Advantage: Edwards and Obama

Should we talk to certain foreign leaders, or ignore them. That's the real question. Senator Clinton just blew it, in spite of having the advantage to respond after Obama. "We must protect the prestige of the President" ??? Is she a Republican or what.

What prestige? We have been losing face, and credibility for the last five years. No nation trust us anymore. We are creating more enemies, every day, faster than we kill them. We are so gullible that we finance a general-dictator in Pakistan who harbours terrorist, and laugh at us to the bank.

Only Republicans, except Ron Paul, still believe in the American power and influence. It seems that a few Democrat candidates belong more to the other side. Our economy is collapsing, our both deficits (budget and trade) are reaching an alarming and catastrophic level.

Should we talk to foreign leaders? Absoluately, yes. We might not agree with them about the way they rule their own country, but, it is possible, perhaps possible, that they do not agree with us the way we govern our own country. But, they are little more polite, more diplomat, with a more "savoir-faire" for not telling us, or not advertising it.

We suggest to the advisors of Mr. John Edwards and Barak Obama to read our article of September 12, 2006 : "The mistake of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy".

From our September Archive

Revolutions occur with a reason. Usually, they do not succeed, or last, if not supported by a large segment of the population. Before the arrival of Fidel Castro, the regime Batista did nothing for the overall interests of Cubans.

Eight years after he left office, President Harry Truman told his biographer and interviewer, Merle Miller, what he would have done with Castro.

"If I had been President, when Castro came to power, I'd have picked up the phone and called him direct in Havana. I wouldn't have gone through protocol or anything like that...and I'd have said: Fidel, this is Harry Truman in Washington, and I'd like to have you come up here, and have a little talk."

"He would have come to the White House, and I would have said: Fidel, it looks to me you've had a pretty good revolution down there, and it's been a long time coming. Now, you're going to need help, and there's only two places you can go to get it.""One's right here, and the other - well, we both know where the other place is. Now, just you tell me what you need, and I'll see that you get it."

The whole world knows that Fidel Castro received a hero's welcome at the United Nations, but was chilled by Vice President Richard Nixon.Nikita Khruschev could not have expected a better and timely opportunity: a communist seed in the Americas.

Amazing to remember that Vice President Nixon was anxious to visit communist China, but ignore Cuba, which, at the time, was not a communist

From New York Times Readers

Comments to the article: Democrats Engage YouTubers, Snowman
By Michael Falcone

#10. July 24th,200711:43 am
The real Hillary, Calvie. Her answer to delay for meeting other leaders, you call that, a great move, I call that revealing of her nature, to test water, to find out where is the wind blowing. We need a real leader, not a follower of polls.
— Posted by Texancan

#16. July 24th,200712:41 pm
Calvin Preddie (#2), and anyone else blabbering at how “brilliant” Hillary’s retort about cautiously meeting with leaders…you bought into a total cheap shot. Looks like Texancan (#10) was one of the few who didn’t.
Hillary contradicted herself last night, yet few people noticed. Just three months ago, she had a totally different position on this topic, yet responded the way she did last night in order to score an applause line.
Apr 22, 2007 10:12 pm US/Eastern(CBS/AP) DECORAH, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday criticized President Bush’s foreign policy, and said if she were president she would do things differently, including beginning diplomatic talks with supposed enemies and sending envoys throughout the world.
“I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences,” said Clinton, who spoke to about 1,000 people at Luther College in Decorah in northeastern Iowa.
— Posted by PaulD

The Facilitator.

Our UN Ambassador should resign

Pursuant to our yesterday's article "Another Insult to the World", we have received several comments, combined with an op-ed from New York Times. Last Fall, we asked the White House to recall our ambassadors to United Nations, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Canada. As we know, two of them (Bolton and Brownfield ) have finally been removed. Now, we believe Zalmay Khalilzad should also be sent to another pasture.

Readers from England:

sensei 20 Jul 2007 20:02
It seems ironic that someone from Texas should be so despairing of their president.Why do you elect such numbskulls?He may have deceived Tony Blair, but he didn't deceive us Brits.Why do the so-called religious right have such influence.

Because when you push their buttons
The Resolute American 20 Jul 2007 22:54
they jump like a Mexican jumping bean. They are probably the most easily exploited of the voting groups. All the politicians have to do is bring up the issues of gay marriage and/or rights, abortion, or separation of church and state and they get whipped up into such a frenzy, they'll do whatever the politician holding the whip tells them to do.

Readers from New York Times:
Op-Ed Contributor: Why the United Nations Belongs in Iraq (July 20, 2007)
Re “Why the United Nations Belongs in Iraq,” by Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to the United Nations (Op-Ed, July 20):
First as tragedy, then as farce, such are the repetitions of history. I can think of no more stunning demonstration of Marx’s dictum than Zalmay Khalilzad’s entirely unironic plea for the internationalization of the Iraq catastrophe: after running roughshod over the United Nations, voicing contempt for Old Europe (with its quaint institutions), and boasting that to the victor go the spoils, now the Bush administration wants the international community to come to its rescue.
How does one respond to such hubris? I’d like to believe in the redemptive value of laughter, but as far as I can see, this tragedy gives way only to more of the same.
Jonathan Feldman.

From a reader to John Edwards' blog:
No one needs to make a mockery of the UN....it is a corrupt, american hating, antisemitic organization that has outlived its usefulness...

Reply by The Facilitator: Real desperation...

