Iran is a player Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My comment is only in regards to Iran, which is
> now a player, a force in the Middle East, thanks
> to Bush. Bush only will talk with their leader if
> they halt enriching uranium. He's trying to
> "make" them halt by doing 3 different things:
> giving demands that they stop halting with
> incentives to follow; international economic
> sanctions; and military threats. Ahmadinejad has
> already proven that he won't stop enriching
> uranium as he believes the IAEA rules allow Iran
> to enrich uranium for energy. Economic sanctions
> aren't working because we've alienated ourselves
> from a lot of other countries in the world that
> could be helping us put international pressure on
> Iran...basically Iran has enough friends to get
> them by for now. Military threats haven't worked
> because Ahmadinejad knows we are stretched thin
> with Iraq and Afghanistan and he's daring us to
> pull another Iraq (blunder) to further his case
> that the US is trigger happy to make regime
> changes around the world with no regards to
> international input. Basically Bush has gotten
> nowhere with Iran for the last 6 years.
> Meanwhile, Iran has moved "x" amount towards
> building a nuclear bomb.
>
> Charles, I've seen you on TV some but I don't read
> all your work. I would like to point out to you
> that there was another democratic candidate for
> president that said the same thing about talking
> to Iran with no preconditions. Bill Richardson.
> Here is the speech that he gave to the Center for
> National Policy on June 27, 2007 on Engaging Iran.
> It is a brilliant speech and was probably
> underrated when it was given...much the same way
> Richardson is underrated as a politican. Obama
> would be wise to choose Richardson for Secretary
> of State after Obama wins in November.
> Richardson's experience in foreign affairs is long
> and established. How much was Richardson's
> speech on engaging Iran criticized last summer?
> Where was your article then, Charles? If Obama's
> mistake on engaging Iran with no preconditions is
> based on inexperienced then you have to say the
> same thing about Richardson. Have you, Charles,
> said or implied that Richardson is also wrong
> about engaging Iran with no preconditions? And if
> you have, is it the same reason that you give
> here...that Richardson is absurd to think this
> way? Did you ever think that Obama's inexperience
> was more about borrowing another candidate's
> stance on an issue and making it his own? Could
> Obama actually have researched Richardson's speech
> (that was given about 1 month earlier than the
> democratic debate that you said Obama made a
> gaffe) or other democrats opinions about engaging
> Iran without preconditions? Well maybe, but you
> implied that it was a gaffe. You've made your
> mind up. I've got my own ideas about Obama doing
> his homework before he spoke at that debate.
>
> As far as "The debate is over the stupidity of
> elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing
> their isolation and increasing their leverage by
> granting them unconditional meetings with the
> president of the world's superpower."
>
> Iran already has been elevated from rogue state to
> a powerful force in the Middle East and the reason
> is Iraq (a one time enemy of Iran) has been
> weakened with the infancy of their forced
> democracy via the US overthrow of Sadam's regime.
> Iran's isolation has been eased due to their
> having more friends due to more and more countries
> turning on the US for our engagements in Iraq and
> Afghanistan. I would contest that although we
> might be a superpower, the "super" part is being
> seriously challenged both on the domestic and
> foreign fronts.

I like this guy. He knows what he's talking about. That's refreshing, you should be writing the article not this other prick.

To: Silence Dogood2

First, thank you for reading and commenting on my blog.

The points you made about race are basically the same points I was inadequately implying. I'd agree with all that you stated about race relations in those countries, about 85%. By the way, the Hawaiian word is "haole". In Hawaii, it usually refers to the white guys but originally meant "foreigners" so should be appropriate to apply to anyone not native. Further, in Hawaii, because white is not the dominant race (its between white and Japanese), everyone tries to get along. Actually, a little more than "getting along", overtime, there is a blending of cultures because of how each other's cultures are appreciated and respected. Really! A lot has to do with inter-racial marriages but the food. Most other cultures are not about "steak and potatoes".

In Japan, if you've visited there, you will notice few signs in English. Even in Japanese packaged, say food products, they often don't have English on it. To me, this is evidence of extreme national pride. Did you know that you cannot become a Japanese citizen if you don't you aren't Japanese?

In this discussion, race does matter and then it doesn't. Obama's racial and culture experiences matter. As previously described, his youth in Indonesia and Hawaii gives hims insight to how other cultures think and behave. Finding out that he had Pakistani friends is also enlightening. You see, had Obama been born and raised strictly in continental America, then he'd be like any "red blooded American", black or white, it doesn't matter. His understanding and empathy of non-continental Americans would be limited and he'd be on the outside looking in. His friends would be mostly black or white. The Asian factor would be overlooked.

Another previous blogger, who claimed to have experienced traveling the world, also pointed out that many other countries think that Americans are dumb. The point here is that many Americans (and that strongly includes many of our politicians) don't have the experience of living in a foreign country that is not predominantly white. Why would they? If you live in a non-white country but bring with you a "white" superiority attitude, then your effectiveness in realizing an enjoyable experience will be very low (also known as the ugly American effect). So, if you examine the Bush administration's rhetoric, its been blatantly sterile in humility but its humility that gets you in the door. Just because you are a super power, you shouldn't push your weight around. This is the same principal as being a good neighbor. Its worse when you think you're so sharp and smart when the rest of the world is snickering at you.

Race is just a face. In some areas, it may open doors. In some other places, it may result in a slammed door. In Obama's case, I'm guessing that it will open more doors than it will close. More importantly, it will open hearts and minds.

Obama has pushed self-esteem to the very limits and is so intrigued with himself that he must think "I said it, therefore it is right." Didn't anyone ever say "No" to him when he was young? Obviously not.

Silence Dogood2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Do yo mean countries like France? Our historically
> greatest world critic?

No.

> French President Sarkozy stated that should Iran
> attempt to use the bomb, France would obliterate
> it. Sarkozy has greatly supported America's
> position in most areas.
>
> Germany? While Germany remains constitutionally
> pacifist, Merkel greatly supports America.

No.

> Do you mean Turkey? Turkey was against the Iraq
> invasion solely based on the issue with the Kurds.
> Turkey remains one of our greatest allies in the
> middle east, esp now that they see the Kurdish
> issue is suported by America.

No. Keep trying.

> Do you mean Saudi Arabia? they were the one's who
> forced us to invade Iraq?

No but wow! Saudi Arabia forced us to invade Iraq? Did you hear that on TV?

> So, who is it, exactly that dislikes America so
> much today?

I never said countries dislike America. Good try with that spin. I said Iran has more friends (at least in the economic sector) and the US's friends are turning on them. What I probably should have said is that US's friends are slow to get behind them. That would be the more correct thing to say.

> America will always be in the position of being
> the most loved and admired country in the world,
> as well as being the most criticized policeman.
> But, no one wants the US to give up that role. It
> is always easy to criticize from the cheap seats
> while the pros muddle through the messes of the
> world.

Citizens of other countries might continue to support the love they have for our freedom and democracy. Politicians who lead other countries are a little more skeptical with the issue.

> Few American's understand the criticisms that
> America gets.... and, when they listen to our
> media, the simply do not understand that most of
> the people in the world HATE our media. TV so
> many times!

Ok, you're off on a tangent as far as a reply to my comment. No comment here from me.

> Appeasement will never get anyone anyplace other
> than STARTING a war. WWII is a great example, but
> there are many others.

Had to drop appeasement in there didn't you. Got that from the media (Fox Noise) that the international community hates so much, right?

Silence Dogood 2,

Over 60% of nations in the UN haven't been forthcoming about their true desire to help in the international pressure for economic sanctions against Iran. Read HERE. 40% might be a number you're ok with when it comes to getting our goals accomplished in pressuring Iran with international economic sanctions. I'm just not happy getting less than half of the support of UN countries when we try to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. Now we can have a debate all day about why 60% are not actively supporting the measure, and my only thought is that if the US truly leads the UN, then other countries just don't want to follow the leader right now. It might have something to do with their skepticism of our current leaders in gov't especially given the history of our foreign policy in action over the last 7+ years. This is why over the past few months, the US has tried to lessen its image as the leader of the UN. I think it's too late. We were, are and will be the driving force of the UN. The UN's failure to gain over 40% in support of economic sanctions against Iran is a direct reflection of how 60% of the international community feels about the US.

