Posted on 09/07/2009 8:40:13 AM PDT by La Lydia
...Obama's advocacy of what he called "direct diplomacy" became a prime feature of his campaign; the suggestion was that this energetic and eloquent man could bring about breakthroughs in some of the toughest foreign policy problems through his personal diplomacy. So it seems worth noting that as Obama heads into the homestretch of his first year he has yet to meet with any of the enumerated rogues -- a passing handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez at an inter-American summit notwithstanding. Nor is he likely to have any such meetings in the foreseeable future. In fact, one of the emerging lessons of the Obama administration's foreign policy might be summed up as follows: The idea that presidential "direct diplomacy" with actors such as Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro is feasible or likely to produce results is, well, naive....
It's not that Obama hasn't tried.... he accepted Chávez's gift of a stridently anti-American book and later dispatched a new ambassador to Caracas. He lifted some sanctions on Cuba.
The problem is that none of this has brought any results...
The administration does seem to be learning from all the rebuffs. One of the first to draw some hardheaded conclusions has been -- no surprise -- Hillary Clinton. In April the new secretary of state suggested at a congressional hearing that bad U.S. relations with Chávez were the result of the Bush administration's refusal to engage with the caudillo. "Let's see if we can begin to turn that relationship," she proposed.
It took less than three months for Clinton to be disabused of the idea -- a stretch during which Chávez took advantage of the administration's extended hand to launch another crackdown on his own domestic opposition while attempting to foment a left-wing coup in Honduras....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Washington Post noticing that NOT printing the TRUTH LOSES MONEY??????
When the Washington Post starts to print the truth, the bloom is certainly off the rose.
Why meet with any of them when the check is already in the mail?
American ideals, our future, our hope and our treasures transferred
to the despots of the world - paid off to play nice.
...
“None of this means that dialogue with enemies is inherently wrong or not worth trying. Obama may yet find an opportunity for talks with Chávez or Assad, if not Kim or Khamenei. But what seems pretty clear is that the most notable foreign policy idea Obama offered during his campaign has fallen flat during his first months in office. When he was asked that question two years ago, Obama was probably thinking about George W. Bush. It might not have occurred to him that American enemies also don’t see much benefit in “direct diplomacy.” “
Hmmmm ... is the Washington Post waking up?
Except that what this says is the opposite.
I’m sure that his presiding later this month at the UN will prove to all that he indeed is a master of diplomacy. Sheesh.
[... Obama heads into the homestretch of his first year
he has yet to meet with any of the enumerated rogues...]
I understand the article to say that Obummer
hasn’t met with anyone promised in his campaign.
I was saying that he doesn’t have to meet with
them as long as he pays protection money.
A bit obtuse, but not by much.
Gotta wonder what the moonbat who asked that Youtube debate question (Stephen Sixta) is thinking, though.
BTW, here's the transcript:
COOPER: Let's go to another YouTube video.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.
(APPLAUSE)
And the video
Sorry to be so dense, but what money and what payments? Who is he paying?
Obama’s foreign policy blunders are starting to make Carter look like a statesman by comparison.
They just don't want to look like complete lackeys when Obama's weakness and foreign policy blunders blow up into a huge crisis.
If you take a look at our foreign aid, you will
note a great American tradition of paying for
cooperation. No... not with Cuba, yet. But we
let Chavez’ oil company trade in the U.S. We
send millions, if not billions, to countries that
do not support us and even outright defy us.
How Do U.S. Foreign Aid Recipients Vote at the U.N.? Against the U.S.
by Brett D. Schaefer and Anthony B. Kim
Backgrounder #2171
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg2171.cfm
Over the past eight sessions of the U.N. General Assembly (2000 through 2007), about 95 percent of U.S foreign aid recipients voted against the U.S. a majority of the time on non-consensus votes, and over 71 percent voted against the U.S. a majority of the time on non-consensus votes deemed “important” by the U.S. Department of State.[10]
Of the 30 largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid that have voted during the past eight sessions, 28 countries voted against the U.S. a majority of the time on all non-consensus votes, and 24 voted against the U.S. a majority of the time on non-consensus important votes. (See Chart 2.)
Okay, I think I get it. You’re saying Congress and the Bush administration provided foreign aid to these countries, and they still hate us, and that BO is following that failed tradition? Right?
Not just Bush and Congress. This grand tradition
has been going on since before the UN.
Diplomacy = Money
The good thing about this whole dialog diplomacy is that once the zero has left office and it has been proven not to have done squat at best and emboldened our enemies at worst. The next president will be free to use maximum force very quickly in many situations. All he will have to say is we tried talking, apologizing, and being nice for the last 4 or 8 years, and it got us nothing. Now shoot first and let God sort them out later.
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.