« 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.
May 20, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wish you could take the trolls with you. I don't have time to walk them today. One of them pissed in the corner and the others are licking it up. Disgusting mess.
May 20, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you were absent a few days - this is their better behavior.
May 20, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
New10 is right here. The niceties of diplomacy are not a crisis for Obama in the general. We can disagree about those niceties.
New10's point is not that Obama just said "we should talk to our enemies," but that this issue only becomes a hot-button issue if and when people decide to think about it in those broad-brush terms.
In other words, there is substance to your post, and there is an aura of urgency. But the substance and the aura of urgency don't overlap, or even touch. The substance only matters if you're a foreign-policy geek, and the urgency is only urgent if you're a hard-right unilateral Republican.
To put it another way: the argument McCain is having is not the same argument you're trying to have, and the argument you're having is not actually a threat in the general election.
May 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, Billy, if you're going to attack him, please do so honestly.
So, what exactly is your issue on this? Did Obama suggest he'd also pick up the dinner tab after talking with them, is that it?
Please clearly lay out the scenario where by a U.S. president talking directly with Iranian leaders is more dangerous then not? Be specific.
Otherwise, stop aiding the GOP fear mongering.
May 20, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is they have nothing to talk about. It was an Obama stunt that backfired. He's eating his words daily and McCain is making him look stupid. Our allies will never let Obama meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions if Obama gets nominated and elected. And as far as telling me what to do goes, piss off.
May 20, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's happening is that Obama is making McCain look like Bush III.
I think this was a very silly way for McCain to begin the general. If you'll notice, he is now trying to transition to economic issues.
May 20, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
1. You do not understand what pre-conditions mean. It surely means something quite different than preparations.
2. You clearly do not understand that one reason why there has been so little substantive progress in talking with Iran recently has been the attitude that they must accept pre-conditions, or public humiliation and capitulation before we give them the time of day. Intransigence for it's own sake it rarely useful. They are intransigent because we want to humilate them first. This helps in their domestic politics.
2a. You do not understand the signal our unwillingness to meet with other countries until they do exactly what they want makes on many other countries around the world. They take it as proof of our arrogance and lack of respect. It makes them less willing to do us any favors.
3. You do not understand what potential gains were already in fact lost, particularly in the cooperation against Al Qaeda, by our unwillingness to talk constructively with Iran and Syria after Sept. 11.
4. You are clearly misinformed about who Obama would be speaking to if he were talking to the real leader of Iran (Hint it's not Ahmadinejad).
5. You do not understand that negotations are not capitulation.
6. You way overestimate McCain ability to spin his experience in a Hanoi prison cell into some useful lesson for dealing with the modern world and our adversaries.
May 20, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy "is not" Glad.
May 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Billy.
In fact, Kennedy had nothing to talk about with Kruschev. Nixon had nothing to talk about with Mao. Reagan had nothing to talk about with Gorbachev.
Those two nuclear wars we fought against the Soviet Union, and then Chinese were unavoidable. Its a good thing our Presidents didn't bother with speaking to their leaders. Oh, wait! Our presidents did speak with their leaders, and we did avoid two nuclear wars.
Right, Billy?
May 20, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Been covered upthread. We didn't have nuclear wars because of MAD. The Soviets caught up just in time, by the way. Ask the Japanese.
May 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, Desi and Billy, the question people are asking you is, What the heck is the point of this argument? What exactly are we trying to achieve?
The original post presents this as "a crisis for Obama -- he must fess up, come clean, change his stripes." But while we disagree about the minutiae of diplomatic policy, there's been very little talk about what would be gained by changing course on this issue. In practice, changing course is usually a bad idea -- especially in a case like this where most Democrats don't really want him to change course. (Indeed, once you start talking about the difference between "preparations" and "preconditions," most voters have trouble staying awake.)
Without a clearer sense of the political "payoff" of this discussion -- i.e., what's to be gained -- I can see how people might get the impression that y'all are just echoing Republican talking points for the sheer joy of being negative.
May 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should have come to the table with preconditions. Every one's a loser in this thread. Except the grackles - it's always win-win-win for them.
The point is that nuance matters, and that hippie vibe good intentions are going to get smashed out of the park in the fall, so there better be some message control. But Obama's off-the-cuff remarks are very fragile, so we risk having another president who can't trust himself to the press (and of the course the other one who the press goes out of its way to insult, but we can deal with juvenile jealousy).
May 20, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But your point (and the GOP's) is that a U.S. president talking with the leadership of our adversaries is somehow dangerous and wrong.
It should be self-evident that direct Presidential diplomacy with the Soviets and the Chinese were at worst NOT harmful, and for all we know, may have been THE difference that prevented nuclear war. MAD policy or not.
Well, Billy, its been fun. No more time to play now. I'll check back a later.
May 20, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Take care.
May 20, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, One last thing and I'm out the door. I suspect that Bush's actions in Israel were a deal. He came out against Hamas (and Obama), he supported the idea of an independent Palestinian state in the same trip. The back door deal was an action against Iran before he leaves office. This makes a Republican victory more likely. Hillary may have some wind of this, and is positioned to get the nod if such an attack came soon. Perhaps this is the "event" she is waiting for.
May 20, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -your statement
KLEIN: I've done some research, and um -
MCCAIN: I have too.
KLEIN: Also checked, also checked with the Obama campaign and he never, he's never sai -- mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders, but as you know - Ayatollah,
MCCAIN: (Laughing) Ahmadinejad is, was the leader.
KLEIN: But if -
MCCAIN: Maybe I'm mistaken.
KLEIN: Maybe you are, because -
MCCAIN: Maybe. I don't think so though.
KLEIN: The Supreme, you know, according to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?
MCCAIN: Oh I thin-Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country. Yes sir, go ahead.
NEW REPORTER: One more quest-
MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know. Go ahead. Or anyone who's well-versed in the issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/mccain-confronted-with-ne_n_102614.html
May 20, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the stuff that drives me insane. I don't want a President who is constantly dumbing stuff down.
Ask the average American who the leader of Iran is. Yes, because whatever the average American thinks makes it fact. 36% of Americans know who the president of Russia is. 49% know who Nancy Pelosi is. 31% cannot identify who the VP of the US is. More people believe in the devil than in evolution. So yes, ask any average America who the president of any foreign country is, and whatever their answer is becomes fact.
Is it really too much to ask for a President who gets nuance?
May 20, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right. Now we are down to it. Obama planned his political career around two facts, both laid out in a speech on religion.
1. More people believe in angels than in evolution.
2. People are lonely and lead meaningless lives. They are longing for someone to fill the void in their lives.
Did he see you coming, Hilary? He certainly didn't see me. You see, your candidate exploited the very things you lament about Americans.
You should get off that leaky vessel before it sails.
May 20, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF.
You just got called out on the carpet Klein) for not knowing who the real leader of Iran is and for the fact that Obama never mentions Ahmadinejad and you respond with angels and evolution. Pure troll feces.
May 20, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whom are you talking to? Try to keep up, old man.
May 20, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
Here is the original question and the answers. This is the context of the debate. Tell me who you see up on the screen as the leader of Iran.
Smartass gotchas to take down first Clinton, and now McCain are the kind of arguments you Obamanauts have become famous for. The truth is, as Hillary Clinton has said, it's not clear who the "real" leader of Iran is. But it doesn't make much difference which Iranian Obama has his summit without preconditions with. It will still be a stupid thing to do.
Some of the lamest people on this site have the most pretentious names. Yeah. I mean you.