AS far as your France, in 2006, France ranked 7th in share of Iran's total exports. They can say all they want about wanting to bomb Iran, but what we need is action when it comes to economic sanctions. Turkey ranked 3rd behind Japan and China as far as countries Iran exported their goods to.

As far as imports to Iran in 2006, Germany was the leader. Germany has been the leader over the last 10 years. The percentage numbers of Germany have been dropping though. China is 2 on the import list but their numbers have been increasing. France is 5, and Russia and India are 7 & 8.

The basic trend is the EU countries are slowly disengaging their trading percentage with Iran while China, Russia and India are increasing their numbers. When you don't have the support of China, India and Russia when it comes to economic sanctions against Iran, then you'll never win with economic santions. Even South Africa has had reservations. UAE in the Middle East also continues to trade with Iran.

Are we enemies with all these countries? Of course not. But they aren't following us like we want them to. As the European countries hop on board with our sanctions against Iran, we are losing the effort to persuade China, India and even Japan to follow suit. If this makes you think we are still a strong nation when it comes to global support for our beloved American ideals, I think although we may be strong, but we are losing our strength. Its not an either or thing. It has to do with percentages and trends. If you can't see them by reading United States Government Accountability Office reports HERE, then I can't help you. But I guess since I'm quoting GAO numbers, that makes me one who criticizes from the cheap seats. I guess I don't know what I'm talking about.

What Obama wants is for us to get back to having better relations with countries like China, India and Russia. When we convince them that we're right when it comes to Iran's nuclear program, then this will have a tremendous amount of weight with economic sanctions. We must have China, India and Russia on board in order for economic sanctions to work on Iran. The Bush administration has tried and failed. If we elect McBush, it will be the same. If we elect Obama, there will be a new administration for China, Russia and India to have to listen to. The world will see the US from a new perspective. One that actually might save us from WWIII if Bush or McBush try to blockade or bomb Iran.

Nixon met with both Mao and Brezhnev wile the USSR had thousands of ICBMs aimed right at us and both countries were arming our enemies (the Viet Cong) and helping to kill American soldiers (the accusation leveled at Iran today regarding Iraq). Had Nixon NOT done that, ironically enough, John McCain might still be sitting in the Hanoi Hilton today, and the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union might never have fallen. Reagan met with Gorbachev while the Soviets still had missiles aimed at us and right after we had helped them to an ass-kicking courtesy of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan (and helped create al-Quaeda--oops!!). Both of those meetings took place without preconditions. And the idea that our alliance with the Soviets during WWII made them some sort of non-enemy, even at Yalta and Potsdam betrays a very selective historical naivete on Mr. Krauthammer's part.No one in the west actually saw the USSR as a friend.

Non of this surprise me--this is just another drumbeat for a war with Iran which I'm sure this administration would love to start before it leaves office, to ensure that the voting sheep in this country are sufficiently frightened into voting for the new, pod-person McCain and allow GW and his neocons to have their third term.

We'd better start talking, because we haven't been doing such a great job by fighting for the past 5 years--even Israel is ,right now ,sitting down with Assad in Syria to talk things out. Talking doesn't mean you remove the words "No" or the phrase "That's it, we're done" from your vocabulary.

Rockyspoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maglo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That, in fact, is the whole point of "the
> > terrorist threat". You see it in the US with
> the
> > Patriot Act, in London by the use of CCTV
> cameras,
> > in the EU by the new information storage
> > directive, etc. Government control, that's the
> > name of the game. I am not some kind of
> conspiracy
> > theorist at all, but what has happened to our
> > freedoms since 9/11 is nothing short of
> > scandalous.
>
> Would you care to enumerate what loss of freedoms
> we've actually experienced since 9/11?
>
> Personally, as a citizen of the US, I have seen
> none of my freedoms compromised.

----------------------------------------

The great majority of people never will, but that's the whole point, isn't it? You never see all your emails being stored in a computer somewhere, or prisoners being held illegally in detention centres like Guantanamo, or your library rentals indexed. If you did, you'd do something about it. In fact, your government, like mine, relies on its people's gullibility and inaction. If not, they'd never enact such draconian measures just to deal with an enemy that's killed less Western lives in the past 50 years than in one afternoon at Gettysburg, or one hour in the trenches of France during World War I.

We managed just fine to deal with the threat of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, et al., without enacting such policies, so why do we need to do so to counteract an enemy far weaker than any of those three? It makes no sense.

Furthermore, an obvious way that 9/11 has contributed to curtailing American freedoms you see on TV every day. If someone is not wholly in line with the government's position on any security issue, you are instantly labelled unpatriotic, a traitor, or worse. You see it clearly on this thread, even. This is simply unacceptable. A thorough and fair debating of the issues should and must be a cornerstone of every great democracy, something which is sorely lacking in the US today.

Maglo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That, in fact, is the whole point of "the
> terrorist threat". You see it in the US with the
> Patriot Act, in London by the use of CCTV cameras,
> in the EU by the new information storage
> directive, etc. Government control, that's the
> name of the game. I am not some kind of conspiracy
> theorist at all, but what has happened to our
> freedoms since 9/11 is nothing short of
> scandalous.

Would you care to enumerate what loss of freedoms we've actually experienced since 9/11?

Personally, as a citizen of the US, I have seen none of my freedoms compromised.

roy12505 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rockyspoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Stupidity of Krauthammer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > This guys really should give up his US
> passport.
> >
> > > Just once I'd like to hear him argue that our
> > > mid-east policy was causing more problems
> than
> > > solutions. Then again this idiot was one of
> > the
> > > guys who convinced Bush Iraq would take a
> > weekend.
> >
> >
> > Actually, the "War" with Iraq took three
> weekends.
> > Look it up. It's the aftermath that's taking
> > years, as it did in Germany (10 years by most
> > accounts after WW2). So quit skewing reality,
> > sir, and realize that the real idiot is you.
>
> The stupidity of the above response shocks the
> conscience.
>
> We did not have violence, killing and fighting for
> those ten years after WWII.
> Major combat operations have that time truely
> ended.
> Would be have considered the war over in Germany
> and the "aftermath" to have
> occurred if the bloodshed continued?
>
> It never ceases to amaze the extremes the
> Bushie/Iraq apologists will go to excuse
> the unprecedented disaster, even to the point of
> making faulty comparisons and seeking
> to change history.


You, sir, are no student of history. If you think there wasn't carnage during the reconstruction of Europe after WW2, it is you who is still the idiot!

I suggest you look into the historical accounts of every war that has taken place in the last 100 years to educate youself on the run-up to each conflict, the totality and severity of loss of human life and property destruction, as well as the aftermath. You would have us all believe that once a surrender was signed all problems went away. It's abject stupidity to believe such a position.

And no, I'm not an "apologist" for the war in Iraq, but Saddam is gone and Iraq as a country is, in my opinion, a better place for what's happened.

Or are you a Saddam loyalist?

JOsh from the CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still haven't heard of a single major veteran's
> group endorement.
>
> I have heard childish diatribes and name calling.



Why do you ask that question? Do you doubt that veterans support McCain? If so, why?

Well, first of all Silence, sorry for my rash tone yesterday. I just get worked up by people slagging off Obama as un-American, un-patriotic and what's worse. I see now that you're not one of the, and I apologize profusely for the manner in which I debated.

> Look, you are correct in the numbers of deaths
> from AlQ, etc. And, the same for Iraq.
>
> But, you have to look at what they seek to do, and
> today, what they can do with a little bit of the
> right equipment.
>
> For example, when I graduated undergrad I did some
> great research on cancer and co-developed the
> first immunohistochemical technique for
> identifying cancer....it was high tech stuff, back
> then.
>
> Today, my 10 year old son can do it with his $25
> chemistry set.
>
> Can you see the difference in technical power that
> each individual can control?

Definitely, and that is the crux of the matter, isn't it? How to combat that one guy who is hellbent on blowing up one of our cities. My point is that there will always be some maniacs out there, who almost by instinct seek to defy and destroy the contemporary world order.

America's actions over the past half-century have, however, made sure there are probably a couple of million such people, rather than, say, 10,000. I think Americans fail to realize, you included, how people feel when America waltzes in and impose their beliefs, values, etc., by forced means. It creates hatred the likes of which we don't find in the West, which in turn make them likely to become "terrorists". It's not like people just hear the name "America", and thinks "hmmm, I would like to jihad them today". It's America's actions that has created this situation, and if we can get a president who rights this historical wrong, then YES PLEASE!

