More Shameful Behavior from the Administration Regarding Libya

I wrote this recent post last week bemoaning Wonderboy's inaction on Libya.

Then it became worse. By late last week, his intelligence chief had testified to Congress that it looked like Gadafi would remain in power.

What the hell is going on in the White House? How can we let this madman who's slaughtering his own people remain in power?

And, of course, as so many pundits immediately predicted, if you're a rebel, and you hear a spokesman for the US basically tell you you're going to lose, what hope have you?

This is unconscionable. By the time Wonderboy lets NATO or the UN decide to agree to a no-fly zone, it will be too late.

Instead of looking to the US as the beacon and friend of liberty and freedom, oppressed people around the globe will now know not to rely on the current administration for any help whatsoever.

Wonderboy's Failure in Libya

It's disheartening to see the US seemingly gripped by fear and indecision as to what policy to pursue as Qaddafi slaughters his own people in Libya.

What good are our armed forces if not to be able to protect Libyans from being killed by their sociopath tyrant?

I've read the pros and cons of establishing a 'no fly' zone. Frankly, I don't think the technical aspects are that daunting, even if it means taking out Libya's air defenses and airfields.

The more pressing issues is Wonderboy's obvious inability to engage in virgin military actions that he didn't inherit. And the Libyan people's awareness that the US won't aid them in avoiding being murdered by their own government.

No matter what allegiances the rebels have, the ordinary Libyans see America now as intransigent and disinterested. And this from a president who claimed that the US is now a 'Muslim nation!'

I'm embarrassed and frustrated to see this inaction on our part. It's shameful.

Egypt In Crisis: Wonderboy's Big Op

Well, we've heard all about Wonderboy's special relationship with the world. How he's declared the US a Muslim nation.

How he's going to show everyone that he knows how to conduct foreign policy so much better than, say, his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Where is he on the Egyptian crisis? Has he called Hosni Mubarak, as one Muslim-educated guy to another? Apparently not.

Where's the unique, proactive Wonderboy handling of the situation?

Where's the decisiveness? Support the American-friendly dictator, or the populist, freedom-oriented movement that could result in a Muslim, anti-American Egypt? C'mon, smart guy- show us your stuff.

He's an empty suit and fraud on this dimension, as well as domestic policy.

The Ugly Americans Persecute Honduras

Mary Anastasia O'Grady, the Wall Street Journal's editorialist, wrote earlier this week, in her America's column, of how Wonderboy's administration is attempting to coerce Honduras to violate their own constitution.

In very clear prose, O'Grady explained that, in Honduras, any sitting president who attempts to run for a second term "automatically loses the privilege of his office."

Despite this very unvarnished constitutional consequence for what deposed president Zelaya did, Wonderboy is using every lever of influence available to his administration to attempt to restore the properly-deposed Honduran president to his office.

In this, our First Rookie has allied himself with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Great company, no?

According to O'Grady, visas for Hondurans visiting the US have been suspended indefinitely, and Wonderboy has threatened to suspend $135Mm in aid.

So much for our president's respect for the rule of law and the constitution of a friendly foreign power.

With friends like Wonderboy's administration, Honduras doesn't need any enemies, does it?

I cannot believe I am a citizen of a country doing this to Honduras. It makes me feel ashamed and embarrassed to be a voting citizen in Obama's America.

Obama's New Pal- Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez

The media has dutifully played the video of Wonderboy mugging it up with Venezuelan dictator Chavez. Here's what's currently available on YouTube.



Sickening, isn't it? Our clueless First Rookie embracing a dissent-crushing dictator. Rather than use the presidential image and bully pulpit at this American States forum to give hope to Venezuelans struggling against Chavez' repression, Wonderboy passed and, instead, eagerly shook hands and conferred legitimacy on yet another of the world's thugs.

Good job, Rookie.

The New White House Puppy

Pirates attack US-flagged merchant vessels with impunity.

North Korea announces that it will withdraw from prior agreements and restart its nuclear reactor.

Iran continues to develop nuclear weapon capabilities.

European nations decline to send more troops to Afghanistan.

What is Wonderboy doing to address all of these concerns?

Here's what.....



He's playing with his family's new puppy on the White House lawn.

Nero had nothing on this guy.

Wonderboy- The Innocent Abroad

Karl Rove expressed it so well on Bill O'Reilly's program last night. The insightful conservative political analyst and brilliant Bush campaign manager noted that European leaders always love a weak, ineffectual US President.

Their worst nightmare is a US leader capable of and determined to unilaterally pursue America's interests.

Instead, observed Rove, the Europeans stonewalled our First Rookie on sending troops to Afghanistan and joining America in over-spending on economic stimulus.

When he wasn't getting slow-rolled by his G-2o colleagues, Wonderboy was busy apologizing for America's imagined- by him- past sins, and for almost anything his predecessor did.

The depth and breadth of this president's stupidity and bad judgement are staggering. As Rove asked, what must European leaders think of a US President who, rather than focus on his own agenda, spends most of his time reminding everyone he won the election, and that he disagrees with his predecessor's largely-successful policies?

Basically, we witnessed the American Weakness tour by the First Rookie. He coupled this with an embarrassing olive branch to the globe's worst terrorist sponsors, e.g., North Korea, by announcing a willingness to cut our nuclear arsenal deeply. One British observer commented that our president has learned nothing from the nearly-fatal inter-war disarmament of the 1920s and '30s by America, Britain and France. Only those countries interested in disarming did so. Japan and Germany did not.

Gee, do you think that's a valid example for today? Or do we expect China, Russia and North Korea to rush to the negotiating table with their own offers to disarm?

We'd better hope that Congress still has some latent, middle-of-the-road, non-partisan sense of self-preservation and defeats any of this idiot's arms control treaties.

Doesn't It Make You Proud?

What's with Wonderboy and his wife? Far from his promise of making America respected and liked throughout the world, as if that mattered, he and his partner have committed serious foreign relations faux pas.

I missed the details on the first go-round of the First Rookie's insult to Great Britain's Gordon Brown when he presented the PM with a gift of non-working DVDs. But, thanks to his repeat performance with the Queen of England last week, I caught up on that first gaffe.

Can you believe the classlessness of this moron? He gave the Queen an iPod filled with, evidently, his own bizarre concept of need-to-have music.

How appropriate. Why not toss in a few gift cards for Old Navy or Starbucks while he was at it?

By the way, the Queen already has an iPod. Maybe she can regift Wonderboy's to somebody else?

Then there was the British Monarch's look of distress as our President's wife manhandled the Queen. You can just imagine Queen Elizabelth feeling that she'd been pawed at by hired help.

It just makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

Biden's History of Wrong Foreign Policy Positions

Much has been made by Democrats of "Lying Joe" Biden's alleged experience on foreign policy.

A recent Wall Street Journal piece sets the record straight. Among the choice observations provided by the author, Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, and current senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, are,

"Mrs. Palin's lack of mastery of national security issues is often contrasted with Mr. Obama's vice presidential pick, Joseph Biden Jr. Mr. Biden has served in the Senate since 1973, is currently chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and is often described as a "statesman."

In fact, decade after decade and on important issue after important issue, Mr. Biden's judgment has been deeply flawed.

In the 1970s, Mr. Biden opposed giving aid to the South Vietnamese government in its war against the North. Congress's cut-off of funds contributed to the fall of an American ally, helped communism advance, and led to mass death throughout the region. Mr. Biden also advocated defense cuts so massive that both Edmund Muskie and Walter Mondale, both leading liberal Democrats at the time, opposed them.

In the early 1980s, the U.S. was engaged in a debate over funding the Contras, a group of Nicaraguan freedom fighters attempting to overthrow the Communist regime of Daniel Ortega. Mr. Biden was a leading opponent of President Ronald Reagan's efforts to fund the Contras.

Throughout his career, Mr. Biden has consistently opposed modernization of our strategic nuclear forces. He was a fierce opponent of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Mr. Biden voted against funding SDI, saying, "The president's continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft." Mr. Biden has remained a consistent critic of missile defense and even opposed the U.S. dropping out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was the co-signatory to the ABM Treaty) and the end of the Cold War.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and, we later learned, was much closer to attaining a nuclear weapon than we had believed. President George H.W. Bush sought war authorization from Congress. Mr. Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: "What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?"

In 2006, after having voted three years earlier to authorize President George W. Bush's war to liberate Iraq, Mr. Biden argued for the partition of Iraq, which would have led to its crack-up. Then in 2007, Mr. Biden opposed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, calling it a "tragic mistake." It turned out to be quite the opposite. Without the surge, the Iraq war would have been lost, giving jihadists their most important victory ever.

On many of the most important and controversial issues of the last four decades, Mr. Biden has built a record based on bad assumptions, misguided analyses and flawed judgments. If he had his way, America would be significantly weaker, allies under siege would routinely be cut loose, and the enemies of the U.S. would be stronger.

There are few members of Congress whose record on national security matters can be judged, with the benefit of hindsight, to be as consistently bad as Joseph Biden's."

It's difficult to add to Mr. Wehner's own piece, so powerful and complete is it in cataloging Joe Biden's misguided votes, words and deeds in the US foreign policy arena.

When this do-nothing windbag from Delaware has expressed any opinions on foreign affairs, he has uniformly been wrong.

And this is the rookie Illinois Senator's new bulwark and resource for foreign policy on the Democratic Presidential ticket?

Lord, save us if these clowns win in November.

The Russia-Georgia Affair Helps McCain & Hurts The Rookie

It's as if Russia started a shooting war with Georgia over it's province of Ossetia just to help John McCain's candidacy.

Judging from remarks from both US Presidential candidates, this event has handed McCain the kind of issue that he can ride to the Oval Office.

While the rookie Senator from Illinois, on vacation, mouthed meaningless platitudes about talking, McCain threatened exiling Russia from the G8. Which is exactly the type of action required.

And the type of action which will alert the American voters to the looming danger of Russia in the energy markets- both financial and physical.

McCain's military background of discipline and familiarity with combat gives one the reassurance that he does not take invasions, or the necessary reactions, lightly.

One imagines Obama suing for peace with the Russians at whatever cost- probably using the UN as his negotiator.

With the Russian invasion of Ossetia in the news this month, it looks like McCain has some major tailwinds for his campaign now.

Obama's Latest Ploy To Fool Voters

The rookie Senator from Illinois was busy trying to fool 'all of the people some of the time' this week as he quickly appeared for photo ops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hoping that literally punching his airline ticket to these destinations will equate, for some voters, foreign policy heft and experience, he finally chose to visit the globe's current hotspots.

I don't believe John McCain is the world's best foreign policy expert. But, as a long-serving Senator and mature adult, I think he is as well-suited as most Presidential candidates to grapple with the challenges in that arena. Probably better than many, actually.

In contrast, the inexperienced first-term Senator Obama has little practical experience outside of his political infighting in Springfield, Illinois, and Chicago's South Side.

Will a few well-posed pictures of the Black Adder looking thoughtful and wise amongst the hills of Afghanistan or the sands of Iraq propel him to victory in November?

If they do, then we, as a country, deserve the rookie we get as a result.

Obama's predecessor is credited with that great statement about fooling people. It looks like the current junior Illinois Senator is only focused on fooling, not actually faithfully executing the office of President of the United States.

Lies & Liars for Illinois' Freshman Senator Obama

I just watched an incredible piece of brazen lying on CNBC this morning by Illinois' rookie Senator Obama supporter Don Peebles.

Peebles is a wealthy black entrepreneur and, thus, with his liberal bent, a natural to be guest host on the morning CNBC program.

After airing a segment featuring John McCain questioning Obama's foreign policy credentials, experience and statements, one of McCain's advisors followed up with some of their campaign's talking points.

Turning to Peebles, the CNBC co-anchor elicited the guest host's declaration,

"Obama is experienced nationally and internationally."

Who is he trying to fool?

To what is Peebles privy that the rest of us have missed? Obama's been an overseas CIA operative? Or done some stealth work overseas for years while his body double worked on the South Side of Chicago and in the Illinois legislature?

This just goes from bad to worse. Now Obama has otherwise-probably honest businesspeople telling bald-faced lies about him and his imagined experience.

If this is the best the junior Illinois Senator can muster, we're in serious trouble if he becomes our next President. I can only imagine the type of fairy tales he'll require us all to believe then.

Recent Lieberman & Biden Editorials in the WSJ

On Wednesday of last week, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman wrote a fantastic editorial in the Wall Street Journal supporting John McCain's approach to foreign policy, while bemoaning the dovishness of his own notional party, as epitomized by the Democratic Presidential nomination leader, rookie Senator Obama of Illinois.

In reply, Senator Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and, regrettably, current chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, wrote this piece a few days later. Ever the copycat, Biden couldn't even come up with his own title, using Lieberman's instead, but replacing "Democrat" with "Republican."

Biden, it should be noted, is a famous plagiarist, ranked second among political plagiarists on a website devoted to outing those who practice this offensive behavior. His article in the Journal was so badly written I actually had to stop after a few paragraphs when I first tried to read it.


Perhaps the paper published this piece of Biden's because, being so poorly constructed, they knew he didn't steal this one from somebody else.

Lieberman's piece is straightforward, honest and clear. He marks the progression of the Democratic party from Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson to today's complete dovishness in the face of any external threat. The Senator finishes his piece by observing,

"Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn."

In contrast to Lieberman's well-reasoned and factually-supported editorial, we then saw Biden publish his mess of a reply.

Right away, Biden loses focus on the actual topic, external enemies of America and the need to confront them, and goes all soft and gooey, writing,

"At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below."

Biden is one of those Democrats who prefers a wounded America on a pristine, harmonious planet to a strong America confronting its enemies first, and less-lethal issues second.

He continues in his diatribe,

"Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.

The results speak for themselves.

On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war."

As is so typical of Biden, he's either wrong or misrepresenting the facts. For example, terrorism is not simply a means to an end in the way that diplomacy is. Currently, several organized non-states employ it as their mode of warfare. Biden doesn't understand this, and, thus, sloughs it off as trivial.

Then he materially misstates- or lies- about Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon capability. The country stopped work on this program thanks to the Bush-led removal of Saddam and liberation of Iraq. The only reason they are resuming work now is that they believe Obama might become President, and, even if not, a Democratic Congress and supine UN will never stop them.

Wrong again, Joe.

Biden then mischaracterizes the choices available to the next US President in dealing with Iran,

"Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.

Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control."

All Biden can come up with is either plead with these terrorists and terrorist states to talk with us, or go to war, and he thinks that's all anyone else can, too.

In truth, there are more options. Diplomatic pressure, whether uni- or multi-lateral, is available, as is economic pressure. Plus trade and other multinational actions to isolate Iran for its rogue behavior toward other nation states.

Poor Obama, if Biden, writing on his behalf, is any indication of how he's approaching foreign policy.

When Biden writes,

"President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks,"

he, as usual, misses an important distinction. China was working through another nation, not a terrorist group outside of a state. So, too, was Russia an established state. Libya and North Korea are, as well.

When Biden runs out of ideas, which is pretty quickly, he resorts to two other tricks.

The first is to constantly use the term "Bush-McCain," as if to take for granted something very untrue. McCain is certainly no George W. Bush. No, a McCain Presidency will not be like a third Bush term.

The other trick is to punt on what to do with Iran and allege,

"It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically."

Meaning, Joe wants to just wait for a hoped-for uprising in this terrorist state. Until then, however, US actions are, in his view, all wrong.

I guess the silver lining in Biden's editorial is that, if a sufficient number of people read and understand it, they won't vote for Obama, because Biden's thought process, twisting of facts and overall stupidity are so egregious. Since Biden defends the junior Illinois Senator in the editorial, it's reasonable that readers may identify Obama with this appallingly bad treatise on foreign policy and vote for McCain.

Now if we could just remove Biden from the chairmanship of that Senate committee, and get a clear-thinking replacement.

Obama's Evolving Foreign Policy Disaster

I took the holiday weekend off from political writing. But I have a pile of clippings from the pages of last week's Wall Street Journal concerning Obama's latest, glaring foreign policy gaffes.

Well, gaffe is really too mild of a word.

Errors in judgment is better. Because these are not 'gotcha' moments. They distill and expose the Illinois freshman Senator's complete naivete on sensitive and important US foreign policy questions.

The compilation of articles was quite revealing.

