A few months ago, former ambassador Joe Wilson addressed Obama's bizarre record on foreign policy. After noting that Obama, as chairman of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, had refused to run any hearings at all on Afghanistan, Wilson scores Obama for his Iran stance:
On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the “Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007,” which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama’s accountability problem here is that he didn’t show up for the vote on that resolution — a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama’s rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.Clearly, his position has pinged and ponged to suit the viability of his White House run.
(Side note: The piece was written in March. The resultant Obot commentary displays the sort of repulsive vitriol that caused Hillary's support to surge when it should have collapsed.)
We can't take Obama at his word -- after all, this is the fellow who once said that he barely knew Tony Rezko. Actions speak louder than.
Nothing in his history suggests that Barack Obama will maintain a left-wing stance on foreign policy issues. He is, after all, a protege of Zbigniew Brzezinski. (The two seem to have had their first encounters during Obi's days at Columbia.) Today, most people forget that Democrats were among the first neoconservatives, and that Brzezinksi was once closely allied with neocon founding saint Henry "Scoop" Jackson.
Zbig is the man who funded Pol Pot. He bragged about luring the Soviets into Afghanistan. Reagrding Iran, let me repeat what I've said earlier:
Few on either the right or the left understand that, until roughly a year-and-a-half before the revolution in Iran, the Socialist Tudeh party and the constitutionalist National Front commanded wide public support in that country and stood an excellent chance of gaining power when the Shah's tyranny ended. When the CIA learned of the Shah's precarious health, Brzezinski had the Agency covertly aid the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini, a Shi'ite theocract. The goal was twofold: Preventing a Socialist or nationalist government from taking power, and fomenting a jihad against the Soviets.In recent times, Brzezinski has written responsibly against the Bush administration and its warlike posture against Iran. But we cannot trust the man. Certainly, Obama would not have sponsored the Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 without first consulting Brzezinski.
Never forget that Brzezinski's great enemy is Russia. If he now seems to take a sensible position on Iraq and Iran, he does so only because he considers all other matters subordinate to his goal of reigniting the cold war.
5 comments:
SPRING TIME IN BERLIN
The "far left" love affair with sharia goofs blossomed when a halfwhit Berlin Polizei made the command decision to put a round in the back of Benno Ohnesorg's skull while the Shah of Iran was touring the city. Providing a (suitable enough) "martyr" to form the Baeder Meinhof Gang and a few other fun social groups along the way.
Barry isn't going to bomb Tehran. Billy Ayers won't allow it. It's a fair bet their target map is decidedly different than Dick Cheneys.
<>_<> HIDE AND SEE
This is a mixed picture.
Even the author of the piece linked to as evidence of Zbiggie's Russia obsession says of him:
This mission, if analyzed from an outsider’s point of view, depicts Brzezinski as a peace advocate, a man in favor of multilateral relations and diminishing world tension (Cold War) and -to the eyes of the extreme right- as a man inspired by Marxism.
Remember, the particular mission of Zbiggie's referred to above was during an active phase of the Cold War. So, allegedly hating Russia, Zbiggie still was working for peace and improved multilateral relations with them and others to reduce Cold War tensions, so much so that the Right viewed him as a communist-sympathizer? (Note, the author of this says it is true, to an [objective] outsider.)
Could it be that Zbiggie's supposed hatred of Russia could merely have been an entirely orthodox opposition to the **USSR** and its global communism agenda? And that his current commentary (the linked piece is now some 4 years old, relating to the Kerry/Edwards team's use of him as an advisor) on Putin is not designed to falsely demonize him as a new cause for a return to the Cold War, but simply an accurate take on that autocratic near-dictator?
Beats me, but possibly, anyway. At least Zbiggie's one of the few foreign policy paladins who encourages negotiating with Iran, and disfavors a military strike there.
...sofla
That may not have been the best-chosen link. To segments of the "extreme right," Ronald Reagan, Poppy Bush and Richard Nixon were all commies. The fact is, Zbig was so obsessed with bringing down the USSR that he was willing to countenancw a deal with any devil. Hence his "arc of crisis" scheme. And the Russians themselves view him as THEIR great satan.
Joseph,
I have to thank you. I have heard the Zbig story before. But it facinates me and chimes with so many interesting positions taken by my eastern european friends. It also reminds me of Xenophon, Tacitus, and Josephus. The West's dealings with the Russians and even the Persians really hasnt changed much over the years.
Harry
Post a Comment