Posted on 05/22/2008 10:57:26 PM PDT by The_Republican
John McCain, abetted by President Bush, is trying to depict Barack Obama as a foreign policy naïf for being willing to meet with the leaders of troubling countries.
This stems from Obama's response to a debate question last year asking whether he would be willing to meet, without preconditions, in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Obama said he would.
Promising to do so in the first year of his presidency was foolish. In fact, Obama probably shouldn't have committed to such meetings. All he should have said is that he wouldn't have a policy of not meeting with such leaders, contrary to the policy of the Bush administration.
Nevertheless, the intense criticism of Obama's position is based upon a view of presidential diplomacy that is outdated and has proven to be ineffective if not counterproductive.
According to McCain and Bush, meeting with the United States, and particularly the president of the United States, confers prestige and legitimacy on those being met.
The United States is certainly the most powerful nation in the world. However, the rest of the world no longer regards us as possessing some special moral authority to render judgment on the legitimacy of other governments.
This is in part a natural and inevitable result of the rise of other nations. It is also, however, because the United States has not, and cannot, consistently practice pure moral hygiene regarding the countries with which we conduct business.
Obama has frequently made the sensible comparison to the willingness of the United States, including its presidents, to meet with the Soviet Union. If the president of the United States can meet with the leader of the Soviet Union while the Soviets have thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us............................................................................................................................................................................................................
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
The stupidity and shallowness of this author (and Obama) is breathtaking.
Yeah. For liberals to tell voters what they would REALLY do is damned foolish if they are trying to get elected. That is why they generally lie through their teeth when running for office.
This is in part a natural and inevitable result of the rise of other nations. It is also, however, because the United States has not, and cannot, consistently practice pure moral hygiene regarding the countries with which we conduct business."
(Thank you traitorous globalists at the US State Department)
Wishing doesn’t make it so.
Robb needs a lesson in history.
What bothers me is that this chat-with-the-terrorist debate can only hinder what may be happening behind the scenes with Iranians who may be working toward internal regime change. Those people are the ones who may have to pay a much higher price than they’re already facing if their oppressive government receives any sort of conciliatory attentions from our government.
Actually, the position of the author is quite the norm. His position is: Obama "was foolish". It's not fair that the Republicans call him on this. They must apply affirmative action principles, and not bring this up. Obama's a minority, you know.
“However, the rest of the world no longer regards us as possessing some special moral authority to render judgment on the legitimacy of other governments.”
NOTE TO AUTHOR: AMERICA DOES NOT BASE THEIR ACTIONS OR POLICY ON WHAT THE “rest of the world....regards”!!!
America does what is RIGHT and in America’s best interest!
This is NOT an adolecent popularity contest!
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.