One of Iran's top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama's top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without
preconditions?
Does Karl Rove think that Obama's--and many others--foreign policy of leaving Iraq is based on Iran's wishes? Has it maybe crossed his mind that this is the wish of a majority of U.S. citizens: to get out of this war that Karl Rove had so much influence in creating? Wouldn't it be succumbing to Iran or other rogue states if the U.S. started making decisions based on those countries and in lieu of what is best for us?
Is he so naïve to think he has a unique ability to make this
even clearer?
Can someone show me what Rove was saying back during the Clinton administration, please? This is a lame way of trying to look like he is bipartisan on this issue, while being able to attack the current Democrat in his sights. "Oh, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush delivered this message, but Obama is naïve." I'm sure Rove was never full of compliments for Clinton's foreign policy. That is, until it is convenient to him.
He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.
What allies? Don't you think we've already unsettled our allies by starting a war that has put the whole world at greater risk? A war to which our allies have sent troops, and therefore, lost troops.
And, in closing:
If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a "Secret Plan," and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.
Hmmm, interesting. Anyone know any other people who are secretive about their tactics? How many times have we been subject to the idea that revealing certain aspects of the Bush administration would hurt national security, and therefore, have to remain secret, knowledge privy to the small few "protecting" our nation.
As far as national security goes, well, this topic has been discussed a myriad of times, but here's an article about how we are, in fact, not safe.
I tried to read this with an open mind, partly out of respect for the person who sent it to me, partly because there was an ernest request from the person who sent it to her, acknowledging his understanding that Rove came from the Right, but pleading to try to see his "wisdom." So, I tried. Maybe I'm not capable anymore, because this is just the same old thing to me. Rove, like so many who share his opinions, is looking at all the wrong things. Instead of recognizing that the decisions this administration has made over the last seven years, decisions that Rove had a very large part in making, have not made the world better, nor our country safer. If fact, they have done the opposite. To state explicitly that a new approach is naive, is to imply that the former approach was not. And, I for one can think of no better word to describe the Bush presidency.
(There are just too many gems in this Karl Rove editorial. I keep going back and finding more and more issues; there's something wrong with damn near every sentence. Like this, referring to Libya:
These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.
So, let me get this straight: Libya worse than we thought; Iraq, not actually as bad (no WMD). Intersting.
And lastly, this:
Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries.
No, the best way to do that is through meaningless wars that serve only to make a few men rich and alienate us from the rest of the world.
Unbelievable.)
Posts
1 comment:
Who is j?
Post a Comment