I find this whole business of the Republican criticism of the president rather remarkable. It's almost as if Senator Graham and others are completely oblivious to the impact of US political influence inside of Iran. Or, really, the niceties of diplomacy in general.
I'm not sure if this is sheer political gamesmanship (I hope) in the sense of "Oh look... President Obama isn't advocating liberty in Iran: something that everyone in the free world wants. Let's accuse him of being soft on dictators." Or (I fear) maybe the Republicans truly and honestly believe the George W. Bush school of diplomacy and dictating terms to the rest of the world is the only way to, in the words of Senator Graham "lead from the front."
So, what I'm saying is that, as I see things, the Republican Party's stance on Iran is either disingenuous or idiotic. And this is the party that, according to commentators, operates better as a minority party? I suppose it's fair to say that the party is having a crisis of leadership and is attempting to return to what it's good at... but if what it's good at is responding to a nuanced approach to diplomacy with a shrill appeal to the base fears of the masses, I'm afraid I'm not buying.
Posted by Vengeful Cynic at June 21, 2009 06:02 PM | TrackBack