Friday, May 16, 2008

A Confused Obama

Obama states that the Bush policy has not worked. To me this says we are not safe. Aside from the fact that we have had no attacks on our soil is of no consequence. If the policy is not working and we are no safer, then it should not matter because the threat is exaggerated anyway, there is no threat, and it is all fearmongering. Is there no threat or are we no safer? Or we kicked a hornets nest and kicked up the angry hornets and now the threat is worse, and if you believe that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. What is the frenzy about? How can you appease a non-threatening entity? Obama clearly states in his press conference today that he would meet with our foes if "tough" pre-conditions are met. Hamas must stop violent attacks and recognize Israel. I am scratching my head. So the Bush administration has pre-conditions and if they were met then the administration would meet with Hamas or other rogue nations. They have not been met even though a strenuous objection was made. So if Obama is not appeasing because he does have pre-conditions, then he and Bush should kiss and make-up because there really is no difference in the two policies. Obama wants his cake and to eat it too. On the one hand Bush is unpopular so adopting his foreign policy would be damaging and the "opposite of Bush" status quo must be maintained. The other hand is the "appeasing the terrorist" view. Adopting that position in front of a bunch of Jews in Israel and the US is not good politics either. So we have 2 faces. Appeaser to the liberals and a Bush doctrine hugger to the masses...only follow up the "its the same as Bush" with a "no its different".

12 comments:

Thinking Sage said...

well I think there is something missing here.
You must understand that Obama and the Dems are the choice of terrorists world wide.
I'm sure that they would meet with Obama, Clinton, Carter, because they know going i that these folks will make a deal that is lopsided their way. See they know that Bush or Reagan would not do that.

If you had a choice between negotiating with a weak person/group (a group that is invested in losing) or a stronger group/person, Who would you choose to negotiate with?

Obama= Carter2

Nikki said...

well said sage...:)N

Freadom said...

I think the American people are not as stupid as some in the media have us believe. They may not be so ready to abandon the War on Terror, despite what the polls say. Polls are polls, and people are smarter than polls.

Bolpf Whistzer said...

obama always said he would be willing to 'talk' to our enemies to find a peaceful solution. the republibots used the word 'appeasement' for obvious politics. the current comparison to neville chamberlain and hitler (most people don't even know who neville chamberlain was) is hardly engenuous. and if i'm not dumb enuf (see? i can't even spell) to not trust iran with nuclear capability, i think obama is just smart enuf not to fall for it either.

Nikki said...

Hey bolpf, thanks for the comment. It is so kind of Obama to "talk" to our enemies to find a peaceful solution. What is he going to say in order to broker that peace that so many feel is so attainable? Non-support of Israel? His speaking to them gives these tyrannical leaders prestige and legitimacy and not accountability. His "tough" diplomacy is a weakened position. What experience has he had in foriegn policy that would lead us to believe he is a savvy negotioator, just cuz people climax at his rallys doen't mean the head of Hamas or Iran will feel the same girations and exclaim their love for Israel and other infidels. but I guess having a few brewskys with the boyz might soften their need to kill women, gays and anyone who speaks against them. give it a whirl and make the US look like a bunch of freakin donkeys. :)N

Khaki Elephant said...

If Clinton could broker deals with North Korea then Obama can do it with other terror states . . . oh, wait, that didn't work out so well for us, did it?

Mike said...

Khaki, way to revise history. North Korea resumed their nuclear weapons program after King George named them as part of the "Axis of Evil" and listed them as one of the countries that may be subject to a preemptive military strike. They expressed a willingness to negotiate for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula at the six party talks, but then King George pulled the US out of the talks and things pretty much went south from there. The North Koreans have stated time and time again that they feel compelled to develop a nuclear deterrent to counter Bush's foreign policy.

If talking to nations such as Korea is weak, then for Vishnu's sake, let's be weak. Bush's policies of strength have only made the world more dangerous and increased dramatically the likelihood of nuclear war.

Khaki Elephant said...

Mike, during the Clinton administration Jimmy Carter met with Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned calling Jong-il an "honorable man." According to Carter, he had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development. Clinton bought it all and launched his democrat-style appeasement approach to North Korea that included millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even . . . get this . . . a nuclear reactor, so long as the honorable dictator promised not to make weapons. However, the agreement lacked a proper verification program.

For his part of the program, Kim starved his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs.

But none of that mattered in Clinton's eyes because they weren't a threat. That's why in 1998 his military chief of staff testified that North Korea did not have "an active ballistic missile program." One week later they launched a missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast, prompting Clinton to have us wonder what the the term "ballistic missle" means.

But you're right, this is all Dubya's fault. And if he had been more attentive, those British wouldn't have gained control of our harbors during that 18th century scuffle.

Mike said...

Khaki, my mistake, I forgot about the conservative catch-all "Clinton did it." Imagine my embarrassment. Maybe instead of trying to talk to the North Korean government, we should have just launched a war against them. I bet a war would solve all of the problems. Yep, if we only use military force against North Korea, we won't ever have to worry about them developing nuclear weapons. I'm going to go back to the 1940s and give it a try. Let me know how it works out.

Nikki said...

Mike, I think you forgot about the liberal catch-all "Bush did it". just saying...:)N

Mike said...

Nikki, the difference is that Bush actually did do it. Ha ha, just kidding. If I ever say that Bush did it and can't back it up, feel free to call me on it. Your point is well taken, though.

Nikki said...

Mike, you know I will!...:)N