A Foreign Policy Blunder by Barack Obama

Perhaps one additional positive outcome from the Democratic CNN/YouTube debate on Monday night is the battle between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps regarding the answers that each candidate gave in response to a question asking them if they would meet with the leaders of countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela without preconditions (and this qualifier is key).

From the CNN/YouTube debate:



Note that Obama took a stance that he would expect to gain him the support by taking a somewhat unpopular Bush administration policy (not engaging some of our enemies). The problem was, Clinton pulled the rug out from under him by placing some qualifiers that would have to happen before such high-level meetings were to happen, thereby making Obama look quite foolish in terms of foreign policy by appearing to want to jump right to the table.

Also note that John Edwards piggybacked on Clinton's answer and repeated her response as close to verbatim as one could get during a debate. Whether Edwards had that answer in mind already or shifted to hug Clinton's answer after she knocked that pitch out of the park is uncertain, but it did have the effect of isolating Obama as a person that does not fully understand how a President would deal with certain foreign relations.

Since then, Clinton and Obama have traded words on the issue.

From The Caucus:

Senator Clinton said yesterday that Senator Obama was “irresponsible and naïve” for suggesting during Monday night’s debate that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations. Senator Obama fired back that it was irresponsible and naïve of her to vote to authorize the Iraq war.

After Clinton continued to press the case, Obama had no choice but to fight back, since he could not change his position (at least, not this quickly):

“I think what is irresponsible and naïve is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out — and you know, I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue,” Mr. Obama said today during an NBC News stakeout outside of his Senate office.

...

“We have a difference,” Mr. Obama told our colleague, Jeff Zeleny, as he walked from the Senate floor. “Unless Senator Clinton wants to define what her nuanced perspective is.”

Indeed, Mr. Obama suggested that he had no intention of changing the
subject.

“It goes to the heart of whether or not we’re going to have a fundamental
change in how the Bush administration has conducted foreign policy,” Mr.
Obama said, “or we’re going to have a version of Bush light.”

Of course. Not changing the subject at all. Obama is trying to go to his strong point, his claim that he opposed the Iraq war from the start (never mind that he was not in Congress at the time of the votes, making it much easier for him to say this without having had to face the decision) and attack Clinton's weakness in many eyes within the Democratic Party, her cautious straddling between opposing the war and attempt to look tough on defense by talking tough on Iraq. Additionally, Obama invoked the Bush name in an attempt to at least loosely tie Clinton to the president, something that would cause her support to drop not just in the Democratic Party, but throughout the electorate, if the latest poll numbers on President Bush are to be believed.

Regardless of how wise it might be to go on the attack instead of having to modify one's remarks so soon after the debate, in this case, Senator Clinton is right! If these dictators even want to talk with us, we cannot simply rush in and promise to fly over there on January 21, 2009. If we were to try to construct some kind of dialogue anyway, we would have to start with lower level talks. Merely throwing our leader at theirs is not going to do the trick.

For some additional support:

The campaign also issued a statement from Richard C. Holbrooke, the ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton. “As she has said many times, Senator Clinton believes we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy after the cowboy approach of the Bush years,” he said, adding that “she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations.”

Additionally, Obama spoke of "responsibilities" that Iran and Syria would have in Iraq. Should we withdraw (as Obama supports), why would we trust the future of Iraq to these two countries? Pursuing such a strategy could alter the course of the whole Middle East as Iran may gain even more power in the region, sparking a rivalry between Shi'ite Iran and the Sunni countries of Arabia, many of whom have significant Shi'ite minorities by their oil fields. Obama's campaign is smartly not bringing up this point again, as they would exacerbate their current losing streak by doing so.

Barack Obama was simply wrong all around. Hillary Clinton definitely won this round.


Courtesy: Cox & Forkum