Krauthammer Times It Very Badly.
I wondered yesterday how the naysayers would react to the news that Obama had achieved more in one day of negotiating than George W. Bush achieved in eight years of sabre rattling.
Charles Krauthammer couldn't even wait till negotiations were over before he dismissed them as worse than useless:
And, just as he dismissed Obama's chances of getting Iran to agree to nuclear inspections, likewise, he is dismissive of Obama's hopes of securing a nuclear free world. He berates Obama for deciding not to reveal the knowledge he had of the facility at Qom because Obama wanted to concentrate on the deal he had struck with Russia to reduce the number of both country's nuclear warheads. This strikes Krauthammer as typical of Obama's childishness, and he cites Sarkosy as proof that he is right and Obama is wrong:Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.
Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naivete.
The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.The cynicism of the right wingers is so hard wired into them, it has become such a sign of their supposed "seriousness", that they dismiss anyone who thinks that there might be another way as naive in the extreme. Krauthammer produced this article on the very day that Iran agreed to inspections and to sending their uranium to be processed in a third country. On the very day when Obama got Iran to agree to this, Krauthammer was accusing him of "adolescent mindlessness" for daring to believe that there might be a more rational way to behave than the neo-con path of confrontation and force.Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later -- in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.
Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran."
Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?
Certainly, regarding both Iran and Russian nuclear weapons, all the signs at the moment are that the Obama method is proving much more successful than the neo-con methods employed by the Bush regime. Which is why it is the greatest irony that Krauthammer should produce this cynical diatribe on the very day when Obama's positivism triumphs over the negativism and cynicism which Krauthammer has applauded for the past eight years.
The Bush years and the methods which they employed produced nothing in terms of a deal with Iran, indeed, they simply allowed Iran to go on enriching uranium because Bush insisted that Iran give up all of it's rights under the NNPT before talks of any kind could take place.
Obama, in one day, has shown that more can be achieved by treating your opponents as adults than can be achieved by bullying and threats.
Listen to Krauthammer's shock when he describes Obama's vision:
After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, "No one nation can . . . dominate another nation."That's shocking to Krauthammer because he believes bullying is the only way. He wants the US to dominate other nations. He regards negotiation as weakness.
Thankfully, Obama is showing that there is a much more productive way to proceed. And it is the deranged right wingers with their fixation on world domination who are exhibiting "adolescent mindlessness".
Click title for Krauthammer's diatribe.
2 comments:
The stupid thing about the whole nuclear debate is that NeoCons treat nukes like they were tactical weaponry, when the truth is that they are (for any small or civilized nation) an endgame option only. No one but maybe a neocon-led U.S. would chance using a nuke because it would invite a similar response, and who is really that crazy? Certainly not Iran.
It was a weapon of deterrence then, and it's still a weapon of deterrence, not one of attack.
Dave I couldn't agree more. These insane buggers were the ones who used to tell us that Mutually Assured Destruction was what kept the world safe. By the logic they employed in the eighties they should be demanding that Iran have even more of the bloody things so we'd all be safer.
But, as you say, somewhere along the line the neo-cons - remember Bush's promise of "bunker busting nuclear weapons"? - have started talking as if this is a weapon of choice rather than a final option of no return. That's what Reagan's silly Star Wars option is all about; it introduces the stupid notion that nuclear wars can be fought and won, which is utter madness.
Post a Comment