BernieHund: The Political Watchdog

To talk or not to talk?  That is the question. 

Barack Obama has stated that he would talk with anyone in an effort to break through the barriors that keep us isolated from our enemies.  Of course, his comment has been taken to task by the Republicans and Hillary Clinton.  Again, the spin tried to make Obama look naive in the eyes of the country and the world. 

Not one person in the universe could believe that Obama was saying that if elected President he would hop on Air Force 1, fly into Tehran, head over to a local coffee shop and invite Ahmadinajhad to join him for a latte.  But, that has more or less been the spin.  Hillary Clinton has dissed Obama for saying he would talk to any world leader.  McCain has used naive in reference to Obama.  Both were spin opportunities.  President Bush even weighed in on his last trip to Israel.

Today we learned from the Washington Post that

Sometime in the next few weeks, a special envoy of President Bush plans to meet with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose government sheltered Osama bin Laden and pursued a scorched-earth policy in southern Sudan that resulted in more than 2 million deaths.

Bashir’s government has been accused by Bush of participating in a “genocide” in Darfur, the only U.S. government use of such a strong accusation. Yet Richard S. Williamson’s visit to Khartoum follows a series of direct contacts by senior Bush administration officials with the Sudanese president, including Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Rice’s deputies, and several special presidential envoys.

So, what’s up with that?  President Bush has not met directly with the Sudanese President, but it sure looks like the administration is talking to some in the government that had been accused of genocide.  Is John McCain going to take a stance against talking to this terrorist regime?

Is this a first for the Bush administration?

Bush has spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions, underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and dictators. His appointees have also pursued aggressive diplomacy with North Korea and Libya and have even conducted limited business with Cuba, Syria and Iran.

Guess not!  So, why all the attacks on Obama for suggesting that we give diplomacy a chance?  It’s the spin, just spin.  It is another case of candidates or media taking a snippet statement and trying to turn it into policy position. 

Whether we are discussing the mostly failed policies of the Bush administration or the potential diplomacy of an Obama presidency, I am reminded of Lyndon Johnson who once said and I paraphrase…. it’s better to keep the enemy in the tent pissing out than to have the enemy outside the tent pissing in.