The Candidates
CNN’s “American Morning,” earlier today:
CNN’S JOHN ROBERTS: “As you know, what Senator Obama said so many months ago was fairly controversial because he said that he would sit down with the leaders of these countries without precondition. Senator Clinton has said sitting down without precondition is not a great idea. You need to start it first of all at a diplomatic level, then before you get anywhere near the leader level. So for President Bush to say that leaping immediately to the leader level might not be a policy the United States wants to follow, does he have a point there?”
GIBBS: “John, let’s not confuse precondition with preparation. Obviously, these meetings would be full of preparation. But if we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program, how are we ever going to sit down with them to get them to give up their nuclear weapons program?”
The truth of the matter:
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.” (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston , SC , 7/23/07)
May 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
If Obama wins this election, there will be dancing in the streets of Tehran, Caracas, Damascus, Moscow, and Pyongyang
May 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Bush has been meeting with North Korea to reduce their Nuclear capabilities. Hm-mm… are they not part of Bush’s “Axis of Evil” as well as Iran? Bush is no longer the “decider”, he could, by his own standards be labeled the “Appeaser” for his relations with North Korea. His comments in Israel are shameful.
The question is, will John McCain follow this swill, or publicly denounce this underhanded type of campaigning?
May 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
When on earth did Mr. Bush appease North Korea???
May 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
When did Bush meet with Kim Jong Il? I’m not talking about proxy diplomatic relations here, or even semi-direct diplomatic relations via the secretary of state. These are common forms of diplomacy. Barack Obama has agreed to something entirely different; he’s agree to personally meet with the leader’s of these regimes, without pre-conditions, and therefore confer incredible legitimacy on their regimes, within the first year of his presidency. What else could he possibly mean? Or, wait I get it, Obama thought the questioner was referring to the communal “you”. He was saying, “look, someone, somewhere, will meet with Ahmadinejad”.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Matt in #4 ~ Ahmadinejad may be President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but to call him a leader is a stretch. He kowtows to the council of Ayatollahs. I don’t think he is even number #2. He is just the public face of the regime. Even Putin visited with the Ayatollahs and only met with Ahmadinejad for photos.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
In his speech in Israel, Bush alluded to the idea that if the next POTUS decides to talk with Iran, it constitutes appeasement.
Bush is currently in talks with North Korea.
So by HIS OWN criteria, Bush is guilty of the same.
He can’t have it both ways.
Obviously, I don’t believe this literally.
Simply Illustrating the point.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Ma from Tennessee:
You are comparing apples to lettuce, nevermind oranges. Mr. Bush is not appeasing North Korea.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I think its hairsplitting to say we can meet on every level but the top level and somehow its some capital offense to go all the way. Under Bush the US has made agreements with Libya and Qaddafi even though he admitted to blowing up that Pan Am jet. We are in talks with Korea. And we should be. Secretary of Defense said just yesterday that we need to meet with Iran.
But the worst part of all of this is that Bush has made himself now a campaign issue and a surrogate for McCain. I even think this whole thing was coordinated. Foolishly.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Ohio Joe:)
That was not my point, please read #6 again. Somewhat new to blogging, so I will try to unmuddy my approach in the future.
A much more thoughtful approach by PabloZed. Well done.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Agreed with Pablo and MFT. The biggest reason to reject McCain is he all too often is irrational and demagogic on foreign policy. Remember when he smugly accused the thinking of Ron Paul with having the type of thinking that led to WWII? That was disgraceful just like Bush was today. McCain’s foreign policy could be a disaster.
Here is a good post on the b.s. line of “appeasement”:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/195323.php
May 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
There is a key difference between Libya and Iran. Libya learned its lesson from the 80’s; supporting terrorism gets you the wrong enemies. Qaddafi voluntarily gave up his nuclear arsenal. Iran is actively supporting Hezbollah and the Baathists in Syria in addition to developing its nuclear program AND supporting insurgents that are murdering American soldiers. The difference between Libya and Iran are astounding.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Another point: Any additional power that Iran has now is very much a result of the policies of President Bush. As many have said, the U.S. went to war in Iraq, and Iran won. Talk about blood and treasure well spent. The issue is how do we undue the damage Bush has caused.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Jonathan,
Yes, the difference between Libya and Iran are key - now - after we had talks with Libya. Just as North Korea has stop proliferating nuclear weapons technology after talks were restarted. Seems there is quite a bit of evidence that diplomacy, back up by willingness to use force, can work with roque nations.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Have we forgotten that our hero Mr. Reagan while calling the Soviet Union the Evil Empire held talks with Gorbachev?Talking to Hamas or Al Queda would be insane and I don’t think they would go for it, but what’s wrong with talking to the heads of state with nations that we don’t agree with?
May 15th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Sean,
Reagan also wasn’t afraid to walk away from Gorby in Reykjavik. Restriction of diplomatic ties is a form of diplomacy, just not the easy form; and not one that an inexperienced or polyannish President (e.g. Obama) would likely be able to manage well.
Obama wants talk sans conditions; bad idea.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Reagan walking away is now considered a mistake.
Obama has walked back his intentions to meet with certain leaders by stating there must be “preparation” and those preparations are really conditions. But regardless of what is necessary to effect such a meeting, it should occur. It would be insane to, for example, bomb Iran without high level diplomatic meetings. I completely agree that Iran must not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon, but its equally imperative to avoid war, a war that could easily engulf the entire region and who knows what Russia would do.
I am going to go a step further, a step no democrat would ever suggest. I find the potential ability of Obama to get Hamas to talk to Israel - even just the potential - an advancement. If the Palestinians believe Obama is an honest broker, does that not increase the likelihood of a peace deal? Sure, some will say this sounds naive, but I assure you ordinary Palestinians want peace, they want to live ordinary lives. So do Israelis. McCain does not offer even the potential of a breakthrough.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“Reagan walking away is now considered a mistake.”
Is it?
Reagan had Russia shaking in its boots about Star Wars. If he had given it up in Iceland, he would have sacrificed the one key thing the Russians thought we had as an advantage. He would have shown that the Soviets could push us around and get concession after concession. Instead, he showed that we wouldn’t back down.
—
Also, the idea of getting Hamas to talk to Israel is a joke. Hamas is a RADICALLY, ISLAMIC-FUNDAMENTALIST, IDEOLOGICALLY-DRIVEN group that is not afraid to die. They are, simply put, bloodthirsty monsters who would rather blow up innocent women and children than accept an Jewish state.
—
IF we are going to meet with Iran, we do it ONLY after they have made considerable, good-faith moves, toned down their rhetoric, and stopped harrassing our navy in international waters
THEN, when we do meet, we don’t start with face-to-face meetings between Ahmadinejad and the President.
AND, we make it clear that we are not afraid to turn Tehran into a lake.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
ahh so many misinformed idiots and soooo little time:
Reagan: negotiated with Iran, sold arms to Iran
Nixon: negotiated and traveled to China
G Bush Sr: sold arms to Iraq, sent Cheney to Iraq
G W Bush: negotiates with North Korea
Barack Obama: wants to talk to nations that do not necessarily agree with us on issues because as an adult he realizes that ignoring your enemies is not really a punishment