Bush's comments, made in Jerusalem to the Israeli parliament during celebrations for Israel's 60th anniversary, stirred up the campaign for the November election and prompted Obama to accuse him of engaging in "the politics of fear."
Obama is correct in labeling the remark as nothing but purley a scare political tactic. Yet, Obama must still offer a bold and substantive rebuttal to the charges beyond merely accusing Bush of engaging in "the politics of fear."
Undoubtedely, it is against Obama's position of opening up a dialogue with Iranian leader that Bush's remarks were directed. Thus, it is all the more important for Obama to lay out a defence for his position.
The policies of silent diplomacy and the complete refusal to hold any discussion have never bear any fruit or made America safer. So, why would anyone believe that this same policy would yield any fruit this time around? What would be the danger of American President sitting and talking to Iranian leader or Syrian leader or N Korean leader? What is America afraid of? Is it giving legitimacy? But, what legitimacy? Afterall, these countries are soveriegn nations accepted by the international communities and members of the UN. So, what additional legitimacy will American be giving to them? It is none, zero.
In fact, the mere fact of American leader willing to open up a dialogue with these leaders proves this nation greatness and magnanimity. You may not see it this way after having pursuing the only policy this nation ever knew, that is, of rejecting and discounting these leaders. But, as a foreign born and raised individual, I can tell you such gestures would be welcomed by the people of these nations if not their leaders. And that in and of itself is a worth reason to do it.
Obama is correct in labeling the remark as nothing but purley a scare political tactic. Yet, Obama must still offer a bold and substantive rebuttal to the charges beyond merely accusing Bush of engaging in "the politics of fear."
Undoubtedely, it is against Obama's position of opening up a dialogue with Iranian leader that Bush's remarks were directed. Thus, it is all the more important for Obama to lay out a defence for his position.
The policies of silent diplomacy and the complete refusal to hold any discussion have never bear any fruit or made America safer. So, why would anyone believe that this same policy would yield any fruit this time around? What would be the danger of American President sitting and talking to Iranian leader or Syrian leader or N Korean leader? What is America afraid of? Is it giving legitimacy? But, what legitimacy? Afterall, these countries are soveriegn nations accepted by the international communities and members of the UN. So, what additional legitimacy will American be giving to them? It is none, zero.
In fact, the mere fact of American leader willing to open up a dialogue with these leaders proves this nation greatness and magnanimity. You may not see it this way after having pursuing the only policy this nation ever knew, that is, of rejecting and discounting these leaders. But, as a foreign born and raised individual, I can tell you such gestures would be welcomed by the people of these nations if not their leaders. And that in and of itself is a worth reason to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment