I think I understand why conservatives believe that talking with ones enemies is tantamount to appeasement........

It is easier to simply deny your enemies a level of status than it is to see them as equals...... Typical bully pulpit rhetoric and very dangerous to a democracy who's leaders are a bunch of arm chair toughguy weaklings!

For those that somehow still think that Fox Noise is news..... I have but to remind you that they are not news, never have been news and never will be news..... but are and have been since it was created.....purely partisan opinion makers.

Wow, so you think that terrorists are equals.

People that plant bombs in diners and blow up innocents unless you meet their demands should be negotiated with.

Good-bye USA, hello France. 

 

 

You know why republicans don't want to talk to Iran? Because they are too stupid to know who they should talk to.

McCain’s New Iran Gaffe: If The ‘Average American’ Thinks Ahmadinejad Is In Control Of Iran, Then So Do I

No dumbass..... I am not saying that terrorists are equals to us..... but the leaders of Iran or any other country that may be our enemies are, whether you or I like it or not!

While it is probably true that there is some terrorist financing coming from Iran (the same can be said about Saudi Arabia and then some!) but somehow Iran is the terrorist state and Saudi Arabia is the ally in the War on Terror...... how can this be?

This is selective choosing!

Leather....... stop spewing the right-wing garbage that all Iranian leaders are nothing but terrorists........ the same can be said about some of our leaders here in America every time we drop bombs on countries that don't bend to our foreign policies!

However, despite stating that McCain thinks Obama's position is "naïve," Cameron did not note that Defense Secretary Robert Gates also reportedly has said that the United States should "sit down and talk with" Iran.

Perhaps Cameron realizes that because Gates is in the position of following the Presidents orders and not giving presidential orders, Gates and Obama are not at the same level of scrutiny.

...and seeing that McCain did not appoint Gates - what difference does it make what Gates believes anyway?

I believe Bush appointed Gates

McCain would agree that Gates is also 'naive'

Then, it follows, that Bush was 'naive' for appointing Gates

Also, it follows, that McCain is 'naive' for blindly supporting Bush's every decision

QED

Now I understand why you fall for all the BS they publish here!

Logic is a killer sometimes, huh?

Again MMFA stretches to make it's point (just like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et all).

Following is the WHOLE quote from Gates “"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

 No quite the interpritation written in the article.

 

As the beloved Scott Johnson (quiet Jeter, tommy) used to say...In other words - you have no argument.

Not at all - Kyles logic string is critically flawed. 

1 - Bush appointed Gates - not McCain.  As much as the Dem strategy is to run against a 3rd Bush term. Bush is not running and the attempt to morph McCain into Bush is transparent.

2 - McCain is running against Obama - not Gates.  What McCain thinks of Gates' position is irrelevant to the story.

3 - The Gates position includes includes preconditions that would give the US some leverage in talks.  Obama's position (from an earlier debate with Hillary) is open talks with no preconditions.  Hillary also slammed Obama for his position.

...what difference does it make what Gates believes anyway?

The point is that McCain is selectively critical of Obama, and not criticizing Gates for expressing essentially the same position that Obama did. Also it does not give the full picture when the media only reports the Obama position that is being criticized and yet fails to inform that the Bush Administration's Defense Secretary shares Obama's position.

Perhaps Cameron realizes that because Gates is in the position of following the Presidents orders and not giving presidential orders, Gates and Obama are not at the same level of scrutiny.

But YOU would have to be naive to think that Gates would advocate anythign without Bush's (or Cheney's) approval.  So the Bush Administration is actually advocating what it accused Sen. Obama of - "appeasement".

So you are of the opinion that every subordinate and superior agree on everything? You believe everything your boss believes and your subordinates believe everything you believe? 

I don't believe that for a minute.

No, not every subordinate and superior have to agree on everything, just preachers and those who attend the preachers performances.

Zing!

LOL.

That was excellent. 

So apparently you two believe the link between pastor and parishoner is equal to that of superior and subordinate?

If your boss suggests or plants sentiments of hate and racism in your minds you can take legal action against them for workplace harassment.  If your pastor does it you can easily find another church. 

It is becomming clearer to me why far lefties can't sort through simple logic. 

Right - so you beleive the general is being naive.

No - there is a difference between the Obama and Bush administration positions. 

Dems_soul wrote:

>>No - there is a difference between the Obama and Bush administration positions. 

If by Bush administration you mean Gates, there is little difference. If Obama is being naive, then so is Gates, and by extension Bush and McCain.  

I don't believe that for a minute.

Believe it.  If Bush and/or Cheney didn't approve of what Gates said, he would have been canned.

See my other response to you - which is now below this one.

Also - I believe Obama's position from an earlier debate with Hillary is that he would openly meet with the Iranians with no pre-conditions.  This is a position that Hillary slammed him for as well.  That is significantly different from the position the Bush administration is taking.

mmfa keeps trotting out the horse chestnut that Gates agrees with Obama about talking with Iran. While Obama has clearly stated that he would meet with Iran with no preconceived conditions...Gates plainly has other ideas:

 -- We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them -- Gates

 -- my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels -- Gates

Gates also said he agreed with the statement by Thomas Friedman..."When you have leverage, talk,..when you don't have leverage, get some"

mmfa is blatantly misrepresenting the position of Gates. 

 

 

 Wes posted --  We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them -- Gates

Kinda missed this part from the same speech...

If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too.We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us." 

 

Or this nugget referring to the former leader of Iran...

"One of the things that I think historians will have to take a look at is whether there was a missed opportunity at that time,"

Sorry old ben...I didn't miss anything. In fact my point is crystal clear that mmfa has completely misrepresented the comments of Gates. Obama and Gates do not have the same ideas about talks with Iran.

Your first nugget completely validates what Gates said. He clearly stated conditions were necessary to hope for any successful talks with Iran...exactly the opposite of Obama's "no preconceived conditions".

Your second nugget has nothing at all to do with the current situation. Gates was referring to the leadership in Iran in power before Ahmadinejad...where he made a valid point that we may have missed some opportunities back then.

 -- Asked if the U.S. would be willing to talk with Iran, Gates said the behavior of Iran’s current leadership “has not given one confidence that a dialogue would be productive. -- AP

Wesley stated:

>>Sorry old ben...I didn't miss anything. In fact my point is crystal clear that mmfa has completely misrepresented the comments of Gates. Obama and Gates do not have the same ideas about talks with Iran.

Ah, no he didn't. Again, Gates is so willing to talk with Iran, that he said that the US should make concessions. MMFA has not misrepresented Gates position: you have. You try to make it sound like Gates has this completely different position from Obama, when he doesn't.  

Talk is cheap and easy. We should talk our silly heads off to any country that will listen.

I don't know why Gates thinks talking won't be productive....I know when someone has been insulting me and calling me a terrorist then I can't wait to make concessions to them.

Uh - when those preconditions are US CONCESSIONS, then his stance is much wider, oops, closer to the Senator's. 

My second point was to illustrate this "don't talk to your enemies" stance of this adminsitration has put them in this current position.  If THEY had talked to the previous prez, according to the general, there may have been a chance to avoid the current situation.

Forgetting whether Faux News uses this information or not, it should be an incredibly simple argument for Obama to win, if he points out  what Gates has said... 'should be,' but then these Americans are crazy, right?

 

The fact of the matter is, that with the various intelligence gathering Agencies of our Federal Government all under the continued influence of the Bush-Cheney administration (and that includes the State Department too), the American People don't and shouldn't believe a word that administration and those (politicized) Agencies say, about just what National Security threat (if any) the nation of Iran poses to the American People... why, we might as well have contracted out the threat-assessment part of the Bush-Cheney administration in this region of the world (the Middle East), we might as well have contracted this out to the saudi "royal family"... because as long as those saudis are never ever discussed by the Bush-Cheney administration as a threat to U.S. National Security (to American lives), and as a threat in the Middle East to the Iraqi majority Shia democratically-elected Maliki government, then that's how long we know the Bush-Cheney administration is unbelievable in these matters.

