Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.

42 Responses to “Bush Rips Negotiating”

1. JohnKonop says:

   May 16, 2008 at 3:34 am

   Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure

   WP-The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.

   “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,” Gates said. “If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.”

   In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, “my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth.” Noting that “a fair number” of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, “We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans” visiting Iran.

   “I think that may be the one opening that creates some space,” Gates said.

   The Bush administration has said it will talk with Iran, and consider lifting economic and other sanctions, only if Iran ends a uranium enrichment program the administration maintains is intended to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. Although the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad met three times last year for discussions on Iraq, Iran has refused to continue that dialogue.

   Others, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is running for president, have said that talks with Iran on a range of issues might be useful.

   Gates publicly favored engagement with Iran before taking his current job in late 2006. In 2004, he co-authored a Council on Foreign Relations report titled “Iran: Time for a New Approach.” At the time, he explained yesterday, “we were looking at a different Iran in many respects” under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Tehran’s role in Iraq was “fairly ambivalent,” he said. “They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful.”

   “One of the things that I think historians will have to take a look at is whether there was a missed opportunity at that time,” Gates said. Khatami was replaced in 2005 by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

   Gates was also a member of the bipartisan 2006 Iraq Study Group, which advocated reaching out to Iran. He resigned from the group when President Bush nominated him as defense secretary in November that year; the report was published on Dec. 6, the day of his confirmation.

   The administration charges that Iran is now deeply engaged in training and arming Shiite militias fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. In his remarks yesterday, Gates said evidence to that effect is “very unambiguous.”

   But, he said, “I sort of sign up” with New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who wrote yesterday that the “right question” for the United States is not whether to talk with Iran but “whether we have leverage or don’t have leverage.”

   “When you have leverage, talk,” Friedman advised. “When you don’t have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran.”

   A number of senior U.S. military officials have emphasized the need for robust diplomacy toward Iran, while not ruling out the use of force. “I’m a big believer in resolving this diplomatically, economically and politically,” Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview with The Washington Post. “The military aspect of this, which I think is a very important part of the equation and must stay on the table,” Mullen said, is an option of “last resort.”

   Gates said yesterday that the U.S. military remained “stretched” by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, although he said that all service branches had met their recruitment and retention goals last month. “There is no doubt that . . . we would be very hard-pressed to fight another major conventional war right now,” he said. “But where would we sensibly do that, anyway?”

   Future conflicts, Gates said, will be asymmetric. “Other countries are not going to come at us in a conventional war.”
2. JohnKonop says:

   May 16, 2008 at 3:39 am

   Bush Compares Obama To Nazi Appeasers

   President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the presidential race, but that stance changed dramatically today during his trip to Israel. After likening Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Osama bin Laden, Bush compared Barack Obama to Nazi appeasers:

   “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

   “We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

   Obama himself quickly responded to the comparison, calling it a false attack and listing past presidents who didn’t think that diplomacy was such a bad idea:

   “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel.”

   “Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

   It was only yesterday that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued that United States needed to engage with Iran:

   “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,” Gates said. “If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.”
   UPDATE: What are the odds? Sen. Lieberman sides with Bush on this one:

   “President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that–if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers–they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.”
   UPDATE: Obama’s communication director has also weighed in on what he calls “cowboy diplomacy”:

   In a telephone interview on CNN just a few minutes ago, Robert Gibbs, the communications director for Senator Barack Obama, called Mr. Bush’s remarks “astonishing” and an “unprecedented political attack on foreign soil.”
   UPDATE: Rahm Emanuel has chimed in as well:

   The tradition has always been that when a U.S. President is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?
   UPDATE: Howard Dean has called on McCain to reject Bush’s statements:

   “On the same day John McCain is talking about putting partisanship aside, the President launched a cheap political attack while on a state visit honoring the 60th anniversary of Israel, one of America’s greatest allies. Bush’s outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region. If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he’ll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible.”
   UPDATE: John McCain isn’t listening to Dean. He has agreed with President Bush’s statements, and even thrown in a reference to Neville Chamberlain:

   “Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,” Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. “I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.”

   Asked if he thought that former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled with the hostage crisis, was an appeaser, Mr. McCain replied: “I don’t know if he was an appeaser or not, but he terribly mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis.”

   UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi has echoed Howard Dean and Rahm Emanuel’s comments:

   House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation” at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.

   Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: “I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

   UPDATE: Sen. Reid has joined the pile on:

   “Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation’s history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round. More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.

   “President Bush’s own actions demonstrate that he believes negotiations – at the right moment, under the right conditions and with the right leaders – can both show strength and produce results. He has relied on negotiations with North Korea and Libya, two state sponsors of terror. And by conducting discussions with Russia, China, Libya, North Korea and Iran in recent years, President Bush has demonstrated his belief that negotiations can be a tool to advance America and Israel’s national security interests. I call on the President to explain the inconsistency between his Administration’s actions and his words today.”

   UPDATE: John Kerry has responded on TPMCafe:

   First, it’s absolutely shameless that an American President would use a speech in front of a foreign government to launch such a petty political attack. President Bush has abused the dignity of the office in ways that make especially ironic his long ago pledge to “restore dignity and integrity to the Oval office.”

   Perhaps worse — he’s not even right on the facts, and he knows it. Like Representatives Boehner and Cantor, President Bush just makes up policies to attack. Barack Obama opposes negotiating with terrorists. And always has. This is just another example of the disingenuous habit of this administration to create “some people” whom they can argue against, strawman arguments that they can use in their disgusting political attacks.

   “This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”

   UPDATE: Biden calls bullshit:

   “He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.”
   Biden noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have both suggested that the United States ought to find a way to talk more with its enemies.

   “If he thinks this is appeasement, is he going to come back and fire his own cabinet?” Biden asked. “Is he going to fire Condi Rice?”
3. JohnKonop says:

   May 16, 2008 at 4:02 am

   Clinton defends Obama from Bush

   Politico-Hillary, today in Rapid City, South Dakota, defended Obama from President Bush’s apparent comparison of him to Neville Chamberlain, Ken Vogel reports.

   She told reporters:

   President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.

   “There is a very clear difference between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy and that difference will be evident once we take back the White House.
4. Iran » Bush Rips Negotiating says:

   May 16, 2008 at 4:09 am

   [...] BBC NEWS | World wrote an interesting post today on Bush Rips NegotiatingHere’s a quick excerptMcCain to Obama: What is it, precisely, that you want to talk to Iran about? [...]
5. JohnKonop says:

   May 16, 2008 at 5:21 am

   Bin Laden: Palestinian cause fuels holy war

   NPR- Al-Qaida will continue its holy war against Israel and its allies until it liberates Palestine, Osama bin Laden said in a new audio statement Friday.

   The message came as President Bush wrapped up his visit to Israel to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state.

   Bin Laden says the fight for the Palestinian cause is the most important factor driving al-Qaida’s war with the West and fueled the Sept. 11 attacks.

   The authenticity of the close to 10 minute message could not be verified, but it was posted on a Web site commonly used by al-Qaida.
6. bb says:

   May 16, 2008 at 7:34 am

   Says something about the guilt trip Obama is on…he is the one who said he would negotiate with anybody without preconditions. Bush called a spade a spade, Obama is a terrorist sympathizer and deserves to be called out on it (although Bush did not name Obama or anybody else…why the outrage, the president could have been talking about McCain or some other appeaser).

   If he weren’t, the outcry from his side wouldn’t be so loud.
7. JohnKonop says:

   May 16, 2008 at 7:54 am

   Fact

   Regan and Kennedy negotiated with Russia with Nukes point at us.

   Nixon with China

   I could go on and on……
8. bb says:

   May 16, 2008 at 8:38 am

   John,

   Big difference between intelligent statesmen and B. Hussein Obama.

   Why is your guy on the defensive over Bush’s dead on comments? Bush did not even mention his name…does your guy think the world revolves around him?
9. JohnKonop says:

   May 16, 2008 at 9:00 am

   Brent Scowcroft Echoes Obama: We Need To Talk To Enemies

   I agree!

   HP-Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush and a retired Air Force general, said on Monday that he agrees with the position, stated mainly by Sen. Barack Obama, that the U.S. would benefit from having direct talks with the leaders of its most distrusted adversaries.

   “Absolutely,” said Scowcroft, when asked by The Huffington Post whether he thought the next president should meet with the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “It’s hard to make things better if you don’t talk.”

   Scowcroft, widely considered to be one of preeminent foreign policy minds in the United States, was appearing at an event with Henry Kissinger at Georgetown University. His take on U.S. diplomatic outreach comes as Obama’s position — to meet with our enemies even without preconditions — has gotten the Illinois Democrat routinely criticized as naive and inexperienced from his Democratic and Republican rivals. Scowcroft declined, when asked, to directly assess the foreign policy platform of any of the presidential candidates. But he briefly outlined what he thought was the best steps forward in Iraq.

   “Our goal in Iraq is to leave an Iraq that produces more stability in the region and not chaos. And that’s going to take time,” he said. “[It will take troop presence] for a long time…I think gradually security is improving and as it improves we can reduce troop levels. But what we need to do is provide an environment in which their political evolution continues.”
10. JohnKonop says:

    May 16, 2008 at 9:02 am

    Bart

    You are right my guy Bob Barr agrees with talking to enemies.
11. JohnKonop says:

    May 16, 2008 at 10:11 am

    BIDEN RIPS BUSH

    From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
    Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee absolutely tore into President George W. Bush for his comments from Israel, which appeared to take a swipe at Obama.

    Bush said this morning, “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement.”

    An exasperated Biden skewered Bush over that in a conference call with reporters, calling the comments “pure politics,” “blatant,” “beneath the presidency,” “truly disgraceful,” “outrageous,” “disturbing,” “ridiculous hypocrisy” and “long-distance Swiftboating.” He even said Bush “oughta get a life.”

    “For this president to go on the attack against Barack Obama,” Biden said. “It cannot go unanswered.” [Possible veep audition?]

    Coupling Bush’s comments with McCain’s assertion that it’s clear who Hamas wants to be president, Biden said he sees “an ugly pattern emerging.”

    He said the president should “get in touch with his administration.”

    “I assume he’s going to fire his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense,” Biden said. “They want engagement of Iran.”

    He went on. “This is the kind of political rhetoric which continues to masquerade as policy,” Biden said. “All they have is masquerades.”

    And… “This is why we’re in the situation we’re in,” he said, as he criticized Bush for “demonizing” Democrats.

    Bush “should try to figure out how to dig us out of the God awful hole this president has gotten us into.” He added that when he travels abroad, “I don’t criticize the president” –no matter how much they might disagree on various facets of foreign policy. In fact, he said he has defended the president when abroad.

    Biden also sharply criticized Bush’s — and John McCain’s, for that matter — Mideast policy, or in McCain’s case lack thereof, Biden said. He called Bush’s policy an “abject failure,” “truly delusional” and “backwards.”

    “The president’s saber rattling has been the most self-defeating policy imaginable … spurs instability in the Middle East … increase in price of oil … plays into the hands of those Iranian leaders he rails against.

    “Since when, since when has talking removed no from the American vocabulary.

    More: “This is the same president, who talks about appeasement, the same one who asks me to get on a plane and talk to Qaddafi,” Biden said. “The same president who made a deal with Qaddafi. He writes letters, ‘Dear Mr. Chairman’ to Kim Jong Il.

    “He oughta get a life here … Under George W. Bush’s watch, Iran, not freedom has been on the march … They’re a lot closer to the bomb… He calls Maliki our guy … Whose policy produced that? Whose watch was that? … Iran’s proxy Hezbollah is on the ascendancy. Don’t take my word for it, look at NIE … Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaeda is stronger now.

    “We should take zero backseat to this pres, talking about appeasement. … Under him, Israel is less safe.”

    Biden also admitted to initially calling Bush’s comments “bull—-.”

    “I reacted viscerally,” he said. “But the essence of what I said was accurate. I should have said malarkey.”
12. JohnKonop says:

    May 16, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Obama on McCain: Hypocrisy and fear-mongering

    Politico-In an appearance in South Dakota just now, Barack Obama came back at yesterday’s attacks from George W. Bush and John McCain, accusing them of “hypocrisy, fear-peddling, and fear-mongering.”

    He responded first to the charge from Bush that Democrats stand for appeasement in the Middle East.

    “That’s exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and that alienates us from the world, and that’s why we need change in Washington,” he said, going to repeatedly link Bush and McCain.

