Barrack Obama - Looking for the Ideal Spot to Make a Speech, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 4-12-2008 @ 05:41 PM by theindependentjournal

Looking for the Ideal Spot to Make a Speech


www.nytimes.com
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama’s aides say he is considering making a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.democraticunderground.com
www.dailykos.com

[edit on 12/4/2008 by theindependentjournal]


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 06:14 PM by theindependentjournal
reply to post by paperplanes


I aint an Obama hater to let you know right off the bat, I figured he would be way better than the last 8 years and I was and am still willing to give him a shot at it, and if he does well will say so as I will for the opposite. My point is what kind of message does this send to OUR ALLIES like Israel and India whom as I said above are very worried about Islamic threats to their lands.

I think this was a HUGE screw up from his people. It sends a bad message to all the other allies too. While I do support talking with Iran and not bombing them as Bush/Cheney want I don't think giving a major policy speech in an Islamic nation right now or announcing one is a good move. Wrong message to the allies and to those crazy Islamics who do think Barack is the 12th Imam as reported. I recall him in Germany like Reagan giving a speech and he backs that up with an Islamic Nation? Someone is NOT thinking in his staff at all, his is NOT going to go well and I assume will be publicly canceled before to long.

We should talk with anyone and seek a peaceful resolution, but going to their nation to speak wit the world the way it is today with Islam and the many attacks daily around the world, most in Iraq and AFghan but there is warnings everywhere for more.

I don't know this don't sit right and it actually makes me fell a bit unsettled. I was one who supported Barack whether he as a Islamic or not, and I believed he was not, I didn't think there was anything to his Islamic so called connections. But now I must have to wonder if I was wrong and maybe some of the others were right after all.

That would suck big time as I wanted America to turn back around under Barack and get back to our basics. Looks like he wants to send a clear message that he is willing to use an Islamic nation as the backdrop to a policy speech, and this aint good in this day and age in my humble opinion.

Clarification - did not vote for Barack but I did and do support talking to Iran and any enemy, hell that's how Ronnie got Gorby, TALK!!!


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 07:14 PM by The Vagabond
Yeah, I've seen this before. Remember when Nixon went to China and became a communist?
Oh wait, Nixon went to China and exploited the Sino-Soviet split for the benefit of American national security.

Obama will not get into Iran in his first 100 days- there's too much ground work for State to lay ahead of that.

Going to Pakistan would be a blunder, considering that it would be optimistic to predict a 50% chance of us going to war with them before 2016.

I strongly encourage people to actually read the NYT article- it's better analysis than I usually expect from the MSM.

Cairo is a good option, especially since the Bush administration was putting the screws to them about their "democratic" process and Obama might want to very quietly give the signal that America is willing to turn a blind eye to the wrongs of Muslim nations which aren't actively fighting us (because let's face it, "ignore me and I'll ignore you" is the best middle east policy this country has ever come up with). It also sets a good example for the Syrians. Egypt and Syria didn't part ways on the whole "death to Israel" thing all that long ago.

Writing off Amman as been there done that might be a little too shallow though. Jordan's role in 1948 (not to mention its position on the map) makes it pretty clear that they are indispensible to a working two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the interest of being original though, my first guess is Albania. Clinton did good for ethnic Albanian Muslims, Bush was the first president to visit Albania itself while in office, and Barry will want to continue growing that relationship, not only for diplomatic reasons but to give a subtle affirmation that he is on board to keep messing around on Russia's doorstep and keep Cold War II coming along on schedule.

I'll have to check the timeframe against upcoming events and recent news to come up with something a little more solid. We'll see if I find the time.


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 08:27 PM by theindependentjournal
reply to post by The Vagabond


Good analysis, wish they had announced which one in the piece as leaving it open to some unnamed Islamic Nation in the media leaves to many people including our allies wondering which one. Turkey would be the best bet for all concerned as it leaves out the Yugoslavian conflict Clinton got us into the same way George got us into Iraq, w/o U.N. approval. Jordan wouldn't be a bad one either other than it's proximity to our ally Israel. But leaving it open and unnamed gives everyone time to think of the worst possible, and who knows maybe it will be the worst possible and he don;t want to announce for that reason.

Anyways you made some good points and I would say Obama should hire you to do his press releases to ease the people that are surely going to go ballistic over this one...


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 09:36 PM by The Vagabond
The Secret Service would never let me near Obama. I've flubbed a very specific assassination prediction and they'd probably think I was positioning myself to improve my average. (Not that my average needs help. I predicted Obama to win, Edwards to Place, Hillary to Show in Iowa 9 months in advance).

Bragging aside though, if I were Obama's press secretary I'd also have to tell people that it's not going to be a controversy free visit or a controversy free speech. There's not much point "reaching out" to people we don't have issues with. I think Jordan would be a great place to start, precisely because the issue there is one of our allies and not us in our own right. Not only would it be likely to go a little further a little faster, but it would also give us some credibility against the whole Zionism charge, which would take a chip away from nations which have a problem with both us AND Israel when the time comes to bring them to the table.

If I were his press secy I'd probably spin this from liberal internationalism to fiscal conservatism, in the interest of being bipartisan without actually doing anything the other side wants me to do.
It's not that we want to live and let live, it's just that smart bombs are getting pricey but treaties are cheap (we've got all those Indian treaties we aren't using for anything afterall- cross out the racially insensitive native slurs and references to cavalry, insert racially insensitive middle eastern slurs and references to nuclear weapons, and voila, the one week of peace we'll get out of that could save us millions on munitions)


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 10:24 PM by theindependentjournal
reply to post by The Vagabond


LOL, I definitely want you on his press staff, you're accurate, make valid statements and a hoot!
Pages:     ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 16 hours ago, 68 replies