Saturday, May 17, 2008

If the Shoe Fits...

I don't recall disliking a presidential candidate as much, or as soon as I do Barry Obama. The issue here is related to his comments in response to Bush's speech in Israel.
The president said that "some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." He went on to compare a willingness to meet with "terrorists and radicals" to the pre-World War II "appeasement" of Nazi Germany.
For starters, I haven't really seen Obama's stand on Iran or other state sponsors of terrorism as being real appeasement in the mode that was seen around Nazi Germany. That made me a little surprised that he went to such a whiny level on the President's speech.
An animated Obama, cheered on by a crowd gathered on the floor of a livestock arena, said he would be delighted if the presidential race turned into a conversation about which party is better suited to guide the nation's foreign policy.

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have anytime, anyplace, and that is a debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," the Democratic front-runner said.
Funny that he chose a livestock arena for his speech to the herd that supports him. But that statement is just fluff. Where is the details of why his policy is better? I know politics is full of thin statements, but this is more watery than most. If he wants a debate, start by telling the citizenry why your policy is better than the present one? How is it that sitting down, with no preconditions, with sponsors of terrorism going to benefit this country? How does his sympathetic ear aid our country? I frankly don't give a shit about the world in this context because he isn't running for god, he's running to be the President of the United States. The US comes first.

This is the best that he could come up with:
With former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) looking on and a John Deere tractor parked nearby, Obama launched into a blunt critique of Bush's foreign policy record. His list of grievances included a war fought on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that were never found, the failure to capture bin Laden and turning Iran into the "greatest beneficiary" of the Iraq war.
Brilliant. Intelligence problems lead to action when their were no WMD, and that must be only Bush's fault, since the Clinton administration had no part in the destruction of our intelligence systems. But obviously that is all a foreign policy issue. Not sure how, but there it is.

Again the usual BS of the Dems whining about not capturing Bin Laden, as if that single activity was more important than stabilizing Iraq. And considering that Bin Laden isn't likely in any area where we can actually go without an international incident, how is that going to be of any assistance to our foreign policy?

I also would love to hear how Iran is the "greatest beneficiary" of the war in Iraq. Yes we took down their greatest competitor for hegemony in the middle east, but that far from benefits them with the US sitting astride a majority of their free access to the middle east, not to mention the rest of the world. And the sanction activities against Iran have been a boon to them as well I'm sure.

Then we could also compare Barry to another Dem foreign policy novice, Jimmy Carter. He had great success with Iran didn't he. And he's now the cheerleader for terrorists around the world.
He said McCain will "need to answer" for a strengthened al-Qaeda leadership, Hamas's control of the Gaza Strip, and Iran's ability to fund Hezbollah and pose "the greatest threat to America and Israel and the Middle East in a generation."
That is a bizarre statement. Why would McCain need to answer for that? It also shows some fundamental misunderstandings as to how Al-Qaeda works. Its a loose network of cells, not a hierarchical command structure. As for Hamas' control of the Gaza strip, is Obama actually trying to position that the election by the Palestinian people, which brought Hamas to power should have been discouraged rather then letting the Palestinians take a hand in their own destiny? The difference comes down to that Hamas is openly responsible for the actions in the Gaza strip and will have to deal with the citizens of that region for their actions. With them hidden from site the workings would be less obvious to the world and to the Palestinians. Holding those terrorists in the light shows them for what they really are.

As for Hezzbollah, they've been supported by Iran for longer than Bush has been in office, so I don't see how this administration, not to mention the McCain candidacy can be held responsible for that collusion. Saying that they are responsible doesn't make it a fact.

Then there is this from Max Boot:
David Brooks reports today that, like a lot of other Democrats, Barack Obama has become a born-again believer in the presidency of George H.W. Bush. The Democratic candidate tells Brooks: “I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

This new-found admiration conveniently overlooks some decisions by the elder President Bush that were roundly and correctly criticized at the time by many liberals as well as conservatives: decisions such as the botched aftermath of the Gulf War, which resulted in Shiites and Kurds getting slaughtered after they heeded the President’s call to rise up; the notorious “Chicken Kiev” speech in which he urged Ukrainians to remain part of a dissolving Soviet Union; and the failure to intervene in Bosnia.

It's nice that Barry has admiration for a President who have huge foreign policy credentials from the start. It really puts Barry's lack of credentials in stark contrast.

No comments: