A response comment to Washington Post columnist admonishing Obama on diplomacy
Re: "The Audacity (and Naivete) of Hope" by William Arkin, Early Warning syndicated columnist on National and Homeland Security for Washington Post
Presented is the context which formed the basis of my response, here is the excerpted part of the column written by Arkin:
Obama dismissed Sen. Hillary Clinton's national security approach as "Bush-Cheney Lite" yesterday and said his priority as president would be to "unite" the country and seek change. His remarks came a day after Clinton smacked him down as "irresponsible and naïve" for his remarks during Monday's CNN-YouTube debate.Obama told a crowd in New Hampshire: "[...] I don't want a continuation with Bush-Cheney. I don't want Bush-Cheney Lite. I want a fundamental change."
Obama also held a conference call with reporters, characterizing Clinton as no different from the Bush administration for foreswearing dialogue. "If that's not what she means, then she should say so," he said. "Nobody expects that you would just sit down with them for coffee," he said, speaking of the preparations he would make for meetings with the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and other [hostile, anti-American] nations. But he stuck with his answer and said he would not impose preconditions [oh really?].
"When we talk to world leaders, it gives us an opportunity to speak about our ideals, our values and our interests, and I am not afraid to have that conversation with anybody," he said. "If I sit down with the leader of Iran, I will send him a strong message that Israel is our friend, that we will assist in their security and that we don't find nuclear weapons acceptable.... That's not going to be a propaganda coup for the president of Iran."
Well, this is not necessarily bad, nor it is necessarily wrong, but it is naïve. The president of Iran doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist. Sitting down to chat with him would be like sitting down with Osama bin Laden to explain that it's all a big misunderstanding, that America shares his ideals for a better life. Sorry, Obama, but those aren't everyone's ideals, and that's not bin Laden's beef.
My response-
Mr. Arkin, you are quite naive in your column.
You do not seem to understand that Hillary Clinton is staunchly pro-Zionist like Obama and Edwards in their statement that the U.S.'s relationship with the State of Israel can never be shaken as allies.
It was the Founding Fathers that find permanent alliance with a foreign power abominable in weakening of national sovereignty and regression of liberty, from George Washington (1796 farewell speech, try bothering to read it) up to Martin Van Buren and Theodore Roosevelt.
Israel never signed Non-Proliferation Treaty. Neither did India and Pakistan that are publicly holding nuclear arsensals. Iran signed, as did U.S.
U.S. should never interfere with Iran's rights to developing nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. On the other hand, it's proven Israel have had a nuclear reactor in Dimona since late 50's and probably possess nuclear weapons numbering between 150 and 400.
Spout the knowledge all you want, but you know basically nothing on the truthful matter of geopolitics. Russia have the upper hand and they will play an important role in the future.
It was JFK who saved the world by not conceding to the pressure of the warhawks at the Pentagon and even his cabinet members besides RFK. Because he had to "feel the enemy's feet" he sought sensible solutions to defuse the US-USSR tension and end Cuban Missile Crisis in hard-bargain deals -- removing U.S. missiles from Turkey -- instead of committing an all-out war on USSR and Cuba. USSR leaders were belligerent but they were impressed by JFK's diplomatic attitude despite the hostile relation.
Obama may not be JFK in comparison, but it's more diplomatic to deal with the enemy states on peace and trade. Enemy states still have the bitter memories of American interventionism to advance its imperialist agenda but they are willing to accept open talks with the U.S. when the new, more progressive leader is legitimately elected.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are nothing more than whores for corporate and Zionist lobbyists, exactly as Mike Gravel said "follow the money" at the YouTube/CNN debate on July 23rd.
Mr. Arkin, you pretend to be a know-it-all columnist but you are a know-nothing with the state of self-denial when I counter your argument which you believe to be correct on facts.
Electing Hillary Clinton or even Obama as president will change nothing in the direction of foreign policy as Gravel states in the debate before being cut off. They are for permanent imperialism to ensure the security of apartheid Israel since they are deep in the pocket of American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
For the record, because State of Israel was created illegitimately due to Zionist propaganda campaign in pressuring Truman and the U.N. to partition Palestine to compensate for the Nazi Holocaust horror as well as brutal terrorist attacks on the British and Palestinians (King David hotel bombing and Dier Yassin massacre, etc), Israel as it stands now do not deserve to exist and should never have existed. True Torah Jews will affirm this belief.
(sent but not posted at WP comment page below the column)
