Barack Obama has yet to visit Iraq. That is a remarkable thing to say about a major Presidential candidate this late in the election season. John McCain offered to put together a joint trip so they could both go and meet with General Petraeus and talk to some of our soldiers there, but Obama refused. He said it was a stunt. He then said he’d “consider” a trip sometime before November. How magnanimous of him.
Just so we have this straight, let me sum it up. Obama refuses to meet with General Petraeus about how our soldiers in Iraq are doing (soldiers that he, by the way, wants very much to command). ON the other hand, he’s all for traveling anywhere in the world to have a nosh with tyrants without a moment’s concern. That’s his position, regardless of how he hems and haws when he’s tacked to the wall on it.
Well, see-dubya is calling his bluff.
So forget McCain and his Iraq trip. Instead, go meet with Iran, Senator. If “now is the time to pressure Iran directly”, and if you think they would be amenable to your blandishments, set it up. You can lay the groundwork for some of that important diplomacy you’ll need to do once you’re elected. Get all that awkward “wipe-Israel-off-the-map” business out of the way so you can get down to uranium tacks.
Frankly, your foreign policy campaign has mostly just been “I’m not George Bush”. Well, here’s your chance to prove it.
Do the photo-op. Do the handshake. Do the tours. Do the full Sean Penn. What have you got to lose?
…
So be a leader. Take the plunge. If you really believe your rhetoric, then go meet with Ahmadinejad in Iran next month. Tell him how important it is that he stop funding terrorism, and that he abandon his nuclear program.
Brilliant!
I’m completely in favor of this. As see-dubya points out, it’ll take a lot less prep work for him to go there now then it will when he’s President. It’ll also be the perfect opportunity for him to put his money where his mouth is. If he really thinks that meeting with Mad Mahmoud will impress the world because it’ll show our kindness and leadership, then he shouldn’t hesitate. He should go there this coming week. Spend a few days getting the full tour. See if they’ll take him by the gallows where they execute gays and teenaged girls, too. What a photo-op that’d make!
Maybe he could get a meeting with the leader of Hezbollah, too, while he’s there picking up another shipment of bombs headed for Iraq or another big, fat check to buy weapons and men to kill American soldiers. Wouldn’t that be a great photo at the convention.
Okay, Senator. It’s time to put up or shut up. You want to meet with tyrants? Meet one. Meet one this week.
Tags: Barack Obama, Fighting the Islamists, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, No More Tyrants
Well that’s just silly. It would wildly inappropriate for a candidate to attempt to conduct foreign policy. Besides, Ahmadinejad isn’t exactly the person to meet with. Many have suggested that Khamenei would be the appropriate person to talk to, but that’s a pipe dream. The Ayatollah rarely speaks to non-Muslims. And no president of the United States would be considered holy enough to talk to him. Either the president or foreign minister would handle the affair. But by July of next year, there will be a new president. Ahmadinejad is one of the few world leaders with a lower popularity than George Bush. To put it in perspective, Mugabe is more popular. I’m guessing he’d still beat out Than Shwe, but not by much. The smart move would be to make the Iranian elections about relations with the United States. With a moderate president and Rafsanjani’s control of the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts, I think we could see some positive changes in Iran and an opening of relations. Now I know you can dig up crazy quotes from Rafsanjani, but understand that he’s a chameleon. He has voiced every political position possible in Iran, and some that aren’t. But he’s a greedy bastard (and Iran’s richest person), he’ll agree to anything he can profit from. As for the moderate president, it will be one of Rafsanjani’s candidates.
“Barack Obama has yet to visit Iraq.”
Yes, he did, you big, fat liar. In 2006.
And when Bush first went there, all he did was carve a fake turkey:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....key04.html
McCain (and the Right wing blogosphere) is trying to make it seem like just visiting implies the ability to make good decisions, which has not been the case for him, sadly. Decision makers can make decisions without putting their boots on the ground for long, it’s called delegation.
It’s called ignorance, spoots.
Barack Oama has yet to meet with the elected government of Iraq in any way. He has yet to meet with the commander who everyone with half a brain, Democrats included, says is making measurable and serious progress there.
You are right, spoots. He was there for three days. He wasn’t there to listen to progress. He was there to ask how soon troops could be brought home. That’s not leadership. That’s leading the question and it’s a piss-poor quality in a leader.
“It’s called ignorance, spoots.”
Surely no more ignorant than McCain who, for all his vaunted visits, still didn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shia.
“Barack Oama [sic] has yet to meet with the elected government of Iraq in any way. He has yet to meet with the commander…”
You seriously don’t think that US Senators get the relevant freaking memos? Prez candidates have foreign policy advisors who do most of the leg-work.
“You are right, spoots.”
I know that.
“He wasn’t there to listen to progress. He was there to ask how soon troops could be brought home.”
He could have just as well asked how soon from home. You have a really nasty habit of talking out of your ass. Unless you have a copy of his itinerary and calender, and notes from his meetings, you should probably STFU.