    “That was frustrating enough,” he said of Bush’s words. “Then John McCain gives a speech. He gave a speech in the morning where he talked about the need for civility in our politics. He talked about elevating the tone in our country…. Not an hour later, he turned around and embraced George Bush’s attacks on Democrats. He jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said that I wasn’t fit to protect this nation that I love.”

    McCain “accused me of not being fit to protect this nation – a nation my grandfather served in World War II– a nation that’s given me everything that I have,” Obama said, then pivoted to attack Bush and McCain on a series of issues: Iraq; the survival of Osama bin Laden’s and the Al Qaeda’s leadership; Iran’s strength; and Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s ascendancy.

    He broke in particular with Bush’s focus on democracy in the Middle East above all else.

    “They’ll have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza – Hamas that was strengthened because the us insisted that we have democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority,” he said.

    McCain “still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way that he’d be different from GB when it comes to foreign policy,” Obama said, accusing both of “dishonest, divisive attacks.”

    He also mocked McCain’s opposition to talking to Hamas in light of an interview McCain gave two years ago in which he appeared to support talking to Hamas.

    Then he returned to themes familiar from his primary fight with Hillary Clinton.

    “They’re trying to fool you. They’re trying to scare you. And they’re not telling you the truth. And the reason is that they can’t win a foreign policy debate on the merits,” he said, calling their belief in the power of “tough talk” “naive and irresponsible” — charges he exchanged with Clinton over his plan to meet with dictators.
13. bb says:

    May 16, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    When did Bob Barr endorse negotiations with known terrorists like Ahmadenijad?
14. JohnKonop says:

    May 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Bart

    FYI

    LATIMES
    ….Barr also lashed out at Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying that the U.S.

    should “obliterate Iran” if that nation threatened Israel’s existence.

    Calling the New York senator’s statement “tremendously dire,” Barr said he had seen no evidence to indicate that Iran was close to possessing nuclear weapons.

    Saying that both the Republican and Democratic parties had “bought into a system of running a charity called the United States of America,” Barr criticized programs that used public funds to educate children of illegal immigrants and maintain foreign military bases “that have no more efficacy in the 21st century.”

    “The federal government needs to get away from the notion that simply because we have all this money in the treasury — or we can borrow more money — that we can provide all these services,” he said. “That is not responsible government.”….
15. JohnKonop says:

    May 16, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Bart

    FR-Only five months ago, Barr noted, “Regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq – and I am among those believing the invasion and continued occupation of this Middle Eastern nation (‘nation building,’ if you will) was and remains ill-advised – the performance of our armed forces in Iraq improved dramatically this past year, especially in the last half of the year.” Barr’s advocacy of a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground or the consequences, is the manifestation of ideology, not strategic reasoning. Barr exudes Isolationism, a naïve desire to retreat into an idyllic world far different than the one that actually exists. As America learned the hard way during the 1930s, the rest of the world won’t go away.

    Barr opposes any military action against Iran, even though he acknowledges Tehran’s quest for nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups. In a column last October, he called for “strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran” without offering any specifics. At the same time, he argued “What is important, however, should be to quell the simplistic blustering by the White House and by many presidential candidates designed to prove each will be tougher on Iran than the others. Also helpful would be putting a lid on unnecessary and repetitive insults and threats directed at the Ahmadinejad administration.” …..
16. bb says:

    May 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    Great John…two more long inane stories that do not address the question…show me where ‘your guy’ Bob Barr said the American president should negotiate with known terrorists like Ahmadinejad.
17. JohnKonop says:

    May 16, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    Bart

    Get Real!
18. JohnKonop says:

    May 16, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    Obama criticizes Bush, McCain during S. Dakota visit

    USATODAY- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama today accused President Bush of an “appalling attack” on him and other Democrats that he said is part of a pattern that has damaged the U.S. reputation with other countries.
    “He accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists,” Obama said. “That’s exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the world.”

    He was responding to Bush’s comments Thursday in Israel. Bush, without naming anyone, said there were people who want to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” — a policy of “appeasement” that won’t work, he said.

    Obama and other Democrats immediately claimed the president was attacking them and likening them to those who appeased the Nazis, though White House press secretary Dana Perino said that was not the case.

    FIND MORE STORIES IN: George W Bush | George W Bush | White House | Europe | Middle East | Israel | Iran | West Virginia | Barack Obama | Hamas | John McCain | Washington Post | North Korea | Republican Party | Palestinian | South Dakota | Gaza | Charleston | Dana Perino | Libya | Nazis | United States of America | McLean | President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad | Sioux Falls | Sky News | James Rubin | Toyko | Clinton State Department | Jeff Martin | S. Dakota
    Obama made the comments during his first visit of the campaign to South Dakota, in what initially was billed as a chance to talk about farm policy. But he started by addressing Bush’s comments, and said near certain GOP presidential nominee John McCain had “embraced” them.

    McCain wanted to “double down” on Bush’s “failed policies,” Obama said.

    “I’m a strong believer in civility, and I’m a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy. But that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we’ve seen from George Bush and John McCain the past couple of days.”

    “If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I’m happy to have any time, any place and that is a debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for,” he said.

    Obama said McCain had a “naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up it’s nuclear program and support for terrorism.”

    Other Democrats also accused McCain of hypocrisy Friday, saying the certain GOP presidential nominee had previously been willing to negotiate with the militant Palestinian group Hamas.

    In an op-ed published Friday in The Washington Post, former Clinton State Department official James Rubin said that McCain, responding to a question in a television interview two years ago about whether U.S. diplomats should be working with the Hamas government in Gaza, said:

    “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so … But it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

    Rubin, who interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News, said McCain is “guilty of hypocrisy” and accused him of “smearing” Obama. On Thursday, McCain suggested that Obama was naive and inexperienced for expressing a willingness to meet with rogue leaders like Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    In Charleston, W.Va., speaking before Obama’s speech, McCain told reporters: “I made it very clear, at that time, before and after, that we will not negotiate with terrorist organizations, that Hamas would have to abandon their terrorism, their advocacy to the extermination of the state of Israel, and be willing to negotiate in a way that recognizes the right of the state of Israel and abandons their terrorist position and advocacy.”

    McCain contended that Obama wants to “sit down and negotiate with a government exporting most lethal devices used against soldiers. He wants to sit down face to face with a government that is very clear about developing nuclear weapons. … They are sponsors of terrorist organizations. That’s a huge difference in my opinion. And I’ll let the American people decide whether that’s a significant difference or not. I believe it is.”

    Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., noted in an interview with CNN Friday that the Bush administration has negotiated with rogue leaders in North Korea and Libya.

    “This is pure hypocrisy, but the worst part about it is, think how it falls on the ears in capitals of Europe and the rest of the world and Toyko when the president of the United States says under no condition will we talk to anybody like that, and John McCain, the nominee for the Republican Party, who may very well be president of the United States, is saying the same thing,” Biden said.
19. JohnKonop says:

    May 16, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    Republicans Go to War With Obama Over Foreign Policy Views

    by FOXNews.com

    Whether he meant to or not, President Bush, in his comments Thursday opposing diplomacy with despots, unleashed a torrent of GOP ire as prominent Republicans took the opportunity to pile on Barack Obama — treating Hillary Clinton as all but an afterthought.

    The two-day food fight over foreign policy could be a preview of things to come, as Obama moves closer to wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain is already preparing for a general election fight against the Illinois senator, and their differences on diplomacy seemed to serve as a potent rallying cry for both Democrats and Republicans.

    After Obama blasted both McCain and Bush on Friday for a failed go-it-alone policy in the Middle East, Republicans ripped Obama for his willingness to meet with nations like Iran without preconditions. The intense focus on national security was reminiscent of the 2004 presidential race between Bush and then-Democratic nominee John Kerry.

    “You know, it would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies but that’s not the world we live in. And until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength and judgment and determination to keep us safe,” McCain said, calling Obama’s foreign policy “reckless.”

    Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said he thought Bush “hit the nail on the head yesterday in Jerusalem. And today, the nails started to complain. It’s not just naïve. It’s dangerous for our country.”

    The Republicans were all speaking at a National Rifle Association meeting in Louisville, Ky., which served as a staging point for the cross-party battle.

    Bush touched off the firestorm with his address to the Israel Knesset on Thursday, when, without mentioning Obama by name, he criticized politicians who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals. He called such positions a “foolish delusion” and the “false comfort of appeasement.”

    Obama and other Democrats took it as an affront to him, and immediately lashed out at Bush and McCain. Obama said Friday that kind of comment is “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s dividing our country and that alienates us from the world.”

    Arguing that McCain and Bush have no room to talk when it comes to foreign policy, Obama said he would not directly engage terrorist groups like Hamas but defended his proposed policies of holding direct talks with sponsors of terrorism like Iran.

    As Republicans lined up at the NRA meeting to slam both Clinton and Obama for what they described as their lax defense of the Second Amendment, they weaved in several responses to Obama’s diplomatic positions.

    Former GOP candidate Mitt Romney said if Barack Obama were to meet with “some of the world’s worst actors” as president, it would “bestow upon them the dignity of the office of the president of the United States, giving them a propaganda bonanza.”

    The Republicans also used the meeting to skewer Obama as an elitist politician who would curb the gun rights of ordinary Americans.

    “Barack Obama may believe there is an individual right to bear arms in the Constitution. He would simply like to make it impossible for you to exercise that right,” former Bush adviser Karl Rove said.

    McCain said that if either Democratic candidate is elected, “the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be at risk.”

    Obama, who has supported tough gun restrictions, said Americans who use their guns legally to hunt or protect their families have nothing to worry about if he is president.

    “They have got the same play book every election and guns is going to be one of those issues,” Obama said of his Republican critics. “And I understand that it has been effective for them in the past.”

    But if the two-day furor over Bush’s remarks in Israel were any gauge, gun control likely won’t hold a candle to foreign policy as an issue that can galvanize Republicans against the Democratic nominee, and vice versa.

    One Obama aide told FOX News the campaign would have had to spend millions in ad money to accomplish what the campaign believes it achieved in the past 36 hours — linking McCain to Bush on foreign policy, and portraying the Arizona senator as the next incarnation of a Bush presidency
20. captain_menace says:

    May 16, 2008 at 11:45 pm

    “Obama is a terrorist sympathizer and deserves to be called out on it”

    Or, is he simply smart enough to know that terrorism is a societal cancer that you can’t beat with a bigger hammer?

    That’s probably too cerebral for Bush and Co. (that’s you bb).
21. bb says:

    May 17, 2008 at 8:35 am

    Vote for Obama and get a free kumbayah CD and marshmallows for roasting by the campfire with your favorite terrorists who are just simply misunderstood…right CM?
22. bb says:

    May 17, 2008 at 8:36 am

    Getting real John…When did Bob Barr endorse negotiations with known terrorists like Ahmadenijad?

    You said, “You are right my guy Bob Barr agrees with talking to enemies.”

    Prove it.
23. JohnKonop says:

    May 17, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    Bart

    Is Bob Barr conservative?
24. JohnKonop says:

    May 17, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Bart

    Are you saying Bush was wrong to negotiate with North Korea?
25. John Knight says:

    May 17, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    Curious. Bush never mentioned anyone at all by name. So it seems that Senator Obama is saying “HEY, I am an appeaser who wants to talk to terrorist states”

    BTW captain_menace, was it “too cerebral” to beat the Nazis to death militarily instead of diplomatically holding hands with them?

    How about you Leftists try actually thinking once in a while instead of merely screaming childish hyperbolic inane insults every time the truth is spoke about your political godlet du jour.
26. bb says:

    May 17, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    John,

    Why won’t you provide the quote from “your guy” Bob Barr?

    Just admit you made an unsubstantiated statement (yet again).

    Do you support your real guy’s position on negotiations with terrorists…no preconditions, highest level to meet…Obama is your guy John.
27. JohnKonop says:

    May 17, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Bart

    Ask Bob and you will eat your words.
28. JohnKonop says:

    May 17, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    Bart

    Do you think Bob Barr is conservative?
29. bb says:

    May 17, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    Did you “ask Bob”? Come on John…just admit you f’d up.
30. JohnKonop says:

    May 18, 2008 at 6:28 am

    Bart

    Answer the question is Bob Barr conservative?
31. bb says:

    May 18, 2008 at 8:47 am

    John,

    You still haven’t substantiated your assertion about Bob negotiating with terrorists…waiting. (And I have already answered that question on a previous thread).

    Is this “conservative”?

    http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/05/18/barr.html

    Excerpt from AJC story linked above — “The Bob Barr Leadership Fund, he wrote, has played a “tremendous role” in helping conservative Republicans defeat liberal congressmen. Since 2003, Barr’s PAC has raised $4.3 million with similar mailings.

    But only a small portion of that money has made its way to Republican campaigns.

    In the last five years the fund has given $125,200 —- about three cents of every dollar raised —- to federal candidates and other campaign committees, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found in a review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Another $81,875 went to state and local campaigns.”
32. JohnKonop says:

    May 18, 2008 at 11:14 am

    Bart

    It is clear Bob Barr is against Bush’s nation building do not talk to enemies strategy.

    Once again would you call Bob Barr liberal?
33. captain_menace says:

    May 18, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Yeah, that’s right Mr. John Knight.

    The Nazis were nothing more than a highly-organized band of terrorists.

    You’re an idiot.
34. SgtMac says:

    May 18, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    John – Bart is 1000000000% right. Let’s see the proof. You make these inane assertions without any facts.

    Oh, by the way, you “could go on and on,” but Reagan and JFK had REAL pre-conditions. Not like these morons who think Neville Chamberlain and his band of appeasers who followed read: B. Hussein Obama) were right on target.

    Sometimes I wonder where your head is. You make RIDICULOUS comments when you’re absolutely wrong and have no clue what the truth might be.
35. bb says:

    May 18, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    John,

    How is it “clear”? Where did Bob Barr say that he believes negotiating with terrorists is a good idea? Put up or shut up John!

    From 9/18/06 column “special to the Washington Times” – written by Bob Barr, posted at bobbarr.org (read closely John):

    However, like all terrorists who extract benefits by making threats, the best way to deal with CSPI is to never even enter into negotiations. [emphasis added]Just as President Bush refuses to negotiate with islamic terrorists, corporate America should steadfastly refuse to negotiate with food terrorists like the CSPI.”

    John — Why do you as someone who supports the Obama Doctrine of negotiating with known terrorists sans pre-conditions support a conservative like Bob Barr who opposes this view?
36. bb says:

    May 18, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    From 10/10/07 Bob Barr column expressing his opposition to war rhetoric about Iran published in AJC — “Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran, and increased efforts to quietly but actively build on the deep base of political understanding that already exists among a large segment of the Iranian population (and including the more than one million Iranian-Americans).”
37. bb says:

    May 18, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Bob Barr on the immigration reform bill from a 5/23/07 column titled, “GOP hotheads wrong about immigration bill” — “Rather than booing Georgia’s Republican senators for having the credibility to significantly and positively influence the drafting of this legislation in a Congress controlled by a party that favors essentially open borders, our state’s Republicans ought to at least hear them out. Then, they all should roll up their sleeves to help ensure the measures championed by Chambliss and Isakson remain in the bill when and if it heads to the president’s desk.

    If Georgia Republicans continue to publicly undercut the party’s own senators, they will help guarantee passage of a bill with far fewer important safeguards than the current version.”
38. JohnKonop says:

    May 18, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    Bart

    It is a simple question is Bob Barr conservative?
39. JohnKonop says:

    May 18, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    Sgt Mac

    Do you think Barr is conservative?
40. bb says:

    May 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    John,

    It is a simple request, substantiate your emphatic statement — “You are right my guy Bob Barr agrees with talking to enemies.”

    Do you think Barr’s position on the immigration bill is conservative?
41. JohnKonop says:

    May 18, 2008 at 7:35 pm

    I disagree with Barr on that issues but I think he is conservative. Now Bart what is your answer?
42. David O'Rear says:

    May 18, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Very Straight Talk Express stuff:

    If Dubious & Co do it, it must be OK.

    * Shred the Constitution;
    * Invade, destroy & occupy on a whim; and
    * Negotiate with terrorists.

    - – - – - – - – - -

    If Dubious & Co do it, Sen. McCain supports it. In the post-Mao 1970s, Chinese called it “the Two Whatevers:”

    1) Whatever Chairman Mao did was correct;
    2) Whatever Chairman Mao said we will do.

    .

|