Posts with the tag 'foreign policy'
YouTube Clip of Susan Rice’s Statement
Unfortunately, Susan Rice’s statement regarding the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, “Thank God he did because if he hadn’t we would have not been able to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis” is completely false. In fact historians agree that this meeting fueled the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Weekly Standand, in detailing the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, quotes NYT columnist James Reston who interviewed President Kennedy right after his meeting with Khrushchev,
“Reston reported that Kennedy said just enough for Reston to conclude that Khrushchev “had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs” and that he had “decided that he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.” Kennedy said to Reston that Khrushchev had “just beat [the] hell out of me” and that he had presented Kennedy with a terrible problem: “If he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts, until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him. So we have to act.”
Kennedy responded to the meeting with a congressional request for a dramatic increase in defense spending, and a significant increase in the size of the military. Khrushchev responded to Kennedy’s actions with above ground nuclear testing and erecting the Berlin Wall. The tensions between the US and Soviet Union dramatically increased due to the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting; the Cuban Missile Crisis followed.
Susan Rice’s statement is simply false. There is no historical record of the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting being at all helpful in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis and actually the exact opposite true that an inexperienced leader was bullied into an arms race.
First Published at Purple People Vote
Tags: cuban missile crisis, experience, foreign policy, john lehman, Obama, obama advisor, obama foreign policy, susan rice
June 11th, 2008
The Obama campaign showed its sensitive side today by becoming unglued at the suggestion that Senators Obama and McCain make a joint trip to Iraq in the near future…
“John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don’t want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.”
Since Senator Obama has been to Iraq only once on a two day tour in 2006, this lead The National Review to ask, “Is Obama Willing To Meet Ahmadinejad, But Not Petraeus?” and Red State, Barack Obama: He’ll Meet With Ahmadinejad, But Not With the Troops in Iraq. For a candidate with virtually no foreign policy, it is odd that he’d pass up any oportunity to gain a better understanding of the region, the troops, and the politics of Iraq.
Tags: ahmedinejad, baghdad, foreign policy, iraq politics, iraq surge, iraq troops, iraq war, national review, obama iraq, obama mccain, red state, visit iraq
May 28th, 2008
The back and forth between the McCain and Obama camps about negotiations between the future president and the leaders of foreign dictatorships, such as Ahmadinejad in Iran and Castro in Cuba, addresses a real substantive difference in foreign for these two candidates. This clip from the CNN YouTube debate answers the question if Senator Obama will meet with dictators in the first year of his presidency.
Senator Obama has also stated that he wouldn’t require pre-conditions before negotiating with these dictators, but later stated that there would be preparations. There are several troubling things about this. First, as Senator Clinton pointed out in the debate, a president shouldn’t guarantee a meeting in their first year as they could be used as a pawn for propaganda purposes. Second, the comparisons between Iran and the Soviet Union are weak. The situations are very different, and not recognizing that is deeply troubling. Third, citing that ‘preparations’ but not ‘pre-conditions’ are needed for a presidential meeting is political tap dancing. What does that mean? Most everything in life requires preparation. He’s either trying to back out of a policy that even Democrats agree is foolish, or he’s still believes in this policy and is instead trying to push the question aside.
The Obama campaign instead of clarifying its own position has muddled the issue by attacking Senator McCain. First, Senator McCain was accused of saying that he would meet with Hamas without pre-conditions. This was proven untrue. The statement from Senator McCain said that since Hamas was elected by the Palestinians that they would have to be ‘dealt with’ as the leader of that government. That was not a promise of negotiations. Second, they accused Senator McCain of supporting normalization in relations with Cuba. However, Senator McCain stated that this was to happen only if Cuba took steps to embrace Democracy (a pre-condition). Finally, throughout this back and forth examples have been given where the U.S. government engages in diplomacy at lower levels of government. This however, is not the issue. Senator McCain’s point wasn’t that there should be no diplomatic relations; it was that the President of the United States should not be guaranteeing meetings without preconditions. Senator Obama has stated that Senator McCain’s views are naïve and that one shouldn’t be afraid to meet with foreign leaders. This may be what really shows how ‘in the weeds’ Senator Obama is in regards foreign policy. Numerous people from both sides of the isle have noted how foolish Senator Obama’s diplomacy policy is; yet he still accuses Senator McCain of naiveté. Now there may be some criticisms that the Obama campaign will be able to make stick to Senator McCain, but it’s hard to believe that calling him scared and naïve will ring true with anyone.
