Former US Diplomat Raps Bush N. Korea Policy

Here is yet another expert criticizing Bush's policies.  How can ALL of these people be wrong?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-21T064029Z_01_N21187502_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3

Former US Diplomat Raps Bush N. Korea Policy

June 21, 2006

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former U.S. diplomat who was deeply involved in North Korea policy said the Bush administration's approach toward the isolated communist state has been a failure that left Pyongyang to pursue its nuclear and missile programs.

In a rare public attack on the administration by a foreign service officer, retired head of the State Department's office of Korean affairs David Straub also questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's decision-making on the issue. A spokesman for Rice was not immediately available for comment.

One fundamental failure of Bush's approach was the tendency to raise tensions and make South Korea nervous by stating that all options were the table, a phrase underscoring U.S. intentions to use force against North Korea if necessary, he said.

Of course all options are on the table. No government ever takes any option off the table but you don't have to talk about it all the time, Straub said.

Every time we said 'all options are on the table' gratuitously, we made the situation with our South Korean ally worse and made the prospect of coordination with South Korea to resolve the North Korean problem diplomatically that much more remote, he said.

Straub was head of the Korean office from 2002-2004 and was part of a team that negotiated with the North during former Secretary of State Colin Powell's tenure.

Several former administration political appointees have faulted President George W. Bush's policies after leaving office but it is rare for a foreign service officer to do so.

DIPLOMATIC FAILURE

Straub spoke in Washington at a meeting of the Korea Club, which groups former officials, scholars and journalists interested in the Korean peninsula.

His remarks came as six-country negotiations on ending North Korea's nuclear program are at a stalemate and as Pyongyang fans tensions again with preparations for a possible long-range missile test.

Straub said Washington was not primarily responsible for the failure to stop the North's pursuit of nuclear weapons and expressed skepticism Pyongyang would abandon its growing capability even if the United States made major concessions.

But he said the only viable U.S. approach is serious negotiations, the appointment of a high-level envoy and a willingness to engage in bilateral as well as multilateral talks, something the Bush administration has eschewed.

Straub said North Korea never seemed a priority for Bush and he could not understand why the National Security Council under Rice, who is often credited with energizing diplomacy at the State Department, repeatedly rejected Powell's diplomatic proposals.

Powell was desperate to try to have some real diplomatic effort going (with Pyongyang). Maybe she did something (to assist that) for four years while he was in office, but if she did no one ever told me, Straub said.

As for Bush, Straub wondered how much attention is he able to pay to it (North Korea). How much does he know?

Straub noted that opinion polls show many South Koreans consider America a bigger problem than North Korea. I can't think of a better definition of diplomatic failure, he said

He expressed confidence Powell would have pursued bilateral talks with Pyongyang in 2002-2003 during a crisis created by U.S. discovery of the North's clandestine program for enriching weapons-grade uranium.

But he said the administration did not want real give and take so the stalemate in six-country talks between the United States, the two Koreas, Japan, China and Russia was predictable, he said.

Straub also questioned why, after six-party talks reached an important but preliminary agreement on the nuclear issue last September, Rice would allow release of a statement clarifying U.S. views on issues papered over in the agreement.

The U.S. statement prompted Pyongyang to renege on the agreement.

• Former US Diplomat Raps Bush N. Korea Policy - PK

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

You wrote (rather kindly, it seems ):  "A diplomat he is not and the guy seems to have a real adversion to the basic concept of diplomacy."

Not only is Bush NOT a diplomat, but he's been aggressively "poking the bear" by placing missiles in Russia's back yard and by helping Georgia attack South Ossetia (please see link I provided above). 

I agree that Obama isn't even in office yet, and the comment was obviously directed at Bush's aggression with the hope that the USA will be able to be trusted and respected again.  I personally hope that Bush doesn't provoke yet another war before he leaves office (if he leaves office).

Dont know if any of you have already seen this video, if so, I apologize for posting it, however, if you havent, check it out. 

Ann Wright - Former US Diplomat
08.23.05
QuickTime
DSL | 56K
Windows Media
DSL | 56K
RealMedia
DSL | 56K

He's threatening nuclear missles now if he doesn't get the apology

Instead of all the governments playing patty cake with these radical leaders, we should just take them out once and for all.

