Obama is 'naive' on Foreign Policy

[EmpressStarXVII]

Clinton: Obama is ‘naive’ on foreign policy

Chicago senator accuses rival of standing with Bush on rogue nation issue

Updated: 6:41 p.m. ET July 24, 2007

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama’s offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush’s diplomacy.

Older politicians in both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course, while Obama’s supporters characterized it as a repudiation of Bush policies of refusing to engage with certain adversaries.

It triggered a round of competing memos and statements Tuesday between the chief Democratic presidential rivals. Obama’s team portrayed it as a bold stroke; Clinton supporters saw it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator’s lack of foreign policy experience.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Clinton was quoted in an interview with the Quad-City Times that was posted on the Iowa newspaper’s Web site on Tuesday.

In response, Obama told the newspaper that her stand puts her in line with the Bush administration.

Both parties were weighing the potential political fallout, especially in Florida, an early primary state, a pivotal general election state — and where Cuban President Fidel Castro remains particularly unpopular.

“Anything that looks like pandering to dictators is bad politics in South Florida,” said Republican state Rep. David Rivera of Miami. He predicted Obama’s comments would come back to haunt him, particularly if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

----------

God, don't you just love that picture? . I thought all along that the foreign policy issue would hurt Obama. Lets see what happens now.

[questionmark]

It is not naive wanting to meet with "unfriendly leaders", what is naive is to suppose you can say that and get away with it, or to get the crowds cheering and applauding.

ED:TYPO

Edited July 25, 2007 by questionmark

[GreyWeather]

He looks as trustworthy as Hillary does...

[KingTomis]

At least he gave his true opinion rather than a pre-fabricated response like Klinton that just skirts the issue.

While I think he is wrong, it is at least commendable.

[Athena22]

Sigh. I'd vote Green Party, but does it matter? Green Party will never be voted...

[Guardsman Bass]

Including "Cuba" was an idiotic move on Obama's part, since the Cuban-Americans in the Miami area tend to be fanatically anti-Castro, but in terms of greater international policies beyond mere election gains, it's a good idea. The U.S. relations vis-a-vis Cuba are a totally outdated remnant of the Cold War, and should have been dropped a decade ago. Cuba certainly has a lot to gain from it, so you might get something out of a meeting with them.

Same goes for the Iranians. Hell, Iran is probably the biggest problem-neighbor for the Iraq situation, so negotiating with them would be vital to any long-term solution on the Iraq issue.

[questionmark]

Including "Cuba" was an idiotic move on Obama's part, since the Cuban-Americans in the Miami area tend to be fanatically anti-Castro, but in terms of greater international policies beyond mere election gains, it's a good idea. The U.S. relations vis-a-vis Cuba are a totally outdated remnant of the Cold War, and should have been dropped a decade ago. Cuba certainly has a lot to gain from it, so you might get something out of a meeting with them.

Same goes for the Iranians. Hell, Iran is probably the biggest problem-neighbor for the Iraq situation, so negotiating with them would be vital to any long-term solution on the Iraq issue.

Which may be true, but do you really think that the American public is ready to hear this inconvenient truth?

[KingTomis]

You might have a point, but you cant negotiate with the populace of Iran, you deal with it's fanatical muslim government that WANTS Iraq to fail.

Do you think any good can truly be achieved by holding talks with the likes of Iran?

Diplomacy has to go both ways. We want to stabilize Iraq, Iran wants it to fall apart. How much can talking really accomplish when you are at opposite ends of the spectrum and neither party will budge?

And talking to Chavez? He is either literally crazy, or knows how to manipulate his people very well. He likens Bush to Hitler and is preparing for an American invasion....

That said start talking to Cuba and North Korea more. Castro is going to die soon and we have to start preparing for talks. Also we have already seen that Kim can come to his sense when we put strict sanctions on him. He cant keep his supporters in line without luxury goods to appease them.

[questionmark]

And talking to Chavez? He is either literally crazy, or knows how to manipulate his people very well. He likens Bush to Hitler and is preparing for an American invasion....

With what? An armada of rowboats? ... now a little paranoia might be healthy, but to say that Chavez is a danger to anything but himself is slightly overdoing it.

[Bill Hill]

Of course, Obama bin laden is ‘naive’ on foreign policy... besides reports suggest he's dead anyway..

[KingTomis]

No, he is preparing the Venezuelan populace to fight an insurgency against American forces he believes will invade.

Like I said, crazy.

[questionmark]

No, he is preparing the Venezuelan populace to fight an insurgency against American forces he believes will invade.

Like I said, crazy.

Not any crazier that to believe that the Cubans will invade the US .... how many Presidents did that, or at least told us they did?

[Fluffybunny]

I personally think that the idea of keeping the status quo on foreign policy is a mistake; look where it has us now. At this point there needs to be a change of tactics and one would hope that somebody with a more level headed approach to meeting with foreign leaders(even the ones we dislike) will result in further advances. sure, there are crazy world leaders that will never be able to be dealt with anything but threats of force, but the "you must kiss my ring" kind of standards for foreign policy isn't going to get us very far and creates too much uneccesary tension.

There are too many idiot in our government on both sides of the aisle. There needs to be a fundemental change in the way we do business both at home and abroad.

[Stardrive]

“Anything that looks like pandering to dictators is bad politics in South Florida,” said Republican state Rep. David Rivera of Miami. He predicted Obama’s comments would come back to haunt him, particularly if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

Pandering to dictators? Does Rep Rivera even know what pandering is?

intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders

1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.

2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism" (New York Times).

3. The act or crime of recruiting prostitutes or of arranging a situation for another to practice prostitution —compare PIMP.

4. The act or crime of selling or distributing visual or print media (as magazines) designed to appeal to the recipient's sexual interest.

Maybe #2... but I fail to see how talking is catering to a nations lower taste. I feel it's not a good idea to stub up and not have talks with these "rogue" countries. Not communicating is sure fire way to accomplish nothing.

[Guardsman Bass]

Which may be true, but do you really think that the American public is ready to hear this inconvenient truth?

Hence why I said "beyond mere election gains." It would be good international policy, but bad domestic policy, since the Cuban-Americans in Southern Florida hold a lot of political clout in that state, and they've nursed a grudge against the Castro regime since 1959.

[Spurious George]

Hence why I said "beyond mere election gains." It would be good international policy, but bad domestic policy, since the Cuban-Americans in Southern Florida hold a lot of political clout in that state, and they've nursed a grudge against the Castro regime since 1959.

And who exactly are the influential Cuban-Americans in the "exile" commmunity?

[Dusty Digital]

No, he is preparing the Venezuelan populace to fight an insurgency against American forces he believes will invade.

Like I said, crazy.

Yeah, totally disconnected with reality. Cuba...Nicaragua...anyone?

[Bob26003]

Including "Cuba" was an idiotic move on Obama's part, since the Cuban-Americans in the Miami area tend to be fanatically anti-Castro, but in terms of greater international policies beyond mere election gains, it's a good idea. The U.S. relations vis-a-vis Cuba are a totally outdated remnant of the Cold War, and should have been dropped a decade ago. Cuba certainly has a lot to gain from it, so you might get something out of a meeting with them.

Same goes for the Iranians. Hell, Iran is probably the biggest problem-neighbor for the Iraq situation, so negotiating with them would be vital to any long-term solution on the Iraq issue.

Yeah, totally disconnected with reality. Cuba...Nicaragua...anyone?

Excellent post Bass! You know, I feel that I have no quarrel with any Iranian or Venezuelan. It is the duty of our Diplomats to try to prevent War and ease potentially dangerous situations, not encourage them. The current policy is childish and ridiculous, and it doesn't work. Iran is trucking right along with it's Nuclear program and Chavez is trucking right along with his Anti US imperialism network. The entire foreign policy of the Neocon criminals is a complete nightmare for America. They have failed at everything. Whatever administation takes over will have a heavy burden in picking up all the pieces.

===========

And dusty digital, I would venture to say that alot of folks are completely unaware of the true nature of Reagan's War of Terror on Nicarauga and all that has been done to Cuba. How about the Phillipines? or Guatemala, or Columbia, or Haiti.................

All that seems to be flushed down the memory hole in America. But not with the victims. That is why the Socialists and anti Imperialists have such strong support.

Edited July 27, 2007 by Bob26003

[Clocker]

Pandering to dictators? Does Rep Rivera even know what pandering is?

intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders

1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.

2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism" (New York Times).

3. The act or crime of recruiting prostitutes or of arranging a situation for another to practice prostitution —compare PIMP.

4. The act or crime of selling or distributing visual or print media (as magazines) designed to appeal to the recipient's sexual interest.

Maybe #2... but I fail to see how talking is catering to a nations lower taste. I feel it's not a good idea to stub up and not have talks with these "rogue" countries. Not communicating is sure fire way to accomplish nothing.

Exactly. Seriously, communicating does not mean the US should somehow accept their actions any more than they do now. What it does mean is that the US would be (seen as) ready to discuss things, ready to exchange opinions. The problem with some of these negotiations, as King Tomis pointed out, would be that not all of the leaders of these countries represent the opinion of the majority. However, I still think being willing to communicate would put the US in a lot better light in many people's eyes, which would be very welcome.