The Type of “Sit Down And Talk With Iran” That Gates Speaks Of Is Not The Same As Obama’s
Cecily Friday just doesn’t get it. To defend Nevelle Obama, she quoted the Secretary of Defense who said,
“We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them..”
Notice that I highlighted the words “develop some leverage”.
Remember the two examples Obama used in justifying his historic stupidity in regards to foreign policy. One of those examples was Gorbachev in the 1980’s. Remember that Reagan was in office four years before he sat down with Gorbachev, and he didn’t show up at the meeting with his hand out. He showed up from a position of strength. After four years of military buildup, and talk of SDI, the time was right to talk to the Evil Empire. In any negotiation, business or political, you always want to be the one that can afford to walk away. Thanks to the military strength that Reagan built up, he had that power, and walk away is exactly what he did early on. The Soviets recognized that they held the weaker position, and the rest is history.
The other example was Khrushchev and Kennedy. Kennedy did not meet with the Soviet leader from a position of strength, and because of that, the Soviets considered Kennedy to be weak. This negotiation from a position of weakness set off the Cuban missile crisis and put the world on the brink of nuclear war.
Obama, who apparently hasn’t learned from history, would prefer we follow Kennedy’s example, not Reagan’s.
Folks, this guy’s naivety is dangerous.
Obama and McCain have no difference on the ‘war’,
n a recent major speech, Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain outlined his vision for the future and described what he desires to have achieved by end of a first term in office. The defining portion of the speech was his description of what he hoped the situation in Iraq would be, under his leadership, by 2013.
“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. … The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.”
Senator McCain and other leading Republicans would have American voters believe that this is a drastic change from the “cut and run” policies offered by Democratic candidates like Barack Obama. Likewise, Democratic leaders promote the notion that their candidate offers a plan for immediate withdrawal. They must be hoping that voters do not listen to what their candidate actually says.
Barack Obama, the alleged peace candidate of the 2008 elections, was asked if he would pledge to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013. His response was: “I think it’s hard to project four years from now and I think it would be irresponsible. We do not know what contingency will be out there. … I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation‘s going to be three or four years out.”
The alleged peace candidate who has made his opposition to the Iraq war a centerpiece of his campaign cannot even promise that the U.S. will be out of Iraq by 2013! Senator Obama also has stated: “This withdrawal would be gradual, and would keep some US troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after Al Qaeda and other terrorists.” Even Obama’s own website proclaims, “he will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.” One has to wonder if Obama plagiarized those plans from McCain himself due to the extreme similarities.
Perhaps the similarity in approach to foreign policy can be explained by the fact that they both shared the same foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski is a committed globalist, one of the most instrumental members of the Council on Foreign Relations and a founding member of the Trilateral Commission. Volumes more can be written about Brzezinski’s hawkish stands on foreign policy and his disdain for non-interventionism as well as his desire for global governance. What is important to note is that Republican John McCain had Brzezinski as his foreign policy advisor for his 1999-2000 Presidential campaign. Now Barack Obama has Brzezinski as one of his principal advisors. It should be a red flag to the American public when their two choices for Presidential office are so casually sharing advisors.
Another matter, which should be a concern to those who might actually believe Senator Obama is the peace candidate, are his stated desires to expand the U.S. military as well as intervene in Africa, another policy initiative that he shares with Senator McCain. Combine this with the fact that the U.S. has more troops in Iraq now than it did before Democrats took control of Congress and it becomes much harder to perceive the Democrats as the self-proclaimed party of peace.
Both Senators McCain and Obama share the same disregard for the U.S. Constitution and embrace the globalism and interventionism that has bankrupted our great nation. These similarities do not end with foreign policy. From illegal immigration to global warming, both John McCain and Barack Obama seem to be walking in lockstep. It appears that another Presidential election is upon us where the two candidates are virtually indistinguishable from one another when it comes to the most pressing issues of the day.
Basically what you are saying then, is that both are foreign policy realists. So McCain is not a neocon?
Well, we are currently in a position of strength relative to Iran currently, much greater than any advantage we ever had over the U.S.S.R.
What is your point, exactly?
Are you kidding? More than we had when the Soviet Union was collapsing due to fact they couldn’t keep up with our military buildup? Unbefreakinglievable!
How many nuclear warheads did the Soviet Union have?
What was their megatonnage and range?
And I’m “Unbefreakinglievable”.
Alrighty then.
Both are NeoCons.
The USSR would never have fought us, after the break up of the USSR we saw how pathetic their armed forces were.
How is “mutually assured destruction” a position of strength? The Soviets fell as much from internal collapse.
Gates is mimicing what Sen. Joe Biden [D-Del] said which was that the U.S. should exploit the rift in the Iranian leadership between Ahmadinejad and the theocracy, saying “a sophisticated foreign policy” would “take advantage of that division.” Unfortunately, we’ve not had an intelligent and sophisticated foreign policy.
We were once a strong nation, even contemplating war with the Soviets, building SDI, etc… Now we fear the threat of a small third world country, sad. After our leadership grinded our military down to a pulp for no good reason or result, at the same time we’ve lost world respect and alliances, we remain more vulnerable than and more isolated than ever. Thats what cowboy diplomacy has done for us.
Don’t be riduculous, William.
Everyone knows that Reagan blew his trumpet and the walls of Jericho, er, I mean the Berlin Wall collapsed.
On another note, until Obama offers Iran half of Czechoslovakia or anything on that order, right-wingers are only underscoring their own ignorance by insisting on repeating the Chamberlain comparison.
News flash, negotiation != appeasement; if it is, then Israel is appeasing Syria right now. I triple-dog-dare you to call the Israelis “appeasers.”
The current Israeli government, and also Secretary Rice, are well, not that smart really.
Glen, I thought you were one of those proposing Condi as a VP candidate not so long ago.
.
I never did that. That doesn’t mean I dislike her though. She has had some victories. But in regards to Israel, the State Department, be it the Rice Dept. of State, the Powell, or the Albright, has done a terrible job, sometimes interfering where they should not.
This man cost tens of millions of lives trying to appease evil.
Yet he had more experience and qualifications than Barack Obama.
Is it worth the risk?
Number 9:
My aforementioned challenge stands.
[…] this post, the author brilliantly contrasted Barack Obama’s proposed talks with Iran to those put forth […]