April 25th, 2011
06:00 PM ET

Pres. Obama's foreign policy headed for disaster?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The United States is threatening "targeted sanctions" against Syria in the wake of another bloody crackdown on protesters.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/25/art.obama.flag.jpg caption=""]
The National Security Council has accused Syria of "brutal violence" against its citizens, calling it "completely deplorable." It's tough talk - much tougher than what President Obama had to say on Friday. When he learned that 70 unarmed Syrian protesters were murdered by government security forces, the president issued a statement calling on "all sides to cease and desist." Huh?

President Obama isn't exactly getting high praise for his foreign policy these days. More than a month into a bloody civil war in Libya, the conflict appears to have reached a stalemate. After weeks of hemming and hawing and not saying a whole lot on the matter, Obama gave the OK for airstrikes against Libya, without consulting Congress first.

He said we would be involved in Libya for a "matter of days, not weeks." It's already approaching months. He said no American boots would ever be on the ground in Libya. Wrong again. We've been on the ground there for some time. Then last week, the president authorized the use of unmanned drone strikes in Libya in support of NATO airstrikes. Yet another expensive escalation. And violence continues to rage on throughout the region.

A piece on the Daily Beast calls Obama "a persuasive politician and diplomat who gets others to crawl out on limbs, has them take big risks to break through to a new future and then turns around and walks away from them when the political winds in the United States threaten to shift."

To think his critics had the temerity to suggest he didn't have the necessary experience to be president.

Here’s my question to you: Is President Obama’s foreign policy headed for disaster?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Yes. He was unprepared. Since he is not learning fast enough, he will remain unprepared. He is unqualified. When he took office in 2009, he had to think for months about what he was going to do in Afghanastan. A problem that was already 7 years old. He should have remembered his campaign promises. The only president that has been nearly as disappointing as Obama was Jimmy Carter.

Mike in New York:
Foreign policy? What foreign policy? You can't call the total inaction in nearly every foreign issue a policy.

Gregg in Carlsbad, California:
There'd be no "Arab Spring" without his leadership speech in Cairo. President Obama thinks strategically. This means beyond next year. I'll put my money on the President. We've all seen time and time again how he has out-maneuvered his critics.

Dennis in North Carolina:
He is too slow to react to world situations. His thought process is too slow. He has made great speeches on world policies but he has not committed to them.

Thom in Negaunee, Michigan:
As long as our foreign policy is to war with other countries to achieve economic goals, continue to force our way of life on others, and be governed by Corporate America, disaster is the only way it will end up. Too few controlling the many. Our governing body, from the White House on down, do not represent the wishes of the people. We are a government without representation and have been for many terms.

Patrick in Michigan:
It really doesn't matter who the president is. Our foreign policy has been a disaster for decades. We all know where this is heading, and it isn't going to be a happy outcome.

Jack, are you kidding me? Obama’s foreign policy is not headed for disaster! It arrived in Libya, Yemen and Syria. Soon to arrive in Iran and back in Afghanistan with the 500 Taliban who just escaped from prison.

Filed under: President Barack Obama
soundoff (193 Responses)
  1. MNResident

    HEADED for disaster? News flash, Mr. Cafferty–It ALREADY IS A DISASTER!!!!

    April 25, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
  2. sauerkraut

    Obama's foreign policy is not headed for disaster but could use a good mechanic to help tighten it up. The US has its hands in too many pies. Let's focus on the more important parts and let our partners in the international scene handle the others. Libya is a great example of where our European allies could gain experience they've avoided and where they could help their neighbors just across the Sea. The US cannot handle everything that is going on.

    And, just for good measure, allow me to thank former President Bush for getting us stuck in Iraq to the point where we are unable to respond to other crisis areas as we have done in the past. Thanks, George!

    April 25, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
  3. Bob Kobs

    Are you kidding me? Where do you find these foolish questions anyway? Obama has the best foreign America has had in its 222 years. You can take that to the Bank!

    April 25, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
  4. Joe

    Amazing, isn't it? How specific Republicans can criticize OUR PRESIDENT for doing nothing about terrible events in other areas of the world, and at the same time, when he attempts to do something about it he is criticized. Kind of a "Catch-22" of being a Democratic President. Can he do anything right in the eyes of a specific group of people? I doubt it, because when we see blatant lies of "birtherism," religion, etc. about our President, then we know we live in a polarized world of never-ending conundrums.
    In my opinion, as long as "WE" (our President and Congress) choose to police other areas of the world, we will never be able to solve our internal problems.

    Joe, Binghamton, NY

    April 25, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
  5. Joe R - Houston

    Headed for? It's almost arrived.

    April 25, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
  6. Balboa from Huntsville, Alabama

    President Obama's foreign policy is headed for disaster because he lacks the leadership abilities to be President. He has no vision. Libya should be left alone it would only turn out to be another Vietnam War. America cannot afford any more unjust wars to lead this country more into debt until it goes bankrupt.

    P.S. I was so excited to participate in the Cafferty File that I accidentally misspelled a word in my past comment and statement it was led when I corrected it to be lead. I fixed it excitement can cause you to make mistakes when doing the Cafferty File.

    April 25, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
  7. Scott in Bellingham

    The President's 'dollars for foreigners policy' is headed for disaster as Congress will snip his spending power away. He is alienating traditional friends of the US like Britain, Germany, and Israel with his smart ass style, and could wake up friendless someday. There is a fair chance the President will be removed in 2012.

    April 25, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
  8. lisa in Florida

    No, he waited until the Arab league took a position before making any brash decision in Libya. He seems to be considering all angles before making any moves. It would be great if all our leaders had stepped back and thoroughly thought through their actions.

    April 25, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
  9. Gerry

    Obama's foreign policy is not headed for a disaster, it is already a complete disaster. He has aligned his administration with countries determined to promote our downfall and alienated our friends. As our economic and military power is reduced so is our influence. At this point in history we are almost a paper tiger and the rest of the world is aware of it.


    April 25, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
  10. Richard35 Canfield, Ohio

    Jack, forget the President's foreign policy. If we don't get our domestic issues under control i.e. jobs, reduce deficit, rising gas prices,etc. our country won't matter any more to the world community!

    April 25, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
  11. Ed in Harrisburg

    It's very simple, Jack...If Obama wins, we all win big. If he loses, we all lose big. He is taking some risks and gambles with new and untested policies realizing that old policies have not proven all that successful previously. The question in my mind is, can any president do anything to make for a more peaceful and prosperous world given the current on-the-ground realities? I wouldn't be money on it.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
  12. Greg in Arkansas

    The Obama foreign policy is totally doomed as long as "politicians" like Senator McCain (the looser of 2010) are allowed to go to the battle fields of Libya on a "fact finding" mission and file his report to the President VAI the international evening news.
    McCain's statements amount to a lot of would-have & should-have criticism of President Obama's actions followed by lots of what-ifs, might-be, could be suggestions that only escalate US involvement but the problem is that McCain doesn't offer ANY solutions for a "way-out"...if we jump in.
    I think we should have learned our lessons in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan by now.....but it proves my theory that good politicians make bad warriors and warriors make terrible politicians.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

    Is President Obama’s foreign policy headed for disaster?

    Hardly. Look at all the countries in the Middle east demanding Democracy. The day of the dictator is seeing the dawn of democracy.

    No other US President has been so successful.

    Roseville CA

    April 25, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  14. Steve,New York

    It seems like anything that Obama touches turns to crap. Yet he still gets 42% aproval rating. I don't get it. His supporters must be all on welfare or they don't watch the news or read the paper. A lot of ignorant people out there that gets brainwashed by his speeches and spin??
    Keep'em honest Jack.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
  15. Kevin of SD CA

    Is President Obama’s foreign policy headed for disaster?

    He is a disaster! This is what happens when the infection of socialism takes over the body of people being expected to be self-responsible!

    April 25, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  16. Gary H. Boyd

    Your question's fascinating Jack because I didn't know Obama had a foreign policy. Other than apologizing to the world for our previous transgressions as he sees them to be, he seems to make things up as he goes along. Obama's foreign policy - give me a break.

    Gary in Scottsdale, Arizona

    April 25, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
  17. Jayne

    Why didn't I read questions like this when the last administration was killing a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis, allowing our service members to be slaughtered and maimed for no real reason and running our economy into the black hole for decades to come? Obama will have to try a whole lot harder to beat the disaster known as the Bush presidency.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
  18. Conor in Chicago


    Have you ever walked into a room while two people were playing chess and had one of them say "Hey I'm done with this game, want to take over for me" and then you sat down only to see that they just played a terrible game of chess that you now have to try and salvage some sort of victory?

    That's Obama. A US President only has so much at their disposal so far as world events are concerned in the first place. Add to that a Libyan Civil War, "The Arab Spring", a bellicose Israel, a stretched US military that Iran is exploiting with ease, and domestic politics based on sound bites and a completely hostile Republican party, and you can really only expect so much.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  19. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Wow Jack, that is a new one on me. I didn't realize Obama had a foreign policy. I thought once upon a time that America had a foreign policy and that policy was decided by the president backed by the congress and upheld by the supreme court. None of them however decide anything anymore. Those decisions are left up to lobbyists who dictate foreign policy by campaign contributions.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  20. Phyllis G Williams

    Is President Obama’s foreign policy headed for disaster?

    “Death and Life are in the power of the tongue” – Proverbs 18: 21.
    I am certain the President is trying to do his best and will receive
    good advice from any one who has it.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
  21. Tina Tx

    Every war since World War II has become the president's albatross. Why can't we mind our own business for a change?

    April 25, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
  22. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    How can this be Jack? Didn't he win the Nobel Prize? Yes, and many of his other policies are headed in the same direction, like health care. The only way the Democrats can keep the White House is for him to not run and let Hillary run.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

    tampa, fl obama's foreign policy a disaster? his whole presidency is a disaster. backroom deals, spending more of what we don't have, unsecured ports and borders, and starting another (illegal) war. he promised an open, visible administration and we can't even get him to produce a birth certificate. he is very good at raising money, maybe he should put it toward the national debt he so heavily contributed to and skip the bid for a second term.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
  24. Loren, Chicago

    What foreign policy? He seems to be reacting to events rather than leading. Libya is a perfect case in point, while he dithered, the window in which decisive support could have been provided closed and now the Libyans are stuck in a brutal civil war. His foreign policy is a disaster.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
  25. Carl


    What exactly is this politicians foreign policy? To give aid to every country, rebuild the countries that we declared war on, and last, to ignore the will of the legal American people. If that's his policy, then yes we are headed for disaster.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
  26. Dave, Orlando, FL

    Does this surprise anyone? Aren’t all of his policies a disaster? If he had kept any of his campaign promises, it would be a different story, but he didn’t. Instead, all he did was to follow most of the Bush disasters and amplify them. What did he expect?

    April 25, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
  27. ken, atlantic city, nj

    Obamas foreign policy is bombs away in pakistan, libya, iraq, and, aghanistan. Obama won the nobel peace prize and turned out to be another war monger.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  28. Johnny C (from Los Angeles)

    Hi Jack –

    His Foreign Policy cannot even be understood and for that reason alone it is a disaster. Hillary is his only saving grace. She speaks intelligently with depth in her communiques, while President Obama seams to only communicate with superficial substance.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  29. Tom Bulger, Canandaigua

    It was the cowboy George go it alone policy that was a disaster. Working cooperatively with other nations is the right way to go.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
  30. David of Alexandria VA

    Obama's foreign policy, whatever that is, is not "headed" anywhere. Faced with crisis, it seems to circle around, looking for a safe place to land. I never thought I'd say this, but thank God we have Hillary in the "second seat" as SoS - because clearly, the pilot is napping.

    April 25, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
  31. Rick McDaniel

    It's already a disaster. It was a disaster when he named a woman to deal with the middle east.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
  32. Bradley, Portland, OR

    The more he follows in Bush's footsteps, the less change he gives us, the worse it becomes.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
  33. Ken from California

    No, only for those who can profit from it would say that.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
  34. Terry in Hanover

    Why should it be any different from his domestic policy? But as long as he can burn expensive jet fuel to play golf or shop around the world while the middle class and poor wait for hope and change and - oh, yes - JOBS, all should be right with the world or maybe just his world.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  35. Tom in Desoto, TX

    Only if he has George W Bush in charge. Look at Bush's Iraq and Afghanistan foreign policy. Obama's policy is much better simply because he didn't like and concoct idiotic wars.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
  36. Joe CE

    No but it may cause him to be a one termer. Needs to bring home troops from Iraq NOW, and start withdrawal from Afganistan. LIBYA COULD BE A PLUS DEPENDING ON HOW IT PLAYS OUT. He also needs to renegotiate the stupid trade treaties (especially China) to recognize differences creating UNFAIR trade such as: social security, worker rights. OAHA type protections, environmental controls, and health and safety standards.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
  37. Dennis north carolina

    he is to slow to react to world situations. his thought process is to slow. he has made great speeches on world policies but he has not committed to them.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
  38. JoyceG

    Headed for disaster you say? It's quite a joke in our State.
    Ever seen such a dumb President before? We think not and were "were" lifetime Democrats. Indpendent we have become.
    Joyce G

    April 25, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
  39. Steve, Clifton, VA

    Foreign Policy has taken a life of it's own. I don't know that any industrialized country is in anything other than a reactionary mood. The active U. S foreign policy relative to Afghanistan and Iraq have become less relevant and secondary to the multiple events occurring in North Africa and the middle East. this seems like a good time for the U. S to focus on it's financial house/policies in order.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  40. Patrick in Mi.

    It really doesn't matter Who the president is .Our foreign policy has been a disaster for decades.We all know where this is heading and it isn't going to be a happy outcome.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
  41. Bill


    He was unprepared. Since he is not learning fast enough, he will remain unprepared. He is unqualified.

    When he took office in 2009, he had to think for months about what he was going to do in Afghanastan. A problem that was already 7 years old. He should have remembered his campaign promises.

    These foreign wars are busting the budget. These foreign wars are trillions of dollars down the drain. Does Obama continue them and cut the entitlements?

    Three guesses what the republicans are going to cut in 2013, and it won't be the wars. Some republicans want to do more in Libya. I'm not confident that Obama will not follow their requests. Biden needs to pull Obama aside and tell Obama how he really appears to the American people and remind Obama of his campaign promises. As fast as the Arabian countries' are becoming unstable, there may be more revolts that beg American intervention.

    The only president that has been nearly as disappointing as Obama was Jimmy Carter.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
  42. Valerie in Raleigh

    No, I don't thinks so. He made an excellent decision on Libya by joining with NATO and the Europeans to deal with this problem. Had he been our last Republican president, we would have gone into Libya with guns blazing and would then be in a third war in that region. President Obama faces each challenge with diplomacy and intelligence and he has my full support.

    April 25, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  43. Thom Richer

    As long as our foreign policy is to war with other countries to achieve economic goals, continue to force our way of life on others, and be governed by Corporate America, disaster is the only way it will end up. Too few controlling the many. Our governing body, from the White House on down, do not represent the wishes of the people. We are a government without representation and have been for many terms.

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    April 25, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
  44. mike scarpelli

    Jack, are you kidding me? Obama’s foreign policy is not headed for disaster! It arrived in Lybia, Yemen and Syria. Soon to arrive in Iran and back in Afghanistan with the 500 Taliban who just escaped from prison.

    April 25, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
  45. david -seattle,wa

    Its already in disarray....look at our trade representatives these days... talk about getting hustled out of our future... but, some folks are happy with the status quo ho.

    April 25, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
  46. D. Sledge

    Do you think that foregin countries trust anything we have to say ?
    (America who can disrecpect everthing the current sitting Presdent is trying to do in this country.) I sure did not like George W. Bush and he did alot of things I did not agree with but I never desrespected him or his office. I think what ever happens the leaders in other countries see what we are about. They just wont just think our President has failed it was all of us.) Evanston,IL

    April 25, 2011 at 4:13 pm |

    If the right people want it to. If enough rich investers and banks with deep pockets want a new president bad enough, it will happen with no regard for whoever gets run over in making it happen.
    Take a good long look at wall streets recovery and the lack of recovery on main street.

    Why would any one pay some one $12.00 an hour here when they can and do hire children 10 and up in a third world country for $12.00 for a 70hr. work week.
    Our fault, if the price of a product is low enough we will all buy it, turn our heads, and blame the pres. for his lack of an economic policy.

    April 25, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  48. Alex in Bremerton, WA

    Many conservatives say President Obama fails to acknowledge American exceptionalism as part of his foreign policy. Yes, we have the world's most powerful military, but not every foreign policy issue has a military answer. Personally, I am very grateful that our era of unilateralism is over and find nothing wrong with working with our friends and allies around the world to further American interests.

    April 25, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  49. Donald in CA

    His foreign policy will be a disaster if he keep listening to the republicans. John(i've met a war i didnt like) McCain would have boots on the ground in Libya if it was up to him. If the president would listen to the folks who elected him we would be out of Iraq and afganistan and working on the economy here. We are doing the same thing the Russians did that brought their economy to its knees.

    April 25, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  50. lou

    It really remains to be seen. I can't help but think if the people of the middle east are ready to rise up and claim some freedoms, that has to be a good thing. But we should be prepared that it may not go the way we hoped. Getting our country off foreign oil is the only way to protect ourselves from the fall out.

    April 25, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  51. Mr. D

    It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood! But the Mr. Rogers of politics is finding the world stage much tougher than the neighborhood. Well, you usually get what you pay for.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
  52. Paulette in Dallas,PA

    His critics were correct. He wants to get reelected more than anything else. I do hope the GOP comes up with some knowledgeable candidate that has experience to govern our great nation.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  53. calaurore9

    Obama's really clever or really incompetent. I'm hoping for the former. Jury's out.

    Carol Colitti Levine

    April 25, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  54. J Farrow, New Orleans

    Jack, your lead up to this question is based on wrong assumptions and premises. The president's foreign policy approaches to these uprisings in Africa and the Middle East have been prudent and cautious and measured, while your lead up implies that his decision making has been haphazard, inconsistent and in-effective. Thank god we have a president who thinks through his foreign policy carefully and measures our response to allow room for non-military pressure to work instead of weilding our military power in the shotgun fashion that his predecessor did.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  55. Steve from AL

    What Foreign policy? What energy policy? What budget?

    His reactions are dependent upon pubic reaction and polling......not on principle or conviction or strategy.

    Clinton – Weiner 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    April 25, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  56. Lori - PA


    The U.S. has its own mess to deal with, and it's time the President, Congress, and Sentate did just that. Imagine what could be accomplished if the "children" would take the time and energy spent bickering and use it, instead, to have an intelligent discussion in which they work out their differences. Once they come back from their Spring Break that is.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  57. Tom (Atlanta)

    It's 3 am, and the White House phone has rung. "Hello. This is the President" "Oh yeah? No kidding? They did what? Well that's not very good it is? Just a moment. Michelle, I think you better take this one. I don't know have a clue what they're talking about".

    April 25, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  58. Ralph Spyer

    What foreign policy? Israeli tells us how to vote at the U.N. Big oil tells us what country to invade [ like Iraq] How much money have we spend on these 3 wars so far, all my social security ?

    April 25, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  59. Joseph Kraatz, Oceanside, CA

    Never get involved in Syria. A small minority government is keeping all the tribal factions under control just as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. As soon as Assad is removed full scale civil war will result with horrendous casualties. You cannot bring democracy to tribal nations. Has never happened and never will.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  60. Deborah Seibert,. Co

    Everything about Obama is a disaster.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  61. AB

    Obama's foreign policy is really headed to diplomacy and accomodation. George W. Bush's foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was a disaster. Obama is trying to clean up the disasterous mess that Bush left behind. I believe that Obama will be successful before next year as our national economy improves.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  62. Ray in Knoxville

    Jack, look around you, the United States can't afford to pursue a more active foreign policy. We're still fighting terrorism in Aghanistan and cleaning up the Bush family war in Iraq. What's more, 30 years of Republican economic policies have devastated our economy to the point that we are near collapse. We need to take care of our own house.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  63. Jerry Jacksonville, Fl.

    Our foreign policy all depends on how much money the lobbyist contribute to members of congress that have an influence on the direction we go and how it would benefit the people who stuff the pockets of our congressional members.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  64. diridi

    absolutely no...it elevated America after Obama came to power...o.k,

    April 25, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  65. Don Desaulniers (Belleville, Canada)

    It's more complicated than simply a bad foreign policy.
    Anti-American forces (call them terrorists or Al-Quaida if you like) will continue to bleed America dry financially by a thousand cuts. As soon as one mini-war winds down, another will start up, somewhere.
    Someone out there wiser than Bush or Obama knows that America cannot resist getting involved in the world's trouble spots, and that costly strategy has already caused the average American citizen to plunge rapidly down the ladder of success over the last ten years.
    Strangely, the rich in America are partaking in their own booming financial recovery, and seem unaffected by the wars.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  66. John Moore - New Britain, PA

    We don't run the world, really! What we can do about leaders that abuse their power is do whatever we can to isolate them, stop the diplomatic niceties and tell it the way it is.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  67. honest John in Vermont

    Sadly, Obama's recent forays in the Middle East show a lack of experience, planning and strategy. He needs to understand, "The Art Of War" by Sun Tzu BEFORE risking another American's life.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  68. Tom Mytoocents Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    I support Obama's plan in Libya. I'm sure the same tactics would have worked in both Afghanistan and The Big Iraq Mistake. We don't really need the real estate so just tear things up a bit and hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Remember Him? Bush would have refered to this strategy as cut and run. Obama plays down the effort in Libya as a Humanitarian Effort. Much like the Dali Lama and Mother Thresa in fatigues with matching artillery. Where his predecessor Bush choose Pre Eminent Strike and WMD's. The dilussional Bush often compared Iraq to World War Two.

    Obama is working with what left of our Military and truly doesn't have access to the same military as Bush.

    In the end I don't support any Obama domestic plans especially Obama Care. I'll be looking for a new candidate in 2012 or playing Constitutional Roulette with Democracy in November 2012. Ether way no vote for Obama...................................

    April 25, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  69. Scott Stodden

    Jack His Foreign Policy Was Beyond Diaster When The Uprising In Egypt Occurred! We Are Involved In To Many Other Countries Business And Forgetting About Our Own Country And Our Own Business! Come 2012 Im Looking For A Candidate With Experience And Someone Who Knows How To End Wars, Bring Down National Debts, And That Man Is Mitt Romney! Vote Mitt Romney President In 2012!

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    April 25, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  70. Ken in NC

    No it's not headed for disaster. That train has already arrived.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  71. Bradley, Portland, OR

    I feel sorry for the protesters, but how is this any of our business? Why do we need to get involved?

    And if we do, who's going to pay for all of this?

    I thought we had a massive deficit and a huge financial crisis.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  72. andyz Lynn, MA

    The president's foreign policy is most definitely not headed for disaster. One must have a foreign policy before it can head for disaster. I'm sure the Secretary of State has a great foreign policy and I'd be happy to comment on it as soon as CNN explains what it may be.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  73. john ..................... marlton nj

    Yes, because he doesn't have one. He listens to all those dopes around him .... He needs to resign ..

    April 25, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  74. karin los angeles

    president obama got help not paying for libia alone...unlike bush who got a coalition of the willing broke for his farcical illegal war in iraq and his letting afghanistan fade to the background while he was torturing people in black sites. obama will do what really needs to be done, with a real coalition, not what the idealogues did which broke america, enhanced the rich, and killed our people in the military.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  75. Ralph Nelson

    No! Forget about Libya. He is doing the right thing there and NATO isn't. Foreign policy disaster? Afganistan! Get out of there, like yesterday. We cannot afford it and there is nothing to be won. Boy, does it smell like Vietnam. Corrupt government, feudal state, people living at tribal level, no goals...we don't even know who the enemy is anymore. We're just fighting so the politicians don't lose at the ballot box. What are we doing?

