obama is the most smartest
by Emma Onom
Published: May 19, 2008
Barack Obama gave a rousing response Friday in response to President Bush’s comments at the Israeli Knesset, wherein he accused those who want to engage in talks with “terrorist” countries of appeasing tyrants - similar to the way Europe appeased Adolf Hitler. John McCain later directly questioned Obama’s ability to protect the United States. Obama’s response was full of fluffy phrases with big words and … well, you’ve heard the man speak.
I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t had the stomach to sit through all of his speeches, but I think I can still safely say this one was one of the most amusing.
First of all, despite what any Bush aide says, the president never mentioned Obama’s name. If anyone should be upset about references to talking with terrorists, it should be Jimmy Carter. He’s the one who actually wanted to have tea and a little chat with Hamas about being good global citizens.
Even if Bush was talking about Obama, if the shoe fits, wear it. In Obama’s entire speech ridiculing Bush and John McCain for “dishonest” attacks, he only furthered the idea that he would appease the terrorists and got a little hypocritical in the process.
Obama attacked John McCain and George Bush’s foreign policies in his speech, and reiterated his stance that negotiations are the best tactic with terrorist nations.
“[John McCain] jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said that I wasn’t fit to protect this nation that I love, because I wanted to sit down and negotiate with tough diplomacy with countries like Iran,” Obama said.
As is typical of his entire campaign, Obama relied on his audience’s captivated “oohs” and “aahs” instead of actually saying what tough diplomacy means, but that’s beside the point.
Obama goes on to claim that Bush’s policies and the war in Iraq are the cause for Iran’s powerful place in the terrorist realm, and said Bush and McCain had a lot to answer for in their foreign policy.
“They’re going to have to explain the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large and is sending out video tapes with impunity.”
First of all, Mr. Obama, the amateur videos bin Laden is so fond of making aren’t really our primary concern with the man. There are actually quite a few people that make videos, and some of them might even be made with impunity.
Secondly, I’d really like to know how “tough diplomacy” and negotiations are going to find Osama bin Laden.
“Uh, hi, Mr. Musharraf. Do you know where Osama bin Laden is?”
“No.”
“Oh. Are you sure? Because someone said you did. Maybe you could just tell me this one time? Please?”
Now, maybe sitting around and smoking with your buddies works where you’re from, Obama. But when you grow up and have to deal with big-boy problems in the real world, you’re going to need more than pot. And no, smack won’t work either.
But now for the hypocrisy. Obama, who calls McCain a hypocrite in his speech, had this to say about McCain’s foreign policy for Iran:
“He has nothing to offer except the naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up it’s nuclear program and support for terrorism.”
This is something Obama and I can agree on. Tough talk, or tough diplomacy - whatever you want to call it - isn’t going to work against terrorists. Now that he’s said so himself, I have to wonder if he remembers what his position was for the first half of his ridiculous speech.
“I believe we need to use all the elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough principles and direct diplomacy.”
Uh. Ok. I don’t really know what’s going on now. I guess what he’s saying is we need to change our strategy to negotiation, but talking tough isn’t going to work, but we need to negotiate. Makes sense. Maybe if Obama’s supporters would listen a little closer to his arguments, they’d realize he doesn’t really have an opinion on foreign policy.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
May 20th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Our administration uses the term “terrorist” so loosely these days, it’s hard to decipher what the word really means. What has changed in the Republican party in the past twenty years that brings them to the conclusion that we shouldn’t sit down and talk with nations or groups that are at odds with American interests (Corporate interests)? Ronald Reagan, who I thought was the right-wing golden boy, sat down and talked with Mikhail Gorbachev about our international disputes. However, our current administration can’t sit down and talk with Iran, Hamas, or anyone else that our witch-hunters feel poses a threat to national security? These nations and groups are like a blade of grass in an acre lawn compared to the USSR, but Ronny sat down and chatted with them - didn’t work out too bad either did it? The leaders of these groups, along with our administration, all know that the day they attacked an American interest or ally would be their final day. The area they occupied would be basically non-existent within the hour. The leaders of the groups that the White House coin as “terrorists” know this, they’re not completely stupid. However, these scare tactic politics put in place by the administration seem to work, and we continue to pour billions of tax dollars into a war in the Middle East that benefits oil and weapons corporations when we could be spending the money to educate students so that they won’t fall for the crap spewing out of the head crook’s mouth. I could care less who George Bush labels a terrorist, his approval rating stands at an all-time Presidential low and teeters at the 30% mark (those must be the real die-hard supporters haha). Obviously, 70% of the nation disagrees with he and his cohorts, so the propaganda that comes out of his mouth is virtually useless.
At the same time, I can somewhat understand. George Bush is a terrorist, and I definitely wouldn’t sit down and break bread or talk with him!!!
May 21st, 2008 at 1:40 am
Sorry, there really isn’t any looseness in labeling some Hamas leaders as terrorists, Justin. Hamas leaders, as Israeli citizens, have called for Israel’s destruction and have been responsible for many suicide bombings. That is a perfect example of domestic terrorism. Neither Reagan nor Bush would be dumb enough to sit down and negotiate with terrorists. Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev because he was a head of state, almost the exact opposite of a terrorist. Carter makes us look stupid when he negotiates with terrorists, yes terrorists, because its against our foreign policy and common sense to do so. Terrorists can look at us and laugh because they know we have figures dumb enough to undermine our efforts to stop them.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:06 am
No matter what you label them Hamas is the controlling party in the Palestinian government, so any peace efforts in the region will have to go through them.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Emma, why are you do determined to support a flawed foreign policy?
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
No, you see, I don’t support Obama’s policy…
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
It’s kind of hard to call Obama’s foreign policy failed when…you know…nobody’s ever tried it.
We’ve been trying that brilliant Bush - Reagan idea of stone walling people for decades now and there more people that want to kill us now then ever before.
you idiots need to get a clue. There’s a difference between talking to an enemy, and giving into them. It’s not about persuading Hamas or Iran to do what we say, it’s about showing the world that we’re trying solve problems peacefully rather than just with bombs.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Matthew, why have you let yourself become so overcome by this “terrorist scare.” Look, the Red Scare is gone now, and the government needs something else to scare the people with, terrorism sounds like a good ticket. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if anyone is a terrorist, it’s none other than George W. Bush himself. He led our nation into a decade long war based on fabricated and false evidence, against United Nations objections I might add. I’d gladly sit down and eat dinner with any leader of Hamas before I would break bread with that man. I sit and think of all the women, children, and BABIES that have lost their lives in an unnecessary conflict in Iraq. Bush and Cheney can fill as many people’s heads with as much crap as they want, but they will forever be criminals and crooks in my mind…and I don’t stand alone. I could care less what their foreign policy is on anything - it’s worthless and meaningless because it doesn’t work, bottomline. If they were truly the terror hunters they claimed to be, our troops would have been unecessarily headed to Saudi Arabia (where 15 of the 19 terrorists from 9/11 were from and the hideout and stomping grounds for thousands upon thousands more) instead of Iraq. Obviously, the two of them have other interests in that country that need not even be said, we all know the relationship.
I’m so glad we only have 7 more months for people to regret voting for “Shrub” the second time around!
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
ian, obama is the carter administration 2.0. it has been tried before. carter was a failure then, he’s a failure now, and if obama is elected, his policies will still be a failure. in a way i hope he does get elected because his policies are so flawed, it will kill liberalism in america for the foreseeable future.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Are we serious here? Whoever can say that Reagen ultimately sat down with Gorbachev and the USSR and that it “didn’t work out too bad” obviously doesn’t know their history. I’m not a genius, but I think we can say that sitting down and talking with people like Gorbachev is different than TELLING him that we were going to have good relations with them and renew peace talks until they started treating their people basic rights like, you know, the right to leave the Soviet Union when they wanted to, so they could have the freedom of speech and other unnecessary privileges like that.
And I don’t believe the war in Iraq is going that poorly because I have talked to people who fought and are fighting there. The media makes everything the Bush administration does sound like a failure because they are completely liberal and would rather see Bush be wrong than have him accomplish democracy in the Middle East.
If anyone wants to point fingers at people with foreign policies that didn’t work, feel free to isolate Neville Chamberlain when he bartered with Hitler during World War II and Presidents Clinton and Bush the First when they tried to appease countries in the Middle East.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Wow, there were some badly embarrassing typos in there, I’m sorry…hope you guys got through that.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Hmmm… i don’t see where you’re commin’ from there, Winston. The title is obviously intentional - the only other thing i saw in there was the repeated “but” at the end, but again - intentional.
But regardless, might I direct us all to example #99: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/12/99-grammar/
June 20th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I meant in my preceding reply there were some typos, not in the original post. Sorry.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Ha… that makes me a jerk. Which begs the question, would I have been a jerk if you meant the article itself in the first place? And the answer is still, yes. I apologize, sir.
But regardless, I do find that site I linked to before hilarious. As a peace offering, I offer the second to last paragraph in reason #100 - it’s on bumper stickers and politics:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/21/100-bumper-stickers/