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 3 of 3)
31. To send troups to Pakastan without permission is about as idiotic as one can get. Pakastan has been resonably cooperative in arresting terrorists when posssible. The mountian regions are like the "no man's land" and no one has much control. It is an impossible terrain and would be a real blood bath for our troups. Also, unlike Iraq where we have hospitals immediately avialable, it would be impossible to bring wounded troups to medical care immediately.
Muerl Liddell at 12:35PM on Aug 1st 2007
32. With apologies to those who want a quick read; hopefully the grammer is correct:
I think our "enemy" leaders would be less likely to characterize our leaders (and us) as evil monsters if they actually had some time to meet them on a personal level, and do some face to face talking. And I believe hostilities against us would be less likely if we had a president who could actually impress some of these folks, with his/her intelligence and humanity, While meetings must be very carefully prepared for and not undertaken casually, they are still very important to have, if only to establish a rapport through which one can begin to have influence. Gone are the days when the kind of influence we now need can be bought through such arrogant means as threats, force and "preconditions". In the end, what will win in the world's increasingly transparent court of opinion is the moral high ground, the ground of care and compassion for all, the belief that we are indeed our brother's keeper, no matter where on the planet he may be. There is a power in this principle that can transcend many differences, and open the door to understanding and trust, and thus to true progress toward a better world for everyone. Indeed it is a power that on some level is almost irresistible. But it also must be seen and felt, person-to-person, to be believable. Most assuredly I am not suggesting any such naive, "feel-good" dupefication proceedings as occurred between Chamberlain and Hitler. But in the end, I think, diplomacy is a personal undertaking, and much misunderstanding and ill-will might be avoidable if leaders of all stripes would agree to meet with each other more regularly. And the oft-recited fear that meeting with one's "enemies" somehow legitimizes them or lends more credibility to them, in my mind is just that - fear - which exudes an aura of weakness rather than strength. And after all, if we want to show the people of Venezuela that we are interested in them and care about them, who else are we going to meet with if not Chavez - Ozzie Guillen?
hp at 1:13AM on Aug 2nd 2007
33. Obama's insite on deploying troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan is right on the money. These countries are the base of operations in the Al Qeada organization. You must take the fight to them and not wait around for them to regroup and attack us again. The big problem is Pakistan, who knows dayum well that Osama Bin Laden is hiding out in Pakistan and being protected by the tribal warloads. the Pakistani Gov will not pursue him or anybody in his camp. They are a bunch of chicken-shit cowards and somebody has to let them know this fact. The new Pres. of the USA must have a backbone, and finally cut-off Pakistan if the Pakistani Gov doesn't help us capture or kill Bin Laden. We Need Obama to get Osama-Period!
OMAR at 4:08AM on Aug 2nd 2007