Posts
I am backing Barack Obama's side on the Obama - Clinton feud that began at Monday's debate...
Onstage at the debate, Clinton and Obama took different stands when asked if, as president, they would meet with the leaders of five nations who are hostile to the United States.Obama released a statement today that is exactly correct...
Obama said he would hold such meetings and Clinton said she would not.
The next day, Clinton denounced Obama's view as "irresponsible and frankly naive."
Obama bashed back, saying, "If you want to talk about irresponsibility and naiveté, look at her vote to authorize George Bush to send our troops into Iraq without an exit plan."
"The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous. But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on, and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevent us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies."Clinton's response at the debate was similar to lack of diplomacy we have seen under Bush and Cheney. The media loved it. Most Democrats don't.
1 comment:
I agree with you and Obama and was a little surprised about the fallout on this issue after the debate. Given the sound-byte format, it's hard to judge any of the candidates on what they said regarding issues as complex as international diplomacy.
But for the latter to work, you cannot have true negotiations if one party will only meet on a set of conditions, and to not meet with these volitale countries is not a policy we should continue under the next administration. And for the U.S. to be worried that these countries may use these meetings as propaganda, as Clinton and Edwards suggested, is completely absurd and underestimates our own propaganda capabilities.
Post a Comment