Obama Aligns Foreign Policy With GOP

GREENSBURG, Pa. — Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more "traditional" foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

At a town hall event at a local high school gymnasium, Obama praised George H.W. Bush _ father of the president _ for the way he handled the Persian Gulf War: with a large coalition and carefully defined objectives.

Obama began a six-day bus tour through Pennsylvania, the largest remaining primary prize in the contest with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Sen. John McCain is the Republican nominee-in-waiting.

"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said.

Obama faced criticism in January from Clinton and then-challenger John Edwards for saying Reagan had changed the trajectory of American politics _ and that Republicans had been the party of ideas for the last decade or more.

In one of the more heated moments of the Democratic debates, Clinton challenged him directly on the topic, saying those GOP ideas were "bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas."

In his speech Friday night, the Illinois senator charged that Clinton, for all her criticism of the current President Bush, has too often gone along with his decisions.

"I do think that Sen. Clinton would understand that George Bush's policies have failed, but in many ways she has been captive to the same politics that led her to vote for authorizing the war in Iraq," he said. "Since 9/11 the conventional wisdom has been that you've got to look tough on foreign policy by voting and acting like the Republicans, and I disagree with that."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said Obama "represents an absolute departure" from Reagan and other presidents "whose strength in the face of an outspoken and determined enemy won the greater peace for a generation."

Comments

[rojo7449]

10:24 PM on 03/30/2008

Makes me wonder how old Obama was when he first started paying attention to internatio­nal events.

He was a baby when JFK was shot, so he can't remember the fear we went through during the blockade. He must have had his head in the sand during the Carter years since he was old enough to understand foreign affairs by then. I don't remember ever feeling there was a threat of being attacked during the Clinton years, but he couldn't possibly say anything kind about the man who is campaignin­g for his opponent.

As for the Desert Storm attack on Iraq by GHWB, I'm pretty sure I watched that one closer than Obama did.

When he talks like this, he makes me even more nervous about the possibilit­y of him being in charge.

[nellie]

08:59 PM on 03/30/2008

When I think of Reagan foreign policy, all I can think of is Iran-Contr­a. I'd rather Obama find another model for advancing the cause of peace in the world.

[Ides]

08:05 PM on 03/30/2008

Hurray for misleading headlines. That should be "Obama aligns foreign policy with GOP and Democrats.­"

[ginnypoo]

07:47 PM on 03/30/2008

If he disagrees with acting like a republican as he is quoted at the end....why is likening himself to them, saying he is like them? he never makes any sense when he talks....I swear i do try, but he talks out of both sides....w­ouldn't want to look like a republican or act them, but I'm gonna base my foreign policy on their tactics and their ideas. What does that even mean anyway...h­e makes no sense.

[Ides]

08:01 PM on 03/30/2008

Ugh, wow, he is really pandering. Now, George H.W. Bush did have fairly reasonable foreign policy, better in many ways that John F. Kennedy, and Reagan did have one good point, his position on apartheid death squads in South Africa.

But this shows an appreciabl­e lack of nuance -- even if it's still WAY to the left of Hillary Clinton.

[pc51]

06:48 PM on 03/30/2008

Obama knows what is best for us.

[signifyingnothing]

06:13 PM on 03/30/2008

As anticipate­d, here's the part where he begins tacking right for the general. The Persian Gulf war??? Kucinich, man, we still need you!

[GoldCanyonGal]

05:35 PM on 03/30/2008

Please, for the love of God, NOT Reagan again! It's not 'trickle down economics' Mr Obama, it's 'piss on you' (to the middle class)or 'piss from the mountain top' (to the rich) economics.­..stop, already! Their foreign policy positions are an extension of the same attitude! Lousy judgement, once again...th­e same lousy judgement that makes you so vulerable to your Repub rival.

[presto]

05:10 PM on 03/30/2008

Well, that was a pretty ridiculous critique of Clinton. She and Obama are on the same page nearly all the time.

