Barack Obama is prepared to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man who is supporting Muqtada al-Sadr and other anti-American Shiite forces in Iraq.
Should Barack Obama be elected President of the United States this November, we can expect him to climb aboard Air Force One and fly to Tehran to initiate a conversation with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Obama is prepared to meet with a man who is supporting Muqtada al-Sadr and other anti-American Shiite forces in Iraq. These forces are killing American soldiers.
Obama is prepared to meet with a man who is supporting Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that as I write this is trying to overthrow the democratically elected government in Lebanon. A quarter-century ago, Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of 241 American soldiers at their barracks in Beirut.
Obama is prepared to meet with a man who is leading the effort to develop a nuclear bomb while at the same time declaring that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” For good measure, he said the Holocaust is “a myth.” On the occasion of Israel’s 60th anniversary, the man with whom Obama so desperately wants an audience referred to the Jewish State as “a stinking corpse.”
This is the sum of the man with whom Obama seeks to engage in dialogue.
In an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft in February 2007, Obama said that not talking to Iran and Syria “flies in the face of our experience during the Cold War. And Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it’s worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there [sic] areas of common interest.”
Well, it is clear that Barack Obama does not understand Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan did not meet with Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov or Konstantin Chernenko. He did not meet with these Soviet leaders because they were not committed to allowing their people to live in liberty. In Mikhail Gorbachev, Reagan found someone who had some humanity in him and wanted to reform Communism. Even though Reagan and Gorbachev had a great rapport, Reagan knew that Gorbachev was still committed to and part of the Communist way of life. With Ronald Reagan, it was trust but verify. With Barack Obama, it is trust at face value.
I do find it interesting how some liberals express a newfound respect for Reagan. Take this case in point. Earlier this week, I was corresponding with a singer/songwriter who enjoys a modest amount of fame. She is an ardent supporter of Obama. The singer/songwriter pilloried Hillary Clinton for pledging to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. For his part, Obama said Hillary sounded too much like President Bush. The singer/songwriter, while deploring Ahmadinejad’s language, believed that our leaders should not stoop to their level. She added that Reagan was far more elevated in his language.
Funny, but I don’t particularly recall the Left being overwhelmingly enamored with Reagan after he publicly declared the Soviet Union “an evil empire” in March 1983. Anthony Lewis of the New York Times called the speech “primitive” and said his rhetoric was “a mirror image of crude Soviet rhetoric.” When I pointed this out to the singer/songwriter, she replied that she was busy raising a 2½-year-old and did not have time for further discussion. I’m sure she would have reacted similarly had I pointed out that Richard Cohen of The Washington Post called Reagan “a religious bigot” or that The New Republic declared that the speech left friend and foe alike “with the impression that the President of the United States was contemplating holy war.”
Barack Obama might acknowledge the Soviet Union was an evil empire. But I am sure a younger Barack Obama held a similar view of Reagan’s evil empire speech while attending Columbia University in the early 1980’s. It is amazing how the passage of a quarter-century can change the impression of a man and his message. Maybe there’s a chance liberals will view George W. Bush with a similar fondness in 2033. Perhaps by that time the singer/songwriter will have more time to discuss politics.
But until then we must ask why Obama wants to talk to Ahmadinejad and what America gets out of such a conversation. Like many liberals, Obama wishes to restore America’s reputation in the world, whatever that means. By the world, are liberals talking about every other member state in the UN? Or do liberals simply mean socialist governments in Europe? Or perhaps just the Muslim world? If it is the latter, why on earth do we want to restore our reputation with countries that execute people for engaging in homosexuality? Restoring our reputation in the world doesn’t actually accomplish anything other than make liberals feel good about themselves.
Obama insists that he would offer Ahmadinejad a choice. His platform on Iran reads:
If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Never mind that Bush Administration withdrew its objections to Iran joining the WTO nearly three years ago and that negotiations to join the WTO are ongoing. Does Obama honestly think membership in the WTO will serve as an inspiration for Iran to renounce terrorism, disband Hezbollah and re-establish diplomatic ties with the United States? But let us, for argument’s sake, suppose Iran accepts these conditions. How does WTO membership stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program and supporting Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq in a clandestine manner? It is interesting that Obama prides himself as a candidate whose opponent will not be able to say he “gave George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran.” Yet Obama seems entirely prepared to give Ahmadinejad the benefit of the doubt on Iran. Once again, Obama trusts but doesn’t verify. While this policy might make us more popular outside the United States it will do little to serve America’s interests.
If you think about it, you might ask how President Obama traveling to Tehran to meet with Ahmadinejad is any different than former President Jimmy Carter’s recent meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus. There is one difference. Obama won’t wait until after he has left office to debase his reputation on the world stage.
aargold24@hotmail.com
http://www.poetsforthewar.org
Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein
The demos seem obsessed, or at least for the past fifteen years, with the "politics of niceness." The idea seems to be that if politicians can be "nice" and use "nice" language, that social problems will disappear. This was behind the political correctness ideology of the 90s and seems to be what drives Obama's campaign. If you can avoid disagreement, disagreements can be presumed to not exist.
Obama's belief that he can simply sit down with dictators and "talk with them" is an extension of this personalization of politics. In the same way that the demos believe that Bush (Bush the person, that is) is somehow responsible for all evil, so Obama (with some smooth words) can make the world good again.
Of course politics is predicated on debate and disagreement (and at some point, ideally, compromise). Hence Obama's "apolitical" political campaign will receive a serious jolt when he runs into the republicans, who are fully aware that their candidate must win on ideas, and not soothing words. Look for the demos twin guns which prevent debate (and thus ensure "niceness"), sexism and racism, to be swiftly redirected at McCain.
What has been an interesting effect of this "politics of niceness," is how those "nicely inclined" deal with dissent: they suppress it. Since politics is about disagreement and niceness isn't, to preserve the politics of niceness you have to eliminate those who aren't nice–instead of arriving at a compromise. This is what has generated all the tut-tutting over Hillary Clinton's persistant campaign. While Hillary has hardly been the cutthroat she is portrayed as being in the media, she has been sufficiently disagreeable to make the Obama people feel she is "not being nice." Hence for the "good of the party" (forget about the rules of the election) she is being encouraged to simply quit.
What has made the primary election between Hillary and Obama so interesting–and boring–is that both candidates have been able to use the politics of niceness to prevent any serious discussion of their differences. The result has been an obsession with the personal life of each candidate and endless psychoanalyzing of what they presumably will do once in office. Rather than force O and H to clearly define, for instance, Iraq policy both candidates are permitted to simply bash Bush–as if this really said anything about a specific policy. Troop withdrawals? Hardly a word!
One final point. I think the reason so many (generally white) yuppies love Obama is because he enables you to be "in dissent," without really being in dissent about much in particular. To be "in dissent" about something in particular (a la Hillary) means potentially alienating people socially. SImply being "in dissent" vis a vis the personalities Bush and Cheny is both fashionable and really not saying much in particular. Obama-esque "dissent" is thus kosher for the work place, just like MTV.
Comment by Nathan Alexander | May 13, 2008
I agree with the assessment of Obama’s stated intention of talking to our enemies. The reservation I have is that Mr Goldstein identifies the enemy as almost exclusively Iran.
I haven’t checked, but I seem to remember that 15 of the 19 ‘martyrs’ on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia – I can’t remember where the rest were from. Were any from Iran?
Osama bin Laden is Sunni and Wahabi – the Saudi brand of Islam. As I understand it, the wife of one of the US Saudi embassy officials actually gave money to one of the hijackers (for reasons, apparently, totally unconnected to the hijacking – if only the British Embassy officials were as generous!).
The madras’s (forgive my spelling – I can’t be bothered getting the spelling for such things correct) around the world (and I know from personal experience) are almost exclusively Saudi sponsored – those preaching jihad, that is.
The only reason that bin Laden is not now dead is that he was entertaining ‘royalty’ from Gulf countries when we could have taken him out – the Gulf countries we are bending over backwards to appease even to this day.
Have the Saudis not evicted US forces from their soil?? Perhaps not that newsworthy!!
As I recall, but I may again be wrong, the Saudis have been sponsoring terror against Israel for decades, and rewarding, as Saddam did, suicide bombers. Many ‘fighters’ in Iraq are Saudi – or perhaps I am wrong about that too!!
At the moment, OPEC (which the Saudis pretty much control) is messing us around with oil production – no doubt secretly reveling in our predicament.
If one visits Iran, then Saudi Arabia, you would find that Iran reflects our way of life much more than the Saudi dictatorship does.
Which all makes me wonder whether, in the final analysis, it may be the Saudis we should not be talking to, rather the Iranians. Personally, I think the average Iranian is far more susceptible to reason than the average Saudi – they just don’t seem to control as many of our politicians and money as the Saudis do. And they are more circumspect when it comes to their intention to seek the destruction of Israel (that sentiment, after all, originated in Arabia).
No doubt I am wrong about all this – although, if I recall, the Saudis have been the main proponents for the demise of the Israeli state for the last 60 years. Perhaps money speaks louder than words?
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 16, 2008
Perhaps I may just add one further thought to my Comment 2.
When we consider the whole business in context, maybe the United States is preparing to attack Iran at the behest of the Saudis rather than the Israelis – perhaps Israel is the cover? Saudi Arabia, after all, would not want to be seen again (as in Gulf War I), to be calling on its investment in American politicians and business for its protection.
Why sacrifice Saudi lives when you can get those beholden to you in the US to sacrifice American lives?
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 16, 2008
Reflecting on the Iran/Saudi contradiction, I thought I’d do some very BASIC research on the issue.
Here are some results taken from such elementary sources as Wikipedia:
Iran:
Iran has about 30,000 Jews. They have one seat in the Iranian parliament, held by Maurice Motamed since 2000 (re-elected again in 2004). There are 11 functioning synagogues in Tehran, and 25 in the country.
There is a Jewish newspaper, library, and charitable hospital where most of the staff and patients are Muslim. The Jewish MP has met with previous president Khatami. “Haroun Yashayaei is the chairman of the Jewish Committee of Tehran and leader of Iran's Jewish Community. On January 26, 2007, Yashayaei's letter to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concerning his Holocaust denial comments brought about worldwide media attention.” [Wikipedia] – and so far as I know, he has not been executed.
According to Wikipedia, the Jews of Iran resent recent offers to relocate to the US or Israel – although I expect there may be an element of fear informing that position since several Jews have been executed in Iran for promoting emigration of Jews (I am not arguing that Jews have anything resembling freedom in any Islamic country).
Saudi Arabia:
Jews are not allowed to even visit Saudi Arabia, never mind live there (although this has recently been redefined to mean Israelis, or even those with an Israeli stamp in their passport).
Bibles are not allowed in Saudi Arabia, never mind the Torah.
All public worship is forbidden unless it is Islam. There are no synagogues.
There are certainly no Jews in anything resembling a Saudi parliament.
No Jewish schools (as there are in Iran), or newspapers, or libraries, or hospitals (again, as there are in Iran).
Bush/McCain v Obama:
So the question should be, I think, would we rather have a President who will sit down and talk to the Iranians, with dignity and conviction, and tell them that they have some very stark choices to make, or a President who invites the likes of the Saudi king to his farm and walks with him hand in hand?
I have heard McCain making a lot of threatening noise concerning Iran – but, as yet (so far as I am aware), he has been silent on the appalling, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American, dictatorial joke that is Saudi Arabia. And he doesn’t even have to concern himself with his financial legacy. Walking out on his first dedicated wife and marrying a millionaire has taken care of that department.
Condemnation of Saudi Arabia for what it is – a primitive, feudal, stone-age theocracy – is deafening in its silence.
Perhaps Obama will break that silence. But I won’t hold my breath. I expect many of his Congressional supporters would have too much to lose. So much for change!!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 17, 2008