May 20, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry to make an example of you, but you're just too good an example of an Obamanaut to pass up. Joe Klein said it? Must be true. Echo it. Echo it. But if you saw the debate, you know Obama was looking at a picture of Ahmadinejad when the words leader of Iran were being spoken. If you thought for yourself instead of letting some pundit think for you, you'd go check the video and refresh your memory instead of echoing Klein's bullshit assertion that Obama wasn't talking about Ahmadinejad. Start thinking for yourself or stay off of my threads.
May 20, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that the guy who asked the question in the youtube debate up some picture in his video means that's who Obama has to meet with? Is that an official State Dept. policy?
Obama has repeated his committment many many times, and yet he always refers to the leader(s) of Iran. He didn't name Ahmadinejad. The reason is that Ahmadinejad does not make the decisions. He does regularly make an ass of himself, but that does not mean he makes the decisions, nor that he is the person to negotiate with. The president of the United States will talk with the person in power, not the jester who stands in front of the throne. Either that is Khomenei or it is your friend Ahmadinejad. Wanna bet I'm right and you are wrong.
The reason this matters is that the strategy for making this argument depends on being able to demonize Ahmadinejad to make even the thought of talking to him unacceptable. Obviously you fell for it. but then again you are still wondering if Michelle and Barack really love their country as much as Hillary and Bill, right?
If it is true that power lies elsewhere, and then the bluster doesn't work. McCain has to answer for why he either doesn't know who is in power, or why he is purposely misleading the public. That reckoning is coming.
So,once you are talking to the right people, you can figure out if Iran and the US actually have mutual interests. It is a fact that the US missed opportunities to cooperate with Iran in the fight against Al Qaeda, but the Bush administration blew it.
Whatever. I can't believe I am wasting my time with a punk like you.
May 20, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good connection, Indie Pro.
Part of the game that gets played is to personalize the enemy. You focus on Saddam Hussein, or Ahmadinejad, in order to turn their faces into demonic icons. Once you've done that, it becomes impossible to negotiate, but easy to declare war. The complicated internal reality of the nation -- which never reduces simply to the face of an evil leader -- gets ignored.
Obama is resisting that game, and it's important to resist that game. This is part of what we ought to have learned from the Iraq debacle.
May 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Good connection, Indie." Sorry, Little Alex. I didn't see you there. I didn't mean to hit you with that video. But if you're going to hang around with fools, you're going to have to take a shot now and then.
You and Hilary don't belong on that ship of fools. Get GFTB and BEE and slip over the side before it sails. Once they batten down the hatch, I can't get you out.
May 20, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wot?
Context is everything. I hate spin that changes reality. Especially when the folks that saw it live start parroting the new and (un)improved truthiness version. It's sooooo Gery GOP dittohead, ya know?
It's scary.
May 20, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no one I'd rather take off that ship than you, but I know you'd walk through fire to vote for the Democrat this Fall. Whoever it is.
May 20, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go, Indie. Send this video to Klein. Maybe he'll mention you in his next column. You think he even saw the debate? Have to wonder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
May 20, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And wouldn't it be ironic if Russia decides to invade the separatist regions of our erstwhile ally Georgia in a response to efforts to secure these areas using military force and in a tit-for-tat for US recognition of Kosovo's independence.
Then Bush and Co. will be happy to provide us with a clear demonstration of what "appeasement" actually is.
May 20, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
During the Youtube debate Obama said he would meet with the leaders of, among others, Iran and North Korea, without preconditions in order to bridge the gaps that exist between the countries. This was a foolish statement and McCain will bludgeon him with it. Obama has massaged his position so that it is now basically the same as Clinton (correct me if I'm wrong on this) - that he would not meet personally with leaders without diplomatic preparations and low level contacts. See http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051908.shtml Presumably, there would be no face to face meeting unless there were some progress on underlying issues - including Iran's nuclear weapns program, support for Shiite militias (I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that Iran "owns" southern Iraq), and Iranian support for Hezbollah, among other things. It seems obvious that there would have to be some progress on these issues before any meetings would be held. Yes, Iran already knows our positions on these issues, but making them a precondition for any negotiations as the Bush administration has done is actually the same as saying there will be no negotiations. Those are the issues that are negotiated. The hope is that a carrot and stick approach will lead the Iranians to behave more responsibly. Of course, no one knows where this will lead, but that's what negotations are for.
I do agree, however, that McCain will try to exploit Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs, i.e., his original statement about meeting without preconditions, and as a genuine war hero will have an opening to do so. I am also wondering what Obama's answer will be and it won't be good enough (as it was in the primary) to say he was against the war in the first place.
May 20, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I meant to say (through my egregious typos and repetitions) is that the Bush approach is to insist on making the endgame the starting point for negotiations. In other words, we won't even speak with you unless you first agree to everything we would hope to gain in negotiations. That's a nonstarter.
May 20, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. That's what I can't understand about that position. If you do A, B, and C, we'll meet with you. Of course, if you've done A, B, and C, we won't have much to talk about.
May 20, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two sample scenarios.
a) If you do A & B, we'll meet to discuss C, D & E. If not, no meeting.
b) We are coming to discuss F & G. J, K & L are not on the table. If you're not ready to discuss F &G, no meeting.
c) We're looking for movement on M & N. We're willing to budge on Q & R, but not without M & N moving.
May 20, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"1, 2, 5..."
"Three sir"
"Right, 3"
May 20, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, since you heard Hillary's answer to the same question at the debate, you know that non negotiation is not Hillary's position either. She's just had the advantage of seeing how negotiations succeed -- and fail -- in the real world, and, perhaps, was thinking of Bill Clinton's failed attempt to make last minute progress on the Palestinian issue as an example of wasting the prestige of the office by going into a summit without getting some preconditions met. Summits aren't blue sky excercises.
May 20, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're arguing that Obama should change his position on Cuba to pander to a narrow constituency that reliably vote for republicans anyway?
Obama should continue to pursue policies that have been failed to bring about change in Cuba or Iran over the decades we've pursued them? Isn't there some stupid aphorism that says insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing expecting a different outcome?
Anyways, If that was Obama's position you'd be arguing that he fails to live up to his message of change because he's pursuing the same failed policies.
Take a clue from fake GotaIife, Billy. Obama will be the nominee soon enough, warts and all. Stop the handwringing.
May 20, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
Watch the video. Refresh. Think. Imagine you want to vote for the grown up.
May 20, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama has nobody to blame but himself for this gaffe that has now turned into the Obama Doctrine. As armchair guerilla correctly notes, Senator Obama is now trying to nuance his position such that, like Clinton and Edwards, he would not personally meet with the bad guys but he would allow subordinates to do the preliminary legwork first, etc. Republican campaign operatives are not stupid; that dog won't hunt.
I wrote last week that this is not an area where Senator Obama wants to hang out, and I was chided for that assessment. Mark my words, it is the economy stupid, and Obama loses the election if the focus is on foreign policy (notwithstanding his consistent opposition to the war). The general election is not the Iowa caucus, and this silly gaffe about meeting with anyone without preconditions is a problem, and an enduring one, and a gaffe does not a doctrine make. I would focus on gas prices and jobs and stuff but hell, my candidate is about to lose so what do I know? :)
May 20, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that ever since your candidate has been focusing on "that stuff," she's been winning.
A lot.
May 20, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
Iran's main support is for the Badr Corps and its allies in the Iraqi government. They don't really need to support an insurgency against us. They're getting what they want without doing so. Only hardcore neocons are pretending otherwise. Whether it's said with NYT-style honorifics or not.
May 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, they don't mind throwing arms and training to the Sadrists, too. Anyone who will kill Americans with them. I don't blame Iran. We did the same thing to the Russians in Afghanistan, then to the Taliban. We helped Saddam Hussein kill Iranians. This isn't a moral issue or even a military issue, it's a political issue. If he wants to be President, he needs to stop digging, then get out of the hole. Actually, he needs to find a way to pick a fight with Ahmadinejad. Let's see how long it takes him to do that. He used that dodge to get out from under Wright. Remember?
May 20, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well first of all Obama is going to walk into the meeting with that Iranian fellow all shuckin and jivein and its gonna put that Iranian fellow in a jovial mood. Then Obama's going to give him one of those awesome black handshakes that only a whitey can give and that Iranian fellow is going to say, "Hey, you be my peeps." Then they're going to get down to the business and afterwards go out before the cameras and give great speeches saying nothing signifying nothing was accomplished and Obama is going to shuck and jive his way out of Iran saying, "THATS what I'm talking about!" And the Obamaheads will say, "Oh ya."
May 20, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What? Us poor Hillary folks racist? Racist?!? Why, whatever could you mean by that?!"
P.O.S.
May 20, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then you'll wake yourself up with a scream and there STILL won't be anyone around that cares.
May 20, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post constitutes another reverberation in the Republican Echo Chamber based on a lie.
1) Obama did NOT say he would negotiate with Ahmadinejad.
2) If he HAD said that, it would offend no one but the rabid neocons such as Bill Krystol and Hillary Clinton.
3) This is neither a political nor a foreign policy gaffe, and the purpose of raising it in this blog and at this time (when McCain is stumbling over his own genitalia every time he opens his mouth WRT the ME) defies rationality.
May 20, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tank:
I have no interest in being part of a GOP echo chamber. What do you say Obama said during that youtube debate?
May 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may have to wait a while for Tank to get back to you. He's undergoing a video insertion right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
May 20, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad is OZ.
May 20, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The surge isn't working guys.
The reason violence has subsided is the Shi'a militias won.
May 20, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty funny.
May 20, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello! Hello! Just the absurdity of negotiating with terrorists! Hello! Are all you Obamaheads so young you don't know who the Iranian leadership is? Hello! Hostage. Does that word ring a bell? Obama and his Obamaheads negotiating with terrorists will only get you more terrorism. No, Bush was right on the terrorism, we should have stomped the Taliban and Obama excuse me Usama bin Laden out of existence. The world would have been a better place. Iraq was a stupid diversion. Duh. But one that makes Obama look like a genius if you just skim the surface. Dig deep though and you'll see the hypocrite.
May 20, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran Contra.
May 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kanne, let me tell you what I told your fellow racist, Weaver. When guys like you turn up, I know how Hillary feels when the big dog gets off the porch. Please let me handle this.
May 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact Check:
The McBushCain Hybrid: It runs on Ignorance, Bullshit, and Fear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr6Va7PEBg8&eurl=http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
May 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ingoman, WRONG! OH how I fear for this country!
May 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're feeling so anxious about the future of the country that you feel compelled to use ALL CAPS, you might enjoy this uplifting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqAJwkeBvoU
May 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Obama talking to Iran is good enough for James Baker, but not good enough for you Billy. Id post other experts who support the crazy notion of actually talking to them, but their cumulative resumes will still pale in the shadow of your ego. Btw, I love Obama's foreign policy. LOVE IT!!
May 20, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know whether y'all have noticed, but TPM's ads are sensitive to the content of a post. So at the top of this thread, for instance, I'm seeing lots of banner ads for Iranian Personals. "Meet Single Persians" is their slogan.
Sounds fun -- as long as I can set a few preconditions.
May 20, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to join the delegation.
May 20, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE HORSE'S MOUTH: OBAMA DEFINES "PREPARATIONS"
He said he wanted a broad agenda. That's it. That isn't a precondition in Hillary's sense of the word. For her and the Bushies, preconditions mean some kind of concession of substance. Again, that's just crummy human relations. No self-respecting Iranian should submit to it.
May 20, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, some great history lessons here, but has anyone answered the question? Remember what it was? We're talking about Obama? Anyone?
May 20, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean this question?
"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."
Thanks for restoring the focus.
May 20, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. That one.
