When you are young and Naive, you have no conception of the time and process that it takes to get things done. If Barack Obama has proved one thing since the President’s speech in Jerusalem he has proved that he has no conception of the process. During the first year of an Obama presidency, he says, he will sit down with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. That shows more than a lack of experience, but it displays no understanding of history. When we started negotiating with North Vietnam it took almost a year to agree on the shape of the table, there were two plus years of negotiations with China BEFORE Nixon took his famous trip. If you start things at a low level, there is no where to go but up. But if you start things at the top level…well, the only place to go is Down.
At least, after days of urging, Obama announced what he would tell Iranian President Aym-a-shithead in a meeting. He said he would tell the Iranian War-monger that his actions are unacceptable to the rest of the world. WELL thank God for that little piece of insight, Captain Obvious. Now I understand why the terrorists want you to win the election. They need a good laugh !:
Obama’s Troubling Instincts By KARL ROVE
May 22, 2008 Barack Obama is ambling rather than sprinting across the primary-season finish line. It’s not just his failure to connect with blue-collar Democrats. He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions. On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That’s the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the “annihilation” of Israel. By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests. Voters need to ask if Sunday’s comments, not Monday’s correction, aren’t the best evidence of his true thinking. Is Mr. Obama’s first instinct to dismiss North Korea, the world’s worst nuclear proliferator, as an insignificant threat? Is his immediate reaction to treat Venezuela as a wayward child, rather than as an adversary willing to destabilize the hemisphere? Is his memory so short he has forgotten the Castro brothers’ willingness to aid revolutionary movements? Is he so shortsighted as to ignore the threat to Mideast stability that Syria’s meddling in Lebanon and support for Hamas and Hezbollah represents? Mr. Obama’s Sunday statement grew out of a kerfuffle over his proclaimed willingness to meet – eagerly and without precondition – during his first year as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. On Monday, he said it was a show of confidence when American leaders meet with rivals; he insisted he was merely doing what Richard Nixon did by going to China. I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger’s book, “The White House Years.” Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy. The Chinese didn’t change because of a presidential visit. In another book, “Diplomacy,” Mr. Kissinger writes that “China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union.” Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited. The same is true with other successful negotiations. President Ronald Reagan prepared the ground for his meetings with a series of Soviet leaders by rebuilding the U.S. military, restoring confidence in American intentions, and pressuring the Soviets by raising the specter of a missile defense shield. Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought. Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn’t work nearly as well in Tehran. What, for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? One of Iran’s top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama’s top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions? On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he’d make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so naïve to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer? If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea’s Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies. If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a “Secret Plan,” and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.
The NY Times has a VERY biased article about the Jews in Florida and Why they Don’t trust Obama but the Posthumous Luger cuts the times down to size–here NY Times: Florida Jews Unsure About Obama, Because They’re A Bunch Of Crotchety Bigots