Not Ready for Late Night Infomercial Time
Repeatedly through the campaign so far, Barack Obama has demonstrated a troubling lack of familiarity with American history, especially diplomatic history. Obama's cluelessness about diplomacy has raised troubling questions about whether he is qualified to be President. This one may have answered the question:
Democrat Barack Obama misused a "code word" in Middle East politics when he said Jerusalem should be Israel's "undivided" capital but that does not mean he is naive on foreign policy, a top adviser said on Tuesday.
Addressing a pro-Israel lobby group this month, the Democratic White House hopeful said: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
Obama backed off almost immediately when Palestinians protested his remarks to AIPAC. The adviser, Daniel Kurtzer, continued:
Daniel Kurtzer, who advises Obama on the Middle East, said Tuesday at the Israel Policy Forum that Obama's comment stemmed from "a picture in his mind of Jerusalem before 1967 with barbed wires and minefields and demilitarized zones."
"So he used a word to represent what he did not want to see again, and then realized afterwards that that word is a code word in the Middle East," Kurtzer said.
I don't believe Kurtzer's explanation for a moment--why would Obama's mental picture of Jerusalem date from a time when he was five years old?--but it seems clear that, as Kurtzer says, Obama did not understand the significance of an "undivided Jerusalem."
Diplomacy is full of "code words," and for a President not to understand them can be lethal. It could also be dangerous for a President to have a "picture in his mind" of Jerusalem that is forty years out of date, if that really is the case. Maybe Obama should stop off there on his trip to Iraq, whenever that may take place.
It has become clear that Barack Obama has a great deal of learning to do before he is ready to serve as President. (One wonders, actually, what he is doing in the Senate.) Worse, he seems to have little understanding of his own limitations and no interest in putting in the hard work it will take for him to become even moderately conversant with foreign policy issues. Once again, we see the dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance that characterizes Obama's Presidential campaign.
Via Jennifer Rubin.
To comment on this post go here.
Posted by John at 9:22 AM | Permalink | E-mail this post to a friend |
He can't be serious
Jennifer Rubin catches Barack Obama in what looks like a serious misstatement about his telephone conversation with Iraqi foreign minister Hoshay Zebari. According to Obama, Zebari didn’t raise the issue of Obama’s troop withdrawal plans. But Zebari's account, as presented by the Washington Post, paints a different picture: “My message. . .was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” Moreover, according to Zebari, Obama responded by assuring him that a Democratic administration "will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security." Obama added that "whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.”
Zebari is clearly more credible than Obama on this, and not just because Obama is running for office. Obama and his surrogates have been playing this kind of double-game (reckless statements for consumption by his base followed by reassurances to foreign leaders) all year. Think, for example, of the assurances his campaign provided Canada regarding NAFTA. Even on the issue of Iraq, Samantha Power (before her dismissal) was trimming Obama's position on immediate withdrawal. And, as Rubin points out, Obama recently told the Washington Post that that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, “we are just turning the corner in Iraq” and a precipitous withdrawal “would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements," causing the enemies of the United States to "celebrate.”
It's no accident that Obama lacks credibility when he talks about Iraq. He's loath to advocate his offical substantive position -- prompt withdrawal -- to serious, informed individuals, but much of his usual audience is neither serious nor informed.
To comment on this post go here.