May 20, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to be blunt, but it's a silly question. The same question would apply to any leader-to-leader meeting. That kind of meeting is always partly about symbolism. It's not strictly about "saying" something you "couldn't say" through intermediaries.
And in any case, something you couldn't say through intermediaries would be, by definition, something you couldn't broadcast in advance. Basic logic there.
May 20, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. We got to symbolic. Now when did the symbolism occur?
May 20, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said what he said. He did not mention AJ. He was responding with a sensible answer to a good question.
American presidents and their direct representatives have been meeting with adversaries practically since the birth of the Republic. In the recent past, Republican Nixon met with Mao, Republican and Father of the Conservative Catastrophe Reagan met with Gorbachev, and even the Great Bozo himself has said that there would be "a place at the table" for Iran.
Our country does need to make peace with our friends. We need to make peace with our enemies.
May 20, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the video. Watch it. Obama is looking at a picture of Ahmadinejad. He knew exactly who the question was about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
When I snap my fingers, you'll wake up.
Snap.
May 20, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess your ability to read minds is as acute as your ability to dispell a hypnotic state.
Please present a link to a clip of Obama mentioning the name of Ahmadinejad, or know that each time you repost that YouTube link, you are further expanding the opening of your own anus and the coresponding invitation.
Also please explain how meeting with our enemies is either a political or policy error.
Lest you call me a "personal troll" again for disagreeing with arguments that you don't even believe, allow me to pay you a couple of complements: You are extraordinarily good at snottiness. And at being unreasonable. And persistent at both snottiness and unreasonability. Now it's your turn to say something nice about me.
May 20, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. I didn't realize your vision was limited or that you weren't familiar with the conventions of video. Just forget I said anything. I'm not enjoying pulling your legs off anymore.
May 20, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of legs, why don't you stop back when you have one to stand on.
May 21, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardonez moi. This was intended as a reply to bslev here.
May 20, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. Show him the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
May 20, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeas indeed, Bruces self-depreciating manner is so very, er "snotty."
In what universe?
You are SUCH a douchebag. How about another one where you don't trust your own lyin' eyes but call anyone "snotty" or "unreasonable" that blasts holes in your ignorant and armor plated smugness.
It's obvious you didn't look at the video, and you don't need no stinking facts to believe whatever delusions you've decided after a fifth or so of whiskey.
Why, oh why not return to under the rock you have been curled under since the last time your ass was handed to you on a platter? No one missed you.
May 20, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case you're wondering what's happening here, I'm shoving that video up your asses and breaking it off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
May 20, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how does that broken end feel going in, young fella?
May 20, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? No more theories about what Obama said or didn't say or about who he was talking about meeting with?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
May 20, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The theories are all yours, young fella. I prefer to stick with facts, like this one. You should see this video. Obama makes you into quite a fool. A fool with a broken video no quite sticking out of your ass.
May 20, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got to go, gasket. Don't let the trolls out when you leave.
May 20, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hurrying to the ER for a video-shard removal?
May 20, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about an echo chamber.
Billy, as with your statements that you think it was right for us to go into Iraq I find it hard to believe that you believe what you are saying.
You seem to have two different arguments:
1. Obama's stance on this issue doesn't play well with the public.
2. Obama's stance is wrong.
On the first, you couldn't be more wrong. There are many factors at play in the primaries, but Giuliani's poor showing is a pretty good indication that the politics of fear will not win you the presidency. Obama's statement that he would meet with Iran has been in the news for quite a while and still the majority of voters chose him over Clinton. The GOP can continue with the appeasement attack, but only neocons will buy it. They also made the mistake of allowing Bush to parrot it, weakening any power it may have and further tying him to McCain.
On the second, anyone not trying to spin will admit that a meeting is not an agreement to give any ground and is in fact an opportunity to make it clear to our enemies where we stand.
