Obama weak? What about the Bush/Cheney hard line policy against our enemies and terrorist? A myth.

As commander and chief, Obama had every right to make the decision to swap Taliban prisoners for an American prisoner. Sure he could have told congress, but he didn't. That makes authoritarians very angry.

At times Obama is a weak leader for using "soft diplomacy," at other times he's the imperial president for taking swift action. 

Republicans have a sick obsession about telling the world the U.S. is weak, and the president is a failure. Message sent, thank you very much. For future reference, that'll help boost the standing of U.S. presidents to come who are called on to help solve another humanitarian or political crisis? 

Researching my past blog posts on the Bush/Cheney no compromise hard line positions in foreign policy, I came across this May 2008 revealing contradiction to the GOP's blustery statements today: 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weak and hypocritical are the end results of the Bush administrations tough impossible stances with America’s perceived and real enemies. While the rest of the world looks on in disbelief, the administrations reversals and contradictions are viewed by the White House as having been part of the plan, or a misunderstood position.

The Washington Posts story, “Despite stance on negotiating with tyrants, U.S. lends Bashir an ear” highlights their “aw shucks, did we say that” attitude toward foreign policy.

Hypocrisy 101:

“It has at least provoked charges of hypocrisy, because Bush recently accused those advocating talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other radical figures of "appeasement…underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and
dictators."

Appeasement #1:

“A special envoy of President Bush plans to meet with Sudanese President
Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose government sheltered Osama bin Laden and pursued a scorched-earth policy in southern Sudan that resulted in more than 2 million deaths… spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions…reportedly offered the regime major concessions in exchange
for minor steps and rolled out the red carpet for some of its most reprehensible officials," said Susan Rice, who handled Africa policy in the Clinton administration and is a top adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).”

So Bush has offered letters, personal meetings and major concessions with a tyrant and mass murderer. That is the true definition of appeasement; giving something away in order to get something back. It’s interesting to note just who might have been tougher pursuing and punishing state sponsors of terrorism. “The Clinton administration…tried to isolate Sudan because of its ties to Osama bin Laden, imposed stiff sanctions against the government and placed it on the official list of state sponsors of terrorism.”

Appeasement #2, #3, #4, #5, #6:

His appointees have also pursued aggressive diplomacy with North Korea and
Libya and have even conducted limited business with Cuba, Syria and Iran.

I personally think the White House is really trying to desensitize us so we generally accept a certain level of “minor” corruption and incompetence. The more egregious misconduct in office charges have been successfully thwarted by simply not cooperating.