ONE OF THE GOOD QUESTIONS
and one of the not-so-good
answers.
I am, as you have by now long discerned, no fan of
Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid. This does not, of course -- the
logical fallacies of many irrational emailers notwithstanding -- make me a fan
of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. But there are moments when the
difference between them, when the gap between both their popular perceptions and
their actual performances, is so striking that it makes me wonder if anyone
really is paying attention to details.
In the aftermath of the aftermath of Wednesday night's debate, when so many people are so busy talking about the "bad" questions -- just as an aside: if asking them for 45 minutes was so despicable and harmful to democracy, isn't talking about them for 48 hours a hell of a lot more so? -- I think it's instructive to consider both candidates' responses to one of the "good" questions, a little Mideast foreign policy number about Iran, Israel, and the nuclear tensions between.
What you will see, if you are look fairly and think critically, is the difference between someone trying to bluff his way through a job interview for which he is either scared or ill-prepared -- speaking in haughty principles and great, sweeping generalities, hoping upon hope that the interviewer does not notice or care that he hasn't actually answered the question -- and someone who, with abundant clarity and focus, is able to answer the question and explain the answer not just because she has crammed for the interview, but because she has mastered the material...
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States' policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.
I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.
Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Six sentences. 188 words. But still no answer to a question that could have been answered in one of each.
Two vague promises. Three broad beliefs. And the undeniable air of someone who has been prepped and sound-bited for a question like this but who, for whatever reason or reasons, either fears or refuses to answer.
Stephanopoulos asked about an Iranian attack on Israel. 175 words into Obama's answer, and a full 53 words after talking about carrots and sticks, he finally (and vaguely) talks about any threats to Israel.
This is straight talk? This is a different kind of politics? This is a guy who makes the tough calls and is ready to lead with his extraordinary global vision?
Stephanopoulos, perhaps because he was out of lapel-pin questions, pressed Obama in a follow-up...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.
Notice that he still doesn't answer the question. Notice that, while claiming in his first answer that we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is, he can neither directly engages nor makes even remotely, vaguely clear what his posture would be. Notice that the great orator hems, haws, stumbles, repeats, pauses, and then ends with two of the great weasel words in the political candidates' lexicon: unacceptable, and appropriate.
There is much more to dislike, and perhaps even to fear, in this answer. But we'll get to that after we hear Senator Clinton's answer...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
I'll interrupt here, if only to note that by the end of her second sentence, she has expanded the scope of the question, answered it directly, and done both without even the slightest hesitation or equivocation. You can differ with her answer and disagree with her policy, but by God, you know what they are.
You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.
And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don't now have.
Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.
And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.
And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.
Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.
Again: you may differ with the policy or disagree with the tactics, and you'll certainly want to know some more details down the road, but Senator Clinton unloaded 450 words of clarity and context and even some occasional nuance, all in stark contrast to Senator Obama's 260 words of evading and meandering and even some occasional stumbling.
Now. I noted above that there was much more to dislike about Senator Obama's two-part non-answer. I could expound upon that here myself, but I'll leave it to a TWM reader -- who, just for the record, is neither Jewish nor closely tied in any other way to Israel -- who emailed late Wednesday night, after watching the debate, and expressed some considerable outrage on this very point:
I am a believer in democracy, and one who is capable of recognizing that, with whatever inherent flaws might come of being a democracy under constant threat of attack, Israel exists as a western-style democracy in a sea of extremist theocracy and plutocracy that is the Middle East. It is, in short, an emblem of the ideals we as a nation hold to be universal -- as in the words "self-evident" in our foundation documents. A nation's commitment to protecting a fellow democracy, unto the sword if need be, is a measure of that nation's commitment to its core principles. And someone who wants to lead that nation should be able to answer a question about standing by such an ally without a circuitous answer. Sometimes the correct answer is "yes." And sometimes the more expansive version of that answer ought to be no more than "hell, yes."
Obama's answer has far less the air of John F. Kennedy than the stale aroma of Jimmy Carter -- a man of essential decency but a fatal weakness when it came to understanding that sometimes things really are worth fighting for.
If the man won't stand by Israel, to whom will he stand up?
An awfully good question. One to which we still do not have an answer. And one to which, with the distraction of all this talk about distractions, (almost) no one has paid any attention.
In the aftermath of the aftermath of Wednesday night's debate, when so many people are so busy talking about the "bad" questions -- just as an aside: if asking them for 45 minutes was so despicable and harmful to democracy, isn't talking about them for 48 hours a hell of a lot more so? -- I think it's instructive to consider both candidates' responses to one of the "good" questions, a little Mideast foreign policy number about Iran, Israel, and the nuclear tensions between.
What you will see, if you are look fairly and think critically, is the difference between someone trying to bluff his way through a job interview for which he is either scared or ill-prepared -- speaking in haughty principles and great, sweeping generalities, hoping upon hope that the interviewer does not notice or care that he hasn't actually answered the question -- and someone who, with abundant clarity and focus, is able to answer the question and explain the answer not just because she has crammed for the interview, but because she has mastered the material...
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States' policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.
I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.
Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Six sentences. 188 words. But still no answer to a question that could have been answered in one of each.
Two vague promises. Three broad beliefs. And the undeniable air of someone who has been prepped and sound-bited for a question like this but who, for whatever reason or reasons, either fears or refuses to answer.
Stephanopoulos asked about an Iranian attack on Israel. 175 words into Obama's answer, and a full 53 words after talking about carrots and sticks, he finally (and vaguely) talks about any threats to Israel.
This is straight talk? This is a different kind of politics? This is a guy who makes the tough calls and is ready to lead with his extraordinary global vision?
Stephanopoulos, perhaps because he was out of lapel-pin questions, pressed Obama in a follow-up...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.
Notice that he still doesn't answer the question. Notice that, while claiming in his first answer that we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is, he can neither directly engages nor makes even remotely, vaguely clear what his posture would be. Notice that the great orator hems, haws, stumbles, repeats, pauses, and then ends with two of the great weasel words in the political candidates' lexicon: unacceptable, and appropriate.
There is much more to dislike, and perhaps even to fear, in this answer. But we'll get to that after we hear Senator Clinton's answer...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
I'll interrupt here, if only to note that by the end of her second sentence, she has expanded the scope of the question, answered it directly, and done both without even the slightest hesitation or equivocation. You can differ with her answer and disagree with her policy, but by God, you know what they are.
You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.
And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don't now have.
Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.
And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.
And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.
Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.
Again: you may differ with the policy or disagree with the tactics, and you'll certainly want to know some more details down the road, but Senator Clinton unloaded 450 words of clarity and context and even some occasional nuance, all in stark contrast to Senator Obama's 260 words of evading and meandering and even some occasional stumbling.
Now. I noted above that there was much more to dislike about Senator Obama's two-part non-answer. I could expound upon that here myself, but I'll leave it to a TWM reader -- who, just for the record, is neither Jewish nor closely tied in any other way to Israel -- who emailed late Wednesday night, after watching the debate, and expressed some considerable outrage on this very point:
I am a believer in democracy, and one who is capable of recognizing that, with whatever inherent flaws might come of being a democracy under constant threat of attack, Israel exists as a western-style democracy in a sea of extremist theocracy and plutocracy that is the Middle East. It is, in short, an emblem of the ideals we as a nation hold to be universal -- as in the words "self-evident" in our foundation documents. A nation's commitment to protecting a fellow democracy, unto the sword if need be, is a measure of that nation's commitment to its core principles. And someone who wants to lead that nation should be able to answer a question about standing by such an ally without a circuitous answer. Sometimes the correct answer is "yes." And sometimes the more expansive version of that answer ought to be no more than "hell, yes."
Obama's answer has far less the air of John F. Kennedy than the stale aroma of Jimmy Carter -- a man of essential decency but a fatal weakness when it came to understanding that sometimes things really are worth fighting for.
If the man won't stand by Israel, to whom will he stand up?
An awfully good question. One to which we still do not have an answer. And one to which, with the distraction of all this talk about distractions, (almost) no one has paid any attention.
Posted: Sat - April 19, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
Terror Alert
Brilliant Satire
Required Reading
Traffic Count
Official Muse
Syndication
Carbolic Wear
Y Chromosomes
Some Perspective
On Tour
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 16, 2009 04:50 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 16, 2009 04:50 PM