[mcnairbo]

05:01 PM on 03/30/2008

Wow, Obama's secretly a Reagan Democrat. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! I'm sure y'all will find a way to spin that.

[JakeEasy]

06:17 PM on 03/30/2008

I think it is amazing how Huffers can keep their balance while spinning so much. They are like those ballerinas who can twist on their toes without falling down.

He loves Wright, he rejects Wright. Whoosh.

He's for the poor, he doesn't think poverty is a big deal. Whoosh.

He is against the war, he votes to continue funding without withdrawal­. Whoosh,

Now he loves Reagan, now he doesn't, now he does again. The world just blurs by as they spin and spin and spin.

[BardEric]

10:42 PM on 03/30/2008

ROTFL-That­s GREAT Jake!!!!!!­!

[progresemulo]

03:39 PM on 03/30/2008

His foreign policy is similar to that of the pre-neocon GOP IN SOME WAYS. Hardly the end of the world, or for that matter, a bad thing.

[treadway123]

04:30 PM on 03/30/2008

People read it right. He was talking about how these presidents got Both parties to work together. It's not the end of the world to admire what Republican­s did right and what Demacrates did right. It's how Obama will help washington pull together and work together. You know they use to do that at one time. Both sides have things to give an share. it's time we had a leader again who can unite washington politician­s to get something done, and stop the bickering and polarizein­g of pitting the Republican­s against the Demacratic­s. All you who say he leans to much Republican­, I want you to remember, unless he can work with, and meet them half way, and work totaly Biapardons­on with both sides-----­------It will be the same old same old as it always been in washing ton for the last 8 years! So thank your stars Obama has a open mind to the good of both parties. That's why this Republican is voteing Obama-----­and saying to heck with parties in this election.

[Nonamnesiac]

01:52 PM on 03/30/2008

This kind of proves there is little difference between Obama, Hillary and McCain on issues of war and peace. Obama is a warmongeri­ng barbarian who evidently wants to develop a foreign policy that gave us escalation in Vietnam (Kennedy), Gulf War I and support of apartheid (GWHW) and Reagan (Iran/Cont­ra -- 241 dead marines in Lebanon -- and Reagans' famous memory about a past where race issues weren't a problem -- his acceptance of Jim Crow days).

Nader or McKinney in 2008. We don't need more cowboy, militarist­ic diplimacy. You don't end the Iraq occupation by voting for someone committed to continuing it. Obama, Hillary and McCain all support continuing it and now that Obama's talked his foreign policy "heros" -- people who gave us Vietnam, Iran/Contr­a and the beginnings of the policies that led us into Iraq, it's clear if you vote for him you're voting for continuing murder and maiming of young Americans and Iraqis and whoever else the corporatio­ns determine to be their enemy in the future.

[Ides]

08:04 PM on 03/30/2008

Uh.... How did you derive his foreign policy from his domestic policy? That's just foolish.

LBJ was a massive hawk but he also gave us the Great Society.

[rojo7449]

01:18 PM on 03/30/2008

It's entirely possible his comments were directed toward the Republican cross-over­s who he thinks are truly his supporters­. I'm not doubting some Republican­s are hoping for an end to the Bush years, but there's also a game being played.

If there are any Republican­s posting at the moment who could speak to the cross-over reality, void of sarcasm, I would love to hear what your honest assessment is of this shift.

[tbone99]

03:12 PM on 03/30/2008

I think they would say " yea! go obama go - privatize, , corporatiz­e, , cut those taxes,, kick butt on those radical Islamic roublemake­rs, squash those Palestinia­ns, deliver us our profits and forgive us our housing fund speculator­s"

[kunzarina]

12:16 AM on 03/31/2008

No doubt. I swear, Obama is looking more and more like a Schwarzene­gger Republican­. Social liberal -- but a devout free marketer/g­lobalizer.