On Tuesday we had Bret Stephens examining why Jewish voters have reason to distrust Obama. It seems the first-term Illinois Senator has identified with the Palestinians for quite some time now. Well, that is, until his recent Presidential campaign.

Stephens makes a very good, if nuanced point about Mideast negotiations. He notes the tortured conditions Obama placed on whether he'd talk with Syria, Hezbollah or Hamas. They are important, because in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah, they don't currently form a government. But they could. If Obama then negotiated with them, Israel would feel betrayed. And, thus, also would American Jews.

Syria's and Iran's governments don't recognize Israel, so Obama's treating with them poses problems for Israel, too.

Stephens ends his column with this passage,

"Finally, there is Israel itself. In the Atlantic interview, Mr. Obama declared that "my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth," particularly in respect to the settlements. Yes, there are mirrors that need to be held up to those settlements, as there are to those Palestinians whose terrorism makes their dismantlement so problematic. Perhaps there is also a mirror to be held up to an American foreign-policy neophyte whose amazing conceit is that he understands Israel's dilemmas better than Israelis themselves."

You just can't write it better than that, can you?

But wait.....there's more.

On Thursday of last week, Karl Rove weighed in on Obama's foreign policy blunders. Rove is a student of America's governmental and political history on a scale far surpassing mere campaign hacks like Clinton's eminence grise, James Carville.

Entitled "Obama's Troubling Instincts," the architect of President Bush's two Presidential victories noted that in a recent Oregon speech, Obama

"was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel.

By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests."

Mr. Rove goes on to provide details on Nixon's discussions with the Chinese, apparently to the contrary of what Obama's spokespeople have been affirming on various cable news programs lately,

"Mr. Obama's Sunday statement grew out of a kerfuffle over his proclaimed willingness to meet – eagerly and without precondition – during his first year as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. On Monday, he said it was a show of confidence when American leaders meet with rivals; he insisted he was merely doing what Richard Nixon did by going to China.

I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited."

Mr. Rove provides similar examples from the other great Republican foreign policy President with whom Obama's supporters compare him,

"Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.

Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba."

In closing, Mr. Rove takes direct aim at Obama's arrogance, demonstrated by his implication that once he talks with Iran, Hezbollah, et.al., everything will change, and these rogue terrorist groups will realize the errors of their ways and stop behaving badly,

"But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn't work nearly as well in Tehran. What, for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? One of Iran's top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama's top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions?

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he'd make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so naïve to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.

If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a "Secret Plan," and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security."

Mr. Rove does a remarkable of debunking Obama's contention that Nixon and Reagan 'talked to their adversaries,' so he can, too, without preconditions or prior back-channel diplomatic groundwork, as well as the inexperienced first-term Senator's belief that these enemies of the US will relent simply by being talked to by him.

Finally, on Friday, the Journal's Kimberley Strassel weighed in with her Potomac Watch column with "The Obama Learning Curve." She wrote,

"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden took to the airwaves this week to "help" the rookie Barack Obama out of a foreign-policy jam. Oh sure, admitted Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee had given the "wrong" answer when he said he'd meet unconditionally with leaders of rogue states. But on the upside, the guy "has learned a hell of a lot."

Somewhere Mr. Obama was muttering an expletive. But give Mr. Biden marks for honesty. As Mr. Obama finishes a week of brutal questioning over his foreign-policy judgments, it's become clear he has learned a lot – and is learning still."

Wow. Joe's hit his stride once again, this time demonstrating his tone-deafness for political debate on behalf of his party's probable Presidential nominee.

Ms. Strassel continues,

"Right now, for instance, he's learning how tough it can be to pivot to a general-election stance on the crucial issue of foreign policy. He's also learning Democrats won't be able to sail through a national-security debate by simply painting John McCain as the second coming of George Bush.

Remember how Mr. Obama got here. In a July debate, the Illinois senator was asked if he'd meet, "without preconditions," the "leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." It was an unexpected question, and Mr. Obama rolled with his gut: "I would," he said, riffing that the Bush administration's policy of not negotiating with terror-sponsoring states was "ridiculous.""

