I guess we shouldn't talk to Iran after all

[Kelly the Dog]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvFME-l...mwQhWgD937EM0O2

WASHINGTON (AP) — Five former secretaries of state, gathering to give their best advice to the next president, agreed Monday that the United States should talk to Iran.

 

The wide-ranging, 90-minute session in a packed auditorium at The George Washington University, produced exceptional unity among Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Warren Christopher, Henry A. Kissinger and James A. Baker III.

[DC Tom]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvFME-l...mwQhWgD937EM0O2

 

Of course...WE ARE TALKING TO IRAN.

 

[Kelly the Dog]

Of course...WE ARE TALKING TO IRAN.

 

I know that, of course. The post was about McCain's stubborn stance that we shouldn't talk to their leaders, but perhaps keep open lines of communication at lower levels and continue to threaten them. He seems to want to talk to them less than Bush Administration does, and these five, three of whom worked for Republican Presidents were criticizing Bush's slow policy, according to the article.

The Bush administration has dragged its feet on even minimal contact with Iran under hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a course the five former secretaries of state implicitly criticized.

[DC Tom]

He seems to want to talk to them less than Bush Administration does, and these five, three of whom worked for Republican Presidents were criticizing Bush's slow policy, according to the article.

 

Bush's "slow policy" includes the first ambassadorial-level contact in thirty years.

 

The real complaint they have is that they want unilateral negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program, cutting out the EU, Russia, and our Arab allies (which, on this issue, is pretty much all of them). And yet...I thought unilateral action by the US was supposed to be a bad thing?

[Kelly the Dog]

Bush's "slow policy" includes the first ambassadorial-level contact in thirty years.

 

The real complaint they have is that they want unilateral negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program, cutting out the EU, Russia, and our Arab allies (which, on this issue, is pretty much all of them). And yet...I thought unilateral action by the US was supposed to be a bad thing?

I wouldn't think unilateral action for diplomacy would be considered a bad thing. Unilateral action for war would be.

 

The point of the post is that I was surprised that these five agreed on it, with such disparate political philosophies. If Baker and Allbright and Kissinger and Powell can agree on one thing, it's probably a decent course of action.

[finknottle]

I know that, of course. The post was about McCain's stubborn stance that we shouldn't talk to their leaders, but perhaps keep open lines of communication at lower levels and continue to threaten them. He seems to want to talk to them less than Bush Administration does, and these five, three of whom worked for Republican Presidents were criticizing Bush's slow policy, according to the article.

 

Keep in mind what all five have in common: they were Secretaries of State, the nations chief Diplomats. It is no suprise that the would argue for a greater role for the Department of State.

 

If you lined up the last five DCI's, you would find a unanimous agreement that greater intelligence support is crucial. And if you lined up the last fice heads of the Department of Commerce, they would agree unanimously that trade with Iran is the key to bringing them into the Western fold.

[StupidNation]

I wouldn't think unilateral action for diplomacy would be considered a bad thing. Unilateral action for war would be.

 

The point of the post is that I was surprised that these five agreed on it, with such disparate political philosophies. If Baker and Allbright and Kissinger and Powell can agree on one thing, it's probably a decent course of action.

 

Excellent points.