WaPo:
The president handed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker a gift by telling him to “bone up” on foreign policy before criticizing the Iran deal. This is an administration in which a State Department spokeswoman tries to deflect a takedown of the Iran framework by two former secretaries of state by saying that they did not offer alternatives and that she saw “a lot of sort of big words and big thoughts.” (David Brooks remarked, “That’s about the lamest rebuttal of a piece by two senior and very well-respected foreign policy people as I’ve heard. Somebody’s got to come up with better talking points, whatever you think. And of course, there are alternatives. It’s not to allow them to get richer, but to force them to get a little poorer so they can fund fewer terrorism armies . . . I think the case against this treaty is so powerful, I love the way [George] Shultz and [Henry] Kissinger put it just in a very remorseless, factual, serious, non-political way, really. And I thought, I always think that’s the most devastating way to make an argument.”). As cringe-worthy as the State Department’s remarks were, they perfectly encapsulate the contempt for debate and the attitude of “see no problems and hear no problems” that characterizes its non-deal with Iran.
Even when trying to seem sophisticated, the administration sounds foolish. Secretary of State John Kerry in a PBS interview acknowledged that Iran was behind the Houthi onslaught in Yemen but insisted, “Well, we’re very concerned about what’s going on there. And it’s just not a fact. They have been — there are obviously supplies that have been coming from Iran. There are a number of flights every single week that have been flying in, and we trace those flights and we know this. We’re well aware of the support that Iran has been giving to Yemen, and Iran needs to recognize that the United States is not going to stand by while the region is destabilized or while people engage in overt warfare across lines, international boundaries, in other countries.” But we are standing by, which he in effect conceded, “So we’re very concerned about it. . . . And we’re not looking for confrontation, obviously, but we’re not going to step away from our alliances and our friendships and the need to stand with those who feel threatened as a consequence of the choices that Iran might be making.” The lessen for aggressors: Attack other countries because the United States will shrink from “confrontation.” The “big word” for that is “appeasement.”
So that’s what the administration has been up to. Meanwhile, Walker is growing more confident on foreign policy issues. In a Fox interview last night, he responded to the president’s attack: “The thing about that statement is this is a guy in the last year who called ISIS [the Islamic State] the jayvee squad, who just last fall his administration continues to call Yemen a success story, who had a Secretary of State under Hillary Clinton gave Russia a reset button and then they ultimately went into the Ukraine. This is a guy who has the audacity to be talking about schooling anyone when it comes to foreign policy. ”
He also made certain to include Hillary Clinton in his indictment.
Well, between this president and the person who advised him in his first four years, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I think the only place where either one of them can claim success is maybe Burma, but that’s about it. You look at the mess with the Houthis coming into Yemen. The Saudis, the United Arab Emirates, certainly to the other allies throughout the region like Jordan and Egypt, they have real concerns. They are frustrated that this administration even began talks with the premise of enriching uranium, something that very much concerned them and then at the same time they’re backing the very Shiite militias that are going into places like Yemen right now, a real threat not only to Saudi Arabia but to all peace loving people in the Middle East and around the world.”
Actually, he was being generous, since Burma has gone south recently. As for the Iran deal, Walker argues:
Oh, really. Big deal. Taking on the tomato-can of Obama foreign policy and his Iranian fetal position negotiating tactic is no big deal.
But, seriously, it is a stark contrast between an adult’s evaluation of what a foreign policy and national security joke this administration is and how the sycophant’s describe it.
Obama made fighting our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan so difficult with his Rules of Engagement that we eventually lost both places.
Now how many people realize that Obama has imposed such restrictive ROEs on our air war over Iraq that we cannot beat ISIS, ever?
Far fewer than one in four of our fighter jets bombing runs over Iraq (about 3,000 in total) result in any bombs being dropped!
That means fewer than 750 times out of 3,000 bombing runs led to any of ISIS’ assets being destroyed.
No wonder the Kurds say our ”help” via our air support has been more hinderance than help, actually allowing ISIS fighters time to escape!
How can Obama even pretend he is a savvy foreign policy president?
His record is of one failure after another.
Obama’s foreign policy is restricted to the golf courses he has played.