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".