In a big policy reversal, President Bush this week authorized a top State Department diplomat to attend upcoming nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European Union.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the United States would be there “to listen, not to negotiate,” but it’s still a major change from the administration’s position that it wouldn’t participate in even preliminary meetings until Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program.
Just a few months ago, Bush was calling Barack Obama’s willingness to meet with Iran “appeasement.”
50 Comments
There is no point if refusing to engage an enemy in talks. Talking/listening may not resolve any immediate issues but can set the stage for more talks which have the chance to breaking a stalemate. Agreeing to disagree is not a bad thing.
So President Bush is sending an observer to a high profile meeting. From this Randy you seem to think that we are just now ‘talking’ with Iran. That is just silly.
Nobody ever stops ‘talking’ to another country. They just do not have formal relations. In this case some of us remember the US Embassy hostage situation back in the late 1970s.
Iran is determined to get the nuclear bomb and the talking will not stop it. In my opinion the sooner we take out their factories the better.
Idgit.
Why shouldn’t Iran have the bomb? We have it; Israel has it. Why shouldn’t they have a protection against their sworn enemies?
Hint: This is why the world must rid itself of all nuclear weapons.
“In this case some of us remember the US Embassy hostage situation back in the late 1970s.”
WHAT, pray tell, does our current situation regarding Iran, have to do with the situation that was present in Iran in the late ’70’s???
No kidding Chas.
Other than the Bush..er…”magic” beig carried over from that. Y’know? The October Surprise? The Bushs’ go waaay back with Iran. Mossadeq and his ousting for instance.
Looks to me that with BUSHCO sitting down to talk with Iran’s representative, that he is making a “closet endorsement” of Obama’s bid for the White House, as previously, Obama was labeled an appeaser for proposing basically what BUSHCO is now going to do on Saturday…
Iran has three hostile or potentially hostile neighbors with nuclear capability or with a nuclear-armed sponsor. Why should they be denied the ability to defend themselves from these hostile neighbors?
LOL, Chas, you were just looking for a way to get the good “Christians” to the board to present their typical double standard why it’s ok for good, Republican, God-Fearing George W. Bush to do exactly this while Obama doing the same thing is bad, Democratic,and Satanic. I can’t wait to see the responses you’ll get now. Too funny.
******************
Chas
Posted July 17, 2008 at 7:41 am | Permalink
Looks to me that with BUSHCO sitting down to talk with Iran’s representative, that he is making a “closet endorsement” of Obama’s bid for the White House, as previously, Obama was labeled an appeaser for proposing basically what BUSHCO is now going to do on Saturday…
bth
Posted July 17, 2008 at 7:56 am | Permalink
Iran has three hostile or potentially hostile neighbors with nuclear capability or with a nuclear-armed sponsor. Why should they be denied the ability to defend themselves from these hostile neighbors?
**********************
This was US policy on the development of nuclear weapons for India and Pakistan, each one needed to protect itself from the other. If it’s good enough for them, why not for Iran, too???
“Bush willing to talk with Iran after all”
Hiding the lie in an article is one thing. Putting the lie in the headline is another.
Wasn’t Bush NOT going to deal with the North Koreans, too?
He should go to the meeting himself and give everyone back rubs…that will win them over.
Does this mean Bush will label Bush a “Nazi appeaser” the way he labeled Barack?
Flip.
Flop.
sure glad we didnt elect John Kerry…
I think Bush should go to the meeting himself; after all, he’s seemingly closer to speaking Farsi, or Arabic, than English!
Obama said he would meet, directly, with “Im a Dinner Jacket” (as others here have called him)
Obama said he would meet, directly, without preconditions.
It is a far different thing to send someone OTHER than the President of the USA, to speak with someone OTHER than the President of Iran.
At this meeting, they will probably discuss PRECONDITIONS, or what it might take for direct talks, if needed.
Spin………… just keep on spinning, Paul the Con……………………….
Julius and Ethel Rosenburg thought that the Soviet Union should have nukes, since the United States had nukes.
They got the death penalty for their treason.
Hey libs, why don’t you tell Obama to run ads that say, “Iran deserves to have nuclear weapons”???
You KNOW he won’t ever say that.
Iranian leaders have promised to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
No other, current, nuclear power has ever promised to wipe another country off the face of the Earth, prior to development of their nuclear weapons.
“Iranian leaders have promised to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.”
