I wonder if President Obama will give a wine glass toast to Kim Jong-il as well?:
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has reaffirmed that he will unconditionally meet with the leaders of so-called “rogue nations,” including North Korea, if elected president.
The Illinois senator said during a campaign tour in South Dakota that he would offer “tough diplomacy” to the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea “without preconditions”.
Citing recent progress in Pyongyang’s nuclear issue through dialogue, Obama said diplomatic policy should be directed toward dialogue if it proves to be a failure. [KBS Global]
Maybe Obama forgot the “progress” with North Korea, which has been in fact very little, was brought on by six party talks and then follow on talks with Christopher Hill, not talks with the US president with no preconditions. Could you imagine the propaganda that Kim Jong-il would have with President Obama landing in Pyongyang? The state media would be touting that not only are South Korean presidents coming to pay homage to the great Kim Jong-il, but even the mighty American president is as well. The propaganda would go on and on and this would effectively end any regime change aspirations from anyone within North Korea and would solidify Kim Jong-il’s status as the supreme leader of North Korea. Nobody would dare challenge after he had the American president come to North Korea to pay homage to him.
There are many more issues I can think of in regards to the US president traveling around the world to toast the world’s thugs and dictators, but if Obama is looking for a serious North Korea policy, which from what I read he is not, there are much better options available.
Popularity: 3%
10:40 am on May 19th, 2008 1
GI,
It is getting scarier that Obama might become our next commander in chief. I might support his domestic agenda, but his foreign policy is so wacked out that it scares me that he will end up in the White House. He is worse than Bill Clinton prior to his first election in 92.
12:21 pm on May 19th, 2008 2
President Reagan met, toasted, shook hands, with the Soviet dictator. President Nixon flew to China and shook the (metaphoricaly) blood-stained hand of Mao. Don’t you think your post is very partisan?
That’s how diplomacy works. You hold your nose and talk to people who may repulse you, but nonetheless the facts on the ground are that they control that state, and are the people to talk to when you want something from that state. Nazi Germany had an embassy in Washington for almost a decade, you might reflect, and I am sure they met, shook hands with, and toasted (the toasting part seems to particularly gall you, like you expect an official of the United States to throw their drink in the host nation’s leader’s face or something) everyone important in Washington, at one diplomatic soiree or another, while they were there (I guess.)
I agree with you - high US officials should not travel to Pyongyang, because NK has a proven record of presenting it as a US humilation. Since KJI seems to have no problems traveling to China, the US should insist on meeting there or another 3rd country.
Candidates say all sorts of blather on the campaign trail, and then when they assume power they are faced with reality. The reality will be that the State Department will tell him in no uncertain terms what a boneheaded move it would be for the President to visit, and the idea will be dropped.
1:52 pm on May 19th, 2008 3
Just like Obama, Kim Jung Il is a UNIFIER. Kim’s gift is to bring us all together to facilitate CHANGE. The agenda for North East Asia is to create an integrated Market State (see the book: Terror and Consent). Kim Jung Il is an American asset providing an outward threat in which all may unify in defense against. He brings people together. For this reason, you will find American policy outwardly antagonistic, yet curiously supportive of Kim’s regime. Kim’s threat is useful for the larger picture. GI, don’t be such a frog in the well. It’s a secret alliance designed to integrate Asia. Relax!
5:20 pm on May 19th, 2008 4
I don’t care if Hussain Obama kisses KJI ass, as long as he pulls the US troops out.
6:55 pm on May 19th, 2008 5
Duncan,
It’s GI’s opinion, it’s his blog and he has a right to say what he thinks. As for the rest of what you say, I agree, even if Obama does get elected, he won’t be going to nK anytime soon.
So far as the big picture goes, this election in November is going to be a scary one no matter who ends up in the White House. On the one hand, you’ve got McCain (who I personally like) but no matter how you slice it, he’s going to have a rough time getting things done unless he has a few arms to twist in the Democratic leadership of the Congress and the Senate at least until the Congressional elections in 2010 or is it 2012, I have lost track. Plus he’s bound to keep us in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for the foreseeable future no matter what. On the other hand you have Obama who may handle domestic policy well as long as he doesn’t socialize everything or put it all in the government’s control but I am very scared of his foreign policy and how it will affect us all.
Tim in Angeles sendzzzzzzzzzzzzz
7:03 pm on May 19th, 2008 6
Who cares?
7:23 pm on May 19th, 2008 7
All the candidates are clueless, and I am very scared for my country. The choices are clear: Left and lefter.
7:59 pm on May 19th, 2008 8
What I stated is not partisan.
What makes Obama different from prior presidents is that he is going to meet with the world’s thugs and dictators with “no pre-conditions”.
Nixon went to China to meet Mao when many pre-conditions were met to ensure the success of the visit and that he would not just be a Chinese propaganda tool.
What is Obama going to discuss with Mullahs in Iran? Nothing and he knows it. He misspoke when he said he would meet without pre-conditions and instead of correcting himself he has been quietly been trying to back away from the comment:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/10/history-re-written-obama-never-said-he-would-meet-personally-with-iran-without-precondition-says-advisor/
That is why President Bush called him on it in his speech because of the attempted re-writing of history by Obama. Now Obama has been called out on it by Bush he is forced to make a policy around it that makes him look extremely naive.
Now if Obama was going to meet with the world’s thugs I know one he would get along with just fine, Hugo Chavez since he is a hero of the American left. Now that is a partisan statement.
3:16 pm on May 20th, 2008 9
There you go, Obama is already backing away from that idea. As I said, campaign trail blather-mist melts away in the morning sun of reality (oh,what a mangled metaphor that was).
If McCain or Hillary become Pres, there will be campaign trail statements of theirs that get “forgotten” as well. And that’s good. Things that sound good that day on the campaign trail aren’t necessarily the best policies for the nation.
By the way, GIK - I challenge you to come up with a quotation of praise for Hugo Chavez from anyone on the “American left” (Democratic party?) Utter unknowns who wrote an anonymous letter to the Podunk herald don’t count.
A truer statement would be that the American left utterly ignores, never thinks about, hasn’t the faintest beginnigs of an opinion on, and couldn’t care less about Hugo Chavez. No ?
5:36 pm on May 20th, 2008 10
6:57 pm on May 20th, 2008 11
Obama was backing away from it until Bush called him on it. I just saw Obama on the news again today talking about how he is going to meet with all these dictators to include Venezuela because the US bigger than them.
Talk about naive.
As far as the American left supporting Hugo Chavez lets let the linkpalooza begin:
Sean Penn
Kevin Spacey
Oliver Stone
Danny Glover
Cindy Sheehan
Medea Benjamin
Jesse Jackson
Dennis Kucinich
Noam Chomsky
Need I go on?
6:18 am on May 27th, 2008 12
Obama talking again about how he wants to meet with Hugo Chavez:
Now if he could just figure out what he wants to talk to Chavez about.
5:18 am on June 4th, 2008 13