Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:21 PM Mar 2014

WaPo, WSJ Slam Obama's Response To Putin's Aggression

WaPo, WSJ Slam Obama's Response To Putin's Aggression

The editorial boards of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal on Sunday criticized President Barack Obama's foreign policy approach as Russian forces cemented their control of Ukraine's Crimea region...writing that Obama's foreign policy since assuming the presidency has been "based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality." While noting that Obama is not responsible for Russian President Vladimir Putin's occupation of Crimea, the Post faulted the President for his "urge to pull back" on the heels of the Iraq War.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that Putin's actions were "19th century behavior in the twenty-first century," but the Post argued the United States can't continue to pretend that leaders like Putin, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and China's Xi Jinping care for the rules of the modern world order.

"Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not," the editorial board wrote...WSJ's editorial suggested Obama could do more to rebuff Russia's advance than to simply condemn the deployment of troops to the Crimean peninsula:

A White House statement on the call said the U.S. "condemns" the Crimean takeover and called it a "breach of international law." That will have the Kremlin quaking. The only concrete U.S. action was to suspend participation in preparations for June's G-8 summit in Sochi. Seriously? Mr. Obama and every Western leader ought to immediately pull the plug on that junket and oust Russia from the club of democracies.

The newspaper also slammed the "media counsel of defeat" for pushing the narrative that the West has few options for dealing with Moscow, even though the solutions it offered in its editorial -- reconsidering trade and banking relationships, visa bans, asset freezes -- were similar to those options Secretary of State John Kerry outlined on the Sunday show circuit.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wapo_wsj_slam_obamas_response_putin

Translation: The Obama administration isn't rushing to war fast enough.


Kerry: "This is a time for diplomacy..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024590090

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WaPo, WSJ Slam Obama's Response To Putin's Aggression (Original Post) ProSense Mar 2014 OP
WAR! WAR! WAR! BANG! BANG! nt ChisolmTrailDem Mar 2014 #1
Same old game, Repubs attack Dems for being wimps, Dems react emotionally and vote for devastating sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #2
I don't think you've translated it correctly cali Mar 2014 #3
Republicans want war. ProSense Mar 2014 #6
Republicans want profits. Yes, they want war but I think cali Mar 2014 #8
and I have to add: You've demonstrated that you want war if President Obama cali Mar 2014 #10
Seriously, what the fuck is your point? You're freaking out about a fucking post about editorials. ProSense Mar 2014 #12
Who is more macho? n2doc Mar 2014 #4
So long as Europe depends upon Russian natural gas, our hands are tied. Laelth Mar 2014 #5
However, Russia can be hurt economically, and sanctions would hurt them lostincalifornia Mar 2014 #9
Sure, but what good would that do? Laelth Mar 2014 #11
Economic sanctions are the only reasonable option, and an argument could be made that it will force lostincalifornia Mar 2014 #16
So long as we don't act unilaterally, I think we're being sane and reasonable. Laelth Mar 2014 #21
Absolutely lostincalifornia Mar 2014 #22
hmmm, the same idiots who called for us to invade Iraq. They are responsible for the deaths of so lostincalifornia Mar 2014 #7
WSJ, the same idiots who ProSense Mar 2014 #18
now it is just another murdoch rag lostincalifornia Mar 2014 #19
Same yellow journalism. Different owners. Pretzel_Warrior Mar 2014 #13
Cha-ching! polichick Mar 2014 #14
and what EXACTLY are they proposing should be done? Douglas Carpenter Mar 2014 #15
Isn't that interesting that they remain vague about that /nt lostincalifornia Mar 2014 #17
Typical, isn't it? Obama does not have many options and Putin knows this..it is interesting Jefferson23 Mar 2014 #20
I'm going with President Obama on this and not Cha Mar 2014 #23

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
2. Same old game, Repubs attack Dems for being wimps, Dems react emotionally and vote for devastating
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:28 PM
Mar 2014

wars to prove they're not wimps.

Can we get some grown ups to run things in this world for a change?

As someone in the State Dept said a while ago, 'we can't kill our way to peace'.

Obviously since we've been doing that going on 14 years and we're told we are 'less safe now than ever'.

Has Palin weighed in yet?



 

cali

(114,904 posts)
3. I don't think you've translated it correctly
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:29 PM
Mar 2014

the correct translation is:

No way you're going to cut the defense budget.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
6. Republicans want war.
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:34 PM
Mar 2014

"No way you're going to cut the defense budget."

Preserving the defense budget is simply a means to lining defense contractors pockets.


 

cali

(114,904 posts)
8. Republicans want profits. Yes, they want war but I think
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:36 PM
Mar 2014

there's an immediate goal here and it's to make it difficult to cut the defense budget.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
10. and I have to add: You've demonstrated that you want war if President Obama
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:38 PM
Mar 2014

proposes it.

You really just want whatever the President wants. Keystone? If he approves it, you'll defend it. Syria? When it looked like that was an imminent military excursion, you were for it.

For you, the earth revolves around President Obama

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. Seriously, what the fuck is your point? You're freaking out about a fucking post about editorials.
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:45 PM
Mar 2014

Did this OP require three fucking posts and your nasty fucking insinuations?

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
4. Who is more macho?
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:29 PM
Mar 2014

It's dick swingin time! Who cares about reality, or cost, or anything? We must obliterate the Russkies!

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
5. So long as Europe depends upon Russian natural gas, our hands are tied.
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:32 PM
Mar 2014

And Europe does, in fact, rely on Russian natural gas. As such, I consider these editorials ill-informed or outright dangerous and propagandistic.

-Laelth

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
11. Sure, but what good would that do?
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:41 PM
Mar 2014

Other than the obvious ... and that is to prove that Democrats can be as muscular, as stupid, as aggressive, as belligerent, and as vicious as Republicans, and to hell with our allies in Europe who will suffer the consequences of any unilateral move we make.



-Laelth

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
16. Economic sanctions are the only reasonable option, and an argument could be made that it will force
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:52 PM
Mar 2014

negotiations sooner than later, and end the crisis

This should only be done with the Europeans, and is not the muscular, stupid, and aggressiveness you suggest. Going in militarily is muscular, stupid, and aggressive. Sanctions can bring all parties to the negotiating table sooner.

Of course this is mostly up to the Europeans, we can only try to facilitate it.

It could possibly prevent casualties by compelling the parties to negotiations

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
21. So long as we don't act unilaterally, I think we're being sane and reasonable.
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:02 PM
Mar 2014

But I think it highly unlikely our European allies will back sanctions. They don't want to see the price of natural gas skyrocket. At the moment, calls for action on the part of the U.S. only play into Republican hands. There's very little we can reasonably do at this time. As such demanding that we do something only hurts the President and the party.

-Laelth

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
7. hmmm, the same idiots who called for us to invade Iraq. They are responsible for the deaths of so
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:36 PM
Mar 2014

many, and they still beat the war drums.

However, the truth remains that the majority of the American populous does NOT believe we should be involved militarily in Ukraine.

It has now been demonstrated for some time that our so-called 4th estate has been out of touch with the actual pulse of our country

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
18. WSJ, the same idiots who
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:54 PM
Mar 2014

who think an idiot is a foreign policy expert.

Sarah Palin, Wall Street Journal rewrite history of Russia-Georgia war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024587124

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
20. Typical, isn't it? Obama does not have many options and Putin knows this..it is interesting
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:00 PM
Mar 2014

how a major player can move without much concern and under such bullshit
pretex..international law does not allow for taking territory under force. Of course,
Putin's reasoning is that he is safe guarding Russians in Cremia...

He may get away with it.

There is no honesty in those OP's about the political realities of world powers.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»WaPo, WSJ Slam Obama's Re...