Over the past few days, Senator Obama has chosen to take offense that President Bush believes that direct Presidential talks with countries like Iran, without preconditions, amounts to appeasement.
...George W.Bush's controversial speech to the Israeli parliament, in which he said people advocating negotiations with "terrorists and radicals" were deluded and were promoting "the false comfort of appeasement"....
Obama accused Bush of an "appalling attack" that alienated the US from the world and divided the country at home, but his main interest was roping in McCain, which he did by referring to Iraq and issuing a challenge to both men.
"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have anytime, any place," Obama said.
There is little doubt that this will occur, sooner or later, because this is one of a list of points of distinction between these two candidates for President.
Senator Obama knows full well that there are diplomatic lines of communication between the US and state sponsors of terrorism like Iran and Syria. And clearly this would continue in an Obama Administration.
But Obama is looking to go beyond this; a Presidential meeting of heads of State for the purpose of "talking" to our enemies. In the CNN/You Tube Democratic Debate in July of 2007,
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, 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, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
What he is proposing is something that none of our European allies have either proposed or attempted.
Not Britain.
Not Germany.
Not France.
All of these countries have forsworn such a move unless and until Iran has ceased development of nuclear weapons and Obama, if he were to do such a thing, would be breaking with out European allies.
Acting like a cowboy.
Unilaterally.
What Democrats might call "A third Bush Administration".
But it is clear that this is not just Obama; what seems to be the whole Democratic Party is behind such a Foreign Policy
Suggesting that U.S. presidents have a long history of cutting deals with tyrants in other nations, several Democratic backers said Sunday that Barack Obama’s approach to talking directly with America’s enemies will enable the U.S. to regain the upper hand in foreign policy negotiations.
Blaming President Bush for enabling Iran to be stronger today than eight years ago, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said that dropping preconditions for direct talks between the U.S. president and enemy nations will allow breakthroughs that would not otherwise be achievable.
But who would Obama talk to and what would he say that hasn't already been said by France, Germany, England and the US?
Dodd could not speak directly to those issues, but said the United States has a good opportunity now with Iran, in part because the population there really dislikes the Islamic regime that has been in power since 1979.
The Iran that claims that Israel should be smoking pit in the ground? That Iran?
We recall that when talking to NY Times' David Brooks, Obama said
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”
But the only "claim" of Hamas and Hezbollah is the complete and utter destruction of Israel.
Which is similar to what Iran wants.
Which is what Reverend Wright and his friend Louis Farrakhan want too.
Hmmmmm. Maybe they do have something to talk about.....
But there is nothing "legitimate" about it.
But Iran, Syria, and the War against Radical Islam is just one of the clear points of distinction between Senators Obama and McCain.
Which way we go will be up to the voters in Novemeber.
