Amazing naiveté

I can’t keep up with every perverse utterance that Obama emits so, while I got the gist of his “I’ll talk to any terrorist” statement during a debate last year, I missed the finer points of that speech.  However, listening to Hugh Hewitt the other day, as Hewitt decried Obama’s incredibly egomania in thinking that Bush’s fairly masterful Knesset speech was all about “me, me, me,” I finally heard all the myriad details in the Big O’s talking plan.  These details showed that he’s either incredibly naive or, as I’m beginning to suspect, that —  while he’s clearly academically quite bright — he is, in practical terms, an idiot.  (And don’t tell me that you didn’t go to school with some bright kid who aced the tests, but couldn’t figure out the finer points of tying his shoe laces.)

Here’s what Obama said:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29896_Obama_Changes_His_Unconditional_Position_-_Update-_Video_Added[/youtube]

Did you catch the central point?

The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.  Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic Presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire.  And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

What Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that we are, in fact, talking to all those miserable little countries — behind the scenes, at the lower flunky level — and have been doing so for some time.  At this, without involving the prestige of government leaders, men and women in gray suits with bulky notebooks have polite little skirmishes about “areas where we can potentially move forward,” assuming some such exist.

These behind-the-scenes diplomats can also test the waters on the big issues:  Should Iran blow up Israel or not blow up Israel?  Should Iran try to take over the Arab world or not take over the Arab world?  Is it okay for Sudan to commit genocide as to all their Christians and black Muslims or should it stop before all of them are dead?

The one thing that no sane government would ever do, in front of the whole world, is put the prestige of the President on the line regarding matters that aren’t yet really hammered out.  Otherwise, the government places in the hands of some tin-pot tyrant the beautiful, and propagandistic, opportunity to snub the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

In case Obama hasn’t figured it out, Clinton has never recovered from the snub Arafat dealt him when Clinton put the weight of his leadership into the negotiating room before having it pre-established that Arafat would bend.  Likewise, Carter has been getting a free ride (not to mention a Nobel Peace prize) for putting his imprimatur on what was already a fait accompli worked out, first behind the scenes, and then in public, by Begin and Sadat.

Only someone either naive or stupid would have the President walk into a room with someone whose demands exceed any bounds of an ordinary civilized nation, and give that someone the absolute freedom to place his thumb to his nose, waggle his fingers, and say Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah before the cameras.  Obama’s willingness to do this, and his belief that absolutely no talking has been going on if he hasn’t personally seen it on TV, shows a remarkable inability to understand the nature of power, the nature of prestige, and the nature of government negotiations since the beginning of recorded time (and, I’m sure, before then too).