The long primary season is over now that Senator Barack H. Obama has won enough delegates to gain the presumptive Democratic nomination for the U.S. Presidency. On CNN's "American Morning," former Gov. Mitt Romney was doing his surrogate best to slam Obama by way of Senator Clinton's earlier campaign jabs of how "inexperienced" Obama was, even to his continued "naivety" even though it is possible during a long campaign season for anyone to rethink their positions, to flesh them out, to change their minds on certain issues because of new knowledge or understanding or new facts. Nothing wrong with that. But of course we must "hold Obama" to what he said during the Dem debates and voice a disapproval of his "dangerous naivety" and attack him again as he begins moving toward tough diplomacy that advances American and our allies' interests, again as proof of "naivety." But not proof, that Obama is a quick learner. In fact, Obama demonstrates the sort of intelligence going into this contest against McCain that GW never exhibited on day one of his presidency. That if I make a mistake, I am willing to learn from it and move forward, sort of intelligence. And here, Romney is prepared to slam Obama for actually demonstrating one of the primary gifts bestowed upon a leader, a fellow intelligent enough to recognize his mistakes and learn from them. So is that why McCain is currently 6% points behind Obama in the national polls?
While Obama has been attacked for being willing to sit down personally with "the world's worst tyrants" as Romney was prepared to put it, and McCain has shaken a fist at Iran; Zbigniew Brzezinsky and William Odom had an editorial on Iran republished in the Spokesman-Review, where they acknowledged a need for diplomacy. And how far we weren't likely to get with Iran if we didn't have some kind of diplomacy on the table essentially as a means to stabilize the Middle East. After all the slamming of Senator Obama for arguing that diplomacy can certainly be an answer for Iran; Brezinsky and Odom undercut the GOP attack ads with a demand that we do have a need for diplomacy with a flake for a tyrant, Ahmedinejadh (sic). The full editorial is in the 6 June 2008 edition of the Spokesman-Review. And breaking news this morning, seems Iran isn't only just prepared to meddle with Iraq to stir up heat against the U.S. presence, Iran is prepared to "share intelligence" with Turkey in taking out the PKK rebels. Weren't the Kurds deemed to be on Iran's side during the Iraq-Iran war? If that should tell potential U.S. leaders anything, Iran feels emboldened enough to stick its fingers in many pots, even where it would seem that the actions of the gvt of Iran was self-contradictory, and could easily create a massive blow back against that regime. So, it would be hard to say what was on the mind of the flake Ahmedinejadh (sic) except to suggest that he acts like a kid in a candy shop who is given full access to grab and throw about what he wishes and make a general mess out of things.
(From the editorial:) Diplomacy needed to quell Iranian threat
One should note also in this connection Iranian hostility toward al Qaida, lately intensified by al Qaida's Web-based campaign urging a U.S.-Iranian war, which could both weaken what al Qaida views as Iran's apostate regime and bog America down in a prolonged regional conflict.
Now isn't that something? McCain rattling sabers at Iran does Al Qaeda's bidding. Why should we find this in an editorial but not acknowledged on the campaign trail? If Brzezinsky and the now late Odom happened to be correct on this, a fellow with 25 years of experience in Congress who doesn't acknowledge what these two authors did, can't have any better a foreign policy argument for the Middle East than diplomacy first Obama can bring. Now why would we want to do the bidding of a terrorist group that slaughtered over 3,000 of our countrymen anyway? Time to think this out and come up with a fresh answer. Hopefully, Romney gets hold of the same info.