Let Us Talk

July 17, 2008

Foreign Policy/National Security: President Bush ‘STEALING’ Senator Obama’s Ideas

  It seems to me that even though McCain has continually mocked Obama for not having so called Foreign Policy and National Security ‘experience’ the Bush administration seems to becoming efficient in its last 6 months by ‘stealing’ Senator Obama’s ideas – the same ideas they scorned just months ago!

Obama thinks more presidential than Bush, Cheney and McCain combined.  His suggestions show that he has excellent analytical, logical and tactical skills.  His ideas are well thought out, innovative and are the correct solutions.  He is ready from day one!

In August 2007 Obama made a speech about Pakistan.  He said that if American intelligence finds out where al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden is located in Pakistan and Pakistan cannot or will not hunt them down and take them out then America should.  Bush and McCain scoffed and laughed at Obama and accused him of wanting to invade and occupy Pakistan and said he had no understanding of foreign affairs and they would never carry out any kind of attack in Pakistan.  On February 1, 2008 Al-Libi, a senior al Qaeda leader believed to have plotted and executed attacks against U.S. and coalition forces, including a February 2007 bombing at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was on the “most wanted” list of 12 accused terrorists was killed by killed in Pakistan by a CIA airstrike.

President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the presidential race, but that stance changed dramatically during his trip to Israel. After likening Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Osama bin Laden, Bush compared Barack Obama to Nazi appeasers:

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

On June 2, 2008 while speaking to AIPAC John McCain ridiculed Obama’s idea of negotiating with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a “spectacle” that would embolden extremists, McCain jabbed Obama on Iran and Iraq before more than 7,500 members of the highly influential pro-Israel lobbyist group.

McCain told AIPAC members that Obama is engaging in a “serious misreading of history.” “It’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another,” he noted. “Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.”  Instead, McCain called for a stepped international political and economic sanctions regime against the Iranian government and the country’s banks.

The Bush administration has now decided to break with previous policy by sending one of its most senior diplomats to engage Iran’s top nuclear official, the White House announced Wednesday. The move could dramatically alter the three-decade stand-off between the U.S. and Iran. Some western nations and Israel suspect Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons and want Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran says it wants to develop nuclear power to produce electricity.

Undersecretary of State William Burns will accompany a European Union delegation during a meeting with Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top nuclear official, in Switzerland on Saturday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. The delegation meeting with the Iranians will be led by the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.

The delegates will discuss an incentives program meant to encourage the Islamic republic to drop its nuclear enrichment program, Perino said.

But State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Wednesday that the president and his national security team decided only recently to send Burns to the meeting.

Perino said the “one time” participation of the United States in the meeting is meant to show the United States and other permanent members of the United Nation’s Security Council are united in the “long standing principle that Iran — in order to take advantage of the incentives package that was quite generous — has to halt its nuclear enrichment.”

Senator John McCain, who has said he wouldn’t negotiate face-to-face with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without conditions, said Wednesday he had “no problem … whatsoever” with sending Burns to Saturday’s meeting with Jalili.  “We have many negotiations with many countries … throughout the world,” McCain told reporters in Nebraska, noting the U.S. ambassador to Iraq previously met with an Iranian ambassador in Iraq.

It is clear to me that Bush and McCain do not have an original and/or new idea between them.

Obama has the courage, strength and fortitude, to be an excellent President and make the right foreign policy and national security decisions for America. John McCain despite his ‘experience’ — not so much. 

George Bush should let Obama run his foreign policy for the next 6 — that would make many Americans MUCH happier!


Watch ‘arses’ Bush and McCain accuse Obama of being a ‘Nazi appeaser’:





  1. the taliban will be in kabul b4 december

    Comment by rawdawgbuffalo — July 17, 2008 @ 2:40 pm | Reply

  2. Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs and a nuclear arsenol. Pakistan also has the support of China. The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty.

    Comment by John Maszka — July 18, 2008 @ 4:11 pm | Reply

  3. According to a report released by the RAND think tank, “The regime appears to be under no imminent danger of collapse or coup.” Furthermore, if Iran were attacked, “In our view, a more likely response would be a strong push to retaliate. Critics of such a policy would likely choose to keep silent.”


    Comment by Christopher — July 18, 2008 @ 4:33 pm | Reply

  4. John – please reread the post. Obama doesn’t want to ‘take the war to Pakistan’ nor does he want to ‘violate yet another state’s sovereignty’.

    In order to get America’s number one enemy and his cohorts (Osama bin Laden and/or al Qaeda) Obama would authorize a quick mission – go in, get the target and get out. No invasion, no occupation, no battles. Pakistan has said several times that they do not have the capacity to capture Osama bin Laden even if they know exactly where he is.

    It would be like someone holding people hostage in a bank for example – the special team goes in, does its job and leaves. The Special Forces don’t ‘occupy’ the bank after – they leave period.

    Comment by Paulette — July 18, 2008 @ 6:49 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: