where you can see the video and read the transcript (which has the word 'if' omitted.

In looking for a link for you, I came across a reference to the quote on RawStory, and I think I see where my confusion (and I believe, the confusion of quite a few bloggers, too) about the quote. At Raw Story, I viewed the video clip from which this was taken and I realized that the transcript left out one word which changes the meaning entirely. Apparently Gibbs said “IF WE'Re not going to engage” not “WE'RE not going to engage.” He was stating the Bush position there, not the Obama one- but since the transcipt omitted the word “if” it came across completely differently.

For me, it would have been better if Obama really was altering his position- but I assume for those who support him, it's heartening to know that his campaign advisor wasn't saying what I and others thought he'd said, based on the mistake in the transcript which was quoted.

CStanley, can you please provide the source of this quote? I find it troubling and would like to know where it came from so I can put it into context.

runasim is right, we don't know “why” he said it.

But I did go to Obama's website and found this passage, which I assume is Obama's official policy.

“Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.”

Obama seems to be willing to offer certain benefits to Iran if they are willing to give up their nuclear program and support of terrorism. But he's not going to give Iran something for nothing. Obama is willing to discuss what it will take for Iran to give up it's nuclear programs.

I think the biggest difference is that Bush seemingly offers nothing to Iran if it gives up its nuclear program.

Though to be honest I'm not sure about this (I've never seen any , so any additional insight or thoughts would be welcome. This is an important issue and you're right to want to know the differences between Bush and Obama on this.

Oh? It's ok for Bush to give nuclear technology, and go against treaties, with India, who we want as friends, but we refuse to talk to Iran because we just somehow “know” that their civilian nuclear program is a weapon's program in disguise? See the link to a WaPo article from Dec. 2006.

I'd also like to point out that even while the Bush administration was negotiating this agreement with India, several companies in India were sanctioned by the US for transferring either weapons or technology to Iran…. which was kept secret from Congress until after Congress voted on the deal.

BTW: India is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.

So one the one hand the Bush administration doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but on the other hand, the Bush administration will deal with a country that it knows to be transferring nuclear technology to Iran (which, according to Bush supports terrorists), and keep that a secret until after Congress votes on it. The final icing on the cake is that India only has to open up its civilian nuclear programs/plants for inspection, but not its military.

Sorry that this seems off topic, but we're talking about appeasement and it seems that the Bush administration is being hypocritical…. especially when it seems reasonable to believe that the actions of the Bush administration with India will support Iran's nuclear program…. If I were the Bush administration, i would have insisted that India show proof that it was serious about non-proliferation (such as becoming a signatory to the NPT) and that India was able to keep its companies from transferring the nuclear technology. Instead Bush pushed this deal through Congress as an opportunity to bolster his “legacy”. Talk about appeasement even if it is a little indirect, we are still potentially transferring nuclear technology (through India) to Iran…..

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

Oh that's absurd… Wouldn't we need to talk (and try negotiations) first to determine if further negotiations are possible?

NB: “high level” can mean negotiations at the highest level of the government (i.e. president to president) or “high level” can be just a reaching out and making a determination whether further negotiations, and a discussion of details, are possible. I'm not entirely sure what you mean, and so I can read your comment a couple different ways. But nonetheless, whether you mean high level negotiations, or making a high level determination that further discussion might be worthwhile, one still needs to talk at some level.

The only one who can answer 'why' is Obama.
Try contacting his campaign HQ.

As far as I know, no one here is on his campaign staff, and the timing and ocntent of his statemetns are not controlled by the people of whom you are asking the question.

Try asking something that can have a rational reply.
Otherwise, your question might begin to look like a political smoke screen.

And I see you've given me one, but not one that addresses what I'm asking. The question isn't why Bush isn't now going to talk to Ahmad, it's why is Obama's advisor now saying that Obama wouldn't do so?

Poor blog eticquite. It's like you put up a comment, wait a whole hour, then stomp your feet whining that no one has responded.

You're better than that.

But to address your last point. Did you read the recent NIE on the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program?

Why isn't Bush visiting Tehran on this trip?

Can anyone explain to me what Obama's position currently is on presidential level diplomacy with Iran? If I take his communications director at his word, then how is that any different than Bush's position?

But although most of us agree that talking does not equal appeasement, there is still room for honest disagreement about whether talking should take place in all circumstances, or whether high level negotiations should only take place after we know whether or not there's anything we're willing to negotiate. If the other party has already clearly shown that they won't cede certain things that are (or should be) unacceptable to us, then there's nothing to negotiate unless that party changes it's position on that item of concern.

We're already engaged in talks with Iran regarding Iraqi security, so the false perception that we 'refuse to talk to our enemies and thus miss out on opportunities to better understand them' is just a caricature of our actual current policy. The Bush administration has refused to negotiate unconditionally with Iran on higher levels because they've continued to pursue a nuclear program even after they were found to be violating terms of the NPT. But many Bush opponents either don't realize or fail to acknowledge that this doesn't mean that we don't have any diplomatic channels going with Iran at all- and that mischaracterization is as bad as the misrepresentation that Obama supporters feel is done to him when he's portrayed as an appeaser.

And I've dropped it several times in several threads now, but no one seems willing to discuss what Obama's position actually is vis a vis 'talking' to Ahmenidejad. Has no one noticed that he's reversed himself and his staffer now says his position is just like Bush's- or is no one willing to discuss their thoughts on this?:

“Let’s not confuse precondition with preparation,” said [Obama's communications director] Gibbs of any talks with Iran. “Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program.[”]