Tuesday, President Bush sat down for an interview with Politico.com and Yahoo, the first presidential interview with online new services. One of the things he commented on was Jimmy Carter’s destructive (my word, not his) role in the Middle East. Here’s what President Bush said:

He criticized former President Jimmy Carter for suggesting an approach to Middle East involvement that Bush described as “if you want to be popular in the Middle East, just go blame Israel for every problem.” “That will make you popular,” he said. “Popularity is fleeting. … Principles are forever.”

This is more than a characterization of Carter’s mindset. It’s the Democrats’ approach to foreign policy. Their’s is a let’s do what’s popular while it’s popular approach.

Bill Clinton stayed with Somalia until it became unpopular. Then he made the mistake of listening to John Murtha who said military victory wasn’t possible. We’ve heard that before, haven’t we? Here’s something else President Bush said during the interview:

President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates’ plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could “eventually lead to another attack on the United States” and would “embolden” terrorists.

In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News, a president’s first for an online audience, Bush said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal “of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.” (continue reading post »)

Dr. Susan Rice, one of Sen. Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, got caught telling a whopper today. LGF gets credit for catching this whopper:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

Sen. Obama will want to distance himself from Dr. Rice’s comments. In most instances, Obama could say that Dr. Rice didn’t speak for him on this issue. This time, he can’t because Dr. Rice isn’t just another dime-a-dozen adviser. Dr. Rice served as Sen. Kerry’s foreign policy adviser during the 2004 campaign.

This transcript utterly refutes Dr. Rice’s statements:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

CLINTON: Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous. (continue reading post »)

I’ve always maintained that Jimmy Carter was clueless with regards to foreign policy. He’s done nothing since the 1970’s to change my opinion on that. In fact, he keeps adding new embarassments to his already substantial pile of foreign policy embarassments. Here’s his latest major blunder:

Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to “live as a neighbor next door in peace,” former President Jimmy Carter said Monday.

Carter said the group promised it wouldn’t undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

The bad news for Carter is that Hamas isn’t willing to accept Israel’s right to exist: (continue reading post »)

I’ve often admired Ed Koch’s thinking. I haven’t always agreed with him but I appreciate his bipartisanship. That bipartisanship is manifested in this column about his life. Let’s look at him through his eyes, starting with this:

I had been told by Congressman and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Manny Celler, with whom I discussed how to assist the Soviet Jews and others seeking visas to leave the Soviet Union, that I should visit with Ford. He was soon to become vice president and then president of the United States. At that time, we did not know it. In those days, everyone in the House, on both sides of the aisle, was on a first-name basis. I said, “Jerry, I need your help to bring those permitted to leave the Soviet Union into the country.” His reply was, “I will help, these are good people, they will never go on welfare.” Little did we know how many did. But he helped and saved many lives.

Mayor Koch’s thoughtfulness is as apparent as his priorities. It’s apparent that Koch put a high priority on saving lives. It didn’t matter to him who was willing to help. He simply appreciated anyone willing to step in. That’s the primary characteristic of a statesman. Ed Koch certainly surpasses that threshold with ease. The next part is my personal favorite from this column:

Ford lost to Jimmy Carter. I came to know Carter well.

When he ran for reelection, he asked me to campaign for him in 1980; I was by then Mayor of New York City, and I said that I would vote for him, but not campaign for him because he was then engaging in hostile acts towards Israel. I was popular with the Jewish community and when I would not campaign for him unless he changed his position, he called me to his hotel in New York when attending a fundraiser and said, “You have done me more damage than any man in America.” I felt proud then, and even more today, since we now know what a miserable president he was then and the miserable human being he is now as he prepares to meet with Hamas.

(continue reading post »)

Pondering the ‘08 presidential candidates this week, with the primaries finally underway, I find that recent changes in the Democrat strategy are most telling.

Whatever happened to the Left’s relentless protests about Operation Iraqi Freedom—you know, the quagmire in Mesopotamia? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who never let a media minute pass a few months back without condemning OIF, have been all but silent on the conflict.

Why, it’s almost as if their traitorous use of OIF sound bites for campaign cannon fodder has decreased as the success rate of our military campaign in the region has increased.

Could it be?

Indeed, the inverse relationship between the frequency of the Left’s objections to OIF, and our successes in the region, is painfully clear. As our combat forces have proven the value of General David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy, “the surge,” they have also reduced the Democrats’ political objections to campaign-trail rubble.

Of course, when pressed for answers on OIF, as they were at last week’s debates in New Hampshire, Clinton and Obama provide answers that will keep linguists and contortionists busy for years.

Clinton, who infamously complained to General Petraeus that only a “willing suspension of disbelief” would lead one to conclude the surge was working, says now that her assessment is still right and that that there is no justification that our troops “should remain beyond, you know, today.”

