April 8, 2008
Year Two of President Obama (John Feehery)
Jan. 10, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the last American troops and embassy personnel departed Baghdad today, the Obama White House faces another crisis in Taiwan. The Chinese government today announced that it will impose its will on the people of Taiwan and moved to install a government loyal to Beijing in Taipei.
This follows a series of crises on the world stage that has kept President Obama busy since he followed up on his promise to withdrawal all American forces from Iraq.
It started with Iran’s incursion into Iraq, which was quickly followed by Turkey’s invasion of Kurdistan in Northern Iraq. Saudi Arabia, a bitter rival of Iran, stepped up its military support of the Sunni population outside of Baghdad, as the civil war, once dormant in the closing days of the Bush administration, has raged anew, killing thousands of Iraqis.
Upset that the Americans have largely abandoned the Sunni population in Iraq, the Saudis also responded by sharply limiting oil production, leading to even higher gas prices for American consumers.
As America withdrew its forces from Iraq, political support for the Americans plunged in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, as Afghanis and some Pakistanis decided to throw their support behind a newly resurgent Taliban, who used the defeat of America in Iraq as a rallying cry for recruitment.
Russia, with Vladimir Putin back in charge after a brief year off, moved quickly to install friendly governments in Ukraine and Georgia, and has mobilized opposition movements to topple the governments in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia and replace with with regimes more friendly to the Kremlin.
Russia also announced that it will help both the Iranians and the North Koreans build a nuclear reactor for “peaceful” use.
The White House, which has embarked on a massive domestic spending program aimed at “healing” America, has sharply reduced spending on defense programs. One of the casualties of these spending cuts has been Seventh Fleet, which has had to cut its presence by half in the region.
These sharp cuts in defense spending, coupled with the inexperienced and untested Obama White House, emboldened the Chinese government to move quickly to take advantage of the weakness in American leadership and to install a puppet regime in Taiwan.
It is unclear how the White House will respond to the Chinese at this point, but it is unlikely the President Obama will provide military help to the pro-nationalists on Taiwan.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 27 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Your sounding delusional John. Look at the mess Bush has provided, and your daydreaming about a POTENTIAL Obama mess? You're paranoid. No wonder gullible Americans are willing to trade liberties for a sense of security. Obama would be a great improvement for this great country of our's.
Comment by Lester — April 8, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Lester, you are the one with your head buried in the sand.
What liberties have we lost under Bush?
Oh yeah, the ability to chat with foreign terrorists undetected.
Obama is a member of a church which preaches hatred of the whites, he has no executive experience, and he panders to the surrender first crowd. With Obama in the White House, this nation would be undefended.
Comment by Marvin — April 8, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
[...] Republican Strategist John Feehery just published a post titled "Year Two of President Obama" over at The Hill's Pundits blog. [...]
Pingback by Plunderbund - » The World Turns to Shit Under President Obama? — April 8, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
lester-
there is no apostrophe in "ours".
congrats though, you dutifully underscore the necessity for another strong, republican president.
Liberals do not make the connection between peace/prosperity and national security. i'm not sure if they truly don't see it, or if they are in denial.
the iraq war was a mistake, we should've sent 150,000 troops into afghanistan.
but a weak, marxist-leaning president will only strenghten the resolve of anyone wishing harm on america.
keep at it, Feehery!
Comment by j — April 8, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
lester-
heads-up,
i mis-spelled "strengthen". more of a typo than a mistake though.
what's more important is that you caught it, right?
Comment by j — April 8, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Really Lester? How, how would Obama be an "improvement"? he has no foreign experience, no military experience, no economic experience and very little congressional experience. Experience in running a community center in Chicago ain't gonna cut it!
Comment by John Simmons — April 8, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever.
If Obama is elected President, the dynamics of world politics will change. The current Bush doctorine of insult and fight first and talk later will be reversed and hopefully more conflicts will be resolved by dialogue.
Comment by Ajaz — April 8, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
lester-
also, there IS an apostrophe in "you're". you went 1 for 4 in the apostrophe challenge.
because you are so eager to label everyone that blogs here, i figured i'd label you–Dunce.
maybe that's why you come across as a guy who'd stand in a line all day waiting for a hand-out from the government.
