Dave, rather than being naivety as you put it, this was actually a blessing for Obama: now he could bring Bush to the field of 2008 political debates, now he could lump McCain together with Bush.

Let me get this straight, Bush makes a bang-up speech showing firm foreign policy leadership and Obama benefits from looking like a spineless appeaser in comparison?

Dave

BTW, did no one mention to Obama that he's not running against Bush? McCain can use Obama's foolishness against him without associating himself with Bush at all.

Dave

It amazes me how differently people can respond to the same event.

To even suggest that Bush was aiming his comments toward anyone other than Barack Obama and/or the Democrats in general is ludicrous. Nobody in their right mind believed anything otherwise.

"Claiming that he did not endorse unconditional negotiation with terrorist regimes when the video of him making that statement is available on YouTube isn't going to fly with anyone."

Watch the You Tube video. At no time does Obama use the word "negotiate." A negotiation is a different animal than simply talking with someone.
Perhaps by "talking" we could determine if there is anything over which to begin a negotiation.

How much longer are we to continue to pretend that these countries don't exist. Does Dave really believe that the Bush policy of burying his head in the sand has been profitable? While we continue to keep all of those countries at bay, refusing to deal with them out of some holier than thou attitude of moral superiority, one or more of them will eventually rise up and bite us in the ass. Who's the naive one?

And as Obama pointed out, Nixon and Reagan - "The Great Republican God Who Could Do No Wrong." -maintained dialogue with the leaders of China and the Soviet Union respectively.

Pretty much the entire press response to the incident gave an unqualified win to Obama. Dave's response is one of the few who found anything remotely in favor of Bush/McCain.

The more that Obama and the Democrats maintain the connection between McCain and Bush is a plus. McCain's sad task is to try to separate himself from his predecessor. I don't know if that's possible. He pretty much mimics Bush regarding all the major issues. Bush has managed to render himself the least popular president ever - at least ever since any kind of polling has been available. I don't know that I'd want to ride on his coat tails. Backlash can be a bitch.

B-tone

Your assessment is widely off the mark. Understandably, it may not have worked for you but it then again was it directed toward you or your demographic for approval?

"the media immediately jumped on the speech and turned it into an accusation against Obama."

That's because it was. CNN's Ed Henry reports, "White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party," and no doubt he wasn't the only media person to hear that.

Rather than sit back and wait for the conservative media to run with the story and tag him an appeaser, Obama got in front of it and led the discussion with his version of the story, an important campaign tactic, and if you don't think so, ask John Kerry. It doesn't matter what was said before because the public has a short attention span.

Obama jumping into the fray also allowed stories about Hilary's WV beatdown and Obama's difficulties with white rural voters to fall by the wayside, another good tactic.

Considering their approval ratings, Obama is better served to be running against Bush than he is McCain.

He's not my guy, but Obama and his team aren't the amateurs you make them out to be.

It's a political mistake to elevate an opponents charge, but it is also a political mistake to ignore a charge in hopes of diminishing it. Obama may have made a mistake, but it's still very early in the campaign and these kind of mistakes will be forgotten and gone by November. Obama gets the benefit of learning something cheaply, if he puts it to good use in his political formation.

At this early stage they're just measuring reach. It'll get more interesting when they get warmed up.

I don't see how this exchange could have hurt Obama given his timely response. El Bicho's allusion to Kerry is apt. No candidate can let things like this go by without responding. I suppose Obama and his people may learn to modulate their responses a bit better.

But Bush's accusation that Obama and the Dems are "appeasers" similar to Chamberlain with Hitler is pretty shitty in anybody's book.

I think it's interesting that Bush's quote from a U.S. Senator actually came from a conservtive Republican from Idaho. Maybe Georgie should dust off his history books.

B-tone

Dave,

The facts are the facts. I think those who have spoken out here on this blog against your one-sided response to the issue are absolutely correct. As well, the evidence presented that Bsh aides asserted the Bush attack regarding appeasement was aimed directly at Mr. Obama is starck, clear and in-focus. Give us a break, we want real reporting, not opinion.

"BTW, did no one mention to Obama that he's not running against Bush?"

Most thinking people would beleive that Mr. Obama is aware of that. By casting any presidential candidate in such an ignorant light puts you in a questionable frame.

Here's the jist of it: All presidential candidates have surrogates and supporters who are well prepared to defend their candidate and deflect negative attention from their candidate. For any candidate to sit and do nothing about this shows no resolve, backbone, tenacity or with-it-ness to withstand agressive political tactics. Just like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama needs to address the connections between McCain and Bushs' policy. It's fair game since McCain is running on a similar failed political platform as we have seen the last 8 years.

Give us a break, we want real reporting, not opinion.

Then only read the pieces labeled "News."

This one is labeled "Opinion."

Yeah, Tom. I pretty much agree with you, but this ain't the CBS Evening News. This is an opinion page. No impartiality allowed.

B-tone

Actually, the part that amused me about Bush's Knesset speech is how he put some honey on his poisoned snake oil of "peace", and how the idiots in the Knesset swallowed it down.

Of course Obama is inexperienced, Dave! His knowledge is in how to slide by without doing anything substantive - when community organizers get tired or banging their heads against the wall, that is the pattern they most often fall into. It's relatively painless, and can lead to other things - like the Illinois legislature and the US Congress - even the presidency, if they do it right....

Face it, Dave.

If there are actually elections in November, and if the prick wins, and if he is allowed to take office, you'll be stuck with him.

For guys like me, the idiot is a beacon of hope - that the average Israeli will see a Jew-hater in office, and throw out (the window) the American puppets here....

Since when is the CBS Evening News impartial?

(Or Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.?)

You know Clav, I watch network news with some regularity, mostly NBC, but also CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and others. While CNN and MSNBC have commentators who are blatently biased, I cannot remember a single instance of obviously biased reporting on NBC, or NPR for that matter.

The attitude that all media are openly biased is pretty much ubiquitous here regardless of which side of the aisle.