No, Iranian President Ahmadickhead made statements about Israel. Ahmadickhead has no real power in Iran. All the actual power resides with the Imams and they have no interest in war with the US and Israel.
If Ahmadickhead so much as farts in the general direction of Israel, he will find himself in front of a firing squad.
He is all show and no go.
“No other, current, nuclear power has ever promised to wipe another country off the face of the Earth, prior to development of their nuclear weapons.”
Nice that you use that caveat of “prior to development” otherwise you could use India in that threat having said Pakistan would “cease to exist”.
But since Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program that issue is moot. However, I’m sure you’ll insist that they do like you insisted Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and WMDs immediately prior to our invasion.
Also, you know why Obama will never say Iran should have nuclear weapons? It’s because he’s opposed to all nukes. But since when did facts ever get in the way of one of your ignorant rants?
There are some interesting facts about Iran. First off, the majority of their population is under the age of 30. There is a strong secular movement in the country. Also, the youth are very pro-Western. However, if Bush has his way the last two points will cease to exist.
Perhaps it would be useful if the US supported the idea of a nuclear-free MidEast instead of spomsoring nuclear proliferation.
The CONs live in some Bizarro World fantasy that makes them think “no pre-condidtions” means some Tuesday a President Obama would fly into Tehran unannounced and look up Ahmadinejad’s address in a phone book for a drop-by.
Here’s a stretch on my part, but I suspect any of you CONs realize that “without preconditions” is a term-of-art in diplomacy. Instead of a “Nixon goes to Russia” to sign the SALT treaty, Obama is talking about an introductory meeting with no specific agreements or documents expected.
I’d like to think you CONs aren’t that stupid. I hope you’re not that naive. Although the evidence you guys spew in this forum rarely supports it.
MP - wouldn’t it be similar to “Nixon goes to China”?
BTH, Bush thinks Nixon is a Nazi appeaser too, along with Reagan and his HW Bush.
Well Monkey,
There would need to be pre-conditions with the neocons. You see, you would have to agree to stop putting “100 years” in McCain’s mouth before they agreed to stop putting “no pre-conditions” in Obama’s mouth.
Once those protocols have been met, indirect talks between Obama’s and McCain’s communication directors can happen. BUT NOT DIRECT TALKS.
It amazes me how so many people assume that the only way Iran can get nuclear weapons is by building them themselves, and not just buy them on the black market. Probably from the same folks that didn’t back us going into Iraq to get rid of the WMDs. Iran is dangerous to the entire world, period. Unfortunately, as the world’s (unofficial)police, we must play by rediculous rules and pander every little dictator until they mess up and make a crucial mistake. How many human lives will have to pay, because we don’t want to be seen as an aggressor?
Gun,
the only reason we are, as you put it, the world’s police, is because WE PUT OURSELVES THERE. Have you all not figured out that the rest of the damn world is sick of US putting our noses in where they don’t belong?
Maybe THIS is why we put ourselves in the position of world police?
http://www.kansas.com/business/updates/story/466329.html
Three words. Military Industrial Complex. Uttered by a Kansas guy.
Big eye roll…
It’s ALL about the Benjamins!
…and how many posters here are, directly or indirectly, sucking off THAT teat?
The role we are taking is more world dominator rather than world policeman. A cop would try to separate compatants and find a way to keep the peace. He would not be taking sides and/or imposing his own control.
Isn’t that mentality what got us into a 2 front war? You can see how that is working out.
“and how many posters here are, directly or indirectly, sucking off THAT teat?” — stinky.
Yeast infection?
It’s a trick. ” Iran did not agree to become defenseless, so I had to bomb them.”
the only reason we are, as you put it, the world’s police, is because WE PUT OURSELVES THERE. Have you all not figured out that the rest of the damn world is sick of US putting our noses in where they don’t belong?
Anon1,
History (WWI/ WWII/ 9-11) shows us very clearly that isolationism is not an option. You are kidding yourself if you think leaving the rest of the world alone will make the problems go away.
America chose many years ago to take the fight to them, in an effort to keep from having to fight them on our own soil.
By the way, Gun/God Nut, how is that search for WMD going?
Any luck so far?
YOUR president says that there are no WMD, so what is this War on Iraq for?
Gun: Are you disagreeing with General Petraeus, Robert Gates and others regarding the use of force in Iran as a last resort?
Your posts certainly are starting to sound like it.
The way Bush mangles the word “nuclear”, do you really want him to sit across from the President of Iran and try to pronounce “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”?