Comment by j — April 8, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
John is quite an optimist. Since Obama has promised to gut multiple military programs and is generally completely confused about military matters, do you think it will take that long for the world to fall apart? It will be much faster and much harder. Any one of the dictators without principles and their puppets will test him almost immediately, and he has shown all the sign of being primed to fail every one of those tests.
Can you even imagine being a member of the US military serving under Obama? It almost sounds like a joke: a radical Chicago community organizer, a disciple of Saul Alinsky, a guy who purposefully chose the most evil church in Chicago for his street cred after being brought up with atheist and Islamic influences, with a history of attending Marxist seminars, and sensitive about his slightly big ears, will direct the US military to protect the country? Anything is possible, but I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar on the success of this enterprise.
Comment by Igor R. — April 8, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Marvin;
You wonder what liberties have been shredded? What rock have you lived under the past few days? George W. Bush with the help of John Yoo wrote that the fourth Amendment of the Constitution could be disregarded in a time of war or didn't you know that. Here is a link to the article in which Bush stole our liberties in the dark of night and you, RR, Igor and John Simmon as the idiots you are are questioning an Obama presidency. Look in teh mirror, you'll find stupid written on your foreheads. Here is the links:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050114.html
and here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/l07torture.html?ref=opinion
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20071014_nyt_bush_has_shredded_the_constitution_since_9_11/
and here:
http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/2005/11/patriot-act-shredding-constitution.html
and Keith Olbermann take on it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23962944#23962944
so if you think you haven't lost anything, think again.
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 8, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Thank you for the laugh John… I especially appreciated the following prediction: "As America withdrew its forces from Iraq, political support for the Americans plunged in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, as Afghanis and some Pakistanis decided to throw their support behind a newly resurgent Taliban, who used the defeat of America in Iraq as a rallying cry for recruitment."
Because everyone knows that Afghani's and Pakistani's (apostrophe trolls do your worst!) supported our invasion of Iraq by overwhelming numbers and those numbers have only increased as the years of quagmire draq on and on.
Otherwise it appears that John is describing the logical cumulation of events if President Bush were to gain a third term. The depletion of our military, the loss of international prestige, even watching as Russia assists Iran in furthering their nuclear program, supposedly for peaceful purposes. I would be hard pressed to draw the conclusions which John has reached, because I don't believe Obama intends to continue manifestly wrong headed and defiantly stupid policies after his inauguration.
Comment by Ken — April 8, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
mike-
"as the idiots you are questioning an obama presidency" ??
since when is it idiotic to question an elected official? especially one that hasn't been elected yet!
sounds pretty totalitarian/fascistic to me.
i agree w/ ben franklin– those who are willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither. BUT, what about those that are willing to give up freedom for a hand-out?
that's what the DEMS represent — a handout-based america and a UN controlled world.
you've reinforced my previous responses to you, mike. PLEASE lay-off MSNBC and the "Daily Show" for awhile. you'll realize that their effects wear-off much like those of reefer; leaving you sleepy, yet hungry for real sustenance.
Comment by j — April 8, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Ken, have you ever watched one of those videos where America's "honorable" enemies cuts off a living man's head? They are instructive to figure out that these enemies don't respect
weakness and are not very advanced in the moral scruples department. There are a lot of people in Afghanistan and Pakistan who support America and want to live in peace. There are also quite a few that like to cut off heads and there is only one way they will interpret America's hasty exit from Iraq: as victory. I bet you can even imagine the two words they'll be repeating over and over in their excitement.
Ken, you're very confused about what causes respect in the Middle East, and it's not that hard to figure out. The answer is "Ruthless Power".
Comment by Igor R. — April 8, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Year 1 of the McCain presidency. After a US embassy in the Middle East is bombed, President McCain orders a massive bombing campaign of "those Sunni Arab terrorists in Tehran".
The next day at the NSC brief, President McCain asks "Who started the war with Iran?"
Comment by David — April 8, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
John's scenario could even get worse. It may be a matter of time before a nuclear or dirty bomb is detonated in New York or Washington. What does a President do? Assuming US could absorb one (and only one!) such attack, it must respond with a non-conventional tactical or otherwise retaliatory strike against likely perpetrators, i.e. Iran, Syria, N.Korea, etc. Probably, we'll have to pulverize them all just to make sure it never happens again. We know we can count on McCain to take this drastic step. Hillary too would respond with overwhelming force just to show that she's an iron lady, but what about Barak given his Muslim roots? What if he decides to redouble the efforts to seek peace and better understanding of his Muslim half-brothers? Is this what we need in the White House? Get serious…
Comment by Misha F — April 9, 2008 @ 2:44 am
All of you Kool-Aid drinkers need to get out more. This country is nearly bankrupt, jobs are impossible to find (I know someone who has been looking for more than two years — and she has two kids to feed!) we owe several TRILLION dollars to, among other really friendly countries, China! If we continue on this course set by 30 years of Con government, we will get what we deserve — a society of 1% super rich and 99% really poor, no education, failing infrastructure (falling breidges anyone?) and everything else that comes with cutting taxes and destroying the commons we all use! We CANNOT afford to cut taxes while engaging in an unnecessary war. And the reason jihadis hate us isn't for our freedom — it's for our ongoing support of brutal dictators who oppress them, kill them and their kids, and rape their countries of natural resources!!!
Comment by Christine Buckley — April 9, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Christine, people who like to cut heads off, put drills into brains, and gun down children playing soccer just to create a little mayhem, hate us because we support brutal dictators? What a jokester you are Christine, ever tried stand up?
Comment by Igor R. — April 9, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
J;
What's wrong? Couldn't refute my well thought out and linked rebuttal of Marvin. Yes I included you as one of the idiots and your reply post laid all my doubts to rest. The old saying J is this - it is better to be silent and thought the fool, than to open you mouth and remove all doubt. You just removed all doubt.
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 9, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Igor: In reply to my comment why you have the word honorable in quotes is simply a mystery to me. That word never appears in the original comment and I would certainly reject any notion that Al Qaeda or any other of a couple of dozen extremist groups, many of which recieve support from the Bush administration, have any sort of honor whatsoever. If you have a misunderstanding about my sides perception of this, that is your problem, not mine.
I believe it is that misperception which leads people like Igor to consider that it is well and good for America to commence with apolicy like torture or dissapearances while fighting the "war on terror". They don't mind disdaining our own honor in order to fight a dishonorable foe. They fail to realize that America has faced many many other enemies who held no honor, and we have always managed to hold our own values, even though those struggles were against threats much greater to our national existence than a group of throwbacks living in caves on the Afghan/Pakistan frontier.
The quote in my comment from the original post never once mentions the word respect either. It mentions Afghani and Pakistani support. There is a world of difference here. Anyone pretending that "support" for America around the middle east has increased because of the overtly bellicose and wrong headed attitude and policy taken by the Bush administration is simply living in a fantasy land.
I honestly appreciate the response though Igor. You distilled the world outlook of those who have led this nation to endless quagmire, attendent with the loss of American prestige on an unprecedented scale on the world stage with that "ruthless power" line.
Comment by Ken — April 9, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
mike-
don't be mad that i'm taking your sources seriously, most free-thinking people don't.
you've highlighted this point by lining-up behind the utopian-marxists.
Comment by j — April 9, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
mike-
JOHN STEWART/KEITH OLERMANN FOR PREZ!!
c'mon man, they'd like, totally get it right!
Comment by j — April 9, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Ken the quotes were used to convey sarcasm and not quotation, and I apologize for any confusion. With that said, we will only get support (and respect, even if you didn't say it) in the Middle East when we win. You see Ken, in the past we faced enemies that couldn't destroy us to the same extent as, say, nuclear-armed Iran can. Yet back then when an enemy shot at us we shot back and didn't try to count every unidentified battle-field corpse and claim it to be an innocent civilian (I normally put the last two words in quotes but just for you I won't). Today we just need to win Ken and to hell with world opinion. Here is a simple algorithm that worlds against concentrated threats (not all, but many we should've handled this way): "Identify threat. Point a projectile big enough to eliminate it at the threat without regard for innocent civilians. Fire." Would've worked for Falluja and Iran. Until it's too late Ken, until it's too late.
Comment by Igor R. — April 9, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Ken this illustrates how someone gets support, respect, or what have you in the Middle East:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671530.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084
Comment by Igor R. — April 9, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Igor… I'm going to be blunt. This is language you won't hear often from those who agree with me, but here it is my friend. You, and those who think like you, are quite simply panzies. Why would I say something so inflammatory. Because you, Igor, have the lack of intestinal fortitude which leads you to say patently ridiculous stuff like this: "You see Ken, in the past we faced enemies that couldn’t destroy us to the same extent as, say, nuclear-armed Iran can."
Try telling the past generations of Americans who had their people killed by the hundreds of thousands that our war is more dangerous to this nation. It is frankly laughable. Our war, which the President calls upon us as citizens to wage by going shopping and having our taxes cut! Try telling the patriots that founded this nation that the threat they beat, while establishing and upholding cherished American ideals which we recognized from the Revolution until this abomination of a President, that the threat they faced to the nation was lesser than that we face now. By definition you are wrong, and it is that plaintive wail, that sorrowful fearful bleating about having it so rough these days and how dangerous the world is so we have to act like idiots, that makes you and everyone who holds those thoughts panzies.
I'm sorry if it sounds callous or mean… but it is true.
Comment by Ken — April 9, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
ken-
i think you've under-estimated the movement within radical islam to take down the west.
hitler wasn't any less evil, but a nuclear-armed islamic jihad would make nazi holocaust war crimes look like misdemeanors.
there are 1.3 billion muslims worldwide. even if only 1% fall in line behind osama OR iran (pick one) it's still a potential army of 13 million; founded on belief and faith in martydom as a ticket to the afterlife.
maybe it takes some intestinal fortitude to acknowledge a mean, combative, and resilient enemy?
Comment by j — April 9, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
J: Thank you for hopping in on this. I honestly do appreciate a spirited debate and this is a good'n.
Look at the numbers you have given us J, then tell me how smart it is to completely lose all inhibition fighting the enemy and killing civilians. You say if 1% join the enemy we face an overwhelming foe, but then those who argue from your side seem intent on doing all in our power to alienate and antagonize the very population we need to keep from joining the enemy. You've seen that bellicose attitude expressed in this very thread with explicit calls to aim and fire without regard to civilian casualties. Make no mistake about this my friend. If you were in such a population, regardless of your particular political leanings or predilictions, you would feel duty and honor bound to resist who ever it was who was conducting themselves in such a manner. Not because you are evil or predisposed to be anti-whoever it is that is indiscriminately destroying your hood… but because you are a freaking human being! Humans have a long and rich history of violently resisting just such policy as Igor is calling for.
The attitudes on display here work in exactly the wrong way for us winning the war. And I agree that this war MUST be won. In no way have you seen me, in this thread or any other forum you may stumble across my rantings, disregard or underplay the danger we face from militant Islam. I just happen to think that the the traditional ideals which have guided us through past national threats have stood us in good stead. We are where we are because of what we were during these national trials. I certainly do no pretend that we have a spotless historical record either. I simply reject out of hand the notion that the threat faced by our generation is greater than that faced by past generations, and that we are justified to undermine what this nation has always strived to stand for. The nations leadership can start making me a believer when we start the draft, rationing, and paying for the bills rather than borrowing it all.
Comment by Ken — April 10, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
ken-
i agree, we don't need to go street to street thru tehran shooting anyone that resists an american imposed lifestyle…we do need to encourage israel to pre-emptively smart-bomb any and all facilities in the mid-east(outside of india and pakistan) even thought to be condusive to nuclear armament. the israelis are ready to defend themselves, they've done it before.
if the iranian civilians don't like losing their electricity, they should rise up and get rid of a govt. hell-bent on destroying their enemies and dominating their regional backyard.
economic sanctions and peer-pressure won't work on govts. that think we're all infidels anyway.
Comment by j — April 10, 2008 @ 5:03 pm