This is why Barack Obama is right for America, and why John McCain is not:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
The author, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He explains clearly and rationally why bluster gets us no where; talking gets us results.
While I'm not sure it will happen, I personally think Biden would be an excellent Vice Presidential choice for Obama.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 49
But, Obama is flopping as all good politicians do:
Obama Backs Off From Pledge To Talk With Iran
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington The Guardian,
Thursday May 22 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/22/barackobama.usforeignpolicy?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
The analogy of him for example invoking the accident that resulted on the death of his wife and son if he were to vote against a highway safety bill was dead on. He showed that McCain was just plain nuts. Watch the video.
Don't you think we get bogged down on parsing and misrepresenting the other guys? Wouldn't it be nice if we had an adult conversation of the options and strategies rather than some bombastic tough-guy talk that actually makes the situation worse?
- Love that line!
It emphasizes how we need a little more honesty in our dealings with the world (and with ourselves).
As his letter indicates, Biden would add a strong foreign policy background to the ticket. It might be a good combination. But who knows.
I also think this "talking with Iran" thing, either way, is over-blown for political reasons across the board. They communicate, through the Swiss... and no doubt other means not mentioned as well I would bet.
And yes, communication exists. The trouble is that if your public persona is one of saber-rattling and threats, it's a little hard to build much confidence in private talks. What I see with Obama is a willingness to have honest, adult conversations rather than the public charade of playing tough while privately weakening our own position. It's pretty hard to be influential when everyone thinks of you as the bully on the block. Eventually all the little kids gang up on the bully.
Interesting that you refer to bullies in your above comment, since I was just saying to some friends recently that Obama thinks he's dealing with bullies on a playground on the east side of Chicago.
I'm not sure I understand your last comment. You think that Obama thinks he's dealing with bullies on a playground in Chicago? (Sorry, I'm a little slow on the uptake tonight)
As for Michael Reagan, he's just another partisan talking head, and as such his opinion isn't particularly meaningful. I'm sure the Democratic strategist had his own (opposite) partisan spin on Biden. No surprises. Their job is to spin everything left or right to create the illusion of disagreement so it can be used to boost ratings and/or partisan fundraising (or simply line their own pockets with appearance fees, book sales, etc.).
It think a good approach is to read Biden's comments directly and then develop our own opinions.
Which brings me back to your comment about Obama and the bullies. I'm very much interested in what your thinking is on that.
The general mindset of the public that anyone will be better than Bush is very dangerous. In fact, and because the Bush administration has made so many diplomatic mistakes, it's going to take so much more than even above average savvy to make any progress that will substantially reduce our vulnerability and that will award us the universal respect that we've lost. This is a time when we need leaders, not politicians, and all we have are the latter.
Obama's ideas to speak to foreign leaders without conditions does remind me of how someone, perhaps the parent of a child who's been ridiculed or threatened, might try to deal with bullies in a school yard. Even that wouldn't work now. It might have in the 50s or the 60s, but now bullies are often connected to gangs with minds more dangerous than some prisoners on death row. You can't negotiate with irrationality because there is no reasoning power and that's the sad reality.
So that's where I'm at now.
Your point about "anyone but Bush" is a good one. I agree that we shouldn't just look for someone different for the sake of being different. The person should have the ability to think and to act appropriately. We elected Bush in part because he wasn't Gore (and by extension, Bill Clinton in the aftermath of Monicagate).
You repeat what so many have been saying, that "Obama will speak with foreign leaders without conditions." The implication is that somehow Obama will walk into the lions den and beg the lion not to eat him. It implies that he is some naive neophyte incapable of rational thought. That he is somehow oblivious to the real dangers of the world. And that he doesn't understand that some people just don't like us and are not to be trusted at their word.
