|
||||||||
|
« Euro-appeasers can't wait for Obama Presidency |
Blog Home Page
| Lawyers and Judges Presiding over a Breakdown of Basic Justice »
May 15, 2008 The Obama campaign senses the glove fitsThe Obama campaign seems to know they have a problem -- their man is perceived as soft on terrorists, and way too accommodating to the world's worst thug regimes. After Obama stated that he would meet with any foreign leader without pre-conditions, including the leaders of Iran ,Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba, the campaign attempted to backtrack using hacks in the friendly media such as the New York Times to suggest that of course, that is not what he meant, and the McCain camp was smearing Obama for bringing up Hamas' endorsement of Obama. The Obama campaign and its journalist warriors kept bringing up how Obama refused to meet with Hamas until the group changed its tune, stopped terrorism, and accepted Israel's right to exist. Of course Hamas's position is identical to that of Iran, a sponsor of terror groups including Hamas and Hezbollah, which has called for Israel's annihilation, and Obama has been willing to meet with them without preconditions. Last week, Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy advisor, noted that meeting with leaders of other countries without preconditions, does not mean meeting them without preparation. This is what is known as a difference without a distinction. Today, the Obama campaign is back on its heels again, sensing that President Bush was criticizing Obama when he spoke in Israel in front of the Knesset and condemned the naïveté of meeting with terrorist groups and rogue states. It turns out the President did not mention Obama by name and he could well have been referring to former President Jimmy Carter, just back from another round of freelance diplomacy, meeting with Hamas' leaders and Syria's President, for which Obama was hesitant to utter a word of criticism. Carter slammed both Israel, the United States and President Bush, when on foreign soil, as he has done many times before. Carter of course is in Obama's corner, and many of Obama's supporters on the left, think Carter has done nothing wrong. The Obama campaign seems terribly upset that words that might only by inference, be seen as critical of his campaign, were uttered on foreign soil. The President could also have been referring today to Robert Malley, another Obama campaign foreign policy advisor who suddenly was described as "not an advisor" after his statements and record were exposed, but then was forced to resign as an advisor to the campaign (funny how this works) after admitting he had also recently met with Hamas, the one group in the world Obama seems to think (for the moment anyway)is beyond the pale. Not surprisingly , the New York Times picks up on the Obama camp's complaint about today's Bush statement .My sense is that the Obama camp knows they have several problems on their hands: the defection of many traditional Democratic Jewish voters to John McCain, and a series of statements by Obama that suggest to a broader swath of the electorate that when it comes to foreign policy, the Obama candidacy is an amateur production waiting to go on stage and Obama comes off very weak willed to our enemies (much as the Carter Presidency was and did). So expect the thin-skinned ultra sensitivity evidenced by the campaign today to pop up again and again the next few months. And of course, we know what the New York Times will think.
Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker. |
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
Comments
The problem is Senator Obama's foreign policy arises from an anti-Americanism. Just what is he going to negotiate away to the radical jihadists to make us safer?
Posted by: Michael | May 15, 2008 03:08 PM
Anyone want to bet that we'll be tested just as soon as BHO takes his hand off the Bible? What will his response be? Talk with tea and biscuits? Maybe Nancy Pelosi will do a belly dance for admiring terrorists. Or, how about an Aegis class cruiser sticking a laser guided missile up their kazoo. (not very likely)
Posted by: Goat Locker Gus | May 15, 2008 03:12 PM
It is less a reflection of SEN Obama than the public at large. The years of therapeutic counseling & conflict resolution on the playground-with bullies & victims given moral equivalency-are now on the verge of running our foreign policy, again. Good Lord, I never thought it would happen again in my lifetime.
Posted by: RockingChairVet | May 15, 2008 04:10 PM
It is less a reflection of SEN Obama than the public at large. The years of therapeutic counseling & conflict resolution on the playground-with bullies & victims given moral equivalency-are now on the verge of running our foreign policy, again. Good Lord, I never thought it would happen again in my lifetime.
Posted by: RockingChairVet | May 15, 2008 04:10 PM
It is clear that Obama will have no need of a US State Dept. at all..no 'middlemen such as Legislative and Justice branches either...could executive order rule prevail?
Posted by: arrowsmith1 | May 15, 2008 04:38 PM
Maybe someone can clear this up for me: exactly what are people allowed to ask Obama or bring up in public?
His race, and the monolithic support he enjoys from those Americans who share his skin tone (though of course this does not hold true for his opponents-as Hillary is now catering to racists because white people seem to be voting for her)is off limits.
No one can bring up his religion, religious background, or the religion of his father.
His race baiting, anti-American, lunatic ex-pastor is a taboo subject.
His association with terror loving radicals (Ayers, Rashidi, etc.) can't be brought up without outraged cries of "old politics".
And now his foreign policy experience (read: lack of) is inappropriate to talk about!
Can this be for real?
Maybe I woke up in the twilight zone. One can hope.
Posted by: Matthew-Jerusalem | May 15, 2008 06:13 PM
I agree that the Obama camp is hypersensitive to foreign policy issues due to the weakness of BHO on these concerns. I find that one of BHO's "credibility gaps", especially on foreign policy results from his use of a large number of academics as advisory staff. These are not just people who work in academia, but also people who work in think tanks, mostly as policy wonks. They're thinkers, not doers. Like BHO, they don't like to get their hands dirty with the act of actually managing relations with foreign powers, they just want to advise others about how to do it. Since he's mostly an academic himself, he is unaware of exactly how stuffy and elitist those academics sound to the average man or woman. What is logically consistent and makes perfect sense to academics doesn't play well off-campus because it's often impractical.
BHO, despite his claims that he's traveled overseas and lived in Indonesia, hasn't a clue as to how to conduct meaningful negotiations. The face-to-face meeting is usually an event that occurs deep into the process of negotiation, not at the first step. You hold that face-to-face meeting out as a carrot and use it to get your opponents to agree to preconditions. That's were the real negotiations start. The face-to-face meeting between the leaders of two countries usually doesn't occur until near the end of the process when both (or all) of them can use the outcome of that face-to-face meeting for their own political purposes back at home.
It's sad that BHO has gotten as far along in the process as he has without the scrutiny from the media that would have made this all clear a long time ago.
One of the changes to our process that needs to happen after this election cycle is over is for there to be a meaningful national dialog on the proper role of the press (radio, TV and print) in the election process. As a nation that is built upon the idea of free speech, I am embarrassed by this huge bias in the media for Obama. For one thing, individual news organisations have no business conducting sham debates that are thinly veiled opportunities for their favoured candidates to gather free publicity. Debates, by their very nature need to be conducted in a more even-handed and neutral manner than have been any of the roughly 25 debates that have occurred so far.
HRC has a point that she's been given the short end of the stick by the media. For all of her shortcomings, she has a better idea of how to conduct foreign policy than does BHO. I would prefer her twisted brand of foreign relations to his, simply because she's much less likely to get us all killed than he is.
Posted by: Geoff Gale | May 15, 2008 06:20 PM
Maybe Obama can swap land for peace. We can give WA DC to Iran for peace? If we do I hope they realize Pelosi goes with it.
Posted by: Dave | May 15, 2008 06:24 PM
The viewpoint as stated in the article and the comments are pretty much spot on. I must say, however, that I admire the Dems. Every time anyone at all says anything at all derogatory in the least, they immediately shift to attack mode and go for the kill. The Dems have the few non-leftists in the media scared to get specific and really go after negative stories about a Dem. They have the professional GOP associated advisors, staffers, press flacks, and managers scared and they invariably council their charges to play defense and NEVER go on the offensive. The GOP politicians have all had operations to remove their spines and they immediately assume the fetal position whenever any Dem speaks harshly to them. McCain cares more about getting along with the leftist media and the Dems than going on offense to defeat them. Like I say, you may not like them and their politics, but you have to give the Dems credit, they have the GOP completely spooked.
Posted by: Caleb | May 15, 2008 08:45 PM
RockingChair: You are right, this is a reflection on the public. They believe in Barry, who wants the US to join the feminized, emotional, feel-your-pain, shave chested, and wimpy western european civilization of cry babies. Through all their treasonous actions against our military since 2001, they have shown that they are actually our front line enemies in this struggle.
The paradox is that the more the US citizens who believe in time honored values resist the head hackers, the easier it is for Barry and his buddies to continue this charade of being masculine.
I am afraid that we have no choice but to start loosing, and loosing big. Only that way will these losers be confronted with the consequences of their emotional and irrational policies.
We need to unabashedly pursue selfish, conservative goals with complete disregard for the cost to the left and our selfish allies, all the while building up our military capabilities and self reliance.
When the sh*t hits the fan, and these poseurs are unmasked, then we have to be ready to pick up the whatever pieces remain after their selfish, vain and egoistic nonsense has run its course.
Posted by: kennyb | May 16, 2008 09:24 AM
Never argue with a fool.
The audience can't tell the difference. Yet, this is the essence of Obama's foreign policy of change. Osama has come out with a new tape blaming 9/11 on the Israeli/Palestine conflict - which of course explains the coup in Lebanon, the genocide in Darfur, and the justification of civilian bombings. Since the Jews have a deed on the real estate written in the Old Testament and Muslims believe in that testament - case closed. What, you say? Case not closed, then close it by bombing Mecca and we'll talk about the consequences later. The truth is the only language these people comprehend is violence and force. For my money McCain can nuke the whole region and we can take the oil as spoils of war. Why bother playing games with the village idiots who can't seem to move beyond the eigth century.
Posted by: FRS | May 16, 2008 10:02 AM
I can't believe how many Obama supporters are actually defending Obama on this and criticing McCain for remaining consistent on his CORRECT views!?! It's scary, but this movement of Obamabots will take over unless Republicans pull together. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I won't vote for Obama because his campaign has been a complete and utter joke. This man needs to be kept far far away from the White House.
Posted by: Ryan | May 17, 2008 12:55 AM
I can't believe how many Obama supporters are actually defending Obama on this and criticing McCain for remaining consistent on his CORRECT views!?! It's scary, but this movement of Obamabots will take over unless Republicans pull together. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I won't vote for Obama because his campaign has been a complete and utter joke. This man needs to be kept far far away from the White House.
Posted by: Ryan | May 17, 2008 12:55 AM
I'm french and i can assure you that in our country most of population is for Obama. His foreign policy breaks the vision of "american imperialism" that Bush created, especially with Irak and Iran... BUT for most we know Obama's program on this plot is "light", a lot of speak but what will be in the future? What about relations with the UN? What about relations with China? I can't wait Mac Cain/Obama debate...
Posted by: Hal | June 10, 2008 08:42 PM