In a post back in April regarding Barack Obama (Thoughts on Obama's Woes) I raised questions about what Obama really does believe, and how much Jeremiah Wright's theology had informed his political sense. I actually wrote in that post...
I cannot believe I am saying this, but I have done a big 180 turn. I hope Hillary finds a way to win the nomination, as much as the idea of another Clinton (or Bush) in the White House makes me sick. I am not saying this because I think McCain will win against her more easily. I am not sure that that is true. I am saying that if I had to choose between Obama and Hillary, if those were my two choices, at this point I would choose Hillary.
Well, along with everyone else I have been trying to figure out why she fights on. The only two answers I come up with are either 1) she is not able to accept reality, or 2) she is positioning herself for 2012. In either case, I have found her ongoing hopeless bid just lacking in good form. If she really wants to see Obama lose in 2008 then that really stinks. If she is in la la land that stinks too.
So, I was just getting ready to repent in dust and ashes for what I wrote above, when Obama's camp expressed such outrage over Bush's comments in Israel, when Bush compared the idea of meeting with Iran's leaders (and other terrorist state's leaders) as tantamount to appeasement, bringing to mind Chamberlain's famously inept meetings with Hitler.
It's one thing to come out and express disagreement. Do so. Disagree. State your case. But to cry "foul," as if Bush's comments amounted to political dirty tricks, to me is plain wimpy. Is Obama going cry "foul" every time McCain disagrees with him, or describes his positions as being unwise or inappropriate. Good grief.
I think Bush's view has merit. He may be wrong, and goodness knows he is almost pathologically incapable of articulating vision and making a reasonable case for anything. But a reasonable case can be made that for our President to meet with the likes of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be to legitimize Ahmadinejad and empower him, especially amongst his own population.
How do you sit down and talk with someone committed (according to his statements) to wiping Israel off the face of the earth? How do you sit down as "equal" parties with a dictator who is funding terrorism all over the Middle East? Maybe we should ask the good people of Beirut what they think about that?
It is minimally a valid question. It is also valid to compare doing so with appeasement of dictators, since, well, Ahmadinejad is, along with the conservative Iranian clerics, a dictator.
One may disagree with Bush's view. If so, disagree. Make a case. Explain why talking to Ahmadinejad isn't like appeasement. But don't cry "foul." Don't be a big baby. This is real life big time politics and real life grown up stuff.
Are we in for an election season where Obama will cry foul every time his positions are criticized or characterized in a way he does not like? Is this the strategy - trying to act so "different" and "above the fray" that real political discourse is not allowed? Is this going to be a "wus" campaign of the highest order? I dread it.
I was all ready to repent in dust and ashes of expressing support for Hillary, given her ongoing deluded or self obsessed campaign, and then I was ready to repent of so repenting when Obama's people played the baby card, and then Hillary went and followed suit. Now I don't know what to do.
Back to Obama - that seems to be the strategy - be very very very nice to me or I'll use the media to make you put to be a very mean person (all the while doing the same thing of course).
Will a REAL leader please stand up here?
Friday, May 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Hi Joel,
I don't remember how I ran across your blog, but I have been following it for a while because you seem like a fair person with views quite different from mine. But I wonder if you have seen the controversy about the off the map comment, which is an English idiom not present in Persian; if not, it perhaps isn't a big deal.
Nevertheless I would like to point out that it is difficult to decide when one should keep lines of communication open, and when not to. Is it consistent that the US refuses to meet with Iran or Cuba, but is on very good terms with China despite its treatment of Tibet? If the US should not meet with a (supposed) sponsor of terrorism, how should other nations respond to accusations of the US supporting the current genocide in Somalia, or even current presidential candidates threatening to nuke Iran? Any ethical understanding of this situation ought to be symmetric, remembering that citizens on both sides are only likely to be familiar with the most sensational out-of-context comments by their government's enemies.
But perhaps the main reason I'm writing now is to ask you to spell Barack's name correctly!
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your comments. Sorry about the spelling of Obama's name - I know better. I make errors like that all the time and am always correcting them. I did change the spelling.
Yes, there is controversy about whether "off the map" is an appropriate way to translate or characterize Ahmadinejad's comments about Israel. I used the phrase casually. I think it fair to say that he has called for the destruction of Israel, but I know he has his advocates who disagree, and who say that the media has intentionally misrepresented him. I read one of his advocate's pieces just this morning.
But to your main point, you have fairly pointed out possible inconsistencies in Bush's policy - the selective use of the principles he outlined in Israel.
That is a valid point and criticism. One can also argue the point of what makes for the best approach to dictators in closed societies like Cuba or Sudan or even Russia. What one is doing is making an argument, not crying "foul." What has bothered me about Obama's first reactions is the pretense that Bush is being mean or playing dirty politics or whatever. I think Obama should present his case, not cry foul. He's going to have to get down and dirty with these issues sooner or later - from a policy standpoint. I wish he would quit acting like he is so above it all, as if he's just too beyond real world politics. It's hollow, in my opinion.
By the way, why we cow tow to China the way we do I have no idea.
Joel,
The "foul," if there is one, is in criticizing leaders back home when on foreign soil.
Remember The Dixie Chicks got it for criticizing Bush in London.
Harry Belafonte got it for doing so in Venezuala.
Bill Clinton and John Kerry both had their patriotism questioned for speaking against US policy in foreign lands during the Vietnam War.
I don't see why such criticism should be frowned upon just because it happens overseas. But for decades people have asserted that that should be the standard.
Roch,
Since George Bush IS the President, and since he WAS speaking AS the president to another nation at the anniversary of their nationhood, and since he IS the executive leadership, I think that the assurances he wanted to offer to Israel were not inappropriate, and maybe not quite the same as what the Dixie Chicks did, but I see your point. Bush could have avoided alluding to the policies of his political opponents, yet, given the nature of what Israel is now and is potentially facing with Iran, I can understand it.
I am a little weary of the way we are measuring everyone on the "patriotism" scorecard. That seems arbitrary to me. I mean, I suppose if you're in a war, and your guys are over aiding and abetting the enemy, then that's one thing, but there has to be a way of criticizing, say, a war, without being dissed as unpatriotic. I do think Jane Fonda went a little far though. As far as the Dixie Chicks, I just think they were being stupid; I mean, that was kind of an off handed comment, and maybe it wasn't worth the hassle. They paid the price, but we all know aren't backing down, etc. Anyway, interesting point.
Hi Joel,
Thanks for correcting that. I should have clarified that I wasn't addressing your main point, which is a justifiable post given the video at the link in your comment. I certainly see no reason to excuse any of these political evasions.
Post a Comment