But I believe those are all vast misrepresentations of his positions. And they certainly underestimate his capabilities. He's shown time and time again an ability to see a broader picture than the usual political posturing, to see not only his own views and the partisan views of his party but also the views of his opponents, and an ability to see a path forward through the realities. Think about it. This is a man that most people hadn't heard of 18 months ago. A man facing the insurmountable odds of a well-respected and highly visible "inevitable" shoe-in for the nomination, a former vice-presidential nominee of the party, and a series of other better known and more traditionally experienced candidates. A man who doesn't fit the stereotypical mould of a Presidential candidate. And yet, here he is as the likely nominee of the party. Here he is running a better campaign than all of those other more likely candidates. Here he is inspiring millions to the polls.
The reality is that we "negotiate" with our enemies all the time. We do so literally with emissaries and go-betweens, so the saber-rattling of Bush and McCain is a public persona hiding the truth of the behind the scenes activities. We also do so in other ways that include positioning our military might strategically, making strategic and tactical alliances, and otherwise undertaking activities that put pressure on our enemies to adjust their behavior. What we don't do is "kill all the terrorists." Never going to happen. Terrorists are not defeated; every major kill on our part simply creates another matyr for the recruiting posters. We will not win the "war on terror" militarily - even Bush and McCain know this. We will win it by changing the conditions that lead people to be so desperate as to choose blowing themselves up because life has no value or meaning.
My point - that solving this problem will take serious thought, not war games. Sure, military strength is a critical component in the discussions, but it is never in itself the answer. It takes a broader way of thinking. Of conflict resolution, not escalation. This is the opportunity that an Obama brings to the table that a McCain, and even a Clinton, do not.
So yes, as you say, it will take serious thought. Who is doing this thinking? That was my point. Yes, Obama has some lofty ideas. Lofty ideas do not make the grade, however, unless people of great wisdom, knowledge and experience are behind their implementation. What I'm looking to see is a diplomat like Henry Kissinger, not necessarily with his ideas, but with his superior intelligence and ability that is going to come forth and endorse one of these candidates. The endorsements, so far, have been a total joke. Richardson isn't bad, but that's by sheer comparison to the others. We have a huge deficit of brain power that has been used for purposes other than self aggandizement. We need somoene with a wealth of backgound in political psychology, someone who knows the importance of every movement and every word, with that level of sophistication. Not one candidate has that, and not one candidate has anyone backing him/her who also does.
I can't comment on who has backed each of the candidates because I don't have a running tally and even if I did wouldn't recognize most of the names. I suppose one question to ask is who do you think would fit the criteria you propose, and have they supported any particular candidate. I'm not sure their absence means a whole lot, since most of them would likely not come out in support of one or the other. But if they do support a candidate that would provide some additional information that might be useful.
As far as chance goes, well, that brings us back to the relativity issue. You and so many others are going to buy that racehorse ticket on the new entry based on platitudes and promises with no concern for past performance. I'm not a gambler so I am going to write in my vote because I want to make the statement that I don't like the choices I've been given, and though it will be only a whisper, I'll have done what I think is appropriate.
You don't call that flip flopping.
If I were President, Johnny my boy, I'd stop running errands for Israel.
That's not to say that I begrudge others who think differently. I know that people do think differently (which is why I appreciate Obama's ability to see multiple viewpoints). So I encourage people to write in their choice if it's someone different than the nominees. As long as the choice is well thought out and based on an honest interpretation of actual factual information, I couldn't argue otherwise.
I'm pretty sure, though, that I'm misunderstanding your meaning here.
I have always been a backer of Sen Biden. I was backing him for President until he dropped out. I would most definately back his VP nomination. Another VP selection is Sen Jim Webb of Virginia.
As for Felix R., I wonder if you remember George W Bush's combattant stance against NATION BUILDING and using our Military for Peace Keeping missions while he was campaigning for President ? Oh and his promise that States would be able to decide on medical marijuana.
As far as Ahmajinidad is concerned, I think we're damned lucky he didn't! Rosa, in this instance we can take the old adage that those who can do, and those who can't, teach and apply it in this way. Those who can, talk, and those who can't become President. I unequivocally agree with anyone who says that Bush is a blundering fool when it comes to words. He just doesn't have that aptitude. Has he any ever had any successful talks with the Saudis about increasing oil production, including on this last, most recent jaunt? Why he insists on doing this himself, is a total enigma. Hell, send Condi, send Laura, send Jenna! Anyone!
No, it was a good move, I'm sure.
See, that emphasizes the point I made above about the absolute necessity for excellence in whatever diplomacy is exercised. We ARE at their mercy now. We don't hold the cards. You just don't play the same chess game when you start out interacting on that board when you have the black pieces. This is such intricate stuff that people like us don't even have any business venturing opinions because we don't even know enough to know what it is we don't know. I'm also afraid that the people we have to do this work are not much more capable. That's the most frightening part.
Israel is not my problem and I don't think threatening to obliterate Iran is helpful. We should mind our' own business and stop playing mother hen to the regime in Jerusalem...if Israel is so scared of Iran let her deal with it. Do you want to sacrifice any more young American lives for Israel?
I mean what I say and say what I mean. We need to stop letting Israel run our' Middle East foreign policy.
Let Israel be annihilated...give me a break with that nickel and dime rhetoric. Iran will stop it's nuclear project if Israel dismantles it's nuclear facilities. Sounds fair to me. Why don't you tell your' precious friend Israel to move on that offer and stop trying to govern the world with U.S. troops.
My concerns are with my country and our' military. I don't care a rat's behind about Israel or Iran, it's not our' problem.
What does Dubya have to do with Obama flip-flopping. I know Bab's evil spawn is a liar and so is Obama.
Maybe, it's just expedience on Obama's part. We have the M.O. from a most reliable source...his' friend and mentor:
" On Obama's denunciation of some of his past remarks:
"Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. They have a different person to whom they're accountable. As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God November 5 and January 21. That's what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do. I am not running for office. I am hoping to be vice president. ...
"He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself because he's a politician."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/jeremiah-wright-at-nation_n_98949.html
We never know what the true intentions are behind Obama's pronouncements...do we?
As for your suggestion that "Iran will stop it's nuclear project if Israel dismantles it's nuclear facilities," that also does not appear to be supported by the facts.
As for "Why don't you tell your' precious friend Israel to move on that offer and stop trying to govern the world with U.S. troops," I'm not sure what I've said to suggest that I personally have any special relationship with Israel. Nor that Israel is trying to govern the world with US troops. I'm simply doing my best to interpret the long history of Israel's placement in the middle east (and the simultaneous displacement of the Palestinians), the fact that the area plays a centerpiece role in the three major religions, and the interconnectedness of the foreign policy of the US with the region.
We have been in the middle of this mess since Israel's creation, and will continue to be as long as there is oil in the region. We have no choice but to play a role in resolving it.
I'm not sure how I feel about Jim Webb's potential as a VP. He is also someone that I think could be counted on to give real straight talk to the President. He also has military and foreign affairs experience. But again, he is a fellow first-term Senator and I'm not sure if that will fly with the electorate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302170.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
' We contribute both to keeping the problem from getting out of hand'
By invading and occupying Iraq...and threatening to attack Iran and/or Syria. That looks to me like goon strong-arm tactics in pro of Israel.
The world 'obliterate'was used in reference to Iran by Israels belligerent henchman the U.S.
The only nations that can óbliterate' the Middle East are the U.S. and Israel...and Russia, of course, if we decide to attack Iran.
We'll stay in the region is right, but, we will resolve nothing. We'll just continue to exacerbate the situation.
Had you watched the interview on "60 Minutes" you would have heard Ahmadinejad make that offer. He's made that offer on several other occasions. Israel will not give up it's advantage...so it's a moot point. Iran's nuclear program remains on course.
On Reverend Wright...I've noticed that you understand only what you choose to understand...otherwise, you don't see it.
Obama said he did not subscribe to Reverend Wright's world view or philosophy. Reverend Wright said...he's only saying that because it's politically expedient at the moment. Hence, Obama, is lieing because it is politically expedient. He also lies about taking money from lobbyists.
"Drug and device makers have contributed $639,124 to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., $574,828 to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and $168,300 to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. The center calculated the totals based on data released Feb. 28 by the Federal Election Commission."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_el_pr/drug_company_politics
1) The article you cite talks about contributions from the companies themselves to campaigns, not lobbyists, so doesn't support your statement that this is an example of lying.
2) Rev. Wright is not Obama. Rev. Wright said a lot of things that don't reflect Obama's views, or the views most Americans. Nothing Rev. Wright says is an example of lying from Obama. Whether Rev. Wright thinks it is true is his problem.
3) Ahmadinejad has also said he thinks Israel should be removed from this earth. So which statement of Ahmadinejad's reflects his real position? In a sense, Ahmadinejad is a lot like Bush, lots of bluster. But then Bush did invade Iraq, so what might Ahmadinejad do?
4) Bush certainly did invade and it has been suggested that he would attack Iran and Syria (though he denies he intends to). But to say he did so "in pro of Israel" really is understating our reasons. Granted, we are very pro-Israel. We pretty much have been since its creation in 1948 and before, through all of our Presidents, both Democrat and Republican. I suspect we will always be that way. But Bush had lots of other reasons to invade Iraq and to be involved in the Syrian/Lebanese conflicts and the other trials and tribulations of the middle east. For one, there is oil there and clearly those that control the oil have signficant impact on the rest of the world. But there are other US national interests that are also important for us to continue our involvment in the middle east - if nothing else, stability. The same is true of other hot spots around the world. Whether we like it or not we are part of an interconnected - and often integrated - world, and we have lots of reasons in our national interest to show some leadership.
Which gets back to the role we should play. As we've both alluded, the US has a history and a reputation of being heavily biased toward one side of the middle east conflict. I actually think we've moderated that stance to be more equitable in the last couple of decades (probably more so under Bill Clinton than George Bush), but the fact remains that the US is looked on as a biased player. But that doesn't mean we can't lead. We can show leadership by listening to both sides and by helping to find ways to give each side what they want - for the Palestinians, a home in their homeland; for the Israelis, security from constant attack. And while I admit that when I write that it sounds easy, I understand that it is not. Clearly the extreme views on either side (obliteration of Israel or complete control over all of the lands Israel claimed after various sub-wars) cannot be supported, since they are mutually exclusive of a viable solution.
We can also encourage other parties in the region to work toward greater stability. Iran (yes, Iran) is a major player...even moreso since our elimination of Saddam Hussein has allowed Iran to gain military and diplomatic status in the region. Jordan remains a viable third party for negotiations. Resolving our Iraq status is critical to some sort of solution. And perhaps we should spend a little more time working on the deplorable conditions that persist in the region as a whole, conditions that make the idea of blowing yourself up seem like a viable option rather than building a life and family.
2) Obama lies when he says he doesn't agree with Reverend Wright...20 years of listening to him testify to that. You believe Obama...I don't. He's lieing...he shares the same views or he would have disassociated himself from this group long ago...and not when it became politically expedient.
3) If Israel feels threatened by Ahmadinejad than let her use the IDF and not be inciting to war in an effort to have our' troops quell her fears. No more American troops for Israel...she has her own army. You, however, are free to go join the IDF and defend Israel from the big, bad wolf...Ahmadinejad.
4) Israel was one of the reasons for the criminal invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq.
On the intervention in the Middle East issue. We need to mind our' own business and stop playing body guard and enforcer dor Israel. We are a detriment to the peace process and any legitimate negotiations. Why don't you understand this...even Israel is coming around to that notion:
Mideast Negotiations Now Bypassing Washington
By Warren P. Strobel and Hannah Allam
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — In a week of dramatic developments in the Middle East, the most dramatic development of all may have been the fact that the United States, long considered the region's indispensable player, was missing in action.
As its closest allies cut deals with their adversaries this week over the Bush administration's opposition, Washington was largely reduced to watching.
More painful for President Bush, friends he's cultivated — and spent heavily on — in Lebanon and Iraq asked the United States to remain in the background, underlining how politically toxic an association with the U.S. can be for Arab leaders."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/38319.html
Israel's Gamble On Syria Isolates US
Martin Chulov
Middle East correspondent
May 24, 2008
WASHINGTON is still reeling from two strategic defeats this week in its regional showdown with arch-foe Iran, and several key policy-makers have claimed the hardest blow came from staunch ally Israel.