I love America more than any European I have met, seeing as I lived in the US for 6 years of my life. It does frustrate me, however, the way Americans seem to equate kindness and magnanimity with weakness. The fact is, the US is strong enough to act militarily should intolerable situations arise, so why not exhaust all diplomatic options before doing so? Being the world leader comes with certain responsibilities, as we Brits know all about, and it's high time the US faces up to that.


> This was the issue everyone foresaw in the early
> 1980's while US and Russia was locked in their
> cold war battle, a lot of people knew that
> terrorism was the issue that was going to unglue
> the world. USSR and US were too rational fro
> something really bad to happen.

Now, whilst I buy that many people foresaw this situation, it's an error saying the Soviets at that time were rational. If we knew that, there wouldn't really have been a rationale behind the Cold War. The entire US doctrine was based on nullifying the threat posed by Soviet, exactly because we didn't know what they were capable of.

I have seen this argument making the rounds in neocon articles lately, but it simply isn't correct.


> Now, terrorism is a grave threat. It only takes
> one guy with some kind of chemical or biological
> weapon to incapacitate an entire major city and
> kill thousands. Look at what we have to go
> through to fly on a plane now since Scotland Yard
> found those guys who were going to sneak unmixed
> chemicals onto planes and then mix them.

Sure, it's a grave threat, but let's not overstate its significance either. The hysteria created by the Scotland Yard incident has only lead to fearmongering and allowed the government to pass draconian security measures.

That, in fact, is the whole point of "the terrorist threat". You see it in the US with the Patriot Act, in London by the use of CCTV cameras, in the EU by the new information storage directive, etc. Government control, that's the name of the game. I am not some kind of conspiracy theorist at all, but what has happened to our freedoms since 9/11 is nothing short of scandalous.


> I think we both agree that there have been
> situations that could have been much more tragic
> if it weren't for hard working security forces and
> a lot of luck.

Maybe, maybe not, but that in no way justifies the measures that have been taken.


> Now, back to Iran....the only way to push them
> right now is internally, through revolt. We don't
> want to bomb, or invade them. No one does. It
> would be a horrific effort.
>
> But, no one can afford to let them have a bomb.
> They will use it the day they get it. They have
> said so many times, and that was the vote they had
> when their Congress voted for the nuclear
> program.

That's what was said of Pakistan as well. Once a country gets the bomb, one realizes it cannot be used, as it will surely mean the destruction of one's own country. It has been true of all nuclear powers, and it will be the same with Iran.


> And, A-Jab wants to use it for his glory to
> Allah.
>
> So, that can't happen because the will be a
> worldwide nuclear conflagration.

Hyperbole doesn't disguise the fact this is all based on supposition.


> So, what are we left with? Isolating A-Jab
> internationally, so he will be isolated
> internally, so Persians can revolt against him
> and/or get him out of office. Most young people
> simply hate their government.

Hmm, or butting out altogether...? Should they actually come close to getting a real working bomb, Israel will take care of it anyway.


> If any western leader, esp a US President, meets
> with A-Jab, then it elevates his standing, and
> isolates those who oppose him. He wins, even if
> he gest nothing out of the meetings. He is now a
> legit world player.

You seem to forget that Mr. A is a democratically elected leader, whether the US speak to him or not. By posturing so absurdly, you in fact elevate his standing way more than if you just met with him. As it is, Iran puches way above their weight class, simply because they are seen as the moral leaders in the fight against the US. Take away this role, and Iran have no real claim to be a world power at all, no more than, say Greece or Bolivia.


> That is why you have to have lower level meetings
> and keep the prestigious meetings out of his
> grasp. Divide and conquer. Hey, I do sound like
> I went to Harvard!

Except is hasn't worked when it has been tried.


> And, while you obviously will never agree, Obama's
> world philosophy is not one that works. People in
> most parts of the world crave and respect power.
> This is hard for you and me to understand. But, I
> talked with people in various less developed
> countries first hand in meetings in those
> countries... and they told me how they want
> someone to "rule" with power.

