« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The First US-Iran Summit Redux
That US-Iran Summit without preconditions just won't go away. Mr. Obama would like to change his position to "tough diplomacy" with Iran, but Mr. McCain is determined to make him live out his first, half-baked statements about meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Obama has been running a successful campaign, playing on our hopes instead of our fears, and one of the most important things Mr. Obama is asking us to be hopeful about is that he can resolve the crisis in the Middle East brought on by the Bush administration's failed adventure in Iraq by meeting personally with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.
In spite of the fact that the Petraeus strategy and the surge have tamped down violence in Southern Iraq, Iran owns Southern Iraq and continues to supply weapons and training to the Shiite insurgents fighting there. The Shiite resistance began when, after crushing the Iraqi military, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons program in Iraq, and capturing Saddam Hussein, the United States failed to withdraw from Iraq. It turns out we had no plan for an exit from Iraq, because staying in Iraq indefinitely was part of the neo-con strategy for establishing a kind of Pax Americana in the Middle East. As Mr. Obama has pointed out, the main beneficiary of that strategy is Iran.
Now, in spite of his protestations that he really has something else in mind, Mr. Obama is still proposing a summit meeting with Iran. He is not proposing low level talks and progress on issues as a pre-condition to a meeting between heads of state as Mrs. Clinton is. He is not proposing to conduct secret negotiations with Iran to sell them weapons -- one of President Reagan's more innovative ideas -- or to negotiate the end of the occupation in secret as President Nixon did in Paris as the Vietnam war wound down. Let's be clear about it. He is proposing a face to face meeting with Ahmadinejad, while Iran continues to supply weapons and training to insurgents who are killing American troops and while Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapons program. That's the equivalent of Richard Nixon proposing to end the Vietnam war by meeting with Ho Chi Mihn, or President George H.W. Bush proposing to end Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait by meeting him face to face to negotiate a withdrawal. A summit meeting with Iran is a truly radical idea. And one of the reasons Mr. Obama is asking us to elect him is so he can hold such a meeting.
I think it's fair that before we send Mr. Obama to meet with Mr. Amadinejad, we ask Mr. Obama what he plans to say to the President of Iran personally that he can't say through intermediates. Shouldn't we have some idea what our President is likely to say? Will he tell Mr. Amadinejad that our commitment to the safety of Israel is absolute? Will he tell him that we are sorry we invaded Iraq? Will he tell him we're leaving Iraq as fast as we can? Will he tell him that we wish he wouldn't continue to develop nuclear weapons, because, if he does, Israel will have to attack his country and we will have no alternative to supporting Israel? Will he tell him that our Sunni allies in the Middle East will not tolerate the persecution of Sunnis in Iraq and that we will have no alternative to supporting them? Mr. Amadinejad knows all that. What new information can Mr. Obama give him? The fact is, of course, that there is nothing Mr. Obama can say to Mr. Amadinejad face to face at a summit meeting that can't be said through intermediaries or that Mr. Amadinejad doesn't already know. In the case of a US-Iran Summit, the meeting itself is the message. In fact, since our allies in the Middle East will never allow that meeting without pre-conditions to occur, proposing the summit, not holding it, is the real message.
I have no doubt that Mr. Obama views reaching out to Mr. Amadinejad as a gesture that will signal America's desire to make a new start in the Middle East. That's a gesture that is completely consistent with Mr. Obama's message of hope. But, if Mr. Obama is the Democratic candidate this year, he will have to walk out on a stage and face John McCain. Mr. McCain has taken the position that America will not leave Iraq until we have prevailed, and that, with the Petraeus strategy, we are prevailing. Mr. McCain has said that the American people will support the occupation and other interventions and invasions as long as our casualties are low. That view is the backbone of Mr. McCain's Middle Eastern policy, and it is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama's appeal.
John McCain is an authentic war hero. And he's a hero, not because of his valor in combat, but because, languishing for years in a North Vietnamese prison as an unpopular war ground slowly to an end, he never lost hope. The North Vietnamese broke his body, but they did not break his spirit.
So, when John McCain leans toward Mr. Obama and says: "Let me tell you something about hope, my friend," Mr. Obama had better have an answer.
Comments (174)
Since we're not in a shooting war with Iran, meeting an Iranian leader doesn't quite seem to be "the equivalent of Richard Nixon proposing to end the Vietnam war by meeting with Ho Chi Minh."
