Former State Department spokespoodle, Mr. Christiane Amanpour and Roger Cohen clone, Jamie Rubin defends the President in today's WSJ.

Candidate Barack Obama could not have been clearer. He was going to talk to foreign leaders directly whether the United States agreed with their policies or not. And the purpose of this new diplomacy, Mr. Obama emphasized, was not to change regimes around the world but to advance American interests. His opponent, Sen. John McCain, took the opposite view. He wouldn't be seen in the company of Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. And as far as Iran was concerned, Mr. McCain would demand that Tehran capitulate on a series of issues as the price for a meeting with the president.

Despite the results of November's election, Mr. Obama's critics are judging him on the basis of the old Bush calculus. Whether it is Venezuela or Cuba, they assess Mr. Obama's actions based on whether or not they immediately contribute to the downfall of a regime. If not, then they go off in high dudgeon.

We judge him on the Bush calculus because it works better than the new one. Surely Ahmadinejad hasn't softened his approach to the U.S. or the West generally because President Obama has been nicer to him than Bush was. If the Obama approach had worked Roxana Saberi would have been released from prison before standing "trial" and there might have been no need for the U.S. to boycott Durban II. Rather the understanding shown Ahmadinejad encouraged him and hardened his stands.

Dr. Sanity links to a good retort to Rubin.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707646,00.html

This article is a must read!!

We should not be surprised that President Obama is so anxious to court the world's worst Jew-haters and tyrants. His history reveals a man of little moral backbone

Robert, you are absolutely wrong. His history reveals NO moral backbone. Remember his efforts in the IL senate fighting against a law protecting infants born alive? Compared to Obama, Bill Clinton had the backbone of General Patton.

Greg - does anyone not think that any two state solution would mean Jews can live in only one of the states but muslims can live anywhere they want? How many Jewish legislators do you think Gaza will have? I am convinced every liberal that mentions a two state solution has no concept of what they are really talking about. Funny how Egypt doesn't want anything to do with the people living in Gaza and Jordan wants nothing to do with the muslims living in the 'West Bank'.

One of my cousins has inlaws in Venezuela, who haven't been able to get out.

Fairs fair...it's about time somebody targeted Chavez.

Didn't George Bush meet with chavez in the early days of his presidency ?

Ted:

Not exactly.

http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258140,00.html

Now, here's what I want you to do. Change the headline from "Chavez Targets Jews, to "Chavez Targets Blacks."

How do you think you or the MSM would react?

And how come Liberals are so anxious to, ahem, "engage" with leftists tyrants, but in regard to South Africa it was a hard line policy of isolation and boycott?

I am quite sure Bush met with Chavez once early on in his presidency, or perhaps it was just before the 2000 election during the millennium summit.

Allow me to answer your questions.

If the headlines were accurate, they would trouble me equally. I cannot speak for the msm but I understand why you are upset. Jews being targeted in Venezuela is not likely to spike the interest of many main stream media outlets.

Again I cannot speak for liberals, only for myself. I don't care if Obama engages with Chavez or not. Chavez is an eccentric left winger but it is utterly absurd for anyone to suggest that he is a threat to American national security. The obsession that the right wing talk show radio have with him is laughable. I could not understand how during the election last year the question "would you talk with Chavez" kept coming up.

Chavez is a populist who tells the masses what they want to hear. His backward economic policies are ruining his country. He is difficult and uncooperative in every respect. This does not make him a leftist tyrant. I am not saying this to defend him. I am saying it because well, a tyrant has to be worse than this. Chavez has not yet come close to the levels of depravity that we see elsewhere around the world.

As I said, I don't care if Obama engages with him or not. I do care that the US stays out of Venezuelan politics. This is how I see it. During the cold war the US often supported right wing military dictatorships in order to prevent pro soviet Marxist regimes from coming to power in Latin America. I think the US was right to do this given Soviet ambitions in the western hemisphere. But in a post soviet world where American security is not threatened by left wing regimes it is utterly irresponsible for people to call for "action" in Venezuela simply because a weird little leader wont play ball. Bush realised this and refused to fully commit in 2001 during the attempted military coup against Chavez. It is unfair to mock Obama simply for being photographed with him at a South American summit.

Regarding your final point. I also dislike left wing hypocrisy except in this case I am not convinced that Chavez is a left wing tyrant (unlike Mugabe) so I don't believe the comparison is valid.

Ted:

I never claimed that Venezuela is a threat to America.

To characterize Chavez as a left wing eccentric is, to say the least, an understatement. No, he is not Mugabe, but does one have to be a mass murderer to be characterized as a tyrant?

Further, I believe the Jews in Venezuela would disagree with you, not to mention the thousands of political prisoners, the newspapers and journalists who have been silenced.

The propaganda value of Obama's soul handshake with Chavez is enormous for Chavez.

In the real world, this so-called engagement must yield results beneficial to America. That's what statecraft is all about.

So far, nothing. Nothing from Europe as far as Obama's request for additional troops for Afghanistan, a missile launched from North Korea as Obama spoke about nuclear disarmament, and from Iran an American journalist imprisoned, a demand that America abandon Israel, and from Latin America, public scorn from Ortega.

And as you know, the Gulf states are furious with Obama for engaging Iran without pre-conditions, thus giving the Persians even more time to develop their nuclear bomb. As you also know, the Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, are most anxious for Israel to bomb Iran at the earliest possible moment. They see Obama as a weakling.

The tyrants sense weakness and when America is neutered, well, who else is going to step up to the plate and defend the free world?

The U.N.?

P.S. I really want to know why Jews being targeted by Chavez does not pique the interest of the MSM? I thought the liberal media was deeply concerned about human rights?

in this case I am not convinced that Chavez is a left wing tyrant (unlike Mugabe)

Isn't that setting the bar pretty high? Using that standard only Zimbabwe and N Korea and one or two other countries are ruled by left wing tyrants.

Chavez'support for palestinian arabs is mainly based upon his hatred against jewish culture.
I can't see any other explanation... The venezuelian "ministry" of "justice" has even told the Jews were responsible for the attack against the synagogue in caracas... that's a nonsense! Yet it's nothing else than judeophobia..

"Dixie Chicks on steroids"

I guess the "steroids" are the MSM? Without their (its?) complicity, the man would be far less influential than the Dixie Chicks...

"http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707646,00.html

This article is a must read!!
"

Read it!

Robert

Apologies for taking so long to respond.

The right wing obsession with Chavez which I described as "laughable" is not something I accuse you of. This is the first post I have seen on Seraphic Secret about Chavez.

"Does one have to be a mass murderer to be characterized as a tyrant?" Yes, I think so.

I suppose the question really facing us is , does meeting with a dictator strengthen that dictator. I would argue that it does not necessarily. Chamberlin did not appease Hitler simply by agreeing to meet him in Munich. He appeased him by taking him at his word that the Sudetenland was the limit of his territorial ambitions in Europe. We both agree that Mugabe is a left wing tyrant. Well Regan not only met with him, he had talks with him in the oval office. Is anyone going to tell me Regan was soft on tyrants.

And as for the dictators sensing weakness in Obama and acting accordingly, I am not convinced. It is too early to tell. Do we really think that if Bush or McCain were President that the American journalist in Iran would be free by now or that the North Koreans would not have launched that missile.

I'm not sure that Obama has engaged Iran. As far as I know all he has done is express respect for ancient Iranian culture. This may in fact be part of a strategy in itself. Respect for the ancient Persian civilisation is not something that the Mullahs nescearily want to encourage as the great Persian civilisation predates Islam by 2000 years. This fact has often caused friction in Iran between the theocratic elite and more conventional nationalists. Many ancient Persian customs and festivals have in fact been banned since 1979.

The Kuwaitis and the Saudis do not want a nuclear Iran that's for sure. But neither do they want to see naval warfare break out around the strait of Hormuz. Im not so sure they are as keen to see a strike on Iran as you seem to think.

Regarding your last question Robert. I do not have an answer. I share your frustration with the msm.

Dear Robert: How about starting a campaign to get people to unload their stock in the Venezualian state oil company? The Obama Budget explanation, from the Onion, is hilarious. Shabbat Shalom

Ted:

Obama displays a pattern of behavior which some of us find disturbing.

See this for a good summary:

http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/article.php?id=3965

Comparing Obama to Reagan is, well, not quite valid. Reagan had a track record of tough policies against Communists that eventually brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union. Obama has a track record of, well, nothing.

As my wife Karen, a Ph.D psychologist says: People reveal their patterns of behavior very quickly. And these patterns rarely change.

Obama has a weakness for leftist, Jew-hating thugs.

My information, from well-placed Israelis, is that Saudi Arabia is feeding intel to Israel on Iran to hasten the strike.

Thanks so much for your articulate comments.

"Does one have to be a mass murderer to be characterized as a tyrant?" Yes, I think so.

The American colonists characterized King George as a tyrant. And he was, b/c he curtailed their freedoms without allowing them representation. But he was not a mass murderer. There's plenty of daylight between "tyrant" and "mass murderer."