Written by Aaron Goldstein
(Editors Note: Personally I think Barack is a cry-baby, and should be a mayor of a town just south of the border)
May 17, 2008
by Aaron Goldstein
Methinks Barack Obama doth protest too much.
In honoring Israel before members of the Knesset on its 60th anniversary on May 14th, President Bush said: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious 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 I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.
President Bush never mentioned Obama by name. However, Bush did refer to an American senator and perhaps this was sufficient provocation to raise the ire of one Senator Obama (and for that matter Senators Clinton, Kerry and Biden). Obama promptly issued a statement declaring, “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.” The last time I checked Iran is not only on the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, it is consistently ranked as the most active sponsor of terrorism in the world. As John McCain points out, “Barack Obama wants to sit down with their sponsors. If he doesn’t want to sit down with Hamas then he shouldn’t want to sit down with their sponsor.” McCain also posed this question, “What does he want to talk about with Ahmadinejad who said that Israel’s a stinking corpse, who said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, who’s sending the most explosive devices into Iraq, killing Americans?” But apparently this does not give Obama pause for thought.
In a speech before voters in Watertown, South Dakota on May 16th, Obama said, “George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.” But Obama has some explaining of his own to do. Obama lambasted McCain for having a “naÃ¯ve and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism.” Does this mean Obama believes Bush and McCain are being mean to Iran? So what does Obama construe to as “tough talk” against Iran? Our efforts to have the UN Security Council impose sanctions against Iran? If Obama doesn’t believe “tough talk” will persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism what sort of language does he think will work instead? Would Obama apologize to Ahmadinejad for our “tough talk”? Apparently, Obama is giving more thought in how he would talk to Ahmadinejad rather than in what he would actually talk about. Not only does Barack Obama aim to please, he aims to appease.
As long as Obama makes dialogue with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the centerpiece of his foreign policy he would be wise to be prepared to face up to the inevitable and justifiable criticism of his position.
Aaron Goldstein writes about the things that pique his insatiable curiosity. In addition to politics, he is an aficionado of baseball, poetry, music and ketchup flavored potato chips. Aaron satiates his various appetites in Boston.