Jerome Armstrong predictably (and again) tries to make hay of Barack Obama’s foreign policy speech, calling it “a continuation of the Bush doctrine.” Others, here on DKos, echo those comments.
The nuances of foreign policy generally take a backseat in netroots commentary to domestic and economic issues. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But nor do I see, in the latest spate of comments, much depth of aforethought on US relations with the rest of the world.
So I headed over to the right side of the screen - where rightwing bloggers and pundits are obsessed with international geopolitics - to read what those that really do favor “a continuation of the Bush doctrine” think about Obama’s speech.
After all, they were full of praise for Senator Clinton’s debate statements last week on declining to meet with world leaders. Wouldn’t they also be thrilled by Obama’s speech?
Apparently not...
The wingers that columnists like Krauthammer, Kondracke, Barnes, and the rest of that Beltway crowd typically consult to form their own talking points are blogging up a storm about Obama's big foreign policy speech today. Look for the views below to be reflected by conservative columnists and candidates starting tomorrow...
Giuliani advisor John Podhoretz commented on National Review’s The Corner:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be: Make nice with nightmarishly bad regimes that have effectively or rhetorically declared war on the United States (North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba) but invade an erstwhile, problematic ally (Pakistan).
Podhoretz then follows up:
I'm getting a lot of enraged e-mails from Obama defenders who are accusing me of caricaturing his position on Pakistan, or of being an apologist for somebody or other, or something. So let me be clear about one thing: Obama is full of it... He is trying to put one over on the American people, which is certainly using the "audacity of hope" in an entirely new way.
Later, Podhoretz (remember, he’s a Giuliani advisor!) blew more flowers toward Democrat Clinton:
I think Hillary can handle this reasonably easily, by condescending. "Senator Obama's speech is a clear indication that the Republican party's efforts to tar the Democratic party as being soft on terrorism are doomed to failure. I congratulate Barack for discussing important issues that we must all take very seriously."
Over at the same rag, Jim Geraghty is particularly upset about Obama’s pro-democracy stance regarding Pakistan’s illegitimate regime:
“And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair — our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.”
Geraghty responds:
Any concerns that Islamists might win a free, fair Pakistani election?
Bill O’Reilly’s sidekick Michele Malkin derides Obama as “Macho Man”:
Is there anything more pathetic than a defeatist retreatist trying to sound tough on terror?
On Hot Air, Allahpundit snarks away:
Once we pull out of Iraq we’re going to have a huge manpower surplus from all the leftist cretins who’ve spent the last four years chanting “chickenhawk” running off to enlist so they can live out their dream of fighting the “real war on terror.” Put ‘em to use.
Powerline enters the fray:
… this is your standard Democratic attempt to sound tough while effectively advocating defeat in Iraq and ignoring the mounting threat posed by Iran. Obama is smart enough to know that his speech is nonsense. But the fact that he would indugle in this sort of posturing should disqualify him from the presidency.
“Free Market libertarian” Bruce “McQ” McQuain writes:
I take back what I said about Obama being the John Edwards of this election cycle. Not even Edwards would make these sorts of foolish threats. "Irresponsible" doesn't even begin to cover this nonsense.
Ed Morrissey, at Captain’s Quarters, wants Obama’s political rise to be over, like, right now:
One would hope that this would mark the end of Barack Obama's credibility as a presidential candidate.
Little Green Footballs attacks both Obama and Edwards. The first, for his foreign policy speech and the second for his tough stance toward Saudi Arabia:
This may be the most cynical and hypocritical batch of Democrats that has ever run for President.
A.J. Strata runs with the Clinton campaign’s Jimi Hendrix meme (“Are You Experienced? Have you ever been experienced? Well, I have!”):
Sen Obama’s attempt at showing his manliness illustrates once again his inexperience. it seems Sen Obama is just fine with attacking an ALLY of the US: Pakistan. It is not OK to attack our enemies in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it is OK to invade an ally. Yep, that stinks of inexperience all right.
NR’s Kathryn Jean Lopez whacks Obama because she thought the following statement from his speech at the Wilson Center didn’t go far enough in solidarity with the family of Wilson Center staffer Haleh Esfandiari, "an American citizen currently being held by Iran":
Let me also say that my thoughts and prayers are with your colleague, Haleh Esfandiari, and her family. I have made my position known to the Iranian government. It is time for Haleh to be released. It is time for Haleh to come home.
Here's Rush Limbaugh, from the subscriber only transcript of his radio show from today:
Boy, I'll tell you, I would not want to be Pakistan's president today, Musharraf. This guy is hanging by a thread anyway. He is just barely holding on. He's at loggerheads; he's got a whole terrorist population; he's got a moderate population; he's got the United States as an ally…
So poor Musharraf, he wakes up today, and he learns that Barack Obama wants to invade his country. He wants to take the troops out of Iran and invade Pakistan. Then, after he hears Obama say that, he gets a video from some Al-Qaeda hack who is suggesting that Al-Qaeda conduct a coup against Musharraf and his government. I think the biggest fear that Musharraf probably faces, or has, of these two, is Obama. If it weren't for the fact that he's running for president, it would be laughable. What it is, is horribly naïve, and he's just given Mrs. Clinton a hanging curve ball…
It shows exactly what Mrs. Clinton claimed Barack Obama is, and that's naïve. This has so much naïveté…
Look, without all the details here, the Obama plan is irrational. But there is more than meets the eye here. What do we know? Well, in the dust-up with Hillary, according to the pundits, she won. But according to the polls, Obama won. Remember how the pundits, we played sound bites from media people, Chris Cillizza, the Washington Post, (paraphrasing) "I'm really worried that I may not be seeing things that the rest of the country sees. It was clear to me that Hillary cleaned up in this debate, but the polls show that the public thought that Obama did." Now, she has pulled ahead big time nationally, I mean huge jump over last month. But he is tied with her in New Hampshire, and in some polls leads her in South Carolina. Those are two crucial states. The national numbers right now don't mean as much as these local state numbers. So here we have two high-minded politicians with moral compasses who are going absolutely nuts for polling and fundraising. No matter how silly or how irresponsible or how inane their words, which Obama's clearly are here today on Pakistan, the Drive-Bys explain it away.
Limbaugh is no novice when it comes to parroting the political talking points of GOP consultants. Look here how he applies that talent to parroting the talking points, this time… of the Clinton campaign:
...you gotta understand, there is a big-time presidential primary campaign underway and he's trying to chip away at Mrs. Clinton's lead, and, you know, she called him "naïve." You've got to look at all this stuff in context. She called him naïve after saying that he would meet with the thug dictators of the world as president and extend the offices of the presidency to these guys and legitimize them. Mrs. Clinton said that's very naïve. I'm all for diplomacy out there, but send underlings. I certainly wouldn't do it the first year. It's very naïve for Barack to say this kind of thing. He fired back something, and she said, okay, the name-calling is getting silly here. So Barack is attempting to shore up his toughness here. It's interesting play, too, because this is not what the kook fringe base wants to hear. The kook fringe base doesn't want to hear the troops going anywhere but home. He's trying to give himself gravitas. Well, see, it's going to be interesting to see. I and a lot of other people like you think this is just a huge boondoggle. He's shown he does not have the gravitas. He does not have the experience. He doesn't have the sensitivities.
To be fair one lapsing neocon, Andrew Sullivan continues to warm to Obama, calling it “the speech of a potential president”:
Outflanking Bush-Cheney with a serious, aggressive, intelligent campaign against Islamist terror? It's what the country wants. And it seems to be what Obama is offering.
This, on the heels of his essay, yesterday, Clinton, Obama and Fear:
One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in thier defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder…
Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.
Meanwhile Robert Novak tells us what Democrats are supposedly thinking about Obama's foreign policy statements:
The consensus among Democrats is that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) was the clear winner in the dispute with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) over meeting with foreign despots as President. It went to his greatest political weakness: his presumed inexperience compared with Clinton.
Consensus? Oh, Bob.
Also in the week of "that little spat" last week, Paul Constant went undercover at a recent National Review cocktail party fundraiser in Seattle, and found:
Hillary Clinton's name is mentioned more than anyone else's. Some are defending her recent debate dustup with Barack Obama, adding that they never thought they'd support a Clinton, but most think she's going to win the Democratic nomination and then lose the election.
Oliver Willis on HuffPo finds hypocrisy in attacks on Obama from both right and left:
Barack Obama vowed that if he is elected Commander In Chief, he would do anything to pursue, apprehend, or kill the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks against New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania. This is a position supported by the vast majority of Americans…
The right's position, as usual, is not less intellectually honest. The same group of people who support and continue to support the misguided and morally wreckless invasion and occupation of Iraq are all of a sudden aghast at an endorsement of common sense military force because it happens to be advocated by a Democrat. Obama said "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Wow, that crazy bastard. They support Bush's ill-fated "surge" but not the killing of terrorists. Why? Because a Democrat said it. They've taken this opportunity to claim Obama wants to invade Pakistan, but he didn't say that. He said he wanted to kill terrorists. Why is the right against killing terrorists? Just because George W. Bush has repeatedly let Osama Bin Laden slip through our hands (like at Tora Bora), that's no reason to get huffy when a Democratic candidate refuses to follow in those footsteps.
On the left, the critique is at least rooted in something resembling honesty, but it's almost as ridiculous. At least one pundit on the left, Jerome Armstrong of MyDD says that Sen. Obama supports unilateral war on the middle east with this speech - but Sen. Obama said no such thing! Again, the Senator is simply echoing the concerns of the vast majority of Americans in that he will actually follow through on the post-9/11 rhetoric to bring Bin Laden and his ilk to justice. If we have to cross Pakistan's border to kill Bin Laden, so be it.
Sen. Obama proposed a common sense foreign policy alternative to the Bush doctrine of terrorist appeasement. This should be cheered, not derided.
Voters, of course, are yet to weigh in.