Five quotes
" I would (meet with them) ... the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous."
- Sen. Barack Obama on July 22, 2007 in response to a question about whether or not he would meet with the leaders of hostile regimes.
"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton on July 23, 2007 in response to Obama's comment.
"You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton in February 2007.
"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so — just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union."
- Anthony Lake, national security advisor for President Bill Clinton.
"Obviously, Hillary's answer was a seasoned answer within the realm of what we're doing. But I don't think Obama was intending to say we want to give legitimacy to dictatorships."
- Joe Garcia, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Democrats and former director of the Cuban National Foundation.
- Sen. Barack Obama on July 22, 2007 in response to a question about whether or not he would meet with the leaders of hostile regimes.
"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton on July 23, 2007 in response to Obama's comment.
"You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton in February 2007.
"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so — just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union."
- Anthony Lake, national security advisor for President Bill Clinton.
"Obviously, Hillary's answer was a seasoned answer within the realm of what we're doing. But I don't think Obama was intending to say we want to give legitimacy to dictatorships."
- Joe Garcia, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Democrats and former director of the Cuban National Foundation.
posted by Jmac at 9:57 PM
16 Comments:
I'm with Obama. Let's dust off the obscure thing called the..."State Department" and talk to people again. Wasn't that the whole point of having a "strong military?" So we wouldnt have to fight wars on two and three fronts?
Historically, there's not a lot of success to be found from talking to one's enemies.
You negotiate with your friends; you fight your enemies.
We didn't spend WWII negotiating with Hitler; our diplomatic efforts--and tremendous efforts they were--were spent on England.
I'm not sure what we have to negotiate away, when we sit down to the bargaining table with, say, Iran. Or the murderers in Darfur.
I'm curious--and concerned--as to what Barack Obama was offer by way of concessions to such people.
By fight do you include sanctions and espionage and sabotage, or does it mean blowing up and killing?
"Historically, there's not a lot of success to be found from talking to one's enemies."
Detente, Nixon's visit to China, the Louisiana Purchase are three examples. I'm sure there are others.
" I would (meet with them) ... the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous."
Thats Obama's quote. The words "negotiate" or "concessions" are not in the quote. I think the man is simply talking about using diplomacy again. Also, he said what he said. Nothing more or less.
Are we now at the place in our country where any mention of a non military based execution of foreign policy brings comparisons to Neville Chamberlain?
At any rate, anonymous is entitled to his opinion, and this is a legitimate discussion, instead of nonsense about John Edwards' hair or Hillary Clinton's neckline.
Just my 2 cents
As a practical and tactical matter, Hillary was right (this time) and Obama was wrong.
Send emissaries. The President shouldn't go.
See Wilson, Woodrow, and Versailles, Treaty of.
You mean that treaty we didn't sign back in the early 1900s?
Listen, everyone's cherry-picking here, but I see no harm in dialogue. The U.S. and the Soviet Union were at each other's throats for 40-something years, but we still talked to them because we didn't fancy blowing up the world.
There's no one 'right or 'wrong' here, but I do ultimately think that merely engaging in dialogue isn't a bad thing.
World War I---Well, I didnt bring up Wilson's 14 points because (as our host said) the Senate never ratified it. Once upon a time we followed the constitution and had checks and balance....
Also, that was really a negotiated peace treaty with a defeated enemy in a war. I think thats probably two different things. We aren't at war with Iran (yet- and likely won't be).
I think you are on to something about emissaries. Thats probably a stronger point you raise. Obama's problem would be sitting down with someone and making them a larger figure than they need to be.
Again, its a free country, and it is good to reason together and disagree the way we should be doing instead of being nasty about it.
It matters not that Versailles was not ratified by the US Senate; it was a bad deal brokered by Wilson and you can draw a straight line from that treaty to the Second World War.
No longer sure what my original point was...
Oh, yeah: Presidents shouldn't sit down with evildoers.
Oh, yeah: Presidents shouldn't sit down with evildoers.
... well, except that's contrary to our history, which includes the successes of diplomacy in the 20th century.
And if you think the Treaty of Versailles was responsible for World War II, you're mistaken. If anything, the lack of U. S. participation in the treaty and the ensuing League of Nations played a role.
The treaty itself empowered the allies to take harsh action against Germany, set up a weak government there and then fostered conditions which made it likely that Hitler would rise to power.
Ah, yes. If only we'd joined a debating society, Hitler might've kept his arse on his side of the Rhine.
Not buying it. Versailles, as you say, gave rise to the conditions that gave rise to Hitler. And was negotiated by an idealistic and physically-addled President who shouldn't have been there.
I'm not wild about talking to Iran to begin with; I certainly don't think our President should be the one to sit down with their "president." Ditto Hugo Chavez. Do you really believe there'd be something positive to be gained by having a President Obama chumming it up with Hugo Chavez at Camp David?
Clinton tried it with Arafat (who visited the White House more than any other foreign leader in the 90s. How'd that work out?
But it wouldn't have been a 'debating society' if there had been more strong-willed participation by the U.S., as Wilson was arguing for. The point isn't that it was wise to negotiate with Hitler, but it was essential that the U.S. be engaged in the process because such involvement could have very well averted the rise of those conditions which Hitler exploited to gain power.
The other thing about Iran is that their existing president is incredibly weak to begin with. He's a nut, sure, but he's also being squeezed by an increasingly vocal pro-democratic movement from the population and the religious leaders from the other side. One could argue that engaging him, and laying out firm demands, would actually further embolden the pro-democratic movement as it would encourage them by our interaction and leave him further isolated in his own nation.
And the problems with Arafat were legion, but it's also important to note that there was a period of calm during the Clinton Administration thanks in large part to the presence of a strong leader for Israel in Rabin and consistent engagement from the West. Rabin's death, coupled with the withdrawal by the U.S. when Bush took office, gave rise to extremist positions in both camps.
Yasir Arafat, Nobel Prize winner...
Kinda makes Jimmy Carter's trophy shine a little brighter, no?
Was Stalin not an evildoer, anonymous?
Yep. Absolutely. Arguably the worst in history.
But the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
That's not a good choice. It's a hard choice. And in the real world, hard choices are sometimes the only ones you have.
But, all due respect, doesn't your concession of that kinda undercut your entire argument?
I mean, we've worked to neutralize Pakistan, somewhat, by engaging them and making them an ally.
Right, anon, I share JMac's question (not that you are obligated to care). Your argument, originally, was that "you negotiate with your friends; you fight your enemies." A bit later you precluded "evildoers" from the friends categoy (i.e., "Oh yeah; presidents shouldn't sit down with evildoers). But now you admit that Stalin was an evildoer. In fact, you say he was "the worst in history."
So....
1. If Stalin was the worst evildoer in history, and presidents shouldn't sit down to negotiate with evildoers, then why was it okay for FDR to sit down with Stalin? (And, for the record, I'm not personally sold that it WAS okay...but I'm not an FDR fan anyway, and I am one of those strange conservatives who is highly skeptical of the vast majority of wars, including WWII. But since you are setting yourself as one who wants to "fight our enemies", then it does seem that you've put yourself in a logical bind here.)
2. Even on your "enemey of my enemy is my friend" explanation, this should be an argument for us negotiating with Hitler against Stalin, since as you admit Stalin was a worse evildoer, all things considered, than Hitler. Why exactly did we deem Germany to be our "enemy", when they weren't even the worst evildoer on the block?
I know that Germany actually declared war on us through their mutual aggression treaty with Japan, but even so we could have--for our part--chosen to stay more or less out of Europe altogether or we could have still weighed which was really the bigger concern to us, Germany or Russia. Just b/c Germany declared war on us doesn't automatically mean that we have to push them to the front of the "enemy" line.
Post a Comment
<< Home