Some people have pointed out that they are basically the same.
- http://pakobserver.net/200909/01/Articles02.asp
- http://www.examiner.com/x-15968-Hartford-Independent-Examiner~y2009m8d30-Ruminations-on-Obamas-foreign-policy
Patriot gal
Favorite Answer
Bush would not have made any deals with North Korea that jeopardize our nation. Obama freed two journalists who confessed to illegally entering NK. BTW, they were both employed by Al Gore. So Clinton kissed Kim Jon Il's butt for his buddy Al.
He just perpetuated the Ugly American moniker. Somehow American's must be above the law.
The three Americans in Iran aren't being rescued by Clinton (nor should they). They must not have worked for the Democrats
open4one
I doubt Bush would have been willing to send Bill Clinton to N. Korea to free a couple of journalists that probably wouldn't have been kidnapped in the first place if he'd been in charge.
Obama's approach seems to be to ignore any problem that can't be solved by diplomacy.
Pablo
A black man is saying the words. They all do it for the money. If the people payed more and elections did not cost so much the people would be served much better.
Anonymous
No changes yet.
[CFR]
[TriLateral Commission]
These are the folks calling the shots, anyway. Presidents are simply puppets meant to allow the populace to "think" they have a choice in the direction of this country.
?
We no longer waste time calling nations "the axis of evil". How cartoonish was THAT? There is a LOT less saber rattling.