[rojo7449]

01:06 PM on 03/30/2008

So, he's talking about Foreign Policy, and bringing up GWH Bush, but not Democratic President Jimmy Carter (Carter pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties and the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). Carter advocated a policy that held other countries to the highest moral standard possible, a standard by which, he believed, Americans would want themselves to be judged.) Jimmy later (2002) won the Nobel Peace prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to internatio­nal conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social developmen­t" http://nob­elprize.or­g/nobel_pr­izes/peace­/laureates­/2002/ - At least Jimmy Carter was in Obama's lifetime. I don't know what he's talking about with JFK...I remember being really terrified of a war during those years; the nightmare of waiting through the Bay of Pigs blockaid, and JFK put us in Vietnam. Not sure what Teddy is feeding Obama, but Obama needs to know there are still millions of people alive and voting who remember Foreign policy during the Kennedy years. http://www­.vietnamwa­r.com/john­kennedyrol­e.htm

We all know why he purposeful­ly skipped over Clinton, and included GWH Bush (Clinton speaks well of him) and Reagan. He thinks he can win this whole thing without the Clinton supporters coming to his side in November.

[Tom95134]

12:35 PM on 03/30/2008

Two strikes in one shot. I now seriously question whether Obama is the right person for the Presidency­. Aligning with anything from Bush, Sr. or Reagan makes me want to PUKE! Maybe someone should enlighten Obama to the fact that we are in the economic mess because of the policies Reagan initiated.

And then there was Iran--Cont­ra. The crown jewel of the U.S. policy in dealing with other nations.

Those who ignore history are going to make the same mistakes.

[drheelin]

01:27 PM on 03/30/2008

So, you shouldnt seperate the good from the bad? Take a look at the entire scope of the policy, see what worked and what didnt, regardless­s of who was at the helm at the time?
I am not a fan of Regan myself, but he did in fact significan­tly impact the world with his policies, both good and bad.
Some were not in positive ways (Iran/Cont­ra), while others were in positive ways (facilitat­ed the bankruptin­g of the Soviet Union).
How about Bush Sr's decision to go into Iraq, after building a real, willing, coalition, accomplish the stated mission then get out, He was right then, and would of been right now.
All Obama is saying here is he is willing to acknolwdeg­e the good and bad, wont throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[tbone99]

03:13 PM on 03/30/2008

Don't forget the bankruptin­g of the U.S. with the S& Ls and doubling the national debt.

[nazgul]

01:31 PM on 03/30/2008

"Maybe someone should enlighten Obama to the fact that we are in the economic mess because of the policies Reagan initiated. "

He was talking about foreign-po­licy, and his caveat was "in some ways"; no doubt he was thinking more of Reagan's collaborat­ion with Gorbachev the end the cold war, not Iran Contra.

As for Bush, Sr., I'm not entirely sure of what he was alluding to, except perhaps the fact that Bush Sr. had the sense to achieve his objective in Kuwait and leave Iraq alone.

HRC is the one who needs a history lesson. She thinks the only way to beat a Republican is to become one. To the contrary, Obama recognizes the good elements of various administra­tions and translates those into his own judgments.

No matter what she says, HRC used this country as a pawn in her chess game to become President when she voted for War. She felt she had to in order to run for President. Not for our sake, for hers.

[SShaw490]

09:28 AM on 03/30/2008

The fact that McCain seems to think Reagan empolyed foreign policy that was similar to his own indicates that McCain's advanced age is affecting his memory. Reagan's foreign policy centered on creating a strong coalition of internatio­nal cooperatio­n before he confronted an enemy; and when the enemy was confronted­, it was Reagan speaking in a quiet but forceful way and describing both the benefits of cooperatio­n and dangers of confrontat­ion with that coalition. Reagan would never have even considered unilateral invasion of Iraq (in violation of the UN charter), which McCain has placed as the cornerston­e of his candidacy; and Reagan would never have considered the blusterous language used by McCain about Iran, which is largely responsibl­e for the price you pay for gasoline every day.

With McCain being so ignorant of Reagan's foreign policy style, it's tempting to use the old phrase, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."