That might start 2 or 3 Jihads!
If President Bush is going to speak to Iran, it seems to me that would please the liberal Democrats. Isn’t that what they are always saying, “We should talk to our enemies”. You can’t always talk everything out. Even if the people wanted something other than their leader, he is the one who is in charge.
Doesn’t ANYBODY remember when that crazy lunatic said he wants to rid the world of Israel and the USA? Sometimes believe it or not, your enemies aren’t just trying to protect themselves with WMDs, they are most definitely planning on using them on you.
One thing nice about not belonging to any party is that you can easily disagree with your leaders because you are free to take a stand. In this case, I would say that once again Bush is pandering to the left and it is a very dangerous game. Iran’s leader is to be taken seriously with what he said and I would not trust him with WMDs.
Oh yeah, and Gun is right. Our history has taught us that we cannot be an island unto ourselves. If we do then we are just sticking our heads in the sand and the fight will come to us.
And one other main point. I am tired of hearing these bleeding heart liberals with their statements about other countries wanting us to butt out. The truth is, the people of those countries want what we have - FREEDOM and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Why do you think we have problems with illegal immigration? They like it hear. It is their leaders that want us to butt out because they don’t want their people to know what they are being deprived of.
Borg,
First of all, I am not a liberal. But thanks for playing.
Secondly, to both you AND gun - My point was simply that we can’t go around bitching and moaning about why we have to fix everything when WE ARE THE ONES THAT PUT OURSELVES THERE.
Third, nowhere in my post did I say anything about not defending ourselves. However, YES, WE HAVE A HISTORY OF STICKING OUR NOSE IN WHERE IT DOESN’T BELONG - vietnam, anyone? If we keep making preemptive strikes against countries that we THINK might one day attack us - well we are going to run out of troops in about a month.
And Fourth - these countries are on freaking record as stating THEY DON’T WANT US THERE. I don’t know what other damn proof you need to know we need to get the hell out.
Excuse me we had to go into Vietnam. The people had just democratically elected a government which didn’t appeal to American interested so we had to overthrow that President and install a brutal dictator. We weren’t going to have some godless Commie appealing to the will of the people but we needed a good Christian strong man who would slaughter his people and send wealth to America.
If we ever leave Vietnam then the Commies win. It is better to fight them over there than fight them over here. If we cower like a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys then the Viet Cong will invade America, take away of guns, our Bibles and force us to accept gay marriage.
I think bush just gets a kick from the bewilderment he causes the bushies when he does his 180’s.
Stinky? heheheh. HEE HEE HEE HEEEEE. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
ROFLMQAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, there’s the definative put down!
Shouldnt you be napping with the rest of the kindergarten class at that time?
HEHEHEHEHEHEHHEEHHEEHHEH!
Personally, I’m glad to see that the adults are finally getting into the act. Cheneybushcheney have back-stabbed the State Department for 7.5 years. It is time for some realists to take over.
I’m usually not a fan of John Bolton. I find him arrogant, distainful, and from what I’ve heard, a regular pain in the behind to work with. But when this Iran thing broke, what, yesterday, I cracked up laughing when I heard him quoted as saying: We are seeing the first six months of the Obama presidency.
CF2K here, writing from the Golden Triange District of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Very interesting place. Multiethnic (Malay, Chinese, Indian), incredible rainforest, best food anywhere, and a MAJOR destination for Gulf Arab tourists. Global capital runs the place, much more than does the would-be authoritarian Islamicist governement.
Between the burkaa’d Arab women and the Malay transvestites, the night hawker markets and the mosques, Malaysian hard rock and techno, and the monorails and the rickshaws, it’s been sensory overload. I’ve traversed a forest rope bridge at 30m above the jungle floor, have visited the Islamic Arts Museum, and have tried (though failed) to get my picture taken at the door of Al Jazeera Network in the Petronus Towers, and spent five hours on the Singapore / Kuala Lumpur bus with food poisoning. Good times.
The Arab street has reacted to CF2K, the American, in mixed fashion. I’ve gotten some hard stares, and had a finger poked in my face by a minor official. On the other hand, other folks have been quite friendly, notably the attendants at the Islamic Arts Museum. If the folks with whom he has interacted knew of CF2K’s semitic heritage, things could well be a LOT worse.
All in all, a fascinating place that manifests many, many contradictions of global capital and post-colonial, post-modern religious identity politics. I’ll try to check in again. Ciao.
I really loved reading your story!!