Do you know what Barack Obama’s foreign policy stance is when it comes to meeting with Islamic militants who refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist?

Apparently neither does he.

Here’s his position today:

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration’s policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.
…
“You can’t negotiate with somebody who does not recognize the right of a country to exist so I understand why Israel doesn’t meet with Hamas,” Obama told reporters during a campaign stop in San Antonio, Texas

But with regard to Iran, who does not recognize Israel either, his stance is, um… different:

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday that as president he would personally negotiate with Iran, offering economic incentives and a chance for peaceful relations if Iranian leaders would forego pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorists.

No wonder people are fainting at his rallies. Their heads are spinning trying to figure out his position on issues.

This is why Democrats aren’t credible when it comes to dealing with the military. Here’s yet another example of how the Democrats tried to use military service in wartime as a litmus test for the Presidency in 2004 and are now disclaiming military service in wartime as “overrated” and unimportant.

In 2004, Democrats claimed that John Kerry was more qualified than Bush because Kerry had seen the battlefield in wartime. Wes Clark tried to paint the Presidential election in terms of one who had served in war versus one who allegedly hadn’t and declared Kerry more fit for the Presidency because of it.

“War. War. I’ve been there. So has John Kerry. I’ve heard the thump of enemy mortars. I’ve seen the tracers fly. Bled on the battlefield. Recovered in hospitals. Received and obeyed orders. Sent men and women into battle. Awarded medals, comforted families, attended funerals.”
…
John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars.

He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too.”
…
John Kerry will lead America with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace.”

But in 2008, apparently military service in a time of war - not to mention one’s status as a prisoner of war for five and a half years (in the very same war Democrats politicized in the 2004 cycle) - isn’t all that important.

“Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.

If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she’s the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.”

I guess being married to a draft-dodging, military-loathing President now trumps actual service in the military as the Democrats’ litmus test.