A New Age Foreign Policy

[finknottle]

Recall the tempest when in the primaries Obama made a big deal about the importance of talking to our adversary's instead of isolating them, extending an open hand, and so on.

 

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

 

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

 

Senator Obama?

 

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

 

(APPLAUSE)

 

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

 

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

 

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

 

Obama defended his position during the debates with McCain

 

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

 

 

So it was a bit of a suprise to me when to learn that Ahmadinejad has taken him up on the offer:

http://www.france24.com/en/20100804-us-reb...ran-call-summit

 

On Monday, Ahmadinejad criticized Obama for missing "historic opportunities" to repair the broken relations with Iran, which has had no diplomatic ties with Washington for three decades, and offered to meet him.

 

"We are hopefully coming for the UN assembly," Ahmadinejad said in an address to expatriate Iranians which was broadcast live on state television.

 

"We are ready to sit down with Mr. Obama face-to-face and put the global issues on the table, man-to-man, freely, and in front of the media and see whose solutions are better. We think this is a better approach."

 

You're on, Mr President!

[IDBillzFan]

Recall the tempest when in the primaries Obama made a big deal about the importance of talking to our adversary's instead of isolating them, extending an open hand, and so on.

 

 

 

Obama defended his position during the debates with McCain

 

 

 

 

So it was a bit of a suprise to me when to learn that Ahmadinejad has taken him up on the offer:

http://www.france24.com/en/20100804-us-reb...ran-call-summit

 

 

 

You're on, Mr President!

Ahmadinejad and Obama meet one on one.

 

It will be a lot of things, but man-to-man ain't one of them.

[drnykterstein]

So Ahmadinejad criticizes Obama and you side with Ahmadinejad?

 

I don't know the details of this situation, but you using Ahmadinejad's words to defend your position makes me wonder.

[Nanker]

Recall the tempest when in the primaries Obama made a big deal about the importance of talking to our adversary's instead of isolating them, extending an open hand, and so on.

 

 

"In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

 

So it was a bit of a suprise to me when to learn that Ahmadinejad has taken him up on the offer:

http://www.france24.com/en/20100804-us-reb...ran-call-summit

You're on, Mr President!

 

Nah, it all depends on what the meaning of the word(s) "first year" is. He's got an out, now. He's in the second year of his failed administration.

[/dev/null]

Nah, it all depends on what the meaning of the word(s) "first year" is. He's got an out, now. He's in the second year of his failed administration.

 

Kind of like how some folks on TSW argued that JP Losman was still technically a rookie in his second, third, and fourth season?

[finknottle]

So Ahmadinejad criticizes Obama and you side with Ahmadinejad?

 

I don't know the details of this situation, but you using Ahmadinejad's words to defend your position makes me wonder.

 

Obama went out on a ledge on the preconditions issue (a terrible decision, IMO, but so be it). Ahmadinejad is seems to want to take him up on it. I'm not siding with Mr A, I simply want to see (1) if Obama sticks to what he was selling, and (2) if the media calls him on it.

 

It looks like no and no. His vision of negotiations with trouble-makers without preconditions was just another bit of naivete lapped up by his base during the campaign, but which disappeared quietly and quickly once he was in office.

 

What are your views? Has Obama abandoned his promise for negotiations?

[Nanker]

Obama went out on a ledge on the preconditions issue (a terrible decision, IMO, but so be it). Ahmadinejad is seems to want to take him up on it. I'm not siding with Mr A, I simply want to see (1) if Obama sticks to what he was selling, and (2) if the media calls him on it.

 

It looks like no and no. His vision of negotiations with trouble-makers without preconditions was just another bit of naivete lapped up by his base during the campaign, but which disappeared quietly and quickly once he was in office.

 

What are your views? Has Obama abandoned his promise for negotiations?

I don't think it was much of a ledge, actually. He was posturing during an academic debate and tried to show a bold albeit a theoretical gambit. His base cheered, many non-aligned undecided voters thought he scored points for being bold. However, the media, his base and the great unwashed will not hold him accountable for something so trivial as a campaign pledge. He is after all our first affirmative action President. He has to be given passing grades. He has all his life.

[GG]

Obama went out on a ledge on the preconditions issue (a terrible decision, IMO, but so be it). Ahmadinejad is seems to want to take him up on it. I'm not siding with Mr A, I simply want to see (1) if Obama sticks to what he was selling, and (2) if the media calls him on it.

 

It looks like no and no. His vision of negotiations with trouble-makers without preconditions was just another bit of naivete lapped up by his base during the campaign, but which disappeared quietly and quickly once he was in office.

 

What are your views? Has Obama abandoned his promise for negotiations?

 

Why do you need to explain the obvious?

[DC Tom]

So Ahmadinejad criticizes Obama and you side with Ahmadinejad?

 

I don't know the details of this situation, but you using Ahmadinejad's words to defend your position makes me wonder.

 

You do understand that Ahmadinejad is hosting Obama on his own petard with this demand, right? And that Ahmadinejad either gets concessions from Obama (i.e. an unconditional summit) and gets a political victory at home, or doesn't get any concessions...and gets a political victory at home?

[IDBillzFan]

You do understand that Ahmadinejad is hosting Obama on his own petard with this demand, right? And that Ahmadinejad either gets concessions from Obama (i.e. an unconditional summit) and gets a political victory at home, or doesn't get any concessions...and gets a political victory at home?

To which Conner will undoubtedly argue: Kirk > Petard.

 

Obama would do well to stay away from photos of him and Ahmadinejad together. The sheer visual of a man who willingly and publically murders his own people for dissent standing with a man unwilling and unable to to stop him will be a very powerful image...and not in a good way. It's one thing that Obama seems weak and unable to be a leader; it's another for him to physically look that way.

[erynthered]

A C note say's that if they do meet, obama will bow to him.

[DC Tom]

A C note say's that if they do meet, obama will bow to him.

 

Not hold hands, like Bush did with Arab leaders?

 

 

 

What a set of completely stupid and useless criticisms...

[erynthered]

Not hold hands, like Bush did with Arab leaders?

 

 

 

What a set of completely stupid and useless criticisms...

 

 

Yes. Yours usually are.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

And Lincoln promised he would never interfere with slavery. So what?

 

Things change. Ahmadinajad is the target of bomb attempts now and needs to look like a legitamate leader, which many in his country do not consider him to be. Things change, politicians say things they don't mean...again, so what?

[DC Tom]

And Lincoln promised he would never interfere with slavery. So what?

 

Things change. Ahmadinajad is the target of bomb attempts now and needs to look like a legitamate leader, which many in his country do not consider him to be. Things change, politicians say things they don't mean...again, so what?

 

 

That would sound more reasonable coming from someone who wasn't such an excessive shill.

[3rdnlng]

And Lincoln promised he would never interfere with slavery. So what?

 

Things change. Ahmadinajad is the target of bomb attempts now and needs to look like a legitamate leader, which many in his country do not consider him to be. Things change, politicians say things they don't mean...again, so what?

 

Somehow I have the feeling that you feel it's ok for politicians on the left to say things they don't mean, but I'm willing to bet that you would change your tune, or not be so generous of thought if it was a politician on the right.

[OCinBuffalo]

Somehow I have the feeling that you feel it's ok for politicians on the left to say things they don't mean, but I'm willing to bet that you would change your tune, or not be so generous of thought if it was a politician on the right.

"There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction"^TM

 

....so, therefore....

 

That means that spending astronomical amounts of money we don't have, and having the government take over half the private sector is justified.

 

Let's all vote for a pissant political hack with no qualifications and 0 leadership ability!

[3rdnlng]

"There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction"^TM

 

....so, therefore....

 

That means that spending astronomical amounts of money we don't have, and having the government take over half the private sector is justified.

 

Let's all vote for a pissant political hack with no qualifications and 0 leadership ability!

 

Obama has come to the rescue of the Conservative cause. It wasn't that long ago that it was predicted that our country was headed towards real socialism. His push to make it happen so quickly and his incompetence and arrogance has done more for conservatism than a victory by McCain could ever have done. The elections this November should start to really turn the tide and scare the hell out of any politician remaining in office that isn't right of center.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh, and as far as the OP goes?

 

You can't get anywhere without respect. If the other guy believes that respect comes from fear, then you must make him fear you. If he believe that it comes from honor, then you must be honorable.

 

The Iranian leadership clearly believes that respect comes from fear. Their entire regime and ideology is based on it. Submission to Allah blah blah, which really means submission to the Ayatollahs, dudes running around in cars beating people? All of it is based on fear.

 

And given this, Obama goes in and plays the candy ass, intellectual, college professor, Woodrow Wilson type? No surprise the Europeans, who are led by candy ass, intellectual, college professor types, all loved Obama and believed in this "engagement" crap.

 

But clearly, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and every other piss ant, tin pot dictatorship, oligarchy and theocracy is not run by candy ass, intellectual, college professors. Instead, they are run by low-life street thugs turned-Tony Mantana.

 

Obama has 0 respect in the international problem child community, and therefore, nobody cares what he says. If I was a soldier in any army, and you told me that I was going to fight against an army with Obama as its leader? My morale just went up 20 points. Hmm...now I know what it must have been like for a rebel infantryman knowing his leader was Lee, and the other guy's was Burnside.

[finknottle]

Why do you need to explain the obvious?

 

I was speaking to Conner.