Hmmmm. I Look at it this way. McCain clearly shares your opinion of Obama's inadequacies to stand up to Iranian leaders. But then, McCain's got a pretty damned fine opinion of his own toughness and experience, doesn't he? And yet. His policy for his own Presidency would be the same as what he would want from Obama--SILENCE.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. But yes, it is best to not threaten "almost" allies like Pakistan. Hussein doesn't understand that.
Is McCain tough? I think the record speaks for itself. Hussein has no record.
Which brings us back to where our disagreement really is. No surprises. You want a war with Iran right now, just like you wanted a war with Iraq Right Now, moons ago. I watched you replicate all the standard Talking Points on TalkLeft in those days. And now the same crowd is at it again. But what of that crowd's track record? How embarrassing that Charles Krauthammer, for God's sake, is taken seriously by anyone other than his mother. But anyway.
First, I never "wanted" a war with Iraq. I felt then, and now, that Bush took the correct measures based on the information he had.
No, I do not "want" a war with Iran. I do feel that Iran will not give into pressure and will respond to force only. The amount of actual force is not known. Hopefully it would be small. That does not mean I am in favor of limited wars. Wars, when fought, should be fought with all resources necessary to win as quickly as possible and with as few causalities as possible.
The desire for War with Iran is the basis for your disparagement of Talks. Same with McCain. It has nothing. I repeat nothing. to do with how Obama would fare in Talks. It is that you do not want Talks to take place. Period.
Wrong again. The west has had "talks" with Iran for years with no results beyond Iran becoming even more convinced that they can do as they please. The time for "talks" has come and gone.
Which, considering the stakes, is pretty sad from where most Americans are sitting today.
Well. There is a reason that the Constitution requires that Congress declare war. Not one guy and a small circle of ideologues. But the Congress declares war, as everyone knows. Heh.
The same thing can be said regarding the reluctance to go to war of the English under Chamberlain and the French in the run up to WWII. The result was not peace but war. A global war that killed perhaps 20 million people. If that is the result of "wisdom" then I hope I will be left off the "wisdom" list.
I will give you a fearful forecast. If Hussein is elected we will be severely attacked within 18 months within the US. I pray that I am wrong.
harrogate comes back and you can read the comments listed in reverse order below.
The first is:
First off, I got no problem with the President of the United States meeting with anybody, friend or foe. This isn't high school. You don't gain anything by not talking.
Well, you are correct in that this is not High School. The problems with no pre-conditions meetings are numerous. The most imfamous one is the one between Kennedy and Krushchev:
"Kennedy's aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was "just a disaster." Khrushchev's aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed "very inexperienced, even immature." Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was "too intelligent and too weak." The Soviet leader left Vienna elated -- and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.
Kennedy's assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the "roughest thing in my life." Kennedy went on: "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."
A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that "a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war." The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to "throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam's pants": nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna -- of Kennedy as ineffective -- was among them."
Along with the wall came Kennedy's determination to not appear weak. To that end he increased our commitment to South Vietnam and increased the number of military advisers.
"He now needed to convince Khrushchev that he could not be pushed around, and the best place currently to make U.S. power credible seemed to be in Vietnam."
So yes. This isn't high school and off the cuff meetings and discussions can, and have, caused disastrous results.
But it's pretty clear that Barack Obama aint trying to personally meet with I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket.
But fine, if you want to interpret his answer as a statement that he Personally would meet with the Iranian figurehead, then fine. The point is yours.
No. That doesn't fly. As plainly stated in the video I provided the link to, the question was would Obama meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea with no pre conditions. Obama's response was that he would. He can end the discussion at anytime by saying that he has changed his mind.
But, so what if they were to talk? Why is it so terrible? I mean, seeing as how you don't see talking as a reward and all, or silence as a punishment....
Go back and read my comments, and link, on Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev showing what really bad things can come from ad hoc no agenda type meetings between leaders.
You must understand. This is not a game. This is not a debate. These type meetings have real consequences that can be very, very, very bad.
Hussein doesn't. God help us if he gets elected.
I just wish all the War Dogs, from McCain on down to bloggers like you, would stop going on and on about the proriety of talking and who said what and about who.
McCain should have the cahones to tell the American people, if elected I'm going after Iran. Instead of the kinds of distractions you are putting up in this Post.
What distractions? I clearly stated my belief that we should immediately go after Iran and its nuclear weapon program and that Hussein is too inexperienced and timid to do that. He thinks he can "charm" the terrorists of the world because he has always "charmed" the power structure around him. He can not.
And I wonder if the two dead gay men and the dead female rape victim would consider their agonizing death a "distraction." That you appear to is really a terrible comment about you.
Previous comments from 1 through 4:
harrogate - Because not talking is an effective form of "punishment" HOW, exactly? It's just so high school, this use of the "silent treatment."
And BTW, be honest and admit that Obama doesn't talk about meeting between Presidents "without precondition," he talks about having talks between the countries. They used to call such talkers Diplomats.
But anyway. We know what the crux of the Issue is. You are with the Neocons (same people who gave us the wonder of Iraq) who Actively Desire to start a war with Iran. Obama, like most Democrats and indeed like the vast majority of Americans, does not Actively Desire to start a war with Iran.
That's where you're peeved.
October 1, 2008 4:28 PM
You know, if you go the link you will find the question is:
During the FIRST year of YOUR Presidentancy will YOU meet with the LEADERS of IRAN, SYRIA, VENEZULA, CUBA and NORTH KOREA without preconditions...
And Hussein replies that he would.
So please, don't make false claims and try to parse words.
As for starting a war with Iran, you don't know it yet, but you will, that we are already at war with Iran. We have just refused to return their attacks.
I pray that we act before they kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and Israelis...
Am I a neocon? well, since I am not a conservative I don't see how I am... I am what used to be called a liberal. But in 1968 the Lefties, with the aid of some Democrats, stole my party. Being a hard headed type I voted for Carter in 1976 but that cured me from being a Democrat forever, or at least until they run off the Lefties who are now in charge of a once great party.
Yes, dear harrogate it is possible to be for minority rights, National Health Care, etc. and a strong national defense. Think Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Scoop Jackson, Humphrey, etc.
October 1, 2008 5:04 PM
You're the one who's parsing. Just say you want to attack Iran and be done with it, like you did in that last comment.
Saying oh, we can't reward them by talking to them is stoopid on its face. Talk between countries in this kind of a situation is not a reward, it is an effort to see what can be done short of going to war.
Again. You want war. Iraqis greeted us as liberators just as you predicted, and things are swell there. Time for phase two.
There is a problem this time, though, that did not exist before. This time Americans know better. Your desire to attack Iran puts you in the decided minority in this country.
October 1, 2008 5:21 PM
Dude, I just proved you wrong. The adult thing would be to acknowledge your error.
Parsing? Was there something about:
“I pray that we act before they kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and Israelis...”
that you didn’t understand?
And where did I say anything about “rewarding” them or “not rewarding” them?
And where did I say the Iraqis would greet is as “liberators?” I didn’t.
Let me give you first and last warning. If you want to comment, please do so. But when proved wrong, at the minimum, don’t come back with false claims and personal attacks. Next time you do it your comment will be deleted with nasty remarks by yours truly.