Dear adbct16, if we require, now, the UN assistance to clean up the chaos in hell we have installed in Iraq, and if, UN is so corrupt, what do you think we are? Just look at the White House and their sycophants. Are you among the 30% who believe Cheney-Bush tandem is doing a great job?

The U.N. is anti-American:

I dislike Bush and Cheney ,but I know that the U.N. wants a New World Order .The U.N.wants to impose a global tax on citizens in every country .The U.N. wants to have a standing army of U.N. soldiers .We need to withdraw from the U.N.Adbct16 is right !
by DiFabio

Reply by the Facilitator: Why asking UN ?
UN is surely not more corrupt than the White House. If we are planning to leave the UN, why are we having an Ambassador asking UN to help us in the chaos we have created in Iraq. My point is simple: the same people who were denigrating UN, a few years ago, are now begging for some assistance. If UN is so bad, why are we asking their help? Instead, we should ask our Ambassador to resign. He is not helping us, anyhow with the real world.
Weekly non-partisan approach to restore our disastrous Foreign Policy, and enhance US relationship with Latin America, a market of 500 million people.

UN Seems Off Topic To Me:

No one who occupies the Oval Office can afford to be ignorant of foreign affairs. I agree. The need to talk about foreign affairs as well as domestic during a campaign is necessary. I agree again.
But it is also true that Edward's strength has not been and likely will never be foreign affairs, at least during most of this campaign. Being in the White House tends to be the best and only real education in such matters. That is unfortunate, but all you have to do is look at Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Clinton, Bush-2 and see that it is true. The world intrudes greatly on presidents who would prefer domestic agendas.
Edward has begun to re-start his campaign in the past weeks, focusing on Two Americas. Beating up on the UN is a waste of breath whatever you think of it as an organization. I'd advise avoiding rehtoric that scapegoats it. Like it or not, we live on the same planet as these other nations and they have a role and need a voice--a collective voice. Think of it as "national personhood"-- the corporate balance to American Unilateral SuperPowerism. The UN ain't the issue.
So far, Edwards appears to me to be a pretty conventional Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. Other than Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan--possibly Darfur-- he will probably continue to respond to narrow issues on an "as needed" basis for as long as he can. So will the other candidates except Biden and maybe Dodd, both of whom have a long record of contact in foreign affairs. That is as it should be. Edwards undoubtedly has foreign policy notions, but he has time to build any message he may have. He needs the time. The best thing the world can hope from America is that we get our own house in order, and I believe most Americans believe that too whether they hate the UN or not.

Reply by the Facilitator:
UN or not: Agree with most of your comments. It is our dear President via our UN ambassador who is asking the help of other nations, now, while, a few years ago, the sycophants Rice, Bolton, Rumsfeld were denigrating the said institution. Unfortunately, you are right. Our presidential candidates have no experience in foreign policy, and are ignorant about the rest of the world. Unfortunately, we are not the big power we used to be. Now, we depend on certain countries to develop beneficial relationship. Democrat candidates have an advantage, but should make sure to establish a good base, before entering the White House. ]

From the Democratic Party Blog:
Reply By Arius Yesterday at 2:42 pm EDT
This administration has been an embarrassment and a disaster.That being said, North Korea has finally agreed to discuss with us, not the other way around. The US has always been prepared to participate in the six-party talks. Eventually, so did North Korea.

RE: North Korea
Reply By Percy H Florez Yesterday at 3:45 pm EDT
I agree with you about this government it is an embarrassment and a disaster.As well the UN administration it is for the rest of the world. Percy H Flores

Still waiting to hear from Republican candidates or fans...or are they all in the 30% ?

Another Insult to the World

After the mess we have created in Iraq, by not listening to a majority of countries, five years ago, our newest Ambassador to UN dares to insult the intelligence of the Real World.

Six years ago, the Bush’s sycophants, including Rice, Bolton, were making a mockery of the United Nations. Now, our Ambassador is begging for help. For the last two years, we have also asked other nations to come and rescue our disastrous mission in Iraq, but to not avail. Other nations are smarter than we are.

Zahmay Khalilzad is now telling us what he did not want to listen and practice while he was our
Ambassador to Iraq. Typical White House mentality. Now, Cheney-Bush are recognizing the global warming….now, they are discussing with North Korea...now they are willing to help the Government of Palestine... now they have been thinking about possible negotiations with Iran and Syria. Now, they are much too late...now they have proved their irresponsibility, ignorance, and alarming lack of clairvoyance.

Still 30% of a naive, gullible and ignorant population believe Cheney-Bush tandem is doing a great job. We just get the government we deserve.

By his article in New York Times today, Zahmay Khalilzad confirms being another incompetent nomination by the Bush family.

Now, our ambassador recognizes the UN importance and influence. Not too long ago, the irresponsible White House and their spineless Republican elected representatives were talking about abolishing the said Entity.

Now, UN is uniquely suited...now, UN has an added advantage to negotiate...now the UN is so good, so nice, so effective. What a joke from this so-called Ambassador. Goes very well with Bolton, Cheney, Rice, Negroponte and William Brownfield, ambassador to Venezuela.

Finally, someone did listen to us when we were asking, last Fall, to recall our Ambassadors to UN, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Canada. Two more to go. Never too late for the Bush administration to understand something about the real world. Unfortunately, our next generation will pay a heavy price, because of "Bush, always too late" as per our article of March 14.

The Facilitator