It seems closer to Nixon's 1972 visit to China, which is still regarded as a diplomatic success.
You're right that generic "negotiation" is one thing, and a face-to-face meeting between leaders is another. But I think the subtleties of foreign policy are largely lost on the average voter.
May 20, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can read about Kissinger's extensive preparations for Nixon's trip, including 2 secret trips to China (and here as well), with plenty of preconditions. That the pace of the negotiations led to the abandoning of Taiwan's seat at the UN practically be accident is an indication of the inherent dangers in negotiating at all, even though the nuclear issue and the counterbalance of the Soviet Union was undoubtedly more important.i
May 20, 2008 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The face-to-face meeting with Mao was a huge benefit for the US. It allowed us to finalize our extrication from Vietnam (most of our troops were pulled out by 1973); we got assurance of China's non-aggression policy towards Taiwan in exchange for Taiwan's seat on the UN Security Council (Taiwan's loss of the seat was no accident); the actions helped to stabilize East and Southeast Asia; and we were able to use China as a counterpoint against the Soviet Union. We took advantage of the enormous animosity between China and the USSR--one of the great dangers for an all out nuclear war was between these two countries during the 1960s. This meeting was also a recognition that communist nations did not share an automatic alliance.
There are some parallels here to our contemporary concerns. Certainly, the idea of "no-preconditions" does not necessarily mean no plans or goals.
May 20, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The meetings and agenda were very well defined. They didn't go there to do a free-for-all, they had a sense of which specific points China and the US would be negotiating. It was rather pre-conditioned unless by that you mean "guaranteed outcome", but I don't think that's how the term's being used here - I think it's more something like "a sincere display or willingness to bargain on specific issues worth negotiating".
May 20, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am confident that Obama will prepare carefully for any meeting with foreign leaders, and lay the necessary groundwork. Preparations are not the same thing as preconditions.
If you want to know exactly what Obama's policy is on this matter, here's where it's explained in full:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/18/post_5.php
As you'll see, he has no intention of just packin' a bag and gettin' on the first plane to Iran.
May 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's a requirement that the nation give us what for free before negotiating the price, as in the behavior Bush would bomb a country for using towards the US.
May 20, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even for Iraq he didn't do that.
And since when do Democrats define all their options in terms of an extremist Republican President?
May 21, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I trust Obama will have an answer at least as good as Hillary's. But personally, I think talking doesn't hurt. You open your pie hole. I listen and reply. See? No harm done.
May 20, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Appeaser! Just like Wilt Chamberlain.
May 20, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Shakespeare said: "Cry Foul! and who let the dogs out?"
May 20, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many other people can claim to have bedded 10,000 women AND ceded the Sudetenland to the Nazis? (Maybe Sean Penn?)
May 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't Iran get some of its weapons from Russia? Why don't we declare war on Russia because they're providing the weapons Shiites are using to kill American troops? The United States, as you've pointed out, has in previous years, managed to arm both sides of many conflicts or one side of a conflict and we haven't been sanctioned by the world community. Talking to Iran, figuring out what is in their interests, doesn't hurt anybody and in the long run, it might save American lives.
May 20, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And isn't Bush close personal friends with Putin? Didn't he see his soul or something?
May 20, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
They since broke up.
May 20, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
Watch the video. We're not talking about not talking to Iran. We're talking about how.
May 20, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Googling for "summit without preconditions" turns up some interesting pages using that phrase.
One is about a "summit without preconditions" announced in 2000 between Israel and the Palestinians with Bill Clinton attending, arranged via negotiations by Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan. Another is about a "summit without preconditions" between Israel and the Palestinians announced in 2006.
One is about Winston Churchill calling for a "Great Power summit without preconditions" in 1953, bringing Eisenhower and the Soviets together to try to ease East-West tensions.
One, from some institute at Notre Dame, is a defense of the idea of a summit without preconditions with Iran. I'll include that link here (too many links gets comments rejected, but this is the most relevant one):
http://kroc.nd.edu/polbriefs/PolBrief11.pdf
Two are about Reagan agreeing to a "summit without preconditions on SDI/Star Wars" with Gorby.
A number of duplicates as well, plus a bunch more from pro-Hillary and pro-McCain sites arguing against Obama's willingness to consider summits without preconditions. Searching for "summits without preconditions" (plural "summits") turns up a bunch of links to a Joseph Wilson article that has been re-posted all over the place and not much else. Wilson adds the qualifier "unstructured summits" apparently assuming that "no preconditions" is equivalent to "no agenda."
May 20, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite misleading.
The 2000 summit may not have had "preconditions" because the preconditions already existed for over 50 years, and those were what was being bargained. They had detailed maps drawn up and detailed plans.
2006? Who cares what Bush team did.
Reagan & Gorby? They of course had done an enormous amount of work on the back channel, including laying down the gauntlet with missiles in Europe, pushing ahead with Star Wars, and "Tear down this wall". It was a high stakes poker game they were attending, and love him or hate him, Reagan knew very well what cards he held.
Similarly, Churchill and Eisenhower had worked together for over 10 years and would know exactly what they were inviting the Soviets to discuss, and Churchill had negotiated with the Soviets at Yalta, Tehran and Potsdam. Since Eisenhower had just gotten the Chinese to the bargaining table by threatening nuclear war on the back channel, bringing the Korean War quickly to an end, I suspect that there may have been more preconditions to the 1953 proposal than you know about. With Stalin's recent death, it also might have been a good time to extract concessions from a nervous uneducated newcomer to the Kremlin like Kruschev, especially in places like Vienna (where the Soviets still shared power). (Kruschev did not fully consolidate power until 1955, and the Soviets had pulled out of Vienna at that time).
May 20, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
But how is there any less of an existing context with Iran? There have been extensive negotiations with Iran for years, some officially acknowledged and some, presumably, not. In recent years France, Germany and the UK have negotiated extensively with Iran, with US approval of the arrangement. The US position on Iran's nuclear program is clear. The US position regarding Iran vs. Israel is clear. Etc.
Billy keeps saying that there's nothing that could be said at such a meeting that the two sides don't already know, as if that's a meaningful point. But the reason there's nothing that can't be said that they wouldn't both already know is exactly because there is the kind of existing context that you're bringing up here.
The same for the other summits without preconditions. Those were all proposed in a context that went back for years. There was nothing to be said in those summits that both sides didn't already know. That didn't make the summits pointless at all.
I wonder if Obama's remarks would be at all controversial if they weren't coming on the heels of the Bush administration having made an opposition to summits without preconditions a centerpiece of its foreign policy ideas. The GOP has managed to make this kind of pseudo-tough talk, this kind of foot-stomping, blustering, saber-rattling attempt to get what it wants by demanding it as a precondition, into a surrogate for genuine toughness.
Democratic candidates sometimes meekly fall in line about it, out of fear of being branded "soft on terror" or something. Never mind that the Bush administration's insistence on "preconditions" has been a dismal failure, and countries like Iran and North Korea have called Bush's bluffs over and over again. As a result, both of those examples have actually been pushed in the direction of being larger threats to us than they were before. NK has nuclear bombs now that they didn't have when Bush took office. Iran has become more belligerent, and has moved forward with its own nuclear program.
But the GOP has somehow managed to frame any other sort of response as being a "soft" foreign policy, and especially, "soft on the war on terror." Amazing, isn't it? Framing Bush's stupid approach to foreign policy as an exemplar of what a "tough" leader does, while at the same time that stupid foreign policy has done nothing but make things worse. That's the context in which I'm glad to see Obama not trying to out-hawk the GOP hawks. YMMV.
May 20, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will take a minimum 6 months to set up a new diplomatic framework to deal with both Iran's support of Iraq and the nuclear issue. We would likely want to discredit Ahmadinejad in the process to support a replacement "reformer" (remembering that Khatami was rather a badass himself on certain topics - we will not find Peter Jennings amongst contending Iranians). We have to set up a new framework with Europe itself (gee, wouldn't it have been nice if Obama had held those goddamn meetings?) because we've been bashing the Europeans over the head for the last 7 years, and now we need to both keep a burr up their ass but let them know we don't think they're appeasing escargots. We have to figure out what we're willing to give up, what kind of stable situation we can accept in the Middle East, what's the likelihood of getting it, etc. Since Bush broke up the table, we've now got about 8 shots with a lot of green - we're dealing with Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon (and thus Syria), Palestine, plus a bit of stretching by China in Xinjiang/Central Asia, Russia in the Caucuses (and Arctic), and Turkey getting rather frenetic over our lack of a plan to deal with those pesky Kurds. There is no solution in isolation, though we might be able to settle down 3 or 4 countries together. Fortunately the Indians seem pretty satisfied these days, so 1 thing's going right.
May 21, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
George W. Bush holds kisses and holds hands with the ruler of the kingdom that the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from (Saudi Arabia), but Obama can't have a meeting with the leader of Iran.
Please explain to me the logic here?
May 20, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
typo on the first "holds"
May 20, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Appeaser! Appeaser, appeaser, appeaser.
You appeasing girly-men make me sick. And now you're implying that Obama should kiss and hold hands with the leader of Iran. That is dangerously naive, my friend.
May 20, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
George Bush is an idiot. Using him as a standard for how to govern and negotiate is completely foolish.
May 20, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I was saying it snarky but you went ahead and said it serious. Hmm.
May 20, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
My threads aren't for snark, Alex. Take the snark somewhere else. Bring your grownup self to this discussion.
May 20, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain's arms were broken when his plane crashed. He spent his time in the Hanoi hospital reserved for high ranking Vietnamese officers which he was able to enter by the requests from his father an Admiral in the Navy.
May 20, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love your mind.
May 20, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It put down its turdblossoms and crossed its arms in a stance it had seen people take when they were thinking. Should I add the part about him probably ratting out his other POWs, or maybe the part about him being brainwashed, or maybe the part about him being unfit because he was tortured? I'll save all those things for later, it thought. It picked up its turdblossoms and posted its little piece of shit. There, it said.
May 20, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad. Busted. Again.
May 20, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad I'm not Billy.
May 20, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You never will be. You like the smell of turdblossoms too much.
May 20, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: I never will be you because I'm not an asshole.
May 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You almost fooled me, then
May 20, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've never mistaken you for being perceptive.
May 20, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell you what Ripper. I'm running out of troll food and places for you guys to sleep. How about we make the same deal I've made with other personal trolls and stalkers? I'll ignore you if you ignore me. Deal? You can come back when you're potty trained and keeping better company.
May 20, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I don't negotiate with enemies.
May 20, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make that: I don't negotiate with enemas.
May 20, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!!
May 20, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
potty humor vs. potty training
May 20, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mind them crapping on the floor, but when they get down and play in it, it's disgusting.
May 20, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Icky. You smell like a swift-boater. If you think that we are going to beat John McCain by challenging his heroism as a POW, you are drinking somebody's Kool-Aid, and it ain't coming from Senator Obama or his campaign.
May 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.
Good one, Bruce.
May 20, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help making my vulnerable little analogies to the world I know best, psychotherapy and social science in general. Billy, here's one you can enjoy writing off as irrelevant to the world of international relations.
Billy's proposal, like Bush's, McCain's, and Hillary's, is analogous to what Alcoholics Anonymous at its worst does. Unlike the founders of AA, modern policy leaders in AA demand that alcoholics stop drinking before receiving help. AA based treatment, however, has approximately only a ten percent success rate, which is no better than no treatment at all.
Likewise, Hillary and her Republican counterparts, all subscribers to the so-called Realist school of international relations, demand that Iran submit to our degrading rhetoric, feel just fine about us despite our murderousness in the Middle East, and cooperate with us by making, as Billy puts it, "progress on issues." They've got to get religion first. Then we'll seriously relate to them. The success rates in this realm also seem quite low.
An alternative is proposed by James Blight, who along with MacNamara, convened Vietnamese and American leaders who were in power before and during the Vietnam war. They had their feet held to the fire by Blight and his subordinates who had collected all the relevant documents. Leaders on both sides concluded that, if the top people had talked based on the principle of "realistic empathy," they would have learned that their interests really weren't so at odds that war was warranted. Put more simply, they realized they wouldn't have gone to war if only they had talked extensively without conditions about what really motivated them instead of in condescending, threatening, and demanding foreign policyese.
Obama also knows how to relate to people who are at odds, who hate each other, including his own people. He knows the principles of negotiations based first on his natural empathy and his success as a community organizer. He is the consummate Socratic thinker as well, and his Cabinet and extensive advisors will help him capitalize on his amazing intelligence and empathic sensitivity. For instance, rather than condescend to white racists, he empathized with them in his speech on race. That's exactly what we need. Hillary hasn't got a clue how to talk with people who hate us. She's stuck in the old Realist model. Billy, you're stuck in the old model or relationships too. Come on out into the future.
