« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
James Baker talks up negotiating with flummoxed Hannity
BAKER FLUMMOXES HANNITY: RIPS BUSH FOREIGN POLICY
.
Oct. 5, 2006, FOX NEWS, Hannity & Colmes, 9:00 PM EST
Click Baker Video Part II (two)
http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html Part II (two)
James
Baker, the globally accomplished diplomat and former GOP Secretary of
State under Reagan totally flummoxed the cartoonish GOP bagman, Sean
Hannity.
Point blank, Baker said that given the choice between
waging a war or a foreign policy solely restricted to establishing a
new democracy in the Mid-east or alternatively pursuing policies of
stabilizing the region, policies of stabilization were preferable.
Hannity
tried to parry this heretical bashing of Bush's core foreign policy
talking point with the usual GOP gobbledygook propaganda such as "this
is "World War III" and "this is a fight against Islamo Fascists." Baker
seemed uninterested in Sean's offer of GOP red meat talking points and
he continued.
Paraphrased as best I can, Baker said, "Given the
choice between engaging America's forces based on a principle (i.e.
'democracy') or based on establishing stability, stability is, all
things considered, the superior objective.
Not yet finished
shredding the inept Bush, Rice, Cheney foreign policy, Baker continued
by basically saying that engaging in talks with America's enemies is
not appeasement and not engaging in talks is sophomoric (my words). He
recounted that he personally visited Syria fifteen times and on his
next visit Syria abandoned their twenty-year-old policy towards Israel
and agreed to sit with Israel in negotiations, de facto recognizing
their existence.
Thank Video replays because this is political
theater of the highest order which everyone should have the opportunity
to see and hear once this episode is posted. Not only was Hannity
beautifully sandbagged, in my opinion, but Bush 41' had to know that
his son was going to get this political ass whumping.
This is an
important message. It is the old guard of Bush 41' and Reagan trashing
43's leadership and foreign policy. Hopefully this clear message will
help America return to some semblance of values, competence,
professionalism and honesty in its foreign policy.
Comments (10)
Do you have a link to the video itself? I can't find it.
May 18, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a good link.
Note the relevant part comes in the last minute or so of the video (part II). Read the last few comments in the transcript.
May 18, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the post, Craig. I can't wait to watch the interview!
May 18, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money quote from transcript:
necessarily, by talking to them if you're tough and you know what you're doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement
May 18, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush/Cheney/NcCain philosophy is, in six words:
Why talk when you can bomb?
If their goal truly was DEMOCRACY in the middle east, why is Bush kissing the ass of the Saudi king? Oh, I know why. Because the Bush/cheney's benefit from the ass-kissing.
May 18, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the Real John McCain. Compilation of a lot of his contradictory statements. Very revealing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
May 18, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baker on APC News this week (quoted in the NYT on October 9, 2006):
“I believe in talking to your enemies,” he said in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus, the Syrian capital, while serving Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state.
“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/world/middleeast/09baker.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
May 18, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a side note, there was the most stunning comment by Hannity at the beginning. I choked on my coffee laughing - thankfully my keyboard's recovered.
`Let's talk a little bit about — you see even now the politics of personal destruction.`
Hannity, of all people!
The man's a buffoon.
Now if only Obama heard about it and could make a national joke of it.
May 18, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fareed Zakaria has an good article on this in Newsweek, `Who's the Real Appeaser?' concluding
"Perhaps Gates noticed that violence has declined in Iraq largely because the United States decided to engage with Sunni militants whom it had regarded for years as sworn enemies, giving cash to those whom we called terrorists only a few months earlier. In fact, this administration's few successes have come when it's agreed to talk with its adversaries. Bush authorized negotiations with Libya and North Korea—both of which he regarded as terrorist states and one of which he placed in the Axis of Evil. As for Iran, we've talked with Iranian officials on several occasions over issues relating to Afghanistan and Iraq. James Dobbins, the administration's representative in the 2002 talks to form the government in Afghanistan, described the Iranians as "straightforward, reliable and helpful. They were critical to our success." President Bush's remarks on the solemn occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary may have been political. But much worse, they were dishonest."
May 18, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
flummoxed Hannity? Great title, great concept, great view, thanks. You knew at some point Papa's friends were going to have to come forward and say, "You know he always was the prodigal son, we just don't know if he'll ever make it back....Daddy's still waiting."
No self-respecting ex-President would accept anything more than paternity as an accident of birth behind this mess.
May 19, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment