Jump to content

Obama Abroad


Rat Myan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Obama Abroad

He's been called a naive idealist. But in terms of foreign policy, he's the true realist in the race.

The rap on Barack Obama, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been that he is a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America's enemies. John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world's dangers. Even President Bush stepped into the fray earlier this year to condemn the Illinois senator's willingness to meet with tyrants as naive. Some commentators have acted as if Obama, touring the Middle East and Europe this week on his first trip abroad since effectively wrapping up the nomination, is in for a rude awakening.

These critiques, however, are off the mark. Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.

No candidate for the presidency ever claims to have a doctrinal world view. Richard Nixon never said he loved realpolitik. Jimmy Carter never claimed to be a Wilsonian. There's no advantage to getting pigeonholed, and most politicians and even policy folk are clever enough to argue that they want to combine the best of all traditions. So John McCain says he's a "realistic idealist." Former national-security adviser Anthony Lake, who now counsels Obama, calls himself a "pragmatic neo-Wilsonian." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describes herself as an "American realist."

Against that backdrop, Obama has been strikingly honest about his inclinations and inspirations. True, he begins by praising Harry Truman's administration, which in the foreign-policy world is a little like saying you admire George Washington. (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and John McCain have all cited Truman as a model.) But then Obama takes an unusual step, for a Democrat, and praises the administration of George H.W. Bush, one that is often seen as the most hardheaded or coldblooded (depending on your point of view) in recent memory. Obama has done this more than once, most recently in a conversation with me last week on CNN. And he is explicit about what he means. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign-policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush," he told The New York Times's David Brooks in May.

Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.

Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and his key word "dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want." This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.

Obama talks admiringly of men like Dean Acheson, George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr, all of whom were imbued with a sense of the limits of idealism and American power to transform the world. "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative," wrote Larissa MacFarquhar in her profile of him for The New Yorker. "There are moments when he sounds almost Burkean. He distrusts abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections. It's not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good."

As important as what Obama says is what he passes up a series of obvious cheap shots against Bush. He could bash him for coddling China's dictatorship, urge him to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics or criticize his inaction in Darfur. In fact, Obama has been circumspect on all these issues, neither grandstanding nor overpromising. (This is, alas, not true on trade policy, where he has done both.)

Perhaps the most telling area where Obama has stuck to a focused conception of U.S. national interests is Iraq. Despite the progress in Iraq, despite the possibility of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, Obama's position is steely Iraq is a distraction, and the sooner America can reduce its exposure there, the better. I actually wish he were somewhat more sympathetic to the notion that a democratic Iraq would play a positive role in the struggle against Islamic extremism. But his view is certainly focused on America's core security interests and is recognizably realist. Walter Lippmann and George Kennan made similar arguments about Vietnam from the mid-1960s onward.

Ironically, the Republicans now seem to be the foreign-policy idealists, labeling countries as either good or evil, refusing to deal with nasty regimes, fixating on spreading democracy throughout the world and refusing to think in more historical and complex ways. "I don't do nuance," George W. Bush told many visitors to the White House in the years after 9/11. John McCain has had his differences with Bush, but not on this broad thrust of policy. Indeed it is McCain, the Republican, who has put forward some fanciful plans, arguing that America should establish a "League of Democracies," expel Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and exclude China from both groups as well.

Obama's response to McCain's proposals on Russia and China could have been drafted by Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft. We need to cooperate with both countries in order to solve significant global problems, he told me last week, citing nuclear-proliferation issues with Russia and economic ones with China. The distinction between Obama and McCain on this point is important. The single largest strategic challenge facing the United States in the decades ahead is to draw in the world's new rising powers and make them stakeholders in the global economic and political order. Russia and China will be the hardest because they are large and have different political systems and ideological approaches to the world. Yet the benefits of having them inside the tent are obvious. Without some degree of great-power cooperation, global peace and stability becomes a far more fragile prospect.

Obama and McCain are obviously mixtures of both realism and idealism. American statesmen have always sought to combine the two in some fashion, and they are right to do so. A foreign policy that is impractical will fail and one that lacks ideals is unworthy of the United States. But the balance that each leader establishes is always different, and my main point is that Obama seems unusually for a modern-day Democrat highly respectful of the realist tradition. And McCain, to an extent unusual for a traditional Republican, sees the world in moralistic terms.

In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another writer slobbering over the messiah, since you failed to include this person's credentials or a link, I have no idea if heshe claims to be an unbiased journalist or not, but the fact that it is impossible to tell if a NYT reporter or the president of Obama's fan club wrote this by it's tone and content is telling unto itself.

were-not-worthy.jpgobama420.jpg

We're not worthy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Another writer slobbering over the messiah, since you failed to include this person's credentials or a link, I have no idea if heshe claims to be an unbiased journalist or not, but the fact that it is impossible to tell if a NYT reporter or the president of Obama's fan club wrote this by it's tone and content is telling unto itself.

you don't know who Fareed Zakaria is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria

Zakaria is generally regarded as a political moderate or centrist. In foreign policy terms, he is a "realist" (i.e. someone who believes that American foreign policy should be guided by a conception of its national interest). His first book, From Wealth to Power, argues that countries that grow rich and powerful inevitably expand their sphere of interests abroad. He sees America as a reluctant great power in the late 19th century because it was a strange creature a strong nation with a very weak central state.

Zakaria is an advocate of free markets, both at home and abroad. He believes that America should embrace globalization and free trade. He is an internationalist, writing consistently in favor of American engagement with the world, multilateralism, and efforts to help alleviate global poverty and disease. He has often argued that helping countries to modernize their economies and societies is a more secure path to development and liberty than pushing for elections and democracy.

His second book, The Future of Freedom, develops this latter theme more fully. Zakaria argues that democracy works best in societies when it is preceded by "constitutional liberalism," which he defines as the rule of law, rights of property, contract, and individual freedoms. He has written that historically liberty has preceded democracy, not the other way around. He has argued that countries that simply hold elections without broad-based modernization including economic liberalization and the rule of law end up becoming "illiberal democracies". For this reason, he has been critical of the manner in which the Bush administration has pushed its democracy agenda forward, relying on elections in Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, and Lebanon as the solution to those countries' problems and minimizing the building of the institutions of law, governance, and liberty.

After the 9/11 attacks, Zakaria wrote a seminal cover-story essay for Newsweek entitled "The Politics of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us?". In it, he argued that Islamic terrorism has its roots in the stagnation and dysfunctions of the Arab world. Decades of failure under tyrannical regimes, all claiming to be Western-style secular modernizers, has produced an opposition that is religious, violent, and increasingly globalized. Because the Mosque is the one place where people can gather in an Arab country, that is where the opposition to these regimes grew. Because Islam was the one language that could not be censored, it became the language of opposition. He argued for a generational effort to create more open and dynamic societies in the Arab world, thereby helping "Islam enter the modern world".

In a June 11, 2007 cover essay, Zakaria criticizes "fear-based" policies on terrorism, immigration, and trade, and argues that beyond George W. Bush the world needs an open and confident United States.[5]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Another writer slobbering over the messiah, since you failed to include this person's credentials or a link, I have no idea if heshe claims to be an unbiased journalist or not, but the fact that it is impossible to tell if a NYT reporter or the president of Obama's fan club wrote this by it's tone and content is telling unto itself.

you don't know who Fareed Zakaria is?

I must still be reading over and missing where you credited his name, my mistake, but in any event I thought that it would be very difficult for Newsweek to lose much more of it's credibility than it already has.......but imagine that, he scaled that mountain with seeming ease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Another writer slobbering over the messiah, since you failed to include this person's credentials or a link, I have no idea if heshe claims to be an unbiased journalist or not, but the fact that it is impossible to tell if a NYT reporter or the president of Obama's fan club wrote this by it's tone and content is telling unto itself.

you don't know who Fareed Zakaria is?

I must still be reading over and missing where you credited his name, my mistake, but in any event I thought that it would be very difficult for Newsweek to lose much more of it's credibility than it already has.......but imagine that, he scaled that mountain with seeming ease.

yeah....I guess you are missing it.......when you click on the thread link.

I guess it would be pointless to discuss this because you obviously have no clue about the author and are discrediting the guy simply because you think you need to. It tells me all I need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Another writer slobbering over the messiah, since you failed to include this person's credentials or a link, I have no idea if heshe claims to be an unbiased journalist or not, but the fact that it is impossible to tell if a NYT reporter or the president of Obama's fan club wrote this by it's tone and content is telling unto itself.

were-not-worthy.jpgobama420.jpg

We're not worthy

Read more............ cut and paste less. This journalist is widely recognized and respected as extremely intelligent, thoughtful, and fair. Pretty sure he hosts his own show on CNN with people on all sides of the arguement sitting and speaking in amazingly courteous ways with one another.

