Obama '08?

georgeob1 wrote:

I have no idea of whom you dine with. Perhaps they are fools. I did not suggest there was universal agreement that our recent activities with North Korea have been successful - rather that they have been stunningly more successful than all that preceded it. Your comments are an attempt to evade the question here.

"stunningly more successful"? The 23 million slaves to Kim Jong Il, that haven't yet been tortured or starved to death, might be inclined to disagree... if they were allowed to think for themselves. Untold millions have already paid the ultimate price and their future looks no brighter. This can't be measured in terms of success. The civilized world has utterly and completely failed these people... and appear to have every intention of continuing to do so.

Bush is right. Appeasing any of these A-holes is wrong.

That being said; I have no problem with the idea of a President Obama talking to anyone. It may be a good idea to look your enemy in the eye as you make it very clear what is and isn't acceptable. Talks do not necessarily mean appeasement.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

I have no idea of whom you dine with. Perhaps they are fools. I did not suggest there was universal agreement that our recent activities with North Korea have been successful - rather that they have been stunningly more successful than all that preceded it. Your comments are an attempt to evade the question here.

"stunningly more successful"? The 23 million slaves to Kim Jong Il, that haven't yet been tortured or starved to death, might be inclined to disagree... if they were allowed to think for themselves. Untold millions have already paid the ultimate price and their future looks no brighter. This can't be measured in terms of success. The civilized world has utterly and completely failed these people... and appear to have every intention of continuing to do so.

Bush is right. Appeasing any of these A-holes is wrong.

That being said; I have no problem with the idea of a President Obama talking to anyone. It may be a good idea to look your enemy in the eye as you make it very clear what is and isn't acceptable. Talks do not necessarily mean appeasement.

You appear to embrace all possibilities here as your preferred choice. :wink: Apparently everything ranging from forcible international intervention to achieve a regime change to amicable dialogue to better understand the deranged clown of Pyongyang is your goal - hardly a "focused" policy.

There is clearly no lack of the military capability required to unseat Kim Jong Il's regime among its immediate neighbors - South Korea, China, and Japan. However until recently, none of these countries were willing even to apply concerted pressure on the regime to limit the excesses in its behavior. South Korea, in particular, appears to have emerged from a delusional period during which the government apparently believed it could moderate Kim's behavior through "sunshine" and bribes.

I'm sure you will agree that, under these circumstances, there was no realistic possibility for anyone to reduce the dangers the Pyongyang posed to other nations, much less to relieve the suffering of the North Korean people. The Bush Administration has decisively altered that persistent, unhappy condition. Now Kim is faced with powerful neighbors that are clearly willing to act together to limit his worst excesses - at least with respect to their own interests. Whereas previously they relied on us to do that for them.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom, good intentions, and skill (or the lack thereof) of the Bush Administration in removing a tyrant from the backs of the Iraqi people , the example of the "International Community" reaction to it tells you nearly all you need to know about the prospect for such an intervention in North Korea (or Myanmar).

Off key, Obama sings Kumbaya

Sunday, May 18th 2008, 4:00 AM

With his eyes fixed on the nomination finish line, Barack Obama did not expect a charge of appeasement from President Bush last week. Perhaps the surprise attack explains Obama's disjointed, mushy response.

Or perhaps he doesn't have a good response. That's more likely given Obama's failure to effectively defend his own plans in two tries.

With the mess we are in around the world, it's not enough to say Bush's policies have failed. Anyone who wants to be President also must lay out a credible vision for success.

For Obama, that means more than a "Kumbaya" hope Iran, Syria and North Korea will suddenly behave in rational ways if he's elected. He needs to snap out of the liberal fantasy about root causes - that Islamic terrorists will drop their jihad in exchange for better jobs and schools.

Bush's attack found the holes in Obama's national security credentials, which escaped scrutiny during his battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton. Beyond plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, neither Obama nor Clinton has articulated a serious plan for protecting America in a dangerous world.

Most revealing, Obama pledged to meet, without preconditions, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Even Clinton calls that naive.

Yet Obama is not alone in that loopy approach, with former President Jimmy Carter meeting with leaders of Hamas, despite its involvement in terrorism and its pledge to eliminate Israel. In that sense, Bush's broadside, delivered in Israel, was aimed at Obama, Carter and the peace-at-any-price wing of the party.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them that they have been wrong all along," Bush said, adding: "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.'"

Obama's responses, one in a statement and another at a campaign rally a day later, were peppered with mush that Bush was being divisive and fostering fear mongering. That was predictable. Obama's habit of calling every criticism a violation of fair play is a tired copout.

But Obama also hit Bush for foreign policy failures that include the inability to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, the mess in Iraq, Iran's growing influence there and the strength of Hamas and Hezbollah. Obama linked John McCain to those policies, saying McCain "wants to double-down on" them.

Politically, that's a deft move, because Bush is so unpopular and because most Americans are more worried about the economy than Iraq or the Mideast.

But Obama needs to start thinking beyond politics and talk as though he might actually be President. In the short term, that means being honest with Americans about Iran and its murderous influence.

While it's clear Iran is behind much of the mayhem in Iraq, including the killing of American soldiers, Obama has said he wants to see the evidence compiled by the American military for those charges. Does he not believe the charges? Why not?

But instead of contacting the Pentagon for a briefing, he acts as though America is the problem and Iran deserves sympathy. Which was exactly Bush's point when he mocked the notion that talking to Hitler would have stopped World War II.

Obama is smart and talented, but his views of Islamic fundamentalists, like those running Iran, are consistently muddled. He expresses a sloppy faith in standard political negotiation, as though Hamas and Hezbollah are just special interest groups haggling for a better deal.

He doesn't appear to take seriously their stated goal of wiping out moderate Muslim governments, Israel, the U.S. and anyone who tries to block a strict Islamic empire. No wonder Hamas endorsed him.

On the Hezbollah-led chaos in Lebanon, Obama called for "an end to the current corrupt patronage system ... and a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."

Ah, if only it were so easy. "Kumbaya," indeed.

Hopefully, at some point Obama will be forced to share with the American people why he believes that sitting down with the leaders of rogue nations and talking to them will advance our strategic interests, and what he might say to them.

I don't know that I will agree with him if he provides a substantive explanation, but I will certainly will hold him in higher regard than I do know.

Obama rolled those those little weasels Mccain and Bush up. There is NO way those people can debate Obama head to head on the war and how it was conducted.

There are very real reasons that terrorist groups, Iran, and a whole host of other bad apples want to see Obama elected.