While O is trying to reduce our defense abilities, these leaders are building up theirs. When is the world (including our country) going to realize you can't deal with leaders like this in a rational manner? "Speak softly but carry a big stick" is the motto we should be following.

I didn't say I was pro N. Korea.  You obviously need to hone your psychic skills.  What I am saying is that yes, I am anti nukes.  I am also anti "let's jes kill 'em all" mentality that we've had to put up with for the previous 8 years. 

Another thing you might want to consider is that N. Korea is not completely without allies.  Unless we're willing to catch one of those nukes, I would think it best if we didn't start playing hot pototoe with them. 

Yeah!!!.  Now I just worry about the 2 girls they are trying over there.

updated 3:42 p.m. ET, Fri., June 12, 2009

SEOUL, South Korea - The U.N. Security Council on Friday punished North Korea for its second nuclear test, imposing tough new sanctions, expanding an arms embargo and authorizing ship searches on the high seas, with the goal of derailing the isolated nation's nuclear and missile programs.

In a sign of growing global anger at Pyongyang's pursuit of nuclear weapons in defiance of the council, the North's closest allies Russia and China joined Western powers and nations from every region in unanimously approving the sanctions resolution.

The resolution seeks to deprive North Korea of financing and material for its weapons program and bans the country's lucrative arms exports, especially missiles. It does not ban normal trade, but does call on international financial institutions not to provide the North with grants, aid or loans except for humanitarian, development and denuclearization programs. U.S. Deputy Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo said the resolution provides "a strong and united international response" to North Korea's test in defiance of a ban imposed after its first underground atomic blast in October 2006.

"The message of this resolution is clear: North Korea's behavior is unacceptable to the international community and the international community is determined to respond," DiCarlo said. "North Korea should return without conditions to a process of peaceful dialogue."

Push for six-party talks
China's U.N. Ambassador Zhang Yesui said the nuclear test had affected regional peace and security. He strongly urged Pyongyang to promote the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and return quickly to Beijing-hosted six-party talks aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear program.

He said the resolution demonstrates the international community's "firm opposition" to the atomic blast, "but also sends a positive signal" by showing the council's determination to resolve the issue "peacefully through dialogue and negotiations."

North Korea signaled strong opposition to new sanctions before the vote, but its diplomats were nowhere to be seen on Friday.

That was in stark contrast to the vote in October 2006 when the North Korean ambassador immediately rejected the first sanctions resolution, accused council members of "gangster-like" action, and walked out of the council chamber.

'Merciless offensive'
North Korea reiterated Monday in its main newspaper that the country will consider any sanctions a declaration of war and will respond with "due corresponding self-defense measures." On Tuesday, the North said it would use nuclear weapons in a "merciless offensive" if provoked.

The provision most likely to anger the North Koreans calls on countries to inspect all suspect cargo heading to or from North Korea — and to stop ships carrying suspect material if the country whose flag the vessel is flying gives approval.

The White House said it was prepared to confront ships believed to be carrying contraband materials to North Korea but will not try to forcibly board them.

If the country refuses to give approval, it must direct the vessel "to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities."

Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said U.S. officials would seek permission to board and inspect ships believed to be carrying contraband to North Korea. Such ships would be directed to a nearby port for inspection if they could not be boarded at sea, she told reporters at the White House.

Rice said the U.S. would not be surprised if North Korea reacted to the sanctions with "further provocation."

"There's reason to believe they may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this," she said. But she said she expects the sanctions to have significant impact on North Korea's financing of its weapons and missile systems.

Nuclear tests
The United States and many other nations, including China and Russia, have condemned Pyongyang for its underground nuclear test on May 25 and a series of ground-to-air missile test firings.

The resolution condemns "in the strongest terms" the North's May 25 nuclear test "in violation and flagrant disregard" of the 2006 sanctions resolution.

It demands a halt to any further nuclear tests or missile launches and reiterates the council's demand that the North abandon all nuclear weapons, return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, allow U.N. nuclear inspections, and rejoin six-party talks.

The 2006 resolution imposed an arms embargo on heavy weapons, a ban on material that could be used in missiles or weapons of mass destruction and a ban on luxury goods favored by North Korea's ruling elite. It also ordered an asset freeze and travel ban on companies and individuals involved in the country's nuclear and weapons programs.