    April 25, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  76. Robby Bowling

    What foreign policy, I haven't seen one coherent thought come out yet. We apologize to the world for taking leadership roles, we give money in aid to country's that hate us. The only thing this White House is winning at is the race at retreating. Obama is so afraid to make a mistake that by the time he does anything it's too late. Forget the days of "walk softly & carry a big stick", we don't even carry a butter knife.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  77. karin los angeles

    The Republicans will scream that we are spending too much money, and then blame obama for being weak on foreign policy. he is the most sensible president re; foreign policy that i remember. i would much rather have obama and his inclusion of other countries to help pay the bill than the republicans who have bankrupted this country.

    April 25, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
  78. Mike, formerly from Syracuse

    Foreign policy? What foreign policy? You can't call the total inaction in nearly every foreign issue a policy.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  79. BULL

    Disaster?????? Everything this clown gets involved in is a disaster.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  80. Gregg (Carlsbad, CA)

    There'd be no "Arab Spring" without his leadership speech in Cario. President Obama thinks strategically ... this means beyond next year. I'll put my money on the President. We've all seen time and time again how he has outmanuevered his critics.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  81. Jonathan Navia

    I voted for Obama in 2008. I'm his target demographic: young, college educated in a scientific field, hispanic and very centrist. He ran the better campaign, appealed to me and got my vote.

    Mostly due to his foreign policy, there is no chance I'll vote for Obama again. It's been a disaster since the Iranian uprising in 2009. How he responded to those events showed his timidity, his weakness, and his inability to send a clear message. The Arab Spring of 2011? More of the same. Libya? It is okay if he argued for a support role behind the scenes at NATO, but broadcasting to the world, like he did, that Americans would not take the lead was humiliating to this American.

    I want him gone, and his foreign policy is the biggest reason why. Frankly, I thought he was made of sterner stuff.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  82. yuhmad

    Mr. President is doing a fantastic job with foreign policy. Right now, the USA needs to take care of home in terms of job creation, house foreclosures and taking care of the middle class.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
  83. Jeff In Minnesota

    The President has turned out to not be a leader like he portrayed himself in the 2008 election. The electorate thought he would be a change agent and he appears to have turned into someone driven by poll results, not leading. He did not lead on health care reform as he left that to Pelosi and Reid. He appears to be bailing on Afghastan and Iraq. He needs to start putting flags in the sand and sticking to those positions. He's got a great message, but he's lousy on execution.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
  84. keiffer

    Wouldn't you actually need a plan for it to become a disaster?

    April 25, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
  85. Dan Green

    Obama has no foreign policy, he has a domestic policy, it is called get re-elected. World events are moving to quick for Obama. He is an intellect ,and he requires a considerable amount of time, to ponder circumstances. Nothing wrong with that however the middle east my fly apart first. If he does not care then I am with him on that one.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
  86. David

    Our current foreign policy was doomed from the start. That's what happens when you elect a man with no time in the Senate and no foreign policy experience. Shouldn't we have elected someone based on their merits? Why was he elected? Why wasn't Hillary Clinton the Democratic primary winner? Because she is a woman? I think most Republicans would agree that they would have been happier with Clinton than Obama. I will be stunned and deeply disappointed if the same misguided individuals reelect him.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
  87. JOHN phoenix, az

    Let's mind our own business in foreign government hostilities towards it's citizens. Worry about our citizens. Our skyrocketing prices, devaluated dollars, unemployment, retirement system failures, businesses moving off shore. WE don't need the rest of the world and definately we are NOT the world policeman.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
  88. Jason G., NYC

    No, Jack be quick. The world will always be in a state of flux. This is why diplomacy is so important. Obama has proven to be a "bend, don't break President." Unlike W., he doesn't go off half-cocked, throw our country headfirst into an unjustified war, i.e., Iraq, cost us thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and then jump on an aircraft carrier with a large banner reading "Mission Accomplished". No, Obama knows the meaning of "slow but steady wins the race."

    Jason G. from New York via Texas

    April 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  89. Simon/Orlando

    Yes, due to lack of knowledge and experience.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
  90. Deb Texas

    Can you imagine if it were McCain? We'd be in Lybia, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It's time for the rest of the world to step up and take the platform. We can't police the world.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  91. Ti

    Our foreign policy was at its worst when Bush was President and he got re-elected. Foreign policy was a disaster when Obama took over and it will not be changed in just a few years. The world view of US Foreign Policy has been poor for a long time, it would take decades to reverse this.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  92. RW

    It's easy to see that cutting funds for education has had a dramatic effect on understanding and appreciating history. Didn't Republican isolationism and suspicion over multi-national cooperation lead the US into 2 World Wars, lead to the rise of communism, fascism, totalitarianism, and the multiple police actions that we are still paying for? Didn't Republican imperialistic ambitions give us Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Talban, and $4.50 / gallon gasoline? And didn't Republican lies, intelligence failures, and foreign policy incompetence land us in never ending wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Central Africa, and North Korea? It sure must be fun to throw stones when you live in glass houses, since so many of the hypocrites and false prophets do it on a regular basis.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  93. Larry Simpson

    Our foreign policy was a disaster from the moment obama was sworn in. It has severly gone downhill from there

    April 25, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  94. EDDY

    The chaos Obama calls foreign policy is already a major disaster for our country. Too bad the mayhem and confusion this administration has created is not limited to foreign policy but is causing the entire world to be a less safe place for all.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  95. Independant Fellow

    He was picked to usher in the end.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
  96. steve DiCarlo

    When President Obama showed a strange detachment from the Gulf oil spill I knew then something was very wrong with this President. That detachment has continued on every important issue since then. Libya the latest in an incoherent policy that has very little chance for success. The activation of Drones, which is like a sterile liquidation of people and property, is very disturbing.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  97. William

    Hate to say it Jack; forget a regime change in Lybia, Syria or Iran. We need a regime change here!!!!!!!!!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  98. Tom

    Yes, Obama is a disaster in his foreign policies and his domestic policies.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  99. maryann

    Pres Obama is smarter than all you guys and doesn't shoot from the hip.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  100. Max Bacon

    What is his foreign policy?

    April 25, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  101. Blair Wallace

    Oduma has been a trainwreck ever since he got into office. His lack of a foreign policy skills comes as no surprise. His one outstanding skill set is selling a bunch of fools his qualifications to sit in the white house. Those of you who were nieve enough to vote for him have no one to blame but yourselves. If we are going to help forment an overthrough then lets help the Syrians. They are in bed with Iran and cause "hate and discontent" all over the middle east.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  102. Glen M in Atlanta

    Whine, whine, whine. Obama, like democracy, is very imperfect except for everything (and everyone) we have had in recent history.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  103. Doyle Thomas

    What foreign policy should we have. Try to be the worlds polic4eman, or try to let some of these events work themselves without U.S. military action and tax payer dollars

    April 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  104. April, Iowa

    I am surprised the President is still standing after all the awful ideas he has had. His dipomatic skills are sad to say the least. I really enjoyed the quote in this blog entry because it simply states the facts about our dumb founded President.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  105. Walt in Omaha

    International relations are tricky and not to be determined on the 24/77 new media. Better question is do we want to be the world's gengis Kahn or a moderating force for democracy. If you attack other countries it is War. If you attack a sovereign county's leader with violent force it is called Assassination.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  106. Cjps

    Every American Presidents' foreign policy has always been headed for disaster

    April 25, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  107. Josh

    When America's foreign policy was to act as world protector, this was in the 1940s–now, in the 2010s, the world stage is completely different. To expect Obama to act in the same way as Roosevelt and Truman, with all that we have to deal with in today's world, is expecting far too much from one human being. With information changing as quickly as it does in the 21st century, any President would have to deal with constantly changing circumstances in countries around the globe. Either Americans need to expect their President to act quickly and without their authority to maintain America's global presence, or accept that one man can only do so much so well, and concentrate mainly on America's domestic problems.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  108. Burbank from CA

    Obama is not getting such good marks but could you imagine Palin in the same role?? She would probably scare all of them into submission with winking at them. You betcha! Hillary should have been President.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  109. Ron, WA

    President O’s foreign policy? What foreign policy? Didn’t someone give him a “Peace Prize”? Should have been a “Piece Prize” as in falling to pieces or implemented in itty bitty pieces … Ugh!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  110. Harlan Hiltner Pahoa,HI

    Well Jack I would say he has done better than his predecessor in that we went into Iraq without just cause and on the credit card to boot. That action became a recruiting bonus for terrorist organizations. Based on that Barack Obama has done much better.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  111. JohnInNM

    Foreign policy? What foreign policy... Our current POTUS has no viable foreign policy. Just another reflection and consequence of having a POTUS with insufficient experience and leadership ability. All he cares about is getting re-elected and appearing on Oprah. The only ones happy with his performance are our adversaries.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  112. Carlos (Oklahoma City)

    President Obama is failing the grade as the leader of the free world. He has no stomach for fighting for a principle and staying on course. He is what we call wishy washy, politically motivated, and a weak leader.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  113. Ed Fertik

    Are you kidding? Every aspect of this mans presidency is a disaster. I challenge you to find an area we should be pleased with. I'm amazed watching liberals trying to justify their hero. They can't. He is simply an awful president and the media should focus more on who should replace him.

