‘Negotiating’ with terrorists

It appears that both Barack Obama and The Star, in “The Buzz” missed the point of President Bush’s comment that we should not negotiate with terrorists. (5/16, A-2, “Negotiate with Gadhafi? He thought it was Daffy!”)

I think it was obvious that Bush was referring to ex-president Carter’s recent visit with Hamas and terrorists in Syria rather than what Obama’s policy might be. Not only does Carter have a habit of being punked by terrorists from Iran to North Korea — he was advised by the administration that his plans to meet with these terrorists were neither advised nor welcomed.

In an effort to paint Bush as one who negotiates with terrorists, “The Buzz” stated that he negotiated with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. This is not true. Bush and his father played hardball with Gadhafi, and it was Gadhafi who came to the younger Bush stating that he would abandon the creation of weapons of mass destruction. This was not a negotiation; it was an unconditional surrender. That is what you get from standing tall against terrorism versus what has been accomplished via Carter’s 30 years of trying to appease terrorists.

Paul McWilliams
Overland Park

Our arrogant, inconstant, flagrant “crippled duck” president addresses the Israel Knesset. He says those who advocate meeting with countries (he calls them terrorists) who disagree with his failed foreign policies are comparable to Nazis.

It’s not surprising that he would do so. He wants to shift attention from his five-year failed war with its ever-changing goals, loss of too many valued lives and massive national debt.

This septuagenarian Korean veteran prays: “From nine more months of presidential venality and incompetence, Oh Lord Deliver Us!”

Eugene Bova
Overland Park

Comments

[Interface]

good factual review of the issue:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccain_obama_and_kissing_dicta.html

[Interface]

Just to be clear, that last post was a copy and past from the site linked -- not my words.

[Interface]

Sen. John McCain may be blasting Sen. Barack Obama now for his willingness to meet with Iran's leaders, but Sen. Chuck Hagel -- a close friend of McCain's -- suggested tonight that McCain's rhetoric stems from presidential politics, not conviction.

The Nebraska Republican, sharing the stage with actor Michael Douglas at an event sponsored by the Ploughshares Fund, acknowledged that he and McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, have had their differences over Iraq and other foreign policy issues.

But Hagel, who advocates direct talks with Iran, said that he has had long talks with his "very good friend" and if McCain is elected, Hagel was sure that McCain "would consult with experts" and "I have to believe John would be responsible here. He understands the big picture."

"Presidential candidates will say many things in a campaign," Hagel added. "I am very upset with John about some of things he is saying... He is smarter than some of the things he is saying."

Posted at 10:19 PM ET on May 20, 2008

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/20/hagel_suggests_mccain_will_cha.html

[Jim]

I'm open to persuasion on this, but I'll just add that CNN was not the only outlet to get that info from the white house. And I wouldn't hang my hat on newsbusters, which is notorious for its rightwing bias. Try another news source, a reputable one, and I might be convinced.

[Kate]

Jim, I searched around a bit, and Ed seems to be the only reporter making that claim. All other references to it lead back to him. The NYT didn’t even stretch the story that much.

On the other hand, in his speech the President said, “Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away.” None of the candidates have suggested breaking ties with Israel in order to appease terrorists. Nothing pointed to Obama as the subject of the speech, well, at least until Obama identified himself as the reference.

Of course, Sunday he said that "tiny" Iran doesn’t pose a threat because they only spend “1/100th” of what we spend on defense – indicating that he knows little about asymmetrical warfare.

[Marctnts]

Jim,

I'm not usually a "the media is biased" type of guy, but a little research on the CNN claim turned up MANY articles discussing what appears to be large overreaction by CNN. We'll never know whether Bush was referencing Obama or not, but I wouldn't hang my hat on CNN on this one.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/05/15/cnn-s-hypersensitive-reaction-bush-appeasement-comments

[Jim]

From Ed Henry's CNN piece on the Knesset speech:

"White House aides are acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats have publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad."

Interestingly, Obama has never mentioned wanting to meet with Ahmedinejad, something McCain stuttered and stammered over when he was confronted with the fact that the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is in charge of foreign policy for Iran. The fact that McCain doesn't know this is just another example of his over-simplified worldview. His incredibly dangerous foreign policy bluster shows how utterly unprepared he is to be President.

But hey, if "dealing with" Hamas can range from "bombing to a bed of roses," which is how his senior foreign policy advisor put it, then I suppose anything's possible.

