News Beneath the dignity of the Office of the President

[Poop-Loops]

The wrench in the works, of course, is how you define a terrorist.

 

[lisab]

The greatest thing that Bush said in the speech was,

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals

Sounds like his speech writer was straight from Faux News. I hear that a lot on that channel; a "journalist" sets up a "some say" construct and then shoots it down with some right-wing rant.

 

[seycyrus]

Sounds like his speech writer was straight from Faux News. I hear that a lot on that channel; a "journalist" sets up a "some say" construct and then shoots it down with some right-wing rant.

As opposed to the straight from the hip news on CNN or MSNBC?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

What time and what channel are you going to be watching tonight? Let's compare notes.

 

[BobG]

Matthews could have asked, "What do you think Bush meant by 'the false comfort of appeasement' when he called the American Senator's statement, "If I had only talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided" the "false comfort of appeasement?" But that probably would have been a little too 'fair and balanced', eh?

Damn! That would have been a tougher question than the one Matthews actually asked!

Of all the people to quote, William Borah has to be one of the strangest. If anyone using that quote could describe what Borah meant, I'd be pretty impressed. Borah had the nickname, "The Great Opposer", and seemed to get more pleasure from opposing whatever the prevailing sentiment was than to actually stand for something.

He was a Republican, a Communist sympathizer, a supporter of FDR's New Deal, an opponent of the League of Nations, and a supporter of revising many of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (which might have been what he meant in the quote, but, if so, he must have meant if he could have talked to Hitler about 10 years prior to the invasion of Poland).

Aside from annoying his fellow Republicans, Borah's main legacy was allegedly fathering Teddy Roosevelt's grand daughter, Paulina Longworth (actually, that was probably pretty annoying to Alice Longworth's husband).

Years from now, I guess people will be quoting Ron Paul in the same vein that Bush uses Borah quotes.

 

[BobG]

Maybe Obama could respond with his own Borah quote from the post World War I era:

"Everybody is in favor of the Constitution when it favors them, but too many are willing to trample upon it when it gets in their way. The war disclosed that the great principles and guarantees of the Constitution are vital to a free people and at the same time are easily disregarded in an hour of passion or crisis."

With the next salvo in the war of Borah quotes being:

"No more fatuous chimera has ever infested the brain than that you can control opinions by law or direct belief by statute, and no more pernicious sentiment ever tormented the heart than the barbarous desire to do so. The field of inquiry should remain open, and the right of debate must be regarded as a sacred right."

Hmm, that quote might fit better into John Kerry's style of speaking.

 

[Poop-Loops]

John Kerry would completely butcher the quote and you'd end up with a story of a man running out of ice cream.

 

[mheslep]

Sounds like his speech writer was straight from Faux News. I hear that a lot on that channel; a "journalist" sets up a "some say" construct and then shoots it down with some right-wing rant.

Like you just did here for instance w/ the nondescrip 'a journalist sets up' construct.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Like you just did here for instance w/ the nondescrip 'a journalist sets up' construct.

Yes, except she doesn't get paid to provide non-biased news coverage of events happening around the world.

But we can ignore that. Yes, she is just as horrible.

 

[wildman]

The greatest thing that Bush said in the speech was,

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

By Poland it was too late. Talk doesn't always work. However, if the French and Germans had talked 25 years earlier (before WW I), we might had avoided the whole mess.

 

[seycyrus]

Yes, except she doesn't get paid to provide non-biased news coverage of events happening around the world.

But we can ignore that. Yes, she is just as horrible.

If her off-handed remark was directed at Oreiley, then I must point out that Oreiley is of course NOT paid to provide non-bias. He is there to give an opinion.

If you are talking about the other news people, I must yet again ask you when you will be watching so we can compare notes.

 

[seycyrus]

By Poland it was too late. Talk doesn't always work. However, if the French and Germans had talked 25 years earlier (before WW I), we might had avoided the whole mess.

Is that mean to be funny?

They talked PLENTY.

That is the problem with this *talk* argument. If the outcome is different than you wanted, then you didn't talk *enough*.

That argument could be made forever and thus it loses its credibility.

 

[Art]

I don't think anyone could accuse Winston Churchill of being an appeaser who famously said

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.

International relations are managed through diplomacy. Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute. Unless of course you doubt your negotiating skills to such an extent you feel failure is inevitable. In which case train better negotiators

 

[seycyrus]

Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute.

It is a good thing that we do not jump straight from A to Z! Why the creation of the obvious straman?

 

[Art]

It is a good thing that we do not jump straight from A to Z! Why the creation of the obvious straman?

So presumably you do support talking to one's enemies and so agree with Obama's strategy. That's good!

 

[chemisttree]

Obama's statement:

QUESTION: Would 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."

Hillary's response is actually quite good.

Obama's latest explanation of this statement:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

and

There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions. That does not mean I will meet without preparation. It is very important before any meeting to make sure that there is a list of agenda items that we are going to be talking about. But the difference is with me, for example, meeting with Iran, I would not expect that they would give in on critical issues like nuclear weapons before the meeting. The objective of the meeting would be to ensure that they stand down and that we've offered them carrots and sticks."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-19-2008/0004816986&EDATE=

Without preparation? Without precondition? This is a typical politician/lawer doubletalk... and we've seen it all before. This isn't change. It is the Bush policy.

Engel's immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you've talked about Iran and that you don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don't want to speculate – and there's a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

Not talking to Iran until they give up the uranium enrichment is the diplomatic tool (yes, diplomatic) the Bush Administration is currently using to pressure Iran.

 

[seycyrus]

So presumably you do support talking to one's enemies and so agree with Obama's strategy. That's good!

Not necessarily. There are other steps between A and Z that do not include direct legitimizing of a radical government.

 

[BobG]

International relations are managed through diplomacy. Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute. Unless of course you doubt your negotiating skills to such an extent you feel failure is inevitable. In which case train better negotiators

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

Obviously, there were some talks in order for the Iran-Contra controversy to occur.

There were also some communications between the US-Iran even during Bush's term:

US-Iran post 9/11

US-Iran post Iraq

As the remarks from a spectrum of individuals show, there's a lot of disagreement about both topics. However, when the situations change, the possibility of changing a relationship also change.

There's some real economic benefits to Iran in having better relations with Europe and the US, so it's not unthinkable that Iran would see 9/11 as an opportunity. It's also not unthinkable that the invasion of Iraq changed the scenario as seen from Iran's point of view: first giving them the idea that they didn't want to be next and eventually giving them the idea they had at least a limited time of safety.

I think there probably was an opportunity for Bush to improve US-Iran relationships at some point, but I think it's probably true that any attempts for further negotiation at this time would be pretty disappointing. The US isn't dealing from nearly as strong a position as we were in 2003.

A change in leadership is a change in the scenario and it's certainly worth looking at negotiations with Iran after the President changes, but I wouldn't be expecting a huge breakthrough regardlesss of who's elected.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

It may be worth recalling that there was similarly no talking between the US and China for over 20 years before Nixon visited Mao.

 

[mheslep]

US-Iran post 9/11

US-Iran post Iraq

These Frontline pieces would be great if they'd just stick to the well done interviews with the principals, and just drop the oh so ominous narration loaded with non-sequitors and mis-characterizations.

 

[BobG]

These Frontline pieces would be great if they'd just stick to the well done interviews with the principals, and just drop the oh so ominous narration loaded with non-sequitors and mis-characterizations.

Yeah, I wouldn't give all of the comments equal weight.

Still, a lot changed in a rapid amount of time.

Libya and Pakistan made abrupt changes in their attitudes, although neither made quite as drastic a change as one would have liked and the results in interactions with them have been pretty mixed. Libya was dropped from the state sponsored terrorist list by the US and is a member of the UN Security Council while Pakistan became an ally against the Taliban, but Libya still has a poor human rights record and Pakistan has turned out to be a very weak ally against the Taliban at best.

To be honest, I would have expected some pretty mixed results on Iran if the US had taken the opportunity to improve US-Iran relations.

But why the difference in attitude towards Libya and Pakistan vs the "Axis of Evil"?

Pakistan having a nuclear weapon probably explains their exception, but Libya falls right in there with Iraq and Iran. (Personally, if I were going to invade a country after Afghanistan, Pakistan would have been at the top of my list even in spite of them having a nuclear weapon. It would have directly supported a goal of wiping out Al-Qaeda.)

 

[mheslep]

Yeah, I wouldn't give all of the comments equal weight.

Still, a lot changed in a rapid amount of time.

Libya and Pakistan made abrupt changes in their attitudes, although neither made quite as drastic a change as one would have liked and the results in interactions with them have been pretty mixed. Libya was dropped from the state sponsored terrorist list by the US and is a member of the UN Security Council while Pakistan became an ally against the Taliban, but Libya still has a poor human rights record and Pakistan has turned out to be a very weak ally against the Taliban at best.

To be honest, I would have expected some pretty mixed results on Iran if the US had taken the opportunity to improve US-Iran relations.

But why the difference in attitude towards Libya and Pakistan vs the "Axis of Evil"?

Pakistan having a nuclear weapon probably explains their exception, but Libya falls right in there with Iraq and Iran.

Capability. I don't know that the two have the same intentions by Libya lacks the capability. Iran $850B GDP/ 70 M people, Libya $80B GDP / 6 M or 10:1. So its maybe 10x harder for the Libyans to have an entirely indigenous nuclear weapons program, and they can be seriously hurt by sanctions if they continued to flaunt guerilla training camps out in the desert. If I recall the sanctions against Libya in the 90s had largely slowed (stopped?) Libyan terrorist play, while Iran can afford to continue handsomely fund and equip Hezbollah in spite of sanctions and Hussein could still give cash rewards to West Bank suicide bombers even under severe sanctions.

