The Washington Post asked a bunch of foreign policy types for their thoughts on what the candidates should discuss in the first debate. The American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka — who was last seen lamenting the fact that those rotten, ungrateful Iraqis don’t possess a “freedom gene,” and have proved undeserving of her splendid little war — skillfully demonstrates that if you radically misrepresent Barack Obama’s foreign policy views, those views can be made to seem radically at odds with each other:
Barack Obama has said that he opposes the Iraq war, opposes the surge and wishes to withdraw troops on a specific timeline regardless of our success on the ground or the views of our commanders. He has said that he wants to sit down with the Iranian leadership and negotiate without preconditions, a position rejected by America’s allies in Europe. He has also suggested that the United States should threaten to and possibly attack Pakistan for harboring al-Qaeda. Each of these positions can be explained in a vacuum, but together they add up to a confusing picture of how President Obama would defend America against enemies abroad.
Interesting that Pletka appears to be siding here with the Europeans against five former U.S. secretaries of state, who last week advocated negotiating with Iran “without conditions.” Someone really should ask Danielle Pletka why she thinks Europeans — many of whom don’t even worship God — should be given a veto over America’s national security.
In all seriousness, of course, as evidenced by her tendency to dismiss our European allies as “weak” and “without conviction” when they haven’t happened to agree with her
boneheaded schemes for conquering the world ‘freedom agenda,’ Danielle Pletka really doesn’t care what our European allies think, except inasmuch as it’s useful to her making comically transparent bad faith arguments.