I think that's part of the problem. They have "unification" parties all over the north. The people in the north don't get any outside news except what NK wants them to have. At least that's my take on it.  I hope their missles do fizzle out. I'm sure the nitwit will definitely push it to the brink.

As he states (and did we REALLY start the Korean War?):

"This is another foul product of the U.S.-led international oppression to disarm the DPRK and to suffocate it economically for forcing the Korean people to give up their idea and system.

If the U.S. imperialists start another war, ignorant of the ignominious defeat they had sustained in the past Korean war, the army and people of Korea will determinedly answer "sanctions" with retaliation and "confrontation" with all-out confrontation, the counter-measure based on the Songun idea, wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all and achieve the cause of national reunification without fail."

I was surfing a bit this morning and found this news article from N. Korea. I doubt things will cool off for a long time, if ever. The article headlines state: "Lee Myung-Bak's Group Military Provocations Blasted. From there, it calls him a puppet war monger and states how Myung-Bak outbursts "over the non-existant provocation (my emphasis) by the North."

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

This guy is really nuts! Just because he has 1M foot soldiers, he thinks he can do what he wants.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528057,00.html

U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01

President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.

Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.

The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.

In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.

At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.

You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.

Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.

The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.

But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.

Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.

The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.

Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.

But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.

Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.

The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.

Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.

This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.

Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.

The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new

A little bit of history on North Korea and the dilemma. Read the rest of the article from the link below.

"So it's another step backwards again with North Korea.

In defiance of a Security Council resolution (1718) passed after its first nuclear test in 2006, it has now announced a second. It has also implied that it has solved some at least of the problems it encountered in the first.

The actual technical achievement remains to be examined. But the test itself represents a continued belligerency whose destination is unknown. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8066719.stm

On the issues

Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy.

            No stance

Obama on Foreign Policy

• Meet with Cuban leaders only with agenda of US interests. (Feb 2008)


• Cuba: Loosen restrictions now; normalization later. (Feb 2008)


• Important to undo the damage of the last seven years. (Feb 2008)


• Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. (Jan 2008)


• Ok to postpone Pakistani elections, but not indefinitely. (Dec 2007)


• Pakistan crisis: secure nukes; continue with elections. (Dec 2007)


• President must abide by international human rights treaties. (Dec 2007)


• Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality. (Dec 2007)


• China is a competitor but not an enemy. (Dec 2007)


• Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung IL & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)


• Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M. (Oct 2007)


• No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty. (Oct 2007)


• Invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007)


• Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats. (Aug 2007)


• $50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007)


• No "strategic ambiguity" on foreign policy issues. (Aug 2007)


• At college, protested for divestment from South Africa. (Aug 2007)


• Increased aid to Republic of Congo. (Aug 2007)


• Visited largest slum in Africa, to publicize its plight. (Aug 2007)


• My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. (Aug 2007)


• China is a competitor, but not an enemy. (Aug 2007)


• Meet with enemy leaders; it's a disgrace that we have not. (Jul 2007)


• No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa. (Jun 2007)


• Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor. (Apr 2007)


• Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)


• FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)


• U.S. needs to ameliorate trade relations with China. (Mar 2007)


• U.S. funds for humanitarian aid to Darfur. (Mar 2007)


• We cannot afford isolationism. (Mar 2007)


• Protested South African apartheid while at college. (Feb 2007)


• Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006)


• Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)


• Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research. (Oct 2006)


• Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead. (Jul 2004)


• US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)


• Sponsored aid bill to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo. (Dec 2005)


• Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007)


• Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)


• Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)


• Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008)

Sarah Palin on Homeland Security

• Strong military and sound energy. (Aug 2008)


• Armed forces, including my son, give us security and freedom. (Jan 2008)


• Ask all candidates "Are you doing all you can for security?". (Oct 2007)


• Visits Kuwait; encourages Alaska big game hunting to troops. (Sep 2007)


• Promote from within, in Alaska's National Guard. (Nov 2006)


• Let military personnel know how much we support them. (Nov 2006)

Obama on Homeland Security

• No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear. (Apr 2008)


• Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)


• Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Feb 2008)


• Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us. (Jan 2008)


• Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus. (Jan 2008)


• Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy. (Jan 2008)


• FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)


• No presidential power for secret surveillance. (Dec 2007)


• No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. (Dec 2007)


• Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president. (Dec 2007)


• No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions. (Dec 2007)


• Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad. (Dec 2007)


• Human rights and national security are complementary. (Nov 2007)


• Don't allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism. (Nov 2007)


• 2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons. (Oct 2007)


• Judgment is as important as experience. (Oct 2007)


• If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks. (Oct 2007)


• America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions. (Sep 2007)


• Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. (Aug 2007)


• 2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles. (Aug 2007)


• We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)


• Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus. (Jun 2007)


• Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them. (Mar 2007)


• America must practice the patriotism it preaches. (Mar 2007)


• Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance. (Mar 2007)


• Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age. (Mar 2007)


• Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need. (Mar 2007)


• Need to be both strong and smart on national defense. (Oct 2006)


• Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules. (Oct 2006)


• Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation. (Oct 2006)


• Going after AL Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion. (Jan 2006)


• Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Jan 2006)


• We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004)


• Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes. (Jul 2004)


• Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available. (Jul 2004)


• Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk. (Jul 2004)

Sarah Palin on War and Peace

• We don't know what the plan is to ever end the war. (Aug 2008)


• Wants exit plan; also assurances to keep our troops safe. (Mar 2007)

Obama on War and Peace

            Iraq War

• President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics. (Apr 2008)


• President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission. (Apr 2008)


• $2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable. (Feb 2008)


• Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)


• FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million. (Feb 2008)


• The Iraq war has undermined our security. (Jan 2008)


• Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats. (Jan 2008)


• End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war. (Jan 2008)


• The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start. (Jan 2008)


• Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent. (Jan 2008)


• Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)


• No permanent bases in Iraq. (Jan 2008)


• FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago. (Jan 2008)


• Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president. (Dec 2007)


• Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed. (Nov 2007)


• Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism. (Sep 2007)


• Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)


• Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month. (Sep 2007)


• No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options. (Aug 2007)


• Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. (Jul 2007)


• We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions. (Jun 2007)


• Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment. (Jun 2007)


• War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment. (Apr 2007)


• Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution. (Apr 2007)


• Saddam is a tyrant but not a national security threat. (Mar 2007)


• Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources. (Feb 2007)


• Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists. (Oct 2004)


• Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism. (Oct 2004)


• Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder. (Oct 2004)


• Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan. (Oct 2004)


• Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war. (Jul 2004)


• Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction. (Jul 2004)


• Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven. (Jul 2004)


• Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq. (Jul 2004)


• International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness. (Jul 2004)

Trouble Spots

• Iran is biggest strategic beneficiary of invasion of Iraq. (May 2008)


• Military surge in Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban. (May 2008)


• Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)


• Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace. (Feb 2008)


• Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed. (Jan 2008)


• No action against Iran without Congressional authorization. (Dec 2007)


• Iran: Bush does not let facts get in the way of ideology. (Dec 2007)


• Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran. (Nov 2007)


• Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. (Oct 2007)


• Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal. (Oct 2007)


• Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes. (Aug 2007)


• Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel. (Aug 2007)


• FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda. (Aug 2007)


• Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. (Jun 2007)


• Bush cracked down on some terrorists' financial networks. (Jun 2007)


• Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan. (Apr 2007)


• Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat. (Apr 2007)


• We did the right thing in Afghanistan. (Mar 2007)


• We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave. (Oct 2006)


• Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine. (Jan 2006)


• Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. (Oct 2004)


• Problems with current Israeli policy. (Jul 2004)


• Engage North Korea in 6-party talks. (Jul 2004)


• Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace. (Jul 2004)

Voting Record

• Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)


• Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war. (Jun 2007)


• Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans. (Jun 2007)


• Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004)


• Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)


• Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)


• Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

Obama started off saying he was confident in his FOREIGN POLICY experience ("Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain"). He then proceeded to talk about his visit to Pakistan.

SO WHAT? I visited and lived in several foreign countries, too. Does that mean I understand foreign policy better than someone who may have spent less time but has had actual interaction and policy discussions with those countries' leaders? And with the leaders of 80 countries?

If 3 weeks in Pakistan is the extent of Obama's foreign policy credentials, then I am way more qualified on the "foreign policy" front.

My point is that Obama's claim is ridiculous. Better that he stick to his "better judgement" mantra, since the "3 weeks abroad = foreign policy experience" is just pathetically weak.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html