    Claverack, New Yrk

    April 25, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  114. Henri D. Kahn

    Is Obama'a foreign policy doomed?
    Answer: Depends on the day of the week, his priority of the moment,
    a family outing, the time to write a speech on the subject, his wife's demeanor, his budget conference, a money raising venture for the upcoming election, and finally his inability to make a binding decision!
    Henri d. Kahn
    Laredo, Texas

    April 25, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  115. Steve from Lincoln, NE

    We're designed to head toward disaster. Something has to balance out the glorious mystery of how we've made it this far. Did you read about the Tata air car Jack? $2 fillups, but your's will probably not cost you anything.. HA! Fueled ya!!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  116. Rada, California

    It IS already a disaster ! He is supporting Russia's and EU's interests in Middle East, NOT the American interests.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  117. Tomofmichigan

    Mr. O is quite the cowboy....shooting from the hip when he realizes ignoring issues isn't working. His policies don't exist, so, dumb question.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  118. John Linton

    Since we all seem to know far more than the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the Pentagon, I would agree Obama is clueless about foreign policy. After all, Bush did all of the right things by getting rid of WMD's in Iraq and capturing Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Please, Americans, just gag me with your well informed criticisms.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  119. Mario in CA

    Before criticizing, you should understand what it is that you want. You complain that he took too long to act then turn around and complain when he acts. You complain that he is not forceful enough then complain when he commits more resources. You complain that we left the rebels unprotected yet complain that we are spending too much money when we offer more help. Like the majority of "undecideds" you seem to be flapping in the wind, not knowing which direction to turn or for what reason.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  120. Jarrod O., Saint Louis

    Our foreign policy has been a disaster since the Reagan years. All of these expensive, needless, and unjust wars have only been hurting us and others. Obama needs to show the American people that the new boss isn't the same as the old one. So, pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and get rid of the drones in Pakistan that are killing innocent civilians!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  121. Wendy Williams

    It is going to be a huge mess and it is coming soon! Syria get's worse and Israel is deciding that for President Obama. No help for the Syrian people as they get slaughtered and he does nothing!! Soon Iran will take all the Middle East and the trouble will begin for all concerned!! He looks weak to the world and Iran and Syria are having a ball!!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  122. Robert

    I'm not a big fan of Obama, but he is only one man. And there's only so much that one man can do. Mr. Obama has millions of critics and millions of supporters, but I doubt that any one of them could make a decision that would appease everyone.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  123. Robert

    Of course its headed for disaster, spending tax payer money on this madness any further, will further enrage the american people and continue to bankrupt our country all in the name of "security". Obama won on a platform of "change" against the horrendous policies of George Bush and republican arrogance, why cant he act on those so called promises? Why cant he take a lesson from the Soviets in the 80's and bring our troops home, before our dollar crashes?

    April 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  124. Michael Armstrong Sr. Sherman Tx.

    Dont forget the troops in Afganistan are set to come home in 2014 instead of this July .

    April 25, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  125. Jim Halverson

    Of course his foreign policy is not headed for disaster. For the first time in long time our president has been able to influence European nations to get involved. He realizes that to have lasting effects all civilized nations must act together to counteract terrorism and other ills. No more lone ranger cowboys in the White House.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  126. Jake, WA

    Of course it's headed for disaster. We have a golden opportunity to mend relations with the Arab world, and what does Obama do? Reaffirms yet again that it's all about us and our "interests". We condemn Syria and Iran, bomb Libya, but we're dead silent about the Saudi invasion of Bahrain and the brutality in Yemen and Algeria. This just shows the people of the region once again that they're nothing more than pawns in Washington and Wall Street's chess game. The consequences for U.S-Arab relations as a result of this will be far-reaching and grim. "Change we can believe in" indeed.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  127. Kriss Perras Running Waters Idaho/California

    Yes, and I mean yes! He seems to take a long time to mull over the options, which at least he does that much. During that time, the media and his opponents cuss and discuss what he's going to do, and by the time he announces what he's going to do, everybody else has his options planned out! He loses the momentum with his skull thumping in his W.H. briefings. He made a campaign promise to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet he turns around and digs us deeper into the Arab world. Nobody can say honestly they cannot see the CIA is in the ground in Libya, and elsewhere where we see all these major uprisings. We are restructuring that part of the world through covert actions. We are not the world's police. We have our own house to clean. The more we use international campaigns to define our world, the further our diplomatic clout will fall, and the economy along with it! It is time to get us out of warmongering thinking and back into a true diplomatic state of mind.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  128. Bernie of Lowell, MA

    IKE's "military-industrial complex" has greatly expanded its power as our econmy has gone to foreign slave labor markets. It now cracks the whip 24/7. No president has the power to defeat it.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  129. chris

    Jack I think what our President did getting NATO involved surpasses what our last President did. Being a world Police is not what we need to do. As for our presence in Afganastand and Iraq is a problem handed to him like a dog with mange. NATO has always and always will be a group without leadership. Like our Congress, decision making at its worst. It will take years unravel what President Bush started and left for the rest of us. Keeping Relations with other countries are ongoing and tuff at times.....But its time for Respect and compliance.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  130. Michael Oklahoma City

    I think Obama has about as much control over our foreign policy as I do. Washington has been bought and paid for, no matter what color tie the guy in the white house wears we seem to get the same results with different rhetoric.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  131. Bob in Houston

    As soon as we kill Quaddafi (if he refuses our offer to allow him to leave), Libya will disappear from the media faster than Haiti. If McCain were President, he would have followed our Iraq strategy of invading and keeping our troops in for years. Obama's foreigh policy can't address all of our problems, but at least he has a strategy; that is more than you can say about most of our politicians.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  132. Docb

    Our foreign policy was another disaster with bush/cheney! At least it has come up from that abyss..Please quit borrowing trouble and pushing the republican agenda!

    The only 'leaders' who do not want to deal with OUR PRESIDENT are Karzai and BIBI...Wonder why!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  133. Eric Bollman Parsippany NJ

    Your question assumes that he has a foreign policy...if he does, please tell me what it is because I can't figure it out. Can anyone?

    April 25, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  134. John Blythe

    Yes Jack, I think the President's foreign policy is headed for disaster. I'm not sure which is more of an embarrassment, Bush's foreign policy or Obama's at this point. For over a week, Obama kept pushing for Hosni Mubarak to resign as president of Egypt, and then when the situation in Libya worsened, it took Obama nearly 10 days to condemn Moammar Gaddafi's retaliation. Now every country over there is up in flames, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain; yet Obama fails to address Iran's threats. Iran and Egypt have not have good relations since Mubarak became President in 1981. Now he's gone. A coincidence that just this week, Press TV reports that Egypt and Iran are forming relations for the first time in 30 years? The same Egypt that kept the peace with Israel? The region is becoming destabilized and Israel needs our support!

    Lake Isabella, California

    April 25, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  135. Reza

    I don't get it. First people preasure the President to deal with Libya and be more active about the conflict and then when he decides to take action people get mad and say we have been there for "months" as you put it Jack. I mean what is he suppose to do send the whole army? You ant say you want to solve the Libyan conflict than get mad at the Commander and Cheif of The United States for acting and sending forces like drones. He is doing something about it and at the same time keeping US troops out of it. I applaud his actions for still giving suppport to the rebels but not making this a US problem but rather distributing the responsibility among all involved. His foreign policy is effective and rather than attacking the President on something most wanted done, give him credit for the help he has given while at the same time keeping boots off the ground.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  136. harry, from Colorado

    Obama has the same foreign policy and George "mission accomplished" Bush. Promoting freedom and democracy is doublespeak for the conquering of oil fields and dismantling countries by UN resolution to reduce these countries to total economic subservience, just like he's doing here.

