Anybody remember the Bush Doctrine? Democracy overseas to defeat terrorism was the basis of his post-9/11 foreign policy. During Bush's Second Inaugural Address, he expressed how important it was.
Now during the last Administration, the Democrats, who once believed in Democracy in the Middle East in 1990 and 1991, showed their belief in Nixonian Realpolitick over Wilsonian Idealism. Eventually, they elected a President who felt Realpolitick was better then Democracy Overseas. At least President Bush rid the world of a Dictator and wanted to re-build a failed state. (But the Democrats always think Saddam Hussain was a better man then Bush)
To quell the Arab League, President Obama pushed Prime Minister Netanyahu to stop building settlements and to not worry about Iran. And, President Obama gave a speech in Cairo -- transcript here. Full speech below:
How was the reaction of the Cairo Speech different from this moment in History?
Now, the Democrats always say they care for people overseas. Under Realpolitick, the world is a chessboard. The people today living under Dictatorships or failed States are but pawns to be played upon that same board. Today's Democrats subscribe to that option. Sorry, but true.
I have complained here that President Obama does not know how to Govern. If President Obama and the Democrats really cared, there was something they could have done with the Iranian Presidential Election in 2009:
Right now, President Ahmadinijad was the incumbent, he controlled the vote counts and he had three opponents. Any political tactician can tell you, if you split the opposition, the incumbent wins.
What President Obama should have done, if he believed in protecting Israel, our Democratic ally in the Middle East and if he wanted to open relations with a freer Iran: He should have sent Carville, Begala and Axelrod to support ONE candidate against Ahamadinijad. But because President Obama cannot govern or has any fixed principles to fight over, Ahmadinijad won.
Because the Democrats spent 8 years of hating Wilsonian idealism, they have no standing to say Obama's talk won anyone over. A country that takes over an embassy will have no problem rolling over an American President who does stand for anything in foreign policy.
This is what hate gets you -- President Ahmadinijad by way of a weak American President.
I think it was never in doubt that Ahmadinijad would win. He's the one the Mullah's want, their little puppet. It's also a given that the Democrats, from the 80's through today, don't have the stomach for much more than cursory responces like we saw in Mohgadishu, that do little more than embarrass the US and get soldiers killed. Or, they have no spine to go after someone like Bin Laden when offered by another country.
ReplyDeleteI am going to play devil's advocate here.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu's prequisites for the establishment of a Palestinian nation-state, are merely platitudes which are designed as an attempt to diffuse the criticism of Israeli positions that have been on the rise within United States and United Kingdom.
If Prime Minister Neatanyahu and his coalition believe that Palestians especially the memmbers of Hamas and Fatah would accept the conditions that Prime Minister Netanyahu elucidated on in his address to Bar-Ilan University, then they have deluded themselves.
Only a fatuous idiot would think that Palestinans would disarm and would allow Israel unfettered access by land and air in order to achieve the creation of state.
History has demonstrated that the majority of states and governments created under similar conditions ultimately fail.
Three examples of such states include
1. The Weimar Republic 1918-1933
2. The Hashemite Kingdom of Syria 1920-21.
3. The United Arab Republic 19558-1961
Indeed the Palestinians could argue that any agreement to such a condition would constitute an abdication of their responsibility to provide for the protection and defense of the Palestinian people.