As ridiculous as I think it is I don't mind your arguing that obliterate is a better means of diplomacy. But, to continue misrepresenting Obama on this issue makes me wonder if you a Rovian in TPM clothing.
Maybe you could explain to me how ignoring Iran or bellicosity solves anything?
I suspect the Boston Globe is right and the only thing it will do is undermine the Iranian reformists and pragmatists. You do understand that Ahmadinejad is up for re-election in 2009 right?
May 20, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Analysis right on. The basic motive here is that Hillary people want to say "Hillary right -- Obama wrong." But they realize that it has become an irrelevant observation.
So they say "Hillary right -- Obama wrong -- and these are exactly the mistakes that are going to kill you in the general election."
Only, the policy differences between Hillary and Obama just aren't big enough to make it plausible. I mean, diplomatic "preparations" versus "preconditions" -- jesus, what percentage of voters have the slightest clue what difference it makes? Guessing 2% would be on the high side.
It's just silly. I would rather raise a glass to congratulate Senator Clinton on an amazing, unforgettable, historic campaign. I've always been impressed by her encyclopedic grasp of policy, and back in the fall I did actually prefer her answer on this diplomatic question to Obama's answer. Which is why I waited till January to start donating to Obama.
But that's all moot. What matters now is the contrast between Democrats and Republicans. Hillary herself has recognized this, but some of her supporters are taking longer to come around.
May 20, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right to go into Iraq? No. Right to make sure there were no weapons of mass destruction and to depose Saddam Hussein? I think so. Could we have done that in other ways? Maybe. We'll never know. Right to occupy Iraq. No.
No point in discussing who has the popular vote in this context. You can open a thread if you want to argue about that.
As I have said, the real message of the meeting is the offer of the meeting. Obama has already sent that message, and now he wants to escape the domestic political consequences.
Obliterate must have been some other post. Is that a good message to send. Yes. Israel's confidence in us must be absolute or they will attack Iran.
Watch the video, stop spinning. No one is talking about ignoring or not talking to Iran.
Yes. We certainly want to give Ahmadinejad a lot of global press and bragging rights by having an unconditional summit with him. That will certainly encourage other countries to stand down their weapons programs.
One of the few successes of the Bush administration was Libya's capitulation on weapons, which incidentally exposed the Pakistani nuclear proliferation network. Even Bush could do something like that. And he's a moron.
May 20, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see him trying to escape the domestic political consequences of saying he would meet, I see him taking advantage of his position to again demonstrate the differences between himself and McCain. Of course, McCain and the GOP try to misrepresent his position and Obama will correct them.
Researching a bit on Libya dismantling it's weapons programme and it seems that threats didn't play a key role in their decision. It was mainly economic including the lifting of UN sanctions after having reached an agreement on a compensation deal over the Lockerbie bombing. Critics say it wasn't a success of Bush, but of Gadafy who wanted to bargain.
May 20, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? What was the date we invaded Afghanistan? What was the date we invaded Iraq? What was the date Libya announced they were terminating their weapons program? I don't know. Would you mind googling those dates for me?
May 20, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you really bought into the Bush line on Libya:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_56a.html
May 21, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just curious. And, in terms of what works, what's wrong with economic sanctions? Isn't the point tht it didn't take an unconditional Presidential summit to turn Libya around?
May 21, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the infuriating things about the "Clinton=Bush" crap is that sanctions started by Clinton against Serbia removed Milosevic under Bush's reign - and Bush did his best to ignore it. Not the kind of military-less victory he wanted.
Similar with Iran - we successfully promoted democracy under Khatami's reformers, balancing punishments and rewards, until Bush's Axis of Evil.
Similar with North Korea - we redirected them to painless blackmail of getting some free energy in exchange for backing off on weapons production, which wasn't the total submission that Bush was looking for.
Similar to Iraq - sanctions obviously did work, but what many progressives can't get their heads around is that post-9/11, the same type of patient sanctions was not going to work, at least not for the riskiest cases. Here the case is similar to Libya - containment worked, but without being surrounded like Serbia, it was not going to produce serious compliance/change in behavior. That controversial threat of violence seems to be the ticket there.
