and the basic underlying point was this president has not prepared has not anticipated and not acted. and not just simply on ukraine, on syria, on libya, on the arab spring. there is no foreign policy action during the last six years that the president has been well positioned for more difficult thing when you mention syria and iran they have his horse to putin. referring to the sanctions on them as pranks which was rather demeaning to the president it s a really larger problem than just ukraine. it is. and this is the president is appearing to be weak and feckless. and it is always dangerous when an american chief executive, think jimmy carter appears weak and feckless. and on the opposite side of the mitt romney op ed was an editorial by the wall street journal in which they pointed out that this sanctions a handful of
and the basic underlying point was this president has not prepared has not anticipated and not acted. and not just simply on ukraine, on syria, on libya, on the arab spring. there is no foreign policy action during the last six years that the president has been well positioned for more difficult thing when you mention syria and iran they have his horse to putin. referring to the sanctions on them as pranks which was rather demeaning to the president it s a really larger problem than just ukraine. it is. and this is the president is appearing to be weak and feckless. and it is always dangerous when an american chief executive, think jimmy carter appears weak and feckless. and on the opposite side of the mitt romney op ed was an editorial by the wall street journal in which they pointed out that this sanctions a handful of
if they re quietly embarrassed by this overseas adventurism, put your money on rand paul, because he is betting he doesn t say it, they blew it. and they better not blow it again with another country. your thought. that s actually a very, very interesting question, taking all those comments from those clips that you showed and others that we ve been seeing from cpac all weekend and boiling it down to what does it mean about when it comes to iraq. and, look, what i think is happening here is, you know, they don t like the guy who is in the white house right now. president obama, we ve seen it before. president obama will do will be doing things that they say he should be doing, but they don t realize he is doing it, because they hate him so much. they can t stand anything that he does. and so if the president were doing what senators cruz and paul want him to do on ukraine, on syria, on libya, benghazi, fill in the blank, they would hate him for it. so i think there is a mix of
companionable soul. don t forget that. and then the bush/cheney administration looked the other way on soviet georgia. so they don t have any credibility on that. but what ted cruz is doing is what the republicans have been trying to do to barack obama from the very beginning. they use the same words over and over again. they use feckless, you know, that he is feckless, that he is weak, that he wears mom jeans, as if. anything they can get their hands on to try to take him down as a strong leader on foreign policy. the fact is that you want to look at libya. don t look at benghazi. look at the fact that the united states, essentially, let a group in there that took moammar gadhafi out. i mean, that s what happened there. benghazi notwithstanding. and barack obama in many respects, in many ways in his administration have used drones have, used surveillance, have used economic pressure in a very shrewd way, which these people would never acknowledge in a
they hate him so much. they can t stand anything that he does. and so if the president were doing what senators cruz and paul want him to do on ukraine, on syria, on libya, benghazi, fill in the blank, they would hate him for it. so i think there is a mix of what you say is whether the party is embarrassed by iraq or proud of iraq going into iraq, or is it added to the combination just a visceral knee-jerk hatred of the president that no matter what he does they don t like it. well, let me ask you a question again. the vietnam war did not go well for the democrats in the 60s. they turned against it and changed their policies and became much less a hawkish party. will the republicans make that turn? are they making it going into the 2016 election? are they double do you think on hawkishness? which is it going to be? i think this is a critical question. it s a critical question. and this is going to be i think the critical fight within the party when it comes to foreign