Obama Flunks Another Foreign Policy Exam
To understand foreign policy, Obama style, just view this clip -- it's less than two minutes long, but if you're like me, it'll stick with you longer than that.
First, it shows us (again) that Obama is nothing new; he's just another deceitful, manipulative politician. Right off the bat, he implies that the Bush admin has not talked to Iran. He knows this isn't true so he doesn't come right out and say it, instead, he says:
Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries.He then goes on to say that's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev, Nixon did with Mao and Reagan did with Gorbachev. Two sentences in and already Obama has made two
First, obviously, the Bush admin has talked to Iran, both directly and through intermediaries. Numerous such meetings have been held, so Obama's endgame of ...
"We should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listing ... are there areas of potential common interest where we can reduce some of the tensions that have caused us so many problems around the world?"... is a canard. Through our ambassadorial contacts and back channel communications, and through the failed, multi-year diplomatic efforts of Germany, England and France, we know there are no viable areas of potential common interest ... other than our interest in seeing a nuke-free Iran and the mullahs' interest in living to preach hatred another day.
(BTW, what's this "caused us so many problems around the world?" He is, of course, talking about his idea that America's reputation has been hurt by Bush, that blustering about Iran is not making us friends. Who is friends with Iran? Anyone we need to be overly concerned about? And he can't go into what a punk nation Iran is, as he does in this clip, and not be doing the same tough talking Bush has done.)
Second, before Kennedy, Nixon or Reagan did anything with their Russian or Chinese counterparts, years of meetings were held by negotiators on both sides. By the time the leaders met, much was known, much was agreed to. These presidents didn't just storm in for a summit with no prep. Obama is showing his Messianic naivity, his sheer and dangerous faith in his ability to find words no one has found before.
Since that's his approach, and since his ego is so grand, the risks inherent in an unplanned summit are incalculable.
Obama then goes on to ridicule Bush (although he doesn't name him, clean campaigner that he is) for not talking to Iran, which spends "1/100th of what we spend on the military," while braver presidents talked to much more formidable nations.
I want my next president to understand the difference between "formidable" and "conventional." Russia might have been formidable in its Soviet heyday, but it played by the rules, even the rules that governed national deceptions. The danger Iran poses is not one of formidableness; rather, it is its unconventional qualities that pose a threat.
It openly supports terror. Its leaders have a dangerous metaphysical point of view that does not make survival seem like their most important goal. And unlike Russia, which was forever looking for a warm water port, Iran sits on the Straits of Hormuz. Obama tells his audience that Iran is a weak little punk that would not stand up to us if it challenged us seriously.
Of course, Obama is wrong. Iran has challenged us seriously, killing our soldiers, attacking our alliances, and threatening to build a nuke that would become the ultimate terrorist WMD. Unlike Russia, they would have the will to use it. Yet every time Bush talks tough about Iran, he gets called a warmonger by the Dems, and is foiled by their fellow travelers at CIA who screwed up the last National Intelligence Estimate just to limit Bush's options in Iran.
Is all this really going over Obama's head, or is he just posturing to stupid Dem voters, blinded by their anti-Bush, anti-war beliefs?
I know I'm not alone in saying I believe it's the former -- and that's really scary.