[Engineer]

jack
Kate said it better and more completely as I wrote this and watched the ball game, but here goes:
IMO no sensible diplomat goes into a public session that does not have established limits. Dealing with the USSR and dealing with either Iran or Syria are two very different things. The USSR gained nothing from just talking to us and they could gain nothing from flouting and insulting us. The opposite is true of Iran and Syria. I am all for talking to them, but for doing it first through diplomatic channels until and agenda can be established. My thought is that for talks to be really productive you have to have some idea of what you can expert to get and what you can expect to give.

[Kate]

Engineer, at least when Carter was in charge we got to have second helpings. All he asked us to do was wear a sweater.

[Kate]

Jack, we talked to the Soviet Union because they had nuclear weapons. Read an interesting column on just that point:

“the entire point of our Iran policy is to prevent being put in the position of having to cut deals with a terrorist-supporting, radical Islamist non-rational state. When the enemy already has the capability of destroying you several times over, negotiations are needed to keep one side from initiating a war. Only an idiot would think that the negotiations intended on disarming the Soviets, or they us. The same dynamic applies to our engagement with Mao Zedong and Red China; Mao was smart enough to hold himself out as a potential partner in a power balance against the Soviets.
The Soviet Union collapsed economically; they did not just decide to capitulate. The Berlin Wall did not fall as a result of negotiations, but because the regime propping it up ceased to exist. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Because Ronald Reagan won an economic war with Moscow, forcing it to spend more and more and falling further and further behind. The Strategic Defense Initiative provided the coup de grace to the Soviets, who knew they could never match us in missile defense, and tried negotiating an end to the economic war instead, with disastrous results."
"That would be the same SDI that Democrats staunchly opposed, sneeringly called “Star Wars” and proclaiming it a threat to peaceful coexistence. They wanted a decades-long series of summits instead of the end of communism, which sounds strikingly familiar in Obama’s speech. Reagan had to fight the Democrats to beat the Soviets, not through presidential-level diplomacy but through economic isolation and military strength.”

[Engineer]

Jim
It not out of context, it's what he first said. Of course later on, apparently after supporters explained things to him, he did try to "cover up". But it's an opinion blog after all and I have my opinion as to who has been duped.

[Kate]

“the White House told the media that the speech was intended as a knock on Obama. Several news outlets reported that at the time”

Could you provide links. I haven’t found anything to support this. I did find an AP article in which Obama claims ownership of appeasement by saying that Bush attacked him. The article states “In turn, White House press secretary Dana Perino denied that the Knesset remark was aimed at Obama. In fact, the language is fairly typical for Bush speeches, and Gordon Johndroe, a national security spokesman for the president, said Bush was referring to "a wide range of people who have talked to or suggested we talk to Hamas, Hezbollah or their state sponsors" over a long period of time.” http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-pobush0516,0,117406.story

It seems that if the White House’s story changed, the article would have been mentioned it.

And I found an analysis that says “White House officials said the remarks were not aimed at Obama. Obama, who is closing in on the Democratic nomination, called the claim "disingenuous." http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jhuSCSHf0_NnOvpd5kajS5SdNBdgD90N0V6O0

I would think Obama’s people would use a harsher word than “disingenuous” if the White House had changed their story as you claim.

[jack]

"IMO no skilled diplomat ever enters into public conversations without having first established limits."

What were the pre-conditions when Reagan went to Iceland?

Matter of fact, what were the pre-conditions on the fifty years of conversations we had, at the highest level, with the Soviet Union?

What were the pre-conditions on Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt et al vis a vis the President's just completed trip?

Then there is the method prior Presidents have used to get what they wanted. When establishing relatons with China, Nixon first went and ate dinner and met the leadership. Then they played ping-pong, traded pandas and had lots of talks between low level diplomats. Finally, under Bush 1 I think, relations were normalized. Sure looks like he final "conversation" with China was the culmination of talks throughout the terms of four Presidents.

Even our current President's great "success" with North Korea came about ONLY because we talked to them. Yeah, I know, we "only" talked to them with others present. Kinda like being chaperoned I guess. But the fact is we talked to them.

Telling another nation, "We will talk to you only after you do what we want" is not diplomacy. It is just childish.

[Interface]

from that link:

"You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well," [former Secretary of State James] Baker said. "Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

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."

[Interface]

On appeasement:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/20/baker_says_talking_with_enemie.html?hpid=topnews

[Jim]

KC Star,

After you finish bouncing off the walls, go back and read some more.

[Jim]

Eng,

You continue to dishonestly take Obama out of context. I used to think this was just because people like the morons at Powerline had duped you. I'm beginning to think you just deliberately do it yourself.

