If the shoe fits. . .
POWERLINE
Certain Democrats, including Barack Obama, are terribly bothered that President Bush made the following statement before the Israeli Knesset today:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Obama found it "sad" that Bush "would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack." He added:
It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.
It's not clear why the occasion of Israel's birthday is an inappropriate one on which to assure Israel that the American president does not favor negotiating with terrorists and radicals who are out to destroy Israel.
What's telling here is Obama's defensiveness. Bush didn't say that Obama is among those who favor negotiating with terrorists. But it's understandable that this is a sore point for Obama, inasmuch as, to cite just one problem, his former adviser Robert Malley, not only favors negotiating with Hamas but apparently was actually "negotiating" with it.
Obama's reference to former presidents by way of defending his plan to negotate with Iran is unpersuasive. Past presidents negotiated with the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War, but this is not the same thing as negotiating with a state like Iran that sponsors terrorism against both Israel and the U.S. Neither Kennedy nor Nixon did any such thing. It's true that President Reagan made overtures to Iran (arms for hostages and all that), but for this he was widely and properly condemned. It was perhaps Reagan's worst moment.
It's also unprecedented, I believe, for a president to negotiate with an enemy state without pre-conditions, as Obama has promised to do, in order to persuade the world, as Obama puts it, that we aren't "arrogant." Even Hillary Clinton draws the line here. Obama's claim that his diplomacy with terrorist-sponsoring states will be "tough" rings hollow when a major purpose of the negotiations is to persuade the world that we've changed and now are suitably humble.
****************************************************
Obama loses his bearings, part 2
Over at ABC's Poltical Radar blog, David Wright reported Barack Obama's disoriented comments on manpower needs in Afghanistan. As I noted earlier, Obama complained of the lack of Arabic translators duing Obama's appearance eariler this week in Cape Girardeau. Wright points out that Arabic is not a native language of Afghanistan.
I take Obama's comments as indicative of the improvisised nature of his superficially sophisticated critique of the conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the update to the original post, however, Obama spokesman Bill Burton actually defends the Obama's statement by citing the presence of foreign fighters in Afghanistan. Wright responds:
As for the point about Arabic translators needed for Afghanistan, the Obama campaign points to the well-documented presence of foreign fighters there, many of whom do speak Arabic. However, these folks are mostly shooting at NATO troops, not talking to them.
No doubt there are a handful of Arabic speakers employed at Bagram and Kandahar and other detention centers to interrogate foreign fighters captured on the battlefield. But I have not seen any reports that there is a shortage of such personnel, or that the need for such translators in Iraq has hamstrung the interrogators in Afghanistan.
To the charge that Obama is a remarkably naive, inexperienced, and unknowlegeable candidate to fill the position of Commander-in-Chief, we can add a count that he is unserious as well. |
