John Boehner’s government page decided to continue the attacks on President Obama’s alleged foreign policy failures by using a curious strategy: showing how much of an idiot Boehner, himself, is on foreign policy.
Let’s address the lunacy included in the post:
When Libya became leaderless, America infamously led from behind – then our posts in Benghazi were attacked.
I’m assuming Boehner wanted an American invasion to sort things out in Libya, which I’m sure would have been wildly popular among the voters (not really). If only we had invaded to install a leader the U.S. liked and approved, everything would have been peaceful forever, just like in Iraq (not really). The post also fails to mention the reason Libya became leaderless was because of Obama approving airstrikes that helped oust Gaddafi. As for Benghazi, I’ll get to that.
The reset button with Russia was an embarrassing failure, underscored when a hot mic caught President Obama’s assurances to Vladimir Putin that he’d have “more flexibility” after the 2012 election. In Syria, the president didn’t bother to enforce the red line he established, and then turned to Russia for a political lifeline. Emboldened, Putin muscled his way into Ukraine.
First off, concerning Russia, the “flexibility” statement was technically made to Medvedev, not Putin. Splitting hairs a bit but factually inaccurate.
Secondly, the Cold War ended a couple decades ago, a fact that the warfare queens on the right still ignore much of the time. The statement was regarding missile defense and taking steps away from that whole “mutually assured destruction” thing, something we should all crave from our leaders.
Thirdly, Boehner chooses to completely ignore something else that probably emboldened the Russians even more: the feeble reaction of the U.S. government to Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Why would he not include that? Maybe because it happened three months before Obama was elected president and five months before he took the Oath of Office.
Then there is Syria. I’m assuming Boehner is ignoring the explosive Seymour Hersh article detailing why the U.S. did not attack Syria. In fact, if he wants to prove the Hersh points wrong and show we should have attacked Syria over the use of chemical weapons, he should be calling for the release of all documents showing what the CIA was doing in Benghazi prior to the attack.
The post also fails to point out the Syrian regime did give up its chemical weapons under threat of increased international intervention.
Then President Obama set five elite terrorist commanders free from U.S. custody.
Zero mention of getting a tortured American home for this exchange. Zero mention of the Afghanistan war coming to an end and trading prisoners at the end of wars. Zero mention they were released to the custody of Qatar, not immediately set free. And if these five were so “elite”, why not ask for them to be put on trial to show how provable their elite abilities are in a court of law?
Then there is the point of ISIS gaining ground in Iraq. The criticism of the decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq on false pretenses is obviously ignored here but something else should be asked. What exactly was being done about the Shiite death squads and brutal suppression of the Sunnis in Iraq by the previous administration after the invasion? It’s as if that has nothing to do with what is happening now.
Sometimes, it’s just amazing what ridiculous claims the right will make.