 

[Art]

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

I wasn't referring to Iran specifically, more generically challenging the notion that to talk to one's enemies or potential enemies is somehow a sign of weakness / appeasement.

In the case of Iran I still suspect if the military planners and his legal advisers give the green light an attack will be made by Israel with US support before Bush leaves office as I think he believes in his delusional mind he is the only one 'strong' enough to make the decision.

 

[turbo]

I wasn't referring to Iran specifically, more generically challenging the notion that to talk to one's enemies or potential enemies is somehow a sign of weakness / appeasement.

In the case of Iran I still suspect if the military planners and his legal advisers give the green light an attack will be made by Israel with US support before Bush leaves office as I think he believes in his delusional mind he is the only one 'strong' enough to make the decision.

Yes, this is the Frank Sinatra option. Sinatra was a coward, but he gained a reputation for mixing it up, tellingly only in company of an overwhelming entourage. He'd sucker-punch somebody at a club on some pretense, and then his heavies would jump into prevent retaliation and would pound his victim, or at the very least, eject him. Israel could very well draw the US into another war with just such a strategy, since we are "blessed" with a neo-con administration that loves the economic leverage that accompanies international conflict.

 

[seycyrus]

... Israel could very well draw the US into another war with just such a strategy, since we are "blessed" with a neo-con administration that loves the economic leverage that accompanies international conflict.

It's amazing the amount of speculative biased strawmen that you guys throw in virtually every post.

 

[Gokul43201]

Let's also not forget that this thread is based on a strawman the the President threw out in his speech.

Of course there is reason to think long and hard about negotiating with our "enemies". Historically, we have seen both good and poor outcomes from such negotiations, and we must learn from these examples. Likewise, deciding to engage certain groups only militarily or not at all is also foolish, and has also shown to produce mixed results.

The assertion that someone proposing to negotiate with enemies is an appeaser or a traitor is itself the worst kind dirty politicking. Where are all those Republicans who called the Dixie Chicks cowardly traitors for criticizing the President on foreign soil? Where are the Republicans who were outraged by Clinton protesting Vietnam while he was on scholarship in the UK? How cool would it be for Obama to make a speech in Baghdad telling them that some senators think we should have a 100-year occupation in Iraq (which would at least be completely truthful)?

The simple truth about the Bush speech is that it is at the very least downright dishonest. It intentionally conflates diplomacy with appeasement. It turns a hypocritically blinded eye to the fact that both the Sec State and Sec Def have supported negotiations with Iran (as well as the Sec States for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr., who sat on the Baker-Hamilton commission). It conveniently ignores the long and continuing history that the US has of supporting and enriching dictators, radicals and extremists. It ignores that fact that Bush hurried into negotiations with Kim Jong Il as soon as he started acting up...and it produced positive results. It ignores the fact the Bush continues to have talks with Abdullah and al-Bashir, among the worst dictators alive today...and there is probably good reason for such engagement.

 

[seycyrus]

Let's also not forget that this thread is based on a strawman the the President threw out in his speech...

...

How cool would it be for Obama to make a speech in Baghdad telling them that some senators think we should have a 100-year occupation in Iraq (which would at least be completely truthful)?.

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

 

[chemisttree]

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

Hear, hear! The misstatement that McCain said we should have a 100 year occupation is the worst, most cynically false thing to come out of the Obama camp so far. Completely untruthful.

 

[mheslep]

...The simple truth about the Bush speech is that it is at the very least downright dishonest. It intentionally conflates diplomacy with appeasement. It turns a hypocritically blinded eye to the fact that both the Sec State and Sec Def have supported negotiations with Iran (as well as the Sec States for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr., who sat on the Baker-Hamilton commission)...

Then there must have been another Presidential speech given we have not seen here, because that's not a 'simple truth' that can be drawn from the Israeli speech. Bush did not say don't talk any hostile states, nor does he necessarily equate diplomacy with appeasement. Talk may be, or may not be, appeasement, it depends on the context. It is fair to call the intentions of the '39 US Senator appeasement, based on naiveté. The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

 

[Art]

It's amazing the amount of speculative biased strawmen that you guys throw in virtually every post.

When Bush makes comments such as this to the Knesset

For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

it is hardly a strawman to speculate on how exactly he intends to achieve his stated aim especially when he also stated he doesn't intend achieving his goal by talking to them. Again he demonstrates just how out of touch with reality he is as his own intelligence service said Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

 

[Art]

The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

lol So give us what we want and then we'll negotiate with you?

How many negotiations have you been involved in that successfully used that strategy??