Well, I have lived in the third world, and that simply is not true. They see that America is strong, and that no one at this moment in time could beat them militarily. Never, however, do they want America to "rule" in any way, shape or form. Simply not true.


> The issue of the US as global policeman is
> different. Countries complain when we do not
> apply enough power, and they complain when we
> apply too much power. And, of course, whatever
> group we have to oppose as policeman cries the
> loudest about how abusive we are.
>
> For example, we (US) had no business going into
> Kosovo. That had nothing to do with us. But,
> Europe dragged us in there, and the US did 90% of
> the work, then different groups complained about
> that.

I agree totally. Kosovo was tragic error. Europe has allowed itself to once again become weak, that is obviously true. The point remains that hadn't the US been so willing to act as the world policeman, then Europe would've had no option but to deal with it themselves. As it was, they knew America would more than likely "help out".


> Obama is not the guy, in my mind. I despise
> Hillary, but I would trust her a lot more
> internationally than I would Obama.

Based on what? "Experience"? She has none.


You have a great weekend yourself!

Eusebius Wrote and argos

You are just blind sycophants of the REPUBLICAN POSITIONS. You never use logic, argue from a to b to c, proving your points, you just recite the same crap that we've heard from the Republican idiot box for 8 years.

Regarding not negotiating ummm why? Israel is negotiating with Syria, and negotiated with arrafat and with Egypt, all while NONE of the countries recognized Israel's right to exist. Now israel has a few more friends, Egypt for one...There have been MANY meeting between israle and other countries without preconditions, but merely with goals...

Regarding pre-conditions, exactly what pre-conditions have worked for Bush? None. Has bush been able to build a coalition to help in Iraq? No. has he been able to get North Korea to stand down? no, has he been able to get IRAN to stop it's nuclear program? No

So what exactly is the upside of not negotiating unless pre conditions have been met?

Bush is not exactly an example of an effective world diplomat, so why are you touting his methods?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Krauthammer, I rarely agree with your columns,
> but this time I totally concur with your
> analysis.
>
> With his debate gaffe - the naive position of
> agreeing to meet without preconditions with
> leaders of rogue nations - Obama started digging
> himself into a hole. At every turn, his naivete
> and inexperience keeps him digging himself even
> deeper.
>
> I hope other Democrats who are knowledgeable and
> experienced in foreign policy, such as Sen. Joe
> Biden, stop trying to save Obama from himself.
> Otherwise, they will be sinking the whole
> Democratic Party into Obama's hole.
>
> It's a tragedy that this naive and inexperienced
> rookie may end up winning the Democratic
> nomination. (Luckily, he would lose against
> McCain.) Hopefully the superdelegates will come to
> their senses and endorse Hillary as the nominee.

I guess the Bush/McCain doctrine of turning up your nose at your enemies really worked in Iraq.

This Krauthammer/neo-con approach got us into one of the worst foreign policy mistakes of the last 100 years.
And because of our strong policy of not meeting with adversaries, we had absolutely no idea what we were getting into in Iraq. Thanks, Charles.

And how has the Bush/McCain "hands off" approach to diplomacy worked in Cuba? The population in Cuba is no freer now than they were when Bush took office. How would extending this strategy of failure (as McCain surely would) help the Cuban people?

Obama wants to try a different approach. Good for him.

NO MCCAIN IN '08!

Silence Dogood2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HI Josh,
>
> Hey you have a few good points here, esp about
> each of our rights.
>
> But, do me a favor... using Christ like that is
> offensive to me... even though I am highly
> imperfect and make many similar mistakes.

Splendid. Let's move on, shall we?

William Bilinski Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah! So that is Krauthammer's real concern. The
> fear that Israel would be squeezed or at least be
> "even handed" in dealing with the Palestinians. I
> guess that Krauthammer would also agree with the
> precondition that Israel's land claims are a right
> based on it, Palestine, being God's gift to the
> Hebrews.


Hello, it was rhetorical. Krauthammer is pointing out the ridiculousness that Iran thinks Obama would put the "squeeze" on Israel. He's certainly not worried that he would do so-- even as pro-israel as Krauthammer is. No, he's making up a scenario of absurd preconditions that would go into an obama-ahmadenijad meeting.

And even if Krauthammer does agree with the idea that G-d gave the Holy Land to the Hebrews (Jews) that's truly beside the point. It does amaze me sometimes: how can folks pick out the most minor of details to focus on. Israel is mentioned in a rhetorical question, just that once, and yet this post is all about it. Makes you wonder who has the real Israel problem...

Zz from California Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with Charles.
> I believe that blurring borders with 'bad guys',
> talking to them, feeling for them is part of the the
> Right's culture where BHO was definitely
> braught in.
It was an unfortunate gaffe (or testing water) in the
> heat of the debate. The BHO and his wife are
> tightly controlling their natural impulses. Only
> two or three times they made mistakes.
> Now we know what new change in mid-eastern policy means.
>
> There is no military threat to usa from iran now.
> But what about israel? Definite threat, military
> build up, personal insults from the bad guy.
> Start building personal relationship, having
> moments of seeing eye to eye without discussing
> this new change in policy with our political partner number
> one in the regeon means only one. It is ok to push
> israel aside, to diminish the role of israel in
> the regeon. And this tendency will continue in
> israeli-palestinian conflict.
> Again, Wright is well and alive.

Maglo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ozymandias888 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's amazing how little Lefties retained after
> > reading this article. You'd think they believe
> > what they want to believe and filter out
> > everything else.
> >
> > As Krauthammer pointed out, the President not
> > having a formal meeting with the leaders of
> > opposing nations does NOT mean there is no
> > communication taking place. It does NOT mean
> > there is no diplomacy taking place. It just
> means
> > the communication and diplomacy are taking
> place
> > at lower levels.
> >
> > But, for Obamabots, such subtle distinctions
> > between all and nothing are completely
> > imperceptible.
> >
> > But what the heck - let's scrap all the
> > multilateral diplomatic efforts by our allies
> and
> > the UN and just have a sit-down between Barack
> and
> > the Ahmadinejad. It's only cowboy diplomacy if
> > it's Republicans ignoring the Europeans and the
> > UN.
>
> ------------------------
>
> Hehe, a right-winger preaching about nuance and
> subtlety. That's fresh;-) Do you mean it's not all
> "you're either with us or against us" anymore?
>
> Since you pretend to know what you're talking
> about - precisely at what level are talks taking
> place, and what are the specific conditions and
> objections?
>
> I'm sorry, Sir, but you seem to be the one who
> needs to grasp the subtle nuances of diplomacy.
> Low-level talks are not the equivalent of the
> leaders of the respective countries sitting down
> together, getting to know and respect and perhaps
> admire each other. Furthermore, only the leaders
> have decision-making capability, making "low-level
> talks" (which are not really taking place in the
> case of Iran, by the way - not with the US
> involved, anyhow) largely a PR-stunt. Real
> decisions are made by the leaders, making it
> crucial for diplomacy's functioning that they
> personally participate.By yours and the authors
> view, it was unnecessary for Roosevelt to attend
> the Yalta Conference - he could have just send a
> couple of junior diplomats, and everything would
> have been OK...?

ANd just how do you think the Yalta Conference came about? Do you think that Roosevelt opened is diary and called Stalin and Churchill and asked if they were free to chat? No. It's those s0-called low level appointees at the state department (up to the secretary of state) who made it possible. It's the folks right under the president who oversee the talks and whether they are viable. For years, there were back and forth negotiations between the US, PLO and Israel; Bush 1 and Shamir did not just show up one day. So while the talks were held between the top leaders, all of the arrangements and negotiations about even holding a conference were dealt with by lower level folks. This is precisely what the article states (of course history is selectively meaningless to someone like Obama-and his followers- who reject it except to talk about Kennedy and MLK Jr) and precisely what ozimandias888 writes. Blind obamats are desperate to believe in their leader that even historical facts are now off-limits, except to parody conservatives. Whatever. Obama said he would meet with leaders of rogue nations (or what ever phrasing you choose) without preconditions. He made a mistake and is truly so now incapable of admitting it that he would rather prostletize from the BOok of Isaiah then admit he's wrong. Of course, those of us who didn't vote for BO and will not know better than to follow false prophets.


> Come on now, this is Diplomacy 101.