Tags: Ahmadinejad, candidate, Clinton, Democrats, dictators, foreign policy, Hamas, Iran, mccain, Obama, president, Senator Obama
May 21st, 2008
For months, Senator Barack Obama ran on a platform of sitdown conversations with dictators without precondition.
Because the American public understandably was not warm to this idea, he recently backed off. Courtesy of Susan Rice
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
Now, in response to George Bush likening the original Obama policy to the appeasement of Hitler, Communications Director John Roberts has this to say.
“Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil,” Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs told CNN’s John Roberts on American Morning Thursday, adding that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had been quoted Wednesday making remarks about dialogue with Iran that were similar to the Illinois senator’s.
“Let’s not confuse precondition with preparation,” said Gibbs of any talks with Iran. “Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program.[”]
First of all, demanding they give up their nuclear program is not a precondition?
But more importantly, which of the three policies is really Barack Obama’s policy?
Tags: foreign policy, Obama
May 15th, 2008
In the New York Times latest Pro-Obama advocacy piece, high ranking Hoper and Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice decided to finally shed some light on a topic that has caused much discussion on this and many other sites.
Recently, we’ve had a spirited debate about whether or not Barack Obama’s plan to meet madmen without preconditions was a wise idea. It has been one of the more controversial aspects of Obama’s plan to bring the New Hope, with even his Democratic opponents lukewarm at best to the idea.
Well, as it turns out, the whole debate was pointless because Barack Obama… never said that?
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
Oh.
Well, that makes me feel a lot better.
And since I’m in a good mood, I won’t call Barack Obama and his campaign a pack of habitual liars. I’ll just post the following without comment.
CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran also differs significantly from the Bush administration.
I will also post this video and transcript without using the “l word”
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?
COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.
Senator Obama?
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.
Finally, I will relay this excerpt from Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign Website.
Like I said, I will not accuse Barack Obama and his advisers of deliberately misleading the American public. I know how that irks some of you.
I’ll let the candidate’s own statements speak for themselves.
Tags: Barack Obama, change, foreign policy, politics
May 10th, 2008
Yep, Obama wins that coveted endorsement.
“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.
On the surface, it doesn’t make a ton of sense, considering Senator Obama’s public stance on Hamas (which is, of course, different from his church’s stance).
Perhaps Yousef thinks it’s odd that Obama will talk to some mad men and not others and assumes a President Obama will eventually follow President Carter’s footsteps.
Tags: endorsements, foreign policy, Hamas, Obama, terrorism
April 16th, 2008
Wall Street Journal has an editorial on President Jimmy Carter’s trip, including this quote he gave over the weekend.
In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels,” he said over the weekend, responding to a question from an Israeli journalist who noted that Mr. Carter had been snubbed by most of Israel’s top leadership and reprimanded by its president, Shimon Peres. “When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people
Oh good.
At least we finally know why Senator Obama is so gosh darn eager to have tea with Raul Castro. He’s the voice of the people, at least in the eyes of the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party in America, of which Carter and Obama are both card carrying members.
If I was an undecided voter, this issue alone would cause me to vote for John McCain. McCain lives in the real world. Carter, Obama, and the Democratic elite live in the world where its okay to chit chat with every mad man on earth because they represent the will of the people.
Tags: Barack Obama, dictators, foreign policy, Jimmy Carter, John McCain, mccain
April 15th, 2008
The Campaign of New Hope is lying yet again.
Barack Obama desperately wants to become President of the United States. But because his record in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate is as embarrassingly thin as it is radically liberal, he was smart enough to know that the American public would not vote on him based on record.
So Barack Obama created the myth of a “New Kind of Politics.” For almost a full year, Barack Obama talked as little policy as he could, preferring to yell words and phrases like ‘Hope,’ ‘Change’ and ‘Yes We Can!’ all the while promising to end the old-style politics, including partisan bickering, double talk and dirty tricks.
Since then, Barack Obama has lied about just about everything he can, no matter how big or small.
Perhaps the worst of Obama’s lies, and something we have covered repeatedly on this blog, is his insistence that John McCain wants a one hundred year war in Iraq. McCain supporters have been crying foul for months now, but the fact checkers and mainstream press have finally started calling him out on it.
The Obama Campaign needed to respond, so they did what they do best,
Lie.
David Axelrod went onto “Morning Joe” today to respond to accusations such as “rank falsehood” on Obama’s part.
“Senator Obama hasn’t said that Senator McCain said we would be at war for 100 years.
Really David?
Somewhere along the line the Campaign of New Politics has become a forty year old Simon and Garfunkle concert.
Lie-la-Lie, Lie-la-Lie-Lie…..
UPDATE: According to Red State Obama himself is continuing this line of deception. From his appearance on Today.
MEREDITH VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you’ve distorted his statements?”
SEN. OBAMA: “No. That’s not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it — he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.” (Barack Obama, NBC’s “Today,” 4/8/08)
Can we pull up the quotes on Youtube? YES WE CAN!
I always wanted to say that.
Tags: Barack Obama, change, election, foreign policy, hope, iraq, iraq war, John McCain, liberal, mccain, Obama, politics, president
April 7th, 2008
The problem with the Obama candidacy is that the public doesn’t know much about him. We know he’s an excellent speaker, a charismatic and charming guy; but we don’t know much about him of substance. To his credit his campaign has brilliantly utilized this by featuring change as a theme. The change theme promises something new and different without really having to say what that change is. The question becomes are people going to be satisfied with the promise of change without any real clue to what that change entails.
I have to admit that I’m one of the people that started out simply liking the idea of a President Obama. I love the idea of a non-white and/or non-male president. It promotes the idea that anything is possible and it shows that the country is showing signs of growing up and getting beyond past prejudices. Senator Obama’s message of unity is also very appealing to many of us who are fed up with political divisiveness and bickering. However, there is a lot more to being president than broad concepts. There has been little focus on the who’s, what’s, where’s, why’s, and how’s of change. Understandably some people have been caught up in the grand speeches and broad concepts, but responsible voters need to also consider the policies and experience of a candidate.
The reality is that Senator Obama would have a difficult time being a ‘uniter and not a divider’ because he is so liberal. He’s ranked as the most liberal senator and his positions reflect that. Whether it is health care or taxes, his positions are not ones that engender compromise. In foreign policy, it appears that Democrats have taken to pandering to the far left, and forgotten to listen to the experts. Withdrawal plans put forward have not only been unwise, but functionally impossible. The lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy matters is problematic. The presidency is not for beginners, and while Senator Obama has tremendous promise, earning ones stripes as president is risky at best, as it leaves citizen hoping we won’t need another change candidate.
Published at Purple People Vote
Tags: Barack Obama, candidate, change, experience, foreign policy, hope, left wing, liberal, primary, speaches, speaker, uniter, unity, voters
March 19th, 2008
According to news reports published by the Jerusalem Post, Senator McCain will be visiting Israel next week and will be meeting with leaders including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Here is another way Senator McCain can show American voters and the world that he’s ready for the role of President. While the Democrats battle over delegates, Senator McCain is out speaking to his contemporaries on issues of war, peace and strategy. While Clinton/Obama keep battling over who would be better handling an important phone call at 3a.m., McCain is proving he’s the most prepared.
Tags: Barack Obama, foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Israel, John McCain, mccain, president
March 9th, 2008
Older Posts