May 21, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I argue against sanctions? If you are continuing to pretend that no preconditions means that Obama would not use sanctions or other diplomatic methods it says to me that you are more interested in spin than debate or cannot at this moment in time think critically about this issue. If it's the later, I hope time will heal the disappointment you feel for Hillary not becoming POTUS.
May 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh. I was afraid those dates were going to make it look like that after withstanding economic and diplomatic pressure for 20 years, Libya decided to capitulate right after we caught Saddam Hussein. Damn.
May 21, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
For once, you make a valid point. Those dates were going to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE Libya decided to capitulate right after the capture of Saddam.
The other members of the notorious "Axis of Evil" -- those who the Neocons threatened directly and thus had more to fear from the -- did not "capitulate." Libya, like Iraq, was never a threat to the US, and has not been threatened by the US since Reagan succumbed to Altzheimer's.
To claim that Kaddafi was much influenced by the Mesopotamian Catastrophe is almost as laughable as your incessantly impudent and transparently Fox-driven mobius logic.
May 21, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what it boils down to. No, he should not change his position. Nothing would make him look weaker at this juncture than caving. Instead, what he's done is clarify what originally sounded pretty radical to some and act like that's where he was all along. That's what you do in politics. Well, in smart politics.
Yes, he did say he'd meet with MA. Not just in that video, but in others. What he needs to do is stop pussyfooting around it and saying he never said that, but sit down and explain the reality of the situation in Iran. Say that he's not going to get into the game of excepting certain leaders of countries. That the political system, and by extension any diplomacy in Iran is more complicated than it's being made out to be, i.e: summit with MA. Say that Khamenei will be directly involved because it is the Supreme Leader who controls foreign policy and the military at the top level, not MA. (I'm constantly misspelling his name, it's easier this way.) Note that Iran is having elections middle of 2009, only months after the next President takes office, so that will obviously be a factor in any diplomacy pursued with the nation.
It's easy to make MA into the villain here, and the face of Iran. He's said abhorrent things and so it's easy to turn him, and by extension Iran, into the bad guys. It's the propaganda the administration has been pushing for years now. It's Saddam Hussein all over again. He's just filling the void. The reality is infinitely more complicated. Not to mention the fact that the Iranians don't approve of MA. It's like this: I don't consider Bush to be representative of me to the rest of the world. Same goes for the majority of Iranians.
All of this rests on your belief Billy, that McCain is beating Obama over the head with this, and it's working. I don't see that. Obviously, I'm quite biased. But to people who don't get bogged down by the details of the differences between preconditions and preparation, it's taking on the shape of (in Obama v. McCain) of diplomacy vs. more non-last-resort war. I think McCain's the one with egg on his face here. He's still consistently putting himself in Bush's corner. Not a corner I'd want to be anywhere NEAR if I were trying to get elected.
Funny thing about that clip from the YouTube debate is that Obama doesn't say anything about preconditions. His answer is a response formed to Bush's policies. Clinton's is a response to his. He doesn't say he would do so without precondition or preparation. Nor does he say he won't use emissaries or not determine the "way forward". Clinton makes that distinction. I haven't looked into it at this point but I'd be interested to see what he said the next time he spoke about it.
May 21, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without preconditions is in the question the guy asked, Sweetie. I mean my little taste of pineapple. Speaking of which. Have you seen girl from the bronx around lately?
May 21, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was talking to Blue Man over at Mr. Crankypants'. Gotta nip that one in the bud, he'll have her handling his walker before long.
May 21, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit. Egg on my face. The rest of the comment still holds though.
Saw her earlier this afternoon. Can't remember where though.
May 21, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isnt this the same blogger who supported the invasion of Iraq, even given 20/20 hindsight? Why would anyone find his opinions credible...
May 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment