings she might have. I see someone who is trying to swim with sharks and not get eaten. I am however curious still who your ideal candidate would be.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

NUK_1's picture

Are you talking about a set of criteria of what would make the most desirable candidate or an actual living person right now? The ideal candidate is unfortunately likely to be way too smart to ever want the job:)

As far as actual human beings, on the R side, the best guy they have is one who will likely never run due to family legacy and that's Jeb Bush. I think he's the best Bush of the family but the US likely has a Bush hangover at this point. He's a leader and a guy who knows how to build a consensus and govern. About the only issue I have disagreed with him on is the Schiavo unpleasantness. He's also a guy that could definitely help the R's with the very growing population of Hispanic voters.

I like Lee Wrights of the LP a lot and have been reading his articles/columns for a long time and he's the real deal.

The 1990's version of Dick Cheney was really good IMO, but then he got some what delusional and caught up 100% in neoconservative philosophy. For a very intelligent man, that still surprises me. I voted for him over W in the Repub primaries.

For the future, Marco Rubio looks like a real star and a guy who could make a serious run. I think it's too early right now for him but he's a real bright sport for the Repubs. Gov. Nikki Haley of SC is another one. If Rand Paul takes some public speaking training, he might be too. Right now, his ideas are solid but he doesn't get them across too effectively and kind of drifts right into his Dad's territory of Zzzzzz if he's not careful. I watched the pretty electrifying victory speech of Rubio that was then followed by Paul's and it was the difference of night and day. A Prezbo or impact politician definitely has to get sometimes complex ideas across very effectively and be a great salesman for his or her agenda. You have to sometimes channel Reagan or at least Bill Clinton.

In GA, I supported Karen Handel's run for Gov and think she has a future. I agree a lot with Lynn Westmoreland on fiscal issues and then he kind of loses me on anything else. Jack Kingston is one of the very few Repubs who tries to strike a healthy balance between big business and the environment and isn't as unyielding or myopic as diehard partisans.

Of the current crop of contenders for the Repub throne, I'm not sure that anyone of them can win but I think if he did win, Romney would be an effective President. Probably more moderate than some would like, but he has the real world experience that would be a refreshing change from an Obama and knows hot to accomplish what he wants. He's also not so partisan that he couldn't get buy-in from non-Repubs and he's certainly not going to embarrass himself or the US with any personal issues or saying something incredibly dumb off the cuff.

Observerofu's picture

I still disagree with Bachman only because the Rs are going to run some old blue blood because it's their turn.

We need someone the exact opposite of big O. Smaller Government, fiscally responsible type that will secure our borders and stop nation building.

The ability to not make gaffs is not required by me.

btw- Isn't it great to have a civil disagreement and then discussion without having someone step in and start trying to insult someone?

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

NUK_1's picture

What would be even better is if our discussion wasn't now a one word per column post that's unreadable:)

Observerofu's picture


"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

NUK_1's picture

"is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. He's taking two thousand people with him. He'll be renting out over 870 rooms in India. And these are 5-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending, it's a very small example, Anderson."

That has nothing to do with The Daily Mail or any other nonsense excuse.

PTC Observer's picture

Recall that this was written in 1960, the slow erosion of individual freedom has continued, the conservative movement has been a big part of its demise.

As I have said before, the dawn of personal freedom and a representative government in the 18th century was without parallel in human history, it is we that have given it up for something much more tyrannical. The tyranny of law itself has become our master and not the protector of our freedoms.

There is little difference in conservatism and socialism; they both stand for principles that erode personal freedom, one by its nature of incrementalism the other by its expressed philosophy.

While conservatives pretend to believe in individual freedom their actions do not match there words, they too would like to change laws to make us slaves.

NUK_1's picture

That's also a pretty interesting and persuasive article in your link.

[quote=PTC Observer]

Recall that this was written in 1960, the slow erosion of individual freedom has continued, the conservative movement has been a big part of its demise.

As I have said before, the dawn of personal freedom and a representative government in the 18th century was without parallel in human history, it is we that have given it up for something much more tyrannical. The tyranny of law itself has become our master and not the protector of our freedoms.

There is little difference in conservatism and socialism; they both stand for principles that erode personal freedom, one by its nature of incrementalism the other by its expressed philosophy.

While conservatives pretend to believe in individual freedom their actions do not match there words, they too would like to change laws to make us slaves.[/quote]
Very interesting. So ....with "little difference between conservatism and socialism" I am guessing you don't vote? FWIW, I am a Libertarian in 99% of my views, but usually I must make a choice between the lesser of two evils. To not vote is a vote for the greater evil, IMO. Curious what your answer is. -GP

NUK_1's picture

For 2012, the Libertarian Party has a very good candidate for Prezbo(unlike last time with Bob Barr...PUKE!)in Lee Wrights, and if you don't like what you see on the Repub side in 2012, I don't think a vote for Wrights is a "wasted" vote at all.

So how did he get back in the good graces of the LP when he was unceremoniously dismissed in 2009?

NUK_1's picture

The LP National Committee reinstated him on appeal 12-0 two months after he was suspended, probably due to the outcry within the LP of how dumb the committee was being as Wrights been a major part of the LP for years. Why did they get mad at him? No one really knows but he's not been hesitant to point out the shortcomings of the LP National Committee in his writings and is believed to have ripped the LP a new one for nominating screwball Bob Barr in 2008.

I think the official reason was he may or may not paid his dues late or something else trivial. Considering his a prolific and articulate voice for the LP and 100% a "true believer," it sure made the LP committee look rather dumb for a few months.

PTC Observer's picture

If I find a candidate that I can vote FOR I vote for them. I think I have voted in every election.....sometimes I write in a candidate.

As you know, if you have followed my postings, I am not big on democracy as a form of governance. However, it doesn't mean I don't vote.

Watch for Tim Pawlenty after April 15, he will be headlining the Boston Tax Day Tea Party Rally that day and his campaign should grow legs from there. I think a Pawlenty/Christie or Pawlenty/Rubio ticket would really work well. We should have some great debates starting this fall. One thing for certain, this next election may be one of the most important in the entire history of our great nation. -GP

Robert W. Morgan's picture

He would be a good VP candidate and may prove to be more than just a token minority. Carrying Florida is pretty darn important in 2012. Still a stretch for Republicans, but maybe Obama will do something really dangerous or stupid right before the election.

In fact the dumbest thing Obama could do is get into a live unscripted debate with Newt or really any leading Republican. He'll trot out the "I'm to busy running the country" excuse.

Live free or die!

What we need is um, uh, um, a debate without a teleprompter. O is pretty slick with one but without he says some pretty dumb things, like when addressing Joe the plumber. But then again the corrupt lame street media would probably just cut to commercial/power failure/ or anything else they can think of the cover for him. Watch out next fall for a convenient war or possibly a false flag operation, I don't put anything past this bunch. -GP

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Biden vs. Rubio. I believe I would pay money to see that one. Old Uncle Joe against a real live 39 year old up and comer. Classic.

It is hard to believe, but Biden was also one of the youngest Senators when he was first elected 100 years ago.

Live free or die!

I remember when Biden was elected, he and I both had hair back then! A Biden/Rubio matchup would be great. That debate really would be a Big F-ing Deal! Biden reminds me of a cocker spaniel running around the house with a shoe in it's mouth, totally clueless. Sad to think this bunch is in charge. -GP

I believe Newt is brilliant but his personality won't get him even nominated. He's just not likeable.

You're not very bright are you, Kevin......

You completely missed the point. The point was, that Obama has proved to be such a corrupt, radical, incompetent 'leader' that anyone running against him would win. Why, I wouldn't put it past the racist liberals in the DNC to throw Obama under the bus and run Hillary in 2012.

The point is, anyone that the Republicans or Tea Party run could beat Obama. Got it now, you insipid, insignificant jagoff?

JeffC's picture

You’re not arguing with the most astute political analyst although it’s easy to see why he comes to his conclusions. It seems like over half of his information comes from dubious sites catering to the gullible. Couple massive misinformation with the inability to rationally analyze data and his prediction makes perfect sense. He can’t explain his thinking for obvious reasons.

Look at the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls, Obama beats a generic Republican by 2.8%. Obama beats Huckabee by 5%, Obama beats Romney by 4.7%. Obama beats Palin by 16.3%. Obama beats Gingrich by 14.6%. Obama beats Pawlenty by 15.5%. They didn’t include the clowns like Bachman and Cain who just jumped on the clown wagon with The Donald and his silly birther nonsense.

