George Bush and Barack Obama
The US President Apparently Attacks Obama at Israel's Knesset
George Bush falsely accuses Barack Obama of desiring negotiations with terrorists. Obama's desire to engage certain foreign leaders, however, is sound foreign policy.
In an unprecedented move before Israel’s Knesset, President Bush apparently attacked Barack Obama—or at least the Democratic Party—when he noted that, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”
Addressing domestic political disputes abroad goes against the long-standing tradition in this country that “politics ends at the waters edge.” Apparently, stirring up such disputes is now fair game.
Although Bush did not directly address Obama, it was evident that Obama was the target of the statement, which was a response to Obama’s remark last year that he would be open to unconditional talks with leaders of certain nations with whom Bush has refused to meet.
Obama called Bush’s statement a “false political attack” and further noted that “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
Although Bush will deny it, this is plainly more fear mongering, which has become his calling card. Not only that, but he is stretching the truth—or possibly lying outright,—as no presidential candidate from either party has ever suggested that negotiating with terrorists is sound policy.
The irony here is thick, but it might have been obscured by the muck of political bickering: President Bush was speaking before the legislative body of Israel, a country that has undoubtedly been put in more danger because of the Iraq war. Yet, inexplicably, he was willing to stand before that body and make a foreign policy argument that his way of doing business has apparently made the Middle East a safer place.
Iran, supposedly now the biggest threat to the U.S. in the Middle East, was largely kept in check by Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship for more than 20 years. Now, with an impotent government in Iraq and a hornet’s nest stirred up after the 2003 invasion, Iran has had free reign to initiate and follow through on policies that endanger its neighboring countries.
It is a shame that in today’s political world, so much dialogue centers around correcting distortions of the truth spit out by political opponents, putting out fires that, if left unattended, will surely destroy a candidate’s career. Barack Obama—whether Bush’s attack was directed at him or not—was forced to respond.
The notion that Obama is willing to negotiate with terrorists is absurd. Engaging leaders of other nations, however, such as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, might indeed be sound policy, and the result cannot be any worse than what the last five years of Middle East foreign policy has wrought. What is the downside? And if such talks could save even one American soldier’s life, isn’t it worth it?
