April 17, 2008

Barack Obama’s Foreign and Domestic Policies Demystified: Homophobes Are Iran, and Homos Are Hamas

Well, now you know why Obama insists on “reaching out” to rabidly homophobic conservative churches, while refusing to grant a real, no-fluff interview with local gay media.

In Obama’s eyes, it all depends on who’s legitimate, and who’s not.

I keep saying there’s a larger pattern to everything Barack Obama says and does, and — while most people out there really don’t give a rip about our piddly little civil rights struggle — we can begin to see where Obama’s bullheadedness and tunnel vision come from, by looking at the big picture, in this case, Obama’s perspective on one of the most volatile, sensitive areas any U.S. president will ever face… and one in which the wrong decision could kill us all.

(Relax, he’s not president, and he hasn’t decided to nuke Iran or invade Pakistan. Yet.)

Let’s review:

• Barack Obama agrees that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization.

• But Barack Obama is willing to meet — “without precondition” — with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran (as well as with the leaders of “Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea”).

• Barack Obama criticizes former President Jimmy Carter — the guy who brokered the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty — for meeting with Hamas, because “Hamas is a terrorist organization.”

In detail:

April 24, 2007

Obama co-sponsors S.970, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, Section 16(d) of which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (a branch of the Islamic Republic of Iran military, of which current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a member, during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war) as a terrorist organization:

(d) List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the efforts of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

July 23, 2007

At the YouTube debate, in answer to the question, “[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” Obama replies:

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

November 11, 2007

Obama reiterates to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press”:

I have said, unlike Senator Clinton, that I would meet directly with the leadership in Iran. I believe that we have not exhausted the diplomatic efforts that could be required to resolve some of these problems — them developing nuclear weapons, them supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. … That has not been tried. Not only has it not been tried, but reports indicate that it has been explicitly rejected by the Bush administration. That is a policy that I intend to change as president of the United States.

March 3, 2008:

Obama supports George W. Bush’s stubborn refusal to so much as talk to Hamas:

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration’s policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.

The Illinois senator has said he would break with President George W. Bush’s stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is committed to the destruction of Israel.

April 16, 2008:

Obama jumps on Jimmy Carter for talking to Hamas:

Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter’s overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism.

The Illinois senator, campaigning in Pennsylvania which holds the next presidential voting contest on Tuesday, told a group of Jewish leaders he has an “unshakable commitment” to help protect Israel from its “bitter enemies.”

“That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”

“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,” he said.

Ohhhh! I see now! Obama will meet with the leaders of all sorts of states (even rogue states, like North Korea), because they’re states, and Hamas is not a state.

In Obama’s eyes, one is legitimate, and the other is not.

Never mind that Iran’s “Ahmadinejad has clearly stated his intent to annihilate the State of Israel and also provides generous funding, advanced training, equipment, weapons and other support to Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations that attack Israeli citizens daily.”

Don’t even whisper that, or you might send Barry into an unstoppable fit of the ums and uhs and y’knows that always tumble out of his mouth when he’s caught off-guard, and off-script.

Nope, never mind that Iran is a sworn enemy of the State of Israel — one of its “bitter enemies” Obama has an “unshakable commitment” to help protect it from — and yet he wants to have a coffee klatch with that punk Ahmadinejad? But… Never mind that. Right, Barry? Barry…?

And never mind that Obama insisted, while talking to a group of Jewish voters in Pennsylvania:

“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”

Barry might go absolutely catatonic if he has to explain why it’s a bad thing to “negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” while it’s a good thing to negotiate with a terrorist state intent on Israel’s destruction.

It’s not a black-and-white issue, not a one’s-a-state-and-the-other’s-not proposition. Unfortunately — and very unfortunately for the rest of us, should he actually get into the White House (shudder) — Barry doesn’t do “shades of gray” very well at all.

As Matt Schofield at the KC Star put it:

But isn’t Obama all about getting to the table with these people [Hamas], no matter how distasteful? We can be as offended as we like by the tactics of Hamas. But they’ve got a very real, and very political backing in the Palestinian territories. True, they are not a state actor. But it is hard to imagine a lasting peace agreement that ignores them. they simply have too much support in the region.

It’s not a one-off situaiton [sic], either: A study out this week notes that Nasrallah, the head of Lebanese Hezbollah, is the most respected Arab leader on Earth at this moment. Hezbollah and Hamas are not that far apart, and are frequently linked, at least by Israel. Can the continuing Israel/Hezbollah animosity be solved without the invovlement of Hezbollah? No.

I’m not saying they’re not both terrorist groups. From our perspective, and Israel’s perspective, certainly they are. Now, does this mean that Obama as a US president should sit down with them? No. Not sure that should be done.

But should he necessarily be critical of a former president who does? …

As Obama has noted, diplomacy can insist on an American leader sitting down with folks seen as strong enemies of the US. That is no reason not to meet with them. In fact, it’s an argument for why we should meet with them. …

[I]n a sense, Carter’s meeting serves this country, and the region. It’s a way to get to the table with people we can’t really otherwise talk with.

But if that’s not the case, if meeting with such folks is simply wrong, bad, and betrayal of trust, then isn’t Obama’s whole view of diplomacy a bit naive?

Easy answer: No — it’s a lot naïve.

I tell you, folks, if Barry — in all his naïveté, in all his black-and-white thinking — ends up being the one with his finger on the button, we’d all better start thinking about building bomb shelters in our backyards.

Posted by: Sapphocrat