    It's not Obama's policy, it's an extension of the Bush doctrine..

    April 25, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  137. ted

    what foreign policy his only policy is to turn americans against each other for a vote! he's a war monger for the repubs and a socialist for the dems and if people in other countrys die that's OK they don't vote.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  138. Dan Lynch

    I couldn't disagree more. For the first time in my lifetime, it seems, a US President has put the lead on the UN. It's a UN situation in Libya as it is very clear that their leader was about to eradicate a city of some 700,000 of his own citizens. Had President Obama not reacted by taking the lead originally, you would be posting this question as "Did Mr. Obama kill 700,000 people in Libya?" It is painfully obvious that no matter what our President does, it will be wrong in many eyes.

    Let's get to the real issue at hand these days. Will America get behind and support our President and actually solve issues, or will so many continue to thwart his every effort?

    Pittsburgh, PA

    April 25, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  139. Frank Cape Coral FL

    I don't think President Obama's foreign policy is in disaster mode, don't you have to have a policy before you head into a disaster? Obama policies are so wishy washy I don't know what page he's on, so I will cut him some slack until he finds his Presidential path.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  140. Jesse

    It sure is, Jack. The sheer hypocrisy of US foreign towards the Arab world is clear for all to see. On the one hand Obama and company are bombing Libya under the pretext of protecting civilians, while at the same time remaining relatively silent regarding the violent pro-democracy crackdown in Bahrain. I imagine Washington's actions would prove little different no matter who was in the White House. That being said, Obama will ultimately bear the responsibility of America's disastrous, decades long, foreign policy.



    April 25, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  141. Dale

    His policies both here and abroad are lackluster at best. I for one thought he would be a different President, but alas he is like all the rest.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  142. Blair Wallace

    Sorry Josh, oduma has no experience in the "real World" and therefore doesn't have the skills to manage a kiddy park. His only claim to fame is being a community organizer, Harvard professor and a parttime senator. None of these positions give him the background to run our country. Opps I forgot, he can read a teleprompter adn sell snake oil. Trust him if you want, me, never. To use an old country saying " He doesn't know come here from sic cum".

    April 25, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  143. lou/michigan

    let's try this: form a western hemisphere OPEC, and sustain ourselves for the next 50+ years, while mandating creation of alternatives. cut foreign aid except for humanitarian reasons, and bring our troops home the money saved could underwite our energy quest, and no doubt lower our taxes too. probably too simplistic for the reptiles in DC.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  144. Joe

    Let me put this as nice as I can. Obama is a complete failure.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  145. RG

    Syria, next Yemen, I'm just wondering when the US has a civil war between the rich and the non-rich, we seem heaed in that direction like a hellbound train.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  146. H.Reese

    President Obama is using a fair and even keeled aproach to Syria and Libya. Fair and Balanced, as it were. You on the other hand show your bias to anything the President does, is that fair? Or, do you adopt the thinking of that other "Fair and Balanced Network"? The next time you here the name Obama, take a deep breath before you expose your negative Karma to the World, we would appreciate that.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  147. GregT

    No, it is not. Libya would be a quagmire if we were to put troops there to help win the rebel's war, but that is not really what is happening.

    Had Obama done nothing in Libya and had the safe havens of the rebels destroyed and the people slaughtered, there would be a huge uprising about how he is weak and didn't stand up for what is right. He managed to avoid a huge humanitarian crisis while also avoiding a quagmire.

    He has allowed the UN to do a lot of the talking, and that is also something that past presidents have not done enough of. I feel that because of his leadership and knowing when to back off, it allows the United States to now play a more marginalized role than we would have had to play in the past.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  148. Ryan

    "Disaster" ... That would require he actually take a risk. His foreign policy is doomed to mediocrity and ridicule from friends and enemies alike. It almost makes the Bush foreign policy look good. Almost.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  149. Michael, Memphis, TN

    Obama inherited a disaster. We're in the middle east as we need the oil for our existance, period. Get us off the gas.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  150. inofritzn

    The campaigner-in-chief is finding reality is a lot harder than just talking a good game. I hate how he tries to keep his hands clean of everything while trying to appear to do work.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  151. Rose T

    As i see it, no matter what the president does, it will be reported as a failure, not enough, or too much. It has been the aim of the losers in the 2008 election and their supporters, to trash the president from 2009 til the next election. The aim is to make him a one term president. If it not a problem in Libya, then they/you will go on to the next country – Syria or another.
    There will always be something for the talking head to question – after all they have to make a living.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  152. harry, from Colorado

    There is a reason why the U.S. has not subscribed to the International Criminal Court, Bush and Obama et al..would on the docket being prosecuted for numerous violations of International law and war crimes..

    April 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  153. Aric Kerhoulas

    Foreign Policy? That's kind of silly Jack. It's good to have a basic policy on how we deal with events unfolding around the globe, but in the world we live in, Obama has had to read and react. Myself, I give him high marks. There is no blueprint that can be drawn up on how exactly to deal with each situation. He hasn't acted swiftly in some cases...but he hasn't 'jumped the gun' either.

    Mountain View, California

    April 25, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
  154. memphispiano

    I am amazing that almost every posting is strictly partisan. Why can't a Democrat criticize when a Democrat is failing...or a Republican praise when a Democrat is succeeding? There are two things we ought to tell like it is. The foreign policy right now has no direction except for political expediency. And like him or not, it is time that some one pointed out that George Bush (whether you agree with the Iraq war or not) did say that once we placed democracy in the Middle East, the neighboring countries would ultimately demand it. I'm not sure the destabilization of these countries will be good in the long run; but Bush's prediction was right.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
  155. Jim

    Obama's foreign policy a disaster. How about AMERICAS foreign policy. Almost 30 years ago the leader of Lybia was responsible for blowing up an airplane and we killed his step daughter in retaliation. Almost 30 years ago we drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and turned it over to people who planned 9/11. Twenty years ago we started a war with Iraq and let the leader survive then when a group of Saudis attacked the WTC we attacked Iraq again. We surrounded the man who behind 9/11 and then let his escape to Pakistan who was rulled by a dictator that would not allow us access. Now you want to accuse this President of having a bad national policy. Since the Middle East peace policy put together by the Carter Administration what have we done that we could call a success.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  156. Lisa

    Noboby knew what action should be taken at first, except critising and what ever action this president will take, would be critised by U Jack and others, so keep critising ang lets move on to the next agenda.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  157. Mandela

    Obama's foreign plan is a clear road to hell, we are getting involved with matters that do not concern the American people. It is not our job or Nato's job to police the world. We should take all the money we spending to fight all these wars and concentrate on rebuilding our own economy. Its sickens me that we have a growing unemployment rate, and people still dying from lack of health care, and still all the focus is in these worn torn regions. Let the Arabs deal with their own problems!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
  158. Jim

    For all those people that want to comment on Obama's place in foreign affairs and want to compare that to Bush. Whether it was a mistake or not to invade Iraq, the result is a Democracy that leaves its citizens some say in their future. The turmoil that we see today in other countries in that area is likely a result of the influence the "Iraq example" shows to them.

    Obama didn't create this uprisings, but we look at ourselves as having a leadership position in countries that want to rebel against their dictators and establish some freedoms. What we are seeing is a president Obama that is just not handling the situation correctly. He's indecisive and jumps in, in the wrong way, when he shouldn't. This is not the kind of game he's learned to handle in his life.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
  159. James Gilson

    Most things this president has done should be placed on the disaster list. We see every day that his inexperience bleeds through. The only consistency that he has is inconsistency.

    He is bull headed and refuses to take advise or suggestions from anyone except the unions.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
  160. David M. Ginsberg

    Dear Jack:

    I am responding to your comments about our President and which unfairly criticized his foreigh policy, especially with respect to his statements about our involvement in Libya. Jack, I am surprised at you as I usually find your comments well informed and well reasoned.

    This time, you missed the boat. President Obama clearly warned us of all of the things which are occuring [no exit strategy, unfair burden to the USA] and clearly ennunciated those concerns as his justification for hesitating to rush to involve the US in Libya. The President bowed to the will of the American public, both Republicans and Democrats, and our compassion for innocent civilians being slaughtered and our identifying with those that protest and defy a brutal dictatorship and its oppression. By the way, I believe history will prove our support of these protestors to be both morally correct and also in our enlightened self-interest.

    You also mentioned the continuing cost and lack of progress in Agghganistan. Most clearly, the situation in Agghanastin and Iraq was created and caused by President Bush, as was our current economic crisis. There is a multi year lag effect, and President Obama has not had the time to effectuate a correction. This is especially so since the damage done by his predecessor is so deep and profound, and he remains constrained by Repuvlicans and special interest groups who disgracefully severely impede the ability of the most promissing, well intentioned, most intelligent, most honest President that has held office in the 1/2 century I have lived (I was to young to remember Kennedy.)

    April 25, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  161. Andy - Florida

    Well folks, did we expect a schooled lawyer who's main experience was community organizing, writing a book, getting elected as a black by black voters in Illinois (absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it isn't a real big accomplishment, now is it), never taking big stands as a state rep, getting elected to the Senate and the biggest stands he took then (anti war, against Gitmo, against Patriot Act, against the even-then roaring debt all of which he has mostly gone against as a President) to be a strong leader in foreign affairs?? After all, even in his early days as our Pres he dissed our friends – showing a strong dislike for the Brits' government in general and the Israelis' policies in specific- and made nice nice with our enemies. So, disaster? Of course. We got who we elected.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  162. Rick Allen

    This adminstration is so much better than the "shoot and ask questions later" attitude of the Bush era that got us into Iraq and built Gitmo...give me a thoughtfull White House anytime, good job Mr. Obama.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  163. Jay Maynard, Fairmont, MN

    Obama's foreign policy has never not been a disaster. He's been using Jimmy Carter's failed playbook: alienate our friends, suck up to our enemies. It didn't work 25 years ago, and it's not working now. We need to get a backbone – but that will take getting a new President.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
  164. Ben Utah

    It most certainly is not.

    The current foreign affairs, after the terrible actions of Bush, have all been Obama trying to recover our position in the world after Bush's flagrant stupidity concerning foreign affairs.

    We're doing what we need to in Libya, and hell, the costs put in there are relatively cheap. We don't have soldiers there to my knowledge, its all UN and NATO troops. Our use of unmanned drones is far better then more airstrikes, because those drones and the armaments they carry cost a tenth of the cost of one fighter jet.

    And they do about the same level of damage, if controlled effectively.

    I'd rather have 500 drones in the air being controlled by that many soldiers with joysticks then a single soldier on the soil there. Honestly, the whole problem and all the other reactions...

    ...we really just need to stop caring. We're not the planet's police officer.

    Lets declare victory, go home, and make money. Lock up and secure ourselves. Pull everyone home. Trade. Repair our economy. Forget the rest of the world and defend ourselves.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  165. jafri

    it is so amazing that you are so concerned of syria regime killing innocent people but forgot to even report US brutal killing of more than 80 people in last 3 drone attacks in pakistan including women and children and not even one terrorist was included in it.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  166. Odner

    Why don't you go back to history, and compare him to previous presidents, as far as how he's done so far in two and an half years, before posing such misleading questions. Or better yet, why don't you offer him your advice, Mr Cafferty?

    April 25, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  167. Leonidas

    Just bring back all the troops and take care of the War on our Southern border and deport all the illegals and anchors!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  168. Paulie

    You guys hear about the huge prison breakout in Afghanistan where all the Taliban's leadership that was imprisoned in Kandahar escaped? Thats the problem with Obama's foreign policy. Its the opposite of Bush's! Its a sieve for terrorists to slip through like grains of sand. Terrorists are no longer afraid of our government acting to prevent them from their means. By all means keep electing democrats and you will have more of the same. Obama wants freedom for people in the middle east but the problem is many of those people are our enemies and dont deserve freedom at all. They deserve prison and justice.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
  169. del from florida

    Disaster is what this country is going in. It does not matter who is the White House this contry is so far down the toilet that it would take a miracle and 4 different Presidents to retrieve the good of this country once had.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  170. Denny from Tacoma

    It is of no more a disaster than than that of his predecessor. The Republicans got us into this mess and now they want to blame the Democrats for it. Our foreign policy will always stink until we start thinking of other freedom loving peoples of this world as equals and all tyrants as tyrants. I believe it is time for the United Nations to start extracting tyrants who kill their own peacefully protesting citizens, try them under international law and punish them accordingly.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  171. Joe - Utah

    Obama is completely incompetent to run this country. Every decision he has made has been wrong. Either he, or the America we have known up til now, have to go. They are in complete opposition to each other. The thing that really scares me is that the GOP has not found a viable candidate to oust him yet.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  172. Sunlight78

    I would say what foreign policy since he has been nothing but a total disaster. If I were to flash forward from his promises we would not be in Libya and we would be out of the two wars Bush dumped us in.

    However, here we sit in three wars with clueless as a president. Gitmo is still open. He finally decided to have military trials and horror of horrors Michelle and he are not invited to the Royal Wedding. (yes that last bit was sarcastic).

    Basically we did not elect a president but a "first celebrity". The only thing he knows how to do is talk and that is mostly about himself. I really wish some other Democrat would decide to challenge him for 2012. We need a decent leader and he is a loser with a capitial L. What kind of person accepts a Noble Peace Prize for absolutely nothing.

    I guess the only good thing is I head since he and Michelle were upset about the no invite is that the Queen is sending him an IPOD with pictures and videos of the Wedding (plus a few of her best speeches).

    April 25, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  173. Gerald

    Our failed Arab foreign policy began in 1974 with the first oil crisis. Politicians failed to smash the market manipulators who were cornering the oil supply for their benefit. Since then, we have had plenty of time to develop an economic policy that would free us from the grip of OPEC. No politicians wanted to tackle the hard choices necessary to make us independent. The elected were like a parent raising a child wanting to be their friend instead of supplying discipline to foster growth and self sufficiency. The unrest in the middle east is the result of the global connection of peoples electronically. When you see something good, it is only natural to want a taste, as well. We in the west have had it good for a long time. Why would anyone think that others would not take risks to have the same opportunities? Foreign policy is rolling downhill out of control. One administration did not start the descent but all have kicked it down the road.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
  174. bill

    I think we have to make a distinction between proactive vs reactive policies. The reactive ones are rarely ideal in scope, planning and execution by any measure. That's just the nature of the additional constraints and uncertainties of a reactive response to a dynamic problem.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
  175. Ali

    They will be disastrous if the U.S., the world, take a back seat and let these struggles play themselves out. These people want to liberate themselves from these oppressing regimes. The World and the U.S. should look at them, the struggles, with caution because instability in these regions could be bad news for all of us.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
  176. Bruce. Chicage

    As compared to George Bush, This president has broght alot to the table when it comes to foriegn policy.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
  177. Dr. Jones

    Hi Jack.
    I think the problem is here is that you can be too smart (in this country) to be the president. Jimmy Carter did not get re-elected because he was calling for energy conservation and a policy that would have the USA energy independent by 1991. He didn't play politics according to the standards then or now. Since Carter's policies were not carried forward, Obama is stuck with a country that has consumed cheap energy and resources for the last 30+ years at the expense of the environment and the well-being of billions of poor people around the world, and now we are dependent on the Chinese and Mexicans to work for 10 cents an hour to produce stuff that we insist on having cheap at Walmart and to loan us money to keep our economy afloat. (remember when Walmart was promoting the "Made in USA" label?). The oil rich countries in the world are not as enthusiastic to support our luxuries without substantial profit to them and the oil companies that provide our gasoline. They control our very fragile economy and it is way past time that our representatives start representing us instead of them and the greedy corporations. It is that simple.
    If Obama stands up for the people that elected him and starts carrying the campaign forward to stop the greed and gluttony, then he may not get re-elected because the news media and corporations will not support a move away from our current "corporatocracy."
    It is really nice to have a voice like your's on the airwaves. You remind me of my late father and I love your cynicism. Keep up the good work.
    Best wishes,

    April 25, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
  178. Dennis

    When your country is broke like the USA is – and when your military is stretched thin, like the USA is – you need to use your military wisely, and use our borrowed money wisely – and that means killing terrorist in Afghanistan. and using military material, instead on men, and women, to help with a humanitarian crisi in Libya.
    And by the way Jack – war planning takes time. So President Obama taking a few weeks to get the Pentagon to come up with a war plan was appropriate! Would you rather we do no pplaning at all! And if you are upset that we are doing this along with other UN countries – why are you upset - do we suddenly have streams of money to spend going into wars now – I thought we were broke! It was wise for President Obama to get other countries to particiate in Libya – the USA cannot afford to pay for it on their own – PLUS, Libya is right in France, and Britians backyard – so let them do their part!

