Fhrida Ghitas is fortunately not published in the Spokesman-Review very often. I think it is actually a blessing that she isn't. If there was ever a definition of liberal, she would meet that definition to a "T." So, reading her republished editorial in the 5 January 2010 edition of the Spokesman-Review, you could immediately get the impression that because Iranian President Ahmedinajad only happens to be an extremist who undoubtedly hates the west as much as he hates Israel and the U.S.; our failure to "make nice" to such a thug and make him see sweet reason, well; it can't be GW's fault, now can it? No kidding? Really?
Let's lay aside for the minute that countries with governments and leaders who absolutely detest this nation; one of the lasting legacies of GW was that he spent more time alienating his friends than putting together at any time an effective foreign policy. Only if you ignore such a legacy as Ms. Ghitas sets out to do, then you can opine away that GW can't be blamed for countries with "mutually exclusive" policies (that at the same time, hate us). Well no, if for example Iran spent better than 20 years calling us the "Great Satan" regardless of who was in office, that would be true. On the other hand, how about attacking France for refusing to step up to the plate on a contemplated invasion (by the U.S.) of Iraq. Anything associated however loosely with France could be renamed: Freedom Fries, Freedom Toast; and French wines could be dumped down the gutter. And "French cleaners" could get vandalized with graffiti written all over the building, etc. I am quite sure that the French government (that was demonstrating mutually exclusive policies when it came to GW's two terms in office) breathed a sigh of relief when GW was replaced by Dem successor President Obama. As did other nations known to be our allies before being confronted with the last president's belligerence.
Now to take into consideration, Hugo Chavez. Would it be impossible for the man to not know the world's opinion of President Bush when he was in office? The point to be made is, that of course the man isn't stupid, he'd have radio, TV, some kind of newspaper, and without a doubt the capacity to obtain international news. Just as he would travel to other nations at odds with this one, quite prepared to make deals with those countries just to p.o. the last administration in particular. Ever consider that Chavez is a master manipulator very capable of pushing the hot buttons of people most passionate? Well, yeah; is the Pope Catholic?
I remember when people started screaming away about President Obama's poor choice of "friends." In letters to the editor in the Coeur d'Alene Press and again in the Spokesman-Review and even on blogs. President Hugo Chavez who gave Obama a book, Chavez who at one point spoke approvingly of the new president before the U.N. brought a rain of rants that insinuated a question of disloyalty by Obama to this nation. And from there, attacks on the (old) left in general. So, when Chavez who'd be just as capable of knowing all about the criticisms of American media such as CNN and Fox News about Obama obtaining the Nobel Peace Prize so soon into his presidency; well now it wouldn't be impossible for the man to simply capitalize on that American-based criticism and change his opinions about Obama "his dear friend" in a matter of months. While I did not hear about Chavez' mutually exclusive domestic and foreign polices vis a vis Obama until Ms. Ghitas brought this matter front and center. I do know that there did come a time when Obama wasn't being attacked for his anti-American "friends." Not now, anyway when one of them turns on him.
No, I don't guess that diplomacy is going to work on Ahmedinajad. But neither did drawing a line in the sand, backing away, drawing another line in the sand, backing away and drawing another line in the sand; which was the Iranian foreign policy under the GW administration ever effective either. So, what should we do? Well, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and begin to do something toward cutting off Iran's oil profits, which no doubt does go a long way toward funding Ahmedinajad's nuclear ambitions. We ask the rest of the western world to follow suit. Then we turn to Iran's neighbors and tell them that it would be in their best interests, that whenever Ahmedinajad throws a tantrum, to send him to his room without supper. Maybe applying the right sort of diplomacy not directly with Iran but with those who do business with Iran would do more to curtail Iran's thuggish attitudes. If Iran no longer had the profits to support a nuclear program, how quickly would Iran come to the negotiating table?
Let's lay aside for the minute that countries with governments and leaders who absolutely detest this nation; one of the lasting legacies of GW was that he spent more time alienating his friends than putting together at any time an effective foreign policy. Only if you ignore such a legacy as Ms. Ghitas sets out to do, then you can opine away that GW can't be blamed for countries with "mutually exclusive" policies (that at the same time, hate us). Well no, if for example Iran spent better than 20 years calling us the "Great Satan" regardless of who was in office, that would be true. On the other hand, how about attacking France for refusing to step up to the plate on a contemplated invasion (by the U.S.) of Iraq. Anything associated however loosely with France could be renamed: Freedom Fries, Freedom Toast; and French wines could be dumped down the gutter. And "French cleaners" could get vandalized with graffiti written all over the building, etc. I am quite sure that the French government (that was demonstrating mutually exclusive policies when it came to GW's two terms in office) breathed a sigh of relief when GW was replaced by Dem successor President Obama. As did other nations known to be our allies before being confronted with the last president's belligerence.
Now to take into consideration, Hugo Chavez. Would it be impossible for the man to not know the world's opinion of President Bush when he was in office? The point to be made is, that of course the man isn't stupid, he'd have radio, TV, some kind of newspaper, and without a doubt the capacity to obtain international news. Just as he would travel to other nations at odds with this one, quite prepared to make deals with those countries just to p.o. the last administration in particular. Ever consider that Chavez is a master manipulator very capable of pushing the hot buttons of people most passionate? Well, yeah; is the Pope Catholic?
I remember when people started screaming away about President Obama's poor choice of "friends." In letters to the editor in the Coeur d'Alene Press and again in the Spokesman-Review and even on blogs. President Hugo Chavez who gave Obama a book, Chavez who at one point spoke approvingly of the new president before the U.N. brought a rain of rants that insinuated a question of disloyalty by Obama to this nation. And from there, attacks on the (old) left in general. So, when Chavez who'd be just as capable of knowing all about the criticisms of American media such as CNN and Fox News about Obama obtaining the Nobel Peace Prize so soon into his presidency; well now it wouldn't be impossible for the man to simply capitalize on that American-based criticism and change his opinions about Obama "his dear friend" in a matter of months. While I did not hear about Chavez' mutually exclusive domestic and foreign polices vis a vis Obama until Ms. Ghitas brought this matter front and center. I do know that there did come a time when Obama wasn't being attacked for his anti-American "friends." Not now, anyway when one of them turns on him.
No, I don't guess that diplomacy is going to work on Ahmedinajad. But neither did drawing a line in the sand, backing away, drawing another line in the sand, backing away and drawing another line in the sand; which was the Iranian foreign policy under the GW administration ever effective either. So, what should we do? Well, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and begin to do something toward cutting off Iran's oil profits, which no doubt does go a long way toward funding Ahmedinajad's nuclear ambitions. We ask the rest of the western world to follow suit. Then we turn to Iran's neighbors and tell them that it would be in their best interests, that whenever Ahmedinajad throws a tantrum, to send him to his room without supper. Maybe applying the right sort of diplomacy not directly with Iran but with those who do business with Iran would do more to curtail Iran's thuggish attitudes. If Iran no longer had the profits to support a nuclear program, how quickly would Iran come to the negotiating table?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment