Posted on 04/11/2008 8:02:26 AM PDT by Fox_Mulder77
I find it more than odd that Obama stays silent over Beijing as everyone on the left has taken a stand on boycotting the opening ceremonies. On top of that, the world has shown its disdain for Chinese tactics in Tibet as Obama has stood on the sideline saying, "I am of two minds about this." Surely Obama and his marketing people are hard at work trying to find a nuanced way to stand against the brutality of China, while still staying away from supporting a boycott. Why, you ask?
It's simple, Obama has made talking to our enemies a foundation for his campaign. He can't say he's willing to talk to Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela without preconditions and then turn around and say we should boycott the Olympics. As Obama has said, "I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together." It's hard to justify being willing to talk to countries that hang gays for being gay, and then turn around and say we should boycott the Olympics opening ceremony because China is abusing its people.
This is a preview of a potential Obama presidency. His proposal of creating a more open and talkative foreign policy regardless of what our enemies do has paralyzed him politically. Thus, the potential of having a paralyzed foreign policy for the next four years. While the left criticizes Bush for being a disaster on foreign policy, what they refuse to realize is that Bush has the option to go to the Olympics or not. Which gives him much more leverage with the Chinese. An Obama administration, on the other hand, wouldn't have a choice: his administration would be frozen on this issue because they've already promised the American people that we are going to stay open to countries like China diplomatically no matter what. It's hard to justify talking to an Iran that is building nukes and supplying terrorists with weapons that they promise will be used to wipe Israel off the map, and then turn around and boycott Beijing because of Tibet.
Hillary has jumped on this weakness in Obama's approach to foreign policy. She's been out criticizing the Bush administration and siding with the far left and much of the world concerning Beijing. So Obama has to find a way to snake out of this by being on both sides at the same time. He has no media scrutiny so this will probably just blow over. But it's another sign of the dangers of an Obama presidency: a Jimmah Carter redo!
Is bowling an Olympic event?
If either of these two Democrap, Commie-loving Gestapos get elected president our nation hasn't a chance of coming through either's term without some serious upheaval.
That being said, if the Republicrat candidate remains McCain, it just slows down our slide into the dustbin of history slightly.
Actually, at least on the issue of olympics in bad nations, Carter was more decisive: we boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.