The Jewish state's decision on Wednesday to restart peace talks with Syria came at a particularly difficult time for the Bush administration. It followed a decision by Lebanese leaders hours earlier to cede veto power to the Iranian-backed Opposition, consolidating the rising influence of the radical regime and its key partner, Damascus.
Both hardline nations emerged emboldened by the two moves, while the US saw them as a slap in the face, a senior US official was quoted as saying in The New York Times.
The Israeli decision to re-engage Syria exposes a significant strategic division between Jerusalem and Washington, both of which rarely diverge on Middle Eastern policy.
The announcement of indirect talks between Syria and Iran, to be brokered by Turkey, did not come as a surprise to Washington, which had been briefed on contacts between the two sides over the past two years.
However, the forewarning did not mitigate the shock of the decision being made at such a pivotal point in the showdown between the hawkish Bush White House and the equally hardnosed leadership of Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mr Bush had invested much of the remainder of his foreign policy political capital in a peace track with the Palestinians - one he personally tried to rejuvenate last November. Discussions between the three sides have, at best, inched along throughout the year and have been marred by a mutual reluctance to usher in trust-building measures.
As talks with the Palestinians continued to falter, Israel increasingly felt there was a better chance of reaching an agreement with Syria."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23748549-2703,00.html
I know it's tough on supporters of the PNAC Doctrine and Bush must be banging his head against the wall right now, but, you don't need to do the same. The time has come to stop lording it over the worls and take care of business back here at home. While you're playing knight in white armor to damsel in distress Israel our' house is in disarray.
Have you checked out our' economy lately?
1) You said he takes money from lobbyists and lies about it. Receiving contributions from drug companies is not from lobbyists so it is not evidence of lying. If you really want to pursue the idea of lobbyist money, see the comment I left earlier today on another thread from FactCheck.org.
2) Your logic on this doesn't make sense. People don't have to agree with every iota that another person speaks to associate with that person. The only way your contention would work is if Obama listened to absolutely nothing else in 20 years than the inflammatory statements Rev. Wright made that got looped over and over. Just because Fox News played them constantly for weeks doesn't mean they were anything more than a tiny part of 30-something years of sermons. You'd also have to overlook all the good things that Rev. Wright did for the community in that time. You really can't accuse someone of lying based on a false representation of who Wright really is.
3) You seem to be minimizing the threat of Ahmadinejad to Israel and the stability of the region. While I certainly don't think he is as irrational as Bush/Cheney say he is, it also would be unrealistic to think he isn't a threat (or more accurately, that Iran, of which Ahmadinejad is President, isn't a threat). We need a different strategy for sure, but it should be based on reality, not expediency.
4) I agree Israel and the vain idea that we could somehow impose democracy on another country is a factor in our Iraq decision, but you had suggested previously that it was the determining factor, which is clearly was not. So much of the turmoil there is because Israel is right smack in the middle of people who hate Israel (in part because they feel Israel took their homeland from them).
The articles you copied are interesting, and do support what both of us can agree on, which is that the US can actually stand in the way of the peace process. I disagree that we can just walk away, but I'm more than willing to work toward the goal when we can do just that and leave them to themselves. But that takes leadership and a different approach to the problem, something that the current Administration has dropped the ball on.
I think this last point is the worst part of this. While Carter, even Reagan and Bush I to some extent, and Clinton all tried to deal with the issue, they were pretty much stymied by the presence of Arafat. When Arafat died Bush had a perfect opportunity to take advantage of the situation and get something done. But he preferred to strut around in his war on terror and the opportunity was lost.
Clearly you haven't been reading my stuff if you think I'm a "knight in white armor" kind of guy. I don't think we should stick our nose where it doesn't belong, but I also understand that we can't shirk our responsibilities.
And yes, that includes not only our international responsibilities (which does, in fact, affect our national interests) but also our economy. Unfortunately (or fortunately) we are now in a global economy and what happens in the world affects our domestic economy and policy. As you say, our house is in disarray and we need to pay a lot more attention to it as well.