| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Kerry Argues for Talks with Short Round | |
| 2008-05-24 | |
| As President Bush commemorated Israel's 60th anniversary by attacking Barack Obama from overseas, here at home he found an all-too-frequent ally: John McCain. When Bush accused "some" -- including Obama, Bush aides explained -- of "the false comfort of appeasement," McCain echoed this slander. "What does he want to talk about with [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?" McCain asked, fumbling to link Obama to the Iranian president's hateful words. Soon, a GOP talking point was born. Lost in the rhetoric was the question America deserves to have answered: Why should we engage with Iran? In short, not talking to Iran has failed. Miserably. Bush engages in self-deception arguing that not engaging Iran has worked. In fact, Iran has grown stronger: continuing to master the nuclear fuel cycle; arming militias in Iraq and Lebanon; bolstering extremist anti-Israeli proxies. It has embraced Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and spends lavishly to rebuild Afghanistan, gaining influence across the region. Instead of backing Bush's toxic rhetoric, McCain should have called George H.W. Bush's secretary of state, James Baker. After years of stonewalling, the administration grudgingly tested the Baker-Hamilton report's recommendation and opened talks with Iran -- albeit low-level dialogue restricted to the subject of Iraq. Is James Baker an appeaser, too? Yes, John, he is. Does it shock you that Trunks can be appeasers, too? I think there is more drivel at the link...
| |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #8 Utterly clueless. The US has sanctioned EU talks with Iran on nuclear development for years. Obama's innovation is presidential level talks without preconditions, like stop sponsoring terrorism first. Maybe he thinks his winning smile is just irresistable. If you take Kerry at face value and accept that "not talking to Iran has failed. Miserably." you must also admit we have had a policy of not confronting Iran with force. That too may be said to have failed. Miserably. What's Kerry's argument for talks over force? He makes none. I assume it has something to do with some global test whereby the US is beloved if it engages in talks irrespective to the harm done to American interests. Better to be a rump state which engenders warm fuzzy feelings than a resented superpower. |
| Posted by: Baba Tutu 2008-05-24 23:44 |
| #7 Raj and tu, that would be Nantucket, not Martha's Vineyard (the Heinz place is on Nantucket). At least, I assume they use Teresa's place, since it's bound to be much better than anything Jawn brought to the table. Especially nice how Jawn just invents stuff - "including Obama, Bush aides explained". Huh? Missed that one. This whole thing about talking to Iran may qualify as the dumbest "debate" in recent history, which is saying something. As y'all point out, Iran has been talked to, non-stop, for years and years. Once again, is it beyond the administration or McCain's folks to use their pulpits, and ridicule, to really humiliate their opponents by showing how ignorant they are, how preposterously unfactual the premises of their assertions are? Of course it is. Sigh .... |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-05-24 12:01 |
| #6 Ooooooh. Jawn has his statesman hat on today. Hope one of his aides got this done in time for him so he could sign off on it and get an early start up to the Island. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-05-24 11:54 |
| #5 In short, not talking to Iran has failed. Miserably There have been talks. even before Kerry's 'Baker 'suggested ones'. Mostly through European venues. They're just not the high-profile-let's-link-arms-and-sing-kumbaya-see-we-are-the-world talks the Democrat-left wants. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-05-24 11:27 |
| #4 For Kerry, this article represents more work than he puts into the Senate, when he bothers to show up. Today = off to Martha's Vineyard! |
| Posted by: Raj 2008-05-24 09:43 |
| #3 So appeasement passes the global test. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2008-05-24 09:05 |
| #2 Is James Baker an appeaser, too? The preferred expression is "bagman." As a Masshole pol, you should be able to grasp the concept. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2008-05-24 08:36 |
| #1 Iran has been "talked to" for years. They love it since it gives them cover as they stonewall. Maybe a different route should be tried. |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-05-24 08:19 |