[maxiep]

Clearly, Charles Krauthammer comes from a specific philosophical persuasion, but he raises several valid points in this editorial,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052203016.html

Obama's Metastatic Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A17

When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has entered the realm of the surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e., preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.

Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?

There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. 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.

Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?

During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.

Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then nearly fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets...

[SodaPopinski]

Personally, I'll take my chances with diplomatic negotiations before McCain's plan to bomb anyone who disagrees with us.

-Pop

[HB]

The truth of the matter is that there is no way Barack Obama is going to sit down with any of these leaders without preconditions. (Foreign diplomacy just doesnt work that way, regardless of what Obama might say. Interestingly enough, he has said 'preparations' will be made when talking to these leaders. Preparations, pre-conditions, whats the difference?) Think of the message it is sending out to the rest of the world if Obama or whoever the president of the United states is chatting with someone like Ahmadinejad. His foreign policy advisors arent going to let that happen. Even his security will be a concern.

On the other hand, those that are criticizing Obama for saying he will talk to these leaders, whats the alternative? Bomb first and then ask questions later?

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

The truth of the matter is that there is no way Barack Obama is going to sit down with any of these leaders without preconditions. (Foreign diplomacy just doesnt work that way, regardless of what Obama might say. Interestingly enough, he has said 'preparations' will be made when talking to these leaders. Preparations, pre-conditions, whats the difference?) Think of the message it is sending out to the rest of the world if Obama or whoever the president of the United states is chatting with someone like Ahmadinejad. His foreign policy advisors arent going to let that happen. Even his security will be a concern.

On the other hand, those that are criticizing Obama for saying he will talk to these leaders, whats the alternative? Bomb first and then ask questions later?

But that's not what he said. He's tried to backtrack, but he said "without precondition". Diplomacy happens on some level or another between every country on the planet, but lending the prestige of the Presidency to a half pint ruler is crazy if not dangerous.

And no one ever said, "We won't talk to these people". Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain said that there has to be dialogue on some level and there has to be preconditions, but talking leader to leader isn't going to happen without the other side giving up some of their crazier stances.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

Personally, I'll take my chances with diplomatic negotiations before McCain's plan to bomb anyone who disagrees with us.

-Pop

Gee, there's a well reasoned response, because that's definitely McCain's foreign policy platform.

And, in case you missed it, both Obama and Hillary have stated that military force is definitely in play when it comes to halting Iran's nuclear weapons program.

[SodaPopinski]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Gee, there's a well reasoned response, because that's definitely McCain's foreign policy platform.

You'll have to excuse me, I guess I missed McCain's well-reasoned, fact-based and logical foreign policy suggestions between his singing of "Bomb Iran" and the time he had to be corrected by Joe Lieberman about Iran's training of terrorists.

-Pop

[hasoos]

You know that whole writeup is fairly easy to pick apart. Just like where the writer of the article handpicked their pieces of data to use as their historical comparisons, the writer was also wrong on several fronts.

1. First of all, you don't have to meet with a countries leader to have diplomatic relations.

2. Secondly his assertion that past presidents never met with Axis leaders is correct. But he selectivly used the term leaders. The U.S. had diplomatic meetings with Axis memeber right up unti the war. In fact, the Japanase amabassador showed up and declared war after the bombing at Pearl Harbor, mistimed because of the time difference.

3. The writer of the article also claimed that JFK's meeting with Kruschev lead to everything bad up and through the Cuban Missile crisis. He has no proof whatsoever besides order of events that it wouldn't have happened anyhow. It is just his opinion. From my experience, I believe with the bullying Soviet Union, they would have tried it anyhow, because it was their last ditch effort before communism failed. Was the Soviet Union not a bully for most of their existence? What makes him think this one meeting would have changed anything.

4. The Cuban Missile crisis turned out pretty good, although tight, the US came out looking like a champ who stands up for the free world, not like a pompous chump who doesn't respect their allies, like the Bush administration has done.

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by HB

On the other hand, those that are criticizing Obama for saying he will talk to these leaders, whats the alternative? Bomb first and then ask questions later?

The alternative is this: provide a framework for discourse that sets a minimum standard that world leaders and their states must achieve before we give them full diplomatic recognition and allow them to meet with our President.

There's no single point where we must be speaking or bombing... all of this plays out over the long run, and over many stages, and a sudden shift in policy where we (Obama and those who would vote for him) say, "OK... you've violated the principles that we've established and you've thumbed your noses at us for decades, but now we'll go ahead and meet with you" might be seen by some in the US as a sign of maturity and progress, but will be seen as weakness on the part of the US and a victory for those countries internationally.

It would also, IMO, embolden other states and leaders to ignore us, understanding that there's the chance that they will eventually get what they want, anyway.

Ed O.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

You'll have to excuse me, I guess I missed McCain's well-reasoned, fact-based and logical foreign policy suggestions between his singing of "Bomb Iran" and the time he had to be corrected by Joe Lieberman about Iran's training of terrorists.

-Pop

Well, Pop, instead of relying on trite soundbites, perhaps you should check out McCain's actual foreign policy positions. As you yourself said here:

His policy suggestions are clear as day and available to anyone with half a brain and the know-how to navigate a complex mouse/keyboard combination:

http://www.johnmccain.com/

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

Personally, I'll take my chances with diplomatic negotiations before McCain's plan to bomb anyone who disagrees with us.

Yep, that's exactly his plan! How did you know?

[SodaPopinski]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Well, Pop, instead of relying on trite soundbites, perhaps you should check out McCain's actual foreign policy positions. As you yourself said here:



http://www.johnmccain.com/

Appreciate the link, but perhaps you could enlighten me. I don't see anything on "foreign policy" in McCain's "issues" section of his web site. I see "national security" and found that page interesting. Did a word search in that 30 paragraph diatribe and found the following:

• Mentions of "diplomacy" = 0
• Mentions of "military" = 34
• Mentions of "terror" = 18
• Mentions of "war" = 10
• Mentions of "dangerous" = 3
• Mentions of "fight" = 8
• Mentions of "battle" = 3
• Mentions of "force" = 26
• Mentions of "missile" = 13
• Mentions of "bomb" = only 2!

I guess if it's not my son or brother or relative, **** it. Who cares? Right? Who's with me?

Matter of fact, I hope y'all will sign along with me in a little ditty I constructed. Y'all know the tune of "London Bridge"?

Massive land war in Iran
In Iran
In Iran
Massive land war in Iran
Let's get 'er done

-Pop

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

Appreciate the link, but perhaps you could enlighten me. I don't see anything on "foreign policy" in McCain's "issues" section of his web site. I see "national security" and found that page interesting. Did a word search in that 30 paragraph diatribe and found the following:

• Mentions of "diplomacy" = 0
• Mentions of "military" = 34
• Mentions of "terror" = 18
• Mentions of "war" = 10
• Mentions of "dangerous" = 3
• Mentions of "fight" = 8
• Mentions of "battle" = 3
• Mentions of "force" = 26
• Mentions of "missile" = 13
• Mentions of "bomb" = only 2!

I guess if it's not my son or brother or relative, **** it. Who cares? Right? Who's with me?

Matter of fact, I hope y'all will sign along with me in a little ditty I constructed. Y'all know the tune of "London Bridge"?

Massive land war in Iran
In Iran
In Iran
Massive land war in Iran
Let's get 'er done

-Pop

That's an interesting analysis and one that meshes nicely with supporting Barack Obama. Rather than a careful reading of what is written, just be swept away by the specific words and fill in the blanks as to what they mean.

Just because we want Hans Morganthau to be wrong, doesn't mean he was.