Again, the Bush-Cheney (saudi) administration has ZERO credibility in assessing whatever threat (if any) Iran poses to U.S. National Security.

By the way, that's the argument Mr. Obama should be making, and the argument the American People will understand and appreciate: we need a non-Bush-Cheney (saudi) appraisal of Iran, by U.S. intelligence Agencies beyond their political influence...

And that's just not going to happen, under an administration headed by the dimwit John McCain... a U.S. Senator so dim-witted, that he has repeatedly characterized the thing that calls itself "al qaeda in Iraq" (the sunni thing that calls itself that), he has characterized it as supported and financed and equiped and trained, by and in Shia Iran... instead of saudi arabia, which is the truth of the matter.

With as dim-witted a man as John McCain is in these matters, with him in charge of administering the collection and interpretation of the work of our various intelligence Agencies... well, things would only get worse.

Mr. Obama needs to make this point: that the present state of intelligence gathering and interpretation by the Bush-Cheney (saudi!) administration is unbelievable, and that Iran cannot be assessed properly, until the administration of our Federal Government is wrested from Bush Cheney and the saudis.

 

Good points...especially the part about the Bush administration having no credibility.

mmfa wrongly reports that Gates agrees with Obama's "no preconceived conditions".

 -- The question is: do you have the kind of government in Iran now with whom there can be productive discussions on substantive issues? And I think that's an open question -- Gates

 -- The key here is developing leverage, either through economic or diplomatic or military pressures on the Iranian government, so that they believe they must have talks with the US -- Gates

Obama may have the ability to make members of his audience swoon when he speaks...but his Rasputin like spells won't work on Iran. 

...but his Rasputin like spells won't work on Iran. 

Wesley, you sound like you would want Obama to fail in talks with Iran if Obama is elected President. Is this what we have to look forward to...the right wing wishing the president of their country to fail and, perhaps, even doing what they can to sabotage his presidency? Real Americans there...

It's almost as if they hate America and have Obama derangement syndrome.

It's almost as if they hate America and have Obama derangement syndrome.- wookie

Yeah, since Gates' precondition is that we have "leverage", I'm assuming Wesley doesn't think The U.S. has any leverage with other nations. With all of our faults, I think we, as a country, still have the moral high ground as compared to states that promote terrorism. It's sad that one of our fellow citizens could hate America so much that he thinks we should be afraid to go toe-to-toe in talking with these leaders.

I guess Obama just believes in America a little more than Wesley.

 -- you sound like you would want Obama to fail in talks with Iran -- irony

What I want is for Obama to fail in his bid for the presidency. However, if he is elected I would certainly hope that he was successful in all his adventures.

mmfa has run out article after article trying to convince voters that SecDef Gates agrees with Obama's stance on unilateral, with out conditions talks with Iran...and that is clearly false.

The endpoint is that mmfa is no holier than any other pandering organization when it comes to parsing the truth for political gain 

Wesley wrote:

>>mmfa has run out article after article trying to convince voters that SecDef Gates agrees with Obama's stance on unilateral, with out conditions talks with Iran...and that is clearly false.

No. That is *your* take on the issue. You are trying to find an artificial distincition between the two positions. That is a typical strawman argument. You pretend that MMFA is misrepresenting a position that it never claims it represents. MMFA claims that if Obama's position is naive, then so is Gates.  

Wesley wrote:

>>mmfa wrongly reports that Gates agrees with Obama's "no preconceived conditions".

I don't think so. You make it sound like Gates would only speak to Iran if Iran made concessions. In fact, the opposite is true. Gates said he would actually *find* some sort of concession that the US could make. Gates also mentions that the US has missed opportunities for opening a dialogue with Iran. In other words, Obama is not naive--unless you believe that Gates is naive as well. 

