WWOD?

July 10, 2008 at 12:51 pm | In '08 Campaign, Democratic Party | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Is it me or do you see a pattern developing from Obama…what I refer to as the “duck and deflect” manueuver anytime he has to answer a question on foreign policy?  Yesterday, Matt Lauer asked Obama this:

Lauer: State run media in Iran went out of its way to say missiles could reach Israel and US mil sites. What would your msg to Israel be both publicly and privately?

Obama: Well as you heard from your own commentator they have had this kind of long range capability for some time and I think it’s part of the reason why we’ve got to proceed agressively with the kinds of diplomacy in the region as a whole. Part of the problem we’ve got right now is that we’ve been basically farming out diplomatically activity to the Europeans. We’ve got to be actively engaged I’ve called for example here in the United States the application of potential divestment of Iranian companies. We just found out that during the Bush years U.S. exports to Iran have actually increased, that’s a mistake that sends mixed messages to them.
Whoahoho, economic sanctions?! Unheard of.  Cutting off the cigarette supply?! Fierce.  And what exactly does direct engagement mean? What are the terms of negotiations? What are the carrots? What are the sticks?

If Obama wants to be president, he’s GOT to do better than that.  The way I see it, whenever Obama is asked: what would you DO as PRESIDENT on such and such foreign policy issue, Obama launches into an explanation of what the problem is, how we got there and then blames Bush.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s eloquent, artful and brilliant politics.  But, I see Obama’s fuzzy ideologies on foreign policy becoming a major target for McCain on the trail. 

This interview with the late Tim Russert is evidence of the same pattern:

MR. RUSSERT:  Iraq and Iran, the administration, we have reported at NBC, are drawing up some plans for potential airstrikes in Iran at different missile weapons factories or special force compounds because we have indications, evidence that the Iranians are helping some of their supporters within Iraq to kill U.S. troops.

SEN. OBAMA:  Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT:  If it could be demonstrated that was a fact, would you be in support of such limited attacks in Iran?

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, let, let me not speculate yet.  I want to, I want to take a, take a look at the kind of evidence that the administration is putting forward, what these plans are exactly.  I’ve always said that, you know, as Commander-In-Chief, I don’t take military options off the table and I think it’s appropriate for us to plan for a whole host of contingencies.  But let’s look at the larger picture.  Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq, they are stronger because of our decision to go in; and what we have to do is figure out how are we going to recalibrate our strategic position in the region.  I think that starts with pulling our combat troops out of Iraq.  We have placed them in harm’s way, we have fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment, we are distracted from what’s the real battle front that we need to focus on, which is Afghanistan and, and rooting out al-Qaeda.  And if we put forward a plan where we are not going to be a permanent occupier in Iraq and we force the Iraqis to stand up and negotiate and come to a compromise that includes, by the way, a regional discussion with Iran, with Syria, as well as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and other regional powers, then I think we are going to be in a better posture to deal with the long-term threat of Iran and particularly its development of nuclear weapons. That’s something that this administration has failed to do.  I have consistently said that we’ve got to talk directly to Iran, send them a clear message that they have to stop, not only with their potential funding of militias inside of Iraq, but they also have to stop funding Hamas, they have to stop funding Hezbollah, they’ve got to stand down on their nuclear weapons. There will be continued consequences for those kinds of actions, but that here are also some carrots and possible benefits if they change behavior.  Those kinds of direct talks have not taken place.  That’s the kind of change in foreign policy that I plan to put in place when I’m president of the United States.

I get it, you know what’s going on, you know the problems in Iraq and you want to get troops out, but with respect to Iran, What Would Obama Do?

Et tu, Brute?

July 10, 2008 at 1:10 am | In '08 Campaign | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , ,

I didn’t want to get into what the surrogates or political heavy weights weighing in on the race said on this blog, but boy was the Jackson stuff a doozy! Here’s what he said in case you missed it (try to stomach the 7 seconds of O’Reilly….ugh I know, I know):

Besides the low brow excitement of hearing Jesse Jackson reveal Bobbit-like tendencies, this is nothing but good news, from a tactical point of view, for Camp Obama. The public hit jobs allow Obama to demonstrate superior character with a calm and magnanimous response, gliding into a presidential persona, while the other appears to engage in school yard antics. And Jackson’s hit isn’t the only attack set to backfire. First, there’s the pro-life Christian group circulating an image of Obama as a black Uncle Sam with the words “I want you to pay for Abortions!”  Then there’s Lieberman’s veiled assertions that Obama won’t be able to handle the INEVITABLE (dun dun dun) terrorist attacks, sure to come off as a tired and pathetic scare tactic. And now Jesse “Judas” Jackson’s claim that the black community is tired of Obama’s “lecturing,” allows camp Obama to respond with a sympathy-inducing: Et tu, Brute?

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.