AP ignored Gates' support for diplomacy with Iran, reported Obama is "inexperienced in foreign affairs"
SUMMARY: In an article discussing Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's positions on direct diplomacy with Iran, the AP reported that "Condoleezza Rice, a key player for eight years in the Bush administration's strategy to try to isolate Iran, told AIPAC on Tuesday that there is no point engaging Iran 'while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talks.' " But, while noting that Madeleine Albright took a different position in a speech two years ago, the article did not note that President Bush's own secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has also reportedly said the United States should "sit down and talk" with Iran.
In a June 5 Associated Press article discussing Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's positions on direct diplomacy with Iran, diplomatic writer Barry Schweid reported that "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a key player for eight years in the Bush administration's strategy to try to isolate Iran, told AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] on Tuesday that there is no point engaging Iran 'while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talks.' " But, while noting that former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright took a different position in a speech two years ago, Schweid did not note that President Bush's own secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has also reportedly taken a position different from that reportedly articulated by Rice: According to The Washington Post, Gates said of meeting with Iran: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them. ... If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."
Schweid also reported: "Obama, by contrast [to McCain], is decades younger and inexperienced in foreign affairs. His political success until now is powered to a large extent by his youthful optimism for 'change.' While that may ignite enthusiasm it also could inspire allegations of naivete." Schweid offered no support for his characterization of Obama as "inexperienced in foreign affairs." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, Obama has served on the Foreign Relations Committee since his election to the Senate and has visited Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa as a senator. Additionally, Obama has sponsored several pieces of foreign policy legislation, including the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 to eliminate weapons stockpiles and reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction -- portions of which were enacted as part of the omnibus appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 -- and the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, which was enacted on December 22, 2006.
Further, in contrast with his characterization of Obama as "inexperienced in foreign affairs" and vulnerable to "allegations of naivete," Schweid wrote that "[e]xperience is a strength [McCain] intends to help carry him into the White House," without noting any of several falsehoods and misstatements by McCain on national security and foreign affairs and without noting that, notwithstanding McCain's purported "strength" on foreign policy, 62 percent of respondents in a recent Quinnipiac University poll asserted that it was the "wrong thing" for United States to go to war in Iraq, which McCain supported and continues to support.
From the June 5 AP article:
McCain is positioning himself as the experienced former U.S. Navy officer and war prisoner who is motivated by hard reasoning. Experience is a strength he intends to help carry him into the White House.
Obama, by contrast, is decades younger and inexperienced in foreign affairs. His political success until now is powered to a large extent by his youthful optimism for "change." While that may ignite enthusiasm it also could inspire allegations of naivete.
Both candidates, then, would seem to have an incentive for prolonging the debate over talking to Iran.
Would a high-level exchange, one for instance between the American and Iranian presidents, accomplish anything?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a key player for eight years in the Bush administration's strategy to try to isolate Iran, told AIPAC on Tuesday that there is no point engaging Iran "while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talks."
On the other hand, Madeleine Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration, said two years ago that the stakes are too high to avoid contact with Iran. "Engagement is not appeasement," she said in criticizing Bush administration policy. "Diplomacy is a mechanism for the U.S. to send a tough message."
Whether diplomacy is the right action to be taken will eventually be seen. And if it is, whether Obama's lack of experience with major decision making in foreign policy will have a negative effect is yet another.
As of right now, this argument has relatively no substance or proof of what is right or wrong, so its really moot to argue one way or the other.
I believe that Iran's actions in the near future towards the IAEA, Israel, and now joining in against the Kurds will decide their own fate of whether its diplomacy or military action.
Are you serious? Are you trying to say that the Iraq debacle is not proof that neocon militarism has been a disaster?
Oh man. Really?
It's time to rally the world around the common goals of neutralizing terrorism, it's time for alliances and cooperation in the fight against political violence. It's time to put this with us or against us mentality to bed.
Are you serious? Are you trying to say that the Iraq debacle is not proof that neocon militarism has been a disaster?
First off, the Military action has not been a disaster. Its been highly successful. However, the way the military has been juggled around from Bush and the Senate is where the debacle is.
Everything from crying about waterboarding, not worrying more about iraqi civilians than your own US military is sad. Had we fought this war with similar military might and less regulations, we'd have been there, won, and been back by now.
The military cannot be successful in a war when they have to worry more about what they cant do, than what they can do.
At this point political solutions need to happen, that's why it's going to take real leadership on Iraq and that's why the current crop of Republicans are not qualified to do the job. Republicans have no idea what good government looks like, they hate government, they therefore have no ability to model the behavior needed to facilitate the political process.
Columbus wrote:
>>The military cannot be successful in a war when they have to worry more about what they cant do, than what they can do.
Same old Vietnam excuses. The US military just can't subjugate other people to its own will, and the solution is always more brutality. That, of course, contradicts the goal of "spreading democracy" to the Iraqis. If the US really does not care about torturing the people it is supposed to be liberating, wants to have permenant control over these people, and does not care how many it kills, then it really does not care about democracy, either.
Note: The British couldn't subjugate the colonists despite all the might of the British army; the Americans couldn't subjugate the Vietnamese, despite the American's vast military superiotry; and the Americans won't do any better in Iraq.
If the US really does not care about torturing the people it is supposed to be liberating, wants to have permenant control over these people, and does not care how many it kills, then it really does not care about democracy, either.
The people fighting against the US and the Iraqi government are not the ones we're liberating. But thats a lot of nice false, garbage rhetoric you spewed out none the less.
Columbus wrote:
>> The people fighting against the US and the Iraqi government are not the ones we're liberating. But thats a lot of nice false, garbage rhetoric you spewed out none the less.
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? The war has lead to the unnecessary deaths of probably at least 100,000 Iraqis. How exactly do you know that these 100,000 aren't the people Bush claims he is liberating? And as far as torture goes, the US loses all rights to legitmacy when it engages in torture. The US forces admitted itself that most of the prisoners at Abu Grahb, were innoncent.
Let me just repeat: The US will have no more success subjugating the Iraqis that it had with the Vietnamese.
From the Washington Post article:
Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans" visiting Iran.
The difference between what the democrats have stated, (and already have done in Syria, Thank you Pelosi, Lantos for meeting with the PPK there to deliberatley stir up trouble in Turkey to hinder the surge ), is to meet directly without preconditions. That is a far cry from creating informal links as Gates has suggested. When you legitimize a terrorist state with direct contact without preconditions, you have appeased.
"When you legitimize a terrorist state with direct contact without preconditions, you have appeased."
THAT'S COMPLETE AND UTTER B.S.
You and the many others who have become infatuated with this idiotic "preconditions/appeasement" talking point need to reexamine the definition of appeasement, especially as it relates to concession and expense of principle.
The definition of appeasement has absolutely NO CONTEXT of engagement, negotiation, or mediation.
Talking to a terrorist state IS NOT appeasement.
Talking to a terrorist state and yielding to a terrorist state ARE NOT one and the same.
None, because dumbass Bush hasn't tried it.
Just look at Iraq.
Four years running, and not a single bomb dropped and not a single soldier setting foot on Libyan soil.
In other words, Bush and Gramps McCain BOTH know that diplomacy works, but they's rather see our servicemen and women get killed and/or maimed.....
I think this may be a Michael Medved fan, this is one of his scams, to ask for a list of historical examples that meet his precise criteria. Libya is a good example, naturally there is not a long list that will satisfy the demands of the wingnut, as that would require an objective list of "terrorist states".
The request didn't really deserve an answer, but nice of you people to take the time.
Not even close, did you even read the story you posted? These talks were underway as a result of the lockerbie investigation then the story even quotes "Libiya came to us!"
This was not the result of any meeting between countries without preconditions.
Please list for us a modern day successful meeting between a nation and a terrorist state that has resulted in no further violence and has resulted in a continued peaceful resolution to this day?
Israel and Egypt might also serve as an example of the positive effects of negotiations. There has been no bloodshed between these two nations since the Camp David peace accords that Jimmy Carter brokered nearly 30 years ago.
When you legitimize a terrorist state with direct contact without preconditions, you have appeased.
Shades of talk show host Kevin James, PC. Chris Matthews cleaned his clock on live TV because he didn't know what he was talking about, and you get your clock cleaned here regularly for the same reason.
The Iraqi leader is going to speak with the leaders in Iran.
The leaders in Israel are going to speak with the leader of Syria.
But we can't talk to leaders in Iran or Syria? That's ridiculous.
Anyone who thinks Obama's plan for diplomacy and talking with our enemies is wrong is the person who's too inexperienced in foreign policy.
Anyone who thinks Obama's plan for diplomacy and talking with our enemies is wrong is the person who's too inexperienced in foreign policy.
So let me get this straight - we ought to invite them to Washington for an overpriced dinner to ask them why they keep supplying weapons inside Iraq that are killing American troops?
Why don't you answer McCain's question: "What are you going to talk about?"
It's time to do things different, conservative foreign policy has been a total economic clusterf**k, has not made America safer and has cost us our morality.
It's high time all the cynics who sit in front of computer screens screaming, "you can't do that," while their neighbors fight and die; it's high time for them to get out of the way of those who can do that.
Please explain to me how the US is not safer - what attacks on domestic soil can you refer that to for proof.
Also, your jibber-jabber is completely dodging the question. What is it that you want to talk to Iran about - what questions specifically. If you want to talk that bad, it shouldn't be difficult for you to tell me what questions you want to ask.
Please explain to me how the US is not safer - what attacks on domestic soil can you refer that to for proof.
You can't proove a negative, Columbus. Actually, it could be said that since the 9/11 attacks occured durinfg Bush's watch, the Bush Doctrine is what made us less safe.
Also, your jibber-jabber is completely dodging the question. What is it that you want to talk to Iran about - what questions specifically. If you want to talk that bad, it shouldn't be difficult for you to tell me what questions you want to ask.
I don't recall any pre-conditions being placed on Richard Nixon before he went to Red China in 1972. Oce again, Columbus, you show us all that all you can do is thoughtlessly spew right-wing talking points, all the while demonstrating your sheer ignorance...
And specific attacks on our soil? How about the fact that Al Qaeda set the assymetric strategic goal to undermine the U.S. economy by drawing us into a costly conflict? How about the fact that Al Qaeda has not been pacified, in fact, their strength and ability to recruit new members has increased since the occupation of Iraq?
Safer? You tell me.
Giving voice to the voiceless is always the first step toward peace. That's what diplomacy is about. Of course, it takes statesmen to accomplish diplomatic solutions. It takes a liberal.
How about the fact that Al Qaeda set the assymetric strategic goal to undermine the U.S. economy by drawing us into a costly conflict?
Oh here we go. This ought to be interesting...now the Iraq war caused the housing bubble to burst, and loss of jobs. And to think, I thought the only causes you wackjobs would come up with were the California fires, oil prices, and global warming.
Reading material for Columbus...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9292.html
Thanks for the assist rabbitluvr but I'm pretty sure columbus is just playing dumb.
I'm pretty sure it's not an act......
He just seems to be attempting to push all those old hot buttons. He doesn't seem to get it, though. We progressives are, well, progressing beyond the old conservative games and into substantive discussions of a better future.
Perhaps Columbus should start off with reading material that is better suited to his reading comprehension - like "My Pet Goat".....
Yeah, I figured the Politico piece might be a tad above his reach but you can't lose anything by trying anyway. As we know, righties aren't exactly well-known for stepping outside their comfort zone and thinking outside the box. Too painful mentally. :)
Baker noted that when he was secretary of state for President Bush's father, he made 15 trips to Syria in 1990 and 1991, "at the time when Syria was on the list of countries who were state sponsors of terrorism. On the 16th trip, guess what, lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in the history to sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time."
Columbus wrote:
>>Yet another 20 year old quote.
Its age doesn't make it irrelevant.
"Diplomacy is a mechanism for the U.S. to send a tough message."
And then what? Act like France and wave the white flag when round table discussions prove to be useless?
"Talking" and "tough messages" only work well when you actually have your hand on the military trigger. If you aren't prepared to go to war, then your dipomatic sanctions and threats mean nothing. Just as the U.N....
Republican foreign policy is reminding me more and more of those neighbors I had when I was in my 20s and living in crappy apartment complexes. The ones who called the cops when they could hear my stereo, rather than knocking on my door and asking if I could turn it down.
They were always very unhappy looking old white people, sort of like Grampy McCain.
Sorry Col - but old people in crappy apartment complexes? Sounds like your classic section 8 democrat.
And you sound like a classic Section 8, Columbus - discharge from the US military for reason of being mentally unfir for service. In fact, you should have been locked in a rubber room for your own protection long ago...
Me stereotyping? Wow. I wasn't the one to say: "They were always very unhappy looking old white people, sort of like Grampy McCain."
So now you have to be an old, white, bitter, gun clinging, church going, poor, section 8 apartment living person - then you can be like John McCain. Go ahead and complain about stereotyping dumbass.
He's still not going to give you back your ball and he said if you don't get off his lawn he's calling the cops, again.
I'm going to put a flaming bag of dog dung on his step.
specific group of people, and noticing their similarity.
That is not what we on earth call "fact", thats what we call "coincidence" until scientific facts are found.
Now if you can prove to me that every old white person is the same as McCain, then i'll retract my statements. But I won't plan on that....
No need to play innocent.
Columbus wrote:
>>Thats not a stereotype, its a fact. Show me a section 8 republicans...
Oh please. That is a fact? And you are going to back it up how? I know: it is the stupid response when a poster is caught using inflamatory insulting, language, that they are just stating "facts."
Columbs wrote:
>>Again, where are the section 8 republicans? Its a simple question.
Again, the question is simple to you: you made a claim that there are no section 8 republicans. You made the claim, so please back it up.
Just remember what an old wise man once said, you go to war with the military you have, not the military you want.
Worrier,
Clinton gutting the military by 40% was the primary reason we were not ready.
Clinton's claim that the U.S. military is stronger after his presidency is also totally bogus. By every measure - ships, aircraft, troops in the field, conventional and strategic weapons - America witnessed radical reductions under Clinton. When Bush came to power, Clinton had reduced the military overall force strength by 40 percent.
Even stocks of the so-called "smart weapons" and cruise missiles that had been developed before Clinton took office had been totally depleted during Clinton's "wag the dog" war in Kosovo.
In fact, the real reason the Bush administration has waited so long to attack Iraq is that we needed time to rebuild the arsenal Clinton depleted.
Still, the media spin from the liberals is that we need not to discuss Bill Clinton's role in 9/11 (they say it's old news, after all). The same media, that still make bashing Richard Nixon a page one story decades after his presidency, can't utter a bad word about Bill Clinton.
http://slickmisc.spunge.org/list/200209/msg00007.html
All the guns, tanks, bombs and planes in the world would not have been any more effective in preventing the 9/11 attack than the invasion of Iraq has been in neutralizing terrorism.
You guys need to understand your policies have failed us, failed to make us more secure. It's time for better solutions than with us or against us. You have to realize that conservatism has played itself out, you guys (Republicans) because of greed and arrogance, may suffer a generation of political impotence.
EVERYTHING IS CLINTON'S FAULT!
We were not on a war footing during the Clinton years. We were concerned with terrorism but everyone knows that terrorism is a tactic, not an armed force that you can ever defeat.
America was a prosperous country with a balanced budget. When the Bush administration took over the first thing they did was to cut the budget for fighting terrorism. On September 10, 2001 Ashcroft was trying to justify the cuts in counterterrorism.
And you complain about someone bringing up Nixon, yet you continue to bring up Clinton.
Nominee/Senator Obama must aggressively pursue and challenge these claims, just the start of an attempt to "Swift Boat" him. The GOPsters believe they should put out the big lies as often as possible in hoping that some of this will be accepted by those who are not really ready to be critical in their acceptance of whatever the right wing puts out. It's going to be a long five months during which he and we must be constantly on guard against their smears.
The whole Middle East thought favorably of the United States until we over thru Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 as a favor for Britain. Iran is still looking for amends as we supported the Shah as the new puppet. This gave the angry fundamentalists something to focus on. It's been downhill in the Middle East since then and reversing the course certainly will help, although it might take years. Regardless, as my other esteemed Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin says, "You don't usually negotiate with your friends." Bush's actions have only made things worse. I notice the republican supporters don't understand the difference between appeasement and negotiate. I wonder what other concepts they misunderstand?
They certainly don't understand the universe and evolution.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected after Bush's saber rattling and calling Iran part of the "axis of evil" Guess what? People in every country are "patriotic"--they don't like a foreign leader calling them "evil." Neocons misunderstand diplomacy and they misunderstand the purpose of force.
Mary,
Are you crediting Bush for Ahmadinejad's election?
Of course, the Mullahs run Iran anyway; the president has no real power. But if the U.S. stops warmongering and works to engage this country, it will shift.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06/05/delay-unless-obama-proves-me-wrong-he-is-a-marxist/
Is there any validity to this story, that Obama is really a Marxist? This is a troubling revelation that the liberal mainstream media is ignoring, apparently
Is there any validity to this story, that Obama is really a Marxist?
According to mental midgets like Tom DeLay, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, anyone who is not a card-carrying member of the Republican Party is a marxist.
I love it when conservatives toss that line out there. It's basically their concession that they cannot counter, with any rationality, the liberal view of the greater good. It tells me the have surrendered in advance to the liberal principles of effective government, mutual responsibility and broad prosperity.
Will they ever stop digging their hole and come up with some actual ideas?
"Here we go again." (I thought Mr. Columbust would like that Ronnie quote.) Haven't we seen this before? Do you really think you can reason with that kind of "thinking"? I am not going to be suckered into it this time. (Oh, my goodness, am I stereotyping?)
A good lesson can be learned from the Mafia. Ya gotta problem? We have a sit-down. We make 'em an offer they cannot refuse. Then we whack 'em.
Columbus wrote:
>>I do like that Mafia attitude, because it works. Diplomacy with a military threat. Its not a difficult concept.
Oh really? It works? Maybe you should stop watching so many TV shows and look what happened in Iraq.