The news in Obama’s speech

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... print.html


Herewith President Obama’s Middle East speech , annotated:

“It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.”

With this Barack Obama openly, unreservedly and without a trace of irony or self-reflection adopts the Bush Doctrine, which made the spread of democracy the key U.S. objective in the Middle East.

“Too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills.”

Note how even Obama’s rationale matches Bush’s. Bush argued that because the roots of 9/11 were to be found in the deflected anger of repressed Middle Eastern peoples, our response would require a democratic transformation of the region.



“We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.”

A fine critique of exactly the kind of “realism” the Obama administration prided itself for having practiced in its first two years.

How far did this concession to Bush go? Note Obama’s example of the democratization we’re aiming for. He actually said:

“In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process .?.?. Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region.”

Hail the Bush-Obama doctrine.

Krauthammer agrees with you. Almost as if the more Obama learns about the world, the more he becomes a neo-con...

SS109 wrote: Krauthammer agrees with you. Almost as if the more Obama learns about the world, the more he becomes a neo-con...

That is Krauthammer.

"Promoting reform" or recognizing that we have a state in the stability of foreign nations is not the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is the idea that it is justified to invade countries we think may be harboring terrorists, the idea that it is okay to invade countries in order to "promote democracy", the idea of "preventative war" against countries we think MAY at some time in the FUTURE, prove to be threats to us, even indirectly.

The idea of promoting democracy, of and by itself, is not the Bush Doctrine.

So AV, let me ask you a simple question and see if you are willing to just answer it. Are we assume that you agree with what Obama promised before winning the election, that the key to Peace is sitting down with our enemies and convincing them that we are nice people? Is that the Foreign Policy that you think will keep America and Americans safe?

“Obama Doctrine” on foreign policy: 1. Bow, appease, embolden and support radicals who were historically our enemies (i.e., radical Islamists, terrorists, etc..). 2. Alienate, rebuke, insult, and conspire against our greatest allies/friends (i.e. Israel, Britain, France, Germany). Will we settle for this dangerous and irresponsible naiveté? Also, churches and Synagogues are….SILENT (thereby complicit)!! Hmmm...

Nmysys wrote: So AV, let me ask you a simple question and see if you are willing to just answer it. Are we assume that you agree with what Obama promised before winning the election, that the key to Peace is sitting down with our enemies and convincing them that we are nice people? Is that the Foreign Policy that you think will keep America and Americans safe?

Sure I'll answer it.

No, I don't agree that the key to peace is sitting down with our enemies and convincing "them" we are nice people. Nor do I agree that that was Obama promised.

I think what he promised was to stop America acting like the biggest bully on the block and return to a policy that at least admitted the possibility that diplomacy and international cooperation might have a place.

I suppose we should have also just let Saddam take Kuwait instead of being a big bully and kicking his ass.

I am looking forward to the day when diplomacy actually works in that part of the world, so far it's like peeing into the wind.

CriticalBill wrote: I suppose we should have also just let Saddam take Kuwait instead of being a big bully and kicking his ass.

I wasn't referring to THAT Bush....

I am looking forward to the day when diplomacy actually works in that part of the world, so far it's like peeing into the wind.

Even if diplomacy doesn't work in "that part of the world" you don't tell the rest of the world to kiss your grits when you decide you'd like to kick some Middle Eastern butt. That is, unless you want them to tell you to kiss THEIRS next time you actually do need allies.

That is, unless you want them to tell you to kiss THEIRS next time you actually do need allies.

I don't know about you AV, but if there is an ally in the Middle East that I would want on my side it is Israel. Who is it that you would want? Iran, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia?

Nmysys wrote:

That is, unless you want them to tell you to kiss THEIRS next time you actually do need allies.

I don't know about you AV, but if there is an ally in the Middle East that I would want on my side it is Israel. Who is it that you would want? Iran, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia?

Maybe the bigger question is what does it mean to us if the whole freaking desert over there blows up and we find ourselves obliged to defend Israel against the whole Arab world?