Talk about naivete! Of course, that was then, eh? He's learned.....or maybe not. As the article proceeds,

"A week ago, in Oregon, he adopted the "no-big-deal" approach, telling listeners Iran was just a "tiny" country that, unlike the Soviet Union, did not "pose a serious threat to us." But this suggested he'd missed that whole asymmetrical warfare debate – not to mention 9/11 – so by the next day, he'd switched to the "blame-Republicans" line. Iran was in fact "the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation" – but all because of President Bush's Iraq war.

This, however, revived questions of why he'd meet with said greatest-threat leader, so his advisers jumped in, this time to float the "misunderstood" balloon. Obama senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, channeling Bill Clinton, said it all depended on what the definition of a "leader" is. "Well, first of all, he said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be." (Turns out, Mr. Obama has said he will meet with . . . Mr. Ahmadinejad.)

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, channeling Ms. Rice, explained it also depended on what the definition of a precondition is: "It's important to emphasize again when we talk about preconditions, we're just saying everything needs to be on the table. I would not say that we would meet unconditionally." This is called being against preconditions before you were for them.

And so it goes, as Mr. Obama shifts and shambles, all the while telling audiences that when voting for president they should look beyond "experience" to "judgment." In this case, whatever his particular judgment on Iran is on any particular day."

So much for the new kid on the block being ready for prime time, eh? Judgment won't be the pillar on which Obama wins the election, if he does. Ms. Strassel concludes her column by writing,

"It wasn't supposed to be this way. Democrats entered this race confident national security wouldn't be the drag on the party it has in the past. With an unpopular war and a rival who supports that war, they planned to wrap Mr. McCain around the unpopular Mr. Bush and be done with it. Mr. Obama is still manfully marching down this road, today spending as much time warning about a "third Bush term" as he does reassuring voters about a first Obama one.

Mr. McCain has every intention of running his opponent through the complete foreign-policy gamut. Explain again in what circumstances you'd use nuclear weapons? What was that about invading Pakistan? How does a policy of engaging the world include Mr. Ahmadinejad, but not our ally Colombia and its trade pact?

It explains too the strong desire among the McCain camp to get Mr. Obama on stage for debates soon. There's a feeling Mr. Obama is still climbing the foreign-policy learning curve. And they see mileage in his issuing a few more gut reactions."

Taken together, this trio of Journal columns illustrates how badly misinformed and lacking in judgment a President Obama would be.

Personally, I can hardly wait for that foreign policy debate between McCain and the rookie Senator from Illinois.

Obama's The Appeaser

Last week's delightful statements regarding appeasement seem to have smoked out the real, appeasing Obama.

It began, of course, with President Bush delivering a perfectly statesmanlike, non-directive address in Israel. Fittingly, in a country beset by terrorists surrounding it, Bush opined on the folly of treating with terrorists, calling it by its rightful name, 'appeasement.'

The rookie Senator from Illinois, also now the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, obligingly squawked that Bush had improperly attacked him from beyond US soil.

Funny thing, though, is that Bush named nobody in his address. It was quite clearly a general statement of principles from a man that has followed them assiduously for his entire term.

As Newt Gingrich said that evening on Fox News, in reply to bullying from, I believe, Alan Colmes, to paraphrase,

'The best thing Obama could have done was to have simply seconded Bush's statement. Instead, he raised his head up and painted himself as an appeaser by complaining that he had been unfairly targeted, although there is absolutely no evidence of this.'

It really does mark the freshman Senator's campaign as not-yet-ready for prime time, doesn't it?

By committing this fairly serious gaffe, Obama set himself up for a deserved smack by John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee for the November election.

McCain pointedly agreed with President Bush, and noted Obama's offer to meet with leaders of terrorist-supporting nations, specifically Iran, as naive and potentially damaging to efforts at reining in these rogue nations.

Obama, ever the obliging greenhorn, then shot back at McCain that he will debate the more-experienced, senior Senator from Arizona 'anywhere, anytime,' etc., on foreign policy.

Of course, sidelined in this spat was Hillary, who sort of looked like a useless onlooker in a duel.

It's difficult to believe that someone with Obama's ever-increasingly obvious naivete, inexperience and overall bad judgement can be a serious candidate for President of the US.