But it's unbelieveable that a person who posts so very much political material has never heard of him. I was shocked to read your post based on how often you speak politics on these boards. There's a great interview with the man in a recent issue of Playboy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Another writer slobbering over the messiah, since you failed to include this person's credentials or a link, I have no idea if heshe claims to be an unbiased journalist or not, but the fact that it is impossible to tell if a NYT reporter or the president of Obama's fan club wrote this by it's tone and content is telling unto itself.

you don't know who Fareed Zakaria is?

I must still be reading over and missing where you credited his name, my mistake, but in any event I thought that it would be very difficult for Newsweek to lose much more of it's credibility than it already has.......but imagine that, he scaled that mountain with seeming ease.

yeah....I guess you are missing it.......when you click on the thread link.

I guess it would be pointless to discuss this because you obviously have no clue about the author and are discrediting the guy simply because you think you need to. It tells me all I need to know.

Are you out of your mind?? You did not link the article, you did not name the author. I have a passing knowledge of the guy's work,meaning I have read a few of his articles in the past, granted I don't have the gay porn bibliography of him that it seems by your tone and defense of his work that you do.

None of that changes the fact that he wrote a ridiculous fluff piece that Obama's grandmother will no doubt be proud to pin to her fridge and you try and say you were looking for a serious discussion on it?

By all means, knock yourself out

http://barackobama.meetup.com/boards/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)

None of that changes the fact that he wrote a ridiculous fluff piece that Obama's grandmother will no doubt be proud to pin to her fridge and you try and say you were looking for a serious discussion on it?

Educate us. What is so "fluff" about it?

Where is the author wrong or off point?

You have yet to address a single point brought up in the article. so far, you have only been able to falsely accuse the author of being something he is not and attacking me. You are not doing so well, sir.

Let's get back on topic. Care to discuss the points made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Another writer slobbering over the messiah, since you failed to include this person's credentials or a link, I have no idea if heshe claims to be an unbiased journalist or not, but the fact that it is impossible to tell if a NYT reporter or the president of Obama's fan club wrote this by it's tone and content is telling unto itself.

you don't know who Fareed Zakaria is?

I must still be reading over and missing where you credited his name, my mistake, but in any event I thought that it would be very difficult for Newsweek to lose much more of it's credibility than it already has.......but imagine that, he scaled that mountain with seeming ease.

yeah....I guess you are missing it.......when you click on the thread link.

I guess it would be pointless to discuss this because you obviously have no clue about the author and are discrediting the guy simply because you think you need to. It tells me all I need to know.

Are you out of your mind?? You did not link the article, you did not name the author. I have a passing knowledge of the guy's work,meaning I have read a few of his articles in the past, granted I don't have the gay porn bibliography of him that it seems by your tone and defense of his work that you do.

None of that changes the fact that he wrote a ridiculous fluff piece that Obama's grandmother will no doubt be proud to pin to her fridge and you try and say you were looking for a serious discussion on it?

By all means, knock yourself out

http://barackobama.meetup.com/boards/

Bob, the guys name is in the thread title. Now I know you saw the name " Obama" and went into " find a funny pic of Obama" mode, thus forgetting all else, But it may be you who is out of their mind. Ever consider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)

Are you out of your mind?? You did not link the article, you did not name the author.

sure I did.....you just missed it.....and are still missing it.

how long have you been posting on this forum?

:laugh::laugh:

I read that entire article again, and only then thought to actually look at the thread title.......my mistake, I like the coyness to let me keep fumbling over my mistake, nicely done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)

Are you out of your mind?? You did not link the article, you did not name the author.

sure I did.....you just missed it.....and are still missing it.

how long have you been posting on this forum?

:laugh::laugh:

I read that entire article again, and only then thought to actually look at the thread title.......my mistake, I like the coyness to let me keep fumbling over my mistake, nicely done.

coyness......I told you where to look.....adn even put it in bold text.

bold text is the opposite of coyness.

;)

:w00t:

now go enjoy your lunch.....might I suggest a nice big bowl of soup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fareed Zakaria is specifically known for his unbiased journalism.  To cast his writing off as a "fluff" piece only proves conservatives falsely accuse the media of being biased because McCain is losing. 

The public now sees new leadership on the horizon and the narrow minded neo-cons can't stand it.  The easiest thing to do is blame the media.

