10.13.07
Edwards and Obama Don’t Want You To Think
During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama’s position irresponsible and naive.
But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.”
“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard.
“It is very disappointing that Senator Clinton seems determined to hedge her responses on the issues that matter most to the American people. After six years of the Bush Administration’s disastrous foreign policy, the stakes in this election are too high,” Kofinis went on to say in the release. “The American people deserve a president who will tell them the truth and offer straight answers, not flip-flops and political double-speak.”
Edwards’ and Obama’s attacks on Clinton are base, manipulative political posturing that ignores the depth and nuance at hand here. Sen. Clinton’s opponents latch onto a superficial similarity between what she criticized about Obama and what she herself proposes, ignoring the deeper differences between the two leaders’ approaches. This criticism of Hillary’s stance only makes sense if we don’t think. Which is exactly what Edwards and Obama want.
Obama pledged willingness to meet personally with the heads of state of US enemies, including Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il, within his first year in office. Clinton rightly called this “irresponsible, and frankly naive,” asserting that she doesn’t “want to be used for propaganda purposes.”
This objection is not rooted in the belief that we should have no contact with Iran and North Korea. The negotiations aren’t what she criticized. Even the lack of pre-conditions isn’t the real issue. The real issue is that Obama promised not only diplomatic contact, but Presidential access and all of the publicity and prestige that entails. A face-to-face meeting with the U.S. President creates enormous room for propaganda. An official US State Visit is an enormous boon to foreign leaders, and creates an opportunity for would-be President Obama to be made a fool. Clinton was right to call this move “naive.”
Clinton’s willingness to negotiate with Iran appears to be a contradiction on the most superficial level, but only if we suspend rationality like Edwards and Obama want us to. Clinton has not pledged a Head-of-State level meeting with Iran, which is what she criticized Obama for doing. Though she thinks such a Summit would be ill-advised, she doens’t think that negotiation doesn’t have a place. Former SecState Madeline Albright criticized Obama by suggesting that we need to do “diplomatic spadework” before a major State visit. Clinton essentially proposed to do just that. To cite her own words:
“What I’ve said for a long time is that the United States of American should negotiate with Iran,” she said. “But it’s also the case that I do not believe the president of the United States should be party of such negotiations at this time.
“There’s a very big difference between setting up a structure for diplomatic negotiating and saying that as president one would meet with dictators of a country without preconditions in your first year.”
Barack Obama ordered a Big Mac, and Hillary Clinton criticized his choice of food. She then ordered a Double Double from In & Out. And now Obama (and Edwards, too!) call her a hypocrite for ordering a hamburger after talking smack about Obama’s Big Mac. Well sure, it’s a hamburger. But it’s not that hamburger, and the relevant criticisms don’t apply to her Double Double.
I am frankly disheartened by these attacks against Senator Clinton. While is disagree with her on many issues, especially regarding domestic policy, she is neither irresponsible nor foolish when it comes to foreign affairs. The attacks against her are rooted in ignorance and stupidity, quite frankly.
I’m left wondering if Obama and Edwards are simply irresponsible, dishonest, and manipulative, or if they honestly don’t understand the distinction between a Presidential Summit and normal avenues of diplomatic negotiation. Either way, neither of these men are fit to be Commander-in-Chief.
gasdocpol said,
October 13, 2007 at 4:02 pm
If everyone set preconditions to every conversation there would not be much conversation.
Communication is good.
Obama wants dialogue. Hillary wants to play games.
I don’t care much for Edwards whose only significant experience is suing doctors and running for President. His six years in the Senate is remarkable only for supporting the Iraq invasion.
The fact that Hillary wants to play games suggests to me the she is the manipulative one.
curtisschweitzer said,
October 15, 2007 at 3:58 pm
gasdocpol,
The notion that Hillary “wants to play games” simply due to the fact that she does not want to meet personally with a foreign leader is stunningly inaccurate assumption to make. You seem to be under the rather mistaken impression that a President has no means of communication beyond a personal visit– a false dilemma that Caleb explicitly spells out in his post. Have you not read it in its entirety or do you simply not understand it? I ask only because, if you read the post carefully, all of the arguments you’ve made are preemptively addressed– I’m left to believe that either you didn’t notice, or that you simply believe that repeating them will somehow make them stronger. Either way, I’d encourage you to re-read the post and note where it addresses (and, I think, does a remarkably good job of refuting) a vast majority of your points.
gasdocpol said,
October 17, 2007 at 5:02 am
While I like a certain number of things about Hillary, I continue to insist that she was not thinking when she supported GW Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
The reason that 19 Arabs (None of them Iraqis) sacrificed their lives just to hurt Americans was because there was general displeasure (rightly or wrongly) among Arabs regarding US Mideast policy. It would be difficult to imagine something that would inflame Arabs more than invading an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA.
The US invasion of Iraq had the same effect upon
Arabs as 9/11 had on Americans.
Was Iraq a danger to the USA? In 1991 the world,including Arabs, rose up as one to throw Saddam out of Iraq. With his army much weakened in 2002 was Iraq going to be a threat to the USA even if indeed he had obtained nuclear or other WMD and the means to deliver them? Saddam may have been evil but he was neither stupid or crazy.
