Why Stop at Clinton?

If the ineptness of the “Great Communicator” was ever in full display, it was on Friday, when the declarer of “a new era of government” brought back a fixture from the old era to scold his own party into supporting the tax compromise between the president and congressional Republicans. President Bill Clinton was back behind the microphone at the White House acting like it’s 1996 all over again, taking questions from the press and answering them with ease and aggressiveness, unlike the current president, who decided to leave the press conference entirely to attend a Christmas party. And if you don’t think Clinton was salivating once Obama walked away, I have some waterfront property to sell you in Vegas.

There’s nobody in politics that craves the limelight than Bill Clinton, whether it’s touring the country in support of his foundation, taking up most of the campaign trail in support of Hillary’s candidacy, and now his new role as “acting” president. Bill looked cool as a cucumber the podium, explaining why the Dems had to accept the current plan and how negotiating would only worsen once the new Congress is sworn in January.

I feel for Obama though (OK not really), just when everybody figured the Clinton mob was dead and buried, Bill looks stronger than ever because Obama will need him to reach out to his fellow Democrats, as well as independents that remember how great life was under Clinton (and a GOP House), but how miserable its become under Obama and a Dem controlled Congress. There’s no risk for Clinton to help Obama because he’s not in office and his legacy is already cemented, if anything it will only embolden his legacy as a common sense Dem that wants to move the country forward instead of nowhere due to working across the aisle. If he fails, who cares, he goes back to living life, reputation still intact. As for Obama, this is a huge risk, I mean he literally walked out on the negotiation to put Clinton in charge for the moment, making him look weak, and if this strategy fails, I believe it will be the downfall for the party in general come 2012.

My question to the president is why stop at Clinton? There are a couple of issues facing the president that his communication skills have not solved; Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and North Korea-South Korea battling. If he’s willing to bring the past to the present, I have a couple names from the past that could solve these pressing issues.

Regarding Israel-Palestinian talks, this is a 2000 year old issue that will never end. Carter solved the Egyptian aspect, Reagan would never bow to Palestinian demands, Clinton should have solved it, and Bush had other issues to attend to. Currently, Israeli PM Netanyahu disregards Obama’s pleads to freeze settlement building in East Jerusalem, where many Arabs live, so much for his foreign affairs prowess. As the Iranians and other world leaders witness the weakness of Obama’s rhetoric when dealing with foreign issues, it will be taken advantage of by our enemies. He needs to appoint someone who has expert knowledge of the issue and who really has nothing else to do. Jimmy Carter fits both those characteristics. He’ll hold Israel accountable and hopefully establish a two state agreement with a cease-fire agreement that will keep the two parties at bay. Worse case scenario: Carter fails and the two continue their 2000 year old squabble under the current conditions or even under the two party state solution.

North and South Korea: That Kim Jong-Il is always looking for attention and he’s gotten it by shelling a South Korean island. As a violation of the armistice that “stopped” the Korean War, the U.S., Japan, and South Korea are wondering how to respond to such an attack, yet again, because we can’t forget about the sinking of the South Korean warship last March. As China awaits our move, there’s only one person who can engage the Chinese and come up with the solution to solve the North Korean childish appetite for attention: Henry Kissinger. As Nixon’s Secretary of State, he opened the lines of communication to communist China and won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to end the Vietnam War. I chose Kissinger because of his history with the Chinese, along with his understanding of war between two neighboring parties that share a peninsula and have two different systems of government. Kissinger, along with our allies explain to China on what the ramifications of an additional attack on South Korea are; complete chaos of the region, increased U.S. influence, and the elimination of their ally. The Chinese should understand the effects and push for serious six party talks that should explicitly explain to North Korea that this will not be tolerated and any additional attack will mean complete isolation from China and the remaining world, as well as destruction. Worse case scenario: China ignores us, North Korea continues to attack, full on war ensues, and could be Vietnam all over again.

Now is it really this simple? Of course not, that’s why I’m writing a satirical blog about these issues as they stand. I’m not a big supporter of the Obama agenda, however, his actions are of concern because as the leader of the free world, aka the most powerful man in the world, a lack of persuasiveness towards allies and adversaries, both here and abroad, will embolden those adversaries abroad to further test the mettle of his words and wait on his reactions. As for domestically, his own party has already dumped him and Republicans are already following the above strategy to our gain, let’s just hope countries like Iran and North Korea don’t follow through completely on the same idea.

Crossposted at TheBostonConservative.com