You can bet your last dollar that Zakaria went into this piece with an open mind and no intentions.  If you don't like the contents of the piece, argue your side.  Otherwise, you are just going to look silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pencilpusher (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Another writer slobbering over the messiah, since you failed to include this person's credentials or a link, I have no idea if heshe claims to be an unbiased journalist or not, but the fact that it is impossible to tell if a NYT reporter or the president of Obama's fan club wrote this by it's tone and content is telling unto itself.

you don't know who Fareed Zakaria is?

I must still be reading over and missing where you credited his name, my mistake, but in any event I thought that it would be very difficult for Newsweek to lose much more of it's credibility than it already has.......but imagine that, he scaled that mountain with seeming ease.

yeah....I guess you are missing it.......when you click on the thread link.

I guess it would be pointless to discuss this because you obviously have no clue about the author and are discrediting the guy simply because you think you need to. It tells me all I need to know.

Are you out of your mind?? You did not link the article, you did not name the author. I have a passing knowledge of the guy's work,meaning I have read a few of his articles in the past, granted I don't have the gay porn bibliography of him that it seems by your tone and defense of his work that you do.

None of that changes the fact that he wrote a ridiculous fluff piece that Obama's grandmother will no doubt be proud to pin to her fridge and you try and say you were looking for a serious discussion on it?

By all means, knock yourself out

http://barackobama.meetup.com/boards/

Bob, the guys name is in the thread title. Now I know you saw the name " Obama" and went into " find a funny pic of Obama" mode, thus forgetting all else, But it may be you who is out of their mind. Ever consider?

You missed the part where I actually read the article, otherwise...spot on, so I may have to consider that from the point on.....does not change how ridiculous the article itself it, it seems even more so in the second reading, but no doubt I knee jerked my way to a helping of crow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)

Are you out of your mind?? You did not link the article, you did not name the author.

sure I did.....you just missed it.....and are still missing it.

how long have you been posting on this forum?

:laugh::laugh:

I read that entire article again, and only then thought to actually look at the thread title.......my mistake, I like the coyness to let me keep fumbling over my mistake, nicely done.

coyness......I told you where to look.....adn even put it in bold text.

bold text is the opposite of coyness.

;)

:w00t:

now go enjoy your lunch.....might I suggest a nice big bowl of soup?[/quote]

Really, I had it wrong this time, I was thinking more along the lines of Ramen noodles, you're getting better. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigSlick (7/22/2008)
Fareed Zakaria is specifically known for his unbiased journalism.

You can bet your last dollar that Zakaria went into this piece with an open mind and no intentions.

Hardly. Zakaria has been supporting Obama since early in the primaries. He uneloquently argued how identity over experience was a more effective tool in foreign policy last year so as to minimize the Hillary argument. His ogling over Obama now is merely an extension of prior alignment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

snake (7/22/2008)
SilentBob, have you seen this piece?

OPINION

The Obama Gaffe Machine

By JOHN FUND

May 30, 2008;PageA13

For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now.

As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him "a one-man gaffe machine."

Take the Auschwitz flub, where Mr. Obama erroneously claimed last weekend in New Mexico that his uncle helped liberate the Nazi concentration camp. Reporters noted Mr. Obama's revised claim, that it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. They largely downplayed the error. Yet in another, earlier gaffe back in 2002, Mr. Obama claimed his grandfather knew U.S. troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka even though only Russian troops entered those concentration camps.

That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That's because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician.

When John McCain claimed, while on a trip to Iraq in March, that Sunni (as opposed to Shiite) militants in Iraq are being supported by Iran, coverage of the alleged blunder tracked Democratic attacks on his age and stamina. (In fact, Iran may well be supplying both Sunni and Shiite militants.) Dan Quayle, tagged with a reputation as a dumb blond male, never lived down his misspelling of "potatoe."

Mr. Obama, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, has largely been given a pass for his gaffes. Many are trivial, such as his suggestion this month that America has 57 states, and his bizarre statement in a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico that America's "fallen heroes" were present and listening to him in the audience.

Some gaffes involve mangling his family history. Last year in Selma, Ala., for example, he said that his birth was inspired by events there which took place four years after he was born. While this gaffe can be chalked up to fatigue or cloudy memory, others are more substantive such as his denial last April that it was his handwriting on a questionnaire in which, as a state senate candidate, he favored a ban on handguns. His campaign now contends that, even if it was his handwriting, this doesn't prove he read the full questionnaire.

