Cohorts disavow Obama stance

[red states rule]

Looks like some Dems "get it". Obama is an appeaser, and they do not want to be tainted


Cohorts disavow Obama stance
By Joseph Curl
May 19, 2008


Three prominent Democrats yesterday rejected Sen. Barack Obama's position of meeting unconditionally with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and leaders of other American enemies.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado and former Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. of Tennessee distanced themselves from Mr. Obama's position, each saying that preconditions for any such meeting would be essential.

"I'll concede, you cannot meet with foreign leaders — with terrorists, rather, those that lead rogue nations — without some conditions," Mr. Ford said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Mr. Obama was asked in a Democratic debate in July whether he would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition ... with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."

[Yurt]

what great judgment he has

[midcan5]

It strikes me a curious as that is what always happens in diplomacy, officials meet with others dignitaries to see if they are can arrive at some agreement.

Carter with the Israelis and Palestinian leaders
Reagan Gorbachev
Rumsfeld Hussein
Rice with many leaders
Bush with his brothers the Saudis
NK negotiations

I don't think people know what the word appease means, as talking to Iran is appeasing them how? And aren't we doing that now? Weird spin, this appeasement nonsense.

[Kathianne]

It strikes me a curious as that is what always happens in diplomacy, officials meet with others dignitaries to see if they are can arrive at some agreement.

Carter with the Israelis and Palestinian leaders
Reagan Gorbachev
Rumsfeld Hussein
Rice with many leaders
Bush with his brothers the Saudis
NK negotiations

I don't think people know what the word appease means, as talking to Iran is appeasing them how? And aren't we doing that now? Weird spin, this appeasement nonsense.

Appeasement in general means 'avoiding war at all costs.' Fits in pretty well with European view, unless of course one is talking of something like the Falkland Islands. In fairness, the UK is an exception, as was Italy under Berlusconi, but for the main, since WWI they've been appeasers. It hasn't worked out well in the main. However, the US may just be hoping to do the same, with different results.

[avatar4321]

It strikes me a curious as that is what always happens in diplomacy, officials meet with others dignitaries to see if they are can arrive at some agreement.

Carter with the Israelis and Palestinian leaders
Reagan Gorbachev
Rumsfeld Hussein
Rice with many leaders
Bush with his brothers the Saudis
NK negotiations

I don't think people know what the word appease means, as talking to Iran is appeasing them how? And aren't we doing that now? Weird spin, this appeasement nonsense.

seems to me that other than perhaps Carter, who is a complete and utter tool who has put this country so far behind we are still making up for his mistakes, that all the leaders you've mentioned have required preconditions for negotiations. Reagan for example made sure America was in a position of strength working on SDI and making sure the Soviets were in a weaker position before negotiating with them.

In fact, it's pretty much common sense to any intelligent person outside the liberal world philosophy that you don't talk with enemies until you are in a position of strength over them so you don't have to give up important things. In the matter of Iran for example, I think it would be wise of we made sure that genocide of the Israelis is off the table before we negotiate with them. You can't really expect to get peace with a government that wants your death short of committing suicide or defeating them.

[red states rule]

what great judgment he has

It seems Barry is going have to change his promise to sit down with terrorists with no pre existing conditions

This guy is such a moron. No wonder terrorists are backing him for President