Naïve Obama Calls McCain Naïve

Previously, Barack Obama was called naïve by his Democrat opponents.

Discussion of Obama's naïveté on foreign policy came to the fore on July 23, 2007 during the YouTube Debate.

QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."

Bad answer.

Hillary took a different position.

HILLARY: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes.

Following the debate, both Hillary and Obama spoke with the Quad-City Times.

Of Obama’s comment, [Hillary] said: “I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Her campaign later circulated a memo to reporters saying it was a “mistake” to commit to presidential-level meetings without precondition "with some of the world's worst dictators" and portrayed her remarks as showing her depth of experience.

Obama, in a separate interview with the Times, vigorously defended his comments.

“What she’s somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about. I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon,” he said.

He added Clinton is making a larger point.

“From what I heard, the point was, well, I wouldn’t do that because it might allow leaders like Hugo Chavez to score propaganda points,” he said. “I think that is absolutely wrong.”

He likened the position to a continuation of the Bush administration diplomatic policies. And he said what was “irresponsible and naive” was voting to authorize the Iraq War.

Hillary wasn't the only Democrat to call Obama naïve on the foreign policy front.

Joe Biden did, too.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman and presidential candidate Joe Biden has joined the gang piling on Barack Obama for proposing possible intervention in Pakistan to pursue Al Qaeda -- using the same word Hillary Clinton used to criticize Obama's eagerness to negotiate with dictators: naïve.

In an interview on The Diane Rehm Show this morning, Biden told guest host Susan Page of USA Today the following:

"… in order to look tough, he's undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you're going to go into Pakistan -- which is already our policy by the way, if there's actionable intelligence -- you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you're already going to say I'm going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you're getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It's a well intended notion he has, but it's a very naïve way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy."

It's an interesting turn of events that the inexperienced Obama, once deemed the naïve one by his fellow Dems, is now calling Republican John McCain naïve on foreign policy matters.

WATERTOWN, S.D. -- Barack Obama laid into John McCain on Friday for advancing a tough-guy foreign policy that he called "naive and irresponsible," serving notice that he's ready to launch a full-throttle challenge to the Republican presidential contender on international relations in the general election campaign.

"Naïve and irresponsible" are the exact terms used by Hillary Clinton to describe Obama's willingness to meet with dictators without precondition.

Lumping McCain together with President Bush, Obama declared: "If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for." He blamed Bush for policies that enhance the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings.

McCain agreed, at least, that there were huge differences between himself and Obama on foreign policy, and said he'd be happy to let the American people decide who was right.

"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that's not the world we live in. And until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe," McCain said in a speech to the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky.

McCain rejected the naive comment, saying Obama should have known better, and added: "Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel 'a stinking corpse,' and arms terrorists who kill Americans, will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional neetings will advance our interests."

His campaign issued a statement accusing Obama of making a "hysterical diatribe."

The three-way dustup over foreign policy — Bush vs. Obama vs. McCain — began a day earlier, when Bush gave a speech to the Israeli Knesset in which he criticized those who believe the United States should negotiate with terrorists and radicals. Obama said Bush's criticism was directed at him, and took umbrage; the White House denied the president had Obama in mind; McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with rogue leaders.

Obama continued the debate on Friday at a town-hall meeting in a livestock barn. He said he had planned to focus on rural issues during his swing through South Dakota, but felt compelled to answer the remarks from Bush and McCain.

"I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days," he said.

Whenever Obama has his back against the wall, the guy whines about being attacked.

I suppose his supporters buy that tactic, but I hope the majority of Americans can see what he's doing. Obama starts yapping about civility when he's losing on substance, when he's trapped. I'm afraid Obama has pulled that too many times.

Obama said McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism."

Speaking of McCain and Bush together, he added: "They aren't telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits. But it's not going to work. Not this time, not this year."

Obama is the one trying to fool Americans, hoping to shed the naïve label that Hillary and others appropriately gave him last summer.

Hillary was right. The label fits.

Obama says tough talk from Washington is "naïve and irresponsible."

What does Obama suggest come from Washington? Wimpy talk? Jimmy Carter-esque talk? Appeasement talk?

Obama is really floundering on this. It's been nearly a year since the YouTube Debate. He still hasn't been able to convincingly present himself as capable of handling hostile foreign leaders. He's still the guy who will talk to thug leaders without precondition.

Obama is not good on foreign policy. Maybe that's why he flipped out over President Bush's remarks to the Knesset. Maybe that's why he assumed President Bush was specifically calling him an appeaser.

Maybe that's why he's wearing the flag pin on his lapel again, to compensate for his glaring inadequacies.