Yesterday's counter attack by Barack Obama was not as much of a climbdown as I originally thought. Barack is now again defending his willingness to meet our enemies "without preconditions." From the Hotline:
Barack Obama continued to frame his dispute with Hillary Clinton this a.m. as old thinking versus a new approach. He said Clinton's views mirror those of the Bush admin.-- to meet with enemy leaders only after they met a set of preconditions. Obama said he's willing to meet them w/o preconditions, but not w/o preparation (and again, not just for coffee).
Engaging our adversaries "allows us to send a message to the rest of the world," he said, which "increases our leverage" in trying to deal with other problems. Obama also challenged reporters to question Clinton's campaign about whether they "are walking back" her statements on the issue.
Whatever else it is, this is liberalism through and through, the idea that we can solve all these problems through talking. Sometimes it's true, but more often than not the old adage is more accurate: "Diplomacy is the art of saying, nice doggie, while reaching for a stick".
In this case Iran will be the one saying "nice doggie" to us until they get the bomb. Then they can say and do whatever they want. And what they want is not good for anyone.
What Obama's saying plays well with Democrats, but in the general election not so much. Too many Americans know that in negotiations, the one who goes first is the loser.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 3)
1. Obama is a fool. He knows that there would have to be conditions. Hillary is right on this issue.
Patrick at 10:36AM on Jul 27th 2007
2. On the contrary, Obama is absolutely right. Did not talking to Iran stop them from their quest to acquire nuclear weapons. Wouldn't you want to try something new?
dumbalika at 12:12PM on Jul 27th 2007
3. Whether or not he's right, he's still coming off as inexperienced. And that's a big problem.
Guy in a Suit at 12:53PM on Jul 27th 2007
4. I personally think that instead of Mr Barack Obama and Mrs Hillary Clinton get at each other they should come together and unite america as one because the Bush family degrade the country and most of all the citizens of this holy land so we want new blood in the white house and i think that this country need people like Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama in the white house and what will be good for america is that they both come from a different back ground and can do very good for this country. Now they both must run for president but the good thing is the one that rise to presidency and achieve that position as the president of the united state will have the other as vice president but they have to agree on what is good for the citizen of this lovely country now america i sure you will agree with me. Yours V-Scott
Mr V -Scott at 8:29PM on Jul 27th 2007
5. To answer #2: of course i want to try something new. But Clinton's strategy is something brand new. Bush does not talk to Iran. Clinton wants to talk, but in an effective manner. And that means having some conditions. The president cannot walk into a meeting with the president of possibly the biggest threat to the U.S. today without having conditions. Clintons wants intense diplomacy, Obama wants instant diplomacy. Instant diplomacy doesn't work. Fist you send diplomats and the secretary of state to meet with leaders. They lay down the groundwork and the conditions for a summit. Then the president responsibly meets with that leader, assuring that he/she and the U.S. is not put in jeopardy.
Stop believing what the Obama campaigns want you to hear. They want you to think Hillary is going to be like bush, therefore not talking to other countries. Well Hillary does want to talk to our enemies. But it has to be done safely and securely. Listen to her answer, she obviously does want talks, but you can also understand why the president must not rush into meetings. She said SHE would not promise to meet with all those leaders without conditions, she did say that she would talk with them though.
Look into history, when Reagan met with Russia, he had outlines serveral conditions. Obama is inexperienced and actually made me think: exactly what has he learned from being on the foreign relations committee. Tuesday & Wednesday, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, & Joe Biden, all of whom are on the committee, said that you HAVE to follow what Hillary said. And might I add if i can find Boxer's interview i will post it as she greatly details the diplomatic progress. After all she is the chairwomen for foreign relations with Asia.
Patrick at 3:20PM on Jul 27th 2007
6. everyone, including the media, has taken Barack Obama's words out of contact. He simply stated that as President of the United States, he would be willing to meet dictators without conditions. He never told anyone that he would be willing to meet without preparation. Hillary Clinton's answer was manipulative propaganda in itself. It was actually her answer that made everyone assume that Barack Obama was going to simply get on a plane and fly to another country. All Obama stated was that he would be willing to talk to dictators. What is naive and irresponsible about that?
y8m8c8 at 4:21PM on Jul 27th 2007
7. It clearly is naive and irresponsible to meet without conditions. Without conditions, the enemy will turn the entire meeting around to make the U.S. look bad. Without conditions, the meetings could go crazy. Conditions are needed, why doesn't anyone see that. Hey, don't listen to me, listen to those who are on the foreign relations committee. Listen to diplomats, listen to former secretary Albright.
Patrick at 7:07PM on Jul 27th 2007
8. When I was a teenager during the Vietnam war era, we used to say that wars should be fought one on one between the two leaders, to the death if necessary.
I'll bet we'd have far fewer wars, this current one in particular.
Steve Bonomo at 7:12PM on Jul 27th 2007
9. and Barrack Obama said today....
blah blah blah blah, duh duh duh duh..........blah blah blah blah, duh duh duh duh..........blah blah blah blah, duh duh duh duh..........blah blah blah blah, duh duh duh duh..........
theTmanxkl at 8:55PM on Jul 27th 2007
10. I think both Obama and Hillary's are acceptable. However Obama's view is more innovative. Hey, what are you guys afraid of about talking face-to-face with leaders like Chavez, Castro, Hamedjinadaj...No matter how crazy these rogue leaders are, they don't match in any way at all the might of the U.S, militarily and economically. And remember, military and economic might is one of the most important tools for an effective diplomacy. Obama- if elected president- can talk to Chavez, Castro, Kim Jon Il, etc...and use effectively the carrot and the stick at America's disposal. Also when some find Obama "inexperienced", i hope they haven't forgotten George W. Bush in 2000 who didn't even know the name of the president of Pakistan !!! So people, don't be skeptical...hope is on the way.
Seneque at 11:42PM on Jul 27th 2007
11. I believe if the democrates win we will be the big losers, oh you wont see it at first but i promise yu wil see it in abut three yrs. actually all the politicians are self serving, they take an oath to serve the people but we havnt been served at all..
esker532 at 3:17PM on Jul 28th 2007
12. Yes exactly Bush was inexperienced and look what happened. You proved my point.
Patrick at 10:10AM on Jul 28th 2007
13. Why doesn't everyone call him by his name? It is: Barack Husein Obama.
D. L. Buxton at 1:29PM on Jul 28th 2007
14. It seems to me that Obamillary are talking two sides of the same coin just to distance themselves from each other. Obviously, we need to talk to other nations, else we become the new isolated China. What I think Obama is saying is not that there won't be "conditions" but that he won't go with a set of demands. Rather he will have a frank discussion about what the other nation wants and needs rather than taking a bully position going in. He and Hillary are not that far apart, so they must use terms to delineate themselves. Either way, it's certainly better than the Bush-Cheney fiasco we have now.
thesmiler at 9:09PM on Jul 29th 2007
15. I keep hearing the word "inexperienced" when referring to Obama. Try this for experience..the Bush group who got us into this war and those in congress who voted for it..Hillary being one all had experience...what they did not have was " sound judgement ". Given a choice between experience and good judgement, I'll take sound judgement everytime
mazd273 at 4:20PM on Jul 29th 2007