Since you brought it up, give me a specific example of biased reporting from one of the major networks. I'm not talking about commentators like Keith Olberman or Bill O'Reilly, but news readers, if you will, like Brian Williams or even Katie Couric. Give me one.

B-tone

Does Dave really believe that the Bush policy of burying his head in the sand has been profitable?

No one is holding up Bush's foreign policy as an example of brilliance, though he has had his successes.

But the basic principle remains true. You don't hold open-ended talks with criminal regimes. You make them come to the table with something in hand to prove that they are in earnest, because they have already demonstrated that they are not trustworthy. It's like negotiating with someone holding hostages. You get them to release the women and kids to prove they are in earnest before you begin to negotiate over their demands.

Dave

Does Dave really pose on sites as Marion Berry? The mind boggles with questions.

That's because it was. CNN's Ed Henry reports, "White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party," and no doubt he wasn't the only media person to hear that.

Nonetheless, as it was worded, it was not an attack on any specific person or group. Obama could have used that as the basis for avoiding having to deal with the question directly, leaving answering the charges up to expendable surrogates. Obama really didn't want to legitimize the charge by addressing it, because his prior statements are a matter of record and he can't get away with just denying them as he has tried to do.

Rather than sit back and wait for the conservative media to run with the story and tag him an appeaser,

The conservative media has been calling various democrats appeasers for years.

Obama got in front of it and led the discussion with his version of the story,

Which was a transparent lie.

an important campaign tactic, and if you don't think so, ask John Kerry. It doesn't matter what was said before because the public has a short attention span.

The quotes can be brought up again and again and again by pundits and in commercials. There's no escaping the past.

Obama jumping into the fray also allowed stories about Hilary's WV beatdown and Obama's difficulties with white rural voters to fall by the wayside, another good tactic.

Hadn't considered that strategy. Seems a high price to pay, but it might have factored in.

Considering their approval ratings, Obama is better served to be running against Bush than he is McCain.

Except that McCain is making a pretty good case that he's running against the Democrats and the complacent fat-cat Republicans at the same time. No one sensible is going to confuse McCain and Bush, regardless of the limited congruency of their positions on Iraq.

Dave

"Nonetheless, as it was worded, it was not an attack on any specific person or group. Obama could have used that as the basis for avoiding having to deal with the question directly, leaving answering the charges up to expendable surrogates."

One of the knocks against Obama is that he will have a weak chin against Republicans in the Fall, and he's trying to counter that by jumping into the fray swinging. Again, his strategy may not be to court you, so your reaction to it may not matter to him.

"Obama really didn't want to legitimize the charge by addressing it, because his prior statements are a matter of record and he can't get away with just denying them as he has tried to do."

Public figures do it all the time. Works for some.

"Which was a transparent lie."

While you are correct, unfortunately in politics, a lie is in the eye of the beholder.

"Except that McCain is making a pretty good case that he's running against the Democrats and the complacent fat-cat Republicans at the same time."

We won't know until November if he makes a good enough case or not.

"No one sensible..."

Now, Dave "The bitch done set me up" Nalle, since when has voting been restricted to just the sensible people?

Inconceivable that Pres. Bush could have been referring to Jimmy Carter, recently seen putting flowers on his buddy Arafat's grave, or the administration of France, which has now publicly admitted they've been chatting up Hamas for a while.

You'd think that since he's trying to deny agreeing to talk to enemy regimes without preconditions, Obama would have the sense to change the Foreign Policy page of his website, which still says:

"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
and
"Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Scroll down to "Diplomacy" and "Talk to Foes and Friends"

Obviously, one of his staffers is at fault.

Again, you guys just can't see the forest for the trees. Obama did NOT lie. Never has he stated that he would "negotiate" nor did he refer to anything that can be remotely construed as "appeasement."

Regarding Bush: "...though he has had his successes."

Name one! Bush's administration has been a cluster fuck to this country since he entered the WH.

You all seem to believe that McCain is some kind of wise, crafty old fart who will out wit and out charge Obama in the fall. Did anyone see McCain's near melt down when challenged on the "Straight Talk Bus" regarding his hallucinogenic dreams about the world in 2013? He couldn't manage a coherent answer and his anger was mere seconds away from blowing the lid off the damn bus.

Anyone who thinks Obama will be a lightweight come fall is in for a surprise. What will surprise me is when the going really gets tough on old Johnnie and he doesn't pop his cork everytime one of his idiotic dreams is challenged.

Head to head in a debate, McCain doesn't stand a chance against Obama. Obama can and will remain cool under fire and can think on his feet. He will garner ALL the style points.(And, if you don't believe that counts, then you apparently don't believe in the efficacy of American advertising, the spine that supports our beloved capitalist economy.) It will be Kennedy/Nixon all over again. True, McCain doesn't suffer from five o'clock shadow or a pondering brow. But when the spittal starts flying, all the camera operators better have some paper towel handy.

B-tone

To think that a man named Barack Hussein Obama could be POTUS boggles the mind and strikes terror in the hearts of many. With a name like that he should be prez of some tiny country in the mideast or in Africa.

I don't like the company this dude keeps, like with the "Rev" Wright.

RL

RC er RL,

Yeah, it's all in the name, isn't it? I'm not sure the "dude" is still keeping company with the good Rev. Wright.

But at least you've found all the important issues from which to make an informed decision.

B-tone

Obama was politically astute to react the way he did.

Bush's foreign policy is a shambles, largely because HE won't listen; tying McCain to a meddling, floundering, impotent failure is exactly the right political message to get out.

Obama definitely IS running against Bush--his war, his economy, his foreign policy, his domestic screw-ups, and his intractable delusions. The more Bush says about Obama, the deeper the hole for McCain.

Once again Obama doesn't stand behind his words. He said he would 'talk' directly with terrorist countries like Iran. When somebody points this out, he cries like a little girl. Notice how everytime somebody points out his words and positions, he cries. Ya right, this guy is definitely presidential material.....

As an outsider, I'm having a little trouble understanding how someone isn't leadership material when they have a position that favours diplomacy to cowboy justice. Maybe that's just the "wussy Canadian" in me, but why wouldn't a leader with experience with Islam and an understanding of how to discuss issues with people of a different culture be an absolutely valuable tool considering the position the United States is in at this moment in their history?

Can somebody explain to me how somebody with a rational mind considers the idea of diplomatic negotiations, broader cultural understanding, and firm resolve as a negative notion to follow as the "leader of the free world?"

Also WB, since when is the act of defending one's position akin to "crying?" I saw no evidence of Obama doing anything other than defending his position as per negotiation. The mindgames and idiotic mumbo-jumbo pulled by mega media outlets in America seems to have reached more people than I thought. It now seems that individuals with no understanding of other cultures, world history, or foreign affairs are sounding off on all issues related to the very different cultures of Iran, Syria, and other regions of the world that the United States continues to prove their ignorance with.

When will it end?

Jordan,

Yes!

Supposed hard liners don't get it. They can't seem to imagine anyone with intelligence and knowledge could run a government. Given recent history, I guess that's understandable.

As with you, I saw no "crying" from Obama. He responded with surety and firmness. This guy is going to be no pushover for neither the "terrorist" regimes nor for Mr. McCain.

B-tone

Arguing that there is a distinction between "talking" and "negotiating" when it comes to the President is false. We already have backdoor channels to "talk" with Iran. For the President of the US to visit Iran or host the Iranian leader would certainly involve "negotiations" and would give the Holocaust deniers who advocate genocide for Jews more diplomatic recognition than they deserve

WB:

Obama basically said with confidence that he was ready to debate Bush & McCain on foreign policy at any time. That's more a growl than a cry.

Joe, as much as I hate to say this, I'm also not sure how much "diplomatic recognition" the United States deserves.

And now, I shall go hide in a hole.

Jordan,

More than Iran. Also, if you believe America is on the level of Holocaust deniers advocating genocide, you ought to let your elected officials know that you support cutting diplomatic ties with America.

I think that although Obama won the battle he may be in danger of losing the war. I can foresee an ad with his original statement about meeting unconditionally with every tyrant under the sun, with his latest response and he will not only point out the fact that he is in fact an appeaser but also that he can't be trusted

Well that's just it. There most assuredly are Holocaust deniers in the United States, possibly even some in the administration and in levels of government, but in no way would I ever advocate cutting diplomatic ties with them because I realize the danger of becoming an isolationist state.

I do know that the United States has supplanted governments on just about every continent on earth and installed dictators that exceeded the cruelty of the previous governments. I do know that the United States has supported genocidal regimes because it supported their interests. This is simply historical fact. But again, I reiterate, I do not support cutting diplomatic ties with the United States. It is a dangerous, arrogant, and costly thing to do.

But Jordan, you must understand that if the US involves itself in support of a dictatorial regime, and/or one that is genocidal, that's okay, because we're the "good guys," and anything that furthers our cause is therefore, inherently good. We wear the white hats. The bad guys wear the dusty black hats that always get knocked off in a fight while our pristine white ones stay firmly affixed to our noble brows. And the bigger the hats, the closer we walk with god.

B-tone

"And the bigger the hats, the closer we walk with god."

Except if it's a sombrero.

But sombreros are really good for napping.

So you are saying that having a Holocaust denier inside a government is the same as making it the official position of a government? That's weak. I'm sure you can find Holocaust deniers in the Canadian government. Does that mean it's your government's official position?
Also, apart from supporting the governments in Guatemala and El Salvador, what genocidal regimes did we support? The communist-backed groups in those countries made terrorism their official policy, so they weren't much different from the governments.
Again, if you believe that America has a genocidal policy position like Iran, stop thinking about your pocketbook and start supporting the ending of diplomatic relations with us. Refusing to recognizing such a government is not isolationism. Not even close.

>>Can somebody explain to me how somebody with a rational mind considers the idea of diplomatic negotiations, broader cultural understanding, and firm resolve as a negative notion to follow as the "leader of the free world?"<<

Because he thinks that you forgive state sponsors of terror BEFORE the make a good faith effort at addressing their crimes, rather than after. The rest of it all sounds great, but its his judgement and recognition of the fact that these ARE criminal regimes which is being called into question.
>>I can foresee an ad with his original statement about meeting unconditionally with every tyrant under the sun, with his latest response and he will not only point out the fact that he is in fact an appeaser but also that he can't be trusted<<

No need to forsee it. Several versions have already been made by various PACs and are available on YouTube. Some of them are quite effectively done.

>>I do know that the United States has supplanted governments on just about every continent on earth and installed dictators that exceeded the cruelty of the previous governments.<<

If you look at the record on this you'll find that in most cases the dictators supported by the US were far less destructive than the alternative they replaced and in many cases they were the first step in a transition to popular, representaitve government.

>> I do know that the United States has supported genocidal regimes because it supported their interests. This is simply historical fact.<<

Really? Which 'genocidal' regimes would those be? We've supported some bad guys, but the only genocidal one I can think of would be Turkey and if we're guilty there then we're in good company.

>>

>>But Jordan, you must understand that if the US involves itself in support of a dictatorial regime, and/or one that is genocidal, that's okay, because we're the "good guys," and anything that furthers our cause is therefore, inherently good.<<

I realize that Baritone is being facetious here, but in fact, if you judge the actions by long-term intent, the fact that our ultimatge goal in these cases was the greater good for America, it's people and the world as a whole, then some harsh measures along the way can be justified. In fact, since our government is just the government of the US, the mere fact that these actions were taken in the best interests of the US justifies them on a purely objective basis.

Dave

Really, the question boils down to: Do you support diplomatic recognizing and elevating the diplomatic status of a regime that advocates genocide as an official policy position?
"America did it too" is not an answer. And moreover, if you support us recognizing Iran, then what problem do you have with our recognizing and giving military aid to Guatemala and El Salvador? After all, wouldn't not doing so be "isolationist?"

Dave,

Turkey's genocide occurred right before we went to war with them and after we went to war against them, so I don't know if that counts, unless they still officially advocate mass murder of Armenians. We are also holding Turkey off in Kurdish Iraq.

Joe:

Since when is it the official position of the Iranian government to deny the Holocaust? The Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei and Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati, the adviser to the Supreme Leader of Iran, both acknowledge the Holocaust as a genocide. In fact, Velayati and Khamenei continue to press for negotiations with the United States but all of the attention is instead focused on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his outlandish statements. Many in Iran protest Ahmadinejad's presidency and want him out of office, much like many in your country want your president out of office. There is much disparity within the offices of Iranian government when it comes to Ahmadinejad, Holocaust denial, Israel, and a host of other issues. Much like any other country in the world, there are differences of opinion. To characterize that as a governmental position would be inaccurate.

"Again, if you believe that America has a genocidal policy position like Iran, stop thinking about your pocketbook and start supporting the ending of diplomatic relations with us. Refusing to recognize such a government is not isolationism. Not even close."

That's a pretty presumptuous remark. My wife is an American. Should I not have married her because of how I feel towards the government that happens to be in power of her country? Should such a geographical conceit temper my good sense?

Refusing to recognize the government of a powerful nation with nuclear capabilities and a mind for war is a dangerous prospect, as is cutting diplomatic ties. It IS isolationism to refuse to discuss issues based on governmental positions. We negotiate with China regardless of the country's awful human rights record. We negotiate with several other countries based around the same idea. Should we cease negotiating and discussing important issues with all citizens of the world based on disagreements of governmental positions? I know it's trumpeted in the United States to not negotiate, but from my perspective I cannot see how this is a reasonable ideology that leads to any progress whatsoever.

Without communication, there can be no moving forward.

Dave,

Obama has mentioned nothing of "forgiving" state sponsors of terrorism in any context I can see. This seems more your presumption and less a factual assertion. If you can correct me on this with a source, I'd love to see it.

"If you look at the record on this you'll find that in most cases the dictators supported by the US were far less destructive than the alternative they replaced and in many cases they were the first step in a transition to popular, representaitve government."

Perhaps your interpretation of "less destructive" differs from mine, but I fail to see ANY record of a country that has been improved by such a regime change in the last few years. A quick glance through some recent examples will suffice:

Afghanistan: Taliban is back in control in large pockets of the country. The United States' path was a smart one (dropping agents into the country with suitcases full of money to buy the services of mercenaries to "find bin Laden") but the end results now have Canadian troops dying by the bucketload in a conflict long since forgotten by Americans.

Philippines: From 1945 to 1953 the United States fought the Huks while the Huks were still fighting the Japanese invaders. The US then installed a series of puppets as president, culminating in Ferdinand Marcos, one of that country's worst dictators. Marcos remained in power until 1981 (my wife's mother, incidentally, participated in protests against Marcos with her family until she left for the US in 1979-1980). The Philippines is still recovering.

Guatemala: Starting in the mid-1950s, a CIA-organized coup overthrew Jacobo Arbenz and initiated some 40 years of death squads, mass executions, and torture from installed leaders. The rationale for this was that Guatemala was on the verge of the ever-mystical Soviet takeover. The real danger was the spread of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other parts of Latin America. Think Venezuela for a similar current example.

Then there's Indonesia (twice), Vietnam, Cambodia, Zaire, the Dominican Republic (1963), Chile (sabotaging democratic elections), Nicaragua, Grenada, El Salvador, and Haiti to name just a few more. I'm hard-pressed to find any nation on that list of interventions that has improved itself from United States intervention and has become more democratic, more free, more competitive in the global market, etc.

"Really? Which 'genocidal' regimes would those be? We've supported some bad guys, but the only genocidal one I can think of would be Turkey and if we're guilty there then we're in good company."

There's Saddam Hussein in the 1980s to not look back that far. By helping his Ba`ath party seize power in '63 and turning the other way as he gassed his own people (going so far as to arm him to invade Iran and then betraying him when he fought Kuwait), I think that quantifies US support. There are more examples, many of which overlap with the list I gave above. Installing a genocidal dictator can surely account for supporting a genocidal regime, but I support if there are semantical games to play here we can have at it too.

Who you marry has nothing to do with who your government engages in negotiations. That is a red herring.

The Iranian government sponsors a Holocaust denial organization, which the Iranian foreign minister defended against international criticism. Sounds like an official position to me. Iranian officials disagreeing with their President's position doesn't determine the Iranian government's policy, no more than a Holocaust denier bureaucrat inside the Canadian government determines Canada's position on the Holocaust. When the President publicly advocates the extermination of Israel and denies the Holocaust, he is setting Iranian policy. It is the government's position.

America officially recognizes China because of Nixon's triangulation against Russia, and later in the belief that economic expansion would lead to political freedom. Neither of those apply to Iran.
Again, we have channels available if there is anything the Iranians would like to discuss with the "Great Satan." We don't have to give them diplomatic recognition with presidential negotiations for them to "talk" to us.

It is not isolationism to diplomatically cut off a country that officially advocates or practices genocide.

Joe, the twisting that you're doing with the idea of diplomacy is laughable. You deem diplomatic negotiations to infer acceptance of regime policies. I simply used your own philosophy against you and found that there was no weight to it, yet you seem to have drawn a much different conclusion.

"Do you support diplomatic recognizing and elevating the diplomatic status of a regime that advocates genocide as an official policy position?"

You're playing really fast and loose with the semantics, as many are apt to do when the original terms of the discussion are no longer suitable. Nevertheless, here's an answer:

I support diplomatic negotiations always, regardless of the evil of the regime. By not extending diplomacy, countries foster a policy of cowboy justice, of "go it alone" philosophies, and do nothing to help the world community actually "fight" the evil it sees. While there is no question that something must be done to combat genocidal regimes around the world and hold history's villains accountable, how much of that accountability needs to fall within America's own borders often goes unquestioned when pointing fingers at other nations. The result is an "us vs. them" policy that has haunted the United States for years, exceeds governmental representatives, and makes international enemies.

There is a reason "they" don't like you (America). And that reason has very, very little to do with being jealous of American freedoms and more to do with wanting to hold on to their own. Extending cultural understanding and diplomacy (read: communication) is the only way to "clear the air" and reach a global understanding. If America has no interest in that, that is another issue altogether. But the "holier than thou" posturing does little good for the international community that the rest of us like to live in.

The only regimes that even come close in that list to being genocidal ones are Guatemala and El Salvador. And they were fighting communist rebels who used the same type of terrorism against civilians.
And if you cite support for Hussien against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, then you can't complain about us taking him out.
Having Afghanistan on the list is ridiculous. Russia carried out a genocide in Afghanistan that we helped the Afghans fight against. America has been castigated for doing nothing in Afghanistan after the Russians left. Then when we go in and remove the Taliban and Al Quaeda from their position of power in Afghanistan after they committed mass murder, we are knocked for trying to do clean the place up and install a working government. Is the current Afghan government genocidal? And even if it was, how would that support recognizing another regime that officially supported the same thing?

Joe:

The foreign minister of Iran suggested that the Iranian president's denial of the Holocaust "is a matter for academic discussion and the West should be more tolerant of his views." This is not an affirmation of his philosophy, but an affirmation of his right to say so. Freedom of speech and all that crap. It did not establish Holocaust denial as the "official government position." Again, you continue to misunderstand the governmental structure in Iran. The president is not the highest office of power, but he is the "highest elected official." His views do not represent the whole of Iranian government any more than Dick Cheney's represent the whole of ours.

So when Hamid Reza Asefi supports not the statement by Ahmadinejad but his right to say it, it's pretty "American" of him to do so. We support the rights of white supremacist groups, religious fanatical groups, and others to say what they please whether we agree with it or find it abhorrent. The United States still offers tax breaks to religious groups who demand that Arabs be slaughtered and maimed and haven't exactly served up a good example in the world of international diplomacy with how they treat their own flock. How can the world expect America's standards of "not negotiating with those who deny the Holocaust" to be lofty when their domestic standards appear to cover different grounds?

Or are we merely singling Holocaust denial out as the one issue at the core of this discussion?

Jordan, there is plenty of sophistry and twisting words in your answers, so back at you.
So much for your pushing "communicating."

Diplomatic recognition carries with it the acceptance of the government as internationally and internally legitimate. There are some governments, believe it or not, that do not deserve that recognition. The Taliban/Al Quaeda in Afghanistan were one, the military junta in Burma is another, and Iran should remain on that list also.
You can argue about who should be on this list, or, what seems to be your position, that no one should be on the list even if they are currently carrying out a genocide, but don't pull the black and white position of either diplomatic recognition entailed by a presidential visit and public negotiations versus "cowboy justice." That is a simplistic reduction. State relations are much more complex than that. Obama doesn't seem to realize that.
If the Iranians want to communicate with us, or vice-versa, there are means to do so today without official state visits. They can "communicate" with us all they want. Perhaps if the Iranians extended some "cultural understanding" and "diplomacy" towards America, we might listen to what they have to say. It's a two-way street. I'm confident we aren't interested in listening to their current position on Israel and the Jews.
And I don't care what Iran thinks of us, anymore than I care what the Myanmar military regime thinks of us.

Joe, what amazes me most about your posts is your uncanny ability to read between the lines and term my remarks into one distinction or another.

"The only regimes that even come close in that list to being genocidal ones are Guatemala and El Salvador. And they were fighting communist rebels who used the same type of terrorism against civilians."

Nonsense. But if it serves the argument better, I'll willingly concede the term "genocidal" and swap it with "destructive."

"And if you cite support for Hussien against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, then you can't complain about us taking him out."

I don't recall "complaining" about "you (us)" "taking him out." I also didn't "cite support" for Hussein anywhere. I cited facts. I cited American support for Hussein, which occurred.

And Joe, no offense but your comments about Afghanistan merely confirm the rationale for having them on the list. The point was to suggest that these are not countries doing "better" than before United States intervention. You pick apart the list and play around with the terminology, but there is absolutely no denying the notion that the United States recent invasion of Afghanistan "to find bin Laden" had less than desirable results. And to head back to the Russian conflict, arming Afghanis to fight the invasion from Russia was one thing but leaving the Afghanis in the clutches of a rising and heavily armed fundamentalist power was quite another. It was a situation of out of the frying pan, into the fire, and many Afghanis (at least some of the ones I know) wonder if they wouldn't have been better off before.

Joe, my "flaw" here is in looking at things from a global perspective. You suggest or perhaps cite a "list" on which countries do not have the right to be seen as equal nation states. My question is this:

Who's "list" is it? Is it a list that serves the interests of the United States or is it a diplomatically achieved list through the global community? Do other countries also agree to "not negotiate" with the countries on the "list?" If so, what should be done with countries (like China) that do negotiate with countries on the "list?" Better still, can I see this list? How does one establish the criteria to be on the list? Who establishes the criteria? You? The United States? And if it is the latter, what moral high ground does the US claim so as to establish such a list?

Those are the questions that many of us in the broader community have, as it is apparent that the United States does claim moral high ground, that there is a "list" of countries the US refuses to negotiate with that the rest of us would rather "talk" to than ignore, and that the United States does practice a brand of "justice" that puts many other countries and their citizens at great peril. The rhetoric is heated.

It is attitudes like this:

"They can "communicate" with us all they want. Perhaps if the Iranians extended some "cultural understanding" and "diplomacy" towards America, we might listen to what they have to say. It's a two-way street. I'm confident we aren't interested in listening to their current position on Israel and the Jews."

that offer little hope to the rest of us in the international community. Your moral posturing is a good indicator as to the "right-fighter" that is the United States. It is also a good indicator as to what a "two-way street" is to an American. Seems to me that it's more like an uphill climb.

No, it's not nonsense. "Genocide" means the attempt to exterminate an entire people based on race, class, or religion. "Destructive" means to make worse or cause destruction. Genocide implies destructive, but destructive does not imply genocide.