It's uncanny how Hillary and Hillary supporters side with McCain. We have no idea if McCain is only a rigid person rather than a strong one. There are plenty of prison camp victims who were less heroic than repressed, like Hillary.
You have to demonize people to treat them that way, and Clinton has clued us in to her preferred strategy for dealing with people she opposes. No less a fair witness as Bill Bradley reported that, in a committee meeting, Hillary openly professed that she would demonize opponents of the committee's proposals.
May 20, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Preach has got something here, but I'll put a slightly different spin on it.
Obama's openness to talking with Ahmadinejad could, in fact, serve two very positive outcomes for the West.
Speaking with Ahmadinejad can only weaken the Iranian leader's ability to cast the U.S. in derogatory terms that serve to incite his power base. It won't be as easy to portray the U.S. as elitist, smug, indifferent, hostile or bloodthirsty.
Second, and perhaps more important, Ahmadinejad needs to show his people that he is a world-class statesman. He needs at least a token of respect from the West for his own self-esteem and to show he can lead effectively without isolating his country further.
But rather than strengthening his hand in the Middle East, a meeting with Obama would force responsibility onto Ahmadinejad to behave with statesmanship rather than bluster. He will have to rise above his previous rhetoric or risk appearing foolishly rash. Sure, he'll still be full of bluster. But behind the scenes, in the same way Gorbachev achieved a personal rapport with Reagan that laid the foundation for arms control and the dismantling of the Soviet empire, Ahmadinejad may find it more rewarding to work with Obama on common goals than to rattle his saber at 130,000 seasoned U.S. troops on their way out of Iraq.
May 20, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
My God, Ahmadinejad is a cracker and doesn't even have enthusiastic support from his conservative mullahs. Why should we give him a PR win by having the President meet with him instead of letting him wither as an example of what happens if you only give off provocative statements?
People act like something good will come out of just sitting down and chatting. Well Bush was proposing a radar station in the Czech Republic, and by just chatting with Putin, Putin offered him an ex-Soviet one in Azerbaijan. What a nice gesture. It delayed us 6 months or a year in finding an effective diplomatic way to say "No thanks". And at least that's a fairly trivial loss. Obama's likely never negotiated with anyone as clever as some of the world's less scrupulous leaders. Acting like it's child play only makes it scarier.
May 20, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the points Clinton has been making is that we really don't understand the power structure in Iran very well. What you say could be true. But put it in the current context of a political campaign we have to win.
What successful Presidential candidate ran on a campaign of holding unconditional Presidential summit meetings with America's enemies? That Obama's campaign already sees the problem he created for himself in the general if he gets there is illustrated by the fact that he is backpeddling so furiously.
May 20, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy -
First, the race between Obama and Clinton is over.
Second, why are you so sure Obama would be meeting with the president who generally handles internal affairs rather than the guy who is actually in charge of foreign policy?
Third, I know you're smarter than this and you are being wilfully ignorant of the workings of foreign policy. You know it's not Hollywood type "your people call my people" stuff. Don't be daft. Any talks between the heads of state would be preceded by many rounds of high-level talks and negotiation, both directly and indirectly. "Without preconditions" simply means that the point is to engage Iran not to extract of concessions.
Finally, why would Obama let his basic campaign message get bogged down in the minutiae? That's Hillary's strategy, but the reality is that the details are lost on most people - they're mostly a rhetorical device. The point is Obama will engage Iran rather than continuing to pursue a policy which clearly isn't working.
May 20, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should have said it like that or like Clinton says it. Right now, McCain is down in Florida beating Obama up for saying he would talk to Castro without pre-conditions. Obama is not the nominee. That's for the super delegates to decide at the convention. I just saw a horrible quote from the Audacity of Hope that Obama is going to have to deal with. It's hard to believe, but Obama may be proving that he's a loser in the Gore/Kerry tradition. When he is the nominee, we'll let up on him and hope for the best. Until then, he needs to revise his positions on summits, healthcare and working Americans.
May 20, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What quote, Billy?
PLEASE tell me it's not the one from the earlier post here.
May 20, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know anything about an earlier post. Are you really sailing with a Captain who based his campaign on the fact that more people believe in angels than in evolution? Remember A Face In The Crowd?
May 20, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one by ugly something? Yes. String of quotes all out of context. Pure Freeper stuff. He and Axelrod have to answer everyone of them. Dreams he gets a hall pass. Audacity of Hope, no pass. Every sentence. He'll stand with the Muslims? Did we learn from the Japanese internment? Courageous and noble stuff. He doesn't do this. He doesn't do that. Shaking his finger. It won't play in mainstream America any better than it played in FL, OH, PA, TX. That vessel is springing leaks all over. Save yourself, girl. Jump ship. We'll take you aboard. You'll have to swab the decks for a while. But we'll make an able bodied seaman out of you yet.
May 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Save yourself, girl." At least you didn't call me sweetie. ;)
I suppose I'm a little surprised that you've taken the position that we should be worrying about people misunderstanding things, rather than pushing for understanding. Coming from the person who pushed us all here to get what Morrison was talking about when she called Clinton the black president, I would think you'd want to advance a deeper understanding of truth rather than simply accept ignorance.
Back when this all started, I didn't think Obama stood a chance at coming out the victor in the primary. Why? Not because he's black, or has a funny name, or because he's young, or because he didn't stand a chance against the "Clinton machine." I didn't think he stood a chance because he speaks in paragraphs. He doesn't answer questions with short and simple answers. Sometimes, he's too much nuance. The cynical part of me figured that America, land of the free and home of the soundbite, wouldn't have the attention span to listen to complex thoughts on complex problems.
May 20, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually arrived at "my little taste of pineapple" being better than "Sweetie."
But the Democratic Primary campaign is not "America." Do you want to win the White House or don't you? She has the electoral votes in the bag. Why take a chance now?
May 20, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not America. But it's the first step in the gauntlet. And to say she has the electoral votes locked up, at this stage in the game, is simply no guarantee. Have you seen the latest SUSA matchups? Poking some little holes in that superior electability argument.
But even if I were to concede that he's a riskier candidate, what can I say? I've always been a sucker for the guys who carry a little more risk but have greater potential. Also explains why I have a thing for the Reese avatar. :)
May 21, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
See "HORSE'S MOUTH" ABOVE. He hasn't backpedeled one iota. He's only clarified that he wouldn't "parachute" down into a dictator's lap to have a chat. The no preconditions criteria still holds, as it should. By "preparations," he means he will talk only if it's clear that a broad agenda will be open for discussion. But that's not a pre-condition in the sense that Hillary et al mean. She means a concession of some substance, not a concession on agenda.
Your concern about the general election:
It's up to him and his supporters to sell his approach, and their biggest selling point is that the preconditions requirement isn't working. His entire appeal is based on busting ideological frames with straightforward arguments like that one. But, of course, the negotiation methodology he has in mind is sophisticated and unprecedented at this level, so no self-respecting swing voter gives a hoot about it, as Alex39 says.
I contend that no one except international relations experts not now in power understand his method. You anti-Obamiacs just don't know anything about sophisticated, cutting edge methods, and you won't find out from campaigners. As things stand, you think you know all of the possible moves and are certain that they've been tried or are known by A, so what's to be gained. You don't know all the possible moves and processes.
If interested, you can go to the website of the Watson Institute and read some stuff about the workings of James Blight, whom I hope will be our next Sec'y of State.
May 20, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I contend that no one except international relations experts not now in power understand his method."
I bow to a master. That was snark, wasn't it?
May 20, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, listen to Hillary on the video, it's obvious she's not talking about broad pre-concessions.
May 21, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Desi probably has this one about right. I don't think a without-preconditions meeting with Ahmadinejad would be smart, for the reasons Desi gives, and saying "okay" at the debate, without inserting a little boilerplate about "provided that etc." -- wasn't Obama's greatest moment.
But really, so the hell what? BO has now clarified his original statement -- or "backpedaled" if you prefer Billy's locution. He has reaffirmed that there would, in fact, be preconditions for any such meeting.
In the meantime, McCain is saying things that really are reckless and irresponsible, like seriously comparing Iran to the Soviet threat, and implying that all forms of diplomacy are forms of weakness or appeasement. That stuff is scary; it suggests a hot-headed view of int'l relations, and a contemptuous view of the American electorate. I've seen where that approach takes us. Barack's failure to mention the niceties of diplomatic protocol at a debate in the fall is not scary. It might get you excited if you're a Clinton supporter, but it's not exactly red meat for the general election.
Eyes on the prize, folks.
May 20, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's how the issue is being framed by the AP.
At the heart of the dispute between the candidates is Obama's assertion that, as president, he would meet with leaders of these rogue countries without preconditions. Obama insists that direct engagement with the Soviets helped prevent nuclear war and, over time, helped to bring down the Berlin Wall.
McCain strongly disagrees with Obama's position; he argues such a meeting would lend international prestige to U.S. foes.
"An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically, when he is very unpopular among the Iranian people," McCain said.
Later Monday, McCain said it makes no sense that Obama would not negotiate with the Islamic terrorist group Hamas but would meet with Iran, a sponsor of Hamas.
"It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues we face, particularly in the Middle East," McCain told reporters in Savannah, Ga.
"Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess," McCain said at the restaurant industry's annual meeting.
He was referring to comments Obama made Sunday in Pendleton, Ore.: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"
And, in case you didn't get the memo here at the echo chamber, the official version is that Iran is indeed a grave threat.
"Obama responded (to McCain) almost immediately. "Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat," he said."
McCain is eating Obama's lunch. Incredibly enough, Obama is proving to everyone outside the echo chamber that he is actually capable of carrying on in the losing tradition of Gore and Kerry. Just when I thought the race for the Dem nomination was over.
May 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you'll link to the AP story, I'll take a look at the way they're representing it. It's not clear to me how much of what you've provided above is a direct quote.
May 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
google it
May 20, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so here's a link:
http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/626477.html
I read the story. Sounds fine to me. In the story I read, the parts you selected above came in a different order, and were accompanied by material more favorable to Obama.
For instance:
Sky not falling. Obama's lunch not being eaten.
May 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Selective perception. Neither of us can avoid it. We can only keep putting our perceptions out there and hope they overlap now and then. Then we have to deal with selective retention so we don't forget what it was we agreed about. Communication is hard. My point is McCain is not going to give him a pass on his stupid comments about meeting with Ahmadijenad and Castro.
May 20, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though spinning it away from North Korea is a good idea.
May 20, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
check out Deanie's post
it seems your war hero wants other war heroes to get the shaft, and languish for years waiting for health care, while their spirits might or might not break. he also doesn't want his fellow veterans to have a properly funded education, unless they intend to make a career out of the military. you know, it sounds like he wants them to lose hope. so let me tell you something about hope my friend. it can be crushed by people, especially if you've put your faith in them - or voted for them.
May 20, 2008 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the point? It's all the same drivel, isn't it?
May 20, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
i guess my point is that john mccain is damaged goods, and he will lose in the fall.
either obama or clinton would defeat him.
the debate over whether clinton or obama will get that privilege has been/is being settled in primaries and caucuses throughout the nation. i don't want to rub it in, so i won't mention who is winning.
why are you building up john mccain? do you want to make clinton's or obama's job harder this fall?
i guess i can think of reasons for a clinton supporter to want to expose a perceived weakness of obama, so i won't indict you for that.
(in fact, i probably agree with you that even suggesting a meeting without preconditions was a bad idea, and one that he should consider retracting. so he made a mistake - big deal. does this foreign policy blunder disqualify him any more than those of his opponents? Iran-alqaeda and bomb-iran on John Mccain, Bosnia and obliterate-iran on HRC?)
i only posted because i wanted to dispel your narrative about john mccain.
May 20, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That's the equivalent of Richard Nixon proposing to end the Vietnam war by meeting with Ho Chi Mihn, or President George H.W. Bush proposing to end Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait by meeting him face to face to negotiate a withdrawal."
yes, and once you can point to our fighting iranian military units, then you will have a working analogy. a closer one is like nixon seeking detente with the soviets, and even that is faulty in describing our situation now.
"And one of the reasons Mr. Obama is asking us to elect him is so he can hold such a meeting."
I have summarized both democratic candidates' positions on iraq and diplomacy based on their websites. please pick which one you think is obama and which one is clinton:
Candidate A) "our forces will redeploy out of iraq, and i will call for a group of our allies, global powers and ALL of iraq's bordering countries to meet and work on stabilization of the region. i will get them to agree to not interfere in iraq's civil war, ask them to help mediate disputes between iraq's sectarian groups, and help provide funds for reconstruction."
Candidate B) "i will launch a diplomatic effort with ALL of iraq's neighbors in order to reach an agreement on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. I will get them to agree to respect iraq's sovereignty, stay out of iraq's civil war, isolate al Qaeda, support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups, and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction."
May 20, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which one said he would hold Presidential summits with our enemies without preconditions? Hillary? Obama caught the drift on this one too late. If he's undone, it will be Nationalism that undoes him.
May 20, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
so if their stances are similar, what is your point? is there a genuine change you want to see, or is this preemptive gloating in case the issue comes back to hurt the nominee?
May 20, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton and Obama are diametrically opposed on the question of summit meetings without preconditions. Clinton is the better candidate. Hands down. If McCain beats Obama, there will be nothing to gloat about.
May 20, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
that's inane. do you believe obama will harm US interests by speaking without stated preconditions? you think he or his advisers won't have already drawn up a set of conditions that are/are not on the table that they bring out right as talks start? if one leader has a summit without preconditions and walks away having gained or lost nothing, while another has no talks at all and gains/loses nothing, what's the difference?
May 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all,
Uh no, but you get an A for effort. I'm not hopeful he's going to go over there and solve everything with his magical oratory. What I am hopeful about is that we'll finally have a President who actually looks at war as a last resort.
Secondly, you're right about most people not understanding the power structure over there. I think most probably assume that the President of Iran has roughly the same powers as the President of the U.S., which just isn't the case. And the other huge thing that seems to get left out of all this is that Iran has an election next year. And from what I understand, Ahmadinejad stands a serious chance of losing that election.
May 20, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I find interesting is that no one can think of something Mr. Obama can ask that he doesn't already know or say that Mr. Ahmadijenad doesn't already know. My point is this is bad for Obama politically, but McCain is not going to let him get his foot out of his mouth. Obama needs to fess up and get this one behind him. He could say he's learned a lot from Hillary.
May 20, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And some people seem to forget that an aspect of the end of the cold war was the personal relationship between Reagan and Gorbachev.
May 20, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
People don't forget that at all. But Reagan put missiles in Europe, pushed ahead with Star Wars, and yelled "Tear Down This Wall", and Gorbachev still came forward in a spirit of compromise. Thus there was a good space to negotiate and a good sense of what to negotiate on.
Having the leader of the free world go have a chat with Ahmadinejad just gives him more street cred at a time when his fortunes are failing. Richard Nixon did this with Ceaucescu, and it wasn't pretty.
The President of the United States is not the neighborhood welcome wagon. If we want someone to say hi to Iran, we can find someone a few notches down to broach diplomacy and assure that the President is not setting him/herself up for an international embarrassment.
May 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This attack on Obama isn't really about the best way to diplomatically engage our enemies. Its an attack that tries to smear Obama as being dangerously naive on national security. Clinton tried this and now McCain, Bush are giving it a whirl.
The mere fact that a real argument can be made on either side of this issue - as can be seen in this thread - itself proves that Obama is not naive here. For this smear to work, the very idea of talking to potential enemies must be made to seem inherently dangerous.
That is why we saw Bush in front of the Israeli Parliament attempting to equate talking to Iran with appeasing Hitler! The Bush/McCain side of this debate so overreached its argument last week because they aren't really debating diplomatic policy. This was a purely an electoral attack on Obama. That's why Bush and McCain looked so ridiculous, with their Nazi Germany analogies. So much so, that we even saw the White House try to back-peddle. Rare.
Obama's diplomatic approach may or may not ultimately prove successful with Iran, but it certainly isn't naive for him to suggest.
May 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't just say "talking to our enemies." Please don't misrepresent what Mr. Obama said. If you are going to defend him, please do so honestly.
May 20, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy. Can't hang out today. I leave you with name Powell one more time. Hillary as VP. Rendell when she refuses. Obama starts to assemble post-partisan figures who are respected, especially Powell. Obama has got to start showing people around him who represent informed views. Powell gets Defense. Gets us out. Perfect foil to McCain's military chops. Big mistake for Obama would be to put forth academics without any experience. Good luck with the post.