UM... I'M FAILING TO SEE THE PROBLEM HERE... (scratches head).

Can someone please explain why the hell Barack Obama has his undies in a bunch over what Bush said in Israel?

Since when did "Some people" become secret code for "Barack Obama" or "All those Democrats back home?" And pray tell, why would the members of the Knesset understand this particular code, given that they're probably not intimately aquainted with our domestic political climate, never mind politicians or candidates? D'ya think Bush sent out a secret memo ahead of time to the members that said "Pssst! When I say "some people" I'm really talking about THIS guy and everyone who has a "D" after their name just like him...Oh, except that Lieberman guy, he's a Jew like most of you, so I'm not talking about him, but you know, all the others, especially this Obama guy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and any of the super delegates who are currently supporting this Obama guy..."?

No? It probably didn't go down that way?

OK, let me ask another question: If Bush was talking about Obama, why not just name him? Why all the hinting around? If he was trying to attack the guy, why not just do it? Is this part of Bush's "sneaky" side, you know, the one he's miraculously capable of despite being (according to Democrats) dumber than a box of rocks? Wow, smartest sneaky guy I ever saw! Capable of stealth attack on domestic politicians without using any of their names!

No? Not a sneak attack either? Hmmm... Now I'm really confused.

Another thing I'm confused about is what Bush said that was so bad? If he couldn't have been talking about Obama because—as Obama insists—he's not an "appeaser," and has no plans to negotiate with Hamas or Hezbollah, then, um, er, why not just say "Yeah, I agree with the President" or better yet, why not say NOTHING AT ALL?

The only thing I can figure is that Obama is as hypersensitive as a 16-year-old girl with PMS, or he's grossly miscalculating that this is a good time and a good way to come out and articulate what his foreign policy would be. I say "grossly miscalculating" because jumping on Bush's comments as he did not only calls attention to his policy, it puts him and his advisors on the Middle East under the microscope. He's now put himself in the position of being forced to define what he would and would not do before he even has the nomination, before the general election begins, and more importantly, before the Middle East and the terrorists and radicals themselves have a chance to weigh in on the President's message (never mind the Israelis).

So what is he saying exactly? Well, this is puzzling to me as well because it sounds a whole lot like he's saying a lot of the same things that Bush has said, well, other than the "without preconditions" stuff. He says he's for "tough diplomacy." Um, ok, what does Bush stand for? Weak diplomacy? Does he honestly think we're not talking to Iran or Syria or any of them at all? Does he really assume we're sitting home, arms crossed, tsk tsking and nananana-pooh-poohing our enemies? And when we do talk to them, even if it is through back channels, what does he think we're saying?

He says he'll tell them they have to stop threatening Israel and have to stop pursuing nukes, and have to recognize Israel... Um, Barack, what do you think Bush has been telling them for eight years? According to Obama whatever it is has alienated them more, given them more power and made peace less likely, so what does he imagine Bush has been saying? "Stop wearing those dorky beards? Wear a tie why don't you?" Or maybe "Your mother was a pig, your father was a dog"?

Please. Spare me.

And exactly what does Obama hope to accomplish by sitting down with people whose operating principle is that Israel has no right to exist, under ANY circumstances? Assuming that we would be at least partly representing Israel's interests—being that we are their ally and DO recognize their right to exist—what would we be prepared to offer in exchange for that which OUGHT TO GO WITHOUT SAYING? Does Obama not get this? You don't give someone a carrot for simply acknowledging your right to remain alive! That sounds vaguely like the wife who says "He doesn't beat me every day... He hasn't killed me yet."

So let's say he gets Iran or Hamas to recognize Israel and promise not to be mean to them anymore, is that worth "incentives" as Obama calls them? And exactly why would those work so much better than the Oslo accords? You know, the ones Hamas completely ignored after agreeing to them? What about Hezbollah? You know, the group that promised to return the Israeli soldiers in exchange for a cease-fire agreement (oh, and agreed to stop arming themselves to the teeth too), only to violate both promises before the ink was dried on their agreements? What does Obama think he has to offer that will make the difference this time? His own holy touch on the documents? His charismatic presence? Does he expect them to be as bowled over by his talk of "hope" and "change" as so many Americans have been?

*snort*

What's the bottom line? I think this whole event is proof positive that Obama is not only naive about our enemies, he's got worse political judgment and timing (and quite possibly more arrogance and thinner skin) than Jimmy Carter (if that's even possible). All I know is, the more he talks and brings attention to himself on this issue, the worse he looks, and come summer, when Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israel--as anyone with half a clue expects they will do—Obama will have to explain how his doctrine of "talking to" our "adversaries" will serve the cause of peace THEN. Will he offer direct talks with either group in the midst of a war? What will he offer? Will he ask Israel to stop fighting back to make such talks possible, or will he arrogantly allow that Israel has a right to defend herself against people we're, uh, happy to talk to face-to-face?? Or will he suddenly say "Oh, well, if you're going to attack Israel, we're not going to talk to you after all!"

(rolls eyes)

What about Iran? When Hezbollah attacks, we all know it will be with the full cooperation, support and permission of Iran. What then? Will Obama step forward during the campaign to assert he still wants to sit down with these folks, directly, at the "presidential" level? And what will that look like exactly? Does he understand that he won't be able to NOT shake Ahmadinejad's hand on camera (or possibly hug the man if that's the custom, which I think it is)? Does he get that he won't be able to scowl at him or smack him upside the head, or rebuff him in any way? And what will those pictures look like then? The President of the United States, shaking hands with the leader of the Nation providing monetary and moral support for a group actively attacking one of our staunchest allies?

The very fact that Obama hasn't imagined this scenario in his little "tough diplomacy" fantasy is as astounding as it is disturbing. Then again, it's almost too good to be true. The more he does this, the more he's tripping himself up, the easier he's making it for McCain to show that Obama is downright dangerous in his arrogance and ignorance of the realities of the situation in the Middle East.

But as great as this is, I'm still perplexed that a Harvard-trained lawyer would go so far out of his way to put himself on the defensive, especially when he has no way of knowing what cards the other side will be holding when it comes time to put himself on the stand.

Posted by Deb on

Comments

[PegMi]

I was so happy to see Mr. Bush make this speech especially on Israel turf! This was a proper thing to do. It shows United States stands with Israel! It means more to go there and make this speech. I was proud!
I guess Obama doesn't realize Mr. Bush is still President and he can do this! Obama should not badger the President!
Obama never came to mind...that was till he opened his BIG MOUTH! Such jealousy, if you ask me! Obama had plans he wanted to talk to hamas! Bush ruined it..ahhhh,,! Obama showed his true colours..not black not white..more like opague.

That was Great President Bush and about time!