We know nothing about his educational background, and he has lied about his role at the university. He was nothing more than a mere lecturer, since Professor is applied to a tenured position. He lacks knowledge of history and fails to apply historical context.

His biggest failure is his interference in the Honduras where a coup did not take place.

Obama’s foreign policy is thus: the bare minimum needed to keep centrists satiated, so they won’t sabotage his nightmarish domestic creations.

In #6 I said this:

However, I do invite you to give the gist of the Obama foreign policy in a few short sentences for our edification.

But I know you won’t. Your style is to hit and run.

In #14 you said this:

“I could not tell you what Obama’s foreign policy is if my life depended on it”

Well thank you for that insightful, and seemingly thoroughly honest admission.

Unfortunately, I suspect this will not inhibit you in the least from opining loudly and coarsely on all manner of foreign policy issues regarding Obama.

Hit …….. and ………run.

The invitation is still open for you to give the gist of the Obama foreign policy in a few short sentences for our edification.

Why do I think that you won’t do it because you can’t do it? Why do I think you are about a mile wide and about an inch deep? Why do I believe that every time you get off the teleprompter you change the topic, or suck your thumb or hide?

As a small bit of professorial contribution to your lack of logical thinking, I will offer you this: Whether I know what Obama’s foreign policy is has no relation to whether I may hold and express opinions about how Obama handles foreign affairs.

Suppose I were to tell you to shut your yammer about the war in Iraq because you clearly misunderstand the reasons that war was waged. Surely you would reply that why the war was waged has no relevance to your objecting to it.

You have foolishly constructed a false syllogism in which I must understand what Obama’s aims in foreign policy are before I can criticize him in the foreign affairs sphere.

OK. You clearly understood where Bush was coming from. By your logic, you have no right to criticize him. Bravo! Q.E.D. Case closed. Idiot logic wins.

We’ve discussed and debunked your ‘eye off the ball’ mantra already, didn’t they send you any new material with the paycheck?

Earth to Bruce, Earth to Bruce.
It was George Bush who forgot who are enemies are, and went off to start a war in Iraq instead of focusing on the people who actually attacked us and murdered thousands.

Obama campaigned on refocusing on the real enemy. In office, he sent 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, fired the commander there, installed McChrystal, and ordered a thoroughgoing review of the strategy, culminating in a decision to send another 30,000 troops.

What are you smoking, man?

I too have some problems with the taxonomy – but this isn’t really one of them. First off, Bush was NOT a believer in democracy promotion after 9/11. Although he did good work organizing a proto-democratic regime in Afghanistan, his long-term aversion to any nation-building, and his dream of taking the war effort to Iraq, caused him to backburner Afghanistan and do little to really help establish the democracy in a healthy manner. Similarly with Iraq – if you recall, the original plan was to turn over the country to Jay Garner who would slap together some sort of government – under Chalabi, if Cheney had his way, and we would be out in a few months. The democracy promotion only became a focus when it became clear that we were going to be burdened with governmental responsibilities in Iraq for an extended period of time, and we would need to construct ourselves the eventual successor regime.

Anyway, this last incarnation of Bushism is somewhat Wilsonian – in the democracy promotion sense.
One of my long-term problems with Mead’s taxonomy is just that though – Wilson based his democracy promotion ideas very heavily on the mechanism of global institutions – the League of Nations. The modern neocon democracy promotors though tend to be very hostile to international institutions.

” Jefferson launched one of America’s first foreign wars,…”

Yeah, but being a Jeffersonian, in Mead’s sense, does not mean an unwillingness to use force to defend the nation’s interest. I don’t see any contradiction. Mead is defining Jeffersonianism as a difference in emphasis – a desire to focus more on the domestic front and avoid foreign entanglements – when possible. It doesn’t mean avoid conflicts when they are thrust upon you.

Thats another objection I have to how he imposes his taxonomy. He refers to Bush’s response to 9/11, in Afghanistan, as a Jacksonian move. In fact, it was a war that was supported unanimously in the Senate, almost unanimously in the House – if there were a President Kucinich back then we would have gone to Afghanistan. So the response would have happened under all four of his approaches.

As to the quote you give ““Millions for defense…” there seems to be a rather different story about this phrase – LINK

According to Mead, Bush is a Wilsonian (with an undercurrent of Jacksonianism) because he favored an active foreign policy that was informed primarily by a desire to spread values and ideal, such as the rule of law, democracy, personal liberty, and human rights, rather than by a desire to expand commercial or military influence. That is not to say Bush would have done it the way Wilson the man would have. That’s where Bush’s Jacksonian streak kicks in, a streak that is willing to use the military and can have an honor-driven let’s roll attitude about it. Wilson, would have like to see the same ends pursued through a more lovey-dovey Jeffersonian means (“If we could get all the nations of the world in a big room to discuss our differences, there would be no war!)

Also, I much admire president Jefferson, and I do so considerably more than I admire those whose foreign policy outlook bears his name. In Mead’s taxonomy, Jeffersonianism is marked by an unwillingness to engage militarily or to project power to forcefully, favoring carrots over sticks. The Jeffersonians are those who think that national security is enhanced by being liked and that dialogues with our enemies will solve our problems better than military power (under the naive assumption that our enemies come to such dialogues in good faith). It may be an injustice to our third president that Mean named this outlook after him, but it does seem to describe Obama’s view very nicely.

Incidentally, I find the value of the taxonomy is enhanced when one, as Mead did in the Article, ranks and combines them to more precisely describe the foreign policy of an administration, including noting internal conflicts created by differing outlooks.

Well thank you for that insightful, and seemingly thoroughly honest admission.

Unfortunately, I suspect this will not inhibit you in the least from opining loudly and coarsely on all manner of foreign policy issues regarding Obama.

“Thus sprach Tanothustra”

heh…can I borrow that as my tag line?

Tano, I’m sure you’re right. Obama will be a screaming success on the international stage just as soon as he can get the leaders of other nations to stop lying about their availability in order to hold meetings without him.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/04/obamateurism-of-the-day-181/

Talking Points, I thought Obama was going to “improve America’s standing in the international community”? So, why is he having to crash meetings just to get some face time with the leaders of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa? Any thoughts?

Obama comes from the old-fashioned Jeffersonian wing of the Democratic Party

Not hardly. Thomas Jefferson would never have bowed, either to the Saudi king or the Japanese emperor. Jefferson launched one of America’s first foreign wars, and the Marine Corps along with it, on Muslim kings in North Africa so America would not have to pay tribute to them. The slogan was “Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute.” (Millions being the 1800 equivalent of today’s trillions.) It is unimaginable that Obama would do any such thing.

So what are Obama and Carter? Not Hamiltonians, not Wilsonians, not Jeffersonians, not Jacksonians. Possibly anti-Americans.

Is it that “free people” are people ungoverned by socialism?

…… corner whereby you end up rooting for the failure of American foreign policy…..

Thus sprach Tanothustra.

Tano, when American foreign policy is in the crapper, nobody is rooting for it to stagnate and fester.

I really do not pay much attention to cataloging your wit and wisdom, but I would not be surprised to find that along the way you rooted for the Bush foreign policy to fail.

However, I do invite you to give the gist of the Obama foreign policy in a few short sentences for our edification.

But I know you won’t. Your style is to hit and run.