Joe Gandelman has a good summary of the Bush attack and the swift and forceful response by the Democrats, led by Sen. Obama, to it. The Republicans are running plays from the 2002-2004 playbook but the Democrats seem to finally have realized that those plays weren’t working.
I acknowledge that I’m one of those people who loves to use football analogies, but I think the Republicans are still running leather helmet plays but Barack Obama and the Dems are now rolling out the West Coast Offense of politics.
In 1982 I had to watch the last drive of the playoff game on a grainy TV set at a trade show. Someone said, twenty bucks says the Niners score. I didn’t take the bet, because I had been raised on 49er disappointment.
Clark made The Catch, and from all parts of the convention center a shout arose from the few fortunates who got to see it.
Everyone else knew that something important must have happened, but of course they would not grasp for several years how incredibly important that moment was.
Barack Obama, Neocon:
“Last summer, especially during the YouTube debate, Obama railed against the Bush administration policy, with “failed” being about the kindest term he could muster. Now, however, he has adopted the Bush policy towards Iran in toto. No talks with Iran until they end their nuclear-weapons programs, progressively tougher sanctions until they comply with international non-proliferation regulations and UN Security Council resolutions — that is exactly what the Bush administration has done since 2003.”
“His Iran policy has swerved all over the map, and now he’s adopted the policy he called a huge failure. All of the shrieking and silly claims of victimization can’t hide the fact that he has no clue about foreign policy or even what appeasement means, and his drift from “without preconditions” to the Bush policy of diplomatic and economic isolation over the last few weeks clearly shows it.”
Hot Air, Bullshit.
Hot Air, Bullshit.
You could either address the points raised or simply dismiss the source.
I see you took the easier approach. Don’t strain yourself.
Allow me to give you some non-Hot Air sources.
In the July 23, 2007 debate, when asked if he would be willing to meet without precondition with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, he responded “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”
Now let’s look at his website regarding his Iran policy:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. 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.
“Political isolation”? Sounds like the policy Bush has been advancing (and which Obama was bashing in the debate) as noted in this 2006 story:
“President Bush urged the world on Monday to isolate Iran until it gives up its ambitions to pursue a nuclear weapons program.
“If they continue to move forward with the program, there has to be a consequence,” Bush said in response to concerns Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert raised during his visit to the White House on Monday.
“I think it’s very important for the world to unite with one common voice, to say to the Iranians that, ‘if you choose to continue forward, you’ll be isolated,’” Bush said in the Oval Office following an hour-long meeting with Olmert.
And Obama is not adverse to military action. When talking about stopping Iran’s uranium enrichment program, he said “we should take no option, including military action, off the table” during a March 2007 speech to AIPAC.
He’s even onboard with unilateral military action:
“It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005,” he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Mr Obama said.