The US Mideast policy since 2001 can be best understood by considering PNAC. There were signatories of people in the Clinton administration endorsing that think tank which include Madelien Allbright and James Woolsey. Wisely Bill Clinton kept them in check.
PNAC advocated a massive buildup of our military and aggressive militant foreign policy for the purpose of making the USA the world’s most dominant country in the 21st century.It also expessed hope in August 2000 that 9/11.
would happen
MY theory of why Rumsfeld tried to do the imperialism on the cheap was because, he was trying to surupticiously blow it by Americans.
Caleb Winn said,
October 17, 2007 at 8:43 am
I’m not sure that any of that responds to the point that it would be terrifically unwise to hold a State Summit with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, etc., or that Edwards and Obama seem unable or unwilling to recognize the difference between diplomatic relations with one’s enemies (good) and high-profile head-of-state visits (bad).
I think that it is a gross oversimplification to suggest that terrorism is motivated solely by dissatisfaction with US policy. There are plenty of people who oppose US policy, but would not act violently against us, and would not attack civilian targets. To ignore the cultural conflict at hand is unwise. Fundamentalist Mulsims hate America for her Christianity, her materialism, and her sensualism, as well as for her political power. If UBL is ideologically motivated to destroy the infidel in the name of Allah, then our infidelity to the Muslim faith needs to be understood beyond the political context. We are attacked because we are a Wicked nation, not because of our position papers.
While the invasion of Iraq has inflamed many enemies of the United States, I am frankly unconvinced that the best policies are always those that do not irritate our enemies.
Was Saddam a threat? As it turns out, probably not. He was a tyrannical dictator who was justly deposed, to be sure, but he was probably not a threat to US security in the short term. But the best evidence available at the time suggested that they did have WMDs, which by their very definition can release massive destruction on the US. The paranoid left likes to rant and rave about Bush’s hoodwinking of the world (at times calling him a complete bungling idiot and at times labelling him an evil mastermind), but in reality US, British, and Israeli intelligence services all believed that Iraq was procuring WMDs. As The LA Times reported in late 2004, even Saddam’s own generals thought that he had a secret WMD program, and were crestfallen to learn that they had no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons with which to repel the invading coalition forces. In light of the broad consensus that Iraq probably had WMDs, and given the inherent threat of such weapons, I think it’s silly to say that anybody who voted for the war was simply “not thinking.”
gasdocpol said,
October 17, 2007 at 6:42 pm
1. The GW Bush White House was controled by a Neoconservative cabal headed by Cheney and Rumsfeld according for Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff.
2. The neocons propped up an uninformed innexperienced failed businessman (GW Bush) as their front.
3. Read the words in their website the agaenda it had for the USA in the 21st century.
including:1. the USA taking over the world
2. Massive military buildup and aggreswsive foreign policy
3. How advantageous 9/11 would be to their cause (written in Aug 2000)
= not a liberal website BUT IN THE OWN WORDS OF PNAC WHOSE MEMBERS INCLUDE CHENEY , RUMSFELD, WOLFOWITZ, LIBBY , BOLTON.
No, my friend the motives of the Bush adninistration were not honorable and GW Bush has never given the true reasons for the Iraq invasion.
Which are ,I believe, 1. To get control of Iraqi oil
2. To set up permanent military bases in Iraq
3. To bolster Israel against the enemies it has made in the Mideast.
gasdocpol said,
October 20, 2007 at 5:53 am
caleb
One of your basic premises is that the US invasion was appropriate and other nations are wrong to disagree with us.
My responses talk to that.
Setting up preconditions to talking with others is arrogantly adding insult to injury. The USA is not so all-powerful or above reproach that it can afford such an attitude.
I am not saying that we should say “Mea culpa, will you ever forgive us” but arrogance will not cut it.
Between you me and the lamppost in response to 9/11.
GW Bush:
1. Went through the motions of hunting down the ringleaders.
2. Made no effort to examine the root causes of terrorism
3. Unilaterally attacked and occupied an unrelated oil rich Arab country as part of a grand strategy to reshape global politics.
Arrogance is the opposite of diplomacy. Even when you are totally right, arrogance can get you in trouble. Arrogance can bring out the worst in people.
To relate this to your original contention, Hillary’s point of view is arrogant, in my view. Obama’s approach is diplomatic.
gasdocpol said,
October 22, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I have re-read the post.
I repeat that communication is good and anything that increases communication until proven otherwise is helpful. You assume that Obama would make a fool of him self by meeting with people without preconditions. I am not sure what you are basing that upon.
Speaking of making a fool of ones self, I have not seen much of a history of Obama doing that but Hillary has done that a number of times eg Her failed Health plan and voting to support Bush’s Iraq fiasco.
Maybe Hillary needs to play games with summit meetings but I think that Obama’s willingness to talk frankly would be more productive.
Finally some people who claim to have 20 years of experience really have one year of experience 20 times.
While I prefer Hillary to any of the Republicans , Obama’s approach to the issues makes more sense to me.