OK, so I saw this little gem this morning that is being plastered all over Israel. It sort of sums up my feelings as to President Obama’s foreign policy to date.

To be fair, I don’t think President Obama… well, *I hope*… President Obama is fully against letting Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons. But it is naive for him to think that he can negotiate his way out of Iran and N. Korea out of their nuclear programs. He can’t even convince half of America he is competent, and most of that half just disagrees with his ideology. So what makes him think he can convince two groups of people that hate America to stop, especially without leverage?

Since he has taken office, both Iran and North Korea have accelerated their progams and both are affirmatively testing what Obama will do about it. Let’s face it, the UN isn’t going to do anything unless the U.S. makes a stink. North Korea has launched long range missiles and performed a second underground nuclear test… and what have we done about it??? Nothing. Even our condemnation of the acts is weak.

As I said, I don’t think President Obama wants Iran and North Korea to have nucs, but his lack of doing anything about it is getting really close to impliedly rubber stamping their nuclear weapons programs.

The headline:

Iran’s Ahmadinejad rejects Western nuclear proposal.

The text:

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday rejected a Western proposal for it to “freeze” its nuclear work in return for no new sanctions and ruled out any talks with major powers on the issue.

The comments by the conservative president, who is seeking a second term in a June 12 election, are likely to further disappoint the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, which is seeking to engage Iran diplomatically.

Did anybody with a brain, for even a nanosecond, really believe that the Iran problem was going to be solved diplomatically? These guys have been playing a complex PR game now for years, and we somehow expected that to change because Barak Obama was elected?

Iran will come to the bargaining table when they have the nuclear missile in their pocket and pointed at Israel. Then they will make their demands. And why wouldn’t they? Who wants to come to the bargaining table knowing they have the weak position? It is better to negotiate when you are doing so from a position of strength.

The Iran problem must be addressed. And now. We simply cannot allow crazies to have nucs for our own personal safety. We need to shut down Iran’s nuclear program. Economic sanctions might work, but we have to be serious about it. Alternately, a few well place bombs might do the trick.

Oh, and if you want a compelling reason why even a single nuclear warhead attached to a missile is a problem. Read about electromagnetic pulses — which could be the most devestating threat to the United States.

This from Politico:

Obama will argue that so-called enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding are not the most effective, undermine the rule of law, alienate the U.S. in the world, serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America.

The president will say that while the nation must ensure that its security measures and our justice system are ready to address the threats of the 21st century, the Obama administration will uphold America’s laws and its values that are the reason we have become the strongest nation in the world and persisted through crises that have threatened our core.

Obama will say that the paramount responsibility of any president is to keep the American people safe. That is what he thinks about every morning when he wakes up and every night when he goes to sleep. The president believes with every fiber of his being that we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. (emphasis added.)

From the NY Post:

Joe Biden warned that America’s enemies would test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months if he’s elected…

So let me get this straight. We are supposed to vote for a guy whose running mate is guaranteeing that we will have to face an international crisis from our enemies (i.e., terrorists) within six months after he is elected?

Madeleine Albright then chimed in with support of Joe Biden’s statement.

The inference from Biden’s and Albright’s remarks are that terrorists see an Obama presidency as soft — a good time to attack the United States. In other words, terrorists don’t believe that Obama will use our military to punish them as Bush did.

This is the point: Biden is suggesting that the terrorists are going to attack to determine Obama’s response. The terrorists know what McCain’s response will be. If Obama doesn’t stick with the Bush’s foreign policy (how can he and continue to have support from his base?), the terrorists will know that they have carte blanche to resume plans for attacks on American interests and possible on American soil. From all of Obama’s statements, we have a good idea that his response is going to be a diplomacy only response, which translates into more attacks.

Given Biden’s prediction, which is the better candidate for keeping us out of international crises and being attacked by terrorists?

A vote for Obama/Biden is to vote for another terrorist attack, and probably more than one.