Another example of the Washington Times enabling the Worst President Ever. 

They're just being patriotic, Sue...getting everyone ready for when the air strikes in Iran start.  ;>)

Oh Boy.  That has me up at night very scared.

Obama by his reaction shows his thin skin and narcissism to thinking Bush was talking about him. Either that or the shoe fit.

This harbringer of "new" politics is simply an old fashioned politician with a great speech about hope and little else.  

sorry for the bad grammer. I wrote it in a hurry. Have at it.

I agree, AA.  It's clear that Bush was referring to ex-President Reagan, and his willingness to negotiate with (and provide weapons to) terrorists.

Yeah, it's an election year, and the presumptive Democratic nominee has talked of resuming diplomacy as a foreign policy ideology. Certainly the President was not referring to Obama. George Bush says "some" so either he meant a specific group, person, or he was setting up a strawman. Which is it AA?

I thought Bush was talking about Jimmy Carter and the folk here at MMFA. :-)  You can see how well Carter did with Hamas.

Actually all this blather by Obama is to cover up his naive statement about talking to the Iranians/N.Koreans/Syrians/terrorists? without any preconditions. He'll look foolish when these meetings, since nothing will be resolved. Instead our enemies will use the occasion to berate the U.S. Obama will then have to return with his tail between his legs. and his failed diplomacy will be used as propaganda to show how weak the U.S. has become. 

As a side note, tThe U.S. does communicate with these countries regimes. However they do it through third parties. It was simply political grandstanding on Obama's part and his ignorance of diplomacy in blurting out something so naive that caused all his Democratic Party Presidential rivals, including Hillary, to ridicule him for his statement in the first place.

Well that was just a wonderful expose on fortune telling. In any event, I tend to see it quite differently. Given that there is a presidential election going on and Obama's diplomacy ideology has been in the news, I think it to be somewhat naive to believe that Bush wasn't making a veiled attack on Obama. It's obvious to those who care to remove the partisan blinders. As for Obama's ability, well, it seems to me that when elected he will set forth a policy of agressive diplomacy where talking instead of shooting will be the first course of action. He will come home after leaving the countries in question with the distinct impression that although we mean business we are not the bully on the block. Seems to me that once this is done, we can avert the disgusting spectacle of having metal coffins filled with the maimed bodies of our young people come home on a plane. I see possibilities here. Tallking is a hell of a lot better than dying. It is absolutely absurd to beleive that the Bush Doctrine and the war in Iraq has done anything other than emobolden these people. Each to his own, I guess.

 

The President's speech before the Members of the Israeli Knesset was remarkable for it's over-the-top rhetoric: he invokes "nazis" and "Hitler" by name to them... he made many references to the killing of Jews, and the extermination of Israel... what the heck was he trying to sell them, and what kind of sales pitch is that? I'm surprised he didn't run newsreel footage of dead bodies at Auschwitz... maybe even he would have, if they just would have allowed the Israeli Parliment to be turned into a movie house... so he (George W. Bush) just did the next best thing, and outlined all the death and hatred and horror of it all, to an audience (the Israeli Knesset) that knows a lot more about it than he does, and probably were befuddled (maybe even offended) that he would stand before them, and invoke all those things to them ("Hitler!"), like an idiot salesman with a touch as soft as a porcupine.

 

As far as the rousing speech that George W. Bush gave to the Israeli Knesset, about talking to enemies, and about "apeasement"?

It roused the Israelis alright... it roused them to hold peace talks with Syria, on the medium ground of Turkey.

 

Israel and Syria Say They Are Holding Peace Talks in Turkey

JERUSALEM — Israel and Syria announced Wednesday that they were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive peace treaty through Turkish mediators, the first time in eight years that such talks have taken place.

Senior Israeli officials from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office and their Syrian counterparts were in Istanbul on Wednesday, where both groups had been staying separately, at undisclosed locations, since Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/world/middleeast/22mideast.html?hp

 

...in Turkey, where both groups had been staying since Monday... since Monday, just four days after Thursday, when George W. Bush told Israelis about not talking to enemies, and about "appeasement"... and four days later, those same Israelis are off to Turkey, to meet with Syrians and engage in talks.

George W. Bush: he's a diplomat extraordinaire... he's a "persuader" if you ever saw one... he's one smooth talker, George W. Bush is...

He walks around Israel, talking about "nazis" and "Hitler", to the Israeli Knesset no less... who knows what he was tring to sell, doing that: but I don't think he sold any.

 

 

And I'd bet this: that among those "media" that most jumped on Bush's "appeasement" reference (which I'd imagine was Fox and CNN), I bet when they cover/mention that Israelis announced today they are talking with Syrians, in Turkey... I bet Fox and CNN et al will pass over the story as quietly and as quickly as possible, and will not be following it or preceding it, with any reference ro George W. Bush's talk to the Israeli Knesset, just six days ago, or with much reference to any of the foolish and contrived nonsense about "talking with enemies" and "appeasement", that those same "media" have prattled on and chattered about, the last six days...

The news that Israel will talk with Syria, sort of sticks a pin in that other contrived campaign noise.

 

 -- his own defense secretary has, like Obama, reportedly said that the United States needs to be willing to meet with Iran. -- mmfa

The SecDef's comments were not like Obama...as evidenced by mmfa's own report..."We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them."

Gates clearly establishes the fact that preconditions are necessary in any talks with Iran...unlike Obama's stance of "no preconditions". 

God!! This distortion game you guys who hate Obama play is amazing. Do you believe that if elected Obama is going to hop on Air Force One and fly over to Iran, catch a cab and knock on the President of Iran's door? I really think you are smart enough to discern what Obama is talking about in terms of diplomacy with nations such as Iran or Syria. I just think you refuse to admit it in favor of characterizing his statements to fit your personal dislike of the man. I do have hope this time around though. We have seen in recent congressional elections that the politics of misdirection and destruction favored by your side are just not working.

What is wrong with the notion of "never negotiate out of fear but never fear to negotiate?" The alternative is to just aimlessly invade or attack those we have differences with with our diminished military. Gung Ho, right?

 -- Obama is going to hop on Air Force One and fly over to Iran, catch a cab and knock on the President of Iran's door? -- achrispage

If you want to play Karnac...ok by me. I prefer to take him at his word...which you summed up rather neatly. 

That is ridiculous and you know it. This pre-conditions idea is so ingrained in your thought process by your Republican masters that you fail to undersstand that conditions and ultimatums can be set during the talks. sometimes agreements are built on such things. Of course, we can continue on the course you prefer and risk having more metal coffins come home on planes. That really doesn't matter as longs as it ain't your metal coffin, right?

Achrisp,

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

"I would," Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

To suggest Obama is mischaracterized is laughable.  Of course he is now trying to backpedal.  He's a typical politician trying to squirm out of previous statements. He reminds me of Kerry. 

So what? What makes you believe that during the diplomacy phase that he won't be firm and set conditions which if not followed will not allow for further diplomacy? Why are you so eager to avoid diplomacy in favor of WAR? Such thinking just reaffirms my belief that those who favor WAR don't have a damn clue what war is. If Obama can save a young Marines life by meeting with these people and setting firm diplomatic agreements isn't that better than entering into another debacle like Iraq?

 -- and set conditions which if not followed will not allow for further diplomacy? -- achrispage

Which is exactly what Pres.Bush, the UN and most of Europe have already set in place...now if you and Obama have some new proposals I'd be glad to her them.

How 'bout it chris...what would you or Obama say to Iran that will facilitate the peace negotiations? What conditions would you set...what concessions would you make?

Do you think that Obama's vague domestic message of hope and change will resonate with a rogue nation that supports terrorism? 

what concessions would you make?

That's the fallacy of your argument.  Talking to another country doesn't mean concessions will be made.  How about this for a concession - Bin Laden wanted our air base out of Saudi Arabia and our prez gave in to terrorism and removed our troops. 

Ah say...ah say boy...you're all wrong again.

I didn't make any argument...nor did I say concessions would have to be made...I asked questions.

Now feel free to answer any of them... 

First it is important that you at least educate yourself on Obama's message. I know you can read so at least go to his website and rid yourself of this talking point that his message is vague and lacking in specifics.

President Bush hasn't done sh%t except destroy our credibility around the world and send young men off to die. Die means DEATH. No more, gone forever, kaput! That is basically the Bush style of diplomacy which you seemingly support. Pointing your finger and threating folks usually won't get you the results you desire. BTW, since when do you point to the U.N. as an authority on anything? Funny how they are o.k. when convenient for your argument. The reality is that either Obama or the Sec. of State would need to meet with someone in the ruling council to get anything done since Ahmadinejad has no real power. By simply agreeing to negotiate you set a precedent of having at least the appearance of a willingness to avoid conflict. That means a lot. We could sit down with the Ayatholla or a rep. and let them know that the clown they have as President isn't helping matters one bit. We need to know what you are doing from a nuclear standpoint. Tell them face to face that pursuing nuclear weaponry will not be tolerated. We can send out statements all day but when you look someone in the eye and say what you mean it carries much more weight. Your hero Reagan proved that even after calling the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire" Diplomacy would establish a back channel to resolve conflicts before they escalate. What concessions did Reagan make in Iceland? You don't have to make concessions to have a effective diplomatic policy. James Baker said it best when he indicated that talking with your enemies is important, it isn't appeasment.

Who knows, better relations in the Middle east might help the ol' gas tank. God knows the policy you follow has brought us nothing but unease and outrageous oil prices. Why do you think speculators are bidding up the price of oil Wesley? It sure as hell ain't because they have this wonderful feeling of stability in that region brought about by the schizophrenic diplomatic policy of Bush. You really need to examine this from a practical standpoint and let go of the failed policies of Bush. They don't work nor have they helped this nation or our economy one bit. BTW, how in the hell do you negotiate pre-conditions if you refuse to be diplomatic int he first place? What kind of arrogance is it to comand that an entity do what I say first and then I will talk to you?

I've been to Obama's website. His policy wonks have covered every thing except how to pay for them.

Your reply about negotiations with Iran was long and wandering but with little substance. You provided nothing specific to change the current impasse except that Obama should look them in the eye...and say the same thing that we are currently saying.

I'm not sure how you think we can change things diplomatically by going around Ahmadinejad.

We and the civilized world have already set the precedent that we are willing to avoid conflict...what is your new message that proposes anything different?

You then swerve into the issue of arrogance by stating "What kind of arrogance is it to comand that an entity do what I say first and then I will talk to you?".

Well, that would be the arrogance you committed by stating that we should look them in the eye and declare "pursuing nuclear weaponry will not be tolerated". 

Your proposed solution offers nothing more than believing that if we look them in the eye we can convince them to come around to our way of thinking.

You propose to have a chat with them to prove our willingness to talk...and that talk includes our statement that Ahmadinejad is a clown and you better not even think of possessing nuclear weapons...expecting them to conclude that something is different...see how nice we are that Obama met with you...now everything will be aok...lol.

I believe that we can/should/will negotiate with Iran as soon as they commit to giving up their nuclear ambitions...you have offered nothing except jingoism about looking them in the eye and making the same demands.

Kinda like a certain president who is regularly lampooned around her for his old west cowboy justice. Yep, let's send Obama to Iran on a white horse and have him sit tall in the saddle...ala Gary Cooper...look them squarely in the eye...and come home singing "Happy Trails to You" after Iran capitulates...whoo boy...that's a good one.

 

I've been to Obama's website. His policy wonks have covered every thing except how to pay for them.

So in your book that constitutes him being all talk and no substance. Gotcha.

Your reply about negotiations with Iran was long and wandering but with little substance. You provided nothing specific to change the current impasse except that Obama should look them in the eye...and say the same thing that we are currently saying.

What would you have me do....prepare a working diplomatic proposal in a research format with citations? I have yet to see anything specific from you except an assumption that Obama will give concessions and by him just having talks it automatically makes him weak. The point is that person to person diplomacy can be much more effective than spoouting talking points through the media so they are filtered on to Iran. Yeah that has worked just great. You want four more years of that crap, go for it.

I'm not sure how you think we can change things diplomatically by going around Ahmadinejad.

I have yet to see you give any evidence whatsoever that he is nothing more than a figure head. Pssst...it's common knowledge that the supreme council and the Ahyatolla are the ones who control things. Unfortunately you and McCain aren't privy to that information.

We and the civilized world have already set the precedent that we are willing to avoid conflict...what is your new message that proposes anything different?

As evidenced by what? Our foray into Iraq? Show me one thing diplomatically effective used by the current administration toward Iran. Saber rattling hardly counts.

You then swerve into the issue of arrogance by stating "What kind of arrogance is it to comand that an entity do what I say first and then I will talk to you?".

Well, that would be the arrogance you committed by stating that we should look them in the eye and declare "pursuing nuclear weaponry will not be tolerated". 

Wrong. You have to have a starting point to come to effectiv agreements. I'm saying tht tht position should be ours. You build on that rather than just looking to the sky hoping that your saber rattling will magically work and Iran will come to the table. You get them to the table and then you discuss differences, ultimatums, etc.

Your proposed solution offers nothing more than believing that if we look them in the eye we can convince them to come around to our way of thinking.

No, the point is that the current policy of saber rattling and third party communication is hardly producing good results. If we have a President who can sit down with other leaders and effectively communicate strong policy along with the understanding that we are willing to listen to another side of the story seems logical to me. It worked for Reagan, Nixon, Carter, etc. Just not Bush.

You propose to have a chat with them to prove our willingness to talk...and that talk includes our statement that Ahmadinejad is a clown and you better not even think of possessing nuclear weapons...expecting them to conclude that something is different...see how nice we are that Obama met with you...now everything will be aok...lol.

What a pitiful attempt to negate my argument. Obviously you fail to understand the overall  point and would rather focus on things you can misconstrue. Typical. A willingness to come to the table is communication enough to open dialogue. Seems to me that direct communication would be at least worth a try in getting our point across concerning nuclear weapons and Ahmendinejad. Not only that but going directly to the source would kind of diminish him in the end. That can't be a bad thing.

I believe that we can/should/will negotiate with Iran as soon as they commit to giving up their nuclear ambitions...you have offered nothing except jingoism about looking them in the eye and making the same demands.

I believe we should talk directly with them to obtain a commitment to giving up nuclear ambitions. Your way isn't working. It's that simple.

Kinda like a certain president who is regularly lampooned around her for his old west cowboy justice. Yep, let's send Obama to Iran on a white horse and have him sit tall in the saddle...ala Gary Cooper...look them squarely in the eye...and come home singing "Happy Trails to You" after Iran capitulates...whoo boy...that's a good one.

If thatis how you choose to characterize it then fine. I can't help it if the idea of diplomacy abhores you to the point where you seemingly want Obama to fail in such an endeavor just so you can be proved right. That's pretty sick. The point is that we'll never know if direct diplomacy which differs than the kind you espouse will work unless we try it. The reality is that your way simply isn't working and things are getting worse. I wonder if you held such disdain for Reagan when he met directly with Gorbachev with no pre-conditions?

 

 -- reports that White House officials acknowledged that President Bush was referring to Sen. Barack Obama -- mmfa

Of course Pres.Bush was referring to Obama...and anyone else who supports negotiating with Iran without conditions. Russia and China...to name a couple...and the UN security council all agree that Iran must suspend uranium enrichment for talks to go forward.

However, having said that, I find it more than troubling that the President ducked this issue...and played a poor political hand. Instead of limping in on the button...he should have declared all in...by stating unequivocally "You darn right I'm talking about Obama". 