    As I see it President Obama has been wise in foreign policy!
    He is not going to send US troops, or airpower into every situation – because frankly – we do not have the soldiers to do it, or the military equipment to do it, or the money to do it!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  179. bill

    Most average Americans I believe long not for a Democratic or a Republican President and Congress but more over for an American President and Congress that once again exhibits Leadership for our country and the World.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  180. Paul Williamson

    Great job, President Obama. The rightwing nuts and/or Republicans never had a war they didn't like, if they had their way we would be the policeman and invade 100 countries that we did not like or we thought they needed to shape up. Rome fell; so will the United States because of our unnecessary and wasteful defense spending in Irag, Afganistan, Serbia, Somalia, Vietnam, etc. We have not won a war in 70 years (Korea was a stalemate, and we won Iraq?What did we win?). Obama is the first President since bill Clinton that tries to balance cost vs benefit.hE is infinitely better than Bush/Cheney.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
  181. C

    I understand that Obama was trying to help, when nobody else really wanted to. The Arab leaders can't be seen openly helping Gaddafi. They would rather watch him all those people to keep a stranglehold on the people. They risk the same kind of upheavals in their own monarchies, dictatorships and absolute rule that is stagnating many arab economies. Just like the monied powers in America; the Arab powers we put in power do everything they can control wealth.

    i think we should look on the bright side;regardless of what mistakes Obama has made in these very difficult times- Democracy has won over Communism, socialism and will win over the absolute rule of theocracies of all those Arabs countries.Those people may not like us much; but they see what real freedom is supposed to be. Who better to show them than a man of two races who became the President of the United States of America. i also think there is something bigger than Barack Obama going on over there. Freedom has always been a universal concept.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
  182. Chad

    I wouldn't call a foreign policy that has been present during the toppling of dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia as heading for disaster! At worst, one would call the policy part luck and good timing, but at best, one would say his administration has correctly navigated through the difficult waters of change in the middle east!

    In regards to the policy on Libya, it hasn't over committed the US in the way it has in Iraq, yet we haven't abandoned our principles and stood on the sidelines and let a bully (Gaddhafi) do whatever he wants either.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
  183. RP

    The whole question seems strange to begin with. If we're going to critique the man's foreign policy, why lead into the discussion with points only about the situation in Libya? Particularly when half of those points are more in regard to whether the president stood by the exact words he used in that first national address, or whether he is actually making the best choices based on the information currently available.

    Aside from that, I wouldn't condemn Obama for potentially being a shrewd enough politician to disassociate himself with perceived blunders by the public. Especially considering that basically anything he does is painted that way by those who would prefer to see the man fail than see the country succeed.

    But really, what's disastrous? Wasting American taxpayer dollars, or letting foreign civilians die unnecessarily? Furthering our image as arrogant bullies, or failing to assert ourselves as a superpower? Meddling in foreign governments, or allowing violent dictators to prevail?

    Can't have it all, Jack.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
  184. Marcelo - Los Angeles

    The Republican outcry is like the High School bully crying to mama after they just got their butt beat by the new kid in town. Listen, people on the opposite end of the ladder are going to criticize the President just for better political footing. Obama is a methodical thinker and tries to involve everyone so we can resolve issues faster. The fact that you're sitting there saying that he said we would be there only a few days and now it's been weeks only goes to show that he isn't one to leave something half done. At least he didn't lie to get us into something. It feels as though the "Right" would have been better off being lied to.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
  185. Watson

    The problem with this country is not president but uneducated voters mostly republicans who voted for ppl like illiterate bush and every other republicans

    April 25, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
  186. Tubby The Tuba

    I think the President is honoring NATO wishes...as he should. For those Repugs who think the US should walk all over NATO and the other foreign powers...you would be the one wrong. America under Obama is simply just being honorable and respectful. He does not rush to judgment and thinks through all situations like no leader has done for America.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  187. Brendan

    President Obama has responded to multiple, significant, serious and unique crisises in a region that has been oppressed by autocrats for decades. Often dictators that WE supported to fight the 'horrible soviets.' The complexity of these separate, and they are separate as you in the media tend to forget, situations and our relationships to them makes navigating 'foreign policy' (another oversimplification on your part) in this time unbelievably difficult. Even though I haven't 100% agreed with everything he has done, all of his responses have been measured and well thought out. He didn't just jump into Libya with guns blazing like that warhawk mccain would have, however there is certainly a point to be made that preventing genocide should be a foreign policy goal. He has unequivocally condemned the use of force against any civilians from the beginning of this decade defining crisis, another measured response given the fact that the nature of the sides involved was still unknown. Its clear you wish that George W. Bush was still president as you think that looking before you leap into wars into the middle east is a "disaster."
    Oh and there are "boots on the ground?"
    Aren't you supposed to be a journalist?

    April 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  188. Dennis

    Yes I would rather John McCain's foreign policy – which would already have our thinly stretched US troops – on the ground in Libya, and paying for it with the money we also do not have!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  189. Richie in Mass

    His foreign policy is a joke. He committed billions in military hardware ( missiles and such) to attack Libya and then stops short of actually helping. He says its for humanitarian reasons. Now people are getting slaughtered in Syria yet he is considering sanctions?? We already have a ton of them in place. No oil in Syria, Libya does. I guess Republicans are the only " war for oil" party? He is a terrible leader that always reacts late. He lets congress make a mess and doesn't lead them and now he is campaigning so nothing will get done her in the US.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  190. Luke Liberty

    Realistically, we don't know, because we don't know what the future holds. That is a reality partisans should face. But this policy has all the looks of a disaster – we went into Libya without true congressional consultation on questionable evidence about a pending massacre that did not seem to be a valid threat but could have been prevented in other ways. Meanwhile, Iranian influence grows in Egypt and in Libya and Saudi Arabia, disgusted with our treatment of allies, is making major friendship moves with Russia and China. It does not look good, but perhaps, one hopes, it will turn out better than it looks. I am hoping, but no, I am not optimistic, and yes, it looks like a disaster. The fact that Mr. Obama preened about with his self-congratulatory moralizing and superiority only to turn out to look like Judge Rheinhold in Beverly Hills Cop is very sad also.

    April 25, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  191. Dave

    His foreign policy has been a disaster.

    He loves to talk, but when it comes to him making a decision it seems to be delayed and without much conviction. He wants the UN and NATO to make decisions for him. I personally don't want the United Nations and NATO to dictate United States foreign policy.

    He also needs to tread very careful. Libya and Syria are definitely no allies to the US, however what will he do when Saudi Arabia starts attacking protesters. Oh wait, that's already happening in Bahrain. Should we be stopping them? How will he talk around that one?

    April 25, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
  192. jean2009

    I assume you think the 8 years of Bush's policies were a stunning success...NOT!

    April 25, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
  193. Brian, San Diego, CA

    Absolutely, Obama should have just done nothing, condemned the violence in a few more speeches, and sat back while Gaddhafi massacred half of Benghazi. Imagine Misrata times two, without the regime forces having to worry about being bombed by NATO planes if they expose themselves. I guarantee you, we and the world would all be screaming at Obama for letting that happen if he had not taken action. Sometimes there just isn't a good option, only the lesser of two evils.

    April 25, 2011 at 7:00 pm |