Skip to main content

Foreign Policy Journal points out that the new emperor (or at least the vice-emperor) has no clothes...

... but is getting a complete pass from the MSM for not changing Bush Administration policy toward Iran.

From FPJ:

U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden last Saturday outlined the Obama administration’s continuation of the Bush administration’s foreign policy towards Iran.

Reiterating the Bush policy of loosely defined “preventive” warfare outlined in Bush’s National Security Strategy, he said that the “U.S. will strive to act preventively to avoid having to choose between the risks of war and the dangers of inaction.”

Echoing the previous administration’s policy, Biden offered an ultimatum, saying the U.S. would be “willing to talk to Iran” but only if Iran acquiesces to the Obama administration’s demands to abandon its nuclear program.

Translated into meaningful terms, this effectively means the U.S. will continue to refuse to talk to Iran, since its nuclear program would be one of the major points Iran would like to negotiate.

The U.S. has accused Iran of having a nuclear weapons program, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is actively monitoring and verifying Iran’s program and its commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), has repeatedly noted that there is no evidence that this is so, and despite the U.S. intelligence community’s own assessment that Iran today has no nuclear weapons program.

Iran insists that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.

The New York Times called Biden’s remarks “a departure from the Bush administration”, failing to explain in what way it represented a “departure”.

The Associated Press reported in an analysis that “Biden promises foreign policy shifts”, while failing to observe that his “promises” of “pressure and isolation” if Iran does not submit to U.S. demands were exactly those of the Bush administration.


More. Change. I. Can. Believe. In.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Does Biden represent Obama's views on this issue?

I hope not!

If not, Obama has to reign in what has always been Biden's penchant to shoot off his mouth on his own. Has he forgotten that he is not Senator Biden any more?

Three weeks is hardly enough time for Obama to fully establish and solidify his Presidency. That said, I hope he moves on items like this quickly, otherwise I for one will be extremely disappointed!

Perry Hood
Anonymous said…
Does Biden represent Obama's views on this issue?

Hey! That's interesting. I wonder if George Bush could have used that excuse: "Dick Cheney does not represent my views on this ..."
Anonymous said…
He could have, Hube, but he never did, because George Bush's views came from his alter-ego, Dick Cheney, and his brain Karl Rove, until close to the end of his Presidency, but much too late to alleviate any of the overwhelming damage already done to our country. I found it telling that Bush refused to grant Libby a full pardon, and before that Rove was replaced.

Perry Hood
Anonymous said…
He could have, Hube, but he never did, because George Bush's views came from his alter-ego, Dick Cheney, and his brain Karl Rove

LOL! And you're the one who accuses ME of unfounded statements/accusations?? That's rich!

On precisely what basis do you make that claim, Perry? I can't wait to see your "proof."

but much too late to alleviate any of the overwhelming damage already done to our country.

Which damage? Economic? How, precisely, was this "Bush's fault?" What percentage of blame does Bush get for the economic woes? 75%? 80%? 100%?? And, how precisely did Bush cause the crisis in which we now find ourselves?

If you mean foreign policy-wise, I agree that Iraq was a royal snafu for more reasons than I can count, but you're talking about "damage to the country." Iraq is only a part of that foreign policy damage.
Anonymous said…
Simply speaking, Hube, I am talking about tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy, while simultaneously generating an unsustainable national debt by unbelievable spending, practically doubled the debt to 70% of GDP during his two terms. These are facts that everyone accepts.

And then there is the Iraq War, on which you have already commented, on which we are in agreement.

And then, off the top of my head, there is the secret government, the energy policy derived by Cheney in secret with oil company executives, the torture throwing out the Geneva Convention, the renditions, the suspension of habeas corpus, the scrapping of the ABM Treaty and the International Court, the expansion of executive powers, the neocon ideological intervention led by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, the refusal to respond to Congressional subpoenas, excessive laissez faire attitude toward big business, the refusal to address global warming, no progress on reducing nuclear proliferation, no progress on the middle east roadmap -- shall I continue, as there is a very long list?

On Dick Cheney, you could start out with: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency by Dubose and Bernstein, or
The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008
by Woodward, or
Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President by Hayes, or
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception by McClellan

There will be plenty more, I'm sure.

You will probably like the third one best, but you ought to read the Woodward book too.

I don't think anyone doubts the extraordinary influence of Dick Cheney on our foreign policy and on the Presidency. He became President by appointing himself to the ticket. You do know that Cheney was in charge of the VP selection committee, and he selected himself!

Perry Hood
Hube said…
I see, Perry. And precisely how did the tax cuts for the "wealthy" and the spending barrage cause our current economic predicament? I think your Axelrodian philosophy is really screwing you up here.

And thank you, Perry, for providing opinion pieces for "proof" that Bush was just a mere "minion" of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. Saying I don't think anyone doubts the extraordinary influence of Dick Cheney on our foreign policy and on the Presidency shows right there 1) that you HAVE no proof, and 2) MANY people have such doubts. How utterly David Axelrodian of a answer.

He became President by appointing himself to the ticket.

ROTFLMAO! Am I talking to Liz Allen now??

I'll keep all this in mind the next time you chide me for directing people to an editorial or blog instead of factual proof!

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...