[Engineer]

Jim
Obama's problem is his naive statement that he would talk with Iran, Syria, etc, without preconditions. IMO no skilled diplomat ever enters into public conversations without having first established limits. However I learned a long time ago that the more you knew and learned about all sides of some questions the more difficult it became to make a decision. On that basis one can readily see how easy it will be for Obama to make decisions on foreign policy. Unfortunately that says nothing for the probable correctness of the decisions or the felicitousness of their results. Oh well, I heard him in effect tell us last night that in the future we can't expect to eat all we want. Perhaps he is serious about changing this Country.

[kcstar_is_one_sided]

Jim -

I certainly, did. And you do that.

[Jim]

Iggy40,

Changing the subject does not alter the fact that the White House told the media that the speech was intended as a knock on Obama. Several news outlets reported that at the time. It was only after the controversy erupted that they changed their official line.

Makes me wonder what they (and you) are afraid of? Why backtrack?

[Jim]

KC Star,

Your emotional rant last night did little to prove your point. If you think I was dealing with your point dishonestly, you did not show how. I won't rehash it here, but I'm happy to scroll down to yesterday's thread and go over it with you there.

[kcstar_is_one_sided]

Jim -

"Seriously, do you ever say anything that isn't blatantly dishonest?" Should you really say anything given your flat out lies yesterday?

[Chris40]

The Obama is on record for promising to talk, without precondition, to the leaders of both Iran and North Korea.

In his own words and on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k

[Jim]

Neandercons love to play guess the quote, so let's play some today. Who said this:

"Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

Was it:

a) Neville Chamberlain
b) "San Fran Nan Gram" Pelosi
c) Jimmy Carter
d) James Baker

Ooops. I forgot, neandercons only like to play the dishonest, cherry-picking "embarrass the democrats" version of Guess the Quote, not the one that contradicts their phony rhetoric. My mistake.

(In case you're curious, though, it was James Baker, the very accomplished and distinguished former Secretary of State.)

[Jim]

"I don't understand why when someone mentions appeasement that Obama automatically thinks they are talking about him.

Guilty conscience maybe?"

Maybe it's because the White House told the media that it was about him, before chickening out and suddenly changing their story.

Seriously, do you ever say anything that isn't blatantly dishonest?

[Chris40]

I don't understand why when someone mentions appeasement that Obama automatically thinks they are talking about him.

Guilty conscience maybe?

[jack]

Wait! Wait! My esp is working! Number of campaign promises that will be kept, regardless of who wins the election?

ZERO.

Same as the last several elections.

Noted appeasers who have said we should be talking to Iran: Condoleeza Rice, Robert Gates, John McCain.

[Rogue]

Hey Gay Hawk while your after Bush, you might look up Joseph Kennedy as well. Hell Teddy the Swimmer and crew are still getting royalties off of Scoth being imported. Profiteering,,,,nah,couldn't be.

As much as you loons would like to make "Swift Boat" a verb, it is a noun. Over 165 Combat Vets called Kerry's rep into question. Kerry is the one who condemend me and my fellow troopers as those who "raped and pillaged in the manner of Genghis Khan." His picture resides in the Museum of Freedom in Hanoi.

So far as I know Ike's,or McCarthur's picture does not appear in North Korea, just Madelin Albright's.

I did not insult Mr. Bova's service I would never do so to any fellow Vet. I only cast apersions upon his politics,which as far as I know is still OK, isn't it GayHawk?

[pmcw]

In editing my submission, "Negotiating With Terrorists," The Star omitted the last sentence from the second paragraph. In the original submission it read as follows:

"The implication here is that Carter violated the Logan Act by following through with the meetings."

To learn about the Logan Act, please run a Google search. When you do you'll see that Carter displayed a blatant disrespect for our Federal Laws.

[JayhawkinMO]

Mr. Bova: Do not concern yourself with Rogue's disrespectful comments. He's just trying to "Swift Boat" a Korean War vet.
Rogue: What happens in nine months? I was hoping you might forget altogether, but the presidential election is but 4-1/2 months away.
Rogue conservatives like Rogue would rather just nuke countries like Iran and not engage them... Hey! Let's talk about how Bush's grandfather collaborated with the Nazis...

[katman]

I'm not as interested in who will be our next President as who will be our next national "whipping boy". Since 2000's election with the hanging chads, the national pasttime has become "Bush bashing".

Soon we'll have a lame duck season waiting to see which 'campaign promises' are likely to come true. "Politics are like poker".

KATMAN

[Rogue]

Mr. Bova, you are a prime example of the old adage that age does not necessarily mean wisdom.

I suppose you thought it fine that Jimma Carter kised the butt of Hamas, and that San Fran Nan Gram Pelosi played kissy fingers with the ruler of Syria who supplied terrorits and munition to kill our guys in Iraq. That was just hunky dory,huh Bova.

Oh, Lord thank you that fools like this only have one vote in nine months.