Mr. Obama told a Portland, Ore., crowd this month that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us," saying that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets aren't much to worry about. But Iran has almost one-fourth the population of the U.S. and is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons. The next day Mr. Obama had to reverse himself and declare he had "made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Last week in Orlando, Fla., he said he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez to discuss, among other issues, Chávez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The next day, in Miami, he insisted any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation." Obama advisers were left explaining how this circle could be squared.

In a debate last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet, without precondition, the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba. He called President Bush's refusal to meet with them "ridiculous" and a "disgrace."

Heavily criticized, Mr. Obama dug in rather than backtrack. He's claimed, in defense of his position, that John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was a crucial meeting that led to the end of the Cold War.

Not quite. Kennedy himself admitted he was unprepared for Khrushchev's bullying. "He beat the **** out of me," Kennedy confided to advisers. The Soviet leader reported to his Politburo that the American president was weak. Two months later, the Berlin Wall was erected and stood for 28 years.

Reporters may now give Mr. Obama's many gaffes more notice. But don't count on them correcting an implicit bias in writing about such faux pas.

Over the years, reporters have tagged a long list of conservative public figures, from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, as dim and uninformed. The reputation of some of these men has improved over time. But can anyone name a leading liberal figure who has developed a similar media reputation, even though the likes of Al Gore, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have committed substantial gaffes at times? No reporter I've talked to has come up with a solid example.

It's clear some gaffes are considered more newsworthy than others. But it would behoove the media to check their premises when deciding just how much attention to pay to them. The best guideline might be: Show some restraint and judgment, but report them all.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.

Pffft.. I read it in the inflight magazine " dumba## times" aboard a circa 1886 airliner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)

Are you out of your mind?? You did not link the article, you did not name the author.

sure I did.....you just missed it.....and are still missing it.

how long have you been posting on this forum?

:laugh::laugh:

I read that entire article again, and only then thought to actually look at the thread title.......my mistake, I like the coyness to let me keep fumbling over my mistake, nicely done.

OBAMA ATTACK MODE, ACTiVATE!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/22/2008)

Are you out of your mind?? You did not link the article, you did not name the author.

sure I did.....you just missed it.....and are still missing it.

how long have you been posting on this forum?

:laugh::laugh:

I read that entire article again, and only then thought to actually look at the thread title.......my mistake, I like the coyness to let me keep fumbling over my mistake, nicely done.

coyness......I told you where to look.....adn even put it in bold text.

bold text is the opposite of coyness.

;)

:w00t:

now go enjoy your lunch.....might I suggest a nice big bowl of soup?

He probably heard the word on Fox and wanted to use it, but forgot to look the definition up first. (1 of 2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLBear (7/22/2008)
BigSlick (7/22/2008)
Fareed Zakaria is specifically known for his unbiased journalism.

You can bet your last dollar that Zakaria went into this piece with an open mind and no intentions.

Hardly. Zakaria has been supporting Obama since early in the primaries. He uneloquently argued how identity over experience was a more effective tool in foreign policy last year so as to minimize the Hillary argument. His ogling over Obama now is merely an extension of prior alignment.

so you are saying that he likes Obama because he believes Obama is really the better choice......well ok.

that's fine.

care to argue any of his points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
ATLBear (7/22/2008)
BigSlick (7/22/2008)
Fareed Zakaria is specifically known for his unbiased journalism.

You can bet your last dollar that Zakaria went into this piece with an open mind and no intentions.

Hardly. Zakaria has been supporting Obama since early in the primaries. He uneloquently argued how identity over experience was a more effective tool in foreign policy last year so as to minimize the Hillary argument. His ogling over Obama now is merely an extension of prior alignment.

so you are saying that he likes Obama because he believes Obama is really the better choice......well ok.

that's fine.

care to argue any of his points?

If I thought it would make a difference to you, I would.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLBear (7/22/2008)
Rat Myan (7/22/2008)
ATLBear (7/22/2008)
BigSlick (7/22/2008)
Fareed Zakaria is specifically known for his unbiased journalism.

You can bet your last dollar that Zakaria went into this piece with an open mind and no intentions.

Hardly. Zakaria has been supporting Obama since early in the primaries. He uneloquently argued how identity over experience was a more effective tool in foreign policy last year so as to minimize the Hillary argument. His ogling over Obama now is merely an extension of prior alignment.

so you are saying that he likes Obama because he believes Obama is really the better choice......well ok.

that's fine.

care to argue any of his points?

If I thought it would make a difference to you, I would.

nothing but cop-outs from the Obama-bashers these days.....even from the more intelligent ones.

my how things have changed from just a few months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...