So you support intervention in Afghanistan after Russia committed genocide there and then left, but you don't support intervening now and overrthrowing the Taliban and Al Quaeda government after they committed an act of war involving the killing of 3000 civilians? Russia destroyed Afghanistan. Blaming America for Afghanistan's conditions means blinding yourself to what Russia did to that country. It was going to be a mess no matter what was or was not done by other countries.

You can play semantic games with the statements of other Iranian officials all you want. The president of Iran has publicly declared a position on the Holocaust and the extermination of Jews in Israel. If this is not the official position, then it is up to the rest of the Iranian government to come out and publicly clarify its position. That is what other nations look for.
If Cheney makes a public statement that we should exterminate another nation, and the President does not publicly repudiate his statement, then like it or not, other nations are going to see it as our foreign policy position. A government official coming out and talking about "free speech" is not going to fool anyone. That is the way "diplomacy" works.

It's an "uphill climb" and "moral posturing" to ask someone to back off the position of exterminating another nation?
No, it's a simple request that is in the interest of American foreign policy goals and Middle East peace. I'm amazed you view being opposed to a Holocaust as "moral posturing" and "cowboy justice."

Dear Dave, even though I read this piece after writing my own, I did concur that perhaps it was a tiny error in judgment that the Dems picked up this placard and started carrying it, all the while debunking that they made it. Not necessary one might say if they just left it on the ground. Oh well can't win them all. But I did mention they might have given that strategy some thought.

PS: I think you left off a word or two on the footer for my "Mouth Bush erupts" and I see you changed my am-bush to Bush. Okay.

Heloise

"I wonder why his supporters aren't more concerned..."

Because many of them actually have brains and an attention span longer than a sound bite.

Your article is distorted. Bush made a cheap shot and Obama is saying the exact same thing now that he said then.

Budowsky's article says it best:

George Bush Demeans the Presidency, Attacks Obama in Israel (Brent Budowsky)

"It is astounding and possibly unprecedented for an American president to make partisan cheap-shot attacks on a domestic opponent while in a foreign land. Only George Bush is so unwise, so partisan, and so low-road to do what Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41 and Bill Clinton have never done.

Usually the issue is that domestic opponents should refrain from attacking an American president while the president is on foreign soil. Here, the American president lowers himself and demeans his office by attacking an opponent while the president is on foreign soil."

Yeah , yeah, I know what's coming. Your standard: Budowsky is a communist or "everyone knows" he's a blah blah blah.

I guess he's just inexperienced.

I hate to out-ruvy Ruvy here, but Obama was smart to make this an issue. There are a lot of people who will react negatively to anything Bush says. Even more will react negatively to anything involving Israel. These people don't need to look beyond the headlines; they see the keywords "Bush" and "Israel" and get angry about gas prices and WMD's. Obama doesn't have to make a coherent argument; he just has to present himself as against unpopular things.

Joe, I think the essence of the discussion comes down to one simple distinction:

You feel that the United States of America is a qualified moral agent to dictate who to be "diplomatic" towards and I do not feel that America has such qualifications based on its history.

While I am certainly not an apologist for Iran or any other country, I am hard-pressed to see the moral high ground of the United States. You utilize the position that the US shouldn't negotiate with Iran because they're a bunch of Holocaust deniers. Then we quibble about genocide, destructive regimes, etc. and try to trap one another through feats of illogical strength. Fine. That's all well and good, but it's quite obvious that the discussion still breaks down to the aforementioned distinction. Your manipulation and subjective understanding of history doesn't change what this discussion is all about.

I realize it's commonplace to infer that the United States does no wrong and that I should simply back away and assume my rightful place in America Junior, but for some reason my conscience kicks in.

"You feel that the United States of America is a qualified moral agent to dictate who to be "diplomatic" towards and I do not feel that America has such qualifications based on its history."

And there in a nutshell is why your argument holds no legitimacy at all, because America's history has zero relevance to the priorities which govern its foreign policy. The interests of the nation's citizens are what drive those decisions, not satisfying your peculiar notions of historical guilt. The only 'qualification' which is required is for the US to be a sovereign nation with a self-interest to act in.

Dave

...America's history has zero relevance to the priorities which govern its foreign policy. The interests of the nation's citizens are what drive those decisions...

so...the 'interests of the nation's citizens' are some kind of ahistorical phenomena unrelated to the country's past - interesting perspective for a retired history teacher

jordan, i think it's pretty obvious that if the u.s. wants to talk to iran, it doesn't have to wait for its history to decide the parameters of that talk.

joe, you act as if we really give a shit if iran acknowledges the holocaust and israel. of course we don't. we want something of them, and it's got nothing to do with either of those things. before we talk to them, we have to make them want something from us. otherwise, we have no leverage.

you two are barking up the wrong trees. it's not the history of the united states or of the holocaust that's the issue here. it's leverage, pure and simple. we have nothing to give them that we want to give them, and they want nothing of us that they really think they can get. so there is no talk. plus, we're all a bunch of arrogant fuckheads.

Dave,

Your article is, as usual, very well-written and is, as usual, wildly off-base.

Let's review:

Bush goes to Israel and uses a solemn and important occasion (Israel's 60th anniversary) to attempt to score a cheap political point by comparing his Democratic opponent to Nazi appeasers. Most people refer to such a stunt as deeply offensive and demeaning to the presidency, but to you it was a "bang-up speech showing firm foreign policy leadership."

McCain joins in on the fun, wrapping his arms around Bush and shouting (I'm paraphrasing), "Yeah, what he said!" Obama then shows his mettle by ripping into both Dumb and Dumber with the skill of a samurai swordsman, causing most people to applaud him for not putting up with such bullshit. But to you, Obama's strong defense shows "a fatal level of naiveté and poor judgment born of inexperience which could well doom his campaign."

The so-called president and the wannabe president clearly coordinated this ridiculous attack. It was obviously targeted at Obama, but when the attack got the reception of a skunk at a picnic, they quickly tried to cover their tracks -- "Obama who? Never heard of him. We were talking about Jimmy Carter. Yeah, that's it. Ol' JC...."

It's laughable...so if I may...HA!

But in the end, the joke's on McBush. By attacking Obama, they elevated his status to that of the presumptive nominee. They gave him a place on the stage, and he knows how to work the spotlight. By working hand-in-glove with each other, Bush and Mini-Me allowed Obama to demonstrate the clear nature of the Bush-McCain relationship, i.e. political siamese twins. It's exactly the message Obama wants to sink into the public psyche.

So in the end, Bush and McCain come out smelling like turds while Obama comes out smelling like a rose. Speaking of which, he should probably send a dozen red ones to the White House.

Yeah , yeah, I know what's coming. Your standard: Budowsky is a communist or "everyone knows" he's a blah blah blah.

Actually, I know nothing at all about Budowsky or his politics or anything else about him. All I know is that he has an opinion and one which I find utterly irrelevant.

Bush is the leader of the Republican Party. Bush has certain strongly held beliefs. He clearly sees Obama as a threat to the America he wants to see created as his legacy. More than that, he sees the Democrats as they currently exist as inherently dangerous to the nation. Who can argue with that? Who can fault him for caring enough about the nation's future to take a stand? What use is the bully pulpit of the presidency if he can't use it this way?

Dave

"He clearly sees Obama as a threat to the America he wants to see created as his legacy."

Damn Dave, you sure nailed this one.

Not that anyone but you sees GWB's legacy as a good thing. Very few people are interested in, or willing to accept "...the America he wants to see created as his legacy."

Hasn't he done enough harm?

What troubles me is how Bush makes a vague speech about not appeasing terrorists and we all end up arguing about Iran.

I think we can all see the direction the foreign policy wind is blowing, especially but not necessarily only if McCain is elected.

"And there in a nutshell is why your argument holds no legitimacy at all, because America's history has zero relevance to the priorities which govern its foreign policy. The interests of the nation's citizens are what drive those decisions, not satisfying your peculiar notions of historical guilt. The only 'qualification' which is required is for the US to be a sovereign nation with a self-interest to act in."

And every other country on the earth has the right to act in the same manner, Dave, which is precisely why history matters. I realize that you and others sharing your philosophy find it difficult to look beyond your own borders, but it probably about time that some understanding of the cultures that weigh heavily in procuring "American interests" took place. Empires don't last forever and American's shelf-life looks incredibly short if this course is maintained.

zingzing, that's pretty much what I've been trying to say, but as usual I get led down tangential avenues with great ease.

:)

"Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit."

"International Intelligence Summit, a non-partisan, non-profit, neutral forum that uses private charitable funds to bring together intelligence agencies of the free world and the emerging democracies."

After retiring from Politics in 1990, "Mr. Budowsky reengaged politically after 9-11 and informally advises both Democrats, Republicans..." (wikipedia) and is a contributor to The Hill's pundit blog.

Sorry Mr. Budowsky, despite both your experience and particularly your influence in the real world (your politics not withstanding), you are dismissed out-of-hand. So life goes in The Republic of Dave.

Bush is the leader of the Republican Party. Bush has certain strongly held beliefs. He clearly sees Obama as a threat to the America he wants to see created as his legacy. More than that, he sees the Democrats as they currently exist as inherently dangerous to the nation.

Dave, I would counter the above argument, and assert that Bush's comment had nothing to do with Obama or the Democrats by citing a quote from this expert:

"Bush made a general comment, accusing 'some people' of naively leaning towards appeasement with terrorist regimes. Bush didn't mention the Democrats and didn't even make an oblique reference to Obama, though the media immediately jumped on the speech and turned it into an accusation against Obama. He could just as easily have been talking about the useless leaders of the European Union."

More than that, he sees the Democrats as they currently exist as inherently dangerous to the nation. Who can argue with that?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Anyone with half a brain? I guess you've bought into the whole Republican meme of "Vote Republican or Die!" But wait a second....who was the president that had ample warnings about 9/11 but failed to act on them? Oh that's right...G .Dubya Bush...Republican. The same Republican who started the war that's killed and maimed thousands of American based on bogus cherry-picked intelligence. And the Democrats are "inherently dangerous to the nation?"

Are you high?

Dr. D,

A link for you to the complete Bush speech. Bush actually cited Iran along with (and in the same context as) Hamas and Hezbollah.

And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

President Bush claimed that you need to listen to what national leaders and leaders of terrorist groups say, and not minimize it just because 'it sounds crazy, and they probably didn't mean it.' As Bush noted, historically there have been terrible consequences to not paying attention to what such leaders say. That is not controversial.
Iran's president and terrorists have made clear one thing they want - the extermination of Israel and Jews. They don't have to cross the ocean to carry that out. When they get nuclear weapons and start sizing up how to carry out that goal, Europe and Canada are going to find that their foreign policy goals line up with America's on this point - the nuclear extermination of another state is not a good thing for world stability and peace. Saying that Iran's stated intention of seeking the extermination of another people and race is not germane to America's foreign policy in the Middle East is foolishness. Iran's president has said it more than once. We ignore Iran's stated intention at our peril. You can argue otherwise, but we were wrong to do that in the 1930's. We were wrong in the 1990's. We'll find out in the next couple of decades who is wrong this time. But I'm betting terrorist groups that are willing to commit mass murder like 9/11 are going to jump at the chance to do the same if a nuclear device is handed off to them by a state that sponsors terrorist groups, like Iran.
Talk about chimp Bush and how America sucks all you want, it doesn't change what the world is facing.

Cindy,

I read through Bush's entire speech to the Knesset twice. He mentioned Iran only in terms of preventing them from developing nukes and in the hope that one day the country would be a free society. He didn't mention Ahmadinejad at all.

The quote you used to link to the Knesset address actually comes from Bush's speech to business leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh on Sunday - after Obama had made his response.

Dr.D,

The white house news release shows the quote I made coming from this speech:

President Bush Addresses Members of the Knesset

Cindy,

Er, weird. I just clicked the link again and saw the quote this time. I stand corrected.

