The issue of preconditions is a whole separate topic,
I understand the rationale, but I can't help but notice that they are not producing the desired results, not with Iran and not with Hamas.

On the flip side, though, Bush's policy toward diplomatic talks is being completely misrepresented as well. Everyone here breathlessly decries his policy of “NOT TALKING TO OUR ENEMIES” which ignores the fact that Bush's administration has negotiated with many of our enemies, including NK as well as…wait for it….Iran. We were part of multi-party talks to work toward agreements on regional security for Iraq, at Iraq's request, with Iran also in attendence. What everyone ignores when they give blanket condemnation for Bush's policies is that he has never said that we don't negotiate with our enemies or even that we will not negotiate with Iran- it's just specific negotiations that have been put on hold until or unless Iran will agree to certain preconditions. So both sides are guilty of completely mischaracterizing the others' position* and then arguing against the caricature of it instead of the actual position.

*Of course I think there's some reason for confusion on what Obama's stance actually is, because as I noted above, he clearly stated in the past that he'd meet with Ahmadinejad without precondition, and now he's reversed that and claims that he was misrepresented even though it's all right there in the debate video- and his Democratic opponents criticized him for it then and he apparently didn't see the need to set the record straight- until now, when he's either reconsidered and changed his mind or noticed that it will be a liability for him in the general election if he doesn't change his position. Curiously, his newly stated position is not much different than the Bush administrations- that we will hold high level negotiations with Ahmedinajad only if they will agree to stop their nuclear program.

Since NO ONE is suggesting appeasement and NO ONE is supporitng appeasement,, while EVERYONE agrees about appeasement.
What, exactly is your complaint?,

Obambi is a babe in the woods on foreign policy—a simpleton without bearings who shouldn't be trusted with grown-up toys.

Dave,
Pop quiz, who said this:
“See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over.”

And for extra credit:
“One of the things I would do if I were president would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bullshit,'”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

This list could on and on but the idea that one does not negotiate with enemies is stupid. Hell, just think what might have happened if Kennedy did not negotiate with the USSR over the Cuban missles – remember it was a tit for tat with our removing missles from Turkey.

God, talk about thin-skinned.

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/thefamily/...

1942, a full year into the war and Prescott Bush was still helping Thyssen hide assets to protect Thyssen should Germany lose. All the other big American corporations had dumped their dealings with the controlling German party and their supporters.

I don't buy into the belief that corporations are just amoral faceless entities. They are run by people. People like Prescott Bush. So if there is a more appropriate term than collaborator I am open for suggestions. Enabler? Facilitator? Bag man?

I am not usually a big proponent of nazi arguments on the web but I have to stick a pin in blatant hypocrisy.

I like all the arguments that somehow try to whitewash W's utter stupidity in this matter by holding that citizens and presidents are held to equal standards.

News Flash: We aren't.

Especially since The Speaker of the House disqualified herself from any serious commentary on the issue by going IN A BURKA to the terrorist-wannabe Stick-Insect Assad, whose country is aiding and abetting terrorists in Lebanon & Gaza right now as I write this.

Obambi is a babe in the woods on foreign policy—a simpleton without bearings who shouldn't be trusted with grown-up toys. Let him season until he gets his mouth & brain in synch with NATIONAL SECURITY as a minimal concept.

It's only an “attack on Obama” if Obama wants to accept the description of himself as being an appeaser. Does he? Really? He can certainly make his own case for or against that description. (For gradeschoolers watching this program, here's the translation: “You mean ME? I didn't say it was you. I am not! Looks like a duck… Am not! ” Repeat, ad nauseum. )

Otherwise it's just more noise as we enter the mindless-screaming pahse of the campaign cycle.

Don't you have some Noam Chomsky books to burn, DLS?

You'll find, if you have been watching the primaries, that millions center-left , independents and Republicans have woken from wool-covered coma this administration has pulled over our eyes. We are mad as hell and aren't gonna take it. Hear that? That's the sound of change coming….in the words of Lee Iaccoca- Lead, Follow or get the F*** out the way!

“My democratic successor would likely to do things radically different from the ways I've done which have made a mess of the middle east. He's obviously an idiot for not following in my footsteps and screwing up like I have. “