Obama, for his part, repeated the tired Demo mantra that “we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence” of OIF—which explains all the terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. He then insisted that the real reason for any success in Iraq is that “the Democrats were elected in 2006” —no doubt because the specter of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent chills up and down the spines of all those wonkish Sunni insurgents. (continue reading post »)

Mike Huckabee said he believes that Bush administration foreign policy is arrogant, that President Bush hasn’t sought the help of enough allies and that President Bush has a bunker mentality. That’s why I find this statement so disingenuous:

“I think we need to make it very clear, not just to the Iranians, but to anybody, that if you think you’re going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle. Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next things you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that,” South Carolina front-runner Mike Huckabee said.

Now who’s being arrogant? Who’s the one with a go-it-alone unilateralist attitude? More importantly, who believes that gov. Huckabee actually thinks like that? Haven’t most conservatives figured out that he’d have a pacifist foreign policy? He’s gone from being very dovish to sounding very hawkish in just a few short weeks. That isn’t convincing anyone.

Huckabee said that after spending $12 billion to help the Pakistanis fight terror on and within its borders, the U.S. should get a rundown of what it bought.

“I think we now are in a position more than ever that we should ask the Musharraf government for a better accounting. And it also ought to buy us some leverage with the Musharraf government,” he said.

The last thing we need is for some foreign policy lightweight like Gov. Huckabee to make such provocative declarations. Like Sen. Thompson said, our first goal should be to keep Pakistan’s nuclear weapons out of terrorists’ hands.

In past campaigns, Democrats have made provocative statements about foreign policy. Now another liberal is making provocative statements about foreign policy. Unfortunately, this time the liberal is a Republican. Talk about arrogant and self-serving.

Technorati Tags: Huckabee, Arrogant, Foreign Policy, Pacifist, President Bush, Unilateralism, Debates, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This article says that Mitt Romney is already a walking dead man politically. This article says that Hillary’s campaign got stung tonight. I agree with both assessments. Let’s start with Reuters’ stinging obit of Hillary:

Sen. Hillary Clinton placed third in the Iowa Democratic caucus on Thursday, a big setback for the one-time national front-runner in the first nominating contest of the 2008 U.S. presidential election, CNN reported.

Sen. Barack Obama placed first in the vote and former Sen. John Edwards came in second.

The third-place finish put pressure on Clinton, the former first lady who is seeking to become the country’s first woman president, to regain her national front-runner status as she heads into the Jan 8. primary vote in New Hampshire.

Had Hillary lost to John Edwards, it wouldn’t have been a stinging defeat. In fact, it might’ve been little more than a speedbump. Losing to Obama, though, makes her path to victory much more steep and treacherous.

Hillary never recovered from her disastrous debate performance where she got caught taking two positions on issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Her tailspin accelerated when Hillary said that Barack Obama had presidential aspirations…in Kindergarten.

The tailspin reached its zenith this weekend when she said that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf shouldn’t be the only candidate on the ballot. Joe Biden scolded her, saying that Musharraf shouldn’t be on the ballot. (continue reading post »)

I never thought I’d utter those words but this statement is so right on the money that I can’t argue with him. Here’s what I’m refering to:

The Delaware senator was responding to news that Clinton suggested in two recent interviews that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is up for reelection this month.

Musharraf was actually reelected in October, and the upcoming Pakistani elections are parliamentary, not presidential.

“We have a number of candidates who are well-intentioned but don’t understand Pakistan,” Biden said at a campaign event Tuesday. “One of the leading candidates, God love her.”

“There are good people running,” continued the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has made his foreign policy credentials a centerpiece of his long shot presidential bid. “But to say Musharraf is up for election! Musharraf was elected, fairly or unfairly, president six months ago. It’s about a parliamentary election!”

Clinton’s comments came in an interview with ABC Sunday, in which she said, “[Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don’t think that’s a real election.”

The New York senator also made similar comments during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer last week, saying then, “”If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow.”

Hillary’s ‘experience’ doesn’t seem to have helped her get even the basics right. If she doesn’t even know what’s happening in Pakistan right after an assassination has destabilized the country, then we’ve got to question whether she’s clueless or if she’s just that disinterested in foreign policy. Personally, I think she’s just that disinterested in policy. Her main focus is on the accumlation of pwoer. I haven’t detected any interest on Hillary’s behalf in terms of being the wonk that Bill is. The most important things that Hillary’s interested in is the initial accumulation of political power, the maintaining of that power and the expansion of that political power.

That’s why she’d be a disastrous president. That’s why I’m thankful that Joe Biden pointed out Hillary’s ridiculous statements about Pakistan. Hopefully, people are taking notes. hopefully, they’re noticing that the so-called smartest woman in the world isn’t the brightest bulb in the string of Christmas lights.

Technorati Tags: Hillary, Joe Biden, Pervez Musharraf, Foreign Policy, Pakistan, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy inexperience got exposed during his latest appearance on Hannity & Colmes. Here’s what he said that conservatives will find alarming:

LOWRY: Governor, how important is foreign policy experience? Because that was an issue out on the trail today, John McCain talking about how much experience he has working with these…these issues. Why shouldn’t voters turn to a candidate who’s been marinating in these kind of issues over the last few decades?

ROMNEY: Well, if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy, we can simply go to the State Department and pluck out one of the tens of thousands of people who work there. They, of course, have been doing foreign policy all their careers.

But that’s not how we choose a president. A president is not a foreign policy expert. A president is a leader who understands how to make difficult decisions and does so in a way that brings together the best voices, that considers the upsides and downsides and predicts the credibility and the strength that America has always projected in circumstances like this.

First, a wartime president’s first instinct in facing a crisis like Pakistan’s shouldn’t be to “go to the State Department and pluck out one of the tens of thousands of people who work there.” That’s a horrible idea. The smarter idea would be to convene a meeting with your national security team, especially including the director of the NSA, the DCI, the DNI, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the vice president. (continue reading post »)

Here’s the transcript of his interview with FNC’s Harris Faulkner:

HARRIS FAULKNER: Senator, your reaction, first, to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

THOMPSON: It is a tragedy, of course. It reminds us that things can happen in faraway places of the world that can affect the United States. I think this should be of great concern to us. It is almost a perfect storm in a very bad sense because two forces are operating against each other that are both desirable. One is democracy: they were making progress in that regard in that country. Former prime minister Bhutto was an important part of that process. But the other is stability. Pakistan is a nuclear country, and we cannot afford to let nukes fall into the hands of dangerous Muslim radicals. We are hoping those two things can be balanced out. We can see the continued progress toward a democratic society but also maintain stability in the country, which seems to be very much in doubt right now.

FAULKNER: I know you are running for the White House, so I don’t want to put you in a position to second guess the president. But I’m interested in your opinion. President Bush is due to talk with Pervez Musharraf shortly. What do you anticipate that conversation should be like?

THOMPSON: Those two things that I mention probably would be high on the agenda. What could be done to not impose martial law, to not crack down, but be mindful of the fact that there are radical elements in that country, and perhaps even within the government, that would like to see instability and chaos and see those weapons fall into the wrong hands. This is part of a bigger problem. We need to understand that this is not a criminal investigation any more - so we find the bad guys and bring them to justice - it’s a war.

This proves again the mindset of the radical elements that we are dealing with. We are seeing this all across Northern Africa and various places. We’re seeing it across the Middle East and in parts of Asia including Indonesia and other places. We have to come to terms with that and do the things necessary to prevail. One of the things we need to be talking about is what Musharraf can do, additionally, to crack down on the Taliban. I think they have been insufficient in that respect.

FAULKNER: Taliban also supporters of al Qaeda in that country. Pakistan has been an important ally in the war on terror, so have do you walk that line?

THOMPSON: You just walk it. No one said it has been easy and simple. Pakistan has never been easy or simple. I had a chance a few years ago to talk to Musharraf before things got quite as complex as they are now. But it has always been an important part of the world. They’re next door to India. They’ve had a crisis after crisis with regard to them. They’re next door to Afghanistan, and they’re important to us. They’ve been helpful to us. But we’ re going to have to walk that line between democracy on the one hand and stability on the other. But I think it’s possible.

Fred’s right that we won’t see a simple way forward with regards to Pakistan. I also think it’s going to take a steady hand walking this particular tightrope between desiring democracy without sacrificing stability.

In terms of the presidential election, this isn’t the time to elect someone that’ll need on the job training. It isn’t a time to elect a Democrat, either, because it’s likely that Bill Richardson would either be the Democratic nominee’s running mate or their Secretary of State. Here’s why we can’t afford Richardson as VP or SecState:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called on President Bush to pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to step aside in favor of a coalition government.

“Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government,” he said in a statement. “Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible,” added Richardson, who served as ambassador to the United Nations for a portion of the Clinton administration.

That’s an irresponsible, ill-conceived approach to the situation. Why would we want to force things at this point? What happens if the radicals win this election? That’s a distinct possibility.

As Sen. Thompson said, this is a delicate situation that must be handled with deftness. The last thing we need is to act with the subtlety of a sawed-off shotgun.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan, Musharraf, Bill Richardson, GWOT, Taliban

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog