The Hypocrisy of the Bush, McCain Foreign Policy and their attack on Obama

During his trip to the Middle East Trip, President Bush address the Israeli Knesset on the 60th Anniversary of Israel. During that speech, President Bush made some extremely inappropriate remarks relative to the leading Democratic Candidate for President, Barack Obama.

What is Appeasement?

On the Chris Matthews show, an example of how bad the rhetoric is trying to overwhelm us with the truth duing this example of idiocy after President Bush's comments:

I have many issues with the President's statement. This posting focuses on the fact that McCain and President Bush are attacking Obama for his foreign policy to meet with Iran, while President Bush's own Sec. of Defense Gates has been advocating the same position as Senator Obama. In addition, I want to clarify the Sen. Obama foreign policy vs the rhetoric.


Don't even get me started on the inaccurate comparison of talking with people to what Neville Chamberlain did, otherwise - let me see, by President Bush's definition - all of these President's are appeasers

1. President Nixon going to China
2. President Reagan for meeting with Khadafi
3. President Clinton meeting with the Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad.

Sec. of Defense Gates Comment

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down
and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then
they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the
demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

Sec. of State Rice have been advocating that the United States speak with Syria and Iran on Iraq and terrorism issues in the Middle East.!!

The following excerpt from the President and Secretary of State press release further suppports nogotiations with Syria and possible Iran: President Bush and Secretary of State Rice Discuss the Middle East Crisis

"Q Many strategists say that we'll never get to the bottom of this crisis unless the U.S. engages directly with Syria and Iran. Why not talk to them
directly about this, and have a back-and-forth conversation?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's an interesting question. I've been reading
about that, that people have been posing that question. We have been in touch with Syria. Colin Powell sent a message to Syria in person. Dick Armitage traveled to Syria. Bill Burns traveled to Syria. We've got a consulate office in Syria. Syria knows what we think. The problem isn't us telling Syria what's on our mind, which is to stop harboring terror and to help the Iraqi democracy evolve. They know exactly what our position is. The problem is, is that their response hasn't been very positive. As a matter of fact, it hasn't been positive
at all.

And in terms of Iran, we made it clear to the Iranians that if they would
honor previous obligations and verifiably stop enrichment of nuclear materials,
we would sit at a table. And so there's a way forward for both countries. The
choice is theirs. Now, I appreciate people focusing on Syria and Iran, and we
should, because Syria and Iran sponsor and promote Hezbollah activities -- all
aimed at creating chaos, all aimed at using terror to stop the advance of
democracies.

Our objective, our policy is to give voice to people through democratic
reform. And that's why we strongly support the Siniora government. That's why
I've articulated a two state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, two
democracies living side-by-side in peace. That's why Condi went to see President
Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Territories, to assure him that we're
committed to a democracy. That's why we're making sacrifices in Iraq -- to build
democracy."

Another of President Bush's Azis of Evil States, lead by Kim Jong Il - who he has met with - another example of his hypocritical position of attacking Obama but doing the exact same thing in Foreign Policy - is he an appeaser? President Bush: Talk to Kim Jong Il

President Bush failure to fix Iran before it became what is is now! I don't like Cowboy diplomacy, or the idea that since I have a gun I can use it attitude when solving our Foreign Affairs problems. It is needed at times, but not always.

"Rice's comments add a new level of complexity to an issue that has generated debate among foreign policy experts: Did the Bush administration forgo a chance to pursue a dialogue with Iran shortly after the fall of Baghdad, when U.S. power seemed at its height?

The Iranian document, conveyed to Washington via the Swiss Embassy, listed a series of Iranian aims for potential talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests," according to a copy that has circulated in Washington and was verified by Iranian and U.S. officials."

Senator McCain's Hypocrisy

Rubin Accuses McCain of Hypocrisy


Obama Foreign Policy Clarification

Obama's Foreign Policy as stated by him during the campaign in March in a summary is as follows:

"Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more
"traditional" foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W.
Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said."