*** 

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans" visiting Iran.

 

I will say this slowly...and only one time for you.

mmfa has reported that Obama would meet without preconditions with Iran.

They have reported on article after article that Gates has said we should sit down and talk with Iran.

The two positions are light years apart...Gates has repeatedly talked of necessary conditions in talking with Iran...which puts his position at odds with that of Obama.

mmfa is no better than those they lynch on a daily basis for stretching or omitting facts. 

 

Wesley wrote:

>>I will say this slowly...and only one time for you.

>>mmfa has reported that Obama would meet without preconditions with Iran.

And I will say this just as slowly. No, their positions are not light years apart. Gates has stated that the US should be willing to make concessions. It sounds like Obama's position is similar to Gates.  

 

There are two facts that seem to escape McCain's attention, as well as the attention of many commentators.

First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the supreme authority in Iran, Ali Khamenei is. We know far less about him, and he may be more flexible than Ahmadinejad. In all likelihood, the Iranian government, like the American one, is not a monolith (see Gates and Bush differing).

Second, even if some argue that Ahmadinejad is the main guy, he faces the electorate in 2009. He may very well lose, considering how his domestic policies have tanked. His successor may very well be far more reasonable, so it seems to me rather naive from McCain to be so inflexible on the issue of talks. 

Micky also, in recent history, advised talking to Iran. Adm Fallon labeled Iran "ants" today. What fraction of our military buget does Iran spend? Why are we so hysterical about them? How can such a small resource present such a "creditable" threat to us that we will risk WW III rather than talk to them? They don't need nuclear threats. They have two concerned neighbors who have sufficient nuclear weaponry to give anyone nightmares.

Again, how is shaking in our boots about Iran show how strong we are?

The Iranian population is in large good people. Their country contains a facinating landscape and history. It would be an interesting place to visit.

So Gates made a comment that sounds a lot like something Barack Obama would say.  Big fickin deal.  The point is that the Bush administration and McCain, if elected, won't talk to Iran without strict preconditions.  Regardless of what Gates said the Bush administration and a possible McCain administration aren't going to meet with Iran under the exact same circumstances as Obama.  Obama seems like a liberal Reagan.  Kind of clueless.  That might work to his advantage though.  Perhaps he will meet with Iran and they will all of a sudden love Israel. 

Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to “wipe Israel off the map.” and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said, “We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.” Please see this video and pass it on.

Everyone should see "Outfoxed"...there is a great pre-interview moment between Cameron and Bush.

"But unlike Iran, Soviet communism did not support radical groups which sent suicide bombers or gunmen who see self-destruction in the name of Allah as a route to paradise."

Fox once again peddles its uniquely dishonest brand of jingoism...while the Soviets and Chinese may have never supported Islamic extremists, during the Cold War their actions - both direct and indirect - resulted in way more American deaths than those attributable to Islamic terrorism.  Case in point: Vietnam, where Vietcong and Vietminh "death volunteers" detonated themselves among American soldiers, NVA regulars were armed with Chicom AK47s, and our pilots went up against Russian advisers getting "on the job training" over Hanoi.  I also seem to recall some rather outrageous, hateful, and violent things being said by the Communists along the lines of "Yankee imperialist dogs" and "We will bury you".

Despite the above multiple US presidents - including Eisenhower, Nixon, and even Reagan (gasp) still met with Communist leaders.  While this may have not been the manly, chest-beating diplomacy that the armchair commandos at Fox seem to crave, it did prevent us from nuking the planet into a radioactive parking lot.  I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

1879: It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood...War is hell - General William Tecumseh Sherman

1949: "I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting" - General Douglas MacArthur

1953: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron" - President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Pansies.

Either Obama is naive about Middle Eastern politics or he is conspiring with the jihadist muslims. Pick your poison.

Independent in '08