Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board endorses Obama for President?

The editorial in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled, "Bush's shot misses the mark", should be retitled "We endorse Barack for President".

It reads straight from the Obama play book. I wonder if they just cut and pasted the editorial from an e-mail from the Obama campaign. Or maybe from Howard Dean.

The Herald-Tribune uses the two pronged Obama attack plan. The first prong is to talk about and denigrate President Bush. The hypocrisy of this position is Obama said he was a new type of politician who would reach across the aisle and work with others. He would bring hope and change. There is no hope, change or reaching across the aisle in what Senator Obama says or does. His words speak louder than his actions.

Obama uses the same old attack politics of 2000. Talk down President Bush, talk down Republicans, and attack the administration using the same worn out phrases and sound bites.

Obama is not an agent of change. The only change he wants is him in the oval office. Nothing else.

Using this Obama tactic, the editorial board says President Bush's speech before the Knesset, "came across as clumsy and self-serving."

I don't think the editorial board took the time to watch the speech. For those who would like to see a video of the entire speech please go here.

In the speech the members of the Knesset and audience gave numerous standing ovations to President Bush. It was a historical speech because it addressed the strong alliance and historic bonds between Israel and the United States.

The President properly pointed out that, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along....We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The second Obama tactic is to say what is wrong with talking to our enemies.

The Herald-Tribune uses this Obama tactic by saying, "Just because the United States engages in talks with a hostile foreign power does not mean that America will give in to its demands."

Well we agree.

Since this CNN debate Senator Obama's campaign said he would not meet with Iran's President until they give up their nuclear weapons program. “Let’s not confuse precondition with preparation,” said [Obama Communications Director Robert] Gibbs of any talks with Iran. “Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program."

If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from President Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

What the Herald-Tribune fails to tell you is that the Bush administration has been engaged in talks with Iran. There are frequent direct talks between Ambassador Crocker and Iranian officials in Iraq about their support of the terrorist Mahdi militias. There are ongoing talks between Iran, the EU with U.S. involvement. The U.S. has also engaged the U.N. Security Council in toughening sanctions against Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program.

If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, President Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.

So does Senator Obama agree with these efforts to engage in talks with Iran or not? Apparently not because he dismisses anything Bush.

However, Senator Obama recently said, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us . . . . Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Senator Obama is clearly sending a signal to Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that he does not consider them a "serious threat". He uses the simplistic standard of size of a countries defense budget to determine who in the world is worthy of being considered a threat. Al Qaeda spent a total of $500,000 to conduct the attack on 9/11. This simplistic vision of Iran's capabilities is dangerous.

So, meeting with Iran unconditionally, without preconditions and Iran does not pose a "serious threat".

There you have the Obama foreign policy on Iran and other enemies of the U.S. in a nut shell.

We also get a feel from Senator Obama on how he would deal with terrorism and terrorists at home. In his memoir Audacity of Hope is the following quote on page 261: "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the [Democratic President Roosevelt's] Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

"That I will stand with them [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Clearly Senator Obama and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune are standing with "them". Who is standing with U.S.?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Comment
Name
Email
Website
Write the displayed characters
	Add Comment