President Bush and the First Lady are in Israel today celebrating the 60th birthday of Israel. Condi Rice is there, too, as are many Americans. It is said that the President and Secretary Rice will continue on with peace talks while there. Just a couple of hours ago, an Iranian built rocket was shot into a shopping mall in southern Israel. A medical clinic was located in the mall and it was destroyed.
Iran is a threat to the region and the world in general. The boldness of Iran's attacks continue as time passes.
I have no worry if John McCain is elected President. I know he will be a strong supporter of Israel. His friend, fellow Senator, and vocal supporter Joe Lieberman has no question of this either. What about Barack Obama?
From American Thinker, I read an article by Clarice Feldman. She posted about an interview with Obama in The Atlantic. Jeff Goldberg asked: "Do you think Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?"
Obama: "No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically."
Obama's handlers claim the 'constant sore' to which he refers is the Middle East conflict. However, that is not what the man said. And, as he likes to tell all of us, words are important. He is a Harvard trained lawyer. He is well spoken and concise when it suits him.
So, will his policy be a 'third Bush term' with foreign policy concerning Israel? I thought Bush's policies were all failed policies. President Bush has been distinctly non-hawkish concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Obama and his people like to criticize that more attention hasn't been given to the problems there.
As writer Jennifer Rubin points out, Obama, when asked if he was 'flummoxed' by Hamas' endorsement, replied: "I wasn't flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and no gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "this is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security."
Confusion would be a natural state over Obama's foreign policy. And, when held in context with Rev. Wright's anti-Semite rants and the awarding to Farrakhan the lifetime achievement award by his church, well, confusion is natural. Obama has accepted the black liberation theological opinion of Israel for over 20 years now.
Maybe his love of the gray areas precludes recognition that President Bush, the cowboy diplomat, has engaged in talks around the region, just not with Iran and Syria. Quiet talks have been held with both countries and no credit is given for that either. And, by the way, as I have stated before, to a Texan, the adjective 'cowboy' is not an insult. Only to smug Harvard trained lawyers. The cowboy in the White House is Harvard trained, too.
Does Obama expect the voters in America to accept he is more worldly than John McCain?
Obama refused to vote in the Senate for the Iran Revolutionary Guard to be labeled as terrorists. The legislation passed anyway. Again, his liberalism is out of step with America. He claimed it was saber-rattling. Actually it was to impose sanctions, which is not saber-rattling. Just the opposite. Sanctions is very non-hawkish. That is black and white.
Obama has some foreign policy advisers who inspire questions as to how committed he is to the security of Israel. Susan Rice, for example now claims Obama never claimed to be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad unconditionally. However, on Obama's campaign web site his position is stated as: "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
And this: "Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs." Not diplomats, advisers, mediators. No, Obama himself. At the Presidential level.
And, if he is so worldly and such a leader in foreign policy, why does he complain about the progression in the war in Afghanistan? He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. That is jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is strongly in Afghanistan. Obama has not held one hearing to do oversight on Afghanistan. Not one. His response when questioned about that: "Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007." So, he is too busy running for President to be chairman of the committee.
He has been running for President for two of the three years he has been in the U.S. Senate.
Black and white.