One of the central questions this election is what type of foreign policy we want. Based on their competing statements, it’s apparent that an Obama administration wouldn’t assign blame to aggressors. Actually, an Obama administration would assign blame on aggressors and victims. John Hinderaker’s post at Powerlineblog shows the intellectual incoherence of Sen. Obama’s foreign policy and the comprehensive grasp of geopolitical factors to be weighed of Sen. McCain’s foreign policy. Here’s one of Sen. Obama’s statements on the Russian-Georgian conflict:

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”

Saying that Georgia “should show restraint” is like telling Kuwait in 1990 to show restraint after Iraq invaded. Here’s Sen. McCain’s statement:

“[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.

“The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.”

Sen. McCain’s statement has the right tone to it, calling for the US to join with the EU and the OSCE in putting diplomatic pressure on Russia while calling on Russia to “immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.”

Instead of making a more definitive statement on a path forward, the Obama campaign made this statement:

“John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser lobbied for, and has a vested interest in, the Republic of Georgia and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan, noting that the “appearance of a conflict of interest” was a consequence of McCain’s too-close ties to lobbyists.

Here’s how Sen. McCain replied:

The Obama campaign’s attacks on Randy Scheunemann are disgraceful. Mr. Scheunemann proudly represented a small democracy that is one of our closest allies in a very dangerous region. Today, many are dead and Georgia is in crisis, yet the Obama campaign has offered nothing more than cheap and petty political attacks that are echoed only by the Kremlin. The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn’t merely raise questions about Senator Obama’s judgment, it answers them.

Team Obama would have us believe that advocating for a fledgling democracy in an important and dangerous region is a bad thing. Whatever happened to the “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty” Democratic Party? Has that Democratic Party disappeared forever? While I can’t say that definitely, I can’t disprove it based on the Obama campaign’s statements either.

This is another example of why you shouldn’t send a toy messiah to do a man’s job.

Technorati Tags: Georgia, Russia, Act Of War, Barack Obama, Appeasement, John McCain, National Security, Democracy, Liberty, JFK, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. If everyone in America could read the differences in the statements. They would see that McCain is the man to run our Country. We need someone like him to lead us, not some simpleton,(vacationing without his speech writers) to act like this is a fight among kids. Ok Kids, lets kiss and make up. NOT going to happen there Nobama.

   Comment by UnDumbed — August 15, 2008 @ 11:42 am