B. Hussein Not Up At Bat
Strike Two for ObamaFor Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night's South Carolina debate: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"
"I would," responded Obama.
His explanation dug him even deeper: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."
From The Nation's David Corn to super-blogger Mickey Kaus, a near audible gasp. For Hillary Clinton, next in line at the debate, an unmissable opportunity. She pounced: "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year." And she then proceeded to give the reasons any graduate student could tick off: You don't want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse.
Just to make sure no one missed how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie, the next day Clinton told the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa, that Obama's comment "was irresponsible and frankly naive."
To be on the same stage as the leader of the world's greatest power is of course a prize. That is why the Chinese deemed it a slap in the face that President Bush last year denied President Hu Jintao the full state-visit treatment. The presence of an American president is a valued good to be rationed -- and granted only in return for important considerations.
more...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/strike_two_for_obama.html
posted by VerityINK at 2:17 AM
Information:
14 Comments:
DONAL that was an OUTSTANDING article. Thanks for posting it! Charles' pen is CERTAINLY more powerful than any sword I've ever seen. WOW did he ever rip Osama a new one!
And he had it coming. What a grade school rookie answer he gave.
Morgan
DR. K is a wonderful thinker, and a wonderful man--he makes me proud to be a conservative! I loved his last lines...
Me too! He's on my top five list.
DONAL everyone is saying that Hill will pick him as veep. I don't see what she gains from it. What's she trying for, the black vote? The guilty whites already vote for the Dems, so that's shot. Richardson is hipanic, she could pick off AZ, NM, and Nevada with him. I hope she picks Osama.
Morgan
If she picks Bammie, she'll have no second term, though. She's gotta be thinking about that...
I've heard that but I don't understand it. What do you mean by that?
I don't think THAT ticket can win anyway, but I'm curious about your statement.
Morgan
Bam's one downside is his lack of experience. If he had one term as Veep under Hill, he'd have that experience--and he could run for Prez himself after the first term. He'd be a shoo-in because she'd absorb all the bad from the first 4, he'd garner all the best press. She'd be abandon in favor for the new, clean, and articulate Mr. Experience...
Why wouldn't a President Barack Hussein Obama meet with Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hu Jintao and Kim Jong-il?
If America elected Obama as its next President, those are probably the only leaders who'd even speak to him.
The rest of the world will believe the American people have finally gone completely mental, and they'd be absolutely right.
What a lightweight. Good grief.
What is the matter with Illinoisans? Do you realize who their Senators are? This idiot Obama...
.... and none other than the Senator who compared our troops to Nazis in a speech on the Senate floor, Dick Durbin. Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqIlXfkylD4
And remember who else is a native of "The Land of Lincoln" State?
Give up? ????????
That Chi-town gal with the Arkansassy accent... sigh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html
this is from Reaganites...
One was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism.
What's your point, Les-is-DEFINITELY-LESS????
I respect the 2 men who have penned this column. Both have served the US government well and faithfully. They have made strong arguments for their opinions and backed them up with sound reasoning.
They have every right to hold their views and to publish them. But it's academic to have opinions about judgment calls a President makes. It's quite another to be that President, responsible for protecting this country and for preventing terrorists from gaining access to and detonating WMD's.
If Ret. Gen. Kelley & Mr. Turner want to make those kinds of judgment calls, they must get themselves elected to the office of President of the United States. Unless & until that happens, their opinions, are just that, opinions -- experienced and somewhat knowledgeable, though they may be.
I have faith and confidence in President Bush's judgment, whose knowledge is certainly a lot more than that of those who wrote this column.
If the President deems it necessary to undertake these measures to protect the American people, based on the top secret intelligence a President is privy to, then I am inclined to trust his decision.
The underlying principles under which these laws were written, didn't have to take into consideration; weapons of mass destruction. Barbarity, of course, existed and has throughout the course of history.
But we're in unchartered territory here, with weapons capable of killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens and hundreds of millions (possibly all of humanity), being developed by rogue, terrorist-sponsoring nations.
These are extraordinary security threats which call for extraordinary measures.
Our Founding Fathers had no way of prognosticating these circumstances, these weapons didn't exist.
Reasonable men do disagree, occasionally, Les. It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove anything. Now what are you going to come up with?
Exactly, Patsy--I'm sure quite a number of us feel different ways about a lot of things (look at the differing opinions in our 'club house'...); we even feel differently depending on the individ. circumstance. I don't know what the hell kind of point Les was shootin' for....
The idiot thinks because the two authors of the column worked for the Reagan Administration that it's proof positive that President Bush is wrong.
Well, President Reagan's record on Islamic terrorism wasn't all that great, given that he withdrew from Beruit after the Marine barracks were bombed. In retrospect, we should have stayed, and hunted down the Hezbollah perpetrators and bombed Tehran for that brutal attack.
We were there as peace-keepers, not making war, nothing offensive of any kind was taking place. But President Reagan had no idea this country would actually be seriously threatened by Islamic fundamentalists back then.
President Reagan was still fighting Communism. Who knows what he'd have done differently if he'd been faced with the threats we're up against today. It's pure speculation, really. Terrorism was in its infancy.
The rules of war and the Geneva Convention, treatment of prisoners of war --- that's all well & good. Faced with preventing the acquisition & detonation of nuclear weapons, I think we need to do whatever it takes to prevent that. WHATEVER it takes.
The world is definitely in a different place than it was then...
Les, Les, Les! We are laughing at you once again. Do you know why? Since you cannot be self-aware even if someone held a mirror to your face, I'll lay it out for you.
You cannot stay on topic.
Why is that a problem? You mean with all your graduate-level courses, you still don't know?
It shows that you can't argue a point and that you run from a conflict. Do you expect us to be bowled over by those character traits?
Les, you argue like a liberal woman.
Post a Comment
<< Home