Senator Joe Lieberman, Rep. Eric Cantor and McCain foreign policy and national security director Randy Scheunemann responded to Barack Obama’s AIPAC speech. Lieberman deemed the speech one of “good intentions” but raised three major criticisms. First, he noted that Obama had sought to minimize the threat from Iran when talking on the primary campaign trail, but before AIPAC now cast the threat as “grave.” Second, with a mild tone but forceful, they took Obama to task for his switch of position on classification of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. As the co-author of the amendment with Sen. Jon Kyl, Liebermann noted that it was supported by three-fourths of the Senate including Sens. Schumer, Durban, Reid and Clinton, but that at the time Obama opposed it. Obama says that it contained lanugage about military action. Lieberman said bluntly, “It has none of that.” Lieberman said he hoped that Obama would acknowledge that his vote was a mistake. Finally, he rejected Obama’s view that Israel was less safe because of American actions and said that if there is a culprit, it is Iran.
Scheunemann reminded the media that Obama still seemed fixed on withdrawal from Iraq, but that now he wants a “phased” withdrawal, whereas he previous voted to cut off all funds immediately. He also bashed Obama for claiming that we had “subcontracted” Iranian negotiations to the Europeans, deeming this insulting to our allies. Finally, he noted that Obama seemed to be “walking back” some of the prior comments on meeting Ahmadinejad and now indicated he would do so “if it would advance American interests.”
In short, the road back to the middle of the road will be treacherous for Obama. As he tries to moderate his views, on Iran most clearly, he will, it seems, face frequent reminders from the McCain camp that the new positions seem adopted especially for the general election. In a world of YouTube and Google, not to mention campaign websites, the job of the McCain camp is made much easier.
Maybe, just maybe, the administration is coming out with the “carrot” first, , i.e., putting the “good cop” forward. Then, when Iran tries to weasel around the issue, the stick will be brought out by the bad cop. On can hope this is the technique. They couldn’t be as naive as it looks otherwise, could they?
Or maybe Hillary is the bad cop and Obama the good, in this drama, and they are really being very calculated about dealing with Iran. Again, one must hope so. I don’t think Obama is as foolish as he sounded, on al arabiya.
I wouldn’t trust Hillary any further than I can throw her, which these days is not far.
Moreover, I am waiting for the inevitable impending grudge match pitting Susan Rice v. Hillary. No holds bar and shown on HBO.
SBOBIV: Barred, dammit, barred. If we wanna be funny and pointed, gotta do it right.
Hillary is going to have her own little probs navigating the vast territorial disputes within the new Obama administration.
What with all his personal envoys, end-running local ambassadors, end-running the Bureau for Near East Affairs, ————————————- isn’t likelihood that the messiah will soon find himself tempted to short-circuit traditional diplomatic engagement, and through a hands-on approach, through his personal envoys, engage DIRECTLY, without Hillary or State as an intermediary, the various disputants in the region.
Hillary thought she landed herself quite a gig.
What will she make of the fact that all the personal envoys are effectively cutting her right out of the loop. On paper, she’ll retain all the perks, perogatives of office, all the public acclaim. But behind the scenes, she might easily find herself being the last to find out where Obama is really going.
Wouldn’t be the first time a President cut out State.
Nixon totally cut State off at the knees regarding his gambit towards China. He conducted it all through Kissenger. State finally got wind of what was going down only the day before. Now that’s being CUT OUT.
Why anyone thinks Hillary Clinton is actually a friend of Israel is beyond me. There is no real difference between Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton on this. (And the appointment of George Mitchell shows exactly where they stand.) Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is demanding that the United States withdraw its troops from Muslim countries and cease supporting Israel. So basically what Obama and Clinton are doing is negotiating against themselves. Real smart …