When I Googled the quote after I didn't see it in the speech the first time, a news report on Bush's Sharm el-Sheikh speech was the first result.

This may be a sign that more coffee is needed. Or less...

My original point about the prevailing wind stands, though.

Care for a bit of Sangria? I switched over from coffee after lunch, or thought I did. But I just noticed I seem to have a cup of each in front of me.

Dave accuses Obama of "...a transparent lie." Yet I've never known Dave to be so sensitive about lying. Did he comment that Bush was lying when he said he quit golf in honor of soldiers?

Well, first Dave accuses Obama of a transparent lie...and then, Dave (unintentionally, I think) demonstrates that his own understanding coincides completely with Obama's.

@71:

Good gosh - now how did that happen?

;-)

What is wrong with u people? When did this site get taken over by mindless moonbats?

Obama is a lost cause and will cost the democrats the election. the American people may be stupid, but they are not going to vote both qgainst their economic interests and against their physical safety. we need a leader, not a traitor in the white house.

Lumpy,are you enjoying the "blue pill"?

"...not going to vote against their economic interests...

HAHAHAHA HAHA!

Deficits Forever--In YOUR economic interests!!

Lumpy, ideally you're right. But Republicans don't always provide sound economic ideas, much less follow through on them, and voters certainly make mistakes. (And what's with this "Americans are stupid" riff?)

Thomas Sowell recently wrote that the choice in November will be between disgust and disaster. He seems optimistic that voters will make the disgusting choice, but I'm not sure.

I can't believe that John McCain just quoted Chairman Mao on the John Stewart show.

...in memory of our dearly departed and in honor of this batch of candidates

Lumpy: we need a leader, not a traitor in the white house.

Okay, I'll bite. Go ahead and lay out the case for Obama being a "traitor." I'll wait....

Lumpy: we need a leader, not a traitor in the white house.

Do you mean a traitor who would destroy our army, devalue our currency and defame us abroad?

...we need a trader in the white house

Lumpy: we need a leader, not a traitor in the white house.

Okay, I'll bite. Go ahead and lay out the case for Obama being a "traitor." I'll wait....

[crickets chirping]

Apparently the Lumpster is all talk and no action...

...we need a trader in the white house

Quoted for Truth...

Damn, troll, you're smart!

Dave

You missed it with this one. This has been a major blessing for Obama. Bush seeming to campaign for McCain is great for Obama. The strategy for Dems will be to present McCain as a continuation of Bush.

Also, where is it that Obama says he will engage in unconditional negotiation with terrorist regimes. I believe the statement was "meet without precondition", in the spirit of Sadat's visit to Israel. Your statement makes it seem as if the entire process of negotiation would not present any conditions to be adhered to by the parties involved. How is that negotiation? That is simply gift giving.

What did I miss???

Dave is spinning.

>>Your article is, as usual, very well-written and is, as usual, wildly off-base.<<

Ok, Doug. Most of the responses I've had so far have been utterly delusional. Obamamania is clearly a dissociative disorder.

>>Bush goes to Israel and uses a solemn and important occasion (Israel's 60th anniversary) to attempt to score a cheap political point by comparing his Democratic opponent to Nazi appeasers. Most people refer to such a stunt as deeply offensive and demeaning to the presidency, but to you it was a "bang-up speech showing firm foreign policy leadership."<<

The Israelis, of course, loved the points he made. It was perfectly tailored to that audience. It also resonated with the informed segment of the population who have some actual idea of the state of the world and the challenges which America faces, and the threat which we are put at by the insane foreign policy ideas of Obama and the rest of the democrats.

>>McCain joins in on the fun, wrapping his arms around Bush and shouting (I'm paraphrasing), "Yeah, what he said!" Obama then shows his mettle by ripping into both Dumb and Dumber with the skill of a samurai swordsman, causing most people to applaud him for not putting up with such bullshit. But to you, Obama's strong defense shows "a fatal level of naiveté and poor judgment born of inexperience which could well doom his campaign."<<

Yes, because at the end of the day, Obama is still lying and is still wrong, and Bush - despite what his detractors say - remains correct. There's only one reality, Doug. Your love for Obama can't change it into something it isn't.

>>The so-called president and the wannabe president clearly coordinated this ridiculous attack. It was obviously targeted at Obama, but when the attack got the reception of a skunk at a picnic, they quickly tried to cover their tracks -- "Obama who? Never heard of him. We were talking about Jimmy Carter. Yeah, that's it. Ol' JC...."<<

Actually, it was obviously targeted at the Democrats as a group, not just Obama. But sure, as Obama demonstrated, if the appeaser shoe fits, then by all means put it on. And the Jimmy Carter reference was truly brilliant, because Carter is the essence of everything that's wrong with the democrat approach to foreign policy.

>>But in the end, the joke's on McBush. By attacking Obama, they elevated his status to that of the presumptive nominee. <<

Which he already was and which they want him to be.

>>They gave him a place on the stage, and he knows how to work the spotlight. By working hand-in-glove with each other, Bush and Mini-Me allowed Obama to demonstrate the clear nature of the Bush-McCain relationship, i.e. political siamese twins. It's exactly the message Obama wants to sink into the public psyche.<<

Yes, Bush and McCain agree on some things. OMG, what a tragedy for everyone. Hillary Clinton kind of agrees with them too. That Obama doesn't means that he's dangerously ill-informed or so ideologically twisted that he's unqualified to run the country.

>>So in the end, Bush and McCain come out smelling like turds while Obama comes out smelling like a rose. Speaking of which, he should probably send a dozen red ones to the White House.<<

Your bias is showing. Bush and McCain come out looking like people seriously concerned with defending the US and preserving peace in the world. Obama comes out looking like a fool.

Dave

Dave

Tisk, Tisk.

How much are they paying you?

You cant be serious. I certainly hope that you get a serious check for this or I'd have to be concerned about you.

From Obama's 2002 speech opposing the Iraq war.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Think for yourself.

The association of the title of this article with that quote seems even more appropriate than the article itself. Thanks for providing more corroborating evidence.

Dave