Not Talking About People Who Will Talk To People We Shouldn't Talk To
President Bush, at the Knesset, spoke out against negotiating with "terrorists and radicals." It confers legitimacy on them without furthering our interests. "We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Though he didn't mention anyone by name, Democrats reacted with fury. (And the linked CNNPolitics.com had no trouble saying in their headline this was a slam at the Dems.) Both Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi called on John McCain to denounce the statement. What exactly for? Because we should talk to terrorists, or because they don't like the implication that Dems--not including their former leader Jimmy Carter, who did it last month--would ever do that?
Barack Obama, called it a "false political attack" and that he has "never supported engagement with terrorists." He has, however, supported talking to Iran with no pre-conditions, so it sounds like it's only stateless supporters of terror he won't talk to. (Former Obama advisor Robert Malley favored meeting with Hamas. When it was discovered earlier this month he'd been in regular contact with them, he was let go.)
My guess is the Dems aren't mad so much as thrilled that they were attacked--scratch that--can claim they were attacked by an unpopular President. It's always easier to fight back against Bush than anything else.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:09 AM
9 Comments:
You can't argue with what the President said. Whether it was directed at the current crop of "appeasers", er, democrats, is open to speculation.
Whether is was or wasn't, my feeling is this: if the foo shits...
I can argue with what the President said. Dialog does not necessarily equal appeasement. And dialog with other nation-states with whom you disagree does not equal appeasement either, as demonstrated by his own State Department's engagement with North Korea. Or does it stop being appeasement only when they have nukes? Or because you insist that China's at the table too?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Bush administration inherited negotiations with North Korea which had begun in the Clinton administration. And even the Clinton administration demanded some - what's that word Obama used? Oh yeah, preconditions - before talking with them.
And I also have to ask the question John McCain raised: Just what exactly does Obama want to talk with Iran about?
I don't know, maybe they can talk about the Iranian shaped-charge IEDs being used in Iraq, and what can be traded in exchange for cutting the supply line. You know, just to get things started...
And then Iran can do whatever it wants, plus have much added prestige since our President decided to talk without preconditions. It can also show its people that it's not being isolated internationally despite what they may have heard otherwise.
I don't know, maybe they can talk about the Iranian shaped-charge IEDs being used in Iraq, and what can be traded in exchange for cutting the supply line. You know, just to get things started...
Oh, so after 9/11 we should have had a dialog with Bin Laden about what we could trade to keep him from sending people over here to kill us?
Talking to the governments of sovereign nations makes a poor analogy to talking to terrorist groups. And sure, I'll trade a decent amount of increased prestige to I'mADinnerJacket for the chance of removing the top threat our troops currently face in Iraq.
What if talking to our enemy without preconditions leads to the greater odds of more death and annihiliation. By the way, do you think we should have begged Hitler for peace during WWII? Honestly, if there's any chance any good will come from the talks, can't we ask them to meet a few preconditions first? If they're not willing to, just what exactly do you expect to happen when we starting talking?
Obama claimed FDR talked to our enemies, but actually he only did after we utterly defeated them. Alas, Obama needs several more years of training, and I don't want them to be on the job.
I'm sorry, but I see little difference between talking with a terrorist "group" and a "sovereign" nation which has supported and exported terrorist activities against us since the 1970's, including helping the terrorist "group" that you feel we shouldn't talk to.
For example, if you were to have a dialog with the sovereign nation of Lebanon right now, who would you talk to? The supposed elected government or Hezbollah, which last week showed that it can force that government to capitulate to whatever it wants? And who are we talking with in Palestine if not terrorists?
You know, if it quacks like a duck...
Post a Comment
<< Home