Perhaps Barack Obama thinks he’s cool… or maybe a vote-getter…. by opening his mouth about talking without pre-condition to Castro, Ahmadinejad, etc. And maybe he is – the latter anyway. He obviously knows how to collect donations. But his naivety is extraordinary. At least I hope it’s naivety and not something worse. Because the thought of the first African-American President sitting down to polite public conversation with this century’s most prominent Holocaust-denier raises a large number of hackles on the neck of this onetime civil rights worker – a very large number. [Calm down, fella, you're getting angry.-ed. No kidding.]
But beyond the creepy racial overtones, one wonders if Obama knows anything about what is really going on. Does he know the state of negotiations with any of these nations? Did he know the state of play with Libya when Qaddafi recently walked back on nuclear weapons? I rather doubt it, because as most grownups realize, negotiations with crazy fascist dictators are usually best conducted in private. Public negotiations are at best a grandstand play.
And that is what Obama is doing – playing to the grandstand. I’m scared of someone who thinks that way in the presidency in a way that Hillary could never scare me.
Well, he’s said the all the “right” things about Iran before, and I’m sure he’ll say them again:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article
Yup, I think it is a safe bet that – absent an intervening war or outbreak of diplomatic sanity – whomever is the President of the U.S. in 2009 will appropriately rattle American sabers, no matter how much this rattling boosts internal Iranian support for Ahmadinejad.
As to how best to negotiate with crazy fascist dictators in order to avert bloodbaths, you are right that private diplomacy does often work best. Would have been especially useful in 2003, when Iran proposed recognizing Israel and normalizing relations with America, and was told that we don’t negotiate with evil. This, of course, was prior to the election of Ahmadinejad.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fleverett/20060124.htm
Since Obama seems to be hard at work tying his own noose, and there are many others working with elfin enthusiasm to fashion both a gallows and a gallery for the spectacle, it is not polite to state the obvious. But I will anyway:
-The Executive Branch of the United States will not be capably led by an affable fellow with good intentions; we do not live the movie “Dave”.
-The Executive Branch is not best filled by a character who’s sole purpose is to dilute the rule of law and replace the instituitions residing in the District of Columbia with those of Havana.
-The debate over which party and what personality are best suited to lead the country cannot be effective if those parties and personalities understand the world from the perspective of a 6th-grade student council.
-There is not a ‘secret plan’,nor a fleet of flat-black helicopters and a private army sworn to secrecy. Any events must be dealt with using the tools at hand. Diplomacy, private pressure, and, public statements are some of those tools. So are the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.
The debates between the democrats, especially so far in advance of the election, are public entertainment and not very entertaining entertainment.
Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel
It is painfully clear, though perhaps only to me, that if a Democrat achieves the Presidency in ’08, with Democratic control of both Houses, this country will enter a long dark night in which ugly nightmares become reality.
Obama is demonstrating, yet again, just how incredibly unprepared he is for the presidency.
Honestly, if he were white nobody would know, or care, who he was. Which is sad in a lot of ways, because it proves how much of a “that’s pretty good, for a black person” world we live in today.
“…in 2003, when Iran proposed recognizing Israel and normalizing relations with America”.
Markus leaves out the fact that Iran was facing the prospect of the well announced, UN cited, visit from the American military right next door.
Iran wanted to make sure no stray missile would hit their fledgling nuclear facilities. That is ALL.
If Iran were serious they would have done some things and stop doing other things that ultimately contradict the opening up to Israel and America BS Markus swallowed whole.
Next we’ll have Marcus exulting Jimmy Carter’s Iran.
BTW – Markus use of the phrase “said all the right things” in the context of Obama’s audience in the article he cites; unless explained, leaves me running from a certain recognizable stench.
It’s Hill&Bill’s strategy all along. Facing a possible Obama presidency, even an anti-Hill voter would be scared into voting for Hill. Brilliant.
ic, that can only work during the primaries. And the effect might be to just encourage the Democratic primary voter to stay home.
I guess if sounding like Jimmy Carter is saying all the right things, then that is what Obama did.
Pelosi went to see the Syrians and kiss their behinds and what did that accomplish? Other than to make the Speaker look ridiculous?
John Kennedy must be spinning in his grave. First Obama lets us know that genocide is no biggie and then he lets us know that if he wins the election he will be happy to pander to any dictator out there, no questions asked.
So much for bearing any burden and paying any price to advance the cause of liberty and all that silly stuff.
If ever Obama says he is the first African American anything within earshot of Hillary.
“Senator Obama…. I knew Jackie Robinson, I baked cookies for the Robinsons… they were my friends.
Senator you are no Jackie Robinson.”
Obama reminds me of a male ingenue. The possibility of this country falling into the hands of Hill/Obama and Pelosi and company truly scares me to death.
“Markus leaves out the fact …”
Has he ever left a fact *in*?
The Brookings article above is chockful of facts — names, dates, faxes sent, faxes ignored, Swiss diplomats were ridiculed for passing along communications from the evil ones… Check it out, if you want “facts”.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq doubtlessly motivated the Iranian effort at reapproachment with the U.S. All the more galling that the Administration refused to pursue this opening, one of the few opportunities made available by the invasion.
BTW, I found the Sun-Times article by googling “Iran and Obama”. The first few results all link to it.
If Iran’s was motivated to play nice by the presence of US troops nearby, what’s their motivation for continuing to play nice after said troops leave?