Barack Obama article (Renewing American Leadership) in the magazine Foreign Affairs, an excerpt supporting the above campaign statement - but this was written a year ago:

"We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond
self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global
stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction
operations, or confront mass atrocities. But when we do use force in situations
other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support
and participation of others -- as President George H. W. Bush did when we led
the effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. The consequences of
forgetting that lesson in the context of the current conflict in Iraq have been
grave."

Summary
I respect Zbigniew Brzezinski, even though I have disdain for the President he served under. In his book, Second Chance, he has rated the Foreign Policy initiatives of the last three administrations, I think the results from this article with its excerpt are interesting (Audio):

"Washington has squandered its first chance at global leadership, says Brzezinski, who was national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter.

In his book, Brzezinski assesses the foreign policies of the three most recent U.S. presidents — the only three leaders who have led the country after the Cold War and Washington's Soviet rival imploded.

Brzezinski tells Robert Siegel that George H.W. Bush merits a B, while Bill Clinton receives a C and the current president, George W. Bush, an F.

There is still opportunity for America to regain its prestige, Brzezinki says, but he warns that the next 20 months will be crucial. If the U.S. war in Iraq worsens and if it expands to Iran, then Brzezinski warns the era of American global pre-eminence in the world will prove to be historically very short.

"Excerpt: 'Second Chance'

by Zbigniew Brzezinski

Each of the three presidents since America's victory in the Cold War has
been the world's most important player in the world's most important game, and
each has played in his own way. At this stage, suffice it to say that Global
Leader I [George H.W. Bush] was the most experienced and diplomatically skillful
but was not guided by any bold vision at a very unconventional historic moment.
Global Leader II [Bill Clinton] was the brightest and most futuristic, but he
lacked strategic consistency in the use of American power. Global Leader III
[George W. Bush] had strong gut instincts but no knowledge of global
complexities and a temperament prone to dogmatic formulations.

The box below summarizes the fundamental changes in the global environment
that occurred during the first decade and a half of America's unprecedented
global primacy. These events are the basis on which the performance of the first
three American global leaders will be appraised in the chapters that follow. The
list shows, in capsule form, both the opportunities that were within America's
reach and the steps leading to the increasingly complex crisis that superpower
America now confronts.

TEN MAJOR TURNING POINTS, 1990–2006

Key developments reshaping the world system.

1. The Soviet Union is forced out of Eastern Europe and disintegrates. The United
States is on top of the world.

2. The U.S. military victory in the first Gulf War is politically wasted. Middle Eastern peace is not pursued. Islamic hostility toward the United States begins to rise.

3. NATO and the European Union expand into Eastern Europe. The Atlantic community emerges as the predominant influence on the world scene.

4. Globalization is institutionalized with the creation of the World Trade Organization, the new role of the International Monetary Fund with its bailout fund, and the increased anticorruption agenda of the World Bank. "Singapore issues" become the foundation for the Doha Round of WTO negotiations.

5. The Asian financial crisis sets the foundation for a nascent East Asian regional
community, to be characterized either by Chinese dominance or by Sino-Japanese
competition. China's admission to the WTO encourages its ascent as a major
global economic player and a center of regional trade agreements with
politically more assertive and impatient poorer countries.

6. Two Chechen wars, the NATO conflict in Kosovo, and Vladimir Putin's election as president of Russia contribute to a rise in Russian authoritarianism and
nationalism. Russia exploits its gas and oil resources to become an assertive
energy superpower.

7. Facing a permissive attitude from the United States and others, India and Pakistan defy world public opinion to become nuclear powers. North Korea and Iran intensify their covert efforts to acquire nuclear capabilities in the face of inconsistent and inconsequential U.S. efforts to induce their self-restraint.

8. September 11, 2001, shocks the United States into a state of fear and the pursuit of unilateral policies. The United States declares war on terror.

9. The Atlantic community splits over the U.S. war in Iraq. The European Union fails to develop its own political identity or clout.

10. The post–1991 worldwide impression of U.S. global military omnipotence and Washington's illusions about the extent of America's power have been shattered by U.S. failures in postvictory Iraq. The United States acknowledges the need for cooperation with the European Union, China, Japan, and Russia regarding major issues of global security. The Middle East becomes the make-or-break test case of U.S. leadership.
"