They're going to have to work for it and what they've got now looks like a field of losers.

PTC Observer's picture

Obama will win..... not because of anything he has done or not done. He will win because he will be able to muster more special interest groups against a divided and self-destructive Republican Party.

Either way it doesn't matter one wit who wins the next Presidential election. This is about the Congress and what majority has control of it and to what degree. It is Congress that got us into this mess and it must be Congress that gets us out of it. Presidential vetoes can be overcome it there is a willingness on the part of the Congress to do it.

Sadly, the Congressional elections are just as ripe with corruption as Presidential elections. Unless we wake up very soon, we as a country are toast.

We have your party and the Republican Party to thank for it

Observerofu's picture

Obama will win a second term. Again as you stated not for doing a good job or that he deserves it. It will be because of the Special interest groups like the Unions, students and entitlement recipient class and the fact that the Republican party can't get out of their own way.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

Everything about the US is bad. We have to restart at Year Zero just like the Khmer Rouge! Clear the cities--make way for Utopia!

I think Ludwig von Mises said it best when he said

"The closed-door policy is one of the root causes of our wars."

Swift Death To Closed-Door Policy!

Go Braves!

PTC Observer's picture

Putting words in my mouth?

Your quote is a nonsequitur and so is your thinking.

Swift death to nonsequiturs.

words in your mouth. I have to jazz them up to make them more interesting!

Swift Death to Uninteresting Posts!

I think Ludwig von Mises said it best when he said

'There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor.'

PTC Observer's picture


LvM is correct on both points.

Go Braves!

and embraces free immigration! So, you are for no walls on our Mexican and Canadian borders, mines off our Atlantic and Pacific shores, and SAM installations to protect our skies from unlimited numbers of people from all over the globe seeking safety and a better way of life here in GPAT's reat US of A?

I think Ludwig von Mises said it best when he said

"It may be that the immigrants come in such masses or possess such superiority through their physical, moral, or intellectual constitution that they either entirely displace the original inhabitants, as the Indians of the prairies were displaced by the palefaces and were driven to destruction, or that they at least achieve domination in their new home, as would perhaps have been the case with the Chinese in the western states of the Union if legislation had not restricted their immigration in time or as could be the case in the future with the European immigrants into North America and Australia."

Swift Death to Borders (not the bookstore)!

Go Braves

PTC Observer's picture

his intellect.

Free immigration, for the most part, made the country.

Now I suppose you would somehow limit superior physical, moral, or other intellectual constitutions from immigrating here?

You're not anti-intellectual are you Ninja?

Death to all anti-intellectual thought.

Go Braves!

in anti-anti-intellectual thought! That is my raison d'être (that is French for our blogger friends residing in Coweta County and the Inman Community).

Sure, a new constitution is fine by me. How bout you GPAT? PTCO says our 200-year-plus-old piece of rag needs to go and be re-done by the Asians and Mexicans that flood the US when we embrace free immigration. You up for that? We could name the new country Misesland!

Go Braves!

Swift Death to the Nationals!

PTC Observer's picture

I have no idea what your reasoning is Ninja, reason is not one of your strong suits.

one of my strong suits. It's just that it is often so deep that you can't follow it or don't get the humor. As a matter of fact, when I speak, people always say 'It's getting really deep in here.'

You should get out more often--take up break-dancing or something. Live a little! Give my regards to the others in the assisted-living facility!

Just like Charlie Sheen, Braves Winning! (10-1 top of the 8th).

I think Ludwig von Mises said it best when he said

'Go Braves!'

PTC Observer's picture


Hillary Clinton ?

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Larry Elder on Townhall today helped Obama with his apology letter - may have even ghostwritten it, but it is perfect. It shows what a classy guy Obama is and how he is willing to admit his mistakes and get the country back on track.
Wow, first Obama sees the light, can Haddix be far behind?

Live free or die!

JeffC's picture

Unfortunately, the Republicans can't nominate a tree. They seem to be stuck with a prospective lineup of political dwarfs.

Maybe someone new will turn up.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

We seem to have a real talent in this country of interfering with other country's problems and backing precisely the wrong side. Then we wind up looking down the barrels of weapons we gave our former allies - now enemies 10 or 15 years later. This is not a Democrat or Republican thing - they all do it. I'll bet every President since Roosevelt can be tagged with a similar stupid decision. Obama is not a good leader, but he is just continuing a long tradition of US meddling.

Live free or die!

PTC Observer's picture

Mr. Morgan, I agree with you, meddling in other countries affairs has been a hallmark of the USA going way, way back, but it was not always so.

Here’s a very, very short list:

Argentina 1890, troops to Buenos Aires
Chilie 1891, Marines clash against nationalist rebels
Haiti 1891, Troops to put down black revolt on Navassa defeated.
Nicaragua 1894, Troops to Bluefields for a month
China 1894-95, Naval and troops land in Sino-Japanese War
Korea 1884-96, US troops kept in Seoul during the Sino-Japanese War

And the list goes on and one and on…… in the Mid-East we are living up to our tradition Mr. Morgan.

"Walk softly but carry a big stick" - T. Roosevelt
"Manifest Destiny' – J.K. Polk

An earlier voice of reason:

“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. ………

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible….” G. Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796.

President Washington was our greatest President, our last great President.

It does seem that Cal Thomas eats from the same bowl as does Gingrich, Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Boortz, and a half dozen falsely educated women I don't care to mention.

Do you really think that we are bombing Libya's army in order to leave KADHAFI in charge eventually?

You know better, but are just ticked that the President didn't tell you the plan so that you could further criticize it!

What would you have done; invade with the Marines immediately and start looking for Gadhafi in a spider hole? Macho, yes, but stupid.

We of course will see that the man is deposed and allow the UN and NATO to rebuild Libya!

You do know that Europe gets more Libyian oil than we do? It is about oil again except not for us! Islam is NOT INVOLVED! Gadhafi is a Saint all by himself.

Mike King's picture

Did a week in the pokey further enhance your delusion? Who exactly is the power behind NATO?
"Gadhafi is a Saint all by himself." Only you could come up with that.

Go get your meds!

NUK_1's picture

While it's great to see you and Spyglass and a couple of others back from detention and GITMO (Greater Interrogation Techniques More Options), you seemed to have let one escape with you that should have made stay behind :)

PTC Observer's picture

Who was thrown off the board? I must have missed it. What was their transgression?

NUK_1's picture

Looks like Mike King, GaLant, Spyglass, and a couple of others had a week off due to whatever. I know there were a couple of comments that had profanity in them in the "Mrs. Haddix" discussion that got them a timeout but don't know why on the others,

PTC Observer's picture


I didn't know this happened.

I really don't think that Mayor Haddix need generate that much controversy and passion. He, through his own actions, becomes smaller each day. It is true that his megalomania may embarrass us, but his significance in making a negative impact will be muted by the other council members. After all they see his faults even if he refuses to see them himself.

The Mayor should read Shakespeare

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves...."

Julius Caesar (Act I, Scene ii)

Let him do his best.....this will make him unelectable.

mudcat's picture

Well actually it is hubby's dog, I'm more of a cat person - anyhow, see if this works for you when thinking of our mayor

"If you can't eat it or play with it - pee on it and ignore it"

The one that replaces him,... Bad,....endless spending to nation-build there,.... Priceless! Let me get this straight, we are not going to nation-build (again), but this time the UN will handle it? What could possibly be wrong with that? Where will that money come from? You've got to be kidding me. Get out of the UN AND Libya and bring our troops home. -GP

JeffC's picture

This time we are going to turn it over to the UN. They have a surprisingly good record in peace keeping. They are also bloated, inefficient, corrupt and pursue an agenda slightly at odds with the US.

I urge you to support them.

Because when the US gets involved, we suddenly become responsible for everything. Therefore, we cannot leave because the poor country we were involved with is still poor and we can't guarantee a Jeffersonian democracy. Congress and the President are paralyzed, neither wanting to be known for losing Libya or Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or the next one if they turn out bad.

Then there's the UN option. Turn it over to them and it's their long term responsibility and fault. You'll still pay for most of it, sure. You'll do that either way. But we'll be buffered. The UN is the exit strategy.

Let's give them Afghanistan too. We went after Al-Qaeda and they've moved to Pakistan. Why are we staying to fight the Taliban? Because there is no way to leave if we are then responsible for whatever Afghanistan turns in to. Give them to the UN.


Ad space area 4 internal