I was transported to dizzying heights by Barack Obama's moving speech Tuesday night.
So, as I awaited Barack Obama's seemingly cumpulsory pilgrimage to the AIPAC conference, I had hope that we would see a courageous new approach to Middle East policy, the prelude of which we have heard in Obama's oft articulated embrace of diplomacy and rejection of posturing with military might or the perpetration of inflammatory rhetoric based on imaginary threats.
I was gravely disappointed, and any illusion of real, fundamental change has vanished, leaving my confidence in our future shattered.
Throughout this long, arduous campaign, Obama has made great efforts to separate his policy proposals from those of the Bush administration, a clear break with a failed approach and a renewed effort to redefine our moral leadership within a world filled with turmoil. So what power of intimidation does AIPAC hold that would, in a single day, completely sidetrack Obama's dedication to change the dialog and cause him to abruptly transform his rhetoric to be indistinguishable from that of the Bush administration?
Although our diplomatic efforts should never be destructive to our interests, it hardly shows moral world leadership to pursue diplomacy solely for our own interests. That attitude has damaged our reputation in the world community under the bullying intimidation of appointees like John Bolton.
Here are two quotes regarding diplomacy, from John Bolton and Barack Obama, for comparison.
"Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests."
"I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders, at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States."
The context makes it easy to tell which quote belongs to each man, but both clearly state that there is no value in pursuing any diplomatic avenue which could be a benefit to anyone other than ourselves. That's hardly a way to re-establish our moral integrity within an extensive and varied world community.
Bush's "everything's on the table" threatening style of negotiation through intimidation is legendary. Barack Obama has spent as much of his campaign as possible within the Democratic primary contest to present his policy "to make diplomacy a priority".
Again, AIPAC seems to have the power to strongly influence the style of a Presidential candidate's diplomacy.
Three quotes, three people. Bush, Olmert, and Obama.
"all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any President. And you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."
"the Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means"
"I would do everything within my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Everything within my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. EVERYTHING!"
Now, that's some new style of diplomacy, not! It's the most unfortunate pandering I could imagine because it comes from what may very well be our sole source of hope to leave all the Bush-style threat posturing behind.
Whatever became of this Barack Obama, commenting when Hillary Clinton said the U.S. would be able to "obliterate" Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel? Suitable for Meet The Press, but apparently not appropriate for AIPAC:
"We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran." "But it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush,"
What about the "inflammatory rhetoric based on imaginary threats"? Ahmadinejad is a clown. He made a fool of himself at last year's Columbia University speech when he denied the Holocaust and denied there are gay Iranians, and was appropriately laughed at. But Ahmadinejad is not the chief executive of Iran. He is not the primary Iranian threat to focus on. It is the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei who wields executive power in Iran.
False and inaccurate claims run amok is the hallmark of the Bush administration. We were supposed to be moving beyond matching rhetoric with rhetoric with Obama. But it seems that when AIPAC is looking down your throat, perhaps just one hyperbolic holdover doesn't seem too much to smooth the transition.
Here's one attributed to Ahmadinijad: "WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP!"
"The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, 'The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,'"
-- Jonathan Steele, Guardian.co.uk, Wednesday June 14 2006
"this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, 'This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.'"
--Juan Cole, JuanCole.com, May 04, 2006
"The "quote" in question was itself a quote, — they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
--Arash Norouzi, Democracy Rising, January 18, 2007
A call for a change of Israeli government is not a call for Israel's destruction. The Israeli government is a parliamentary systemin which changes of government are a regular part of the process; even the Knesset itself can dissolve the government at any time by a no-confidence vote.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, this false quote and it's false attribution, and the fear it utilizes for political advantage persists. And it now seems, even with the leadership of Obama, it will all continue to persist.
Here are quotes, or shall we say the repetition of the same false quote, from several sources - Blair, Lieberman, McCain, the RNC, Instapundit's Jerry Gordon, The Conservative Voice's Jeff Morton, the British Conservative Party's David Cameron, Israeli Insider's Irwin N. Graulich, The White House, and of course, Barack Obama, who all get this wrong. Can you sort them out?
"he wants to wipe the state of Israel off the map."
"Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'"
"they want to . . . wipe out another country"
"the newly elected president of this pathetic country boldly declares, 'Wipe Israel off the map,'"
"Admadinejad's threats to wipe Israel off the map" "I have heard his repeated calls for wiping Israel off the map"
" you don’t sit down with people who want to 'wipe you off the map of the world’"
" a man... that wants to wipe Israel off the map"
"Iran Has Threatened To Wipe Israel Off The Map"
"Wipe Israel off the Map"(3x)
"It's president...threatens to wipe Israel off the map"
Does the Obama quote just jump out at you, for it's refreshing break with the destructive rhetoric of the last seven years?
I'm an Obama supporter. I guess I still will be. I want change. But my mood is pretty low right now, my enthusiasm having been quenched in one short speech.
Please tell me, just when will we move on?
When can we "wipe" the pandering to AIPAC from our political process?
Where's the change?
And where's Dennis Kucinich?