It was clearly a lack of leadership by the President...and just another reason why I will be glad to see his second term come to an end. 

Why in the hell should we keep our friends close and our enemies closer? If we can't risk diplomacy based on the Bush Doctrine what else do we have?

Of course Pres.Bush was referring to Obama...and anyone else who supports negotiating with Iran without conditions.

Then why didn't Bush mention anything about preconditions?

Remember how everything used to be black and white for you conservatives?

The president does not have to at every utterance speak about the conditions he supports for negotiating with Iran.

He is plainly on record...many times...saying he would welcome and purse negotiations with Iran...after they comply with the UN security council and most of the civilized world that Iran suspend enriching uranium. 

You are really hung up on the "pre-conditions" part of the administration's stance.  You do realize that according to Gates, those per-conditions include US CONCESSIONS to Iran?

I certainly do realize.

And I also realize that Obama has put no conditions at all on talking to terrorist regimes...a point that is 180 degress opposite the position stated by Gates and the administration.

I'm not at all hung up about the preconditions...just pointing out the fact that 1) Obama doesn't think they're necessary and 2) Gates has stated that talks might be helpful if we have some leverage over Iran to convince them it is to their benefit to negotiate and 3) it is ok with me if we cede something to Iran in the process...as long as they are willing to suspend their nuclear program.

The position staked out by Pres.Bush is not contrary to most of Europe and the UN security council...regardless of the spin presented by mmfa that the position of Gates and Obama is alike...which is patently false. 

Russia and China don't want Iran to be enriching uranium but they really don't want sanctions on the country either.  China is in the midst of a long term deal to develop one of Iran's largest oil fields and Russia has been supplying Iran's nuclear program with equipment for quite some time.

They want Iran to stay war free for economic reasons and if Iran having access to nuclear weaponry endangers that condition then they want Iran to be nuclear weapon free as well.  Russia and China will not be in favor of imposing economic sanctions on Iran unless something extreme happens and they will not be happy with the United States if we are the cause of turmoil there.

In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Iran's U.N. Press Officer, stated: "It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "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." SEE THIS VIDEO AND PASS IT ON

"Useful idiots" comes to mind. 

Of course we should believe this guy who's political leader is a holocaust denier and repeatedly states he to wipe Israel off the map and who's religious leaders enforce Sharia law. 

Suddenly quite the cynic and the skeptic, AA. Were you this clever when Hamas "endorsed" Obama? Or were you in the "useful idiot" camp on that day?

 

;0)

Of course we should believe this guy who's political leader is a holocaust denier and repeatedly states he to wipe Israel off the map and who's religious leaders enforce Sharia law.  - AA

You really do cling to those statements don't you?  When he was at Columbia University he had this to say...

"I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all," he said. "[But] can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished forever, done? Can we close the books foreever on a historical event?"

The origianl translation is where the disput lays.  As well as the part about "wiping Israel off the map".  I showed you before that's not what he said.  Can you incorporate new information into your thought process at all?

As for Shaira Law, what's the problem?  I don't like it, but I don't live there.  How is it any different from the zealots in YOUR country trying to impose their religous veiws on the population at large?

Anotheramerican, You miss the point. The media isn't reporting things he has said. Also, the media is distorting things, so here you are repeating things you heardfromt he media which you assume are true. see this video: Fear Creating Propaganda by Warmongering 60 Minutes

I think there's a better chance of death by the ton if we don't talk to Iran. China may get hung up on trying for a pretty public face till the Oylimpics conclude, but Russia will insert themselves into the action very quickly.

If conflict with Iran is considered an acceptable and necessary risk. What kind of feeling do you get about conflict with Russia. China would eventually be there. Does war with China and Russia give a warm fuzzy? How bought a draft, untrained combat troops, and a meat grinder conflict? Thats probably a positive senario for this.

Israel and Lebanon talked, despite our government's interferrence, I hope some progress to peace comes of it. I know large parts of their populations desire this greatly. Most of our's as well.